5 Brutal Clips From House Abortion Access Hearing

  
Via:  John Russell  •  2 months ago  •  228 comments

By:   Kipp Jones (Mediaite)

5 Brutal Clips From House Abortion Access Hearing
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) also challenged Robinson, when he asked if she would support a scenario where a woman who is "seconds away from birthing a healthy child" wants an abortion. "I can't even fathom that," Robinson said. "Just like you probably can't imagine what you would do if your daughter was raped."

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


By Kipp JonesMay 18th, 2022, 7:20 pm Twitter share button <?php // Post Body ?>

A House Judiciary Committee hearing about abortion access was filled with loaded questions, stunning answers and plenty of drama as lawmakers asked abortion providers and opponents about the issue.

A leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court has sparked an intense national abortion debate. The prospect of Roe v. Wade being overturned saw much of the debate play out on Capitol Hill Wednesday.

"Making decisions about when and how to start a family is essential to women's lives," Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who chairs the committee, said during the hearing. "The right to decide whether to carry or terminate a pregnancy is central to life, liberty and equality. It is the very essence of what it means to have bodily autonomy, which is a prerequisite for freedom."

House Republicans disagreed with that assessment, and they pressed abortion advocates about the issue.

In one moment, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) pressed Dr. Yashica Robinson of Alabama about late-term abortions.

"Have you had human parts, human baby parts, arms, legs, as a result of an abortion performed at the time you just acknowledged you performed them?" Roy asked her.

She accused him of using "inflammatory language."

"One of the things that you all have done, throughout this hearing, is just use inflammatory language to talk about the care that we provide," Robinson said.

As the exchange continued Roy raised his voice and spoke over Robinson and listed off where he believes "baby parts" end up. "I have never seen that in a health care setting, ever. We don't put baby parts in freezers," she concluded, before Roy interrupted, "Where do they go?"


Rep. @chiproytx: "What is the latest you have performed an abortion?"

Dr. Robinson: "20 weeks"

Roy: "Have you had baby parts that you've had to discard or store?"

Robinson: "You have used inflammatory language." pic.twitter.com/g94XX7bxQH

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) May 18, 2022

In another moment that went viral on Twitter, Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) asked Texas abortion advocate Aimee Arrambide if she believes men can have abortions.

"What do you say a woman is," he asked. "Do you believe then that men can become pregnant and have abortions?"

Arrambide, a Democratic witness, responded with a simple: "Yes."


.@RepDanBishop: "Do you believe…that men can get pregnant and have abortions?"

Democrat abortion witness: "Yes." pic.twitter.com/GvA7SxUS21

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) May 18, 2022


Rep. Dan Bishop to Dr. Yashica Robinson: "You're a medical doctor. What's a woman?"

"I'm a woman," she replies. pic.twitter.com/KEH4ngYijk

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 18, 2022

Rep. Bishop also asked Dr. Robinson that same question and Robinson hit back at Bishop charging, "I think it's important that we educate people like you about why we're doing the things that we do."

"And so the reason I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way and I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called," Robinson added.

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) also challenged Robinson, when he asked if she would support a scenario where a woman who is "seconds away from birthing a healthy child" wants an abortion.

"I can't even fathom that," Robinson said. "Just like you probably can't imagine what you would do if your daughter was raped."


Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) at abortion access hearing: "How about if a child is halfway out of the birth canal? Is an abortion permissible then?"

Dr. Yashica Robinson: "I can't even fathom that … just like you probably can't imagine what you would do if your daughter was raped." pic.twitter.com/LtM92m9JKS

— The Recount (@therecount) May 18, 2022

Also during the hearing, Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) challenged the Supreme Court as a "majority without integrity."

She also attacked her Republican colleagues.

"To those in America who believe that my extreme MAGA colleagues aren't coming for you, they are coming for you," she said. "They are coming for your rights."


"To those in America who believe my extreme MAGA colleagues aren't coming for you: they're coming for you … If Samuel Alito tells you they're not coming for you, just remember this is a Supreme Court majority that lied …"

— Rep. Escobar (D-TX) during abortion access hearing pic.twitter.com/nKj4xTnYHh

— The Recount (@therecount) May 18, 2022

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) also reclaimed his time from a foster care advocate named Catherine Foster following a viral exchange between the pair.

Raskin accused pro-life advocates of calling for a "nationwide ban on all abortions with no exceptions for rape and incest."

Foster asked him, "If we added rape and incest exceptions, would you vote for it?"

Raskin responded: "I reclaim my time."


Raskin: "The GOP witness is calling for a nationwide ban on abortions with no exceptions for rape and incest."

Foster: "If we added rape and incest exceptions, would you vote for it?"

Raskin: "Reclaiming my time." pic.twitter.com/Z79apd2hcS

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) May 18, 2022

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Filed Under: AbortionChip RoyDan BishopJamie RaskinMike JohnsonRoe v. WadeVeronica Escobar Previous PostNext Post Previous PostNext Post


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 months ago

The Republicans conjured up every extreme situation about abortion they could imagine. 

Anna Kasparian of the Young Turks later went off on the middle aged white men of the GOP who sit on that committee. And, she noted, the CDC says 93% of abortions take place before 13 weeks, and 99% before 20 weeks. 

Why was the GOP asking doctors about abortions as the baby is halfway out the birth canal?

The low get lower. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago
hy was the GOP asking doctors about abortions as the baby is halfway out the birth canal?

Because they knew that's what the response would be. The overwhelming majority of Americans recognize taking the life of an innocent viable human is wrong. Its a very simple question to answer.   But the Democratic Party is in the hands of extremists who reject even the most minimal restrictions of Roe and want zero restrictions on abortion ever, for any reason.  So the Doctor couldn't  answer like a non fanatic and simply denounce it as wrong and illegal. 

Democrats now stand for unlimited abortion with no restrictions. All the histrionics in the world won't cover that up. 

The low get lower. 

You just minimized the taking of viable human life on the grounds that it's " rare. "  

I can't wait to see you dismiss any anger about white supremacists murdering blacks because of their skin color given how much more rare it is. It's rare, no need to make it illegal, right?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2    2 months ago

Questions in congressional hearings should be serious ones, unless the hearing is on the subject of comedy. 

I dont see any reasons why doctors , or anyone else, should be expected to answer absurd "gotcha" questions. 

If the doctor answered the question about last second (literally) abortions, she would be elevating the question to a level of importance it didnt deserve. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    2 months ago

"If the doctor answered the question about last second (literally) abortions, she would be elevating the question to a level of importance it didnt deserve"

Who asks such a dumb fucking question?

I remember a certain poster saying that abortions are performed up to birth and maybe he got that from this idiot!  This doesn't happen and you'd have to be a complete moron to believe it does.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    2 months ago
estions in congressional hearings should be serious on

It was.   It drove home how extreme the Democratic Party is on abortion.

Look at all your huffing and puffing to avoid admitting your party supports abortion up until birth, no restrictions. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
1.2.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2    one month ago
The overwhelming majority of Americans recognize taking the life of an innocent viable human is wrong.

" By about a 2-to-1 margin, Americans say Roe v. Wade should be upheld rather than overturned"

" In this poll, by contrast, 57% of Americans oppose a ban after 15 weeks; 58% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases; and 54% say the court should uphold Roe , compared with 28% who say the ruling should be overturned."

So either you're intentionally lying or you have a warped definition of 'American'.

It's clear to see the slimy dishonesty of conservatives when the facts show 99% of abortions occurring before 20 weeks yet conservatives spend 99% of their time complaining about and using as their examples the 1% that occur after which are nearly all in cases where the mothers life is at risk.

Democrats now stand for unlimited abortion with no restrictions

Just because you say so? What an utterly arrogant and ignorant horse shit claim. It's no different than me claiming "Republicans now stand for unlimited white supremacy and demand their right to murder all blacks, minorities, atheists, liberals and progressives".

All the histrionics in the world won't cover that up.

The 'histrionics' were on full display by Republicans as they continually exaggerate the number of late term abortions and their false claims such abortions are simply "on demand".

It really gets tiresome having to refute liars and religious zealots trying to push their religious beliefs on others while stripping women of their bodily autonomy. Right wing conservatism is a deadly virulent pandemic and I truly feel sorry for those living in States under their control, we can only hope those having to live under right wing white Christian conservative control can get out before their States mirror the Handmaids tale, which clearly from a conservatives perspective is a story of white Christian theocracy paradise.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2    one month ago
 But the Democratic Party is in the hands of extremists who reject even the most minimal restrictions of Roe and want zero restrictions on abortion ever, for any reason.

THAT is utter bullshit Sean. 

I'd suggest that you actually READ the bill that the House just passed and all but one Democrat voted for but I doubt that any amount of facts will get you to admit you're mistaken. 

But here's a question for you though: Why did that bill include fetal viability? 

Oh and BTFW, judging from the vote on that bill, the Republican Party is against women having bodily autonomy. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

Where is the clip where Dr. Robinson was asked if a man could have a baby???

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    2 months ago

Did that fascinate you? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    2 months ago

I think our readers should know that Dr woke spaceshot thinks a man can have a baby!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    one month ago
Did that fascinate you? 

No, but I laughed my ass off when she said "yes" to men getting pregnant and having abortions!

High comedy indeed from the left!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    2 months ago

Those witnesses…lol

Conservatives had a field day with that hearing.

the democrats have become the party of no limit abortions. No restrictions ever.  I guess the next step on the road to legal infanticide  will be the Senator boxer standard of “it’s not human till it leaves the hospital” 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2    2 months ago

If you want to call making yourself look ridiculous "having a field day". 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
2.2.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    2 months ago

As always, opinions do vary.................

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.2    2 months ago

As always, [deleted][, everyone's got one.]  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.2    2 months ago

If you were a congressman, why would you ask a doctor her opinion of abortions that take place as the baby is halfway out of the birth canal?  

Such abortions are incredibly rare, and only take place if the life of the mother is at stake.

Its like asking a gang banger at a hearing about drive by shootings what they would do if a UFO landed in the middle of a gunfight. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
2.2.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.4    2 months ago
and only take place if the life of the mother is at stake.

That sounds like an unsubstantiated opinion. Sorry but you can't say "only" in a statement like that where humans are involved. There are all kind of people with all kind of reasons and all degrees of unscrupulous.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
2.2.6  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.4    one month ago
only take place if the life of the mother is at stake.

At least six states allow abortions without any restrictions up to the moment of birth. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    2 months ago
Where is the clip where  Dr.  Robinson was asked if a man could have a baby???

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
2.4  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    one month ago
Where is the clip where Dr. Robinson was asked if a man could have a baby???

The significance is that men can become pregnant and men can get an abortion.  What that means is that men have a voice in abortion.  Abortion is no longer exclusively a woman's right to choose.  Men have a right to choose, too.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3  JBB    2 months ago

Making abortions illegal will not stop abortions from happening, but it will make criminals of the doctors and the woman involved along with everyone else who assists in any way. Add in all the women who will die from botched back alley terminations to see additional costs to society for this national travesty!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @3    2 months ago

That's just plain disinformation.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1    2 months ago

How so?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
3.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1    2 months ago

No, unfortunately we do know how things will happen if SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade.  We saw it back in the 60's where some states made abortion illegal so women who wanted an abortion had to either travel to another state where abortion was legal (if they could afford the trip / time / etc)  or take their chances in a back-alley lottery system.  There were women who died from those back-alley abortions.  For myself I do not want a return to those days.  Unfortunately with the 'all or nothing' attitude of Congress (and the loudest of us) there's no reaching a compromise on this issue.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.3  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1    2 months ago

If, as expected, the Supreme Court reverses Roe VS Wade then most abortions will immediately be illegal in half the country's land mass making the doctors, women and even accomplices criminals.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.2    one month ago

We had a long standing compromise on this issue.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
3.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @3.1.4    one month ago

Do you mean Roe v Wade was the long standing compromise?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.5    one month ago

24 week viability was a long standing compromise, as was the Hyde amendment.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3.1.3    one month ago
most abortions will immediately be illegal in half the country's land mass making the doctors, women and even accomplices criminals.

Which states would criminalize the woman and not exempt her from its criminal penalties or civil liability clauses?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
3.1.8  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @3.1.6    one month ago

Ok, the 24 week viability was a rule, not a law.  The rule was set by Row v Wade.  The Hyde amendment was a law that basically prevented federal money from being used to pay for abortion.  But there was no compromise law that codified abortion, that is what I was talking about.  With our current make up in Washington we cannot reach compromise on this issue.  Without federal law it will go back to the states and we already know there are states who will allow abortion and there are states that will make it illegal.  It's a trip back to the 60's.  The extremists from both sides are large enough that the middle is insufficient to pass a law.

I agree that Roe v Wade was bad law, this needs to be codified in law at a national level IMO.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.8    one month ago
But there was no compromise law that codified abortion

Do you think there would ever be? The right wing would rather go down in flames than allow abortion to continue.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.10  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.8    one month ago

Viability was established by the SC as a base line.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
3.1.11  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @3.1.9    one month ago

I'm saying the extremists on both sides are what prevent any sort of compromise.  There are some on the right that feel that ANY abortion is evil and should not be allowed.  There are some on the left that feel ANY restriction on abortion is evil and should not be allowed.  Between those two extremes the middle can't come to any sort of compromise because the two extreme sides have the numbers to prevent any compromise.  

That's all I'm saying.  Neither extreme is willing to allow compromise.  IMO it's wrong to only blame one side of the argument.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.11    one month ago

Yeah but the left had had compromise. Any voice that thinks abortion should happen right up until a week from birth are a very tiny minority that most disagree with and ignore.

It is the right wing, and not just a small faction, that will fight tooth and nail to make sure there is almost a total ban.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.11    one month ago

We on the left are not the ones preventing any sort of compromise.

That's the 'right'

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @3.1.12    one month ago
pen right up until a week from birth are a very tiny minority that most disagree with and ignore.

Lol.. Outside of Joe Manchin, it's hard to find a Democrat who will endorse any abortion restrictions. Pennsylvania just nominated a candidate for Senator who explicitly states he wants no restrictions. Even Psaki can't name one restriction Joe Biden supports. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.15  Ender  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.13    one month ago

For me, on something like this, there really is no compromise. You either have the option or you don't.

So you really can't have compromise on something that is either on or off.

Compromise Imo would only be for limits.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.16  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.14    one month ago
Pennsylvania just nominated a candidate for Senator who explicitly states he wants no restrictions

Then he is an idiot.

Some of these Democrats you claim want no restrictions actually just want to allow late term abortions in cases like where the mother's life would be threatened.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @3.1.16    one month ago
late term abortions in cases like where the mother's life would be threatened.

Who are they? Seriously. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
3.1.18  Veronica  replied to  Ender @3.1.15    one month ago
You either have the option or you don't.

TRUTH.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.19  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.17    one month ago

I don't know. I don't look into people's medical history.

I can tell you some of my family history. My Grandmother had three children. She got pregnant again and it wasn't going well. The doctor finally told her if she tries to take it to term, it could take her life. I don't remember exactly what was wrong (or was never told) but they decided it was better to terminate the pregnancy than risk her life and leave her three children without a mother.

My Grandfather was kinda useless around the house. He couldn't even make a sandwich....

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.20  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.11    one month ago

Maybe it's time to muzzle the extremists in both parties.

I'm pro-choice but there has to be limits. If anyone is guilty of "aborting" a baby when it's halfway down the birth canal, they are guilty of infanticide and should have the book thrown at them

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.21  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @3.1.19    one month ago

My mother was in the same state. She had rheumatic heart disease but it wasn't diagnosed until after my brother was born. When she got pregnant the 3rd time she was advised to terminate her pregnancy. I'm glad she did but she was in poor health the rest of her life

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.22  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.20    one month ago

I agree. I would even be open to letting the viability to be lowered. 24 weeks seems like a long time.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.23  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @3.1.22    one month ago

My daughter says they can keep a preemie born at 24 weeks alive.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @3.1.19    one month ago
n't know. I don't look into people's medical history.

Lol.  I asked you about Democratic politicians policy preferences. .  

Nice deflection

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.25  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.24    one month ago

Whatever.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.14    one month ago
"it's hard to find a Democrat who will endorse any abortion restrictions."

You are just making shit up, as usual.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @3.1.15    one month ago

I never said otherwise.  The 'right' doesn't want you to have any options whatsoever.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.20    one month ago
"I'm pro-choice but there has to be limits. If anyone is guilty of "aborting" a baby when it's halfway down the birth canal, they are guilty of infanticide and should have the book thrown at them"

I'd love for someone to tell me where this is happening and why it has to be stopped FFS.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.1.29  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.26    one month ago

Name one. With your attitude and expertise, it should be easy to do

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.21    one month ago

My aunt died in child birth.  She had pulmonary hypertension.  She was advised of the risks and elected to have her child.  All women need the option.  No women decides to abort her child at birth.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.31  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.29    one month ago

"Name one. With your attitude and expertise, it should be easy to do"

Name one what?

Also, I'm quoting TG and speaking to her.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Stop poking your nose in my business.

Now that I have handed you your ass, Bugger off.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.1.32  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.31    one month ago

Ummmm you were talking to Sean............So that means, you haven't now, nor EVER handed ANYONE their ass. You can't even seem to track your own comments let alone see which one you are being asked to prove. Now, can you name one Democrat that will endorse any restrictions on abortion.

Bugger off.............cute............

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.33  Tessylo  impassed  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.32    one month ago
 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
3.1.34  Duck Hawk  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.7    one month ago

Alabama, Oklahoma with more to come I'm sure

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
3.1.35  Duck Hawk  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.23    one month ago

They may be able to keep it alive but will it be a fully functional human being? Or will it have severe brain and physical issues?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
3.1.36  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Duck Hawk @3.1.34    one month ago

What are the minimum and maximum penalties on the woman expected to be?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.37  Trout Giggles  replied to  Duck Hawk @3.1.35    one month ago

It will usually have physical and mental developmental problems. So is it worth it? Sounds to me like a major expense for the rest of that child's life?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @3    2 months ago
Making abortions illegal

Is the Supreme Court making them illegal?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2    2 months ago

They can't. All they ruled was it was a right. There is no law. Well except in liberal la la land..........wishful thinking.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.2.2  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2    2 months ago
Is the Supreme Court making them illegal?

In effect, yes. Allowing red states to criminalize abortion is the same thing.

Right wing fascists are all about trashing the civil rights of others.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  cjcold @3.2.2    2 months ago
Allowing red states to criminalize abortion is the same thing.

Right, fascists allow the people to vote on the laws that govern them.  Anti fascists support a small group imposing unelected elites dictating their laws to everyone.

Orwell would love you

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @3    2 months ago
Making abortions illegal

Who is making abortions illegal?  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
3.3.1  Snuffy  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3    2 months ago

Come on guys, let's not stoop to their level.  We all know that if SCOTUS reverses Roe v Wade there are some states that have trigger laws that will immediately make all abortions illegal.  And we know there are other states that will quickly enact laws to stop abortions.  

I don't support the poster of this thread in all things but let's not play that "got ya" game.  

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.3.2  cjcold  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3    2 months ago

Right wing fascists are giving it one hell of a try.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.1    one month ago
We all know that if SCOTUS reverses Roe v Wade there are some states that have trigger laws that will immediately make all abortions illegal.

This whole thing is based "what if" paranoia that come about from a leaked draft from the SCOTUS.  It's not even an official statement.  So, no, we DON'T know what you are claiming. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  cjcold @3.3.2    one month ago
Right wing fascists are giving it one hell of a try.

But the left wing are the ones perpetuating the bullshit like "abortions will be made illegal".  And all from what?  A "what if" scenario.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.3.5  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.3    one month ago

So you don't know about trigger laws?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @3.3.5    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ender @3.3.5    one month ago

See 3.3.3  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.3.8  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.7    one month ago

Do you believe triggers laws will go into play when a verdict is released?

Saying it is arbitrary and stupid to talk about until the final decision is released is nothing more than burying head in sand.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ender @3.3.8    one month ago
Do you believe triggers laws will go into play when a verdict is released?

I believe we need to wait to see what the official decision is.  Running around with your hair on fire isn't going to get anything done aside from making you all look like fools.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.3.10  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.9    one month ago
Running around with your hair on fire isn't going to get anything done aside from making you all look like fools.

As does buying head in sand and acting like things don't exist.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ender @3.3.10    one month ago

So you are telling me it's better to go through all this bullshit over something you have no idea about?  And expect me not to laugh at you?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.12  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.9    one month ago

We're not the ones looking like fools here.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.13  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.11    one month ago

We know that appears to be your only joy in life - laughing at or allegedly 'owning the libs' with your fact free contributions.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.3.14  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.11    one month ago

So talking about existing laws on the books is laughable?

Only if you are trying to deflect away from said laws.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ender @3.3.14    one month ago
So talking about existing laws on the books is laughable?

Then provide the CFR and Part number of this law.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.3.16  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.15    one month ago

These 13 states have abortion ‘trigger laws’ — here’s what that means

You want some 'part number', look it up your damn self.

Denying the laws are on the books is not a good look.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ender @3.3.16    one month ago
You want some 'part number', look it up your damn self.

So you don't know exactly what law.  That only tells me you are only regurgitating what somebody else told you and you ran with it without verification.  

Denying the laws are on the books is not a good look.

Then show me where in the books this "law" is or STFU.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.3.18  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.17    one month ago
Mississippi is one of several states with “trigger laws” that will automatically ban abortion, with few exceptions, if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe.

That you refuse to believe these laws are there is really fucking weird.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ender @3.3.18    one month ago
That you refuse to believe these laws are there is really fucking weird.

It's not that I refuse to believe.  It's that you refuse to look up the law you are claiming to be in the books.  Of which you still haven't done.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.3.20  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.19    one month ago

I have given you links about the laws and where they are. I am not looking up specific names of the laws or their numbers.

The fact that you are using not having a case number as to some weird idea that they don't exist is like I said.

Really fucking weird.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.21  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @3.3.20    one month ago

There's no talking to a closed mind.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.22  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ender @3.3.20    one month ago
I have given you links about the laws and where they are.

You gave me news article.  No where in that article did it state exactly what law.

I have given you links about the laws and where they are.

I'm not looing for a case number.  I'm looking for the exact law you have been blathering about.  For instance, the law that prohibits protestors to gather outside of a SCOTUS Judges house is 18 USC §1507.

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

That is a law.  Notice the difference between what I provided and the garbage you provided?  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.3.23  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.22    one month ago

If you are looking for some gotcha game look somewhere else. No matter how many more replies you make, I am done with this.

Not my problem you don't think the evidence given is good enough.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.24  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ender @3.3.23    one month ago
If you are looking for some gotcha game look somewhere else.

You've already failed the "gotcha".  You spouted off about a law and got called out that you cannot provide anything to back it up.

Not my problem you don't think the evidence given is good enough

You haven't provided any evidence.  You provided a statement you've spammed all over the place and a news article.  That's it.  I ask for 1 simple thing.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
3.3.25  Split Personality  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.24    one month ago

Court settlements are lawfully enforced every day.

They become common law as opposed to statute law passed by legislation.

That is the simple thing about it.

That is why the laws like RoevWade or the Flores Agreement

are enforced in spite of the statute so many people desperately seek.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.3.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @3.3.25    one month ago
They become common law as opposed to statute law passed by legislation

Roe is not common law. Nor is the Flores Consent Agreement.  Nor are they remotely alike

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
3.3.27  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.26    one month ago

Then please explain to your friend why they are legally enforced 

despite the lack of a statute.

And why only Congress can amend or end the Flores by codifying it.

The Executive branch can and has solicited the courts only to be denied,

they are still the 'law".

They cannot be nullified because of anyone's feelings that there ought to be a statute.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.3.29  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @3.3.27    one month ago
en please explain to your friend why they are legally enforced

Roe is "enforced" (simplifying) because the Constitution trumps a statute. As you may recall, in the words of Professor Ely, the Supreme court created a Constitutional right to abortion that" is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure."  So a state or the feds can't pass a statute to take away a Constitutional right. 

If you'd read Dobbs, you'd know that a statute trumps the common law, as any believer in democracy would of course support.  That is what originally happened with abortion.  So if Roe  were merely "common law" any state could pass a law overriding it. 

nd why only Congress can amend or end the Flores by codifying it.

You have the answer right there. Congress can pass a statute to end, amend or "codify" it. Codifying is simply passing a statute. It would be a sad day for this country indeed if a corrupt administration could enter into sham "settlements" (which the Clinton admin was famous for)  to make laws that the people through Congress were powerless to reverse. So the settlement in Flores is binding unless Congress says different, and Democrats have prevented that from happening. 

 nullified because of anyone's feelings that there ought to be a statute.

I have no idea why you think feelings have something to do with any of this. It's very simple. The Constitution trumps statutes which trump both consent agreements and the common law. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.30  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Split Personality @3.3.25    one month ago

I'm not the one claiming that it's law.  I know it's not law.  Now, please explain to your friend that if they want to claim it's "law" then they should be able to provide what part of the USC this law falls under.  Just as I have about protesting at the homes of SCOTUS Justices.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.31  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Split Personality @3.3.28    one month ago

You do realize the discussion is Roe v. Wade and not Biden's failure at the border don't you?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
3.3.32  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.29    one month ago
Roe is "enforced" (simplifying) because the Constitution trumps a statute. .... So a state or the feds can't pass a statute to take away a Constitutional right. 

There, simplified it for everyone

....

and why only Congress can amend or end the Flores by codifying it.

You have the answer right there. Congress can pass a statute to end, amend or "codify" it. Codifying is simply passing a statute. ....

Thank you for agreeing, for once.

nullified because of anyone's feelings that there ought to be a statute. I have no idea why you think feelings have something to do with any ..

Then you haven't read the thread, it is awash with "feelings and opinions".

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
3.3.33  Split Personality  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.30    one month ago
I know it's not law.

In the case of Roe, it's a court decision about a Constitutional right. There is no higher law in this country.

I defer to Sean's answer minus his personal opinions.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.3.34  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Split Personality @3.3.33    one month ago
it's a court decision about a Constitutional right.

Which is NOT A LAW.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
3.3.35  arkpdx  replied to  Ender @3.3.8    one month ago
burying head in sand.

The left is good at doing that. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
3.3.36  Split Personality  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.34    one month ago

keep clinging to that...

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
3.4  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @3    one month ago
Making abortions illegal will not stop abortions from happening, but it will make criminals of the doctors and the woman

And making guns illegal will not stop murders from happening, but will make criminals of honest people who now own them. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.4.1  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @3.4    one month ago

If there is a Supreme Court case set to outlaw guns for half of America you might have a case.

There is not and so you do not. Don't be so silly.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
3.4.2  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @3.4    one month ago
but will make criminals of honest people who now own them. 

Like JBB said, no need to be absolutely silly.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
3.5  Nerm_L  replied to  JBB @3    one month ago
Making abortions illegal will not stop abortions from happening, but it will make criminals of the doctors and the woman involved along with everyone else who assists in any way. Add in all the women who will die from botched back alley terminations to see additional costs to society for this national travesty!

What an insightful comment!  You know, making murder illegal hasn't stopped murder, either.  But somehow turning cops into criminals will fix it.

Only far-left politics would treat those who kill as the victims.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4  Greg Jones    2 months ago

The fact remains that any restrictions on abortion should be decided at the state level. Roe was wrongly decided.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.1  cjcold  replied to  Greg Jones @4    2 months ago

And ignorant redneck fascists are still trying to foment another civil war among the states.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.2  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @4    one month ago

Merely your opinion. The states previously did decide on such things, and it didn't turn out well. That's why we have Roe. Going backwards will not help. It'll just make us regress.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5  Tacos!    one month ago
"And so the reason I use she and her pronouns is because I understand that there are people who become pregnant that may not identify that way and I think it is discriminatory to speak to people or to call them in such a way as they desire not to be called," Robinson added.

I appreciate that in a specific person, it might be desirable to use different pronouns that reflect how they self-identify; but it’s not necessary when we are speaking in generalities and the issue is biology, not psychology. So, we end up with an absurd sound bite where a doctor says a man can be pregnant, and the whole discussion is derailed.

Raskin accused pro-life advocates of calling for a "nationwide ban on all abortions with no exceptions for rape and incest."

Foster asked him, "If we added rape and incest exceptions, would you vote for it?"

Raskin responded: "I reclaim my time."

It will be a shame if Roe is overturned because we have a perfectly good compromise in place right now. Some abortions are allowed within reasonable limits. Consistent with those limits, states can further regulate the procedure so long as such regulations don’t produce an unreasonable burden on a woman’s rights. 

I can see fiddling with those limits somewhat - e.g., changing the time limit from 23ish weeks to 15, but imposing a zero tolerance policy is inconsistent with legal precedent as well as developing trends throughout the civilized world. It would also be foolish, cruel, and unsupported by the people.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @5    one month ago

Why the need to change to 15 weeks? No fetus could live outside the womb at that timeframe. Thus the viability was set at 24.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @5.1    one month ago

Yeah, I’m not saying 15 is better than 24. But it is a line other countries have drawn. Arguably, any line we draw is somewhat arbitrary, and it’s the kind of thing reasonable minds can debate. Neither one of those lines through, has the effect of essentially making it impossible to exercise the right to terminate your own pregnancy. If Roe is overturned, it will become impossible in several states.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @5.1    one month ago

With modern medicine and technology it may become possible to keep a 20 week fetus alive

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.2    one month ago

I read where it says in the Casey ruling it set it at 24 but it said it left the option open as things change.

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
5.1.4  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.2    one month ago

My problem with 20 weeks is that how cost prohibitive would it be.  In this country with health care costs being outrageous who could afford that?  My daughter spent 1 week in the neonatal unit (I was suffering from pre-eclampsia and she came at 34 weeks) 34 years ago and our part of that was $28,000.  That was 20% which was our deductible.  And then anything that happened after that was not covered (unless it was a well baby check) because the insurance company deemed it a pre-existing condition based on her pre-term.  I can't even imagine if she had to stay longer.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Veronica @5.1.4    one month ago

It is cost prohibitive. The only other option is to let the infant die a natural death. Keep it comfortable until it passes

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
5.1.6  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.5    one month ago

That is why I support leaving it at 24 weeks.  Just because something can be done doesn't necessarily mean it should be in all cases.  I believe it should remain the decision of the PERSON most affected by the pregnancy, the woman.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.7  arkpdx  replied to  Veronica @5.1.6    one month ago

The person most affected by an abortion is the baby being aborted. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
5.1.8  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.7    one month ago

No it is the person who has to carry it and then take care of it and pay the bills

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
5.1.9  afrayedknot  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.1    one month ago

“Neither one of those lines…”

We need to quit debating those lines and acknowledge the bottom line…any decision to be made lies solely with the woman with informed consultation from her chosen medical provider. Anything less involves the state…and no one should want that unless they are comfortable having an outside entity having a say in every medical decision one has to make. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
5.1.10  afrayedknot  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.7    one month ago

“The person most affected by an abortion is the baby being aborted.”

Unless you are one arkpdx and cannot accept the simple fact that a woman’s personal medical decision somehow and in any way affects you.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.7    one month ago

They believe in magic. As one of their experts testifIed yesterday, the baby suddenly becomes a human when it’s born.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.12  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.11    one month ago

Late term pregnancies are protected in all states and late term abortions are few and generally only available under circumstances like rape, incest or to save the women's life.

So, fetuses do have rights. They do not have full rights though until they are born. You know this. I know this. Everyone knows this.

Making abortions illegal won't stop abortions.

Preventing unwanted pregnancies does that.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
5.1.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @5.1.12    one month ago
So, fetuses do have rights.

Outrageous, why do parasites have rights?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.14  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.13    one month ago

Fuck Off!

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
5.1.15  afrayedknot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.13    one month ago

…this cannot be said often enough, fuck off

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
5.1.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @5.1.14    one month ago

You are at your best when you keep it short and sweet, much more understandable than when you're rambling.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
5.1.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @5.1.15    one month ago
this cannot be said often enough

I don't expect originality from you.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
5.1.18  afrayedknot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.17    one month ago

Then you will appreciate my using a quote:

“If you were half as funny as you think you are, you'd be twice as funny as you really are.” ~ H.N. Turteltaub

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
5.1.19  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @5.1.18    one month ago
Then you will appreciate my using a quote:

Absolutely, some are originalists and some are parrots.  What's important is that you know yourself.  

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
5.1.20  Veronica  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.7    one month ago

Ummmm - as a woman that went through two pregnancies, I think I am a better judge.  So NO! You are wrong.  There is no baby until first breath.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @5.1.12    one month ago
 term pregnancies are protected in all states and late term abortions are few and generally only available under circumstances like rape, incest or to save the women's life.

Any such law would be unconstitutional 

They do not have full rights though until they are born.

I don't know what you mean by  "full rights"  Five year olds don't have full rights

aking abortions illegal won't stop abortions.

Very true. Making anything illegal doesn't stop it. 

Preventing unwanted pregnancies does that.

Very true.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
5.1.22  charger 383  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.21    one month ago

and, abortion prevents unwanted pregnancies from continuing to be a problem.  A back up is always needed 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.23  Sean Treacy  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.22    one month ago
A back up is always needed

 adoption

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.1.24  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Veronica @5.1.20    one month ago

So was that a puppy inside you kicking and moving and making you a bit uncomfortable every once in awhile?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  afrayedknot @5.1.15    one month ago
"…this cannot be said often enough, fuck off"

It's so nice to know jbb and afrayedknot - that I am not alone here!

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
5.1.26  charger 383  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.23    one month ago

If the woman wants to continue being pregnant, which she may not want to do

If she is forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy she is not truly free 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.27  arkpdx  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.24    one month ago

No Jim. Remember that the pro abortionists think that it is a parasite until it's born. They were giant tapeworms until just before they are born then the magically become babies going thru the birth canal. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.28  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.24    one month ago

Says the guys who never had a baby.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.29  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.27    one month ago

No people who believe are pro-choice, believe in cut off dates for abortions so that they are not hurting babies.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.30  arkpdx  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.29    one month ago

Abortions always hurt babies. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.31  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.30    one month ago

Babies yes. Fetuses not if they don't have a nervous system.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.32  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.30    one month ago
Abortions always hurt babies. 

There is no baby in an abortion. 

 Remember that the pro abortionists think that it is a parasite until it's born.

Let's see: they attach themselves to their host, they feed off the host at the expense of the host, and they can cause health problems for the host. That sounds like a parasite.

They were giant tapeworms until just before they are born then the magically become babies going thru the birth canal. 

They're more akin to tumors: pulling form the body's blood supply and growing, possibly causing negative health effects. 

The person most affected by an abortion is the baby being aborted. 

See first statement.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
5.1.33  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.32    one month ago
Let's see: they attach themselves to their host, they feed off the host at the expense of the host, and they can cause health problems for the host. That sounds like a parasite.

Which form of symbiosis do you see?
They're more akin to tumors: pulling form the body's blood supply and growing, possibly causing negative health effects. 

Evolution of the species is a bitch.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.34  Gordy327  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.33    one month ago

More like nature is a bitch. Evolution is just nature's tool.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
5.1.35  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.34    one month ago
It's nature's way of telling you something's wrong
It's nature's way of telling you in a song
It's nature's way of receiving you
It's nature's way of retrieving you
It's nature's way of telling you
Something's wrong - Spirit 
 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.36  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.32    one month ago
There is no baby in an abortion 

Of course there is. The aborted is not a fish or a palm tree. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
5.1.37  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.36    one month ago

and since it is gone, was it ever important?  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.38  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.36    one month ago

A baby is a full being. Most abortions are done long before there is a nervous system. Without a nervous system, there is no being.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
5.1.39  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  charger 383 @5.1.37    one month ago
and since it is gone, was it ever important

My mother is gone but she was important.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.40  arkpdx  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.38    one month ago

I guess thinking that helps you sleep at night. It is still a baby just at an early stage of development. It is not a worm or a bird or a rock. It is a baby

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
5.1.41  charger 383  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.39    one month ago

she actually  was a real person and did things, 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.1.42  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.40    one month ago

The way I see it, you either respect all life as God's creations equally

or you revile all non human life to the detriment of managing the planet

properly.

We only have THIS ONE planet.

If you believe in God and Creation, than rocks deserve the same respect.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.43  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.36    one month ago
Of course there is.

Nope. Look up the medical definition of baby and get back to us.

The aborted is not a fish or a palm tree.

It's a clump if cells. Analogous to a parasite or tumor. 

I guess thinking that helps you sleep at night.

It's simple fact. Not all of us lose sleep over facts. Nor do we delude ourselves into thinking it's something that it is not in order to sooth 

It is still a baby just at an early stage of development.

Still wrong. You might want to brush up on emryology.

It is not a worm or a bird or a rock. It is a baby

It's none of those. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
5.1.44  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.43    one month ago
Nope. Look up the medical definition of baby and get back to us.

What definition are you looking at?

It's a clump if cells. Analogous to a parasite or tumor. 

At what point in pregnancy or should I say infestation?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.45  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.43    one month ago
k up the medical definition of baby and get back to us.

Lol... "Baby" is not a medical term. 

Analogous to a parasite or tumo

Somebody failed biology. B

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.46  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.45    one month ago
"Baby" is not a medical term.

Here is the scientific definition: An infant; a newborn child.

Somebody failed biology

Do you understand what analogy means? The unborn attaches to it's host, feeds off the host's nutrients, grows in size, and can possibly cause negative health issues for the host. Much like a parasite or tumor does. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.47  Gordy327  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.44    one month ago
What definition are you looking at?

The scientific one.

At what point in pregnancy or should I say infestation?

Perhaps blastocyst or maybe implantation. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.48  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.46    one month ago
ere is the scientific definition: An infant; a newborn child.

Baby is a not a "scientific" term. It's a colloquial word that, as well know, describes human both pre and post birth.

o you understand what analogy mea

Do you? Analogies make sense. The fundamental characteristic of a parasite is that it's a foreign SPECIES that invades a host. Do you understand that a human female is designed to nurture a fetus? See the difference?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.49  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.43    one month ago

I have. The ones I look at say that it is a human baby at all stages of development from conception. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.50  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.49    one month ago

Then you're looking at the wrong ones. It's not a baby until birth. That's the newborn stage. Before birth, it's a fetus. An embryo before that.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.51  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.50    one month ago

Did you ever consider that you are looking at the wrong ones? That is what I think. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.52  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.51    one month ago

I look towards scientific definitions for such things rather than generic sources or terminology. Zygote, Embryo, fetus, infant, ect are specific terms with specific definitions. They are not equivalent or interchangeable. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.53  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.52    one month ago

Yes each one of the terms are equivalent. They all are terms used to describe a stage in the development of a HUMAN BABY when used in talking about the subject we are discussing. Each and every one contains the necessary thing to make a human. Not a fish or a cow and not a puppy dog. Try and prove me wrong v

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.54  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.53    one month ago
Yes each one of the terms are equivalent.

No, they are demonstrably not!

They all are terms used to describe a stage in the development of a HUMAN BABY when used in talking about the subject we are discussin

No, they are used to describe gestation. It is not a "baby" until after birth. You're using "baby" in the colloquial sense of the term. But it is not accurate. 

Each and every one contains the necessary thing to make a human.

But it's not yet a "human" as an individual person until birth.

Not a fish or a cow and not a puppy dog. Try and prove me wrong 

Strawman. No one said it would be a fish or cow. Nether is that the issue. You're wrong in your terminology.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.55  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1.54    one month ago

Nope I am not. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1.56  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.55    one month ago

Yes, you definitely are! 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6  Sean Treacy    one month ago

she is not truly free 

No one is truly free. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
7  charger 383    one month ago

Why is it other people's business if a woman gets an abortion?     That has not been explained

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
7.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  charger 383 @7    one month ago

Some people believe that the zygote deserves legal protection.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1    one month ago

They're morons.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
7.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.1    one month ago
They're morons.

Well obviously, zygotes haven't learned as much as you have, but they aren't morons.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1    one month ago

Why? Especially if such protection comes at the expense of the woman's legal rights and autonomy? 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
7.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.3    one month ago
woman's legal rights 

Isn’t that what SCOTUS is trying to decide?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
7.1.5  arkpdx  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.2    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
7.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.5    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.6    one month ago

Removed for context

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.2    one month ago
"Some people believe"

They're the morons

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.4    one month ago
"woman's legal rights"
"Isn’t that what SCOTUS is trying to decide?"

It's not up to them - those who want to overturn women's legal rights' - those lying men and that one lying bitch are the ones trying to take those rights away.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.6    one month ago

Of course you're agreeing with the one who is insulting me.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
7.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.4    one month ago
Isn’t that what SCOTUS is trying to decide?

The SCOTUS already decided women have legal rights and autonomy. The SCOTUS is contemplating taking those rights away. Therein lies the problem. There is no good argument to confer legal protections to the unborn.

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
8  Veronica    one month ago

How about forced vasectomies for men with 2 children?  That will help with men that impregnate multiple women.  Oh let me guess, we can't involve ourselves in men's reproductive decisions, but we can involve ourselves in women's reproductive decisions.

For all the people that claim women call the fetus "baby" & that makes it a baby.  If you are so hung up on words why do people (women) say "I am HAVING a baby" not "I HAVE a baby" and to their other children "You are GOING to be a big brother (sister)" not "You ARE a big brother (sister)"?  If words mean that much to you then I guess the shit is on you.

How about we let women decide what is BEST for them & you do what is best for you.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
8.1  arkpdx  replied to  Veronica @8    one month ago

I think men should be able to decide what's best for them. If a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby, the father should be able to decide if he wants anything to do with the child and if he does not he should be absolved from any and all financial responsibilities for it for life 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
8.1.1  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @8.1    one month ago

If that was so, would you drop opposition to abortion?   Sounds like a fair trade

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
8.1.2  Veronica  replied to  arkpdx @8.1    one month ago

But a woman cannot decide what is best for her.  I got you.  I see it all comes down to money for you.  A woman's health means shit to you, but a man's wallet is SO FUCKING IMPORTANT.

You are so fucking transparent.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
8.1.3  arkpdx  replied to  Veronica @8.1.2    one month ago
.  A woman's health means shit to you 

Where did the say that? Please cite the quote. 

An abortion for convenience, which most of them are, is NOT a health issue for the woman. A healthy woman is not going to due because of a pregnancy

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
8.1.4  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @8.1.3    one month ago

what is wrong with convenience?  

Pregnancy is most definably a strain on a woman's body and usually causes lasting changes

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @8.1.3    one month ago
is NOT a health issue for the woman.

It's definitely an extremely huge health issue for almost every woman,

their spouse especially and possibly the woman's other children.

The possible loss of income, the added expense and stress required to house, feed

and socialize another human being is all impactful on a person's health,

mentally and physically.

Your lack of empathy seems unlimited.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
8.1.6  arkpdx  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.5    one month ago

Those are things that all should be thought of and taken into consideration before getting pregnant. If those are significant issues than steps should be taken to avoid pregnancy. A developing human baby that has done nothing wrong and did not ask to be conceived should not be put to death for convenience sake. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.5    one month ago
Your lack of empathy seems unlimited.

I always appreciate lectures on empathy from those favoring the taking human life so long as it's convenient.  It's like Bernie Madoff self righteously scolding people for not being good fiduciaries. 

The rationale that would apply to the killing pretty much any kid or any other family member who causes stress to the family is just the icing on the cake.   

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
8.1.8  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @8.1.6    one month ago

Do you think people should quit having sex?   unwanted pregnancy is a by product of a powerful natural drive. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
8.1.9  Split Personality  replied to  charger 383 @8.1.8    one month ago

self preservation

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.1.10  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.7    one month ago

What a horrible comparison.

Killing an unaware unfeeling zygote or fetus to a living breathing kid.

Why does anyone have to live by your beliefs?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.1.11  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.5    one month ago

It's actually more than the health of the women. It's also the health of the fetus. Why should a woman be forced to carry a child who will be dead or dead within hours?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
8.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.11    one month ago

I'm borrowing this from Colbalt Blue on a different seed.

512

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
8.1.13  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @8.1.8    one month ago

There are many ways to prevent pregnancy and still engage in sex l

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.1.14  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  arkpdx @8.1.13    one month ago

And there is zero chance that you will die from a pregnancy.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
8.1.15  arkpdx  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.1.14    one month ago

You are right and what does that have to do with getting an abortion for convenience?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.1.16  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  arkpdx @8.1.15    one month ago

I have never been a fan of abortion in lieu of birth control, but birth control is not always 100% and there are many other reasons that women have to make a choice to carry a pregnancy or not, which is something that you as a man, will never fully understand.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
8.1.17  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @8.1.15    one month ago

You have zero risk in the "game",

that is the WHOLE DIFFERRENCE.

You can't suffer when some other woman gets pregnant

and have already endorsed waiving economic responsibility for the sperm

donator. You are biased by gender

and ignorance.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @8.1    one month ago
If a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby, the father should be able to decide if he wants anything to do with the child and if he does not he should be absolved from any and all financial responsibilities for it for life 

That's not how it works! You confuse gestation with childrearing, which are 2 separate issues. As it's only the woman getting pregnant, only she gets to decide if she wants to continue the pregnancy or not. If birth occurs, BOTH parties assume responsibility. 

An abortion for convenience, which most of them are, is NOT a health issue for the woman.

What difference does it make?

A healthy woman is not going to due because of a pregnancy

That is a profoundly ignorant statement! Pregnancy itself exerts a physical and psychological toll on the woman and there are many potential complications which can negatively affect the health and well being of the woman, even if she's healthy. 

Those are things that all should be thought of and taken into consideration before getting pregnant. If those are significant issues than steps should be taken to avoid pregnancy.

A naive and simplistic way of thinking. Some issues do not develop until there is a pregnancy. 

A developing human baby that has done nothing wrong and did not ask to be conceived should not be put to death for convenience sake. 

So what? That too is a risk of pregnancy. 

There are many ways to prevent pregnancy and still engage in sex l

Yes, and there is no way that is 100% effective either. 

You are right and what does that have to do with getting an abortion for convenience?

Who cares if it's for convenience or not? It's not your decision, body, problem, or business!

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
8.1.19  Veronica  replied to  arkpdx @8.1.3    one month ago
A healthy woman is not going to due because of a pregnancy

You have no way of way of knowing that at all.  I was extremely healthy and still developed pre-eclampsia.  Look it up.  It can cause death to the woman.  Not to mention all the other health issues to women that get pregnant.  You have no fucking clue anything about women & what happens to them during pregnancy - THAT IS FUCKING OBVIOUS.

I don't have to quote you, but I will:

I think men should be able to decide what's best for them.

But you are against abortion where a woman decides what is best for them.  Then you go on about the man's fucking wallet - so money is more important to you that women's health.

So it a new week and I will start it with my first FUCK OFF!

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
8.1.20  charger 383  replied to  Veronica @8.1.19    one month ago

continuing with that theme, Men who do not support the right to abortion should not get to fuck, That is fucking obvious 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
8.1.21  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  charger 383 @8.1.20    one month ago
Men who do not support the right to abortion should not get to fuck

What are your thoughts on an enforcement mechanism?  Should their partner get to make that decision?  Isn't it the woman's choice?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
8.1.22  arkpdx  replied to  charger 383 @8.1.20    one month ago

Women who don't want to have a baby should not get to fuck, That is fucking obvious 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.23  Trout Giggles  replied to  charger 383 @8.1.20    one month ago

I love that!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.24  Trout Giggles  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.5    one month ago
It's definitely an extremely huge health issue for almost every woman,

I now have a condition that must be medicated every day due to pregnancy. Make that 2

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @8.1.22    one month ago

We know what you're not doing arkie

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  Veronica @8.1.19    one month ago

I second that Veronica!

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
8.1.27  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.25    one month ago

You don't know squat. [deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.25    one month ago

We also know what you're not getting!

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
9  charger 383    one month ago

A new person should arrive with a good chance to succeed, be raised in a good situation by loving parents who want them and have the resources, situation, time and skills to raise them and give them a good childhood and the new one should be healthy and normal to start with.  When these conditions are not there, termination of pregnancy  should be considered.

Quality over quantity

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
10  charger 383    one month ago

Why a fetus inside of somone else is so important to people who have nothing in the situation?   

Are these unwanted fetus  worth all the trouble and problems? 

Is forcing them on people worth dividing the country?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
10.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  charger 383 @10    one month ago
Are these unwanted fetus  worth all the trouble and problems? 

Abortion will remain legal in states where the majority agrees with you.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
10.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10.1    one month ago

If it was only a simple majority, but we all know that the states have rigged the game with gerrymandering. 

And using a majority on such a personal issue is using a blunt instrument. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
10.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.1.1    one month ago
we all know that the states have rigged the game with gerrymandering. 

The gerrymandering of Illinois, New York and Maryland will work to the favor of Pro Choice.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
10.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10.1.2    one month ago

This might shock you, but I don't believe in gerrymandering, no matter the outcome.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
10.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.1.3    one month ago

I’m not shocked and I agree with you.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
10.2  Gsquared  replied to  charger 383 @10    one month ago
Is forcing them on people worth dividing the country?

Creating a wedge issue and promoting political division is the reason abortion became an issue, when it previously had not been (when Republicans favored abortion rights).  Hard-right Republicans look for wedge issues that create political division as a means of consolidating power.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
10.2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gsquared @10.2    one month ago

The issue was created 39 years ago by SCOTUS.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10.2.2  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10.2.1    one month ago

What did SCOTUS do in 1983?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
10.2.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @10.2.2    one month ago

I’m math challenged, 49 years.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
11  Gsquared    one month ago

Republicans believe in choice regarding abortion as long as the choice is determined by Republican controlled legislatures and not by the people who might need abortions.

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
12  Veronica    one month ago

281554544_550695643370981_8307343274975888675_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=-wXVe_sS4DAAX9eEWTL&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=00_AT_cBZaGdDZZvi8DnaAkxKY_tAevj-Fal5SZQL9ENLIhQg&oe=628ECE77

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Veronica @12    one month ago

Harris is 100% correct.

The erotophobes will never be able to understand and accept that sex is normal and healthy recreation for consenting adults.

Their devotion to controlling women reminds me of the nursery rhyme I learned in the 1970s....

Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater

Had a wife and couldn't keep her.

Put her in a pumpkin shell

and there he beat her to Hell
 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
13  charger 383    one month ago

The shortage of baby formula is just a sneak preview of problems overpopulation will bring.  

Soylent Green is people

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Expert
13.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  charger 383 @13    one month ago
The shortage of baby formula is just a sneak preview of problems overpopulation will bring.

I don't think that overpopulation caused this problem with Abbott and the FDA.  Isn't the world's overpopulation problem a result of improved food production and medical care?  Should we look for ways to reduce those to reduce population?

 
 
 
monkeypox
Freshman Silent
14  monkeypox    one month ago

I have paid for about 50 abortions, I guess I just like getting people pregnant.  I learned this last year from the President's cabinet that men can get pregnant but I've never been able to get a man pregnant. So now I just ask if they are birthing people before the money shot. Last thing i want to do is get cancelled and kicked off the hook up apps.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
15  charger 383    one month ago

Children who's parents did not want them, for whatever reason, seem to have more problems and are more likely to do bad things.  Maybe allowing abortions can prevent an a situation where the unwanted child does something really bad, maybe like shooting up a school or church.  Do those against abortion think an unwanted kid is going to be raised properly?  Be taught right from wrong?  do they want to take that chance?   

Just throwing that out for you to think about 

 
 

Who is online


Thrawn 31
Mark in Wyoming
Gsquared
JBB
Sean Treacy


31 visitors