Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Abortion

1…3233353738…50

Comments

  • #1022
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I'm not saying we need to protect them from the outcome but I am making the point that pro-choicers are always using the "emotional devastation" card as a reason FOR abortion, I am simply suggesting that it could also be used as a reason against...
    I guess it comes down to each individual deciding which would be more emotionally devestating for them; terminating the pregnancy or carrying to term and giving birth to a child they may not be emotionally ready for.


  • #1023
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Yes actually I believe it does. Given advances in modern technology there is likely not a cell in your body that potentially useable to create a human if it was manipulated in the right way.
    You overestimate the advances made. Converting a damaged cancerous cell with huge amounts of damage in its genome to an undifferentiated pluripotent stem cell is impossible. Perhaps it may become possible in the distant future but there's nothing to suggest a breakthrough is near considering we can hardly repair cancerous cells let alone convert them to anything.
    The fact is that every cell in your body for the most part has the same DNA and machinery in it.
    Same DNA, yes.

    Same "machinery" not quite.
    There have been some small differences found such as in 2009 when scientists working in Montreal found differences between blood and tissue cells.
    The field of histology you mean? I can assure you that the many differences between blood and "tissue cells" (Because apparently blood cells aren't tissue...) were noted long before 2009.
    However generally the rule of thumb is that most cells are the same, they just take on different roles.
    Purkinje cell.
    Erythrocyte.

    They do different roles and they originated from one particular set of cells but in no way are they the "same cell" once they're fully differentiated.


  • #1024
    Crea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭Crea


    Here is a link to allow terminations for medical reasons more specifically where the foetus/baby is found to be incompatible with life.
    It was set up my the women on the LLS last Friday.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/tfmr-ireland-make-termination-for-medical-reasons-available-in-ireland?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=autopublish


  • #1025
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    They do different roles and they originated from one particular set of cells but in no way are they the "same cell" once they're fully differentiated.

    Saying they are the same can mean in terms of being similar and in terms of being the exact same entity. I meant in terms of similarity. I never claimed they are all the "same cell". Clearly they are not.

    The similarities across our cells is massive and our recent advances have seen us make stem cells from cells not before thought possible and nerve cells made from stem cells and more.

    The point I am making is not really related to how far along those advances are however. The main point of my post which seems to have not featured in your response at all is that given the mass similarities across all kinds of cells, including tumor cells, simply having Human DNA and the potential to grow into something else would not seem to be a valid basis for assigning a cell, or group of cells, Human Rights.

    When people trot out words like "potentially human" or "could/would become a human" the point I am making is that they are linguistically saying that the thing they are talking about is NOT human. If I say something is becoming or CAN become X then I am also saying outright that that means it is NOT X now.


  • #1026
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Saying they are the same can mean in terms of being similar and in terms of being the exact same entity. I meant in terms of similarity. I never claimed they are all the "same cell". Clearly they are not.
    To be quite honest, outside of the things that almost all mammalian cells share the main similarity between those two cells are their genomes.

    Considering that an embryo has a completely different genome to its mother that pretty much leaves few real similarities.
    The point I am making is not really related to how far along those advances are however. The main point of my post which seems to have not featured in your response at all is that given the mass similarities across all kinds of cells, including tumor cells, simply having Human DNA and the potential to grow into something else would not seem to be a valid basis for assigning a cell, or group of cells, Human Rights.
    A tumour cell (With the mother's genome) will continue to divide and make even more damaged tumour cells.

    An embryo (With a unique genome) will cleave, gastrulate, neurulate and undergo massive rapid differentiation in its development.

    It's not as simple as "Tumour = ball of cells with human DNA" and "Embryo = ball of cells with human DNA" therefore both can be killed. That's conveniently ignoring the nature of the cells in question (Which is the crux of the issue).
    When people trot out words like "potentially human" or "could/would become a human" the point I am making is that they are linguistically saying that the thing they are talking about is NOT human. If I say something is becoming or CAN become X then I am also saying outright that that means it is NOT X now.
    That's merely because most people associate the word human with the form of a fully developed normal human. Just because something does not look exactly like the typical form of a human organism does not make it any less of a human organism.


  • Advertisement
  • #1027
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Well as I said it is documented that 88% of abortions happen before 12 weeks. 58% of all women also say they wished they had done it earlier. So if you take 58% of the remaining 12% you find that an abortion cut off of 12 weeks would actually be enough for 95% of women.

    I would not presume to list all the reasons possible for why some people would wait longer. Maybe some of the reasons, such as medical diagnosis of faults with the fetus, only come later in the pregnancy. Some people also can go quite some time without even knowing they are pregnant and you would be surprised just how high that can go on average.... even when you ignore extreme and unusual stories such as people who go to hospital complaining of pain who find out not only are they pregnant, but are in labour. I doubt there is enough time left in 2012 for me to think up and list all the reasons why some people have them later than others. Suffice to say however, the reasons are clearly there, though with a figure like 12% they are clearly rarer.



    My condolences, but while I have some sympathy for the experience we should be aware of the human ability to become emotionally invested in things. Just because she THINKS of it emotionally as a "baby she lost" this in no way makes it so. The user who was flooding the thread only a couple of days ago was also beating herself up over this. She lost a baby at around 12 weeks and says that no amount of scientific data will ever convince her that that baby did not suffer horribly.

    Aside from the clearly poor position of saying that no amount of evidence will ever change ones mind, that user is essentially beating herself up emotionally over something that simply is not true. The human ability to become emotionally invested known few bounds it seems.



    I posted on this earlier in the thread and cited not one but... I think.... five sources showing that there is little to no reason to think that the fetus feels pain before 25 weeks at all. Feel free to go back and find the post and if you can not I can do so for you on request.

    I dont actually have time (sorry) but I'll take you at your word. I still think 20 weeks is too late a cut off, and like you said if most abortions are carried out before this, then why would we need legisaltion to allow aboritons after this? (except of course for all the caveats that we do not have time to mention)

    I take your point re human investment but we are not robots and as far as my Mother is concerned, she lost a baby and nothing you or anyone else says will change this in her mind. I did not cite this as an anti-abortion score but simply to remind people that for those who have suffered miscarriage (or indeed regret having abortions), banging on about clusters of cells (not you in particular) can be a little insensitive.

    I am glad to hear that a fetus cannot feel pain before 25 weeks.

    I think your view of the poor poster who lost her baby at 12 weeks is a little harsh. Of course she is going to be "emotionally invested", whats wrong with you? Did you leave your heart at home today or something? (oops there I go getting emotionally invested in the argument lol) Seriously though, I understand what you mean on a technicality (yes it's not technically a person yet) but you are asking a lot of a woman (any woman) who has lost her unborn child to be completely objective about the situation. I know 12 weeks is early but still, she is not going to just shake ot off and say, "oh there goes another bunch of non-human, lizard-like cells that were never going to become a person", she will grieve what she lost, and it is her choice to decide exactly what that loss is and what it means for her.


  • #1028
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    for those who have suffered miscarriage (or indeed regret having abortions), banging on about clusters of cells (not you in particular) can be a little insensitive.

    As can shoving pictures of destroyed fetuses in people's faces (not saying you are or have done).
    I still think 20 weeks is too late a cut off
    What would your cut-off be? Not necessarily a specific week or point in development, but abstractly.


  • #1029
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    kylith wrote: »
    I guess it comes down to each individual deciding which would be more emotionally devestating for them; terminating the pregnancy or carrying to term and giving birth to a child they may not be emotionally ready for.

    Perhaps, but the problem is the finality of the decision. It's like the death penalty. You have to be so sure, there can be no room for error so that after it happens you say, "oops we got the wrong guy/I didn't actually want that abortion". There is no going back. Plenty of women have said they regret their abortions (I know that plenty do not) but I suspect far less regret not having them. In fact, it would be practically unheard of for a woman to say, "Oh I wish I had actually aborted this baby" - though nothing would surprise me at this stage.


  • #1030
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Seachmall wrote: »
    As can shoving pictures of destroyed fetuses in people's faces (not saying you are or have done).

    Yes I know. In fact I was going to mention this in my post and then removed it. If you see my previous posts you can see that I do not agree with such shock tactics. In any case, neither is correct, and the former certainly does not excuse the latter.


  • #1031
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Yes I know. In fact I was going to mention this in my post and then removed it. If you see my previous posts you can see that I do not agree with such shock tactics. In any case, neither is correct, and the former certainly does not excuse the latter.

    Well comments about clusters of cells is an argument that allows for discussion, and it's an extremely important and common argument in these debates.

    You'd be hard pushed to find any discussion on abortion that doesn't at least once use the phrase "clusters[/clumps/groups/etc] of cells". It's a fundamental point to many people's position, hence it needs to be discussed.


  • Advertisement
  • #1032
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Seachmall wrote: »
    As can shoving pictures of destroyed fetuses in people's faces (not saying you are or have done).

    What would your cut-off be? Not necessarily a specific week or point in development, but abstractly.

    Not sure tbh (and not afraid to admit it). I would prefer no abortions, or should I say, no need for abortions but if I had to pick a time, I would put it at 8 weeks latest. I know people will say "what happens at the stroke of midnight when the 8 weeks are up that makes the baby worthy of rights he did not enjoy before?" and the answer? I dont have one. Because it's a cotinuum and not black and white, how do we define the point at which its ok or not? Pick one point and gradually extend it until we reach 9 months? I think this is why I just cant reconcile it in my head, because I dont know where the line should be. It's easier to just not have one. :confused:


  • #1033
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Well comments about clusters of cells is an argument that allows for discussion, and it's an extremely important and common argument in these debates.

    You'd be hard pushed to find any discussion on abortion that doesn't at least once use the phrase "clusters[/clumps/groups/etc] of cells". It's a fundamental point to many people's position, hence it needs to be discussed.

    One could also argue that the photographs empoyed for shock tactics represent the truth of what happens in some cases and therefore represents other people's reasons for being pro-life - they are still insensitive to those who have had abortions.

    I still believe that both are insensitive.


  • #1034
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    One could also argue that the photographs empoyed for shock tactics represent the truth of what happens in some cases and therefore represents other people's reasons for being pro-life - they are still insensitive to those who have had abortions.

    I still believe that both are insensitive.

    Perhaps they are people's reasons for being pro-life but as they're pictures and not arguments they're not open to discussion, and something that's not open to discussion has no place in a discussion.

    I'd also suggest that it's not even a valid reason for being pro-life, all the pictures tell us is it can look like a baby. But "looks" is a very arbitrary, and far from reasonable, reason to take a side in this discussion.


  • #1035
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I'm not really sure what your point is? I dont agree that someone who breaks the law should not have to deal with the consequences. I dont see how this makes a case for abortion?


    My point is that there is not the want or will to prosecute women for having abortions. So what do you think the consequences should be?


  • #1036
    poppyvally
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭poppyvally


    MickySticks wrote: »
    What ever you think of abortion, people should have the freedom of choice IMO.

    Welll you have freedom of choice to use birth control in the 1st place. Some People nowadays want a quick solution to the consequences of their carelessness.Do they ever think of the awesome responsibility a pregnancy can bring, all because of the lack of a johnny. Dont tell me they are not 100% effective...they are! if used properly


  • #1037
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    poppyvally wrote: »
    Dont tell me they are not 100% effective...they are! if used properly

    Sorry, but that's utter nonsense! What makes you think that?

    You're talking about other people's carelessness - if you ask me it's pretty careless to use protection and ignore the fact that it states it's not 100% effective.


  • #1038
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    poppyvally wrote: »
    Welll you have freedom of choice to use birth control in the 1st place. Some People nowadays want a quick solution to the consequences of their carelessness.Do they ever think of the awesome responsibility a pregnancy can bring, all because of the lack of a johnny. Dont tell me they are not 100% effective...they are! if used properly

    If you really think any contraception is 100%, you may well be in for a rude awakening some day

    go and educate yourself instead of talking nonsense


  • #1039
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    poppyvally wrote: »
    Dont tell me they are not 100% effective...they are! if used properly

    :rolleyes:

    Not even vasectomy and tubal ligation are 100%, please go educate yourself on contraception.


  • #1040
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,275 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    This wasn't as much as an issue in years gone by, but there's now considerable overlap between later term abortions and the age at which a premature born baby can be saved. The latter has improved significantly.
    I wonder if technology might eventually render the entire argument pointless.
    If any foetus could be removed and reimplanted/incubated it would merely be a case of the mother abdicating responsibility.


  • #1041
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    kowloon wrote: »
    I wonder if technology might eventually render the entire argument pointless.
    If any foetus could be removed and reimplanted/incubated it would merely be a case of the mother abdicating responsibility.

    That's an interesting thing to think about. I wonder what the outcome would be? Would any state be willing to foot the bill for this as an option opted for by pregnant women? If they were would many women choose this option? If so would the number of 'technical orphans' be quite high and massively outstrip the number of people willing or able to foster or adopt? What then, massive orphanages and a section of society comprised of state raised children that grew up in them? .... Hmmm, I feel the kernel of a plot for a pretty decent a science fiction novel coming on...


  • Advertisement
  • #1042
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,275 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    I know, it has me thinking what kind of effect it would have on society.

    I mean we've had the one child policy in China, but at the same time we've had cases of couples desperate for a baby resorting to dealing abroad. Spain has had controversy surrounding a 'baby trade' during the Franco era.

    Could the state end up seeking child support from the parents of an unwanted child? Would this lead to illegal abortions again? In the countries where they weren't illegal to begin with.


  • #1043
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    kowloon wrote: »
    I wonder if technology might eventually render the entire argument pointless.
    If any foetus could be removed and reimplanted/incubated it would merely be a case of the mother abdicating responsibility.

    That would be ideal.


  • #1044
    poppyvally
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭poppyvally


    bluewolf wrote: »

    go and educate yourself
    I am well educated on the matter, having used this method ourselves for many years and getting exactly the number we wanted. 5 beauties!


  • #1045
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    poppyvally wrote: »
    I am well educated on the matter, having used this method ourselves for many years and getting exactly the number we wanted. 5 beauties!

    Dude... wait... wut?


  • #1046
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Yes actually I believe it does. Given advances in modern technology there is likely not a cell in your body that potentially useable to create a human if it was manipulated in the right way.

    Actually a tumor doesnt have the ability to become human. It has the cellular machinary and dna alright but then so does every other cell in the body bar some exceptions. What a cancer cell (moving away from tumors and focusing on the cells behind it) hasnt got is the right cellular context to become human, It has a different degree of methylation to most fetal cells and it is basically at a different position on waddingtons trough to most cells. They (cancer cells) do not have the same degree of potency as fetal cells and while they may be reading of the same script different genes will be silenced and expressed.

    Unless we extracted that tumor cell and converted it into a ITS cell (Induced pluripotent cell) there is no way its becoming human. Thus a cancer cell and a fetal cell within a normal biological context are very different and will end up very different.
    The fact is that every cell in your body for the most part has the same DNA and machinery in it. There have been some small differences found such as in 2009 when scientists working in Montreal found differences between blood and tissue cells. However generally the rule of thumb is that most cells are the same, they just take on different roles.

    Different degrees of methylation, different genes expressed and ultimately very different cell fates.
    So while the answer to your question is not 100% "Yes", it is as near as makes no difference. From a human rights issue I certainly see no more reason to offer a zygote any more or less rights than a tumor.

    It wasnt a question It was a statement as to how a tumor does not equal a foetus. Regarding the rights issue Im undecided personally but Im not anti abortion.
    Focus on words you use like "become human" in your post. Given something can not BE and be BECOMING something at the same time (You are either X or becoming X but not both) even your own use of "become human" shows you acknowledge it is NOT human.

    No but then again I would certainly want to treat any foetus I might create as different from a collection of cancer cells.


  • #1047
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    To be quite honest, outside of the things that almost all mammalian cells share the main similarity between those two cells are their genomes. Considering that an embryo has a completely different genome to its mother that pretty much leaves few real similarities.

    Certainly. One wonders if our advances in science go far enough could we even start making arguments like "A cucumber cell given the right manipulations is a potential human being". The similarities we share with our cousins across the animal and plant kingdoms are so strong at times that one wonders just how much manipulation ANY cell really requires by human hand in order to become what we want it. Advances of that sort are of course the stuff of science fiction right now and we delight in our ability to turn stem cells into liver cells and nerve cells right now, but that too would have been science fiction within even my own life time.
    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    It's not as simple as "Tumour = ball of cells with human DNA" and "Embryo = ball of cells with human DNA" therefore both can be killed. That's conveniently ignoring the nature of the cells in question (Which is the crux of the issue).

    Actually my point would be slightly, but not very, different to that at around the "therefore both can be killed point". My point would be more like "therefore clearly Human DNA alone is not sufficient reason to assign "human rights" to the object in question and we must look for something else.

    And I just do not feel moved by the "One of them could potentially be human sometime in the future" is a sufficient "something else" to carry the argument. I think one needs a bit more than that. Assigning or removing rights based on what something POTENTIALLY is in the future to me makes little to no sense.

    Whatever ones argument is for assigning rights, and when to assign them, I think they require a little more substance than that. I know what mine are. I have yet to hear anything more than the "potential" argument from the other side however. And as I point out if you are saying something could BECOME human you are also by definition saying it is not human now.


  • #1048
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I dont actually have time (sorry) but I'll take you at your word. I still think 20 weeks is too late a cut off, and like you said if most abortions are carried out before this, then why would we need legisaltion to allow aboritons after this?

    Mainly because I do not think mere convienience is enough of an argument. Either there is good arguments for assigning a fetus rights at 20 weeks... or there is not. It is not both. So while you or I might have some personal emotional distaste at the concept of abortion at 20 weeks... our distaste does not equate to an argument against it or the morality of it.

    However I am sure one could construct arguments taking the form of pointing out that the later the term at abortion the more psychological issues the mother can have with the decision both at the time and retrospectively. Using such arguments one could push the cut off term back to 16 or 12 weeks if one was fighting for the pro-choice side. That would at least make some sense and your own anecdote about how a mother can feel like she "lost a baby" or the earlier anecdote on this thread of the user who was unconvincable that her 12 week old fetus did not die in agony should just how strong the psychological arguments on that point could be.
    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Of course she is going to be "emotionally invested", whats wrong with you? Did you leave your heart at home today or something?

    Nothing wrong with me to my knowledge. Like I said while I have sympathy for the emotional turmoil of the experience... that does not in any way preclude me from also having an intellectual response to the situation. So let us not act like just because I am discussing the latter with you that I am somehow devoid of the former.

    The intellectual and factual response simply is that her fear/belief that the fetus under went or experienced any discomfort, let alone pain, much let alone pain on the level she described, is false. Unfounded. Baseless. Untrue. No I am not, as you put it, expecting her to just "Shake it off" but at the same time I am not expecting her to beat herself up further by imagining the whole thing is not just worse but MASSIVELY worse than it actually was.

    While I can sympathise with her emotional turmoil, and we all should because miscarriage of a pregnancy can be horrific on many levels, let us not pretend that some of the reasons for that turmoil in her specific case are simply false and she is beating herself up over nothing. Miscarriage is horrific and emotionally devastating enough without inventing imaginary reasons to make it worse.

    So in short you seem to have got the impression that I am saying she should not have been emotionally invested AT ALL and that it was "just a bunch of cells" and she should just "shake it off". I never said or even hinted at any of that. All I said, in her particular case, is that she ALSO thinks the fetus underwent massive amounts of pain and this belief is frankly baseless on every level.


  • #1049
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Actually a tumor doesnt have the ability to become human.

    Given the right manipulations any cell "can". I am not pretending that we currently have the ability to make such manipulations though, do not get me wrong. However there is little reason to think that we can not achieve that if we were capable of introducing or removing the relevant elements to any cell.

    However again you are focusing too much on this point and missing the actual point I am making which is that simply containing Human DNA is not really that compelling an argument for assigning human rights. While emotionally we might want to treat one cell different to another, the arguments appear to be emotional only and I see no argument being made as to why a cell containing human DNA requires "rights" simply because it has more potential than some other cell to become something else. The whole use of the words "become" and "human" to me tells us we all recognise it is NOT "human" now.


  • #1050
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    poppyvally wrote: »
    I am well educated on the matter, having used this method ourselves for many years and getting exactly the number we wanted. 5 beauties!

    Having babies doesn't make you educated.

    All you've done is not had any accidents. Doesn't mean they don't happen. I've never been hit by a bus, but does that mean people don't get hit by buses either?


  • Advertisement
  • #1051
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    poppyvally wrote: »
    I am well educated on the matter, having used this method ourselves for many years and getting exactly the number we wanted. 5 beauties!

    I am afraid basing a conclusion about an entire product based on an anecdote of precisely "one" is not being "educated" on the matter at all. The fact is that no contraception, no matter how carefully used, is 100% effective and to claim otherwise is simply false. Even the people doing their best to sell such products are not crass enough to attempt to claim their product is 100% effective.

    If everyone from scientists to even the people trying to sell the product recognize they are not 100% effective I am agog to hear what basis you feel you have for claiming otherwise. Certainly saying that they must be 100% effective because they have always worked for YOU makes as much sense as saying "It is impossible for anyone to win the Lotto because I never have and I have played all my life."


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement