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

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

1…130131133135136…332

Comments

  • #3962
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Actually that's exactly what they are, because in a society of finite resources, we can either give more resources and support to one or the other, and if we give resources and support to one, then there are either none, or fewer available for the other, and when we look at other societies and historically at other countries where abortion has long been available, it appears that prioritising the underlying causes becomes a secondary rather than a primary concern, disproportionately affecting the people for whom abortion was argued as a solution in the first place.

    As has been pointed out to you before, allowing access to abortion doesn't put an additional burden on resources, because pregnant women who don't have abortions are going to access public services anyway.

    And it's clearly not an either/or scenario because Ireland has had an absolute ban on abortion for the last 157 years, but we still have the issues we're talking about. In spades!


  • #3963
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #3964
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #3965
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,524 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    As has been pointed out to you before, allowing access to abortion doesn't put an additional burden on resources, because pregnant women who don't have abortions are going to access public services anyway.


    Are you suggesting that women who have abortions don't need resources? I hope not, I really hope I'm reading that wrong.

    And it's clearly not an either/or scenario because Ireland has had an absolute ban on abortion for the last 157 years, but we still have the issues we're talking about. In spades!


    "In spades" is a particularly nebulous term, don't you think? I wouldn't consider 3,000 abortions in any given year particularly excessive.


  • #3966
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that women who have abortions don't need resources? I hope not, I really hope I'm reading that wrong.

    I'm stating that your claim that access to abortion takes away from other services is wrong.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    "In spades" is a particularly nebulous term, don't you think? I wouldn't consider 3,000 abortions in any given year particularly excessive.

    Nice try, but I was referring to the social and economic issues that you're claiming we couldn't deal with if we allowed access to abortion, and I'm pointing out that we've had a ban on abortion for nearly 160 years yet we still have these issues.


  • Advertisement
  • #3967
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    If mental gymnastics ever becomes an Olympic sport, Ireland is guaranteed a gold if EOTR is on the team. :D


  • #3968
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Siri, find me examples of when EOTR referred to pregnancy or having a baby as an inconvenience in this thread.







    A look through the thread finds that inconvenience is most often used by anti-repealers, not pro choicers. Presumably in an attempt to portray a woman who chooses an abortion as being lazy or selfish, which is once again basically saying, you don't trust women.

    In a report a posted earlier in the thread, when ladies arranging to have an abortion in the state of Minnesota for example where asked to pick from around 15 options as to why they were terminatIng, 68% picked “inconvenient”.
    In some states it was higher.


  • #3969
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,524 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I'm stating that your claim that access to abortion takes away from other services is wrong.


    I never made that claim, don't expect me to defend something I never claimed in the first place.

    Nice try, but I was referring to the social and economic issues that you're claiming we couldn't deal with if we allowed access to abortion, and I'm pointing out that we've had a ban on abortion for nearly 160 years yet we still have these issues.


    Oh right, no, I never claimed we couldn't deal with them, I'm suggesting, and have suggested all throughout this thread and the many threads that came before it, that we wouldn't. Best not to try and conflate the two things as though abortion would actually make any difference to the numbers of people living in socioeconomic poverty.


  • #3970
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    splinter65 wrote: »
    In a report a posted earlier in the thread, when ladies arranging to have an abortion in the state of Minnesota for example where asked to pick from around 15 options as to why they were terminatIng, 68% picked “inconvenient”.
    In some states it was higher.

    I saw someone claim that in 92% of abortions, women had ticked Inconvenient, but they never provided the report they were referencing and the material they did provide didn't include Inconvenient as a reason at all. It was a judgement the article's author made which the poster then repeated as fact while also misattributing the source.


  • #3971
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    I'm not going to quote one of your long posts Jack but it is really getting ridiculous now how you try to talk your way out of having made a silly argument.

    Not wanting to have an abortion does not equal wanting to have a baby. Stating that it does is just naïve in the extreme.

    And you absolutely did say that providing abortion would take away the resources from society.

    Also, you never replied to my post about Sweden?

    They've managed to both have a liberal regime for abortion and an extremely well run family centred society whilst still having the same abortion percentage as the UK so that would certainly seem to debunk your theory that providing abortion means we'll all of sudden give up providing any other resources to women.


  • Advertisement
  • #3972
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,524 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    pilly wrote: »
    I'm not going to quote one of your long posts Jack but it is really getting ridiculous now how you try to talk your way out of having made a silly argument.

    Not wanting to have an abortion does not equal wanting to have a baby. Stating that it does is just naïve in the extreme.


    What's naive about suggesting that if a pregnant woman doesn't want to have an abortion, then she wants to have a child?

    I'm not aware of any third option.

    And you absolutely did say that providing abortion would take away the resources from society.


    Yes, that I did say.

    Also, you never replied to my post about Sweden?

    They've managed to both have a liberal regime for abortion and an extremely well run family centred society whilst still having the same abortion percentage as the UK so that would certainly seem to debunk your theory that providing abortion means we'll all of sudden give up providing any other resources to women.


    I never replied to it because I didn't see anything to question. Now that you've given the reason for why you mentioned Sweden all I can simply say is that I disagree with your perspective on Swedish society and I would hope Ireland would never become anything like them. I don't imagine we would though, so I don't see it as anything to be overly bothered about.


  • #3973
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Isn't it wonderful how vague and labile the phrase "Socio economic reasons" even is in the first place? Easy to imagine it just means "poor people" or something simple like that. And if you could only just get them more money and resources, they would not require an abortion. Improve their circumstances and they will continue with the pregnancy.

    But actually it is such a vague term it can mean the exact opposite of that. A person in a very highly paid job, who is certainly not poor or deprived in that sense, might not feel that they can maintain the work-life balance a baby requires and so would also be considered an "economic reason". Or someone with a social life that is important to them and their identity who feels a baby would curtail or even end that life, would be considered a "social reason".

    Further we can not simply assume that more abortions happening in "social and economically deprived" areas means that if their circumstances were improved they would no longer want or seek the abortion. The assumption there is that the social and economical circumstances lead them to want to end the pregnancy. An equally valid assumption is that their pregnancy would be unwanted either way, but it is social and economic circumstances that increased their numbers of unwanted pregnancy.

    So anyone commenting on the social and economic motivators behind abortion has a lot of work to do being clear about what they think those motivators even mean, and whether the motivators are relevant more (or equally) to wanting the abortion, or ending up with an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. After all that, then they might cite a few of the sources they claim to have lost somewhere along the thread when asked to do so.


  • #3974
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    What's naive about suggesting that if a pregnant woman doesn't want to have an abortion, then she wants to have a child?

    I'm not aware of any third option.





    Yes, that I did say.





    I never replied to it because I didn't see anything to question. Now that you've given the reason for why you mentioned Sweden all I can simply say is that I disagree with your perspective on Swedish society and I would hope Ireland would end up nothing like them. I don't imagine we would though, so I don't see it as anything to be overly bothered about.

    Okay, so you really do see life in black and white don't you?

    If a woman is pregnant the fact that she does not want an abortion does not mean that she wants a child. She doesn't want either, what do you not understand about that?


  • #3975
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    What's naive about suggesting that if a pregnant woman doesn't want to have an abortion, then she wants to have a child?

    I'm not aware of any third option.





    Yes, that I did say.





    I never replied to it because I didn't see anything to question. Now that you've given the reason for why you mentioned Sweden all I can simply say is that I disagree with your perspective on Swedish society and I would hope Ireland would never become anything like them. I don't imagine we would though, so I don't see it as anything to be overly bothered about.

    And what do you see wrong in Swedish society?


  • #3976
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,524 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    pilly wrote: »
    Okay, so you really do see life in black and white don't you?

    If a woman is pregnant the fact that she does not want an abortion does not mean that she wants a child. She doesn't want either, what do you not understand about that?


    No, no I don't? I understand that she doesn't want either, but given that one outcome is at least inevitable, obviously she has reasons why she wants to avoid the inevitable, and the most common reasons given are socioeconomic reasons. Tackle the underlying socioeconomic reasons and then you change the inevitable outcome.

    pilly wrote: »
    And what do you see wrong in Swedish society?


    Their liberal regime for one thing. I also don't agree with you that they have an extremely well run family centred society but that's entirely a matter of perspective. I don't imagine we're ever likely to see eye to eye on what we consider to be an extremely well run family centred society, but I would say that Ireland is a lot closer to that ideal from my perspective at least, than Sweden will ever be.


  • #3977
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I never made that claim, don't expect me to defend something I never claimed in the first place.

    Saying this was an either/or situation is exactly what you said:
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    ...in a society of finite resources, we can either give more resources and support to one or the other, and if we give resources and support to one, then there are either none, or fewer available for the other...


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Oh right, no, I never claimed we couldn't deal with them, I'm suggesting, and have suggested all throughout this thread and the many threads that came before it, that we wouldn't.

    And you've given nothing to back up that suggestion, so I see no reason as to why it should be given any consideration.

    But even if you were right, given that we're already not properly dealing with those issues, the worst case scenario of removing the abortion ban is that the status quo would continue. At the very least, we'd be no worse off, and there would be nothing stopping us changing our approach in the future.

    So, in summary;
    1 - Removing the abortion ban doesn't stop us addressing socioeconomic issues.
    2 - There's a suggestion that removing the ban means we won't address these issues, but a) we're not presently addressing those issues anyway, and b) there's nothing to back up this suggestion in the first place.
    3 - The logical outcome is that removing the abortion ban won't have any negative outcomes on addressing socioeconomic issues.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Best not to try and conflate the two things as though abortion would actually make any difference to the numbers of people living in socioeconomic poverty.

    I never said anything about that so, of the two of us, the only one conflating the issues is you. In fact, I've been quite clear that the issues can be dealt with separately.


  • #3978
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    No, no I don't? I understand that she doesn't want either, but given that one outcome is at least inevitable, obviously she has reasons why she wants to avoid the inevitable, and the most common reasons given are socioeconomic reasons. Tackle the underlying socioeconomic reasons and then you change the inevitable outcome.





    Their liberal regime for one thing. I also don't agree with you that they have an extremely well run family centred society but that's entirely a matter of perspective. I don't imagine we're ever likely to see eye to eye on what we consider to be an extremely well run family centred society, but I would say that Ireland is a lot closer to that ideal from my perspective at least, than Sweden will ever be.

    No, you don't change the inevitable outcome though Jack, no amount of money or supports would encourage me to have another child if I accidentally got pregnant, full stop.

    There are also women who never want to have a child and given that contraception is at best 99% reliable chance are high that they will get pregnant once in a lifetime.

    Okay I will concede that there are cases whereby better/cheaper childcare, more maternity/paternity leave etc. would help prevent abortion it doesn't lead to the big leap you're making that everyone who doesn't want to have an abortion and doesn't want to be pregnant can be enticed into thinking pregnancy is the better option.

    I'm not sure where you get your idea of Swedish society from but I get it from my brother who lives there. They get completely free childcare from birth, his wife was fully paid during her maternity leave and he got a years paternity leave also. That's where I'm coming from, I would certainly call that family centred. How you think Ireland is better than that with 2 years free childcare for a half day during school terms is beyond me.

    If by liberal regime you mean they allow abortion well that's one we'll have to agree to disagree on.


  • #3979
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Abortions will have to free for all of for none. If it's means tested the state will be accused of social engineering and genocide of the poor.


  • #3980
    Odhinn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,458 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    splinter65 wrote: »
    In a report a posted earlier in the thread, when ladies arranging to have an abortion in the state of Minnesota for example where asked to pick from around 15 options as to why they were terminatIng, 68% picked “inconvenient”.
    In some states it was higher.

    You wouldn't happen to have a source for that, would you?


  • #3981
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I saw someone claim that in 92% of abortions, women had ticked Inconvenient, but they never provided the report they were referencing and the material they did provide didn't include Inconvenient as a reason at all. It was a judgement the article's author made which the poster then repeated as fact while also misattributing the source.

    It was myself posted the report.
    I actually posted it twice. If you look back through my posts on this thread you will see it.
    Minnesota was an example I gave as lots of ladies seemed willing to complete the form, which wasn’t compulsory.
    It makes interesting reading.


  • Advertisement
  • #3982
    Odhinn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,458 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    splinter65 wrote: »
    It was myself posted the report.
    I actually posted it twice. If you look back through my posts on this thread you will see it.
    Minnesota was an example I gave as lots of ladies seemed willing to complete the form, which wasn’t compulsory.
    It makes interesting reading.

    I'm looking at the results from minnesota and there is no "incovenient" option to select. The highest percentile is for "do not want children now". You might tell me where to find what you were looking at

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html


  • #3983
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,914 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    splinter65 wrote: »
    It was myself posted the report.
    I actually posted it twice. If you look back through my posts on this thread you will see it.
    Minnesota was an example I gave as lots of ladies seemed willing to complete the form, which wasn’t compulsory.
    It makes interesting reading.


    except none of the women selected inconvenience as the reason because inconvenience was not offered as an option. Inconvenience was the term used by the website you linked to. Perhaps agenda driven. the actiual options were

    elective
    --too young/immature/not ready for responsibility
    --economic
    --to avoid adjusting life
    --mother single or in poor relationship
    --enough children already
    --sex selection
    --selective reduction 98.3% (87-99 %)
    --? (32 %)
    --30% (25-40 %)
    --? (16 %)
    --? (12-13 %)
    --? (4-8 %)
    --0.1% (<0.1-? %)
    --0.1% (<0.1-0.4 %)
    the original link is http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html


  • #3984
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Odhinn wrote: »
    You wouldn't happen to have a source for that, would you?

    Yes it was in a report I posted twice earlier in this thread Odhinn
    You just need to go back over my recent posts in this thread.
    Very interesting reading.


  • #3985
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,524 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Saying this was an either/or situation is exactly what you said:


    That wasn't what I never said I claimed. This is what I never said I claimed -

    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I'm stating that your claim that access to abortion takes away from other services is wrong.


    I never said abortion takes away from other services, I said in a society of finite resources, if we give more to one than the other, then we don't give the same amount of resources to the other. You might think I'm being picky, but if you didn't misinterpret what I said in the first place, I wouldn't have to be so picky.

    And you've given nothing to back up that suggestion, so I see no reason as to why it should be given any consideration.


    I've given plenty to back it up earlier in the thread, but just as you didn't give it any consideration then, I don't expect you would give it any consideration now even if I were to repeat myself, so if you're not going to waste your time, I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time.

    But even if you were right, given that we're already not properly dealing with those issues, the worst case scenario of removing the abortion ban is that the status quo would continue. At the very least, we'd be no worse off, and there would be nothing stopping us changing our approach in the future.


    That's your bar for social progress? "At least we're no worse off". Well, I'm not afraid to say it but that's a bit shìt tbh, I expect better for future generations tbh, and I expect that preparation to have started already, not at some indistinct point in the future when we look back on our past and say "Jaysis, they treated poor people like shìt back then, didn't they?".

    So, in summary;
    1 - Removing the abortion ban doesn't stop us addressing socioeconomic issues.
    2 - There's a suggestion that removing the ban means we won't address these issues, but a) we're not presently addressing those issues anyway, and b) there's nothing to back up this suggestion in the first place.
    3 - The logical outcome is that removing the abortion ban won't have any negative outcomes on addressing socioeconomic issues.


    It obviously does if the best you can say is "Well, at least we're not any worse", we are, and I've posted evidence to demonstrate that we are only repeating past mistakes in thinking abortion is a solution to anything.

    I never said anything about that so, of the two of us, the only one conflating the issues is you. In fact, I've been quite clear that the issues can be dealt with separately.


    I thought you weren't conflating them, which is why when you referred to the issues we have "in spades", I thought you were referring to the number of abortions carried out abroad in any given year, but then you corrected me and suggested you were conflating them -

    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Nice try, but I was referring to the social and economic issues that you're claiming we couldn't deal with if we allowed access to abortion, and I'm pointing out that we've had a ban on abortion for nearly 160 years yet we still have these issues.


    And as I already corrected you on, I'm not saying that we couldn't deal with them, I'm suggesting that we wouldn't, and we would have even less motivation to do so were our laws relating to abortion ever broadened in this country, because people tend to prefer short term solutions, and in desperate situations, desperate people tend to prefer even shorter term solutions, not so much an issue if you're well-educated and wealthy enough that your issue is the undesirable sight of undesirable people.

    Epitome of first world problems that is :pac:


    Anyway, I'll leave it there for now until this thread cycles back around again, and by then I might just be motivated to find the evidence I presented in the thread already.


  • #3986
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    splinter65 wrote: »
    It was myself posted the report.
    I actually posted it twice. If you look back through my posts on this thread you will see it.
    Minnesota was an example I gave as lots of ladies seemed willing to complete the form, which wasn’t compulsory.
    It makes interesting reading.

    You linked to the same material that the other poster linked to. So the point I made about his post applies to yours as well, namely that inconvenience is an opinion formed by the writer of that article and it's not an option offered to women who are having an abortion in Minnesota or anywhere else.


  • #3987
    Odhinn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,458 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Yes it was in a report I posted twice earlier in this thread Odhinn
    You just need to go back over my recent posts in this thread.
    Very interesting reading.

    The only report I found that you linked was the one I have above and nowhere in the options for minnesota is the option "inconvenient" offered. Could you please link to the report you're referrring to?


  • #3988
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I never said abortion takes away from other services, I said in a society of finite resources, if we give more to one than the other, then we don't give the same amount of resources to the other. You might think I'm being picky, but if you didn't misinterpret what I said in the first place, I wouldn't have to be so picky.



    splitting-hairs.jpg


  • #3989
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    The entire thread is very tiresome, since even the "pro-life" posters are mostly in favour of an abortion regime which requires that we repeal the 8th, and are arguing about entirely different matters, like what socio-economic reasons a woman might have for an elective abortion.

    This is entirely beside the point. First we have to repeal the 8th.


  • #3990
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    1) A fetus that is in no way a sentient entity is a "human life" in taxonomy terms alone, and little else. There is nothing wrong with terminating it therefore that I can see. And what peoples reasons are for doing so should therefore be none of your business at all. Let alone to "validate" anything.

    it is a life with the potential to be sentient. therefore deciding life based on sentients alone is not valid in this instance.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    2) Sentience should be the point when arbitrary reasons for ending the life of another are no longer relevant. At this point there is a valid basis for concerning oneself morally and ethically with the well being of the entity involved.

    in the case of brain death where one is not going to recover, yes . that point is valid. however in the case of the unborn where sentients is likely, then sentients cannot be the reason for ending the life being no longer valid, pre-sentients has to be the reason, hence we cannot allow abortion on demand within the state.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Then don't. No one, that I can see anyway, is demanding that you do. There is no reason you should feel compelled to do it. But YOUR abhorrence to that choice is not a valid basis for claiming no one else should be making it. And it would be nice to live in a world where people wishing to prevent other people from doing something, could put together a coherent reason for that other than the usual cop out I hear of "I have a right to my opinion/vote".

    the fact that it is a life which will become sentient is absolutely a reason to prevent abortion on demand from happening within the irish state.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Except the options available to them SHOULD be different and are. That is the topic of the entire thread. Abortion should be an option one has, and the other does not. And it IS an option one has, and the other has not. The issue is just the pointless and damaging geographic and economic lengths they have to go to to avail of it when it could be offered here ethically and relatively safely in a way that is cheaper and easier for the people concerned.

    it cannot be offered here ethically, as there is nothing ethical about abortion on demand. there is no good reason why it should be offered within the irish state, when those who really want it can already avail of it if they really wish to.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Except "Human life" can mean many things in many contexts. And your pretense that this is not so is not going to make all those meanings go away. A fetus at, say, 12 weeks is "Human life" in terms of taxonomy alone really. The same can not be said about, say, a toddler.

    Your whole point on this thread seems a fabricated narrative based on pretending the catch all term "human life" is equally applicable in all contexts. But it really isn't and I doubt many are fooled by it except, possibly, yourself as I genuinely can not tell if you are trying to fool WITH that move or have yourself been fooled BY that move. Or both.

    human life is human life. that is indisputable fact. that human life will become sentient and therefore has the right to be protected.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    And you have been told, and has this thread, many times what possible answers there are to that question. And my own answer, I have said 100s of times before, is that the moment we have solid reason to believe the fetus is a sentient agent....... we need more that arbitrary reasons to terminate it as it should have the same core right to life as any other sentient agent typifying it's species.

    and as has been said that isn't valid as sentients has to come from pre-sentients. therefore pre-sentients has to be given the same protection to allow for sentients to happen so that the would be sentient can become sentient.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #3991
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Oh it's back. FFS, was actually beginning to enjoy the conversation there for a while.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement