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…260261263265266…332

Comments

  • #7862
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    kylith wrote: »
    Abortion is not contraception. Abortion is one method of taking responsibility for the failure of contraception.
    JDD wrote: »
    Well, as a medical term, no, as conception has already occurred so nothing could be "contra" to it i.e. nothing can prevent something that has already occurred. I'm not a doctor but I guess a suggested medical term would be contragravidity, or something that prevents continuation of a pregnancy.

    So there you go. The Pill, condoms and the coil are methods of contraception. Abortion is a method of contragravidity. Does that help?

    As a medical term no but in reality it is being used as a form of birth control.

    Why do people object to using the term birth control or contraception?


  • #7863
    Andrew Beef
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 754 ✭✭✭Andrew Beef


    Semantics; everyone knows what is meant by the idea of abortion as a form of contraception.


  • #7864
    2wsxcde3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 380 ✭✭2wsxcde3


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    The scientific community have yet to pinpoint the exact moment sentience begins, but most medial and scientific professionals agree that it begins somewhere around 17 weeks gestation.
    This would be when I, personally, feel it becomes a suparate entity.

    This argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Sentient means "able to perceive or feel things". An organism doesn't have to be sentient to be a separate entity. The world is full of organisms that aren't sentient but are very much indeed separate entities.

    As a result, an unborn child can be considered a separate entity (even if it is not sentient).


  • #7865
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Andrew Beef wrote: »

    But my starting point is that a woman’s right to choose does not trump an unborn child’s right to life.

    No human right ever trumps another human right.

    Your right to life is superceded in certain situations, e.g. in certain countries for serious crimes, in times of war, in terms of particular jobs where people must put their own lives at risk, in times of starvation etc.

    Similarly, in certain situations the right to life of the unborn (is it really a child?) is superceded by the right to choose of the woman and the right to bodily integrity of a woman and the right to medical treatment of the woman. In other situations, the right to life of the unborn supercedes those rights.

    It is always so in the matter of competing rights, finding a balance appropriate to the current social situation is the objective.

    The mistaken belief of some that one right trumps the other (and both sides are full of these), and you are falling into the absolutist pro-life camp, is what causes the biggest problem in the debate.

    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    As for the stuff telling men to butt out and claiming that this is a women’s issue, it isn’t; this is a societal issue and both men and women must defend the unborn child against the angry mob of angry women led by the likes of a certain failed Labour politician and verbose Senator/lecturer.


    That is a lot of misogynist rubbish you have just posted and you should retract. I am a man, I am entitled to have my views on the issue and I do have my views. However, I am not entitled (and neither are you) to interfere with a woman's choice however limited or free that choice is.

    For example, we cannot interfere with a woman's choice to self-medicate and order pills over the internet, we cannot interfere with a woman's choice to travel. The question we have to ask ourselves as a society and as men who care for the wellbeing of women (after all they are at least as much alive as the unborn) is whether those are the choices we want to leave them with? Should my daughter have to take a flight to England if she is raped? Should my wife have to order a risky pill over the internet if she is too old to safely carry another child to term? Surely, as a society, we should be offering them better choices than that? Like it or not, this is not Ireland of the 1930s, of a type favoured by old-style FF republicans, where women can be controlled.

    Or do you just care about some tiny clump of cells not yet properly formed and not about real women? Very manly of you I would say.


  • #7866
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    2wsxcde3 wrote: »
    This argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Sentient means "able to perceive or feel things". An organism doesn't have to be sentient to be a separate entity. The world is full of organisms that aren't sentient but are very much indeed separate entities.

    As a result, an unborn child can be considered a separate entity (even if it is not sentient).

    Nope, sorry, while it depends on me to survive while it’s inside my body it isn’t separate. I already explained to you why a couple of pages back.

    Also, the irony of you saying my opinion doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Have you seen some of the posts you’ve made?!


  • Advertisement
  • #7867
    2wsxcde3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 380 ✭✭2wsxcde3


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Or do you just care about some tiny clump of cells not yet properly formed and not about real women? Very manly of you I would say.

    In fairness, you are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. Google a "12-week old foetus" to see they are not a "clump of cells" but in fact a very recognizable tiny human being.


  • #7868
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    ForestFire wrote: »
    So they do not know when it begins?

    What happens in 2 years time if they discovery it begins at 10 weeks?
    Do we update legislation to 10 weeks?

    What happens if they discover it happens at 5 weeks?
    Would you still be happy with abortion on request until 12 weeks or would you change your views?

    That isn’t going to happen. It categorically cannot happen at 5 weeks. Or 10. The most recent medical opinion I read suggested somewhere between 17 and 20 weeks, I’d be willing to trust that.

    And nothing will make me change my views - I should be afforded the same bodily autonomy as men are, end of.


  • #7869
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    amdublin, that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean that we need to legitimise it; let the perpetrators travel to the UK and criminalise them if they perform abortions in this jurisdiction. Just because the UK do something (e.g. permit abortion or leave the EU), does that mean we should too?!

    So that's grand, the women who can afford to travel will get their abortions, meanwhile, the women who can't afford them or the women who haven't got the right documents to travel to another jurisdiction (refugee's usually) can't.

    NIMBYISM. Are you just another EOTR bot?


  • #7870
    mrkiscool2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭mrkiscool2


    2wsxcde3 wrote: »
    This argument doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Sentient means "able to perceive or feel things". An organism doesn't have to be sentient to be a separate entity. The world is full of organisms that aren't sentient but are very much indeed separate entities.

    As a result, an unborn child can be considered a separate entity (even if it is not sentient).
    YAY! Science time, b1tches!

    As was mentioned, the earliest possibility of a fetus surviving outside of the womb, theoretically, is 17 weeks. That's because at week 17 the ability to exchange gas between the blood and lungs (respiration, which falls under homeostasis, one of the 7 key factors for something to be considered life) starts to happen. Now, normally this will take up to between week 20-24 for it to fully form, but the fetus is technically capable of exchanging some gas between blood at lungs at 17 weeks, so we'll say 17 weeks is the theoretical earliest this can happen.

    An organism isn't necessarily life by the way. Viruses are considered to be organisms but they do not classify as life. So, while you are correct in asserting that a zygote and/or fetus is an organism, it isn't a life. Now, onto your actual point. Is a parasite a separate entity? Is it a good separate entity? Should the host not have the option to rid itself of said entity? The answers are yes, no and yes.

    I'm not comparing a fetus to a parasite, I'm just using your argument to show how silly it is. Not all separate entities are fully separate. Without the womb of a woman, up until 17 weeks (at minimum), the fetus will not survive. An organism that can't survive itself should have absolutely no rights.


  • #7871
    2wsxcde3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 380 ✭✭2wsxcde3


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    Nope, sorry, while it depends on me to survive while it’s inside my body it isn’t separate. I already explained to you why a couple of pages back.

    Also, the irony of you saying my opinion doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Have you seen some of the posts you’ve made?!

    Yes, if i remember correctly you used the term "host" to refer to a mother carrying an unborn baby. I thought that was in bad taste tbh. Anyway using that analogy, isn't the earth a "host" for all of us. If I was put on the moon i would die in a minute. But just because i would die, and away from the "host" earth ...i don't magically no longer become a human being. I would still be a human being, albeit a dead human being on the moon.


  • Advertisement
  • #7872
    mrkiscool2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭mrkiscool2


    2wsxcde3 wrote: »
    Yes, if i remember correctly you used the term "host" to refer to a mother carrying an unborn baby. I thought that was in bad taste tbh. Anyway using that analogy, isn't the earth a "host" for all of us. If I was put on the moon i would die in a minute. But just because i would die, and away from the "host" earth ...i don't magically no longer become a human being. I would still be a human being, albeit a dead human being on the moon.
    Yeah, but a fetus isn't a human being as a human being is life and a fetus before 12 weeks isn't a life. It can't be scientifically classified as one.


  • #7873
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    Semantics; everyone knows what is meant by the idea of abortion as a form of contraception.

    Everyone knows it is impossible!


  • #7874
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    blanch152 wrote: »
    No human right ever trumps another human right.

    Your right to life is superceded in certain situations, e.g. in certain countries for serious crimes, in times of war, in terms of particular jobs where people must put their own lives at risk, in times of starvation etc.

    Similarly, in certain situations the right to life of the unborn (is it really a child?) is superceded by the right to choose of the woman and the right to bodily integrity of a woman and the right to medical treatment of the woman. In other situations, the right to life of the unborn supercedes those rights.

    It is always so in the matter of competing rights, finding a balance appropriate to the current social situation is the objective.

    The mistaken belief of some that one right trumps the other (and both sides are full of these), and you are falling into the absolutist pro-life camp, is what causes the biggest problem in the debate.





    That is a lot of misogynist rubbish you have just posted and you should retract. I am a man, I am entitled to have my views on the issue and I do have my views. However, I am not entitled (and neither are you) to interfere with a woman's choice however limited or free that choice is.

    For example, we cannot interfere with a woman's choice to self-medicate and order pills over the internet, we cannot interfere with a woman's choice to travel. The question we have to ask ourselves as a society and as men who care for the wellbeing of women (after all they are at least as much alive as the unborn) is whether those are the choices we want to leave them with? Should my daughter have to take a flight to England if she is raped? Should my wife have to order a risky pill over the internet if she is too old to safely carry another child to term? Surely, as a society, we should be offering them better choices than that? Like it or not, this is not Ireland of the 1930s, of a type favoured by old-style FF republicans, where women can be controlled.

    Or do you just care about some tiny clump of cells not yet properly formed and not about real women? Very manly of you I would say.

    There are alot of "rights" being cited on this thread which are not contained in any constitution or declaration - that I am aware of.

    Correct in that this is not the Ireland of the 1930's and there are contraceptive and medical options available to avoid unwanted pregnancy so there appears to be less of an argument for abortion in modern Irish society than there was in the 1930's.


  • #7875
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    That isn’t going to happen. It categorically cannot happen at 5 weeks. Or 10. The most recent medical opinion I read suggested somewhere between 17 and 20 weeks, I’d be willing to trust that.

    And nothing will make me change my views - I should be afforded the same bodily autonomy as men are, end of.


    I must say I have to disagree with you. Your right to bodily autonomy will never be the same as a man's, unless they find some way of allowing men to become pregnant and carry a baby.

    At some stage in a pregnancy, the right to life of the unborn supercedes the right to bodily autonomy of a woman. If a woman decides at 35 weeks pregnant that she no longer wants a baby just because, should that baby be aborted? I would say no. Should there be an induced birth? I would say no, as well, because the unborn baby (and at that stage it is an unborn baby) would have the right to the best chance of life which it gets by going to full-term.

    A woman has a right to choose, but like all choices in life, it isn't an unbridled or unrestricted choice, not a choice without consequences. So while I would support abortion for any reason up to 12-18 weeks (let the doctors advise on a limit), after that the right to choose is restricted and abortions should only be allowed on the grounds of FFA, other medical grounds or a risk to life or health of the mother.

    It may be harsh, but it you choose by 12 or 18 weeks, depending on the statutory limit, to keep your unborn child, your choice is made, there are other rights coming into play, not just the right to choose, not just the right to bodily integrity, and the balance of those rights swings away from your right to choose at that point in time.


  • #7876
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Brendan Eager Stud wrote: »
    There are alot of "rights" being cited on this thread which are not contained in any constitution or declaration - that I am aware of.

    Correct in that this is not the Ireland of the 1930's and there are contraceptive and medical options available to avoid unwanted pregnancy so there appears to be less of an argument for abortion in modern Irish society than there was in the 1930's.


    A right doesn't have to be in the constitution or in any declaration to be cited on a thread, or to be a valid right or valid consideration.


  • #7877
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    mrkiscool2 wrote: »
    Yeah, but a fetus isn't a human being as a human being is life and a fetus before 12 weeks isn't a life. It can't be scientifically classified as one.
    It is alive, and it is a genetically separate individual


  • #7878
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    2wsxcde3 wrote: »
    Yes, if i remember correctly you used the term "host" to refer to a mother carrying an unborn baby. I thought that was in bad taste tbh. Anyway using that analogy, isn't the earth a "host" for all of us. If I was put on the moon i would die in a minute. But just because i would die, and away from the "host" earth ...i don't magically no longer become a human being. I would still be a human being, albeit a dead human being on the moon.

    I couldn’t care less if you think it’s in bad taste.
    As someone who has lost a child I thought it was in very bad taste for you to lecture me about family plots and grave stones for 4 week old pregnancy the other day, but hey ho.

    I think you missed the point of what I was saying anyway. I’m talking about the point at which the fetus starts exhibiting human traits.
    Such as respiration at week 17, and sentience shortly after. At this point I consider it to be a separate being and entity.


  • #7879
    2wsxcde3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 380 ✭✭2wsxcde3


    mrkiscool2 wrote: »
    YAY! Science time, b1tches!

    As was mentioned, the earliest possibility of a fetus surviving outside of the womb, theoretically, is 17 weeks. That's because at week 17 the ability to exchange gas between the blood and lungs (respiration, which falls under homeostasis, one of the 7 key factors for something to be considered life) starts to happen. Now, normally this will take up to between week 20-24 for it to fully form, but the fetus is technically capable of exchanging some gas between blood at lungs at 17 weeks, so we'll say 17 weeks is the theoretical earliest this can happen.

    This argument has a major problem. Theoretically speaking, if in 20 years time, engineers can manufacture a self-sufficient incubator system that allows a foetus to be transferred from a woman to the incubator at, say 4 weeks (I'm not saying this would be a good idea, I would disagree with such an idea, but i'm just saying it from a theoretical point of view), then doesn't the baby become a separate entity and entitled to live?
    mrkiscool2 wrote: »
    An organism isn't necessarily life by the way. Viruses are considered to be organisms but they do not classify as life.

    If a bacteria was found on Mars tomorrow, the headlines in the scientific magazines would read "Life found on Mars".


  • #7880
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    2wsxcde3 wrote: »
    This argument has a major problem. Theoretically speaking, if in 20 years time, engineers can manufacture a self-sufficient incubator system that allows a foetus to be transferred from a woman to the incubator at, say 4 weeks (I'm not saying this would be a good idea, I would disagree with such an idea, but i'm just saying it from a theoretical point of view), then doesn't the baby become a separate entity and entitled to live?
    .

    Theoretically speaking, we will deal with that situation when it becomes a practical reality.


  • #7881
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I must say I have to disagree with you. Your right to bodily autonomy will never be the same as a man's, unless they find some way of allowing men to become pregnant and carry a baby.

    At some stage in a pregnancy, the right to life of the unborn supercedes the right to bodily autonomy of a woman. If a woman decides at 35 weeks pregnant that she no longer wants a baby just because, should that baby be aborted? I would say no. Should there be an induced birth? I would say no, as well, because the unborn baby (and at that stage it is an unborn baby) would have the right to the best chance of life which it gets by going to full-term.

    A woman has a right to choose, but like all choices in life, it isn't an unbridled or unrestricted choice, not a choice without consequences. So while I would support abortion for any reason up to 12-18 weeks (let the doctors advise on a limit), after that the right to choose is restricted and abortions should only be allowed on the grounds of FFA, other medical grounds or a risk to life or health of the mother.

    It may be harsh, but it you choose by 12 or 18 weeks, depending on the statutory limit, to keep your unborn child, your choice is made, there are other rights coming into play, not just the right to choose, not just the right to bodily integrity, and the balance of those rights swings away from your right to choose at that point in time.

    I never once argued for late term abortion so I’m not sure where this is coming from tbh.

    I was speaking in the wider sense of the 8th - the ability to consent to medical procedures, to be able to avail of treatments that will help me before my illness becomes terminal etc. As we know it isn’t just about abortion.
    I’m happy with the proposal of a 12 week limit. For 99% of cases the 12 weeks will be enough for a woman to make her choice.
    So yeah.... not sure where that came from!


  • Advertisement
  • #7882
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    blanch152 wrote: »
    A right doesn't have to be in the constitution or in any declaration to be cited on a thread, or to be a valid right or valid consideration.

    Well the ECHR would tend to differ or can we just make up rights as we go along i.e. The right to choose?


  • #7883
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Brendan Eager Stud wrote: »
    Well the ECHR would tend to differ or can we just make up rights as we go along i.e. The right to choose?

    The right to choose is a basic human right enshrined in the democractic process. What use is freedom without the ability and the right to choose?


  • #7884
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    I never once argued for late term abortion so I’m not sure where this is coming from tbh.

    I was speaking in the wider sense of the 8th - the ability to consent to medical procedures, to be able to avail of treatments that will help me before my illness becomes terminal etc. As we know it isn’t just about abortion.
    I’m happy with the proposal of a 12 week limit. For 99% of cases the 12 weeks will be enough for a woman to make her choice.
    So yeah.... not sure where that came from!

    Then we are more or less in agreement.


  • #7885
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The right to choose is a basic human right enshrined in the democractic process. What use is freedom without the ability and the right to choose?

    Sounds great for a political thesis or a revolutionary manifesto but our choices are always limited when they impact another person. This is why we have laws prohibiting us from drinking & driving etc.


  • #7886
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,780 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    2wsxcde3 wrote: »
    If a bacteria was found on Mars tomorrow, the headlines in the scientific magazines would read "Life found on Mars".

    two things.

    1) Bacteria are very different from viruses. As the poster you quotes said , viruses aren't considered life by many people.

    2) Life does not mean human life and even human life doesn't mean sentient life. It's perfectly possible to grow human cells in a petri dish. So being alive and having human dna doesn't mean it's a person.

    The question about whether or not an embryo or foetus is alive doesn't matter. What counts is whether or not it counts as a human being / person.


  • #7887
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    ForestFire wrote: »
    So they do not know when it begins?

    What happens in 2 years time if they discovery it begins at 10 weeks?
    Do we update legislation to 10 weeks?

    That's the advantage of legislation, yes.


  • #7888
    2wsxcde3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 380 ✭✭2wsxcde3


    2wsxcde3 wrote: »
    Theoretically speaking, if in 20 years time, engineers can manufacture a self-sufficient incubator system that allows a foetus to be transferred from a woman to the incubator at, say 4 weeks (I'm not saying this would be a good idea, I would disagree with such an idea, but i'm just saying it from a theoretical point of view), then doesn't the baby become a separate entity and entitled to live?

    How would pro-choice individuals respond to the above proposal? The proposal allows for the following:
    • The woman can have a termination of the pregnancy (ie "termination of pregnancy" as in the transfer of the foetus to a self-sufficient incubator as early as 4 weeks).
    • The state pays for the procedure.
    • The procedure is open to all women on request.
    • The state absolves the woman (and father) of all financial responsibilities.
    • The state will provide adoptive parents for the child.
    • If the woman changes her mind, she can choose to keep the baby after it is born (born from the self-sufficient incubator).

    Aren't these the basic requirements of pro-choice people? I think this theoretical scenario (which could very well be within sciences ability in the next 20 years) shines some very uncomfortable light onto the mindset of some pro-choice people.


  • #7889
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    2wsxcde3 wrote: »
    How would pro-choice individuals respond to the above proposal? The proposal allows for the following:
    • The woman can have a termination of the pregnancy (ie "termination of pregnancy" as in the transfer of the foetus to a self-sufficient incubator as early as 4 weeks).
    • The state pays for the procedure.
    • The procedure is open to all women on request.
    • The state absolves the woman (and father) of all financial responsibilities.
    • The state will provide adoptive parents for the child.
    • If the woman changes her mind, she can choose to keep the baby after it is born (born from the self-sufficient incubator).

    Aren't these the basic requirements of pro-choice people? I think this theoretical scenario (which could very well be within sciences ability in the next 20 years) shines some very uncomfortable light onto the mindset of some pro-choice people.

    I would agree to this.
    If it was possible at 4 weeks absolutely

    I would still repeal the 8th though, as it puts women & their health at risk.


  • #7890
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    2wsxcde3 wrote: »
    How would pro-choice individuals respond to the above proposal? The proposal allows for the following:
    • The woman can have a termination of the pregnancy (ie "termination of pregnancy" as in the transfer of the foetus to a self-sufficient incubator as early as 4 weeks).
    • The state pays for the procedure.
    • The procedure is open to all women on request.
    • The state absolves the woman (and father) of all financial responsibilities.
    • The state will provide adoptive parents for the child.
    • If the woman changes her mind, she can choose to keep the baby after it is born (born from the self-sufficient incubator).

    Aren't these the basic requirements of pro-choice people? I think this theoretical scenario (which could very well be within sciences ability in the next 20 years) shines some very uncomfortable light onto the mindset of some pro-choice people.

    Its great, repeal the eighth and campaign for that, after all the govt will have the right to legislate for that if the referendum is passed!


  • Advertisement
  • #7891
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    2wsxcde3 wrote: »
    How would pro-choice individuals respond to the above proposal? The proposal allows for the following:
    • The woman can have a termination of the pregnancy (ie "termination of pregnancy" as in the transfer of the foetus to a self-sufficient incubator as early as 4 weeks).
    • The state pays for the procedure.
    • The procedure is open to all women on request.
    • The state absolves the woman (and father) of all financial responsibilities.
    • The state will provide adoptive parents for the child.
    • If the woman changes her mind, she can choose to keep the baby after it is born (born from the self-sufficient incubator).

    Aren't these the basic requirements of pro-choice people? I think this theoretical scenario (which could very well be within sciences ability in the next 20 years) shines some very uncomfortable light onto the mindset of some pro-choice people.

    I'd have no issue with this either but seeing as it's the stuff of sci-fi why are you bothering to bring it up? We have to deal with what we have.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement