Abortion debate thread

OldNotWIse · 17-07-2013 02:48PM

eireannBEAR wrote: »

well are you a mom or dad??? because you have posted before that you were not,what are you getting at here??

Of what relevance is my parental status?

HurtLocker · 17-07-2013 02:51PM

eireannBEAR wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fman-seeks-to-stop-partner-travelling-to-uk-for-abortion-1.1466364&ei=g5fmUeGKKvOP7Aaxv4GYDw&usg=AFQjCNFMGgWbFJMM8CQuF7gAjOrkmGivYQ&sig2=HLmyL3nDVxwCZmm14hqbxg&bvm=bv.49405654,d.ZGU

this what pro-choice want,high court case of man trying to save his babies life.

Yes it's well documented that the pro choice side are against inter racial relationships and their potential offspring , supports the white family's right to ignore the existence of such relatesonships. Haven't you read our placards and listened to our mottos. Jeesh.

HurtLocker · 17-07-2013 02:59PM

eireannBEAR wrote: »

why do you even have an issue with abortion or pregnancy?

this law wont affect you,it affects moms and dads.

Great Pro choice statement above

. A completely liberal abortion won't affect one single pro life couple. Not one.It will however stop the need for couples to leave this country in the case of a one of the couple being raped or when the foetus has fatal abnormalities.

But hi, an athiest couple aborting a baby conceived through rape with foetal foetal abnormalitys and the women is suicidal seems to vastly affect members of Youth Defence and the non secular Catholic Church members.

Benny_Cake · 17-07-2013 03:33PM

eireannBEAR wrote: »

well are you a mom or dad??? because you have posted before that you were not,what are you getting at here??

Mod note: The parental status of other posters is irrelevant here. Don't make this personal.

maguic24 · 17-07-2013 03:52PM

eireannBEAR wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fman-seeks-to-stop-partner-travelling-to-uk-for-abortion-1.1466364&ei=g5fmUeGKKvOP7Aaxv4GYDw&usg=AFQjCNFMGgWbFJMM8CQuF7gAjOrkmGivYQ&sig2=HLmyL3nDVxwCZmm14hqbxg&bvm=bv.49405654,d.ZGU

this what pro-choice want,high court case of man trying to save his babies life.

This is not what pro-choice want! Read the case!!!

My heart goes out to this couple and I, for one, certainly do not agree with any woman being forced to abort her child or forced to carry her child if she does not want to! Why is that so hard to understand? PRO-CHOICE, the important word in this sentence being CHOICE! If you are being coerced into an abortion, then you don't have a choice. Are you taking notes?

shruikan2553 · 17-07-2013 05:57PM

Is it hard for people to understand that pro-CHOICE (look at this word carefully, it becomes important) want people to be able to choose weather not to have an abortion and see forcing a woman to do either is wrong?

I suppose having to use the term pro-aborts may cause difficulties .

lmaopml · 19-07-2013 10:55PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Is it hard for people to understand that pro-CHOICE (look at this word carefully, it becomes important) want people to be able to choose weather not to have an abortion and see forcing a woman to do either is wrong?

I suppose having to use the term pro-aborts may cause difficulties .

With respect, if you could cross the chasm that divides people as regards their opinion towards their 'unborn' and whether they are 'disposable' or no - and simply look at Irish Law.

It protects the life of the unborn child - this is the status quo. You may not like it, you may think it's daft, but that is exactly what it does, because the people wanted it that way. This is Constitutional.

At the moment, I believe we have a population that would be more than supportive of what has already occurred numerous times in this country i.e to save the life of the mother and child without discrimination.

To treat both, but in treating the mother for any ailment during her pregnancy if she wishes treatment and the result is that the child dies, than this is not considered 'abortion'. Or 'termination' of life.

THIS is the legislation that the Irish Government were under pressure to enforce, no more and no less - to protect Doctors making a decision within law and to protect women knowing that treating them may involve losing their child.

This IS Constitutional.

So, moving on...

Therefore, in order to protect Doctors making decisions we legislate to protect them 'making those decisions' - We're fine now - because the population are behind ethical decisions and life and death decisions that doctors make every single day, and this has happened all over the country for very many years that women are treated and they may lose a child and miss carry..

Now, move on to what is being 'proposed' by our minister for health apparently all on his own behind a whip of some magnitude, he seems to have the formula down that covers the people of Ireland without consulting them at all -

This legislation has 'never' been put to the Irish people in blunt terms, that a person presenting as 'suicidal' covers abortion.

It's been pretty clearly presented that abortion is not a treatment for suicide - it's important to let that sink in - it is NOT a treatment for suicide.

Yet, even though Irish people would like to protect medics etc. making life saving decisions, and should it be put to the people that way - which apparently the supreme court thought it was???? but somehow 'suicide' entered' the equation versus the life of the child, which is a Constitutional protected life!

Our government have blatantly said that despite the evidence they, or at least those whipped into place would prefer to disregard that evidence...

Whether one believes that a woman has a free choice and all life within the womb is merely disposable - or whether one values all life I would be pissed off -

Which clearly people are, some think it doesn't go far enough, and others believe it is in direct conflict with Irish opinion and the Constitution.

I think a referendum would put an end to this debate, and I for one would welcome it, rather than having a one man band in Government with a whip on their employees, with the latest journalist opinion who thinks the whole of the country listens in.

Irish people don't buy an opinion, I would hope. Malta, Cyprus and Ireland protect the unborn child and don't reduce them to sub-humans, or disposable.

Some may consider this the 'backlands' - I think they are the solid thinkers of the lot, and many others do too and are looking on.

19-07-2013 11:05PM

lmaopml wrote: »

This legislation has 'never' been put to the Irish people in blunt terms, that a person presenting as 'suicidal' covers abortion.

Yeah, I'm going to have to stop you right there. That is exactly what the referendum on the Twelfth Amendment was.

lmaopml · 19-07-2013 11:23PM

28064212 wrote: »

Yeah, I'm going to have to stop you right there. That is exactly what the referendum on the Twelfth Amendment was.

Elaborate? What was the wording?

...and who ultimately interpreted it?

shruikan2553 · 19-07-2013 11:48PM

lmaopml wrote: »

With respect, if you could cross the chasm that divides people as regards their opinion towards their 'unborn' and whether they are 'disposable' or no - and simply look at Irish Law.

It protects the life of the unborn child - this is the status quo. You may not like it, you may think it's daft, but that is exactly what it does, because the people wanted it that way. This is Constitutional.

At the moment, I believe we have a population that would be more than supportive of what has already occurred numerous times in this country i.e to save the life of the mother and child without discrimination.

To treat both, but in treating the mother for any ailment during her pregnancy if she wishes treatment and the result is that the child dies, than this is not considered 'abortion'. Or 'termination' of life.

THIS is the legislation that the Irish Government were under pressure to enforce, no more and no less - to protect Doctors making a decision within law and to protect women knowing that treating them may involve losing their child.

This IS Constitutional.
So, moving on...

Therefore, in order to protect Doctors making decisions we legislate to protect them 'making those decisions' - We're fine now - because the population are behind ethical decisions and life and death decisions that doctors make every single day, and this has happened all over the country for very many years that women are treated and they may lose a child and miss carry..

I agree, abortion has been legal in ireland for years, the problem was that there wasnt clear guidelines for doctors of what was or wasnt allowed.

lmaopml wrote: »

Now, move on to what is being 'proposed' by our minister for health apparently all on his own behind a whip of some magnitude, he seems to have the formula down that covers the people of Ireland without consulting them at all -

As a rebublic we put forward people to represent us so there isnt a need for us to have a vote on every issue, instead the people we put forward to do this task does it.

lmaopml wrote: »

This legislation has 'never' been put to the Irish people in blunt terms, that a person presenting as 'suicidal' covers abortion.

It's been pretty clearly presented that abortion is not a treatment for suicide - it's important to let that sink in - it is NOT a treatment for suicide.

Everyone reacts different in different circumstances. Could a woman just have an abortion and feel better? No. But in certain situations could it partially help along with other treatment? Probably.

lmaopml wrote: »

Yet, even though Irish people would like to protect medics etc. making life saving decisions, and should it be put to the people that way - which apparently the supreme court thought it was???? but somehow 'suicide' entered' the equation versus the life of the child, which is a Constitutional protected life!

Our government have blatantly said that despite the evidence they, or at least those whipped into place would prefer to disregard that evidence...

Whether one believes that a woman has a free choice and all life within the womb is merely disposable - or whether one values all life I would be pissed off -

Which clearly people are, some think it doesn't go far enough, and others believe it is in direct conflict with Irish opinion and the Constitution.

I think a referendum would put an end to this debate, and I for one would welcome it, rather than having a one man band in Government with a whip on their employees, with the latest journalist opinion who thinks the whole of the country listens in.

Irish people don't buy an opinion, I would hope. Malta, Cyprus and Ireland protect the unborn child and don't reduce them to sub-humans, or disposable.

Some may consider this the 'backlands' - I think they are the solid thinkers of the lot, and many others do too and are looking on.

But what about the womans rights? At what stage should the right of the unborn take precedence over a fully living human walking amongst us? Is it "unborn" at conception, implantation or some other stage? Does contraception or he morning after pill breach these constitutional rights? The constitution can also be changed, women used to hold a special place in the family home according to it.

Abortion isnt just about the unborn, there is a woman involved too who is often forgotten about by the pro life side and treated as some sort of incubator with no say.

lmaopml · 20-07-2013 12:03AM

Abortion isnt just about the unborn, there is a woman involved too who is often forgotten about by the pro life side and treated as some sort of incubator with no say.

I'm sorry I cut your post, but I think this is the most pertinent point.

There are also women who don't see themselves as merely 'incubators' no way no how - but that giving life to another 'human' is part and parcel of our natural way.

We don't 'weigh' - we're not asking for anybody to reduce the child we carry as less than 'human' in order to 'weigh' their life - we've seen the consequences of this world over already - we're quite informed.

..and absolutely pro-women - because that is what we are. Abortion is imposed in some parts of the globe and women aborted when the child is known to be a female.

Pro-abortion in Ireland? No.

I'm a mum, a woman and not in the least seen as the scary God Mother, in fact I'm probably looked on as it - but you know what, there is a hell of a good reason why we aren't the same as everybody else in many other countries....and I'm not embarrassed about it in the least, because we're not others, we're Irish women.

Corkfeen · 20-07-2013 12:06AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Elaborate? What was the wording?

...and who ultimately interpreted it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_1992

They attempted to prevent suicide from being a sufficient threat to one's life and the Irish public did not agree. So it's very much constitutional. The President will likely send it to the Supreme Court to avoid the eventual challenge of its constitutionality. I'm comfortable in saying that it is constitutional and it has the full support of the Irish public.

Pro Hoc Vice · 20-07-2013 12:13AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Elaborate? What was the wording?

...and who ultimately interpreted it?

The wording "It shall be unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction."

The people rejected it so the people ultimately interpreted it.

shruikan2553 · 20-07-2013 12:20AM

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm sorry I cut your post, but I think this is the most pertinent point.

There are also women who don't see themselves as merely 'incubators' no way no how - but that giving life to another 'human' is part and parcel of our natural way.

Those women tend to be the ones who want to have a child.

So if the baby is born pre mature and gets medical attention is that taking away from the natural way?

lmaopml wrote: »

..and absolutely pro-women - because that is what we are. Abortion is imposed in some parts of the globe and women aborted when the child is known to be a female.

And that has what relevance in Ireland?

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm a mum, a woman and not in the least seen as the scary God Mother, in fact I'm probably looked on as it - but you know what, there is a hell of a good reason why we aren't the same as everybody else in many other countries....and I'm not embarrassed about it in the least, because we're not others, we're Irish women.

And women in some countries are treated like property, but thats ok because they just arent like the rest of the world.

What is so special about Irish women that differentiates them from the rest of the world? They have to travel to the UK for an abortion?

lmaopml · 20-07-2013 12:25AM

Corkfeen wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_1992

They attempted to prevent suicide from being a sufficient threat to one's life and the Irish public did not agree. So it's very much constitutional. The President will likely send it to the Supreme Court to avoid the eventual challenge of its constitutionality. I'm comfortable in saying that it is constitutional and it has the full support of the Irish public.

I'm comfortable putting it to the Irish people too, and I disagree that it was clear that the threat of suicide was endorsed as a means to terminate a life in any referendum put to the people

- especially when it does not 'in fact' contribute to a treatment as regards somebody who is 'suicidal', but can in fact exaggerate their symptoms.

It's not a treatment - that's the truth.

- if it's clear and straight this referendum, and not some Lisbon thing - which most likely it will be played down as not 'loaded' but beneficial - Lisbon mark II couldn't compare with all the jobs etc. we've enjoyed thus far.

If it happens - heck I'll live here but live different to others and still be Christian and be very happy to do so - and believe me, I know a friend who had an abortion too - and I love her and always will.

I still think that our Government would have sold out the unborn and by extension every single would be mother.

Pro Hoc Vice · 20-07-2013 12:31AM

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm comfortable putting it to the Irish people too, and I disagree that it was clear that the threat of suicide was endorsed as a means to terminate a life in any referendum put to the people

- especially when it does not 'in fact' contribute to a treatment as regards somebody who is 'suicidal', but can in fact exaggerate their symptoms.

It's not a treatment - that's the truth.

- if it's clear and straight this referendum, and not some Lisbon thing - which most likely it will be played down as not 'loaded' but beneficial - Lisbon mark II couldn't compare with all the jobs etc. we've enjoyed thus far.

If it happens - heck I'll live here but live different to others and still be Christian and be very happy to do so - and believe me, I know a friend who had an abortion too - and I love her and always will.

I still think that our Government would have sold out the unborn and by extension every single would be mother.

No what was put before the Irish People in 1992 was a text to remove suicide as a reason for an abortion. I will again quote the text, it is really really clear.

"It shall be unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction."

Remember there was 3 amendments to the constitution that day, freedom to travel passed 62%, freedom of information passed 60% and the above amendment rejected by 65% So any claim the people did not understand is rubbish.

lmaopml · 20-07-2013 12:43AM

infosys wrote: »

No what was put before the Irish People in 1992 was a text to remove suicide as a reason for an abortion. I will again quote the text, it is really really clear.

"It shall be unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction."

Remember there was 3 amendments to the constitution that day, freedom to travel passed 62%, freedom of information passed 60% and the above amendment rejected by 65% So any claim the people did not understand is rubbish.

I'm not a law buff - are you saying that people 'understood' and that freedom to travel passed, freedom of information 'passed', and what was rejected? What happened in 2005?

I've been told pretty much that Irish people already voted that if a woman presented as suicidal to her medic that Irish people thought that was 'ok' to have an abortion and the state are just doing their 'duty'? Is this the case?

Corkfeen · 20-07-2013 12:48AM

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm comfortable putting it to the Irish people too, and I disagree that it was clear that the threat of suicide was endorsed as a means to terminate a life in any referendum put to the people

- especially when it does not 'in fact' contribute to a treatment as regards somebody who is 'suicidal', but can in fact exaggerate their symptoms.

It's not a treatment - that's the truth.

- if it's clear and straight this referendum, and not some Lisbon thing - which most likely it will be played down as not 'loaded' but beneficial - Lisbon mark II couldn't compare with all the jobs etc. we've enjoyed thus far.

If it happens - heck I'll live here but live different to others and still be Christian and be very happy to do so - and believe me, I know a friend who had an abortion too - and I love her and always will.

I still think that our Government would have sold out the unborn and by extension every single would be mother.

I've yet to see anyone describe it as a treatment for suicide besides the prolife side... The Irish public were given the choice to remove suicide as a reason twice, what you are effectively saying is ignore that because you don't believe the public was aware of it.

Some news stories from around the period of the second referendum indicates that we were very much aware of what we were voting on. The public support for legislating is currently at an all time high by the way so there appears to be no legitimate reason to run another referendum besides country being dictated to by prolife groups.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/08/world/irish-voters-reject-broader-ban-on-abortions.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1856348.stm

Pro Hoc Vice · 20-07-2013 12:56AM

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm not a law buff - are you saying that people 'understood' and that freedom to travel passed, freedom of information 'passed', and what was rejected? What happened in 2005?

I've been told pretty much that Irish people already voted that if a woman presented as suicidal to her medic that Irish people thought that was 'ok' to have an abortion and the state are just doing their 'duty'? Is this the case?

No it is not the case, the situation is in simple terms, Ireland had and had a law that made abortion a criminal Act, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In response to a growing number of countries legislating for abortion the 1983 amendment passed. In 1992 the SC said in interpreting that amendment that as the mother right to life was equal to the child if her life was at risk she could abort including a risk of suicide. To clarify the law the Government proposed 3 amendments, 1 the right to travel for an abortion passed, 2 the right to information about abortion passed the third was to remove suicide as a reason to get an abortion rejected. There was another attempt to remove suicide in 2002 this one was narrowly rejected.

2005 referendum ha nothing to do with abortion it was the rejection of the EU constitution, that was later dropped as France and the Netherlands also rejected it. In 2008 ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty but passed it in 2009.

lmaopml · 20-07-2013 01:01AM

infosys wrote: »

No it is not the case, the situation is in simple terms, Ireland had and had a law that made abortion a criminal Act, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In response to a growing number of countries legislating for abortion the 1983 amendment passed. In 1992 the SC said in interpreting that amendment that as the mother right to life was equal to the child if her life was at risk she could abort including a risk of suicide. To clarify the law the Government proposed 3 amendments, 1 the right to travel for an abortion passed, 2 the right to information about abortion passed the third was to remove suicide as a reason to get an abortion rejected.

2005 referendum ha nothing to do with abortion it was the rejection of the EU constitution, that was later dropped as France and the Netherlands also rejected it. In 2008 ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty but passed it in 2009.

Cheers Infosys - I had a feeling I never voted on this...:)

20-07-2013 10:02AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Elaborate? What was the wording?

You could have just googled. The Irish people, after the X case ruling, were asked if they wanted to add the words "not being a risk of self-destruction" to Article 40.3.3.

lmaopml wrote: »

...and who ultimately interpreted it?

The Irish people, obviously enough. Fortunately, the wording was explicit and plain as day. If you can provide some other interpretation, I'm all ears

lmaopml · 22-07-2013 12:59AM

28064212 wrote: »

You could have just googled. The Irish people, after the X case ruling, were asked if they wanted to add the words "not being a risk of self-destruction" to Article 40.3.3.

The Irish people, obviously enough. Fortunately, the wording was explicit and plain as day. If you can provide some other interpretation, I'm all ears

Apologies, I was abroad for years, however as I read the Constitution it does indeed protect the life of the unborn as a 'Constitutional' right to life too, which is painfully at odds with their 'lack' of such rights.

It seems as though three amendments where put to people at the same time, the right to information, the right to travel, and also the insertion of this 'text' which has been interpreted as 'suicidal' tendencies by the SC.

22-07-2013 09:25AM

lmaopml wrote: »

It seems as though three amendments where put to people at the same time, the right to information, the right to travel, and also the insertion of this 'text' which has been interpreted as 'suicidal' tendencies by the SC.

Again, incorrect. The original article, 40.3.3, enacted in 1983 is what grants the right to abortion where there is a real and substantial risk to the woman's life, including the risk of suicide. This is how the Supreme Court ruled on the X Case in 1992. And it's not an "interpretation", it's a definition, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the constitution.

After the X Case, a referendum was run which specifically asked if the people wanted to exclude the right to an abortion in the case of suicide. They said no. There is no confusion on this point. The right to an abortion when suicide poses a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother has been ruled on and voted on. The fact that it has taken 21 years for legislation to be enacted to enable that right is a disgrace, and a slap in the face to democracy from every government since then

Pro Hoc Vice · 22-07-2013 09:42AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Cheers Infosys - I had a feeling I never voted on this...:)

Anyone who voted for the 1983 change,voted to include suicide, as that was how the SC interpreted the wording in 1992. For anyone to say they did not know that would happen, well lots of lawyers told the country the wording was ambiguous and was unnecessary or should be changed.

http://www.savitaslaws.com/1/post/2012/11/videowilliam-binchy-v-mary-robinson-1983-pro-life-referendum.html

William Binchy clearly said in 1983 that the X case could not happen, Mary Robinson said it could who was proved correct.

sunshine and showers · 22-07-2013 11:12AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Apologies, I was abroad for years, however as I read the Constitution it does indeed protect the life of the unborn as a 'Constitutional' right to life too, which is painfully at odds with their 'lack' of such rights.

It seems as though three amendments where put to people at the same time, the right to information, the right to travel, and also the insertion of this 'text' which has been interpreted as 'suicidal' tendencies by the SC.

No text has been inserted into Article 40.3.3 in relation to suicide. The Article is exactly the same as it was in 1983, except for clarifications re the right to travel and the right to access information about abortions in other jurisdictions.

40.3.3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right. <---same as 1983

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

Frito · 22-07-2013 11:11PM

lmaopml wrote: »

It's not a treatment - that's the truth.

I agree with you, and as far as I'm aware, the only people who say it is are those who disagree with abortion.

Suicidality is not an illness in it's own right, moreso we try to alleviate or risk manage it.

When it occurs in the context of depression, we treat the underlying depressive disorder.
When it occurs in the context of addiction, we offer rehab programmes.
When it occurs in the context of personality problems we offer therapy and promote adaptive coping strategies.
Etc.

My point is that when suicidality occurs, we look beyond the suicidality to the issue that contributes, and try to resolve it. In the context of an unwanted pregnancy causing suicidality, it makes sense to resolve the underlying issue of not wanting to be pregnant.

As an aside, when woman regret their abortions, we offer compassion and help. We don't say "well, you should've though of that before you had one" or hold them up as poster women for restricted abortion.

Morbert · 03-11-2013 03:16AM

An interesting ad in the Irish times.

http://www.thejournal.ie/bpas-abortion-ireland-1155918-Nov2013/?utm_source=shortlink

Pro Hoc Vice · 03-11-2013 03:36AM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

No text has been inserted into Article 40.3.3 in relation to suicide. The Article is exactly the same as it was in 1983, except for clarifications re the right to travel and the right to access information about abortions in other jurisdictions.

No but the article has been interpreted as it was predicted.

_Redzer_ · 03-11-2013 03:43PM

Morbert wrote: »

An interesting ad in the Irish times.

http://www.thejournal.ie/bpas-abortion-ireland-1155918-Nov2013/?utm_source=shortlink

Good. Time ads like these hammer home the point until the people and government cop onto themselves and join the 21st century. It's well overdue.

Manach · 03-11-2013 06:50PM

Morbert wrote: »

An interesting ad in the Irish times.

Shrugs, a business looking for clients.

Abortion debate thread

Comments