Abortion

[BreezeWood]

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft of its latest strategic plan, which will guide the agency from 2018 to 2022.

This is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. Health and Human Services is a government organization. Its actions should be evidence-based, not faith-based, and this decidedly unscientific language should be eliminated from its strategic plan.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

From a scientific perspective, life doesn't begin at any one point, it is a continuum. For HHS to define it as beginning at conception is a transparent attempt to justify restrictions on certain contraceptives as well as abortion. It may also have an unintended consequence: the restriction of infertility treatments, especially in vitro fertilization.


the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspective but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

 

[Chuz Life]

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft of its latest strategic plan, which will guide the agency from 2018 to 2022.

This is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. Health and Human Services is a government organization. Its actions should be evidence-based, not faith-based, and this decidedly unscientific language should be eliminated from its strategic plan.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

From a scientific perspective, life doesn't begin at any one point, it is a continuum. For HHS to define it as beginning at conception is a transparent attempt to justify restrictions on certain contraceptives as well as abortion. It may also have an unintended consequence: the restriction of infertility treatments, especially in vitro fertilization.


the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspective but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

Epic logic fail.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft of its latest strategic plan, which will guide the agency from 2018 to 2022.

This is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. Health and Human Services is a government organization. Its actions should be evidence-based, not faith-based, and this decidedly unscientific language should be eliminated from its strategic plan.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

From a scientific perspective, life doesn't begin at any one point, it is a continuum. For HHS to define it as beginning at conception is a transparent attempt to justify restrictions on certain contraceptives as well as abortion. It may also have an unintended consequence: the restriction of infertility treatments, especially in vitro fertilization.


the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspective but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

Epic logic fail.

Wrong – it’s perfectly logical and reasonable.

Indeed, each individual has the right to decide for himself when life begins consistent with his own good conscience and act accordingly, free from government intrusion and interference.

Moreover, prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ entitled to Constitutional protections – which explains why abortion is not ‘murder,’ where anyone who claims so is being a willfully ignorant demagogue.

 

[ding]

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft of its latest strategic plan, which will guide the agency from 2018 to 2022.

This is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. Health and Human Services is a government organization. Its actions should be evidence-based, not faith-based, and this decidedly unscientific language should be eliminated from its strategic plan.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

From a scientific perspective, life doesn't begin at any one point, it is a continuum. For HHS to define it as beginning at conception is a transparent attempt to justify restrictions on certain contraceptives as well as abortion. It may also have an unintended consequence: the restriction of infertility treatments, especially in vitro fertilization.


the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspective but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

Epic logic fail.

Wrong – it’s perfectly logical and reasonable.

Indeed, each individual has the right to decide for himself when life begins consistent with his own good conscience and act accordingly, free from government intrusion and interference.

Moreover, prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ entitled to Constitutional protections – which explains why abortion is not ‘murder,’ where anyone who claims so is being a willfully ignorant demagogue.

That’s bullshit. You don’t get to decide when human life begins. It begins the moment it comes into existence. So says science and DNA.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

I don't think this is true; not at all. I don't think science or medicine (much less the legal community or religious leaders) has a real firm grasp on this.

That’s bullshit. You don’t get to decide when human life begins. It begins the moment it comes into existence. So says science and DNA.

(COMMENT)

If we look at the bio-mechanics of pregnancy, about the

14. Week 21. A fetus has a (very slim) chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered.

[quote=''Dr Ricki Lewis PhD Genetics"]
My answer? #14. The ability to survive outside the body of another sets a practical, technological limit on defining when a sustainable human life begins. That limit may of course change.

Having a functional genome, tissue layers, a notochord, a beating heart … none of this matter if the organism cannot survive where humans survive.[/quote]​

SOURCE: DNA Science Blog When Does a Human Life Begin? 17 Timepoints • Posted October 3, 2013, by Ricki Lewis, PhD Genetics

Your position is not an immutable hard fact.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[BreezeWood]

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft of its latest strategic plan, which will guide the agency from 2018 to 2022.

This is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. Health and Human Services is a government organization. Its actions should be evidence-based, not faith-based, and this decidedly unscientific language should be eliminated from its strategic plan.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

From a scientific perspective, life doesn't begin at any one point, it is a continuum. For HHS to define it as beginning at conception is a transparent attempt to justify restrictions on certain contraceptives as well as abortion. It may also have an unintended consequence: the restriction of infertility treatments, especially in vitro fertilization.


the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspective but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

Epic logic fail.

.

Epic logic fail.

NBC News: Democrats win control of the House of Representatives

how is that chuz when the gov't for the past 2 years was controlled by your sympathizers, accomplishing nothing in regards to your favorite subject matter.

is that the epic fail you are referring to ...

never fear, nancy pelosi I am sure will take care of your concerns, just give her a call.

 

[ding]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

I don't think this is true; not at all. I don't think science or medicine (much less the legal community or religious leaders) has a real firm grasp on this.

That’s bullshit. You don’t get to decide when human life begins. It begins the moment it comes into existence. So says science and DNA.

(COMMENT)

If we look at the bio-mechanics of pregnancy, about the

14. Week 21. A fetus has a (very slim) chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered.

[quote=''Dr Ricki Lewis PhD Genetics"]
My answer? #14. The ability to survive outside the body of another sets a practical, technological limit on defining when a sustainable human life begins. That limit may of course change.

Having a functional genome, tissue layers, a notochord, a beating heart … none of this matter if the organism cannot survive where humans survive.​

​

SOURCE: DNA Science Blog When Does a Human Life Begin? 17 Timepoints • Posted October 3, 2013, by Ricki Lewis, PhD Genetics

Your position is not an immutable hard fact.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Human life isn’t defined by viability. Human life is defined by biology.

What else will you call it? It’s human from conception until death.

 

[Chuz Life]

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

Fetal

homicide.

Laws.


Just one of the many things that disprove your asinine assertions.


Why life doesn't begin at conception

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft of its latest strategic plan, which will guide the agency from 2018 to 2022.

This is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. Health and Human Services is a government organization. Its actions should be evidence-based, not faith-based, and this decidedly unscientific language should be eliminated from its strategic plan.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

From a scientific perspective, life doesn't begin at any one point, it is a continuum. For HHS to define it as beginning at conception is a transparent attempt to justify restrictions on certain contraceptives as well as abortion. It may also have an unintended consequence: the restriction of infertility treatments, especially in vitro fertilization.


the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspective but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

Epic logic fail.

Wrong – it’s perfectly logical and reasonable.

Indeed, each individual has the right to decide for himself when life begins consistent with his own good conscience and act accordingly, free from government intrusion and interference.

Moreover, prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person’ entitled to Constitutional protections – which explains why abortion is not ‘murder,’ where anyone who claims so is being a willfully ignorant demagogue.

 

[BreezeWood]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

I don't think this is true; not at all. I don't think science or medicine (much less the legal community or religious leaders) has a real firm grasp on this.

That’s bullshit. You don’t get to decide when human life begins. It begins the moment it comes into existence. So says science and DNA.

(COMMENT)

If we look at the bio-mechanics of pregnancy, about the

14. Week 21. A fetus has a (very slim) chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered.

[quote=''Dr Ricki Lewis PhD Genetics"]
My answer? #14. The ability to survive outside the body of another sets a practical, technological limit on defining when a sustainable human life begins. That limit may of course change.

Having a functional genome, tissue layers, a notochord, a beating heart … none of this matter if the organism cannot survive where humans survive.​

​

SOURCE: DNA Science Blog When Does a Human Life Begin? 17 Timepoints • Posted October 3, 2013, by Ricki Lewis, PhD Genetics

Your position is not an immutable hard fact.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Human life isn’t defined by viability. Human life is defined by biology.

What else will you call it? It’s human from conception until death.

.

Human life isn’t defined by viability. Human life is defined by biology.

you ignore the very reason abortion is permissible, the fetus can not sustain itself, is not a viable human being and you are attempting to require an adult that role against their will - no different than having a procedure for the same reason, a vasectomy that precludes viability.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, BreezeWood, et al,

I think our friend "BreezeWood" has put an entirely new class of nailed to the issue.

When society imposes a set of standards (a restriction based on a faith-based moral judgment) society is imposing a set of conditions known as "positive liberty." → A "negative liberty" is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints; the "positive liberty" is to place obstacles, barriers or constraints upon a person.

Society is placing a set of constraints: → IF and WHEN an abortion may take place. In this set of constraints, society does not care (places no obstacles, barriers or constraints) and voices no objections to the pregnancy and delivery of a child (a pregnancy that successfully comes to term); that is not to say that society had a choice to intervene if it so desired; or not to intervene. However, society does place obstacles, barriers or constraints on the termination of a pregnancy.

(QUESTIONS)

◈ On what "authority" (forget medical and legal interpretations) does a society have upon an individual freedom that forces an individual to forfeit the freedom (right) of self-determination on the matter of a pregnancy?

✧ What burden or interferrence is inflicted on society in the case of a termination?
✧ In the case of a pregancy being forced by society to be brought to term and delivery, what duty does society have to the child in the case of a "state" determined delivery?

◆ Does the state have a duty to nurture the child; generally providing a safe, stable home, positive environment?

◆ Does the state have a invested in the education → duty to ensure the child receives a good education → having access to the resources necessary to make that happen?​

◈ And IF you are convinced then, that the society has the right to impose a requirement to carry a pregnancy to term, → does THEN soceity have the right to impose a vesectomy in order to prevent procreation? This is a whole other line of inquiry that results from the interference
​

Think of the consequences and outcomes.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, BreezeWood, et al,

I think our friend "BreezeWood" has put an entirely new class of nailed to the issue.

When society imposes a set of standards (a restriction based on a faith-based moral judgment) society is imposing a set of conditions known as "positive liberty." → A "negative liberty" is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints; the "positive liberty" is to place obstacles, barriers or constraints upon a person.

Society is placing a set of constraints: → IF and WHEN an abortion may take place. In this set of constraints, society does not care (places no obstacles, barriers or constraints) and voices no objections to the pregnancy and delivery of a child (a pregnancy that successfully comes to term); that is not to say that society had a choice to intervene if it so desired; or not to intervene. However, society does place obstacles, barriers or constraints on the termination of a pregnancy.

(QUESTIONS)

◈ On what "authority" (forget medical and legal interpretations) does a society have upon an individual freedom that forces an individual to forfeit the freedom (right) of self-determination on the matter of a pregnancy?

✧ What burden or interferrence is inflicted on society in the case of a termination?
✧ In the case of a pregancy being forced by society to be brought to term and delivery, what duty does society have to the child in the case of a "state" determined delivery?

◆ Does the state have a duty to nurture the child; generally providing a safe, stable home, positive environment?

◆ Does the state have a invested in the education → duty to ensure the child receives a good education → having access to the resources necessary to make that happen?​

◈ And IF you are convinced then, that the society has the right to impose a requirement to carry a pregnancy to term, → does THEN soceity have the right to impose a vesectomy in order to prevent procreation? This is a whole other line of inquiry that results from the interference​

Think of the consequences and outcomes.

Most Respectfully,
R

Reason and experience tell us that standards are independent of man. Standards exist in and of themselves and are defined through outcomes. Standards, like truth, are discovered through a conflict and confusion process. In other words, standards exist for a reason. When deviation from the standard is normalized, the reason why the standard exists becomes known from the consequences of deviating from the standard.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

I have no idea where you get this.

Reason and experience tell us that standards are independent of man. Standards exist in and of themselves and are defined through outcomes.

(COMMENT)

This is nonsense. Objective Standards are developed, → through Test, Measurement, and Diagnostics, → to meet manmade parameters and criteria for minimum acceptability.

Standards are determined by man for man. Just ask The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). They determine how much a "gallon" is, how long an "inch" is, and the adjustments for the time; including speed (how fast something moves).

EXAMPLE: A gallon can be described as:

◈ @ 60ºF, U.S. Standard Gallon being equal to

✦ 231 cubic inches
✦ 3.7853 liters​

◈ @ 62ºF, British Imperial Gallon:

✦ 277.42 cubic inches
✦ 4.546 liters​

Standards have more to do with commerce, or some other equally import aspect to man, than it is something independent of man.

Standards, like truth, are discovered through a conflict and confusion process. In other words, standards exist for a reason. When deviation from the standard is normalized, the reason why the standard exists becomes known from the consequences of deviating from the standard.

(COMMENT)

I do not even understand this.

Standards are for the benefit of man (yes) and the development of technology and the pursuit of commerce. However, in terms of Customary and International Humanitarian Law, conventions and standards evolve over time. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) is located in Sèvres, France, and serves as a depository for the primary international standards and as a laboratory for certification and comparison of national standard copies.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

I have no idea where you get this.

Reason and experience tell us that standards are independent of man. Standards exist in and of themselves and are defined through outcomes.

(COMMENT)

This is nonsense. Objective Standards are developed, → through Test, Measurement, and Diagnostics, → to meet manmade parameters and criteria for minimum acceptability.

Standards are determined by man for man. Just ask the The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). They determine how much a "gallon" is, how long an "inch" is, and the adjustments for time; including speed (how fast something moves).

EXAMPLE: A gallon can be described as:

◈ @ 60ºF, U.S. Standard Gallon being equal to

✦ 231 cubic inches
✦ 3.7853 liters​

◈ @ 62ºF, British Imperial Gallon:

✦ 277.42 cubic inches
✦ 4.546 liters​

Stardshave more to do with commerce, or some other equally import aspect to man, than it is something independent of man.

Standards, like truth, are discovered through a conflict and confusion process. In other words, standards exist for a reason. When deviation from the standard is normalized, the reason why the standard exists becomes known from the consequences of deviating from the standard.

(COMMENT)

I do not even understand this.

Standards are for the benefit of man (yes) and the development of technology and the pursuit of commerce. However, in terms of Customary and International Humanitarian Law, conventions and standards evolve over time. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) is located in Sèvres, France, and serves as a depository for the primary international standards and as a laboratory for certification and comparison of national standard copies.

Most Respectfully,
R

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

 

[ding]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

I have no idea where you get this.

Reason and experience tell us that standards are independent of man. Standards exist in and of themselves and are defined through outcomes.

(COMMENT)

This is nonsense. Objective Standards are developed, → through Test, Measurement, and Diagnostics, → to meet manmade parameters and criteria for minimum acceptability.

Standards are determined by man for man. Just ask the The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). They determine how much a "gallon" is, how long an "inch" is, and the adjustments for time; including speed (how fast something moves).

EXAMPLE: A gallon can be described as:

◈ @ 60ºF, U.S. Standard Gallon being equal to

✦ 231 cubic inches
✦ 3.7853 liters​

◈ @ 62ºF, British Imperial Gallon:

✦ 277.42 cubic inches
✦ 4.546 liters​

Stardshave more to do with commerce, or some other equally import aspect to man, than it is something independent of man.

Standards, like truth, are discovered through a conflict and confusion process. In other words, standards exist for a reason. When deviation from the standard is normalized, the reason why the standard exists becomes known from the consequences of deviating from the standard.

(COMMENT)

I do not even understand this.

Standards are for the benefit of man (yes) and the development of technology and the pursuit of commerce. However, in terms of Customary and International Humanitarian Law, conventions and standards evolve over time. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) is located in Sèvres, France, and serves as a depository for the primary international standards and as a laboratory for certification and comparison of national standard copies.

Most Respectfully,
R

Would you like for me to walk you through a few examples?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

Oh this should be good

v/r
R

Would you like for me to walk you through a few examples?

 

[ding]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

Oh this should be good

v/r
R

Would you like for me to walk you through a few examples?

Are you married? Have you ever cheated on your wife?

 

[Taz]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

Oh this should be good

v/r
R

Would you like for me to walk you through a few examples?

Are you married? Have you ever cheated on your wife?

I bet you have cheated on your wife... with a goat.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft of its latest strategic plan, which will guide the agency from 2018 to 2022.

This is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. Health and Human Services is a government organization. Its actions should be evidence-based, not faith-based, and this decidedly unscientific language should be eliminated from its strategic plan.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

From a scientific perspective, life doesn't begin at any one point, it is a continuum. For HHS to define it as beginning at conception is a transparent attempt to justify restrictions on certain contraceptives as well as abortion. It may also have an unintended consequence: the restriction of infertility treatments, especially in vitro fertilization.


the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspective but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

 

[BreezeWood]

There is literally no embryologist who doesn't believe that human life begins at conception.

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Why life doesn't begin at conception

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft of its latest strategic plan, which will guide the agency from 2018 to 2022.

This is a religious definition of life, not a scientific one. Health and Human Services is a government organization. Its actions should be evidence-based, not faith-based, and this decidedly unscientific language should be eliminated from its strategic plan.

As an infertility specialist, I witness human fertilization in the laboratory every day. The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.

From a scientific perspective, life doesn't begin at any one point, it is a continuum. For HHS to define it as beginning at conception is a transparent attempt to justify restrictions on certain contraceptives as well as abortion. It may also have an unintended consequence: the restriction of infertility treatments, especially in vitro fertilization.


the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspective but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

.

If I want to read opinion columns, I'll look them up myself, thanks so much.

sure sissy, I was just attempting to save you from articles you might have not agreed with - in light of the descriptive article did you find my conclusion rewarding ...

the gov'ts function is not to pander the views of misogynist religious radical perspectives but to function for the benefit of society as a whole.

thanks ...

 

[ding]

RE: Abortion
⁜→ ding, et al,

Oh this should be good

v/r
R

Would you like for me to walk you through a few examples?

Are you married? Have you ever cheated on your wife?

I bet you have cheated on your wife... with a goat.

Not my knowledge.

I’m guessing RoccoR realizes his error by now.