|
|
| Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules (1167697) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 7 of 11 |
||
|
| (1169422) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 4 03:40:18 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 03:32:38 2014. You copped to being a sexist here when you claimed that men should control women's reproductive decisions, as well as several other places in this thread.I didn't say you personally were religious, I said that many to most Republicans are. No. That's not sexist. I did not say we control reproductive rights. Most black and Latinos who are religious are not Republican. Few of my Republican friends go to church. I don't think too many callers to Prager or Hewitt are religious. |
|
|
| (1169426) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 03:55:24 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 4 03:40:18 2014. No. That's not sexist. I did not say we control reproductive rights.On the topic of a woman's right to choose or decline an abortion, you said, quote: "I just think the man deserves some say in the matter too." "Control" vs. "some say" is semantic quibbling. You stated in no uncertain terms that you believe men have at least some ownership interest in women's bodies. That's sexism, and far more explicit than most sexists are willing to be about it. Most black and Latinos who are religious are not Republican. Affirming the consequent. Few of my Republican friends go to church. I don't think too many callers to Prager or Hewitt are religious. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." The more religious one is, the more likely one is to vote Republican. The virulently religious make up a good chunk of the Republican base. Republicans consistently attempt to establish a government-endorsed religion. That a handful of Republicans can get through ordinary activities without spewing ancient myths at people doesn't change these facts. |
|
|
| (1169428) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Apr 4 04:01:18 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 4 03:05:11 2014. You attacked Republicans as being sexist and religious.No, I didn't. Read the thread again. |
|
|
| (1169431) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Apr 4 04:20:01 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 03:15:32 2014. No, they're not. |
|
|
| (1169433) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 04:34:28 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Apr 4 04:20:01 2014. I'm terribly sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you pay for another five minutes. |
|
|
| (1169441) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 4 06:41:08 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Thu Apr 3 23:05:15 2014. if you, Nilet and Selkirk and such feminists, why no posts for Woman's History Month from you all? |
|
|
| (1169443) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Apr 4 06:55:43 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 4 06:41:08 2014. Every month is women's history month.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (1169453) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Apr 4 07:31:46 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Thu Apr 3 21:24:16 2014. Why do you continue feeding the troll? |
|
|
| (1169486) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 4 09:52:33 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 4 03:05:11 2014. So why embrace policy that is precisely that?I think you're lying. |
|
|
| (1169487) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 4 10:03:45 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Fri Apr 4 07:31:46 2014. What, you feeling abandoned? |
|
|
| (1169509) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 10:33:42 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 4 06:41:08 2014. HAHAHA *snicker* *giggle*You really are sexist, aren't you. |
|
|
| (1169518) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Apr 4 11:07:51 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Thu Apr 3 20:38:29 2014. Saving a life is different from moving directly against it.The whole point of the message of the pro-life side is that the fetus should be assigned the same rights as the woman, not extra, and not in a sexist way. There's no reason why anyone who is born should automatically be considered worth more than anyone unborn. A fetus, like a newborn, cannot reason or make a meaningful contribution to society. The same goes for those adults who grow with certain mental disabilities. The argument of bodily autonomy could work, if the fetus was actually a part of the woman's body. And while everyone knows I don't agree with bingbong, I'll take her argument more seriously than the one I'm responding to here. |
|
|
| (1169526) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Apr 4 11:33:28 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 04:34:28 2014. That wasn't an argument. |
|
|
| (1169540) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 12:01:36 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Apr 4 11:07:51 2014. The whole point of the message of the pro-life side is that the fetus should be assigned the same rights as the woman, not extra, and not in a sexist way.Actually, the whole point of the so-called "pro-life" side is that women should be property owned by men. They're just not willing to say as much out loud (LuchAAA excepted). There's no reason why anyone who is born should automatically be considered worth more than anyone unborn. Obviously, this position is incorrect, since the interests a real person actually has automatically take priority over the interests that a nonexistent person would theoretically have if he were real. That said, it's also completely irrelevant to the argument. The right to bodily autonomy gives you the right to refuse anybody who wants to consume your body for their benefit; you don't have to make a judgement call as to their "worth" before you say no. The argument of bodily autonomy could work, if the fetus was actually a part of the woman's body. The fetus is parasitical on the woman's body. The right to bodily autonomy necessarily includes the right to evict parasites. Thomson's argument used a hypothetical example of having someone else's circulatory system connected to yours to use your kidneys as a dialysis machine, which more closely resembles what pregnancy entails; I used the example of kidneys and bone marrow because those are situations one is more likely to encounter in the real world. It doesn't matter either way. And while everyone knows I don't agree with bingbong, I'll take her argument more seriously than the one I'm responding to here. If you don't want to take the right to bodily autonomy seriously, then I'm sure I can fetch a decent price for one of your kidneys on the black market. |
|
|
| (1169550) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 12:10:05 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Apr 4 11:33:28 2014. ... |
|
|
| (1169631) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Apr 4 15:01:18 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 12:01:36 2014. Wow, there are lots of women out there then who are arguing for the right to be controlled by men.Your claim that you can refuse your body makes some sense, but this is not a mere refusal we're talking about, but an offensive action against another. And, yes, biologically we're talking about a human person. To think of the fetus as parasitic is merely an excuse and is a weak one scientifically. The mother's body is very accommodating of the fetus in order to help it grow and then the fetus departs. The body doesn't treat it like a parasite, but only agenda-driven people might in order to forge an argument. I know women who have had abortions and none of them think of it this way. |
|
|
| (1169638) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 4 15:11:10 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Apr 4 15:01:18 2014. Pregnancy often depletes a woman's calcium reserves. This most often is seen in dental problems and osteoporosis that is more difficult to treat. That's the most common side effect of pregnancy. It also causes kidney damage to women who experience gestational diabetes, even if the disease itself never manifests itself.So yes, the fetus is a parasite and does permanent harm to a LOT of women. |
|
|
| (1169673) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Apr 4 15:53:00 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Apr 3 22:49:20 2014. Have I ever mentioned before that republicans can't math?Just like the Democrap president you helped elect, eh? |
|
|
| (1169677) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Apr 4 16:00:02 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 4 15:11:10 2014. WABB (and Nilet).It is technically not a parasite since it is of the same species as the woman and it did not crawl inside or choose to attach. Fetuses do not grow on their own and is directly related to the behavior of the woman and/or that of some male. |
|
|
| (1169683) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Apr 4 16:12:40 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Fri Apr 4 16:00:02 2014. She is one of the heartless women I have ever encountered. Very unmotherly. She equates pregnancy to some kind of disease or plague. |
|
|
| (1169685) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Apr 4 16:18:00 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Apr 4 16:12:40 2014. I don't see her in that light, Chris. Unless you've been through it you don't know the heartache of experiencing a miscarriage. |
|
|
| (1169686) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Apr 4 16:22:52 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Fri Apr 4 16:18:00 2014. I didn't know she had a miscarriage. That is horrible. But it is odd how she talks about pregnancy. It's not some disease or affliction. |
|
|
| (1169688) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 4 16:24:13 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Fri Apr 4 16:00:02 2014. It behaves as one, taking the nutritional resources of its ost. |
|
|
| (1169690) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Apr 4 16:25:51 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 4 16:24:13 2014. It does, but it's not a disease. And it's not a parasite. |
|
|
| (1169693) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 4 16:31:53 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Apr 4 16:25:51 2014. I did ot say pregnancy is disease. However, a fetus acts as ifit is a parasite as it takes resources from its host, the woman. Often that creates permanent health issues. |
|
|
| (1169699) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Apr 4 17:01:46 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Apr 4 16:22:52 2014. I apologize....I had no idea you went through that. |
|
|
| (1169700) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 4 17:02:49 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 4 15:11:10 2014. the fetus is a parasiteIs that what your mother said you were? Playing the unnatural human card really isn't good comedy. |
|
|
| (1169709) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 4 17:23:46 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 4 17:02:49 2014. It behaves as one. Until you become pregnant, I'd recommend staying out of it. |
|
|
| (1169711) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 17:26:23 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Apr 4 16:12:40 2014. Ah, so you're a sexist as well as a racist. Nice to know.I'm glad I came here to OTChat— I used to think that you had any opinions I might have to seriously consider. |
|
|
| (1169713) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Fri Apr 4 17:38:05 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 4 15:11:10 2014. I guess one can say the same about an infant. Where do you draw the line. |
|
|
| (1169719) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 4 18:16:14 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 17:26:23 2014. Lmao!!! We already knew you were a psycho here. |
|
|
| (1169720) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 18:18:29 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Apr 4 15:01:18 2014. Your claim that you can refuse your body makes some sense, but this is not a mere refusal we're talking about, but an offensive action against another.Read the damn link I posted. In Thomson's example, someone else's circulatory system has been connected to yours in order to use your kidneys as a dialysis machine. Ripping out the tubes is just as much an "offensive action" as aborting an unwanted pregnancy, but you wouldn't doubt for a second that you have a right to do just that. If you like, you can call it self defense. And, yes, biologically we're talking about a human person. No, we're not. We're talking about a fetus or an embryo. You don't seriously believe that this is a human, do you?  Come on. To think of the fetus as parasitic is merely an excuse and is a weak one scientifically. The mother's body is very blah blah blah blah blah The fetus consumes the woman's body for its own benefit, causing significant harm to the woman's health while offering no benefit in return. If a woman decides it's worth putting up with that in order to have a baby, that's her choice. If she decides not to, that's also her choice. Hers. Not yours, not the government's, not society's not anybody else's. That's because the right to bodily autonomy is absolute— if something or someone is consuming your body, you have every right to stop them. |
|
|
| (1169721) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 18:21:30 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 4 18:16:14 2014. I notice that you didn't actually dispute the fact that you are racist and sexist.I will take that as your tacit admission that you are both. |
|
|
| (1169723) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Apr 4 18:24:51 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Apr 4 17:02:49 2014. Your brain is a parasite. It sucks nutrients from your body but quite obviously provides no benefit to you. |
|
|
| (1169731) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Apr 4 18:34:52 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 18:18:29 2014. Refusing to make one's body available to save another is fine, like I said, or at least not what's being discussed. The "offensive action" I'm talking about is a move to terminate another. Using someone against their will to save another person's life is not what's happening here. It's simply allowing what already is to finish being.Abortion is the use of force to terminate a life. That is not what is happening in the case of one's making one body available to save another. A fetus / embryo has human DNA, and yes, that picture looks quite like a human. Biologically, you have no argument that it's not human. So you're argument must coalesce with bingbong's, namely that a certain amount of brain activity must be required, an argument I've engaged before. The fetus consumes the woman's body for its own benefit, causing significant harm to the woman's health while offering no benefit in return. If a woman decides it's worth putting up with that in order to have a baby, that's her choice. If she decides not to, that's also her choice. Hers. Not yours, not the government's, not society's not anybody else's. That's because the right to bodily autonomy is absolute— if something or someone is consuming your body, you have every right to stop them. This goes into whether grave harm can be done to another to prevent slight harm to oneself. But we're far from having that discussion since we're not agreed in the points leading up to it. |
|
|
| (1169742) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 18:51:34 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Apr 4 18:34:52 2014. Refusing to make one's body available to save another is fine, like I said, or at least not what's being discussed.It's exactly what's being discussed. The "offensive action" I'm talking about is a move to terminate another. Abortion is nothing of the sort. It simply removes the connection between the fetus and the woman's body. If the fetus dies without it, that's not the woman's problem any more than what happens to the kidney failure patient when you disconnect from him. Using someone against their will to save another person's life is not what's happening here. Let's see. The fetus is feeding off a woman against her will... Yep, that's exactly what's happening here. It's simply allowing what already is to finish being. So if I tried removing your kidney without permission and you woke up halfway through the surgery, you'd have no right to tell me to stop? I'd be perfectly justified in "allowing what already is to finish being" and take your kidney? If that example confuses you, refer to the kidney failure patient in Thomson's example. Abortion is the use of force to terminate a life. No it isn't. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. A woman has every right to prevent other organisms from consuming her body, and if the parasite can't live without consuming her, that's not her problem. Go back and read Thomson's article, specifically her example of finding yourself unexpectedly connected to some stranger so that he can use your kidneys to filter his blood. I can quote it for you if you can't figure out how to operate a link. Then answer this: In that situation, would you or would you not have the right to remove the connection (by force if you must) and walk away? That is not what is happening in the case of one's making one body available to save another. No, it's being forced to make one's body available to save another. That the parasite/organ robber has successfully initiated the procedure doesn't take away your right to make him stop. A fetus / embryo has human DNA... So does every single one of the billions of cells in your body. Is each one of them a human? Are you committing mass murder every time you take a shower and slough skin cells down the drain to their doom? ...and yes, that picture looks quite like a human. It doesn't matter what you think it looks like. It's not a human. It's a bat embryo. Biologically, you have no argument that it's not human. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. |
|
|
| (1169745) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Apr 4 19:05:59 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 18:18:29 2014. All mammals look alike in that form.humanity has chosen to distance itself FROM itself..even alienating its own offspring. |
|
|
| (1169747) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 4 19:08:21 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 18:21:30 2014. Wtf are you smoking? |
|
|
| (1169748) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 4 19:09:09 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 18:18:29 2014. Lmao!!!! Totally gone. |
|
|
| (1169753) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 19:19:09 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 4 19:08:21 2014. Once again, you make no claim that you are not racist or sexist.The tacit admission stands. |
|
|
| (1169754) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 19:23:15 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 4 19:09:09 2014. I can't help but notice that you didn't actually dispute anything I said.All you did was say I'm crazy. And I'm fine with that; since you're a sexist, the fact that you think I'm crazy effectively proves I'm right. |
|
|
| (1169772) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Apr 4 19:51:36 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Jeff Rosen on Fri Apr 4 17:38:05 2014. Anyone can feed and care for an infant. Only the pregnant woman can feed a fetus.The line is birth. |
|
|
| (1169774) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 4 19:57:33 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 19:19:09 2014. I am not even going to acknowledge your nonsensical accusations you self righteous pos. |
|
|
| (1169775) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 4 19:57:59 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 19:23:15 2014. Lol"!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| (1169779) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 20:11:01 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 4 19:57:33 2014.   
|
|
|
| (1169780) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 20:11:46 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 4 19:57:59 2014. "Lol" is not an argument.If you persist in bot-like behaviour, I'll be forced to use the CAPTCHA. |
|
|
| (1169787) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 4 20:15:32 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 20:11:01 2014. Hahahahahah!!!!! Psycho!!!!! |
|
|
| (1169789) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 20:17:09 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 4 20:15:32 2014. Due to your bot-like behaviour, I'm going to need to verify that you're actually human before I continue.Please type the text you see in this image: 
|
|
|
| (1169791) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 4 20:17:23 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 20:11:46 2014. You aren't worth arguing with. Its probably one of the first people I have actually thought that of in the 15 years I have been here you poor soul. |
|
|
| (1169794) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Apr 4 20:19:13 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Apr 4 20:17:23 2014. Due to your bot-like behaviour, I'm going to need to verify that you're actually human before I continue.Please type the text you see in this image: 
|
|
|
|
Page 7 of 11 |
||