abortion

Different55 · 2016-11-27 04:52:53

Let's continue where we left off, shall we?

N1KF · 2016-11-27 05:06:56

Are you implying we can just abort that topic and start a new one? You're really devaluing the lives of topics.

Bimps, mrjawapa, Krosis, Onjit, Different55, hummerz5, skullz17, TaskManager, Pingohits, Dencc, kubapolish, mutantdevle, Sensei1, Swarth100, Stubby, Yandax, Evilbunny, Shadow, Bobithan, 32OrtonEdge32dh, Hostage

Abelysk · 2016-11-27 07:16:14

At least we know Different55 is pro-choice. HOWEVER, it is awful that he aborted a year-old thread! How painful!

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-27 12:59:09

There's no debate to be had beyond a religious one.
It's ultimately futile to debate those who lack logical scientific reasoning on an issue that requires it.

It's rather disturbing as well, considering they are inherently against human rights, wishing to force others to endure severe unnecessary pain.
I've seen that the vast majority of these people who are anti-abortion tend to be old conservative men, who could never apprehend said pain.

They are unable to draw the line because they are simply morons who lack the basic understanding of neurology.
They refuse to acknowledge that there is demonstrably no neural activity present, therefore it is not living by any standard.
They refuse to acknowledge that there is demonstrably no nociceptors present, therefore there is no equivalent pain stimuli.

It's incredibly pathetic, these morons should be mocked and ridiculed, not treated as intellectuals.

Napakeun, Koya, Onjit, Krosis

Different55 · 2016-11-27 14:42:21

Remember kids, if you call the other side idiots it means you're right. You're acting just as triggered and unreasonable as the pro-lifers who equate even contraceptives with murder.

Honestly like half this post is made out of straw. Nobody's suggesting they feel pain. Do you see anyone suggesting that? I don't see anyone suggesting that.
Don't see anyone saying that zygotes have neural activity either. But I guess it's easier to hate someone and call them retarded when you're plugging your ears and closing your eyes and making up their argument for them.

You seem pretty stuck on the idea that human life doesn't begin until there's brain activity though. Why's that? I think we had this discussion somewhere else on what counts as life, nowhere did it come up that brain activity was a prerequisite. Why's that important now?

And there is no debate only if people like you keep crashing in and yelling "THIS IS MY OPINION IT IS BUILT ON UNASSAILABLE LOGIC AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH IT IN THE SLIGHTEST IS RETARDED AND PATHETIC AND SHOULD BE PUBLICLY MOCKED THERE IS NO DEBATE."

mrjawapa, Swarth100, Yandax, Onjit, N1KF

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-27 14:56:01

Different55 wrote:

Remember kids, if you call the other side idiots it means you're right. You're acting just as triggered and unreasonable as the pro-lifers who equate even contraceptives with murder.

I tend to call people what they are. If they're being stupid, I have no issue with calling them stupid.
It's not unreasonable to take a stance based on current understanding of science.
I'm sorry if you're triggered by my display of repugnance for the scientifically illiterate.

Different55 wrote:

Honestly like half this post is made out of straw. Nobody's suggesting they feel pain. Do you see anyone suggesting that? I don't see anyone suggesting that.

How insightful, what a wonderful way to construct an argument from absence.
There are people who have made this claim, and despite them not being on these forums doesn't detract from the argument itself.

Different55 wrote:

Don't see anyone saying that zygotes have neural activity either. But I guess it's easier to hate someone and call them retarded when you're plugging your ears and closing your eyes and making up their argument for them.

See above.
Half of your post is made of tears.

Different55 wrote:

You seem pretty stuck on the idea that human life doesn't begin until there's brain activity though. Why's that? I think we had this discussion somewhere else on what counts as life, nowhere did it come up that brain activity was a prerequisite. Why's that important now?

You are clinically dead when you are brain-dead, that's quite literally the definition of not being alive.

Different55 wrote:

And there is no debate only if people like you keep crashing in and yelling "THIS IS MY OPINION IT IS BUILT ON UNASSAILABLE LOGIC AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH IT IN THE SLIGHTEST IS RETARDED AND PATHETIC AND SHOULD BE PUBLICLY MOCKED THERE IS NO DEBATE."

Likewise, there is no human progress if people like you defend the opinions of morons who have no scientific backing for their claims.

Koya

Zumza · 2016-11-27 15:10:45

I didn't really cared about this thread. But now being 2 it dragged my attention. Honestly I didn't read nor this nor the old one.
But I'm just asking what is to be debated? There are 2 sides: pro-choice and pro-life. It's just a debate of choice. Which are better oranges or apples? I doubt anyone could change somebodies perspective here unless they're facing the real life scenario.

N1KF

Different55 · 2016-11-27 15:17:08

Sorry, i forgot the main point I was making.

Even if we're not debating pro-choice or pro-life there's still plenty to discuss.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

You are clinically dead when you are brain-dead, that's quite literally the definition of not being alive.

No, that's the definition of being brain dead. The person is still alive even if who they were has died. Nothing else has this requirement of brain activity for life, why does that matter here?

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Likewise, there is no human progress if people like you defend the opinions of morons who have no scientific backing for their claims.

You have no scientific backing either. You drag in different scientific facts and draw different conclusions and call them scientific because at one point some time there was a fact. Life arguably begins at the moment of conception. It also arguably begins at the first sign of brain activity. Let's have that argument.

mrjawapa, Yandax, N1KF

mrjawapa · 2016-11-27 15:27:56

> dropped out of high school
> thinks they're an all knowing scientist

XxAtillaxX wrote:

scientifically illiterate.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

You are clinically dead when you are brain-dead, that's quite literally the definition of not being alive.

Clinical death and brain death are different things. Brain death is usually caused by clinical death.

Clinical death is when someone's heart and breathing have stopped, and is reversible.

Brain death is irreversible.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

How insightful, what a wonderful way to construct an argument from absence.
There are people who have made this claim, and despite them not being on these forums doesn't detract from the argument itself.

To be fair, you posted in a debate forum... arguing a stance that no one has brought up.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

It's incredibly pathetic, these morons should be mocked and ridiculed, not treated as intellectuals.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I tend to call people what they are. If they're being stupid, I have no issue with calling them stupid.

You're just being bigoted though.

Different55 wrote:

Don't see anyone saying that zygotes have neural activity either.

Apples to oranges.

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-27 15:36:31

Different55 wrote:

Sorry, i forgot the main point I was making.
Even if we're not debating pro-choice or pro-life there's still plenty to discuss.

It's all religious non-scientific pseudo-philosophical BS at that point, which isn't worth discussing in my honest opinion.

Different55 wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
You are clinically dead when you are brain-dead, that's quite literally the definition of not being alive.
No, that's the definition of being brain dead. The person is still alive even if who they were has died. Nothing else has this requirement of brain activity for life, why does that matter here?

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a human has cognition beyond the neurological processes within the brain.
If you are going to be pedantic and say that anything with cells and peripheral nerves qualifies as living despite being a mere interface for electrical activity, then the zygotes are no more living than a flower is.

Different55 wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
Likewise, there is no human progress if people like you defend the opinions of morons who have no scientific backing for their claims.
You have no scientific backing either. You drag in different scientific facts and draw different conclusions and call them scientific because at one point some time there was a fact. Life arguably begins at the moment of conception. It also arguably begins at the first sign of brain activity. Let's have that argument.

You're lost all ability to speak English at this point. What the ****?

MrJaWapa wrote:

> dropped out of high school
> thinks they're an all knowing scientist

I'm very well capable of having an argument, participating in the educational system isn't a requirement for having knowledge and reasoning skills. Grow up.

MrJaWapa wrote:

Clinical death is when someone's heart and breathing have stopped, and is reversible.
Brain death is irreversible.

If you are brain-dead, you are de-facto clinically dead.
The term clinical death does not have a consistent meaning, and until the 1950s was used when any of the vital organs failed, as death shortly followed.

MrJaWapa wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
It's incredibly pathetic, these morons should be mocked and ridiculed, not treated as intellectuals.
XxAtillaxX wrote:
I tend to call people what they are. If they're being stupid, I have no issue with calling them stupid.
You're just being bigoted though.

I'm very open to evidence to the contrary, and none has been provided.
If people are going to whine and call for activism without evidence of their claims, they very much deserve to be called foolish.

mrjawapa · 2016-11-27 15:45:02

▼Picure of development for reference

XxAtillaxX wrote:

They refuse to acknowledge that there is demonstrably no nociceptors present, therefore there is no equivalent pain stimuli.

"Pain receptors (nociceptors) are present throughout the unborn child’s entire body by no later than 20 weeks."

"The first essential requirement for nociception is the presence of sensory receptors, which develop first in the perioral area at around 7 weeks gestation. From here, they develop in the rest of the face and in the palmar surfaces of the hands and soles of the feet from 11 weeks. By 20 weeks, they are present throughout all of the skin and mucosal surfaces."

"“Immature skin nociceptors are probably present by 10 weeks and definitely present by 17 weeks. Nociceptors develop slightly later in internal organs."
source

Different55 wrote:

It also arguably begins at the first sign of brain activity.

"Generally speaking, the first measurable brain waves can be captured on an electroencephalogram (EEG) around the 12th week of pregnancy." source

"At 4th Week - During this time the heart, brain and the spinal cord begin to form. The head occupies more than half of the embryo's length and the brain starts to develop into 5 areas."

"At 8th Week - Just before or during the 8th week fetus develops its first sensitivity to touch, which is considered the first activity of the fetus' brain."

"At 12th Week During this period the brain is almost completely formed"
source

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-27 15:52:39

MrJaWapa wrote:

"The first essential requirement for nociception is the presence of sensory receptors, which develop first in the perioral area at around 7 weeks gestation. From here, they develop in the rest of the face and in the palmar surfaces of the hands and soles of the feet from 11 weeks. By 20 weeks, they are present throughout all of the skin and mucosal surfaces."
"“Immature skin nociceptors are probably present by 10 weeks and definitely present by 17 weeks. Nociceptors develop slightly later in internal organs."
Different55 wrote:
It also arguably begins at the first sign of brain activity.
"Generally speaking, the first measurable brain waves can be captured on an electroencephalogram (EEG) around the 12th week of pregnancy." source
"At 4th Week - During this time the heart, brain and the spinal cord begin to form. The head occupies more than half of the embryo's length and the brain starts to develop into 5 areas."
"At 8th Week - Just before or during the 8th week fetus develops its first sensitivity to touch, which is considered the first activity of the fetus' brain."
"At 12th Week During this period the brain is almost completely formed"
source

That is why there is a cut-off period for when an abortion procedure is ethical, i.e. when the brain has developed.

Koya

Different55 · 2016-11-27 16:47:40

XxAtillaxX wrote:

It's all religious non-scientific pseudo-philosophical BS at that point, which isn't worth discussing in my honest opinion.

So you don't think philosophy is worth debating? If you're not here to debate then what are you doing here?

XxAtillaxX wrote:

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a human has cognition beyond the neurological processes within the brain.
If you are going to be pedantic and say that anything with cells and peripheral nerves qualifies as living despite being a mere interface for electrical activity, then the zygotes are no more living than a flower is.

I'm not saying anything, quit trying to put words in my mouth. I'm asking YOU why you think what you do. I have never said or implied that humans have cognition beyond neurological processes. You're the one who's stuck on "Brain life = actual life" and I'm asking you to explain why. Yes, flowers are alive. So are individual cells. Neither of those have brain activity. Why is cognition so important to you to qualify as living?

XxAtillaxX wrote:

You're lost all ability to speak English at this point. What the ****?

It's a scientific fact that fetuses don't have neurological activity until a certain point. You use this to say "It is not okay to abort at this point." Other people point at the scientific fact that life begins at conception and use that to say "It is not okay to abort at this point." You could draw the line wherever you want and say you're backed by science because X happens at Y point which is OBVIOUSLY where we should draw the line.

What makes your line in the sand better than any other line? That's something we can debate about abortion that isn't just pro life vs pro choice.

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-27 17:03:24

Different55 wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
It's all religious non-scientific pseudo-philosophical BS at that point, which isn't worth discussing in my honest opinion.
So you don't think philosophy is worth debating? If you're not here to debate then what are you doing here?
XxAtillaxX wrote:
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a human has cognition beyond the neurological processes within the brain.
If you are going to be pedantic and say that anything with cells and peripheral nerves qualifies as living despite being a mere interface for electrical activity, then the zygotes are no more living than a flower is.
I'm not saying anything, quit trying to put words in my mouth. I'm asking YOU why you think what you do. I have never said or implied that humans have cognition beyond neurological processes. You're the one who's stuck on "Brain life = actual life" and I'm asking you to explain why. Yes, flowers are alive. So are individual cells. Neither of those have brain activity. Why is cognition so important to you to qualify as living?
XxAtillaxX wrote:
You're lost all ability to speak English at this point. What the ****?
It's a scientific fact that fetuses don't have neurological activity until a certain point. You use this to say "It is not okay to abort at this point." Other people point at the scientific fact that life begins at conception and use that to say "It is not okay to abort at this point." You could draw the line wherever you want and say you're backed by science because X happens at Y point which is OBVIOUSLY where we should draw the line.
What makes your line in the sand better than any other line? That's something we can debate about abortion that isn't just pro life vs pro choice.

"Yes, flowers are alive. So are individual cells. Neither of those have brain activity. Why is cognition so important to you to qualify as living?"
You just said it yourself, but apparently you were unable to connect the dots.
The difference between a flower and a baby is that one has the capability of cognition beyond a primitive level than that of an insect.

"The scientific fact that life begins at conception."
This statement is a widely used misconception by those who spread anti-abortion rhetoric. It's a false equivalency between cognitive life and (a)cellular life.
Again, I'll reiterate: the difference between a flower and a baby is that one has the capability of cognition beyond a primitive level than that of an insect.

Koya

skullz17 · 2016-11-27 19:17:04

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Different55 wrote:
XxAtillaxX wrote:
It's all religious non-scientific pseudo-philosophical BS at that point, which isn't worth discussing in my honest opinion.
So you don't think philosophy is worth debating? If you're not here to debate then what are you doing here?
XxAtillaxX wrote:
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a human has cognition beyond the neurological processes within the brain.
If you are going to be pedantic and say that anything with cells and peripheral nerves qualifies as living despite being a mere interface for electrical activity, then the zygotes are no more living than a flower is.
I'm not saying anything, quit trying to put words in my mouth. I'm asking YOU why you think what you do. I have never said or implied that humans have cognition beyond neurological processes. You're the one who's stuck on "Brain life = actual life" and I'm asking you to explain why. Yes, flowers are alive. So are individual cells. Neither of those have brain activity. Why is cognition so important to you to qualify as living?
XxAtillaxX wrote:
You're lost all ability to speak English at this point. What the ****?
It's a scientific fact that fetuses don't have neurological activity until a certain point. You use this to say "It is not okay to abort at this point." Other people point at the scientific fact that life begins at conception and use that to say "It is not okay to abort at this point." You could draw the line wherever you want and say you're backed by science because X happens at Y point which is OBVIOUSLY where we should draw the line.
What makes your line in the sand better than any other line? That's something we can debate about abortion that isn't just pro life vs pro choice.
"Yes, flowers are alive. So are individual cells. Neither of those have brain activity. Why is cognition so important to you to qualify as living?"
You just said it yourself, but apparently you were unable to connect the dots.
The difference between a flower and a baby is that one has the capability of cognition beyond a primitive level than that of an insect.
"The scientific fact that life begins at conception."
This statement is a widely used misconception by those who spread anti-abortion rhetoric. It's a false equivalency between cognitive life and (a)cellular life.
Again, I'll reiterate: the difference between a flower and a baby is that one has the capability of cognition beyond a primitive level than that of an insect.

We know the difference. Different's point is, why is cognition used as criteria for deciding whether to kill something or not?

Different55, mrjawapa, Swarth100, N1KF, Slabdrill

mrjawapa · 2016-11-27 20:23:23

skullz17 wrote:

why is cognition used as criteria for deciding whether to kill something or not?

Cognition means ability to feel pain.

EDIT: actually it doesn't mean that... but you know what I mean

Insanity · 2016-11-27 22:30:40

I think it should be allowed until the fetus reaches 12 years of age.

You never know when a parent might need to abort their child, best to give them a pretty huge window (no pun intended)

Pyromaniac, Onjit, Slabdrill, Koya, Swarth100, kubapolish, skullz17, Dencc, 32OrtonEdge32dh

Koya · 2016-11-28 14:50:51

Insanity wrote:

I think it should be allowed until the fetus reaches 12 years of age.
You never know when a parent might need to abort their child, best to give them a pretty huge window (no pun intended)

I think 18 is a reasonable window, some kids completely change when they're a teenager and parents shouldn't regret that.

On a more serious note, the upper limit is when the fetus becomes an unborn baby at the point that the baby can survive on its own without aid - so 18 years...

Swarth100 · 2016-11-28 16:36:16

Koya wrote:

On a more serious note, the upper limit is when the fetus becomes an unborn baby at the point that the baby can survive on its own without aid - so 18 years...

In all honesty I'd actually never thought about this,

what would be wrong (in a pro-abortion perspective) to "abort"(/defenestrate) a 1/2/3/4 year old baby?

The "neural" activity they have is pretty irrelevant, the probably are no more intelligent than the avare house pet.
They are still as much (if not more) of a problem if compared to a fetus (they cost money, time, effort).

Yandax · 2016-11-28 23:39:21

@Swarth The baby's already alive, so the parent(s) would (probably) decided to go through with the pregnancy. Another way to look at it would be: Would you just kill a house pet because it cost you money? Probably not the best way to put it, but hey, I'm trash with comparisons. It's already alive, it has a future and will eventually become a sentient being, if it isn't already one. (A approach I decided would be stupid: Well, if neural activity isn't relevant, I could just shoot ya in yer sleep. Nothing wrong with that, is there?)

@Atilla: I don't mean to offend you, but I generally don't agree with you. I will, however, agree with you on one thing. This isn't a debate anymore. It's just you telling us "You're stupid, your opinion doesn't matter, and you should go take a hike and find your brain." You generally refuse to let anyone even have a say in anything. Instead of debating, you just brush it off as "unscientific" and go on your way. If morons' opinions shouldn't be defended, then nobody's should, because everyones view of everything is relative. Rest assured, I will most likely post a post with actual content and stuff you could debate against, so you can laugh at me TWICE!

This is my post. Read it, misinterpret it at your will, or just dismiss it as 'stupid', and laugh at me when you're done.

mrjawapa · 2016-11-29 01:39:13

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I'm very well capable of having an argument, participating in the educational system isn't a requirement for having knowledge and reasoning skills.

I didn't say you couldn't argue anything. You have a bad habit of putting words in peoples' mouths.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

If you are brain-dead, you are de-facto clinically dead.
The term clinical death does not have a consistent meaning, and until the 1950s was used when any of the vital organs failed, as death shortly followed.

Well, Atilla, it's way after the 1950s and those words do have consistent definitions.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I'm very open to evidence to the contrary, and none has been provided.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

these morons should be mocked and ridiculed, not treated as intellectuals.

oh yeah, totally open... like a barn door.

"Grow up."
That's really irrelevant to anything I said, but yeah... I could make you eat those words.

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 05:58:50

MrJaWapa wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
I'm very well capable of having an argument, participating in the educational system isn't a requirement for having knowledge and reasoning skills.
I didn't say you couldn't argue anything. You have a bad habit of putting words in peoples' mouths.

When you are making a statement like, "> dropped out of high school", I as well as anyone, know exactly what your remarks entail.
You should keep the pathetic petty insults to the roasting topic rather than trying to inflate your ego, which, may I add, isn't much to begin with.

▼A summary of my decision beyond the "I dropped out of high school" statement I had made on IRC.

On the other hand, I'm sure you'll be incredibly successful with your art degree.
I'd recommend not thinking too highly of oneself so prematurely.

MrJaWapa wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
If you are brain-dead, you are de-facto clinically dead.
The term clinical death does not have a consistent meaning, and until the 1950s was used when any of the vital organs failed, as death shortly followed.
Well, Atilla, it's way after the 1950s and those words do have consistent definitions.

As is evident, there's disagreement upon what constitutes life and death.
When it comes to clinical death, it's very much possible to have neural activity despite having no white matter in the cerebral cortex, which means you're essentially in a permanent vegetative state.

MrJaWapa wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
I'm very open to evidence to the contrary, and none has been provided.
XxAtillaxX wrote:
these morons should be mocked and ridiculed, not treated as intellectuals.
oh yeah, totally open... like a barn door.
"Grow up."
That's really irrelevant to anything I said, but yeah... I could make you eat those words.

If they were to provide any evidence beyond their religious philosophies for their claims then they wouldn't be mocked.
And again, keep the petty insults to the roasting topic; nobody cares how highly you think of yourself, nor does flaming/direct insults belong in this topic.

Yandax wrote:

@Swarth The baby's already alive, so the parent(s) would (probably) decided to go through with the pregnancy. Another way to look at it would be: Would you just kill a house pet because it cost you money? Probably not the best way to put it, but hey, I'm trash with comparisons. It's already alive, it has a future and will eventually become a sentient being, if it isn't already one. (A approach I decided would be stupid: Well, if neural activity isn't relevant, I could just shoot ya in yer sleep. Nothing wrong with that, is there?)
@Atilla: I don't mean to offend you, but I generally don't agree with you. I will, however, agree with you on one thing. This isn't a debate anymore. It's just you telling us "You're stupid, your opinion doesn't matter, and you should go take a hike and find your brain." You generally refuse to let anyone even have a say in anything. Instead of debating, you just brush it off as "unscientific" and go on your way. If morons' opinions shouldn't be defended, then nobody's should, because everyones view of everything is relative. Rest assured, I will most likely post a post with actual content and stuff you could debate against, so you can laugh at me TWICE!

It isn't of any offense to me for someone to have unscientific reasoning.
I draw the line as soon as you attempt to force your unscientific beliefs upon the systems which affect everyone, including those who do not share your beliefs.

"everyones view of everything is relative."
There is such thing as objective reality and those who wish to neglect it forfeit their opinions being considered credible.

There is no equivalency between a zygote and a house pet, nor an insect, nor anything that a reasonable person would qualify as living.
Additionally, your analogy is absurd because there is neural activity when you are sleeping - you typically don't die when you sleep, amazing right?

Different55 · 2016-11-29 06:25:02

skullz17 wrote:

We know the difference. Different's point is, why is cognition used as criteria for deciding whether to kill something or not?

Bumping for visibility.

also

XxAtillaxX wrote:

keep the petty insults to the roasting topic

XxAtillaxX wrote:

It's incredibly pathetic, these morons should be mocked and ridiculed, not treated as intellectuals.

you must be the change that you wish to see in the world

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 06:34:08

Different55 wrote:

skullz17 wrote:
We know the difference. Different's point is, why is cognition used as criteria for deciding whether to kill something or not?
XxAtillaxX wrote:
keep the petty insults to the roasting topic
XxAtillaxX wrote:
It's incredibly pathetic, these morons should be mocked and ridiculed, not treated as intellectuals.
you must be the change that you wish to see in the world

What difference is there between a flower and a fetus that has no, and never had, cognition?
Do you have a heartfelt issue with killing flowers?

Additionally, those morons I'm referring to are those who are calling for reformations based not on scientific reasoning but of religion, bigotry and ignorance.
My stance is purely scientific, it does not account for any personal belief.

I would prefer that, if there were no burden upon the mother, that the child would be born.
I, however, believe in human rights and not forcing your beliefs upon others and therefore I accept that a non-living (i.e. never-cognitive) entity can be disposed of.

Different55 · 2016-11-29 06:51:58

XxAtillaxX wrote:

What difference is there between a flower and a fetus that has no, and never had, cognition?

The difference is pretty obvious. Wait a few weeks and that fetus will be cognitive. Wait as long as you like, that flower's not going anywhere.

Swarth100, mrjawapa

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2016-11-27 04:52:53

abortion

#2 2016-11-27 05:06:56, last edited by N1KF (2016-11-27 05:07:08)

Re: abortion

#3 2016-11-27 07:16:14

Re: abortion

#4 2016-11-27 12:59:09

Re: abortion

#5 2016-11-27 14:42:21

Re: abortion

#6 2016-11-27 14:56:01

Re: abortion

#7 2016-11-27 15:10:45

Re: abortion

#8 2016-11-27 15:17:08

Re: abortion

#9 2016-11-27 15:27:56

Re: abortion

#10 2016-11-27 15:36:31, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2016-11-27 15:48:17)

Re: abortion

#11 2016-11-27 15:45:02, last edited by mrjawapa (2016-11-27 15:46:55)

Re: abortion

#12 2016-11-27 15:52:39

Re: abortion

#13 2016-11-27 16:47:40, last edited by Different55 (2016-11-27 16:48:05)

Re: abortion

#14 2016-11-27 17:03:24

Re: abortion

#15 2016-11-27 19:17:04

Re: abortion

#16 2016-11-27 20:23:23, last edited by mrjawapa (2016-11-27 20:24:03)

Re: abortion

#17 2016-11-27 22:30:40, last edited by Insanity (2016-11-27 22:31:00)

Re: abortion

#18 2016-11-28 14:50:51

Re: abortion

#19 2016-11-28 16:36:16

Re: abortion

#20 2016-11-28 23:39:21

Re: abortion

#21 2016-11-29 01:39:13

Re: abortion

#22 2016-11-29 05:58:50, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2016-11-29 05:59:20)

Re: abortion

#23 2016-11-29 06:25:02

Re: abortion

#24 2016-11-29 06:34:08, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2016-11-29 06:34:45)

Re: abortion

#25 2016-11-29 06:51:58, last edited by Different55 (2016-11-29 06:52:32)

Re: abortion

Board footer