abortion

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 06:55:05

Different55 wrote:

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.

You wait a few weeks and cause near unbearable pain to the mother who would rather not have to go through it?
How very moral of you.

Different55 · 2016-11-29 07:04:45

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Different55 wrote:
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.
You wait a few weeks and cause near unbearable pain to the mother who would rather not have to go through it?
How very moral of you.

Alright you've either got to be trolling me or you really need to work on your recall skills. I'm not debating you pro life vs pro choice, get off that track. At no point have I stated my own opinions on this subject. I'm asking you why choose cognition as the cut off over any other possible cut off point? Skullz said it better than I can:

skullz17 wrote:

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

N1KF

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 07:14:44

Different55 wrote:

I'm asking you why choose cognition as the cut off over any other possible cut off point? Skullz said it better than I can:
skullz17 wrote:
why is cognition used as criteria for deciding whether to kill something or not?

Cognition is, by the very definition, the inability to sense, to experience, to have thought.
This is the very thing that separates living entities from non-living entities. If it is a non-living entity then it is not unethical to destroy it.

You are in-fact alive by the common interpretation of the term, when you have cognition.
Anything further is pure philosophical nonsense, such as the ethicality of preventing an action that would otherwise occur.

Different55 · 2016-11-29 07:18:34

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Cognition is, by the very definition, the inability to sense, to experience, to have thought.
This is the very thing that separates living entities from non-living entities. If it is a non-living entity then it is not unethical to destroy it.

Why do you say that? Like I mentioned before, we had another discussion on whether or not viruses counted as life and nowhere in that conversation did thought come up as one of the requirements for something to count as living.

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 07:24:42

Different55 wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
This is the very thing that separates living entities from non-living entities.
Why do you say that? Like I mentioned before, we had another discussion on whether or not viruses counted as life and nowhere in that conversation did thought come up as one of the requirements for something to count as living.

It is the commonly accepted interpretation of the term living, because it is what is scientifically distinguishable from mere primitive chemical processes.
Viruses do not count as living by any standard, they are acellular, they replicate by means of infecting host cells.

Different55 · 2016-11-29 07:31:22

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Viruses do not count as living by any standard, they are acellular, they replicate by means of infecting host cells.

I-

I know. I'm not bringing that discussion back up. Are you feeling okay? I'm saying that at no point in that conversation did cognition come up. Because cognition is not what separates the living from the dead. Where did you get that idea into your head?

Pyromaniac

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 07:33:46

Different55 wrote:

Because cognition is not what separates the living from the dead. Where did you get that idea into your head?

What do dead humans lack? Cognition.
What do dead humans retain temporarily despite being buried 10 feet under? Cells, viruses, etc.

Different55 · 2016-11-29 08:26:31

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Different55 wrote:
Because cognition is not what separates the living from the dead. Where did you get that idea into your head?
What do dead humans lack? Cognition.
What do dead humans retain temporarily despite being buried 10 feet under? Cells, viruses, etc.

Alright cool thanks for confirming that you're trolling, totally wasted my time there. Good one m8 you got me.

Just in case you're not trolling, a brain dead individual is still alive, and a massive multi-cellular organism can die without each individual cell immediately dying as well.

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 08:39:28

Different55 wrote:

Alright cool thanks for confirming that you're trolling, totally wasted my time there. Good one m8 you got me.
Just in case you're not trolling, a brain dead individual is still alive, and a massive multi-cellular organism can die without each individual cell immediately dying as well.

I'm trolling? What, are you saying brain dead humans have cognition? You asked for the difference and I provided it.
A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're dead, they're legally and clinically considered dead.

Different55 · 2016-11-29 08:44:10

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I'm trolling? What, are you saying dead humans have cognition? You asked for the difference and I provided it.
A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're dead, they're legally and clinically considered dead.

Okay I dragged it on a little longer with that last post but you are definitely trolling and I fell for it again.

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 08:47:26

Different55 wrote:

Okay I dragged it on a little longer with that last post but you are definitely trolling and I fell for it again.

I'm honestly not. If you're unable to provide any refutation however, so be it.

Different55 · 2016-11-29 09:16:08

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I guess let's go for a third time.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Different55 wrote:
Alright cool thanks for confirming that you're trolling, totally wasted my time there. Good one m8 you got me.
Just in case you're not trolling, a brain dead individual is still alive, and a massive multi-cellular organism can die without each individual cell immediately dying as well.
I'm trolling? What, are you saying brain dead humans have cognition? You asked for the difference and I provided it.

Did you purposefully pick the single most idiotic interpretation possible out of the first half of what I said and then ignore the rest? I didn't ask for any difference I asked you how you got the idea that cognition = life into your head. That idea is unquestionably false and you never answered the actual question I asked. You seemingly made up your own question and responded to that.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're dead, they're legally and clinically considered dead.

Legally? Yeah. Clinically? No.

Clinical death is the medical term for cessation of blood circulation and breathing, the two necessary criteria to sustain human and many other organisms' lives. It occurs when the heart stops beating in a regular rhythm, a condition called cardiac arrest.

Maybe you meant biological death except you can still lack brain function while still fulfilling all the criteria needed to qualify as biologically living. Brain dead people still maintain homeostasis, they metabolize, they're still made out of cells, they can still grow, they can adapt, they can reproduce, and they respond to stimuli. That's everything. Fulfill those criteria and congratulations you're alive. You might have noticed cognition missing from that list. That'd be because no sane person will tell you cognition is a requirement of life.

Pyromaniac

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 09:54:58

Different55 wrote:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I guess let's go for a third time.
Did you purposefully pick the single most idiotic interpretation possible out of the first half of what I said and then ignore the rest of the sentence? I didn't ask for any difference I asked you how you got the idea that cognition = life into your head. That idea is unquestionably false and you never answered the actual question I asked. You seemingly made up your own question and responded to that.
XxAtillaxX wrote:
A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're dead, they're legally and clinically considered dead.
Legally? Yeah. Clinically? No.

"Legally? Yeah. Clinically? No."
If you are in a clinic, they will assess biological life factors rather than the supply of oxygen to determine legal death - the invention of the ventilator in the 50s should have revised the definition of clinical death.
I do not subscribe to using outdated definitions, I'm purely in favour of revising definitions to accurately match their intention. I'm very aware of this and I've stated this previously, excluding circulatory death.

It's rather pedantic that you find an issue with definitions when you understand that both determine the legal death status.
If you do not have white matter within the brain, you are incapable of cognition despite having brain cells - you are a vegetable and are considered legally dead.

The legal interpretation of a non-living entity is primarily what affects abortion as a legal procedure.

mrjawapa · 2016-11-29 13:12:25

XxAtillaxX wrote:

no burden upon the mother

what kind of burden would constitute an abortion, in your opinion?

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 14:02:11

MrJaWapa wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
no burden upon the mother
what kind of burden would constitute an abortion, in your opinion?

The agony of childbirth as well as years of raising children, it isn't easy and it's very time consuming.
Additionally, abortion isn't painless either, it's not preferable in any way to contraception.

Different55 · 2016-11-29 14:50:49

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Different55 wrote:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I guess let's go for a third time.
Did you purposefully pick the single most idiotic interpretation possible out of the first half of what I said and then ignore the rest of the sentence? I didn't ask for any difference I asked you how you got the idea that cognition = life into your head. That idea is unquestionably false and you never answered the actual question I asked. You seemingly made up your own question and responded to that.
XxAtillaxX wrote:
A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're dead, they're legally and clinically considered dead.
Legally? Yeah. Clinically? No.
"Legally? Yeah. Clinically? No."
If you are in a clinic, they will assess biological life factors rather than the supply of oxygen to determine legal death - the invention of the ventilator in the 50s should have revised the definition of clinical death.
I do not subscribe to using outdated definitions, I'm purely in favour of revising definitions to accurately match their intention. I'm very aware of this and I've stated this previously, excluding circulatory death.
It's rather pedantic that you find an issue with definitions when you understand that both determine the legal death status.
If you do not have white matter within the brain, you are incapable of cognition despite having brain cells - you are a vegetable and are considered legally dead.
The legal interpretation of a non-living entity is primarily what affects abortion as a legal procedure.

...No, no it's not. Legal death has even less to do with abortion than cognition does for life. Legal death ONLY involves dying, it has no idea whether or not something is alive in the first place. Whether or not something is alive is a question for biology, and biology does not care whether or not something is cognizant. And still you never answered the question: What gave you the insane idea that cognition is a requirement of life?

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 15:04:47

Different55 wrote:

...No, no it's not. Legal death has even less to do with abortion than cognition does for life. Legal death ONLY involves dying, it has no idea whether or not something is alive in the first place. Whether or not something is alive is a question for biology, and biology does not care whether or not something is cognizant. And still you never answered the question: What gave you the insane idea that cognition is a requirement of life?

I had never said it is a requirement for life as a whole, I said it's the common interpretation of life, as in, life on the macroscopic scale, i.e. humans.
Abortion, like any other medical procedure, is one performed legally and is subject to legal interpretation of what is considered living. I didn't say death either.
Which is why, in the past, abortion has been illegal in most parts of the world, including the United States.

Yandax · 2016-11-29 15:25:11

▼Hidden text

XxAtillaxX wrote:

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.
I had dropped out of high school out of dislike of mandatory education, and I had skipped the first year of kindergarten. I've always disliked it from the very beginning.
It hasn't had the slightest of impediments on my life, as I'm very much capable of showing my success as an individual without a certificate of participation.
I've recently, despite this, within the last year, had my knowledge and logical reasoning skills evaluated, with results showing my adequacy no less than the 11-12th grade range.
If my mother would have accepted my middle-schools offer to elevate me to grade 7 from grade 3, I would have likely graduated as there'd be less time spent and wasted on my part.
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?

I can't really add much to the discussion above, so I'll just pettily continue this.
Objective reality is a thing. But opinions aren't part of it. Lets say you think I'm a moron. Whether or not that is true isn't part of this discussion. But, there are people who think otherwise. Nobody's right here because it's a matter of opinion until we get a lot consistent evidence one way or the other. And still, if I change, but not too much, it's still up to opinion. "Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."<-- my good friend Wikipedia.

Of course my sleep analogy is absurd. That's why I chose not to use it, and instead showed it as a bad argument. I figured in my lil brain that you have LESS activity. A stupid idea, to be sure.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

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.

Oh. I get it. Everything you say is scientific, and must be treated as true. EVERYTHING makes sense now. Thanks for clearing that one up.
Your 'drawing the line' effects both sides. There are probably bunches of people who are pro-life who hate your opinions. So forcing abortion upon the systems that effect everyone is stupid, because nobody will ever agree to it.

'isn't of any offence to me for someone to have unscientific reasoning'

XxAtillaxX wrote:

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.

Call me clueless, but that seems like you're at least slightly annoyed, if not offended.

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 15:49:49

Yandax wrote:

I can't really add much to the discussion above, so I'll just pettily continue this.
Objective reality is a thing. But opinions aren't part of it. Lets say you think I'm a moron. Whether or not that is true isn't part of this discussion. But, there are people who think otherwise. Nobody's right here because it's a matter of opinion until we get a lot consistent evidence one way or the other. And still, if I change, but not too much, it's still up to opinion. "Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."<-- my good friend Wikipedia.
Of course my sleep analogy is absurd. That's why I chose not to use it, and instead showed it as a bad argument. I figured in my lil brain that you have LESS activity. A stupid idea, to be sure.
XxAtillaxX wrote:
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.
Oh. I get it. Everything you say is scientific, and must be treated as true. EVERYTHING makes sense now. Thanks for clearing that one up.
Your 'drawing the line' effects both sides. There are probably bunches of people who are pro-life who hate your opinions. So forcing abortion upon the systems that effect everyone is stupid, because nobody will ever agree to it.

The majority of pro-life stances are largely unscientific, immoral and have been largely discredited, hence abortions are legal in most modern countries.
I would recommend reading this, which underlines the most common arguments.

"Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources.
Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."

You see that? Reality and truth outside your feelings and backed up by evidence.
Now then, what evidence do you have to support the notion that fetuses have consciousness before ~30 weeks?
Keep in mind, the vast majority of abortions take place no later than 20 weeks, most typically are within the first 12 weeks.

Different55 · 2016-11-29 16:04:18

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I had never said it is a requirement for life as a whole, I said it's the common interpretation of life, as in, life on the macroscopic scale, i.e. humans.

Still not true. Ask anyone other than yourself. Nobody thinks that thought is required for life, even on the macroscopic scale. Unless you're living in some brain worshipping cult I don't see how you could ever get that idea into your head.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I didn't say death either.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're dead, they're legally and clinically considered dead.

A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're legally dead. Biologically and clinically they're alive. Cognition does not matter.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Abortion, like any other medical procedure, is one performed legally and is subject to legal interpretation of what is considered living.

The legal interpretation doesn't even matter when we're discussing this, we're discussing abortion not the current state of abortion in the law. If you want to bring in the law's reasoning for drawing its line at cognition then for the love of all that is good in the world do it, that's all I wanted from the very first post. Reasoning. Why cognition over any other point in time?

Yandax · 2016-11-29 16:05:31

@Atilla

I haven't even stated much of my opinion and you assume I'm pro-life? That isn't very fair

I'd like to know if there is a good deal of evidence supports that fetuses have consciousness after 20-ish weeks. After that, I might state my full opinion, having all of the facts in order.

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 16:09:40

Different55 wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
I had never said it is a requirement for life as a whole, I said it's the common interpretation of life, as in, life on the macroscopic scale, i.e. humans.
Still not true. Ask anyone other than yourself. Nobody thinks that thought is required for life, even on the macroscopic scale. Unless you're living in some brain worshipping cult I don't see how you could ever get that idea into your head.

I've only seen the religious portray life anything different than cognition by way of the advanced processes within the brain.

Different55 wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
I didn't say death either.
XxAtillaxX wrote:
A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're dead, they're legally and clinically considered dead.
A brain dead individual lacks cognition, hence they're legally dead. Biologically and clinically they're alive. Cognition does not matter.

They are as alive as a flower is, and I'm not against killing flowers.

Different55 wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
Abortion, like any other medical procedure, is one performed legally and is subject to legal interpretation of what is considered living.
The legal interpretation doesn't even matter when we're discussing this, we're discussing abortion not the current state of abortion in the law. If you want to bring in the law's reasoning for drawing its line at cognition then for the love of all that is good in the world do it, that's all I wanted from the very first post. Reasoning. Why cognition over any other point in time?

I'm not against killing flowers, therefore I'm not against killing undeveloped fetuses.

Yandax wrote:

@Atilla
I havzn't even stated much of my opinion and you assume I'm pro-life? That isn't very fair
I'd like to know if there is a good deal of evidence supports that fetuses have consciousness after 20-ish weeks. After that, I might state my full opinion, having all of the facts in order.

I haven't made the assumption, it doesn't matter to me very much what you personally believe as long as it's not impacting the lives of others, which it isn't.

I would suggest this citation.
excerpt: "In this paper we attempt to sharpen and to provide an answer to the question of when human beings first become conscious. Since it is relatively uncontentious that a capacity for raw sensation precedes and underpins all more sophisticated mental capacities, our question is tantamount to asking when human beings first have experiences with sensational content. Two interconnected features of our argument are crucial. First, we argue that experiences with sensational content are supervenient on facts about electrical activity in the cerebral cortex which can be ascertained through EEG readings. Second, we isolate from other notions of a‘functioning brain’that which is required to underpin the view that a cortex is functioning in a way which could give rise to rudimentary conscious experiences. We investigate the development in the human fetus of the anatomical and chemical pathways which underpin (immature) cortical activity and the growth and maturation of the electrical circuitry specifically associated with sensational content in adult experience. We conclude (tentatively) that a fetus becomes conscious at about 30 to 35 weeks after conception; an answer based on a careful analysis of EEG readings at various stages of cortical development. Finally, we survey the possible ethical ramifications of our answer."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 … 100.x/full

There are other citations available that affirm this.
http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v65/n3 … 0950a.html
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f … cle/201429
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamane … act/574959
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 7499700292
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a … -20-weeks/

Different55 · 2016-11-29 16:12:12

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I'm not against killing flowers, therefore I'm not against killing undeveloped fetuses.

That's not an answer. And there is a difference. The flower will never become cognizant, the fetus will in a few short weeks.

Different55 wrote:

If you want to bring in the law's reasoning for drawing its line at cognition then for the love of all that is good in the world do it, that's all I wanted from the very first post. Reasoning. Why cognition over any other point in time?

Answer the question.

XxAtillaxX · 2016-11-29 16:27:02

Different55 wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
I'm not against killing flowers, therefore I'm not against killing undeveloped fetuses.
That's not an answer. And there is a difference. The flower will never become cognizant, the fetus will in a few short weeks.
Different55 wrote:
If you want to bring in the law's reasoning for drawing its line at cognition then for the love of all that is good in the world do it, that's all I wanted from the very first post. Reasoning. Why cognition over any other point in time?
Answer the question.

It doesn't matter if the fetus will if you wait long enough, it currently isn't therefore it isn't unethical.
Additionally, forcibly subjecting women to unwanted near unbearable pain is unethical, let alone forcing them to spend years of their life caring for it.

I've provided the reason: cognition in humans is required to be considered alive legally.

Different55 · 2016-11-29 16:38:11

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Additionally, forcibly subjecting women to unwanted near unbearable pain is unethical, let alone forcing them to spend years of their life caring for it.

I've never said I was pro-life. Just because it will become cognizant doesn't mean it immediately becomes bad to abort it at any time, I'm just saying that equating it to a flower is dumb because there is a massive difference between the two. Just because I recognize that difference does not immediately make me pro-life, this is the second time this has happened.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

I've provided the reason: cognition in humans is required to be considered alive legally.

No. Atilla, that's not a reason. All you're doing is saying "I don't know why, but some other people do and I trust them pretty well." Yes, I know that the highly qualified people behind the law drew their line at cognition but I want to know why they drew it there. They weren't able to run away and say "I-IT'S THE LAW" so what did they say when asked "Where do we draw the line?"

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#26 2016-11-29 06:55:05

Re: abortion

#27 2016-11-29 07:04:45, last edited by Different55 (2016-11-29 07:05:38)

Re: abortion

#28 2016-11-29 07:14:44, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2016-11-29 07:17:38)

Re: abortion

#29 2016-11-29 07:18:34

Re: abortion

#30 2016-11-29 07:24:42

Re: abortion

#31 2016-11-29 07:31:22, last edited by Different55 (2016-11-29 07:31:42)

Re: abortion

#32 2016-11-29 07:33:46

Re: abortion

#33 2016-11-29 08:26:31

Re: abortion

#34 2016-11-29 08:39:28, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2016-11-29 08:41:24)

Re: abortion

#35 2016-11-29 08:44:10, last edited by Different55 (2016-11-29 08:46:01)

Re: abortion

#36 2016-11-29 08:47:26

Re: abortion

#37 2016-11-29 09:16:08, last edited by Different55 (2016-11-29 09:19:46)

Re: abortion

#38 2016-11-29 09:54:58, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2016-11-29 09:59:40)

Re: abortion

#39 2016-11-29 13:12:25

Re: abortion

#40 2016-11-29 14:02:11

Re: abortion

#41 2016-11-29 14:50:49

Re: abortion

#42 2016-11-29 15:04:47, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2016-11-29 15:07:56)

Re: abortion

#43 2016-11-29 15:25:11

Re: abortion

#44 2016-11-29 15:49:49, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2016-11-29 15:53:42)

Re: abortion

#45 2016-11-29 16:04:18

Re: abortion

#46 2016-11-29 16:05:31

Re: abortion

#47 2016-11-29 16:09:40, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2016-11-29 16:20:51)

Re: abortion

#48 2016-11-29 16:12:12, last edited by Different55 (2016-11-29 16:13:47)

Re: abortion

#49 2016-11-29 16:27:02, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2016-11-29 16:28:14)

Re: abortion

#50 2016-11-29 16:38:11, last edited by Different55 (2016-11-29 16:38:36)

Re: abortion

Board footer