Current Events > Senate to vote on 20-week abortion ban tonight

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Antifar 01/29/18 3:17:24 PM #1:	https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senate-20-week-abortion-ban_us_5a6f59d3e4b0ddb658c93c61 The U.S. Senate will vote Monday on a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and would threaten doctors with up to five years in jail. The legislation, passed by the House of Representatives in October, has little chance of acquiring the 60 votes it needs to move forward in the Senate. But conservatives hope that holding a vote on the bill will put some political pressure on vulnerable Democrats from red states and newly elected Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama to either support it or risk alienating some of their anti-abortion constituents. Clearly, we need more votes, but at some point when you start to get closer, and senators in vulnerable states start to feel the heat, then it starts to look very optimistic, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List, told reporters on Thursday. Democrats slammed Republican leadership on Monday for prioritizing an abortion ban less than a week after the government shutdown, and as the fate of so-called Dreamers young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children still hangs in the balance. Today, in communities across the country, young people are asking whether theyll be able to stay in the only country theyve ever called home, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in a floor speech before the vote. Workers and business owners are wondering again whether the government will be open in a few weeks. But, Mr. President instead of addressing the serious and pressing challenges that people are facing Republican leaders are debating whether to trust women to make their own health care choices. At least two moderate Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), have expressed concerns about the exceptions in the abortion bill, which was introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The legislation exempts women who require an abortion to save their lives, as well as rape and incest survivors, but the legislation does not include exemptions for health of the mother or severe fetal anomalies, which often cant be detected until the 20-week ultrasound. Since Republicans started trying to impose the limit in 2013, many women have come forward with their personal stories of discovering at or after the 20-week mark that the fetus would either not survive the pregnancy or would severely suffer after birth. I was absolutely devastated to get that news, said Kate Williams, who discovered when she was 21 weeks pregnant that her unborn son had Potter syndrome, a fatal condition in which the kidneys fail to develop in the womb. I called my regular OB-GYN to discuss with her if there was any chance this might not be true. But she looked at the ultrasounds and told me, No, this is the situation. Collins, who voted against the 20-week abortion ban in 2015, told the Washington Examiner last week that she suggested some changes to the language of the bill and will see what happens. A few Democrats are likely to cross over and support the bill, and Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) have already indicated they would vote for it. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) voted for the legislation alongside Manchin and Donnelly in 2015. Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) previously voted against the legislation, but are now both up for re-election this year in states that voted for Trump. However, recent polling suggests that supporting abortion rights is more likely to help a candidate, even in red states and especially among independent voters, than to hurt. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:895048156] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senate-20-week-abortion-ban_us_5a6f59d3e4b0ddb658c93c61 <quote>The U.S. Senate will vote Monday on a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and would threaten doctors with up to five years in jail. The legislation, passed by the House of Representatives in October, has little chance of acquiring the 60 votes it needs to move forward in the Senate. But conservatives hope that holding a vote on the bill will put some political pressure on vulnerable Democrats from red states and newly elected Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama to either support it or risk alienating some of their anti-abortion constituents. Clearly, we need more votes, but at some point when you start to get closer, and senators in vulnerable states start to feel the heat, then it starts to look very optimistic, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List, told reporters on Thursday. Democrats slammed Republican leadership on Monday for prioritizing an abortion ban less than a week after the government shutdown, and as the fate of so-called Dreamers young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children still hangs in the balance. Today, in communities across the country, young people are asking whether theyll be able to stay in the only country theyve ever called home, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in a floor speech before the vote. Workers and business owners are wondering again whether the government will be open in a few weeks. But, Mr. President instead of addressing the serious and pressing challenges that people are facing Republican leaders are debating whether to trust women to make their own health care choices. At least two moderate Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), have expressed concerns about the exceptions in the abortion bill, which was introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The legislation exempts women who require an abortion to save their lives, as well as rape and incest survivors, but the legislation does not include exemptions for health of the mother or severe fetal anomalies, which often cant be detected until the 20-week ultrasound. Since Republicans started trying to impose the limit in 2013, many women have come forward with their personal stories of discovering at or after the 20-week mark that the fetus would either not survive the pregnancy or would severely suffer after birth. I was absolutely devastated to get that news, said Kate Williams, who discovered when she was 21 weeks pregnant that her unborn son had Potter syndrome, a fatal condition in which the kidneys fail to develop in the womb. I called my regular OB-GYN to discuss with her if there was any chance this might not be true. But she looked at the ultrasounds and told me, No, this is the situation. Collins, who voted against the 20-week abortion ban in 2015, told the Washington Examiner last week that she suggested some changes to the language of the bill and will see what happens. A few Democrats are likely to cross over and support the bill, and Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) have already indicated they would vote for it. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) voted for the legislation alongside Manchin and Donnelly in 2015. Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) previously voted against the legislation, but are now both up for re-election this year in states that voted for Trump. However, recent polling suggests that supporting abortion rights is more likely to help a candidate, even in red states and especially among independent voters, than to hurt. </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romulox28 01/29/18 3:18:44 PM #2:	Antifar posted... But, Mr. President instead of addressing the serious and pressing challenges that people are facing Republican leaders are debating whether to trust women to make their own health care choices. ugh i hate these arguments --- http://i.imgur.com/LhwwG.gif <cite>Romulox28 posted [p:895048256] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>But, Mr. President instead of addressing the serious and pressing challenges that people are facing Republican leaders are debating whether to trust women to make their own health care choices.</quote> ugh i hate these arguments</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darksaber310 01/29/18 3:20:26 PM #3:	I agree with the idea, but blanket bans are a shit sandwich that creates a trap that the opposite side can wave like a flag. I'd support it if it required a doctor's opinion to have one past that point. --- Once again snatching defeat, From the jaws of victory. <cite>Darksaber310 posted [p:895048347] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>I agree with the idea, but blanket bans are a shit sandwich that creates a trap that the opposite side can wave like a flag. I'd support it if it required a doctor's opinion to have one past that point.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KazumaKiryu 01/29/18 3:22:04 PM #4:	Why is this not already a law? What kind of a person would carry a baby inside them for over FOUR MONTHS and then decide they want to kill it? --- Just your bad luck... to run into me. <cite>KazumaKiryu posted [p:895048454] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>Why is this not already a law? What kind of a person would carry a baby inside them for over FOUR MONTHS and then decide they want to kill it?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 01/29/18 3:22:38 PM #5:	Romulox28 posted... Antifar posted... But, Mr. President instead of addressing the serious and pressing challenges that people are facing Republican leaders are debating whether to trust women to make their own health care choices. ugh i hate these arguments Normally the idea of "Congress can't do two things at once" is silly, but this Congress has really shown that it can't. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:895048492] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>Romulox28 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>But, Mr. President instead of addressing the serious and pressing challenges that people are facing Republican leaders are debating whether to trust women to make their own health care choices.</quote> ugh i hate these arguments</quote> Normally the idea of "Congress can't do two things at once" is silly, but this Congress has really shown that it can't.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
creativerealms 01/29/18 3:22:53 PM #6:	So it will end in a tie and then Pence will pass the ban. Sigh I hope I'm wrong. --- No sig. <cite>creativerealms posted [p:895048510] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>So it will end in a tie and then Pence will pass the ban. Sigh I hope I'm wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 01/29/18 3:23:24 PM #7:	KazumaKiryu posted... Why is this not already a law? What kind of a person would carry a baby inside them for over FOUR MONTHS and then decide they want to kill it? The article gives an example of one Antifar posted... Since Republicans started trying to impose the limit in 2013, many women have come forward with their personal stories of discovering at or after the 20-week mark that the fetus would either not survive the pregnancy or would severely suffer after birth. I was absolutely devastated to get that news, said Kate Williams, who discovered when she was 21 weeks pregnant that her unborn son had Potter syndrome, a fatal condition in which the kidneys fail to develop in the womb. I called my regular OB-GYN to discuss with her if there was any chance this might not be true. But she looked at the ultrasounds and told me, No, this is the situation. --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:895048540] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>KazumaKiryu posted...</cite> <quote>Why is this not already a law? What kind of a person would carry a baby inside them for over FOUR MONTHS and then decide they want to kill it? </quote> The article gives an example of one <cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>Since Republicans started trying to impose the limit in 2013, many women have come forward with their personal stories of discovering at or after the 20-week mark that the fetus would either not survive the pregnancy or would severely suffer after birth. I was absolutely devastated to get that news, said Kate Williams, who discovered when she was 21 weeks pregnant that her unborn son had Potter syndrome, a fatal condition in which the kidneys fail to develop in the womb. I called my regular OB-GYN to discuss with her if there was any chance this might not be true. But she looked at the ultrasounds and told me, No, this is the situation.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 01/29/18 3:26:03 PM #8:	I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:895048726] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
creativerealms 01/29/18 3:29:29 PM #9:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. Honestly I have heard republicans try to end abortions in as few as twelve weeks (If not all together) twenty weeks is fine actually. By then women know they are pregnant and if they want to keep the potential child or not. --- No sig. <cite>creativerealms posted [p:895048951] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time.</quote> Honestly I have heard republicans try to end abortions in as few as twelve weeks (If not all together) twenty weeks is fine actually. By then women know they are pregnant and if they want to keep the potential child or not.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
cobain27 01/29/18 3:29:41 PM #10:	This is so dumb and transparent. The vast majority of abortions happen well before 20 weeks. The main reason 20 weeks has been thrown around so much is that 22-24 weeks (viability) is the Roe V. Wade cutoff. They just want to jam an abortion case up the Supreme Court's ass. --- There are 4815162342 types of people in this world. Those that love Lost and those who hate the ones that do. <cite>cobain27 posted [p:895048968] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>This is so dumb and transparent. The vast majority of abortions happen well before 20 weeks. The main reason 20 weeks has been thrown around so much is that 22-24 weeks (viability) is the Roe V. Wade cutoff. They just want to jam an abortion case up the Supreme Court's ass.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
googs19 01/29/18 3:32:18 PM #11:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. Except the 20 week ultrasound is where they determine things like if the organs are developing correctly, and there are other complications that don't show up until after 20 weeks. <cite>googs19 posted [p:895049118] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time.</quote> Except the 20 week ultrasound is where they determine things like if the organs are developing correctly, and there are other complications that don't show up until after 20 weeks.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ghettoraider81 01/29/18 3:33:28 PM #12:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. Wrong. There is a lot that can happen and be discovered after that time frame. --- Win, lose, or tie Oakland Raiders til I die! WHY'S THE RUM GONE! S.M.O.K.E my anti sXe <cite>ghettoraider81 posted [p:895049193] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time.</quote> Wrong. There is a lot that can happen and be discovered after that time frame.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KazumaKiryu 01/29/18 3:38:57 PM #13:	googs19 posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. Except the 20 week ultrasound is where they determine things like if the organs are developing correctly, and there are other complications that don't show up until after 20 weeks. It's a living baby has a beating heart and feels pain. How many of us wouldn't be alive today if our parents decided to murder us if we had any imperfections? Bloody hell. --- Just your bad luck... to run into me. <cite>KazumaKiryu posted [p:895049537] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>googs19 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time.</quote> Except the 20 week ultrasound is where they determine things like if the organs are developing correctly, and there are other complications that don't show up until after 20 weeks.</quote> It's a living baby has a beating heart and feels pain. How many of us wouldn't be alive today if our parents decided to murder us if we had any imperfections? Bloody hell.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Funcoot 01/29/18 4:03:04 PM #14:	KazumaKiryu posted... googs19 posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. Except the 20 week ultrasound is where they determine things like if the organs are developing correctly, and there are other complications that don't show up until after 20 weeks. It's a living baby has a beating heart and feels pain. How many of us wouldn't be alive today if our parents decided to murder us if we had any imperfections? Bloody hell. Imperfections like the kidneys not developing in the womb, like the example in the article? --- Check your lease, man, 'cause you're living in ** City! PSN: Wolften91** <cite>Funcoot posted [p:895051021] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>KazumaKiryu posted...</cite> <quote><cite>googs19 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time.</quote> Except the 20 week ultrasound is where they determine things like if the organs are developing correctly, and there are other complications that don't show up until after 20 weeks.</quote> It's a living baby has a beating heart and feels pain. How many of us wouldn't be alive today if our parents decided to murder us if we had any imperfections? Bloody hell.</quote> Imperfections like the kidneys not developing in the womb, like the example in the article?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gbpxl 01/29/18 4:05:06 PM #15:	But, Mr. President instead of addressing the serious and pressing challenges that people are facing Republican leaders are debating whether to trust women to make their own health care choices. When their own health care choice involves crushing a human beings skull and sucking the arms and legs out of its mother with a vacuum, I think the president is well within his rights to not trust their health care choices. <cite>gbpxl posted [p:895051166] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>But, Mr. President instead of addressing the serious and pressing challenges that people are facing Republican leaders are debating whether to trust women to make their own health care choices. When their own health care choice involves crushing a human beings skull and sucking the arms and legs out of its mother with a vacuum, I think the president is well within his rights to not trust their health care choices.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gbpxl 01/29/18 4:06:19 PM #16:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. what defects would be bad enough that warrant an abortion? <cite>gbpxl posted [p:895051235] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time.</quote> what defects would be bad enough that warrant an abortion?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DifferentialEquation 01/29/18 4:06:22 PM #17:	I hope it passes. The liberal outrage would be fantastic --- There's no business to be taxed. <cite>DifferentialEquation posted [p:895051239] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>I hope it passes. The liberal outrage would be fantastic</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Funkydog 01/29/18 4:09:01 PM #18:	I mean, most countries have it around 20-28 week mark I think, save for medical complications. Why does it need to be changed? America's is at 24 weeks I believe? it just seems unnecessary to battle to change it from it is, given states can them regulate their own laws on it (afaik anyway) --- http://i.imgur.com/BGbZK.gif <cite>Funkydog posted [p:895051431] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>I mean, most countries have it around 20-28 week mark I think, save for medical complications. Why does it need to be changed? America's is at 24 weeks I believe? it just seems unnecessary to battle to change it from it is, given states can them regulate their own laws on it (afaik anyway)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 01/29/18 4:09:32 PM #19:	ghettoraider81 posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. Wrong. There is a lot that can happen and be discovered after that time frame. And a baby at 20 weeks can start moving and kicking. And a lot can happen at any time, there is no magic formula that works 100%. Brain defects, which can be caught early are the most important part of the screening. 99% of abortions take place before 20 weeks and provides enough coverage supporters and opponents of abortion. Is everything perfect? No, it isn't, but if people need a sign of life, it's the baby moving and kicking. --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:895051457] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>ghettoraider81 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time.</quote> Wrong. There is a lot that can happen and be discovered after that time frame.</quote> And a baby at 20 weeks can start moving and kicking. And a lot can happen at any time, there is no magic formula that works 100%. Brain defects, which can be caught early are the most important part of the screening. 99% of abortions take place before 20 weeks and provides enough coverage supporters and opponents of abortion. Is everything perfect? No, it isn't, but if people need a sign of life, it's the baby moving and kicking.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 01/29/18 4:09:48 PM #20:	KazumaKiryu posted... googs19 posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. Except the 20 week ultrasound is where they determine things like if the organs are developing correctly, and there are other complications that don't show up until after 20 weeks. It's a living baby has a beating heart and feels pain. How many of us wouldn't be alive today if our parents decided to murder us if we had any imperfections? Bloody hell. Its legally not murder. gbpxl posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. what defects would be bad enough that warrant an abortion? Stuff like Potter syndrome. Other health complications can rise up for the mother. I think they should push it back to like 24 weeks OR make an amendment where if the life of the baby/mother are in jeopardy if the birth happens or therell be serious health risks or whatever. Not just eh I dont want this baby anymore but like real serious shit. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:895051466] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>KazumaKiryu posted...</cite> <quote><cite>googs19 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time.</quote> Except the 20 week ultrasound is where they determine things like if the organs are developing correctly, and there are other complications that don't show up until after 20 weeks.</quote> It's a living baby has a beating heart and feels pain. How many of us wouldn't be alive today if our parents decided to murder us if we had any imperfections? Bloody hell.</quote> Its legally not murder. <cite>gbpxl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time.</quote> what defects would be bad enough that warrant an abortion?</quote> Stuff like Potter syndrome. Other health complications can rise up for the mother. I think they should push it back to like 24 weeks OR make an amendment where if the life of the baby/mother are in jeopardy if the birth happens or therell be serious health risks or whatever. Not just eh I dont want this baby anymore but like real serious shit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SK8T3R215 01/29/18 4:10:09 PM #21:	Abortions really shouldn't last 20 weeks tbqh. Should be a fairly quick procedure. --- New York Knicks, New York Jets, New York Yankees. <cite>SK8T3R215 posted [p:895051494] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>Abortions really shouldn't last 20 weeks tbqh. Should be a fairly quick procedure.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darklit_Minuet 01/29/18 4:15:59 PM #22:	KazumaKiryu posted... Why is this not already a law? What kind of a person would carry a baby inside them for over FOUR MONTHS and then decide they want to kill it? In a vacuum, this train of thought would make sense. However, you have to look at everything that surrounds this. Republicans keep pushing laws to stall abortion as long as they can. Closing as many clinics as they can, adding waiting periods, forcing multiple visits, etc. By giving them something like this, they'll know that they "only" have to stall the woman in any way they can for four months and then abortion would be illegal for her. This is a terrible idea, because it'll just ramp up their opposition even further. <cite>Darklit_Minuet posted [p:895051859] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>KazumaKiryu posted...</cite> <quote>Why is this not already a law? What kind of a person would carry a baby inside them for over FOUR MONTHS and then decide they want to kill it?</quote> In a vacuum, this train of thought would make sense. However, you have to look at everything that surrounds this. Republicans keep pushing laws to stall abortion as long as they can. Closing as many clinics as they can, adding waiting periods, forcing multiple visits, etc. By giving them something like this, they'll know that they "only" have to stall the woman in any way they can for four months and then abortion would be illegal for her. This is a terrible idea, because it'll just ramp up their opposition even further.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 01/29/18 4:16:54 PM #23:	gbpxl posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. what defects would be bad enough that warrant an abortion? Edwards' syndrome and Down syndrome, with the most common being Down syndrome as the reason for terminating a pregnancy. --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:895051913] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>gbpxl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time.</quote> what defects would be bad enough that warrant an abortion?</quote> Edwards' syndrome and Down syndrome, with the most common being Down syndrome as the reason for terminating a pregnancy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Funkydog 01/29/18 4:17:35 PM #24:	sktgamer_13dude posted... I think they should push it back to like 24 weeks OR make an amendment where if the life of the baby/mother are in jeopardy if the birth happens or therell be serious health risks or whatever. Not just eh I dont want this baby anymore but like real serious shit. Is the latter not a part of US law regarding abortion? That just seems like a basic thing to have, regardless of thoughts on abortion. --- http://i.imgur.com/BGbZK.gif <cite>Funkydog posted [p:895051976] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>I think they should push it back to like 24 weeks OR make an amendment where if the life of the baby/mother are in jeopardy if the birth happens or therell be serious health risks or whatever. Not just eh I dont want this baby anymore but like real serious shit.</quote> Is the latter not a part of US law regarding abortion? That just seems like a basic thing to have, regardless of thoughts on abortion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 01/29/18 4:26:02 PM #25:	Funkydog posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... I think they should push it back to like 24 weeks OR make an amendment where if the life of the baby/mother are in jeopardy if the birth happens or therell be serious health risks or whatever. Not just eh I dont want this baby anymore but like real serious shit. Is the latter not a part of US law regarding abortion? That just seems like a basic thing to have, regardless of thoughts on abortion. I honestly dont know besides knowing that conservatives want to outlaw it. Love that the party of small government wants to put as many rules on people as they can! --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:895052500] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>Funkydog posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>I think they should push it back to like 24 weeks OR make an amendment where if the life of the baby/mother are in jeopardy if the birth happens or therell be serious health risks or whatever. Not just eh I dont want this baby anymore but like real serious shit.</quote> Is the latter not a part of US law regarding abortion? That just seems like a basic thing to have, regardless of thoughts on abortion.</quote> I honestly dont know besides knowing that conservatives want to outlaw it. Love that the party of small government wants to put as many rules on people as they can!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
emblem boy 01/29/18 6:47:04 PM #26:	Antifar posted... The legislation exempts women who require an abortion to save their lives, as well as rape and incest survivors, but the legislation does not include exemptions for health of the mother or severe fetal anomalies, which often cant be detected until the 20-week ultrasound. Aren't those very similar things? Like, it's fine if the mother won't die but will be severely damaged from the pregnancy? Anyway, I'm fine with a ban around this 20 week timeframe for health reasons and stuff. Is there a reason these exemptions seem to be so partisan? --- Posted with GameRaven 3.4 Beta 1 <cite>emblem boy posted [p:895061653] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>The legislation exempts women who require an abortion to save their lives, as well as rape and incest survivors, but the legislation does not include exemptions for health of the mother or severe fetal anomalies, which often cant be detected until the 20-week ultrasound. </quote> Aren't those very similar things? Like, it's fine if the mother won't die but will be severely damaged from the pregnancy? Anyway, I'm fine with a ban around this 20 week timeframe for health reasons and stuff. Is there a reason these exemptions seem to be so partisan?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 01/29/18 6:52:14 PM #27:	ugh --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:895061988] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>ugh</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#28	Post #28 was unavailable or deleted.
A_Good_Boy 01/29/18 6:57:54 PM #29:	Did congress start funding CHIP yet? --- Who is? I am! <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:895062360] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>Did congress start funding CHIP yet?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#30	Post #30 was unavailable or deleted.
gbpxl 01/29/18 6:59:19 PM #31:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... gbpxl posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. what defects would be bad enough that warrant an abortion? Edwards' syndrome and Down syndrome, with the most common being Down syndrome as the reason for terminating a pregnancy. if I had downs syndrome, would you abort me? <cite>gbpxl posted [p:895062451] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gbpxl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time.</quote> what defects would be bad enough that warrant an abortion?</quote> Edwards' syndrome and Down syndrome, with the most common being Down syndrome as the reason for terminating a pregnancy.</quote> if I had downs syndrome, would you abort me?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Funkydog 01/29/18 7:00:55 PM #32:	gbpxl posted... if I had downs syndrome, would you abort me? As someone with a genetic disease, it is definitely something I would consider of my own children if it ever happened. --- http://i.imgur.com/BGbZK.gif <cite>Funkydog posted [p:895062558] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>gbpxl posted...</cite> <quote>if I had downs syndrome, would you abort me? </quote> As someone with a genetic disease, it is definitely something I would consider of my own children if it ever happened.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 01/29/18 7:01:07 PM #33:	gbpxl posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... gbpxl posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. what defects would be bad enough that warrant an abortion? Edwards' syndrome and Down syndrome, with the most common being Down syndrome as the reason for terminating a pregnancy. if I had downs syndrome, would you abort me? If it would make you stop posting, then sure. --- Who is? I am! <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:895062575] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>gbpxl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>gbpxl posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote> I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. </quote> what defects would be bad enough that warrant an abortion? </quote> Edwards' syndrome and Down syndrome, with the most common being Down syndrome as the reason for terminating a pregnancy.</quote> if I had downs syndrome, would you abort me?</quote> If it would make you stop posting, then sure.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MC_BatCommander 01/29/18 7:03:09 PM #34:	gbpxl posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... gbpxl posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. what defects would be bad enough that warrant an abortion? Edwards' syndrome and Down syndrome, with the most common being Down syndrome as the reason for terminating a pregnancy. if I had downs syndrome, would you abort me? Anyone else find this hypothetical really fuckin' weird --- The Legend is True! <cite>MC_BatCommander posted [p:895062704] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>gbpxl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gbpxl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time.</quote> what defects would be bad enough that warrant an abortion?</quote> Edwards' syndrome and Down syndrome, with the most common being Down syndrome as the reason for terminating a pregnancy.</quote> if I had downs syndrome, would you abort me?</quote> Anyone else find this hypothetical really fuckin' weird</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 01/29/18 7:09:35 PM #35:	gbpxl posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... gbpxl posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. what defects would be bad enough that warrant an abortion? Edwards' syndrome and Down syndrome, with the most common being Down syndrome as the reason for terminating a pregnancy. if I had downs syndrome, would you abort me? That's for your parents to decide. I don't really care. --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:895063140] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>gbpxl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gbpxl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time.</quote> what defects would be bad enough that warrant an abortion?</quote> Edwards' syndrome and Down syndrome, with the most common being Down syndrome as the reason for terminating a pregnancy.</quote> if I had downs syndrome, would you abort me?</quote> That's for your parents to decide. I don't really care.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gbpxl 01/29/18 7:12:08 PM #36:	Funkydog posted... gbpxl posted... if I had downs syndrome, would you abort me? As someone with a genetic disease, it is definitely something I would consider of my own children if it ever happened. I actually had a brother who was born with a rare disease that made him really brittle. he didn't make it very long, only a few months after he was born. I'm glad my parents didn't have him killed because he was broken. <cite>gbpxl posted [p:895063296] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>Funkydog posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gbpxl posted...</cite> <quote>if I had downs syndrome, would you abort me? </quote> As someone with a genetic disease, it is definitely something I would consider of my own children if it ever happened.</quote> I actually had a brother who was born with a rare disease that made him really brittle. he didn't make it very long, only a few months after he was born. I'm glad my parents didn't have him killed because he was broken.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
prince_leo 01/29/18 7:14:11 PM #37:	MC_BatCommander posted... Anyone else find this hypothetical really fuckin' weird it is but anyway, it failed --- https://imgur.com/uHUvpSH http://error1355.com/ce/prince_leo.html <cite>prince_leo posted [p:895063434] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>MC_BatCommander posted...</cite> <quote>Anyone else find this hypothetical really fuckin' weird </quote> it is but anyway, it failed</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#38	Post #38 was unavailable or deleted.
prince_leo 01/29/18 7:19:21 PM #39:	Ex-Kefiroth posted... Nelson (D-FL), interesting. he's generally pro-abortion, but he is up for election this year and must think he has fight on his hands. florida is so fucking weird with abortion --- https://imgur.com/uHUvpSH http://error1355.com/ce/prince_leo.html <cite>prince_leo posted [p:895063759] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>Ex-Kefiroth posted...</cite> <quote>Nelson (D-FL), </quote> interesting. he's generally pro-abortion, but he is up for election this year and must think he has fight on his hands. florida is so fucking weird with abortion</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 01/29/18 7:28:46 PM #40:	Ex-Kefiroth posted... It failed: So why are we still worrying about this? Checks & Balances did its job. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:895064355] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>Ex-Kefiroth posted...</cite> <quote>It failed:</quote> So why are we still worrying about this? Checks & Balances did its job.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tupacrulez 01/29/18 7:47:42 PM #41:	Man I'm glad I don't live in that country. --- Suck less, Rock Moar Have I licked butt hole before? All the time. --r4xor <cite>Tupacrulez posted [p:895065547] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>Man I'm glad I don't live in that country.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ghettoraider81 01/29/18 10:11:50 PM #42:	gbpxl posted... Funkydog posted... gbpxl posted... if I had downs syndrome, would you abort me? As someone with a genetic disease, it is definitely something I would consider of my own children if it ever happened. I actually had a brother who was born with a rare disease that made him really brittle. he didn't make it very long, only a few months after he was born. I'm glad my parents didn't have him killed because he was broken. Yeah, much better that he suffered for a few months instead. --- Win, lose, or tie Oakland Raiders til I die! WHY'S THE RUM GONE! S.M.O.K.E my anti sXe <cite>ghettoraider81 posted [p:895075240] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>gbpxl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Funkydog posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gbpxl posted...</cite> <quote>if I had downs syndrome, would you abort me? </quote> As someone with a genetic disease, it is definitely something I would consider of my own children if it ever happened.</quote> I actually had a brother who was born with a rare disease that made him really brittle. he didn't make it very long, only a few months after he was born. I'm glad my parents didn't have him killed because he was broken.</quote> Yeah, much better that he suffered for a few months instead.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
emblem boy 01/30/18 10:42:50 AM #43:	So I've been reading a bit more about this bill. It seems like those in support of the bill are using the main argument that the kid can feel pain at that point. But apparently that science isn't completely true? Either way, it seems like most people are fine with abortions not being after 20 weeks, with the exception of various situation and conditions. Why not just try to agree better on what those exceptions are --- Posted with GameRaven 3.4 Beta 1 <cite>emblem boy posted [p:895102267] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>So I've been reading a bit more about this bill. It seems like those in support of the bill are using the main argument that the kid can feel pain at that point. But apparently that science isn't completely true? Either way, it seems like most people are fine with abortions not being after 20 weeks, with the exception of various situation and conditions. Why not just try to agree better on what those exceptions are</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dave_is_slick 01/30/18 10:49:55 AM #44:	KazumaKiryu posted... Why is this not already a law? What kind of a person would carry a baby inside them for over FOUR MONTHS and then decide they want to kill it? KazumaKiryu posted... googs19 posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time. Except the 20 week ultrasound is where they determine things like if the organs are developing correctly, and there are other complications that don't show up until after 20 weeks. It's a living baby has a beating heart and feels pain. How many of us wouldn't be alive today if our parents decided to murder us if we had any imperfections? Bloody hell. Oh shut the fuck up you melodramatic loon. --- The most relaxing version of Aquatic Ambiance I've ever heard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl61y1XM7sM <cite>dave_is_slick posted [p:895102673] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>KazumaKiryu posted...</cite> <quote>Why is this not already a law? What kind of a person would carry a baby inside them for over FOUR MONTHS and then decide they want to kill it?</quote> <cite>KazumaKiryu posted...</cite> <quote><cite>googs19 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see anything wrong with it. Pre-natal screenings start happening at 3 months, which is about 13 weeks. And further pre-natal screening happens during week 15-20, which is more than enough time to find out if your child has a defect and you can choose to abort or not abort during that time.</quote> Except the 20 week ultrasound is where they determine things like if the organs are developing correctly, and there are other complications that don't show up until after 20 weeks.</quote> It's a living baby has a beating heart and feels pain. How many of us wouldn't be alive today if our parents decided to murder us if we had any imperfections? Bloody hell.</quote> Oh shut the fuck up you melodramatic loon.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 01/30/18 10:51:10 AM #45:	emblem boy posted... Why not just try to agree better on what those exceptions are I seem to recall a strong movement, strangely bipartisan somehow, to specifically exclude certain exceptions, notably Downs and gender-selection. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:895102728] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>emblem boy posted...</cite> <quote>Why not just try to agree better on what those exceptions are</quote> I seem to recall a strong movement, strangely bipartisan somehow, to specifically exclude certain exceptions, notably Downs and gender-selection.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sayoria 01/30/18 10:51:16 AM #46:	KazumaKiryu posted... Why is this not already a law? What kind of a person would carry a baby inside them for over FOUR MONTHS and then decide they want to kill it? It's been through the Supreme Court before in many cases. The verdict is simple. First three months: At the choice of the mother. Second three months: Doctor needs to assess the situation with the mother more in depth before proceeding. Last three months: Up to the state laws. --- Japanese Crack: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5pzggr <cite>Sayoria posted [p:895102735] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>KazumaKiryu posted...</cite> <quote>Why is this not already a law? What kind of a person would carry a baby inside them for over FOUR MONTHS and then decide they want to kill it?</quote> It's been through the Supreme Court before in many cases. The verdict is simple. First three months: At the choice of the mother. Second three months: Doctor needs to assess the situation with the mother more in depth before proceeding. Last three months: Up to the state laws.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BLAKUboy 01/30/18 10:52:08 AM #47:	This is why we don't respond to Trumpeters. --- Aeris dies if she takes more damage than her current HP - Panthera http://signavatar.com/26999_s.png <cite>BLAKUboy posted [p:895102769] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>This is why we don't respond to Trumpeters.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 01/30/18 10:53:23 AM #48:	Sayoria posted... It's been through the Supreme Court before in many cases. The verdict is simple. Do you happen to have case names handy? <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:895102853] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sayoria posted...</cite> <quote>It's been through the Supreme Court before in many cases. The verdict is simple. </quote> Do you happen to have case names handy?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten 01/30/18 10:54:10 AM #49:	they need to at least ban frivolous abortions. just not feeling like having a baby is not good enough. you should have to get a doctor's note explaining why the abortion is happening, and if you do it without the note, you go to prison for murder <cite>Zikten posted [p:895102895] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote>they need to at least ban frivolous abortions. just not feeling like having a baby is not good enough. you should have to get a doctor's note explaining why the abortion is happening, and if you do it without the note, you go to prison for murder</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
prince_leo 01/30/18 10:54:47 AM #50:	Zikten posted... they need to at least ban frivolous abortions. just not feeling like having a baby is not good enough. you should have to get a doctor's note explaining why the abortion is happening, and if you do it without the note, you go to prison for murder why --- https://imgur.com/uHUvpSH http://error1355.com/ce/prince_leo.html <cite>prince_leo posted [p:895102937] in Senate to ... [t:76257820]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zikten posted...</cite> <quote>they need to at least ban frivolous abortions. just not feeling like having a baby is not good enough. you should have to get a doctor's note explaining why the abortion is happening, and if you do it without the note, you go to prison for murder</quote> why</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Current Events > Senate to vote on 20-week abortion ban tonight (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Senate to vote on 20-week abortion ban tonight