Poll of the Day > 10 Year Old who gets Pregnant has to cross State lines for a you know what...

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
adjl 07/03/22 10:55:29 AM #53:	Nichtcrawler-X posted... Which is why many countries have, or are switching to an opt-out system. While that helps improve donation rates, it's still very different from making donation mandatory (at which point it's no longer a donation, strictly speaking, but that's just being pedantic). Nichtcrawler-X posted... I feel like that one is more difficult to argue under the US constitution and amendments. The basic way this is all laid out is that the SC's ruling on historical cases sets precedent that prevents certain laws from being acted upon. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the ruling was that the constitution protects medical privacy such that the government has no right to know that a woman has received an abortion from her doctor and therefore no right to interfere. The current SC has decided that that logic isn't applicable because the constitution doesn't specifically protect abortions, so they've overturned the ruling and opened the door to laws against them. Similarly, laws prohibiting interracial marriage, gay marriage, sodomy, and contraception have been restrained by precedent that recognizes the right to marital privacy (to quote Trudeau Sr.: "the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation") and in turn prohibits the government from interfering in consenting adults making decisions about their own relationships. Ditch that precedent (as the SC is explicitly planning to, interracial marriage aside because the one outlining these plans is himself in an interracial marriage), and laws in many states will come into effect to outlaw such things. The issue at hand here is that the constitution does not explictly protect these things. Their only protection are these SC precedents that, as we've just seen, can be arbitrarily overturned by a court that decides not to like them, regardless of the will of the people. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:966304308] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler-X posted... </cite> <quote>Which is why many countries have, or are switching to an opt-out system.</quote> While that helps improve donation rates, it's still very different from making donation mandatory (at which point it's no longer a donation, strictly speaking, but that's just being pedantic). Nichtcrawler-X posted... </cite> <quote>I feel like that one is more difficult to argue under the US constitution and amendments.</quote> The basic way this is all laid out is that the SC's ruling on historical cases sets precedent that prevents certain laws from being acted upon. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the ruling was that the constitution protects medical privacy such that the government has no right to know that a woman has received an abortion from her doctor and therefore no right to interfere. The current SC has decided that that logic isn't applicable because the constitution doesn't specifically protect abortions, so they've overturned the ruling and opened the door to laws against them. Similarly, laws prohibiting interracial marriage, gay marriage, sodomy, and contraception have been restrained by precedent that recognizes the right to marital privacy (to quote Trudeau Sr.: "the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation") and in turn prohibits the government from interfering in consenting adults making decisions about their own relationships. Ditch that precedent (as the SC is explicitly planning to, interracial marriage aside because the one outlining these plans is himself in an interracial marriage), and laws in many states will come into effect to outlaw such things. The issue at hand here is that the constitution does not explictly protect these things. Their only protection are these SC precedents that, as we've just seen, can be arbitrarily overturned by a court that decides not to like them, regardless of the will of the people. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nichtcrawler-X 07/03/22 11:06:15 AM #54:	adjl posted... The basic way this is all laid out is that the SC's ruling on historical cases sets precedent that prevents certain laws from being acted upon. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the ruling was that the constitution protects medical privacy such that the government has no right to know that a woman has received an abortion from her doctor and therefore no right to interfere. The current SC has decided that that logic isn't applicable because the constitution doesn't specifically protect abortions, so they've overturned the ruling and opened the door to laws against them. So basically they said "medical privacy" is a fancy phrase that actually means nothing? That as a precedent opens the door to so much evil shenanigans... Yep, it is clear to me now, in a way like the electoral college, the supreme court is an undemocratic scourge and an active liability. While that helps me understand why most countries do not have such a construct, it does make me wonder why any country would have or even want one? --- Official Teetotaller of PotD Dovie'andi se tovya sagain! <cite>Nichtcrawler-X posted [p:966304497] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>The basic way this is all laid out is that the SC's ruling on historical cases sets precedent that prevents certain laws from being acted upon. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the ruling was that the constitution protects medical privacy such that the government has no right to know that a woman has received an abortion from her doctor and therefore no right to interfere. The current SC has decided that that logic isn't applicable because the constitution doesn't specifically protect abortions, so they've overturned the ruling and opened the door to laws against them.</quote> So basically they said "medical privacy" is a fancy phrase that actually means nothing? That as a precedent opens the door to so much evil shenanigans... Yep, it is clear to me now, in a way like the electoral college, the supreme court is an undemocratic scourge and an active liability. While that helps me understand why most countries do not have such a construct, it does make me wonder why any country would have or even want one? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/03/22 1:39:31 PM #55:	Nichtcrawler-X posted... So basically they said "medical privacy" is a fancy phrase that actually means nothing? Not explicitly, but because medical privacy was the basis for the decision in Roe v. Wade, overturning it sets the precedent of not protecting medical privacy in other cases. Nichtcrawler-X posted... That as a precedent opens the door to so much evil shenanigans... Yes. Yes it does. There are already exceptions to medical privacy, but they're pretty much limited to suspected child abuse and people that are a clear danger to others. By overturning this, expect new rulings that strip protections from drug addicts and overdose victims (causing them to avoid treatment for fear of being arrested), anything related to trans people (Texas has already passed a law requiring doctors to report parents of minors undergoing hormone therapy for child abuse), anything related to sexual health (especially for teens), and anything else that's seen as "enabling" whatever Y'all-Qaeda decides to crusade against. The abortion angle is horrific enough on its own, but they're not done yet. Not by a long shot. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:966307339] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler-X posted... </cite> <quote>So basically they said "medical privacy" is a fancy phrase that actually means nothing?</quote> Not explicitly, but because medical privacy was the basis for the decision in Roe v. Wade, overturning it sets the precedent of not protecting medical privacy in other cases. Nichtcrawler-X posted... </cite> <quote>That as a precedent opens the door to so much evil shenanigans...</quote> Yes. Yes it does. There are already exceptions to medical privacy, but they're pretty much limited to suspected child abuse and people that are a clear danger to others. By overturning this, expect new rulings that strip protections from drug addicts and overdose victims (causing them to avoid treatment for fear of being arrested), anything related to trans people (Texas has already passed a law requiring doctors to report parents of minors undergoing hormone therapy for child abuse), anything related to sexual health (especially for teens), and anything else that's seen as "enabling" whatever Y'all-Qaeda decides to crusade against. The abortion angle is horrific enough on its own, but they're not done yet. Not by a long shot. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheFalseDeity 07/03/22 2:04:13 PM #56:	pionear posted... https://news.yahoo.com/10-old-forced-cross-state-014401071.html Due to the overturning of you know what...didn't even know they could get pregnant at that age Evidently the youngest confirmed mother was 5 years 7 months old. So potentially 4 as the pregnancy age. Just incase you had any faith left in humanity that needed to be snuffed out. --- http://psnprofiles.com/TheFalseDeity Currently playing - OS RuneScape <cite>TheFalseDeity posted [p:966307826] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>pionear posted... </cite> <quote>https://news.yahoo.com/10-old-forced-cross-state-014401071.html Due to the overturning of you know what...didn't even know they could get pregnant at that age</quote>Evidently the youngest confirmed mother was 5 years 7 months old. So potentially 4 as the pregnancy age. Just incase you had any faith left in humanity that needed to be snuffed out. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dioxxys 07/03/22 2:08:04 PM #57:	TheFalseDeity posted... Evidently the youngest confirmed mother was 5 years 7 months old. So potentially 4 as the pregnancy age. <cite>dioxxys posted [p:966307916] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>TheFalseDeity posted... </cite> <quote>Evidently the youngest confirmed mother was 5 years 7 months old. So potentially 4 as the pregnancy age.</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/03/22 2:15:37 PM #58:	TheFalseDeity posted... Evidently the youngest confirmed mother was 5 years 7 months old. So potentially 4 as the pregnancy age. Just incase you had any faith left in humanity that needed to be snuffed out. Bonus points where being biologically capable of getting pregnant at that age is exceedingly rare and that pregnancy therefore represents an extremely tiny minority of the number of girls of that age being abused. It's also very unlikely that that was her first time having sex, and depending on where she is, the father (who stands a high chance of also being her father) may have faced no consequences. There are some exceptionally sick people out there. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:966308094] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>TheFalseDeity posted... </cite> <quote>Evidently the youngest confirmed mother was 5 years 7 months old. So potentially 4 as the pregnancy age. Just incase you had any faith left in humanity that needed to be snuffed out.</quote> Bonus points where being biologically capable of getting pregnant at that age is exceedingly rare and that pregnancy therefore represents an extremely tiny minority of the number of girls of that age being abused. It's also very unlikely that that was her first time having sex, and depending on where she is, the father (who stands a high chance of also being her father) may have faced no consequences. There are some exceptionally sick people out there. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
joemodda 07/03/22 3:19:25 PM #59:	Crossing State lines to commit murder like Rittenhouse! --- It's not genocide... it's pesticide... <cite>joemodda posted [p:966309495] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Crossing State lines to commit murder like Rittenhouse! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow 07/03/22 4:34:23 PM #60:	Jen0125 posted... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers Try 5 years old. Father uncle cousin cousin uncle "Chief".... Yeah that should obviously never happen, that's dangerous --- why am I even here <cite>Yellow posted [p:966311095] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Jen0125 posted... </cite> <quote>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers Try 5 years old.</quote>Father uncle cousin cousin uncle "Chief".... Yeah that should obviously never happen, that's dangerous </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 07/03/22 6:19:54 PM #61:	Yellow posted... Father uncle cousin cousin uncle "Chief".... Yeah that should obviously never happen, that's dangerous and yet still highlights why access to abortion medical care is such a necessity. <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:966313280] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Yellow posted... </cite> <quote>Father uncle cousin cousin uncle "Chief".... Yeah that should obviously never happen, that's dangerous</quote> and yet still highlights why access to abortion medical care is such a necessity. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow 07/03/22 7:21:54 PM #62:	joemodda posted... Crossing State lines to commit murder like Rittenhouse! First trimester abortions were the only ones protected by rvw The only murders happening are committed by the ones who have had their brain decomposed by the concept of a soul in the moment of fertilization. You can't just demand that the entire nation adheres to your faith in a soul. But that's what we get, so good for you. People who just mindlessly repeat what their church says cus they said running the place. Yeah, and if abortion is banned full stop it will be you using your political power to murder people who would die due to medical complications. Conflating faith-based thinking with law. Bad things happen. Who knew! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy --- why am I even here <cite>Yellow posted [p:966314504] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>joemodda posted... </cite> <quote>Crossing State lines to commit murder like Rittenhouse!</quote>First trimester abortions were the only ones protected by rvw The only murders happening are committed by the ones who have had their brain decomposed by the concept of a soul in the moment of fertilization. You can't just demand that the entire nation adheres to your faith in a soul. But that's what we get, so good for you. People who just mindlessly repeat what their church says cus they said running the place. Yeah, and if abortion is banned full stop it will be you using your political power to murder people who would die due to medical complications. Conflating faith-based thinking with law. Bad things happen. Who knew! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/03/22 11:38:26 PM #63:	What gets me is that abortion rates can be dramatically reduced without making them illegal. Birth control subsidies, comprehensive sex ed, accessible prenatal care, better social supports for children... There are so many highly effective strategies for reducing unwanted pregnancy rates and improving the likelihood that a mother decides to keep an unexpected pregnancy, none of which infringe on anyone's bodily autonomy or put anyone in danger. And yet here we are, ignoring all of those to focus on punishing women for getting pregnant. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:966319615] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>What gets me is that abortion rates can be dramatically reduced without making them illegal. Birth control subsidies, comprehensive sex ed, accessible prenatal care, better social supports for children... There are so many highly effective strategies for reducing unwanted pregnancy rates and improving the likelihood that a mother decides to keep an unexpected pregnancy, none of which infringe on anyone's bodily autonomy or put anyone in danger. And yet here we are, ignoring all of those to focus on punishing women for getting pregnant. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mharbenedict34 07/03/22 11:39:45 PM #64:	It is tragic that she had to do this. Trump has blood on his hands. I dont know how he sleeps knowing people have to struggle to free themselves from having their lives ruined by childbirth <cite>mharbenedict34 posted [p:966319636] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>It is tragic that she had to do this. Trump has blood on his hands. I dont know how he sleeps knowing people have to struggle to free themselves from having their lives ruined by childbirth </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 07/03/22 11:43:08 PM #65:	adjl posted... What gets me is that abortion rates can be dramatically reduced without making them illegal. Birth control subsidies, comprehensive sex ed, accessible prenatal care, better social supports for children... There are so many highly effective strategies for reducing unwanted pregnancy rates and improving the likelihood that a mother decides to keep an unexpected pregnancy, none of which infringe on anyone's bodily autonomy or put anyone in danger. And yet here we are, ignoring all of those to focus on punishing women for getting pregnant. I mean, they want those gone, too Many states have been trying to get of sex ed And isnt another guy trying to get rid or birth control and condoms? --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:966319691] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>What gets me is that abortion rates can be dramatically reduced without making them illegal. Birth control subsidies, comprehensive sex ed, accessible prenatal care, better social supports for children... There are so many highly effective strategies for reducing unwanted pregnancy rates and improving the likelihood that a mother decides to keep an unexpected pregnancy, none of which infringe on anyone's bodily autonomy or put anyone in danger. And yet here we are, ignoring all of those to focus on punishing women for getting pregnant.</quote> I mean, they want those gone, too Many states have been trying to get of sex ed And isnt another guy trying to get rid or birth control and condoms?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 07/03/22 11:51:55 PM #66:	adjl posted... While that helps improve donation rates, it's still very different from making donation mandatory (at which point it's no longer a donation, strictly speaking, but that's just being pedantic). The basic way this is all laid out is that the SC's ruling on historical cases sets precedent that prevents certain laws from being acted upon. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the ruling was that the constitution protects medical privacy such that the government has no right to know that a woman has received an abortion from her doctor and therefore no right to interfere. The current SC has decided that that logic isn't applicable because the constitution doesn't specifically protect abortions, so they've overturned the ruling and opened the door to laws against them. Similarly, laws prohibiting interracial marriage, gay marriage, sodomy, and contraception have been restrained by precedent that recognizes the right to marital privacy (to quote Trudeau Sr.: "the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation") and in turn prohibits the government from interfering in consenting adults making decisions about their own relationships. Ditch that precedent (as the SC is explicitly planning to, interracial marriage aside because the one outlining these plans is himself in an interracial marriage), and laws in many states will come into effect to outlaw such things. The issue at hand here is that the constitution does not explictly protect these things. Their only protection are these SC precedents that, as we've just seen, can be arbitrarily overturned by a court that decides not to like them, regardless of the will of the people. The constitution as written did protect abortion rights because of the way the 14th amendment was literally written. mharbenedict34 posted... It is tragic that she had to do this. Trump has blood on his hands. I dont know how he sleeps knowing people have to struggle to free themselves from having their lives ruined by childbirth Ruth Bader Ginsberg was at fault for not retiring when she could have. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:966319818] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote> While that helps improve donation rates, it's still very different from making donation mandatory (at which point it's no longer a donation, strictly speaking, but that's just being pedantic). The basic way this is all laid out is that the SC's ruling on historical cases sets precedent that prevents certain laws from being acted upon. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the ruling was that the constitution protects medical privacy such that the government has no right to know that a woman has received an abortion from her doctor and therefore no right to interfere. The current SC has decided that that logic isn't applicable because the constitution doesn't specifically protect abortions, so they've overturned the ruling and opened the door to laws against them. Similarly, laws prohibiting interracial marriage, gay marriage, sodomy, and contraception have been restrained by precedent that recognizes the right to marital privacy (to quote Trudeau Sr.: "the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation") and in turn prohibits the government from interfering in consenting adults making decisions about their own relationships. Ditch that precedent (as the SC is explicitly planning to, interracial marriage aside because the one outlining these plans is himself in an interracial marriage), and laws in many states will come into effect to outlaw such things. The issue at hand here is that the constitution does not explictly protect these things. Their only protection are these SC precedents that, as we've just seen, can be arbitrarily overturned by a court that decides not to like them, regardless of the will of the people. </quote> The constitution as written did protect abortion rights because of the way the 14th amendment was literally written. mharbenedict34 posted...</cite> <quote>It is tragic that she had to do this. Trump has blood on his hands. I dont know how he sleeps knowing people have to struggle to free themselves from having their lives ruined by childbirth </quote> Ruth Bader Ginsberg was at fault for not retiring when she could have.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
captpackrat 07/04/22 9:38:15 AM #67:	LinkPizza posted... And isnt another guy trying to get rid or birth control and condoms? Justice Clarence Thomas stated in his opinion in Dobbs that the Supreme Court should take a second look at Griswold v Connecticut --- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, Minutus carborata descendum pantorum. <cite>captpackrat posted [p:966326279] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote> And isnt another guy trying to get rid or birth control and condoms?</quote>Justice Clarence Thomas stated in his opinion in Dobbs that the Supreme Court should take a second look at Griswold v Connecticut </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nichtcrawler-X 07/04/22 9:44:46 AM #68:	adjl posted... And yet here we are, ignoring all of those to focus on punishing women for getting pregnant. Maybe someone should gather some numbers on unwanted pregnancies and causes and show that to those politicians. --- Official Teetotaller of PotD Dovie'andi se tovya sagain! <cite>Nichtcrawler-X posted [p:966326369] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>And yet here we are, ignoring all of those to focus on punishing women for getting pregnant.</quote> Maybe someone should gather some numbers on unwanted pregnancies and causes and show that to those politicians. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 07/04/22 9:46:43 AM #69:	captpackrat posted... Justice Clarence Thomas stated in his opinion in Dobbs that the Supreme Court should take a second look at Griswold v Connecticut I dont wish death on people But I dont think Id be sad if something happened to him --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:966326405] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>captpackrat posted...</cite> <quote>Justice Clarence Thomas stated in his opinion in Dobbs that the Supreme Court should take a second look at Griswold v Connecticut</quote> I dont wish death on people But I dont think Id be sad if something happened to him</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nichtcrawler-X 07/04/22 9:54:44 AM #70:	Can someone, in a way that makes sense, explain to me why the "supreme court" even exists, or at the very least gets to interpret law according to personal, several centuries outdated, world views? --- Official Teetotaller of PotD Dovie'andi se tovya sagain! <cite>Nichtcrawler-X posted [p:966326509] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Can someone, in a way that makes sense, explain to me why the "supreme court" even exists, or at the very least gets to interpret law according to personal, several centuries outdated, world views? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 07/04/22 10:01:25 AM #71:	Nichtcrawler-X posted... Can someone, in a way that makes sense, explain to me why the "supreme court" even exists, or at the very least gets to interpret law according to personal, several centuries outdated, world views? No we can't because our system really used to work on good faith but good faith politicians don't really exist en masse here anymore <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:966326610] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler-X posted... </cite> <quote>Can someone, in a way that makes sense, explain to me why the "supreme court" even exists, or at the very least gets to interpret law according to personal, several centuries outdated, world views?</quote> No we can't because our system really used to work on good faith but good faith politicians don't really exist en masse here anymore </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin 07/04/22 10:08:11 AM #72:	Nichtcrawler-X posted... Can someone, in a way that makes sense, explain to me why the "supreme court" even exists, or at the very least gets to interpret law according to personal, several centuries outdated, world views? The supreme court as a concept is ok, they're meant to be the final-stop when lesser courts can't come to a decision... But that's the thing, the supreme court is not supposed to interfere in any of the lesser courts, only be a final say during a deadlock. --- "Salt cures Everything!" My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos <cite>Lokarin posted [p:966326701] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler-X posted... </cite> <quote>Can someone, in a way that makes sense, explain to me why the "supreme court" even exists, or at the very least gets to interpret law according to personal, several centuries outdated, world views?</quote> The supreme court as a concept is ok, they're meant to be the final-stop when lesser courts can't come to a decision... But that's the thing, the supreme court is not supposed to interfere in any of the lesser courts, only be a final say during a deadlock. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BUMPED2002 07/04/22 10:29:31 AM #73:	10 year old pregnant? Let's just start there! Geez! --- SpankageBros <cite>BUMPED2002 posted [p:966327048] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>10 year old pregnant? Let's just start there! Geez! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nichtcrawler-X 07/04/22 10:47:34 AM #74:	Lokarin posted... The supreme court as a concept is ok, they're meant to be the final-stop when lesser courts can't come to a decision... But that's the thing, the supreme court is not supposed to interfere in any of the lesser courts, only be a final say during a deadlock. So a purely bureaucratic tool, that somehow got itself some political power? That actually sounds familiar. --- Official Teetotaller of PotD Dovie'andi se tovya sagain! <cite>Nichtcrawler-X posted [p:966327345] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Lokarin posted... </cite> <quote>The supreme court as a concept is ok, they're meant to be the final-stop when lesser courts can't come to a decision... But that's the thing, the supreme court is not supposed to interfere in any of the lesser courts, only be a final say during a deadlock.</quote> So a purely bureaucratic tool, that somehow got itself some political power? That actually sounds familiar. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/04/22 12:15:52 PM #75:	Nichtcrawler-X posted... Maybe someone should gather some numbers on unwanted pregnancies and causes and show that to those politicians. That won't help. Everyone has access to those stats, and pretty much every pro-lifer and politician catering to them for easy votes has been presented with them at some point. They just don't care. They're so wrapped up in the idea of protecting those poor. innocent babies and the belief that the only reason unwanted pregnancies happen is because the mothers are being wanton sluts that any suggestions of better ways to solve the problem or efforts to point out horrible side effects of banning abortion fall on deaf ears and do nothing to stop their histrionic crusade. This isn't a matter of people putting genuine effort into helping others. The pro-life movement is little more than a lazy, self-righteous circle jerk of people patting themselves on the back for doing the barest minimum they can possibly do to impose their god's will on others. BUMPED2002 posted... 10 year old pregnant? Let's just start there! Geez! There's nothing that needs discussion there. Rape happens, everyone agrees it's bad and the father should be locked up in his own ribcage, and that's really all that needs to be covered to explore that issue. The angle people are less unanimous about is whether or not the evil scumbags responsible for making it illegal to do anything to protect her from the subsequent immediate life-threatening danger should face the same fate. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:966329000] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler-X posted... </cite> <quote>Maybe someone should gather some numbers on unwanted pregnancies and causes and show that to those politicians.</quote> That won't help. Everyone has access to those stats, and pretty much every pro-lifer and politician catering to them for easy votes has been presented with them at some point. They just don't care. They're so wrapped up in the idea of protecting those poor. innocent babies and the belief that the only reason unwanted pregnancies happen is because the mothers are being wanton sluts that any suggestions of better ways to solve the problem or efforts to point out horrible side effects of banning abortion fall on deaf ears and do nothing to stop their histrionic crusade. This isn't a matter of people putting genuine effort into helping others. The pro-life movement is little more than a lazy, self-righteous circle jerk of people patting themselves on the back for doing the barest minimum they can possibly do to impose their god's will on others. BUMPED2002 posted... </cite> <quote>10 year old pregnant? Let's just start there! Geez!</quote> There's nothing that needs discussion there. Rape happens, everyone agrees it's bad and the father should be locked up in his own ribcage, and that's really all that needs to be covered to explore that issue. The angle people are less unanimous about is whether or not the evil scumbags responsible for making it illegal to do anything to protect her from the subsequent immediate life-threatening danger should face the same fate. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nichtcrawler-X 07/04/22 12:19:47 PM #76:	adjl posted... That won't help. Everyone has access to those stats, and pretty much every pro-lifer and politician catering to them for easy votes has been presented with them at some point. They just don't care. They're so wrapped up in the idea of protecting those poor. innocent babies and the belief that the only reason unwanted pregnancies happen is because the mothers are being wanton sluts that any suggestions of better ways to solve the problem or efforts to point out horrible side effects of banning abortion fall on deaf ears and do nothing to stop their histrionic crusade. I am suddenly remembering a senator (or some other rank of US politician), claiming female bodies have some sort of defence mechanism against actual unwanted pregnancies... Is that guy still in power? --- Official Teetotaller of PotD Dovie'andi se tovya sagain! <cite>Nichtcrawler-X posted [p:966329073] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>That won't help. Everyone has access to those stats, and pretty much every pro-lifer and politician catering to them for easy votes has been presented with them at some point. They just don't care. They're so wrapped up in the idea of protecting those poor. innocent babies and the belief that the only reason unwanted pregnancies happen is because the mothers are being wanton sluts that any suggestions of better ways to solve the problem or efforts to point out horrible side effects of banning abortion fall on deaf ears and do nothing to stop their histrionic crusade.</quote> I am suddenly remembering a senator (or some other rank of US politician), claiming female bodies have some sort of defence mechanism against actual unwanted pregnancies... Is that guy still in power? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/04/22 12:23:15 PM #77:	Nichtcrawler-X posted... I am suddenly remembering a senator (or some other rank of US politician), claiming female bodies have some sort of defence mechanism against actual unwanted pregnancies... Is that guy still in power? I believe so, but I forget exactly who it was. In the wake of this decision, a few other political figures have said similar things. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:966329140] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler-X posted... </cite> <quote>I am suddenly remembering a senator (or some other rank of US politician), claiming female bodies have some sort of defence mechanism against actual unwanted pregnancies... Is that guy still in power?</quote> I believe so, but I forget exactly who it was. In the wake of this decision, a few other political figures have said similar things. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nichtcrawler-X 07/04/22 12:26:34 PM #78:	Googling suggests me the Mirjam in question was Todd Akin, which does vaguely ring a bell. --- Official Teetotaller of PotD Dovie'andi se tovya sagain! <cite>Nichtcrawler-X posted [p:966329205] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Googling suggests me the Mirjam in question was Todd Akin, which does vaguely ring a bell. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 07/04/22 12:33:59 PM #79:	Nichtcrawler-X posted... Googling suggests me the Mirjam in question was Todd Akin, which does vaguely ring a bell. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirjam_Bjrklund ? --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:966329367] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler-X posted...</cite> <quote>Googling suggests me the Mirjam in question was Todd Akin, which does vaguely ring a bell. </quote> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirjam_Bjrklund ?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nichtcrawler-X 07/04/22 12:59:42 PM #80:	A Mirjam, is in a way like a Karen, but the defining factor is that they deny science, but also interpret it in their own fraudulent way. --- Official Teetotaller of PotD Dovie'andi se tovya sagain! <cite>Nichtcrawler-X posted [p:966329863] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>A Mirjam, is in a way like a Karen, but the defining factor is that they deny science, but also interpret it in their own fraudulent way. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin 07/04/22 4:25:42 PM #81:	Nichtcrawler-X posted... So a purely bureaucratic tool, that somehow got itself some political power? That actually sounds familiar. whoah, now that I see it out loud that's EXACTLY what is going on --- "Salt cures Everything!" My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos <cite>Lokarin posted [p:966334610] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler-X posted... </cite> <quote>So a purely bureaucratic tool, that somehow got itself some political power? That actually sounds familiar.</quote> whoah, now that I see it out loud that's EXACTLY what is going on </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Arcturusisnow 07/04/22 5:51:45 PM #82:	Carbon_Deoxxys posted... I know you're saying this about conservatives who hold power since they make the laws but a lot of us have family who are conservative and never express this You are complicit by association. Don't like it? Start voting Democrat. <cite>Arcturusisnow posted [p:966336558] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Carbon_Deoxxys posted... </cite> <quote>I know you're saying this about conservatives who hold power since they make the laws but a lot of us have family who are conservative and never express this</quote>You are complicit by association. Don't like it? Start voting Democrat. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Arcturusisnow 07/04/22 5:58:23 PM #83:	LinkPizza posted... I believe it is illegal, though At least, states were trying to make it illegal Well, they are trying to get rid of interracial marriage Which kind of offends me since Im in an interracial relationship (even though I dont plan on getting married) And that want to get rid of gay people altogether (The whole LGBTQ+ group, technically) And that offends me since Im gay Yeah, it feels like its going to get worse I mean, weve been hearing about stuff they want to get rid of. And that stuff would basically make us a dystopian future Unfortunately, we may need to let it happen because that would begin hurting a bunch of Rethuglicans. Believe it or not, there are a ton of interracial Rethuglican couples. <cite>Arcturusisnow posted [p:966336730] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>I believe it is illegal, though At least, states were trying to make it illegal Well, they are trying to get rid of interracial marriage Which kind of offends me since Im in an interracial relationship (even though I dont plan on getting married) And that want to get rid of gay people altogether (The whole LGBTQ+ group, technically) And that offends me since Im gay Yeah, it feels like its going to get worse I mean, weve been hearing about stuff they want to get rid of. And that stuff would basically make us a dystopian future</quote>Unfortunately, we may need to let it happen because that would begin hurting a bunch of Rethuglicans. Believe it or not, there are a ton of interracial Rethuglican couples. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 07/04/22 5:59:22 PM #84:	Arcturusisnow posted... You are complicit by association. Don't like it? Start voting Democrat. That's not how anything works. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:966336749] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Arcturusisnow posted...</cite> <quote> You are complicit by association. Don't like it? Start voting Democrat. </quote> That's not how anything works.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gaawa_chan 07/04/22 6:04:43 PM #85:	Nichtcrawler-X posted... I am suddenly remembering a senator (or some other rank of US politician), claiming female bodies have some sort of defence mechanism against actual unwanted pregnancies... Is that guy still in power? Todd Akin? Though there have been quite a few politicians who have made statements like that: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/6/5/AAdkcxAADZAh.jpg https://feministphilosophers.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/gop_rape_advisory_megachart.gif --- Hi <cite>Gaawa_chan posted [p:966336857] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler-X posted... </cite> <quote>I am suddenly remembering a senator (or some other rank of US politician), claiming female bodies have some sort of defence mechanism against actual unwanted pregnancies... Is that guy still in power?</quote>Todd Akin? Though there have been quite a few politicians who have made statements like that: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/6/5/AAdkcxAADZAh.jpg https://feministphilosophers.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/gop_rape_advisory_megachart.gif </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 07/04/22 7:00:25 PM #86:	Revelation34 posted... That's not how anything works. It's exactly how democracy works, If somebody you voted into power does something bad, you bear some responsibility for that. The extent of that responsibility varies, given that you cant necessarily predict what politicians will do, but overturning Roe v. Wade was a major campaign promise for Trump. This is the expected outcome of voting him in. Choosing to vote for him means you chose to accept this outcome and shouldn't shy away from that. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:966338088] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>That's not how anything works.</quote> It's exactly how democracy works, If somebody you voted into power does something bad, you bear some responsibility for that. The extent of that responsibility varies, given that you cant necessarily predict what politicians will do, but overturning Roe v. Wade was a major campaign promise for Trump. This is the expected outcome of voting him in. Choosing to vote for him means you chose to accept this outcome and shouldn't shy away from that. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nichtcrawler-X 07/04/22 7:15:45 PM #87:	Revelation34 posted... That's not how anything works. It does. Your vote allows for the good and the bad of whomever you voted into office. If any of a politician's stances are a dealbreaker for you, then you should not vote for them. I also better stop reading that chart, or I risk getting furious over it and that will have no effect past midnight (or anytime, I know evil idiots exist, no reason to unnecessarily expose myself to that). --- Official Teetotaller of PotD Dovie'andi se tovya sagain! <cite>Nichtcrawler-X posted [p:966338429] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>That's not how anything works.</quote> It does. Your vote allows for the good and the bad of whomever you voted into office. If any of a politician's stances are a dealbreaker for you, then you should not vote for them. I also better stop reading that chart, or I risk getting furious over it and that will have no effect past midnight (or anytime, I know evil idiots exist, no reason to unnecessarily expose myself to that). </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 07/04/22 7:19:05 PM #88:	Arcturusisnow posted... You are complicit by association. Don't like it? Start voting Democrat. Are you saying Carbon_Deoxxys is complicit? Because they said their family is conservative. But its possible they already vote democrat themselves, even if their family doesnt. If thats the case, I wouldnt consider them complicit --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:966338503] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Arcturusisnow posted...</cite> <quote>You are complicit by association. Don't like it? Start voting Democrat.</quote> Are you saying Carbon_Deoxxys is complicit? Because they said their family is conservative. But its possible they already vote democrat themselves, even if their family doesnt. If thats the case, I wouldnt consider them complicit</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dioxxys 07/04/22 11:07:40 PM #89:	I dont vote for anyone because I am a depressed indivdual who can barely keep the will to keep living let alone bother to give a shit who is office because no matter who is in office I will still have a shit life, okay? I was just mentioning most of my family is conservative and my own mother had an abortion or two before I came along okay? My family has never been vocal about abortion but my original point still stands. "Conservatives hate when people have rights". My own father (guy who didnt let me watch Harry Potter or keep dark magic Yugioh cards), texted us last week on the subject matter and acted like it was a big moral quandry for him but in the end said that "the law exists to protect people, not uphold a certain religion", which is him referencing his Christian faith. <cite>dioxxys posted [p:966343560] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>I dont vote for anyone because I am a depressed indivdual who can barely keep the will to keep living let alone bother to give a shit who is office because no matter who is in office I will still have a shit life, okay? I was just mentioning most of my family is conservative and my own mother had an abortion or two before I came along okay? My family has never been vocal about abortion but my original point still stands. "Conservatives hate when people have rights". My own father (guy who didnt let me watch Harry Potter or keep dark magic Yugioh cards), texted us last week on the subject matter and acted like it was a big moral quandry for him but in the end said that "the law exists to protect people, not uphold a certain religion", which is him referencing his Christian faith. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gaawa_chan 07/05/22 2:11:01 AM #91:	sigh https://twitter.com/Vinminen/status/1540437651198824448 https://twitter.com/_trashville/status/1543370002480467969 https://twitter.com/babs_zone/status/1543433814940143616 I am not surprised that this is leading to a denial of life-saving medications to women and intersex and trans people. USA has always been big on using the State to at a minimum neglect sick people to death. --- Hi <cite>Gaawa_chan posted [p:966346398] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>sigh https://twitter.com/Vinminen/status/1540437651198824448 https://twitter.com/_trashville/status/1543370002480467969 https://twitter.com/babs_zone/status/1543433814940143616 I am not surprised that this is leading to a denial of life-saving medications to women and intersex and trans people. USA has always been big on using the State to at a minimum neglect sick people to death. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nichtcrawler-X 07/05/22 8:29:43 AM #92:	Are the medication results a foreseen or unforeseen effect? --- Official Teetotaller of PotD Dovie'andi se tovya sagain! <cite>Nichtcrawler-X posted [p:966349720] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Are the medication results a foreseen or unforeseen effect? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 07/05/22 8:41:14 AM #93:	Nichtcrawler-X posted... Are the medication results a foreseen or unforeseen effect? I think they said they knew about it, and were still trying to figure out what to do about it --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:966349859] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler-X posted...</cite> <quote>Are the medication results a foreseen or unforeseen effect? </quote> I think they said they knew about it, and were still trying to figure out what to do about it</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#94	Post #94 was unavailable or deleted.
Nichtcrawler-X 07/05/22 8:55:31 AM #95:	LinkPizza posted... I think they said they knew about it, and were still trying to figure out what to do about it So this was always about women having to suffer, because some (old) men in dresses could not handle feminism? --- Official Teetotaller of PotD Dovie'andi se tovya sagain! <cite>Nichtcrawler-X posted [p:966350059] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>I think they said they knew about it, and were still trying to figure out what to do about it</quote> So this was always about women having to suffer, because some (old) men in dresses could not handle feminism? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza 07/05/22 9:00:58 AM #96:	Nichtcrawler-X posted... So this was always about women having to suffer, because some (old) men in dresses could not handle feminism? Well, yeah. The people is charge dont care about other people. They want power. And they get that by taking everyone elses right away --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:966350159] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler-X posted...</cite> <quote>So this was always about women having to suffer, because some (old) men in dresses could not handle feminism?</quote> Well, yeah. The people is charge dont care about other people. They want power. And they get that by taking everyone elses right away</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
captpackrat 07/05/22 7:15:42 PM #97:	This article explains perfectly how Republicans can scream about freedom one moment when it's about guns or masks, and then in the next moment take away freedoms for abortion and gay marriage, and even the Republican stance on Obama-care, immigration and climate change. https://medium.com/@_EthanGrey/the-message-of-the-republican-party-dont-tread-on-me-i-tread-on-you-936037958bce Youve watched the Republican Party champion the idea of freedom while you have also watched the same party openly assault various freedoms, like the freedom to vote, freedom of choice, freedom to marry who you want and so on. If this has been a source of confusion, then your assessments of what Republicans mean by freedom were likely too generous. Heres what Republicans mean: *The freedom to tell people what to do.* *Freedom from being told what to do.* When Republicans talk about valuing freedom, theyre speaking of it in the sense that only people like them should ultimately possess it. --- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, Minutus carborata descendum pantorum. <cite>captpackrat posted [p:966363666] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>This article explains perfectly how Republicans can scream about freedom one moment when it's about guns or masks, and then in the next moment take away freedoms for abortion and gay marriage, and even the Republican stance on Obama-care, immigration and climate change. https://medium.com/@_EthanGrey/the-message-of-the-republican-party-dont-tread-on-me-i-tread-on-you-936037958bce Youve watched the Republican Party champion the idea of freedom while you have also watched the same party openly assault various freedoms, like the freedom to vote, freedom of choice, freedom to marry who you want and so on. If this has been a source of confusion, then your assessments of what Republicans mean by freedom were likely too generous. Heres what Republicans mean: The freedom to tell people what to do.Freedom from being told what to do.When Republicans talk about valuing freedom, theyre speaking of it in the sense that only people like them should ultimately possess it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gaawa_chan 07/06/22 4:35:18 AM #98:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] This is correct, especially because this is impacting SICK people the most, and there is a strong undercurrent of eugenics in the USA- that they are unworthy burdens on society and should be sacrificed for the natural order/hierarchy (people went literally mask off on this when COVID-19 hit). I think a lot of people who don't interact with people with chronic illnesses/disabilities don't realize how normalized throwing such people under the bus is. People with disabilities don't even have marriage equality in the USA. Nichtcrawler-X posted... So this was always about women having to suffer, because some (old) men in dresses could not handle feminism? A bit reductive, but more or less, yeah. --- Hi <cite>Gaawa_chan posted [p:966372613] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> This is correct, especially because this is impacting SICK people the most, and there is a strong undercurrent of eugenics in the USA- that they are unworthy burdens on society and should be sacrificed for the natural order/hierarchy (people went literally mask off on this when COVID-19 hit). I think a lot of people who don't interact with people with chronic illnesses/disabilities don't realize how normalized throwing such people under the bus is. People with disabilities don't even have marriage equality in the USA. Nichtcrawler-X posted... </cite> <quote>So this was always about women having to suffer, because some (old) men in dresses could not handle feminism?</quote>A bit reductive, but more or less, yeah. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nichtcrawler-X 07/06/22 9:20:05 AM #99:	Gaawa_chan posted... A bit reductive, but more or less, yeah. All I am seeing is petty villainy and hate-crimes. My apologies, but I cannot bring up any respect for that. --- Official Teetotaller of PotD Dovie'andi se tovya sagain! <cite>Nichtcrawler-X posted [p:966375472] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Gaawa_chan posted... </cite> <quote>A bit reductive, but more or less, yeah.</quote> All I am seeing is petty villainy and hate-crimes. My apologies, but I cannot bring up any respect for that. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Black_Crusher 07/06/22 9:35:42 AM #100:	streamofthesky posted... It's that Indiana is less far-right nutso than Ohio. WTF happened to that state? It used to be purple! I moved, that might account for some of it. --- Equin 2: The Warren Peace- Out now! (Demo available) https://store.steampowered.com/app/1630690 <cite>Black_Crusher posted [p:966375751] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted... </cite> <quote>It's that Indiana is less far-right nutso than Ohio. WTF happened to that state? It used to be purple!</quote> I moved, that might account for some of it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
slacker03150 07/06/22 10:24:01 AM #101:	Nichtcrawler-X posted... I am suddenly remembering a senator (or some other rank of US politician), claiming female bodies have some sort of defence mechanism against actual unwanted pregnancies... Is that guy still in power? I'll do you one better https://youtube.com/shorts/-tE9gjYa518?feature=share --- I am awesome and so are you. Lenny gone but not forgotten. - 12/10/2015 <cite>slacker03150 posted [p:966376619] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>Nichtcrawler-X posted... </cite> <quote>I am suddenly remembering a senator (or some other rank of US politician), claiming female bodies have some sort of defence mechanism against actual unwanted pregnancies... Is that guy still in power?</quote>I'll do you one better https://youtube.com/shorts/-tE9gjYa518?feature=share </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gaawa_chan 07/06/22 10:50:37 AM #102:	slacker03150 posted... I'll do you one better The comments on that video... </3 --- Hi <cite>Gaawa_chan posted [p:966377096] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>slacker03150 posted... </cite> <quote>I'll do you one better</quote>The comments on that video... </3 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jen0125 07/06/22 10:54:56 AM #103:	https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1544486143193915393?t=zs62lp53T5SW7B4y_SekKg&s=19 <cite>Jen0125 posted [p:966377190] in 10 Year Ol... [t:80079847]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1544486143193915393?t=zs62lp53T5SW7B4y_SekKg&s=19 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Poll of the Day > 10 Year Old who gets Pregnant has to cross State lines for a you know what... (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > 10 Year Old who gets Pregnant has to cross State lines for a you know what...