There we go

[Haohmaru]

I don't get it. What does no reason mean. Like meh I don't feel like birthing a kid and looking after it?
Those Florida stats are crazy btw.
The other one was what I expected it to be.

[Digital Masta]

I wasn't clear
.. Except as the ONLY form of birth control

I still don't know what that means. I'm not trying to be obtuse. Do you mean that someone basically says, "I'm not gonna use any birth control because I'll just get an abortion."?

I mean, who actually does that? That's like Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan levels of low IQ nigga/white trash-ness behavior. And in that case, you'd almost wanna give them a pass because they are so stupid that they couldn't help it.

I don't get it. What does no reason mean. Like meh I don't feel like birthing a kid and looking after it?
Those Florida stats are crazy btw.
The other one was what I expected it to be.

Yes, that's exactly what it means. I made the choice to play the most adult of games (having sex), knowing fully well that if I'm not careful children will result from playing this game, but I don't want the child so I'm gonna kill it.

890,000 abortions in 2016 in the US, that's a ridiculous number of babies that no longer exist. I live in a city of 1.5 million people. That's basically Thanos-snapping almost half the population out of existence...in one year and that's DOWN from previous years. Regardless of where you stand on abortion, you can't be like, "This is a good thing."

[San Goku]

Man I always knew Big Brother was watching but now they just made it too fucking obvious. What are the chances I tell you guys about my abortion story today and then the SAME GIRL tries to call me later that day? It can't be coincidence? Someone is sensitive about the abortion topic lol. Man stay out of people's lives, less fucking government, less data grabbing smfh.

Edit

I wasn't clear
.. Except as the ONLY form of birth control

I still don't know what that means. I'm not trying to be obtuse.

Means she let you nut in her booty hole as a form of birth control.

[
890,000 abortions in 2016 in the US, that's a ridiculous number of babies that no longer exist. I live in a city of 1.5 million people. That's basically Thanos-snapping almost half the population out of existence...in one year and that's DOWN from previous years. Regardless of where you stand on abortion, you can't be like, "This is a good thing."

LMFAO @ Thanos reference, that made me laugh. Really is those.

[killacross]

I still don't know what that means. I'm not trying to be obtuse. Do you mean that someone basically says, "I'm not gonna use any birth control because I'll just get an abortion."?

.........

Yes, that's exactly what it means. I made the choice to play the most adult of games (having sex), knowing fully well that if I'm not careful children will result from playing this game, but I don't want the child so I'm gonna kill it.

You asked the question and then answered later in the same post. But yes, that. No birth control method is fool proof. Condoms are like 95% (actually lower because people don't wear them correctly). BC pills/implants are like 98% effective (and again same issue...she has to take them on a schedule for best results). Plan B is only like 80% effective. So mistakes do happen. But obviously, that isn't 100% of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies.

There are literally people out here that play that EXACT game!! You would be surprised. In my younger/dating days, I've run across many of them. She wants you to take the rubber off for whatever reason....but she's also not on any form of birth control (and tells you some bullshit about the timing of her cycle means she can't get pregnant right now -- yada, yada, yada <70% effective). I met girls in college that already had 4-5 abortions. So, not gonna lie, I would fuck em...and beat it up if I could -- but I NEVER considered them for anything serious. If one of them turned up pregnant, my life today would be significantly different than it is right now. Of course, I would not have pushed for an abortion at that time because of my stance...In fact, I actually had 2 scares (with the same girl. One time the condom broke, one time we were just being irresponsible and I was very, VERY premature). Those were false alarms though.

I've also known 2 men who lied about getting snipped -- then getting the girl pregnant. THEN had the nerve to complain that she wanted to keep the baby. I knew a girl who thought she was barren because of some complications from a "botched" appendix removal surgery that scarred her fallopian tubes -- but got pregnant within 2-3 weeks of meeting her now ex-husband.

People were wild out here!! And that was 20ish years ago -- you know it's only gotten worse.

With the amount of girls I've dealt with, I am fortunate I never got any diseases or had any children. I wasn't always careful or responsible....it was mostly when alcohol was involved. At least I can say that 2 bad experiences (back-to-back) was enough to make me give up 1 night stands...

[San Goku]

In 2018 white women accounted for 10% abortions, black women 25%, 3.4 times more, that's interesting. What about the rest?
.
.
.
"Among black women, the current abortion ratio is 401.8 That means there are 401 abortions for every 1,000 live births."
.
.
.
Found the stat


"In 2018, approximately 2,400 human beings lost their lives to abortion each day in the United States.12 On average, 19% were Hispanic, 38% were black, and 35% were white.13 That translates to approximately 456 Hispanic children, 912 black children, and 840 white children."

So what 8% or other and what other? Asian (oriental, brown) women don't really have abortions in the US I guess. What about Native Indian.

Wouldn't mind seeing more of a breakdown with blacks (African, Caribbean, American).


The CDC reports that during the 1970's, roughly 24% of all U.S. abortions were performed on black women.18 That percentage rose to 30% in the 1980's, 34% in the 1990's, 36% throughout the 2000's and now sits at 38%.19 That means that roughly 32% of all U.S. abortions since 1973 have been performed on African American women. 

Damn my women taking the L

[San Goku]

Another interesting stat for today I just heard on the news. For WW2 and Marshall plan to rebuild Europe in today's dollars cost $4.7 trillion. The U.S spent $5.4 trillion because of COVID19 and lockdowns.

[Digital Masta]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5kzUpWAusI

I enjoyed the first Sonic and this one just looks fun.

Also. Cowboy Bebop got canceled.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv ... 235060256/

[xandorxerxes]

In an effort to make each topic brief:

Trans athletes: Really, really good athletes crush their teammates in FAR worse fashion. We don't ban Michael Phelps for being genetically superior. We don't ban surgeries on athletes that help them be more competitive. She's not some freakish outlier of a time-setter, especially if the times are significantly slower than the best non-trans people. It more or less means her teammates just aren't great at all. That the first trans person to win an Olympic medal did so last year (in a team sport - Soccer) also points to what I'm aiming at - trans women aren't dominating sports, non-trans women are. Studies show that generally trans athletes are average compared to their peers. Outliers exist, just like outliers exist for non-trans people. So far the trans outliers aren't as extreme as the non-trans outliers, so why focus on the trans ones?

if it's the latter then I'll clarify.

It was the latter. The statement felt odd but I was too tired to get what you said, sorry.

D's, R's, blah blah blah: D's aren't righteous, they're awful. They're not the ones passing voting laws to literally overturn vote results. Orange man was fucking awful.

Also, about that article, you can't ignore his opinions and "just read the article" they are intertwined with each other.

You can - you acknowledge any biases of the author and remove their opinions accordingly. It'd be super hard to get any news if you couldn't. When he writes about what laws were passed and what they do, those aren't his opinions. When he writes "orange man bad" you can gloss over it.

Roe v Wade: This matters a LOT, and not just because of abortion. Rulings like Lawrence v Texas were based on Roe. Roe was an extension of Griswold v Connecticut, which established the right to privacy. Unravelling one means pulling the threads on the others. It also means that the court can just say "screw precedent" and do what they want at any time just because they want to. Roe would come back later, then be gone later, then come back again just based on the whims of whoever had the majority. Decisions have to matter.

Abortion - you don't abort babies. A premature birth at 22 weeks of pregnancy has a 5% chance of survival with all of our modern technologies to raise their odds. That's not viable. The "fetal heartbeat" at 6 weeks isn't actually a heartbeat. It's the detection of electrical signals between cells in the area that will be a heart in the future. There's no beat, nothing audible. The nervous system isn't really even formed in the first trimester. You can't tell if it's going to survive the pregnancy naturally. It's not human yet.

Also keep in mind the reason for abortion - even elective - doesn't really matter. If you ban elective abortions you get a bunch of kids who grow up unloved and unwanted. That's a bad outcome for everyone, including society. Especially if it's a white male teenager that goes to high school, apparently.

I don't think it's malicious at all... He's contarian by nature because he genuinely believes it pushes the conversation

And again... Polar opposite to DM because he feels you should have the conversation FOREVER until everyone agrees... DM believes you should have the conversation until you hit that ad nauseum point... Then just longer bother

Pretty much, but I also think that people should have consistent, fact-based reasoning. My goal is to push that. I don't feel that any of my positions aren't fact-based, so I put them out there to see if I've errored somewhere. If I can convince someone, great. If my understanding is wrong and it gets corrected/improved, great. If I'm not sure that what someone said addresses the point I'm trying to make / the foundation of my argument, I throw it out there a different way to make sure I'm not miscommunicating. I'm slowly attempting to make them shorter too, but since I always try to explain why I put something there it ends up a million pages long.

In general there's been a huge rise of "my opinion is this" on REALLY important things without that opinion having strong structural support (or any - see: previous Tucker comment), especially by politicians. Screw that. Look at how effective social media efforts to influence people are, whether it's the 2016/2020 elections or COVID. People believe the vaccine makes them magnetic or has these awful side effects (it doesn't), or that masks don't work (they do), or that the Earth is flat (it's not). What the hell? I want my opinions to have solid foundations, and if someone finds a flaw I need to adjust that opinion to fix it.

[Digital Masta]

Abortion

"It's not human yet" is an arbitrary standard that can change from person to person and that's one of the main problems, you can't just decide that something is human or not human, based on your own convenience. If you say it's a human at 20-weeks then why is that? Why not 19-weeks? So you can kill the baby at 19 weeks but wait one week and now you can't when in that time very little has changed with the baby.

Or, if you find out you are pregnant and want the baby then everyone considers it a life but if you don't want it suddenly it's not a life anymore.

This is why I don't do this, it's a waste of time.

This is the problem with the abortion debate. If I say, it's a baby and you say that it isn't then we can't even talk about it. I can use all the tools in my toolkit: the arguments for it don't really hold up, there is no constitutional right to an abortion, the Supreme Court just made stuff up on the spot(they did), the SC makes bad decisions too (Dredd Scott, the worst decision in American judicial history), etc but because you will always default back to "Well it's not a life so what you say it's ultimately meaningless", we can't debate.

It's the abortion equivalent of "if you don't want welfare you want all poor people to die because you hate them, therefore I don't have to listen to you."

Thus, waste of time.

Also the whole, "I'd never have an abortion or advocate someone have one but I don't have a say on what someone does with their own body. Because while I think it's a life they don't and I understand that." is like saying in 1850,

"Well, I'd never own slaves or advocate for slavery because I believe we cannot own another human being, we are not property but I can't tell a slave owner what to do with their own slaves. I mean, they do think that blacks are property and not human so who am I to say any different? Their property, their choice."

In end:

-I don't care if states make it harder/illegal. You can always go to one that will allow you to get it, they will always exist. And if it ended up being illegal(outside of certain circumstances) all over America (not going to ever happen) then maybe people will start making smarter decisions about having sex.

-Assuming things did become more restrictive, if you think minority women wouldn't be able to get to other states to have an abortion in the event that their state ends up being too restrictive then I'd argue you're probably a racist or AWFUL(Affluent White Female Urban Liberal, my new favorite acronym, btw). I'd also argue that you don't actually care about them because you're not out there creating organizations that help support women getting to those states to have their abortions.

-Enough with the euphemisms, it's not "reproductive health" call it what it is.

-Public funds should NEVER be used for abortions. You don't get to say "My body, my choice, your money."

-Prevention is better than cure and the abortion train has left the station, so we need to raise kids to have more respect for themselves, sex, and life itself so that maybe in 100 years abortion isn't really that big of a thing anymore because people make better decisions.

The problem is that as killa mentioned, incentives have become so fucked that it makes things hard but not impossible.

-PUT THE DICK DOWN!


Now back to your regularly scheduled programming:

Do you think Jussie is actually gonna do prison time?

[San Goku]

Sonic 2 trailer looks crazy. I'm going to watch it.

[Digital Masta]

Season 4 Cobra Kai trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3uX4uwrAaY

This show shouldn't work...but it does! It's so good.

Man, I really wish Pat Morita were alive to see this.

[xandorxerxes]

This isn't an argument with you, just a response to your questions:

"It's not human yet" is an arbitrary standard that can change from person to person and that's one of the main problems, you can't just decide that something is human or not human, based on your own convenience. If you say it's a human at 20-weeks then why is that? Why not 19-weeks? So you can kill the baby at 19 weeks but wait one week and now you can't when in that time very little has changed with the baby.

This is the problem with the abortion debate. If I say, it's a baby and you say that it isn't then we can't even talk about it. I can use all the tools in my toolkit: the arguments for it don't really hold up, there is no constitutional right to an abortion, the Supreme Court just made stuff up on the spot(they did), the SC makes bad decisions too (Dredd Scott, the worst decision in American judicial history), etc but because you will always default back to "Well it's not a life so what you say it's ultimately meaningless", we can't debate.

A fetus is totally, 100% alive. It's just not always human life. We can define humanity - what are definitive characteristics of humans (specifically alive ones)? What makes us different from any other life form that we can kill with impunity? I posit that from a legal perspective - I know people's moralities on animals can vary. For me, it's the standard that's currently adopted - fetal viability. As soon as it can live outside of the womb, even if it's only alive with serious hospital help, it's a baby. If it doesn't have a brain or a heart, is it human? No. One day the viability stance will probably be untenable because we'll be able to keep a fetus alive before it develops organs.

Legal background on RvW:

The justices found that there is a constitutional right to circumstances than include an abortion. Roe in part stems from due process in the 14th amendment - the state can't deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (unless eminent domain, lulz). The state can't tell a person what to do with his or her body. The finicky parts of Roe - where the limit of abortion is - I understand (perhaps wrongly) to be that the court is deciding when the fetus gets its own rights. That's also I think where the court went with the strict scrutiny requirement, requiring the state to have a compelling interest to prevent an abortion. At what point does the state have a compelling interest?

If we want to say a state can grant human rights to any living being as opposed to just strictly humans that's its own question, but they're not doing that. They're saying what medical procedure a woman can or can't do. Keep in mind that none of these arguments against abortion apply to babies not in utero - there's an anti-abortion legislator saying on the record that he doesn't care what happens to a fetus being raised outside a woman's body.

The courts definitely get things wrong (see: eminent domain reference as an example). The problem here isn't that the court said "abortion is legal" so we say it's wrong, the problem is that they said "abortion is covered under the right to privacy so we'll allow it except when it meets the strict scrutiny requirement." If we want to say Roe was decided wrongly, that means Griswold (Connecticut banned contraceptives, court said interfering with personal medical decisions is unconstitutional) was decided wrongly. We have to be VERY careful when we say what part of Roe we don't like.

One last factoid for context - when Roe was decided, 46 states had abortion bans. There isn't always "just go to another state." There's also "x person can't go to another state for y reason."

[San Goku]

Season 4 Cobra Kai trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3uX4uwrAaY

This show shouldn't work...but it does! It's so good.

Man, I really wish Pat Morita were alive to see this.

This show so fucking works, it's the shit. I know people must be mad at their success.

[killacross]

"It's not human yet" is an arbitrary standard that can change from person to person and that's one of the main problems, you can't just decide that something is human or not human, based on your own convenience. If you say it's a human at 20-weeks then why is that? Why not 19-weeks? So you can kill the baby at 19 weeks but wait one week and now you can't when in that time very little has changed with the baby.

This is the problem with the abortion debate. If I say, it's a baby and you say that it isn't then we can't even talk about it. I can use all the tools in my toolkit: the arguments for it don't really hold up, there is no constitutional right to an abortion, the Supreme Court just made stuff up on the spot(they did), the SC makes bad decisions too (Dredd Scott, the worst decision in American judicial history), etc but because you will always default back to "Well it's not a life so what you say it's ultimately meaningless", we can't debate.

A fetus is totally, 100% alive. It's just not always human life. We can define humanity - what are definitive characteristics of humans (specifically alive ones)? What makes us different from any other life form that we can kill with impunity? I posit that from a legal perspective - I know people's moralities on animals can vary. For me, it's the standard that's currently adopted - fetal viability. As soon as it can live outside of the womb, even if it's only alive with serious hospital help, it's a baby. If it doesn't have a brain or a heart, is it human? No. One day the viability stance will probably be untenable because we'll be able to keep a fetus alive before it develops organs.

this is always the weirdest thing that I hear people argue. That it is not human. I get that on the micro, micro, micro scale -- cells all pretty much look and function the same. If only there was some type of information chain...perhaps 2 of them....wrapped around each other in a double helix type formation, that carried all of the genetic information required to ensure it would form into a human life -- it would be easy to determine if it was a human.

For me...the cut off is not "life" though as sperm is alive (eggs are not). However, when those two come together and create the literal spark of life -- it becomes sacred IMO. Doesn't matter if it's a single cell or 3 bajllion...it's now human, it always was from the moment of conception. (At least the potential to be a complete, healthy human is what I focus on)

@DM, that is exactly my argument. If it is not illegal...I can campaign to get the laws changed. But until then -- I don't have a right/vocal opinion on what others do. I can only be responsible for my actions. Abolitionists petitioned the government to change the laws...they didn't steal slaves or attack owners (en masse cuz I'm sure it happened but don't care to do the Google search). I wouldn't even be surprised if some abolitionists owned slaves -- though I would think it to be quite hypocritical. So really...that's my goal. Show me a baby that is mine -- I want a DNA test...then I'll figure out a way to provide.

[Digital Masta]

@DM, that is exactly my argument. If it is not illegal...I can campaign to get the laws changed. But until then -- I don't have a right/vocal opinion on what others do. I can only be responsible for my actions. Abolitionists petitioned the government to change the laws...they didn't steal slaves or attack owners (en masse cuz I'm sure it happened but don't care to do the Google search). I wouldn't even be surprised if some abolitionists owned slaves -- though I would think it to be quite hypocritical. So really...that's my goal. Show me a baby that is mine -- I want a DNA test...then I'll figure out a way to provide.

That is quite literally what the Underground Railroad was, helping to steal slaves away from their owners in order to set them free. By the very nature of slaves being property meant that anyone helping them escape was stealing property.

John Brown, a famous abolitionist that tried to lead a slave rebellion...wasn't successful and was executed for it but this was one dude that had no issues taking out some other dudes to get it done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

[killacross]

The UGR didn't kidnap slaves in the middle of the night.

So by your stance, is punching a Nazi, the moral high ground? Is it ever acceptable? They're literally Hitler ya know

I probably need to step back and formulate what I'm trying to say here clearer. I would not own slaves... But would petition the government to outlaw the practice. I would not get an abortion under 90% of the circumstances... But wouldn't stop someone else directly.

I don't see a difference here. Which is probably weird coming from a black man. There is a right way and a wrong way to force change. I was always of the Martin > Malcolm ilk.

Blowing up abortion clinics to stop abortions is wrong.

[Digital Masta]

The UGR didn't kidnap slaves in the middle of the night.

Who said anything about kidnapping? You said they didn't steal slaves. I'm saying by virtue of taking them away to be free they were stealing slaves. You don't think the slaves' masters considered that stealing? Although I'm sure back then it could be argued legally that they were technically stealing and kidnapping by freeing slaves but then again blacks would have to be considered people in order to be kidnapped. Unless they covered that in the 3/5th comprise, I have no idea? See how messy these things get when you're trying to obfuscate a natural right?
[/quote]

So by your stance, is punching a Nazi, the moral high ground? Is it ever acceptable? They're literally Hitler ya know

You have the right to be a Nazi and Hitler had the right to be...Hitler. You don't have the right to murder, assault or enslave Jews. Because by virtue of being a human they have the right to not be enslaved.

You also said you weren't sure of abolitionists using violence. I was just pointing out a famous one that did. Not saying it was a good idea.

I probably need to step back and formulate what I'm trying to say here clearer. I would not own slaves... But would petition the government to outlaw the practice. I would not get an abortion under 90% of the circumstances... But wouldn't stop someone else directly.

I don't see a difference here. Which is probably weird coming from a black man. There is a right way and a wrong way to force change. I was always of the Martin > Malcolm ilk.

Blowing up abortion clinics to stop abortions is wrong.

I think the disconnect is happening here. I'm talking about natural rights (in particularly negative rights) and universal standards, you're talking about laws. Laws historically and continually violate natural rights and theoretically, any person has the right to nullify said law if it violates one of those rights. I mean, that's basically the premise behind both state nullification and jury nullification.

In practice nowadays it's a lot harder to do in many cases because the power of the state to crush you is enormous.

Slavery as a legal entity is invalid by its very existence. People can't be slaves as it violates bodily autonomy and humans by our very existence cannot be property. People were just hypocrites for centuries before they realized this.

There's also the idea of a proportionate/reasonable response or the reasonableness standard. You could argue that rebellion is a reasonable response to the injustice of slavery. Blowing up abortion clinics is not.

Now people will say "Not allowing abortion violates bodily autonomy". I'd say no, pregnancy is the natural process in which mammals are born, there is no violation there. The rape that resulted in pregnancy was the violation to bodily autonomy, and if you wish to allow abortion in that case because then that makes sense or in any of the typical reasons majority of people why but if you just fucked up...nah.


As you said killa, it's a human, if it's a human then the right to not be killed or assaulted is de facto applied.

But I think what you're saying is that you personally can't literally do anything to stop someone from having the abortion and if that's the case I would agree with you. I'm not gonna strap a woman to a chair to prevent her from having an abortion. But I will say that I disagree with her decision and think it's wrong. I'm also not going to do anything to make it easier for her to get one. I won't help her get one, I won't pay for her to get one, I won't recommend anyone else that can help her get one, even if I knew they would. She'd have to find that out on her own.

This is assuming she wasn't raped, her life is at actual risk and all that jazz.

But in reality, this theoretical woman wouldn't ever come to me because if she knows me well enough to come to me just knows me well enough to know not to. As it would also be kinda messed up to ask me to do that knowing my stance.

[San Goku]

Check that Unplanned movie, I remember that they were trying to ban it in Toronto because it was pro life, a bit pro Christian but they did a good job at pointing out the realities of abortion. Like for example this one scene where they are vacuuming out the baby out of the woman's womb you could actually see it trying to resist and it looked like it understood its existence was going to be wiped. It also looked like it experienced pain. Fucked up scene, I had no idea at the time.

I can't have these types of debate (arguments) with the wifey. Cause then I'm the terrible man that is forcing women to do something, even though there are women that have stronger convictions on being pro life then me.

[Cane_The9lives]

Now people will say "Not allowing abortion violates bodily autonomy". I'd say no, pregnancy is the natural process in which mammals are born, there is no violation there. The rape that resulted in pregnancy was the violation to bodily autonomy, and if you wish to allow abortion in that case because then that makes sense or in any of the typical reasons majority of people why but if you just fucked up...nah.

Of all the Pro-life arguments that have been proffered over the years by advocates who wish to supplement the moral question with a biological/natural defense; none have quite achieved the level of facile reasoning in my mind, quite like the suggestion that the disruption of a natural process contains intrinsically negative predicates.

Modern birth itself is one giant violation of the natural order, and more broadly, the science that governs in. Procedures from C-section to induced labor are an extrinsic manipulation of a process not that dissimilar from abortion, in terms of engineering an outcome contrary to the evolutionary design, where they vary of course, is in the aforementioned outcome themselves. This is not, I would be remiss if I failed to mention, a denouncement of the philosophical concept of 'Natural Rights'/'Natural law', nor is it an admonishment of its proponents - and even more strident acolytes - I'm merely pointing out the logical disconnect between the various uneven applications.

To argue in favor of a framework affixed with natural moral imperatives but only apply it to one narrow procedure, creates a discrepancy I have yet to see addressed concisely by secular proponents, those who shy away from the inflexible argumentation of the fundamentalist school of thought.

The outcome 'itself'(E.g. The argument that Inducing labor is naturally better than abortion) cannot, in and of itself, be the ultimate determiner of the value of the right. The right is "Inherent", independent of the action and resolution; the means cannot justify the ends if the means themselves modify the teleological scheme irrespective of whether the "Purpose" is preserved.

Why then is it not a violation of nature to expedite the birthing process? Or make an incision into the pelvis of a woman to extricate a screaming baby from the dark recesses of the vaginal canal? I've never understood this argument and have always believed that the Pro-life community was better served avoiding encroaching too closely into the realm of science, and sticking with the moral and ethical points, not all of which I disagree with.

It's worth noting that after I became a father, my thought process has definitely undergone a bit of a transformation in how I interpret this issue.
I'm more sympathetic to Pro-life arguments now than I was post my fall from Catholicism all those years ago.
This might have been better said at the outset, but I no longer believe in elective abortion after fetal heartbeat detection - on or around 6 weeks - But I do not support complete abolition, let alone elimination of exceptions that are necessary due to complications that endanger the life of the mother; or exigent circumstances such as a rape and incest.

My dilemma lies on the fault line between the staunch one-issue ideologues, and the abortion fetishists; both of whom lack nuance and a willingness to change their minds.

[San Goku]

^^ Cane is definitely a father now.

Park So Dam South Korean actress that starred in Parasite has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Talk about ultimate high and low in the last couple of years
I hope she's okay, young only 30.