1. #7121
    Quote Originally Posted by Malkiah View Post
    i only made the comment in the first place because it's become somewhat common (especially in the last few pages of this thread) for a certain strain of commentary coming from folks posting news articles about what insanity regressives are up to that day, which seems to have a theme of "omg can you believe they're doing this?? don't they know better?"
    It's pointing out that for supposedly being motivated by causing less suffering, the end result is, objectively, more suffering. It's further arguments for why their position is untenable, because regardless of their beliefs they're actively causing harm, and often to people who profess to align with said beliefs in the first place! So many of these articles are about very much pro-life women, who get devastating news about their pregnancy, only to discover that they can't even terminate a pregnancy that will definitely not succeed, often at great personal risk to their own health, and end up being put through even more mental, physical, and financial hardship than if the doctors had been allowed to just do what they should have done in the first place.

    You're insisting upon playing devil's advocate for some unfathomable reason, and defending it with, essentially, "that's what they believe so I see no reason to point out the problems caused when those beliefs are put into action."
    Last edited by DarkTZeratul; 2023-11-23 at 08:23 AM.

  2. #7122
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Malkiah View Post
    the pro-choice acceptance of the question of when it becomes "life" is the compromise i'm talking about - my position is that it's irrelevant and that arguing about it is a pointless distraction, and i am ceaselessly frustrated with the public discourse being filled with quibbles over it.
    It's an inherently dumb question, because it has such a goddamned objectively obvious answer.

    Life began some few billion years ago. Every since, it's replicated itself, evolving over time. New life does not "begin", non-life does not "become" alive. Live human parents create live gametes which combined to form a live zygote which develops into a live fetus. There is no point in that cycle where anything is "not alive" and then "becomes alive". That's simple biology. People should've learned all that in junior high.

    It was always "life". But so is a tumor. So is a nematode. That descriptor doesn't mean anything in this discussion. Bringing it up is intellectually insulting to everyone else in the debate.

    What matters, at the secular level, is not "life", but "personhood". And that's also a stupidly obvious answer. Birth. If you're born alive, you're a person. Not before.

    Anything between those two is going to involve pseudo-religious or overtly-religious dogma about "souls" and other magical nonsense that no one who does not share those beliefs has any reason to consider. And trying to shoehorn those into law is a direct attack on the religious freedoms of all those who don't share those views.

    I'll note here I'm not attacking religious views. If your beliefs argue against abortion, that's fine. For you. Your religious views and preferences stop with you. They do not apply to anyone else, and trying to force that is religious fascism. That's where the line's crossed, and pro-life stances are exclusively about crossing that line in that way.

    even with people strongly pro-choice, even on these forums in the past, i've seen conversations get bogged down in when it's a clump of cells vs. when it's a fetus vs. when it's a baby and at what point abortion is acceptable and at what point it's not, and i think the entire thing is ridiculous and also indicative of the way in which the pro-choice side ceded the narrative that exists in the zeitgeist decades ago.
    The question was not "ceded". It was dismissed as intentionally, willfully stupid, and fundamentally irrelevant. It's like trying to claim that the rest of the world has ceded a point to Young-Earth Creationists when they say "okay, let's assume for a second that it's true. Now here's why it's such a goddamned fucking stupid idea that in no way supports the actual evidence we see, and is a literal physical and biological impossibility."

    That's not "ceding" anything. Presuming a claim to be true as a hypothetical to demonstrate the claim is inherently idiotic is not "ceding".


  3. #7123
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    It's pointing out that for supposedly being motivated by causing less suffering, the end result is, objectively, more suffering.
    and either the suffering is the point, in which case it seems kind of gratuitous to bother mentioning it to other people who also agree that it's causing suffering (or to the people causing it for that matter), or else the suffering is irrelevant to the end-goal in which case mentioning it is just preaching to the choir, no?

    It's further arguments for why their position is untenable, because regardless of their beliefs they're actively causing harm, and often to people who profess to align with said beliefs in the first place!
    no i get that, it's just a kind of circle-jerking i find to be moderately self-fellating in a way i don't personally find very helpful to the discourse, but that's just me so it's all just an idle comment either way.

    You're insisting upon playing devil's advocate for some unfathomable reason, and defending it with, essentially, "that's what they believe so I see no reason to point out the problems caused when those beliefs are put into action."
    i'm absolutely not playing devil's advocate whatsoever, i'm just mentioning i think the nature of the response some people are posting strikes me as being less... let's say narratively rigorous than it could be.

    by all accounts that's a purely masturbatory effort on my part, it's not like i'm going to shape the way people approach the topic, but it's an interesting quirk of the current nature of discussion to me.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It's an inherently dumb question, because it has such a goddamned objectively obvious answer.

    Life began some few billion years ago. Every since, it's replicated itself, evolving over time. New life does not "begin", non-life does not "become" alive. Live human parents create live gametes which combined to form a live zygote which develops into a live fetus. There is no point in that cycle where anything is "not alive" and then "becomes alive". That's simple biology. People should've learned all that in junior high.

    It was always "life". But so is a tumor. So is a nematode. That descriptor doesn't mean anything in this discussion. Bringing it up is intellectually insulting to everyone else in the debate.

    What matters, at the secular level, is not "life", but "personhood". And that's also a stupidly obvious answer. Birth. If you're born alive, you're a person. Not before.

    Anything between those two is going to involve pseudo-religious or overtly-religious dogma about "souls" and other magical nonsense that no one who does not share those beliefs has any reason to consider. And trying to shoehorn those into law is a direct attack on the religious freedoms of all those who don't share those views.

    I'll note here I'm not attacking religious views. If your beliefs argue against abortion, that's fine. For you. Your religious views and preferences stop with you. They do not apply to anyone else, and trying to force that is religious fascism. That's where the line's crossed, and pro-life stances are exclusively about crossing that line in that way.



    The question was not "ceded". It was dismissed as intentionally, willfully stupid, and fundamentally irrelevant. It's like trying to claim that the rest of the world has ceded a point to Young-Earth Creationists when they say "okay, let's assume for a second that it's true. Now here's why it's such a goddamned fucking stupid idea that in no way supports the actual evidence we see, and is a literal physical and biological impossibility."

    That's not "ceding" anything. Presuming a claim to be true as a hypothetical to demonstrate the claim is inherently idiotic is not "ceding".
    this is an impressive amount of bloviating immediately countered by the fact that even a cursory check over any discussion on this topic on these forums, even in this very thread, contains a plethora of pages being side-tracked by people arguing over at what stage in development gestating embyros attain legitimate 'personhood'.
    hell in just the last couple of pages it's come up with people bogging down in argument with tehdang over late-term abortions. and specifically whether or not they happen.
    if what you're saying was widely held, the argument wouldn't be about whether or not they happen, it would be that it's fine if/when they do.

    for your sake i'm glad you think the question is resolved, but it absolutely is not to many people engaged in discussion on the topic.
    Last edited by Malkiah; 2023-11-23 at 09:47 AM.

  4. #7124
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Malkiah View Post
    for your sake i'm glad you think the question is resolved, but it absolutely is not to many people engaged in discussion on the topic.
    The issue is ethically and scientifically resolved. I've pointed out these things for years to pro-life advocates and read plenty of arguments from the best and brightest on their side, and they all make the same basic errors in their reasoning.

    But many people prefer religion to science, and don't behave ethically.

    We know Earth is a roughly spherical object. Flat-Earthers still exist. That doesn't mean the question of the Earth's shape isn't resolved, it means some people aren't rational or reasonable.


  5. #7125
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The issue is ethically and scientifically resolved. I've pointed out these things for years to pro-life advocates and read plenty of arguments from the best and brightest on their side, and they all make the same basic errors in their reasoning.

    But many people prefer religion to science, and don't behave ethically.

    We know Earth is a roughly spherical object. Flat-Earthers still exist. That doesn't mean the question of the Earth's shape isn't resolved, it means some people aren't rational or reasonable.
    and also 10 pages ago in #4 of your "big important points about abortion" you bothered to make rhetorical concessions for the sake of biological function, even if you were mostly doing so for the sake of argument.
    it's built into the fabric of the abortion discussion, but honestly that's neither entirely here nor there, you like your soap boxing and i know that whatever i actually say is going in one eyeball and out the other with you so let's just land on that we agree on the issue of abortion and leave out whatever fine-tuned niggling might be possible.

  6. #7126
    Quote Originally Posted by Malkiah View Post
    and also 10 pages ago in #4 of your "big important points about abortion" you bothered to make rhetorical concessions for the sake of biological function, even if you were mostly doing so for the sake of argument.
    it's built into the fabric of the abortion discussion, but honestly that's neither entirely here nor there, you like your soap boxing and i know that whatever i actually say is going in one eyeball and out the other with you so let's just land on that we agree on the issue of abortion and leave out whatever fine-tuned niggling might be possible.
    You realize you don't have to make long-winded walls of text just to say "no u", right? Because that's literally what all your word salad boils down to, "no u", you have literally no argument whatsoever, no salient point to make, except to be contrarian for the sake of it.

    The only ones bloviating here are you and the other pro-deathers, because you all have run out of arguments a few decades ago but still want to cling to woo and pseudo-science to justify bad, harmful policies.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  7. #7127
    Quote Originally Posted by PosPosPos View Post
    The only ones bloviating here are you and the other pro-deathers, because you all have run out of arguments a few decades ago but still want to cling to woo and pseudo-science to justify bad, harmful policies.
    this has gone quite tragically off the rails, and it's my fault for posting an idle thought at 3am in between rounds of hearthstone and not writing out a thesis paper explaining the entirety of my point.

    i am the most powerfully pro-abortion person on this forum, my only point was i find some people's rhetoric a bit oddly soft when it comes to the abortion debate.
    Last edited by Malkiah; 2023-11-23 at 10:29 AM.

  8. #7128
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Malkiah View Post
    and also 10 pages ago in #4 of your "big important points about abortion" you bothered to make rhetorical concessions for the sake of biological function, even if you were mostly doing so for the sake of argument.
    it's built into the fabric of the abortion discussion, but honestly that's neither entirely here nor there, you like your soap boxing and i know that whatever i actually say is going in one eyeball and out the other with you so let's just land on that we agree on the issue of abortion and leave out whatever fine-tuned niggling might be possible.
    In this post, which you didn't link; https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post54232435

    Because you're skipping right over #5, where I make it clear that the entire exercise is a waste of everyone's time. Not only do pro-life arguments on this point not have any credible basis in actual reality, they are also fundamentally irrelevant.

    This is how academic discussion and debate work; you consider the opponent's premises for internal merit, and whether their conclusions can be properly drawn from them. Going point-by-point to demonstrate how their premises lack said internal merit, and that even if they had internal merit they still don't lead to their desired conclusions, that's how debunking a position works.

    It's not a "concession". There were no "concessions" in that post. It's "dunking on bad ideas and pointing out how garbage they are". This is basic debate shit, dude. I know, this is a forum and you can't expect decent academic discussion standards here, so sue me for holding myself to a higher standard.


  9. #7129
    Quote Originally Posted by Malkiah View Post
    ok, wow, and here i was errantly expecting replies that understood the content of the original post, and apparently that's on me.

    i am the most powerfully pro-abortion person on this forum, you're really barking up the wrong tree here to mistake my thinking that some people are a bit too soft in their rhetoric against regressive forced birthers with me agreeing with forced birthers.
    jesus, that's honestly kind of hilarious.
    Then act like it and stop preaching to the choir, stop being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  10. #7130
    Old God Captain N's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Resident of Emerald City
    Posts
    10,920
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    II see no other tenable solution except to accept medical ethics, and trust that serious doctors with seriously higher professional background thought about these things. Which requires the pro-life movement to stop shaming the practice.
    Unfortunately you won't see them accept medical ethics. It's the same as it was with COVID. Those folks are so deeply entrenched into what they were told by their politicians of choice that they won't accept anything provided by the medical field. It's why they bomb abortion clinics and/or stand outside places like Planned Parenthood and verbally and sometimes occasionally physically assault women going in or coming out.

    They'll never stop shaming the practice because for these sociopaths they believe their cause is just. Truth and evidence be damned.
    “You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X

    I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)

  11. #7131
    Old God Captain N's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Resident of Emerald City
    Posts
    10,920
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    It seems you may have found the crossroads that I did with this recent conversation, then.

    If the exercise is futile, why exactly are we posting in the thread about abortion? Before I come off as aggressive, I honestly am asking myself that same question, because I've "self-flatulated" just as much in this thread. Thanks for the word reference, @Malkiah.

    Before it comes, you don't have to scold me, Endus. I'm just venting/joking around.
    Most of us are posting here in response to the bad faith actors who simply lie about the stances Pro-Life people take to push across their agenda. It's why a majority of them do not care for medical ethics or the years of experience that those in the medical field have to prove what an abortion actually is. There's no crossroads -- it's more battle lines because for a majority of the Pro-Life crowd the stance is that the life of the fetus outweighs the life of the woman carrying it. The Pro-Choice side is that the life of the mother and her right to own her own body is more important than the fetus. Neither is going to yield on it and its a perfect demonstration of how one side is completely wrapped up in their stance due to feels and the other has facts and evidence.
    “You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X

    I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)

  12. #7132
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    It seems you may have found the crossroads that I did with this recent conversation, then.

    If the exercise is futile, why exactly are we posting in the thread about abortion? Before I come off as aggressive, I honestly am asking myself that same question, because I've "self-fellated" just as much in this thread. Thanks for the word reference, @Malkiah.
    at the risk of being lectured further by people who only post here to hear themselves talk, i'll chime in because it's directly related to what i was thinking last night:
    the pro-choice movement has IMO completely ceded the soul of the argument to the other side, and as a result spends all of its time quibbling over details instead of the broader issue.

    i obviously don't agree that a zygote is equivalent to a toddler, but i understand that to the people who DO think that a zygote is a toddler (whether genuinely or out of malicious intent is irrelevant) that trying to argue it with scientific facts is like trying to argue that black lives don't matter using the Bell Curve as your evidence.
    no, it's not academically the same obviously, but it's rhetorically the same to the other side of this debate and that's the thing i think a lot of people just don't grasp.

    so i personally wonder how the narrative would be different if the pro-choice side stopped arguing from the pro-life position, and argued from the pro-choice side more strictly.
    the "pro-life" (pffft) position is that conception and birth, at all costs and above all other considerations for any other factor, is the only morally correct point of view.
    this cannot be argued with by quibbling over when adequate cell division has occurred to classify it as "human" or not, nor countered by pointing out that draconian law attempting to implement this philosophy results in untold suffering on others.
    to an extent this premise has even been internalized by much of the pro-choice movement at least in the US, personified by the "safe, legal, and rare" slogan.

    i have the opinion that this lack of push-back on their central tenet is why regressives are so emboldened with their stance and gratuitous with their attempts to force it on others.
    it could be that more rigorous counter-argument in ways that don't cater to their starting position would be more effective - for example, i personally don't give a shit about the question of when life actually starts and will just say that as soon as a sperm hits an egg it's a fully formed baby if that's what they want to pretend, but that abortion is still correct on the basis that we as a society have deemed whole swaths of people as legitimately killable for a variety of reasons and fetuses are just another in that list.
    i guess you could shorten that down to i basically apply the castle doctrine to pregnancy.

    maybe the national conversation wouldn't change in the US if more uncompromising rhetorical tactics were used.
    and maybe that sort of thing isn't possible because most people can't buy into that idea, perhaps i'm extreme in my views.
    but, i can't see it as being less effective than the current way people go about it.
    Last edited by Malkiah; 2023-11-24 at 06:38 AM.

  13. #7133
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    I'd say that's pushback. It's not over by a long shot, but I think the winds have changed significantly, and I believe the rhetoric will reflect those changes. Perhaps we're witnessing the throes of the pro-life movement. I'm also aware we could be heading towards a more authoritarian view, in light of their reactions to the voters about abortion rights. Time will tell, but you're right, perhaps now that we have more than politicians bloviating about things, the voters finally get their say, and our conversations will change with them. It's just a question of when.
    The """pro-life""" movement isn't going anywhere any time soon. The instant they get the power to institute a federal ban, they will. In the meantime, if they can find a way to ignore the will of the voters on a state level, they'll do that too.

  14. #7134
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,507
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    The """pro-life""" movement isn't going anywhere any time soon. The instant they get the power to institute a federal ban, they will. In the meantime, if they can find a way to ignore the will of the voters on a state level, they'll do that too.
    Let's be clear; the "pro-life" movement is just one head of the much larger hydra of Christian Nationalism. They're never going away until actions are seriously taken to keep religious extremism out of government. Or at least recognize Christian Nationalists as being the same class of malicious actor as Islamists pushing for a global Caliphate. Twin hydras, really, the differences between the two are entirely superficial.


  15. #7135
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,672
    Donald Trump might have actually stood a chance in 2024, but with how DEEPLY unpopular straight out abortion bans are, Democrats are winning in huge margins for 2021, 2022, and 2023 elections where they normally wouldn't. Republicans moving to ban all abortion has proven to be the biggest flaw in their plans. If they were smart they would have waited until they had a total grip on power and removed all dissent from government in their plans to take total control. But they jumped the gun to outlaw abortion and people are still able to vote them out of office.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  16. #7136
    Old God Captain N's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Resident of Emerald City
    Posts
    10,920
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Donald Trump might have actually stood a chance in 2024, but with how DEEPLY unpopular straight out abortion bans are, Democrats are winning in huge margins for 2021, 2022, and 2023 elections where they normally wouldn't. Republicans moving to ban all abortion has proven to be the biggest flaw in their plans. If they were smart they would have waited until they had a total grip on power and removed all dissent from government in their plans to take total control. But they jumped the gun to outlaw abortion and people are still able to vote them out of office.
    We just have to hope that the people who actually voted for Reproduction Rights on ballots, like those in Ohio, pay attention to who is trying to ignore the will of the people by bringing up court cases. We know Republicans don't care about what people want, so anyone who is Pro-Woman but continues to vote in folks who are going to ignore ballot initiatives aren't helping anyone.
    “You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X

    I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)

  17. #7137
    Another example of GOP reasonably abortion policy.

    Some Republicans Were Willing to Compromise on Abortion Ban Exceptions. Activists Made Sure They Didn’t.

    A review by ProPublica of 12 of the nation’s strictest abortion bans passed before Roe was overturned found that over the course of the 2023 legislative session, only four states made changes. Those changes were limited and steered by religious organizations. None allowed doctors to provide abortions to patients who want to terminate their pregnancies because of health risks.

    ProPublica spoke with more than 30 doctors across the country about their experiences trying to provide care for patients in abortion-ban states and also reviewed news articles, medical journal studies and lawsuits. In at least 70 public cases across 12 states, women with pregnancy complications faced severe health risks and were denied abortion care or had treatment delayed due to abortion bans. Some nearly died or lost their fertility as a result. The doctors say the true number is much higher.

    Early signs indicated Republicans might compromise, as voters in red states showed strong popular support for protecting abortion access and polls revealed the majority of American voters do not support total abortion bans. That opposition has only hardened since then, as reproductive rights drove a wave of Democratic electoral victories in Kentucky, Virginia and Pennsylvania in November. In Ohio, voters approved an amendment to the state’s constitution guaranteeing the right to an abortion.

    But in the most conservative states, Republicans ultimately fell in line with highly organized Christian groups. Those activists fought to keep the most restrictive abortion bans in place by threatening to pull funding and support primary challenges to lawmakers that didn’t stand strong.

    Their fervor to protect the laws reflects a bedrock philosophy within the American anti-abortion movement: that all abortion exceptions — even those that protect the pregnant person’s life or health — should be considered the same as sanctioning murder.


    Imagine those same people taking control of abortion policy at the Federal level.

  18. #7138
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Another example of GOP reasonably abortion policy.

    Some Republicans Were Willing to Compromise on Abortion Ban Exceptions. Activists Made Sure They Didn’t.



    Imagine those same people taking control of abortion policy at the Federal level.
    This is, ultimately, the core issue. That's a small but significant minority of extremists with enough power in the Republican party to shit this topic up and keep it a mess for girls and women for years to come.

    And that's precisely why people don't, and shouldn't, trust the Republican party on this issue.

  19. #7139
    More examples of how GOP truly cares for the well being of mothers and babies.

    Idaho Banned Abortion. Then It Turned Down Supports for Pregnancies and Births.

    Idaho legislators disbanded a state committee that investigated the root causes of maternal deaths, making it the only state in the nation with no such mortality review.


    They allowed two bills to die that would have put Idaho on the same track as nearly every other state with abortion restrictions — including Florida, Kentucky and Texas — by extending postpartum Medicaid coverage to 12 months. Idaho’s Medicaid coverage ends two months after birth, the minimum under federal law.


    They turned down $36 million in federal grants to support child care this summer, while other states with new abortion restrictions — Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri among them — made investments in early childhood education and day care. Idaho lawmakers at the time attributed the decision to a pending audit of a different batch of grants.

  20. #7140
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    More examples of how GOP truly cares for the well being of mothers and babies.

    Idaho Banned Abortion. Then It Turned Down Supports for Pregnancies and Births.




    Seemingly at every opportunity Republicans have to actually enact "pro-life" and "pro-mother" and "pro-baby" policies like this, we see them either fail to act or intentionally act in the opposite direction - as is here.

    This is why nobody paying attention will ever believe that the Republican party writ-large isn't packed with extremists on this issue, and why when we hear them promise how these draconian restrictions won't become national or that they really do support states deciding themselves, we don't believe them. Because as we're already seeing in states where the voters did choose - and choose to protect their access to reproductive health care - Republican politicians are seeking to ignore or otherwise void or go around the will of the voters on this topic.

    I'll again take this opportunity to note that not a single Republican controlled state that I've seen has taken any time reviewing their legislation on this topic and working on updating it to limit the kind of pointless suffering we're still seeing happen on the regular as girls or women in need of abortion services cannot receive them because the non-viable pregnancy hasn't put their life in jeopardy yet so they just have to wait until they're about to die to get the care they need, greatly increasing the risk to their life and causing pointless physical and emotional suffering. Republicans in those states seem to continue to view the suffering of those girls and womens as the system working correctly, I guess.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •