Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Late Term Abortion

Rate this topic


 thenelli01

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

 

Honestly, you sound very confused, and this is one example. I mean that your very position is confused. You say fetal pain plays no part of your argument, then you use it. Not to mention it's a bad argument, unless you use the same argument to tell people that eating meat is immoral.

You hearked on this before, and seem most concerned about fetal pain, yourself. The probability of a sentient fetus feeling pain - I have inferred from reports online - has been what has strongly turned off many people about late-abortions, apparently including some of the abortion practitioners themselves, and I pointed it out a few times in passing. As I did above. I personally think it is a horrible operation to conduct, emphasized by a doctor friend of mine, (an atheist too, who is fervently against late interventions for moral and medical reasons)--but of the humane aspect I've brought in relatively little. That you believe this is the mainstay of my argument shows you haven't given it much attention.

In the end, the polled opinions, even emotions, of a majority/whatever of people doesn't hold sway, either.

The argument, simply: By any objective and biological formulation of the nature of life, a third trimester pregnancy has arrived at the point of *two bodies* and *two lives* at stake. Therefore, no longer is it a matter of "My individual rights and freedom of action to do what I please with my body". Now there is another body to take into account. So, a conundrum - can one find an ethical solution which neither leans to the conservative's intrinsic value, nor to the secularist's subjective value, concerning a late fetus? Which is not trespassing on individual rights? There always can be an objective answer (not that it will, or has to, please everyone). "Confused"? No.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Now there is another body to take into account.

You say that rights of the fetus are a red herring, that the main question is about ethics first (as if respecting rights isn't an ethical concern?), then you start talking about rights of the fetus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The argument, simply: By any objective and biological formulation of the nature of life, a third trimester pregnancy has arrived at the point of *two bodies* and *two lives* at stake.

Yet when requested to provide evidence for this "formulation," you quickly change the subject to something else. You start talking about perception, the rational faculty, personal anecdotes, polls, a mother's responsibility, brain regions, articles on fetal pain, etc. If your position is so objectively and biologically sound, why can't you provide just one medical article by a medical professional arguing that a fetus is a "separate, distinct living body"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Yet when requested to provide evidence for this "formulation," you quickly change the subject to something else. You start talking about perception, the rational faculty, personal anecdotes, polls, a mother's responsibility, brain regions, articles on fetal pain, etc. If your position is so objectively and biologically sound, why can't you provide just one medical article by a medical professional arguing that a fetus is a "separate, distinct living body"? 

Apart from making a mash-up of my argument ....

A medical article? Why? This is largely philosophical, concerning the nature of life. The basics are well known, not needing medical professionals' advice. Can a fetus be removed pre-term from its mother (henceforth, a baby), have the umbilical cut, and with the right treatment, drips, incubation and so on, be kept living? This is commonly known. In this state is the baby, or not, a "separate, distinct, living body"? One which will thrive, mostly, to grow to a child. But, say, one day earlier going by what you intimate, the fetus/baby was not a distinct body and life. Why? what's essentially changed, except its environment and nutrition methods? 

This is a nice demonstration and validation, if it's needed, of "a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action". With emphases on "self". The action which applies to every living "organism". Keep supplying the necessities and life continues. The mother supplied her fetus the essentials, given by nature, but they can be and are replaced manually, 'man made' (with premature/emergency delivery). A fetus ~has to~ have available these nutrients 'surrounding' it, comparable to a plant and water and sunlight - or 'connected' to it - with mammals. But its body and life and growth are distinct entities and actions, from its mother's body.

 

"An organism’s life depends on two factors: the material or fuel which it needs from the outside, from its physical background, and the action of its own body, the action of using that fuel properly. What standard determines what is proper in this context? The standard is the organism’s life, or: that which is required for the organism’s survival". The Virtue of Selfishness.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2019 at 1:59 AM, Eiuol said:

You say that rights of the fetus are a red herring, that the main question is about ethics first (as if respecting rights isn't an ethical concern?), then you start talking about rights of the fetus.

Ethics, then laws and rights. First comes first, to build an objective, moral case against late-abortion. One has the right to do all kinds of things with, or to, one's own body. One's possible morality or irrationality, aside - if they don't rebound on others' freedom to act, so good and fine. And here, for a "separate, distinct living body" - albeit a fetus (which is capable of survival) - I argue, should it not receive the same protection of rights to life a newborn infant enjoys? The identical "freedom to act" which one doesn't interfere with, for all others? 

Respecting those rights would be "an ethical concern", while not a code of ethics, itself.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

A pro-choicer speaks up.

NYP is basically a tabloid, it's goal isn't to offer sensible and rational discussion, it's not even a good source for opinion pieces. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

But, say, one day earlier going by what you intimate, the fetus/baby was not a distinct body and life. Why? what's essentially changed, except its environment and nutrition methods? 

Its physical form and function have changed. A newborn is no longer anatomically connected to the mother; and it's no longer processing her blood for nutrients and oxygen. These are the essential changes that you're looking for but refuse to acknowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

These are the essential changes that you're looking for but refuse to acknowledge.

For what it's worth, he didn't deny these changes, only denied that they matter. But the reason this changes is because the baby has sufficiently developed to exist in the world, and is able to start cognitive development. Take intrinsicists post on page 1, point numbers 2 and 3. The focus is brought to the development of consciousness. The problem with point 3 is the assumption that a newborn is so primitively developed in terms of consciousness that a newborn is cognitively identical to a late-term fetus. WhyNot makes that assumption. If I made that assumption, yes, I would say that infanticide is at least legally permissible.

But I don't. Actually, I think part of the reason that people react so strongly to infanticide is because they can recognize that newborns aren't so primitively developed. They engage in a level of thought that exceeds a dog or other animals. What a thing is is so intertwined with how it functions, that you can't have a capacity without at least trying to function. A fetus performs none of these functions (although there might be an argument that if the fetus is removed in some instances it will begin all these functions). How else would you judge if something has the capacity of reason, besides the activity of reason? As I mentioned before, there is no biologically essentialist location for reason, and Oism doesn't advocate for this (Rand it's pretty clear that reason is an activity, not an object within us). I would do the same thing for alien life forms.

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Its physical form and function have changed. A newborn is no longer anatomically connected to the mother; and it's no longer processing her blood for nutrients and oxygen. These are the essential changes that you're looking for but refuse to acknowledge.

A superficial change which proves my point.. Transfer a fetus-baby from one secure 'container' to another (womb to incubator), provide equivalent nutrition, and it lives and survives. What does this tell us, but that this has - already - become an autonomous being and a life that is "self"- sustaining".

(And if anyone trivially remarks, it cannot be "autonomous", a baby can't survive without that nutrition and shelter - ha, well - neither can you). 

What is so intrinsically important about "anatomically connected to the mother" and "her blood for nutrients and oxygen"? Ideally, yes, of course - and in all normal circumstances that's the case until birth. But let's not make the mother-connection a mystical one. 

Central is grasping the meaning of "life, a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Eiuol said:

NYP is basically a tabloid, it's goal isn't to offer sensible and rational discussion, it's not even a good source for opinion pieces. 

This is: ignore the message and shoot the messenger.

What passes your test for being the _correct_ publication to read?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Transfer a fetus-baby from one secure 'container' to another (womb to incubator), provide equivalent nutrition, and it lives and survives.

Careful. Your misogyny is showing. A woman is not a container.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Careful. Your misogyny is showing. A woman is not a container.

One abstracts entities in the course of being conceptual, like it or not.

Another thing, such political correctness - virtue signaling is definitely at odds with Objectivism. Have I called you a fetophobe and baby killer?

I don't need this advice, thank you very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

For what it's worth, he didn't deny these changes, only denied that they matter.

No, he doesn't get it. He's still conceiving of the woman as a container.

5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

But the reason this changes is because the baby has sufficiently developed to exist in the world, and is able to start cognitive development.

No, it changes because the woman successfully grows and gives birth to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

This is: ignore the message and shoot the messenger.

What passes your test for being the _correct_ publication to read?

I skimmed it. It was sensationalism primarily, mostly and appeal to emotional, things like that. NYP is the most modern example I can think of for yellow journalism. I mean, it's okay to read it (it is entertainment after all), I just don't think it's appropriate for our discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, this guy must work for CNN. Muckraking into past records attempting to dig up dirt on one's character. What the infantile, concrete-bound and dirty Leftist media excel at.

Not a single rational argument the whole thread, just irrelevant outbursts and nit-picking.

If you think fetuses should be given life and can make a comprehensive ~ Objectivist ~ argument for it, like I have, you are anti-women, misogynist and probably a rapist.

PC labels serve to block out reality, which some don't want their small world-view to be disturbed by. 

But Objectivism and 'political correctness' is a contradiction in terms like O'ism and leftism, in general.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I skimmed it. It was sensationalism primarily, mostly and appeal to emotional, things like that. NYP is the most modern example I can think of for yellow journalism. I mean, it's okay to read it (it is entertainment after all), I just don't think it's appropriate for our discussion.

I don't get why an article hasn't merit - because- it appeared in such and such a publication. If something has truth, it doesn't matter where you find it. (Even on CNN). Speaking objectively, one first "isolates" a thing from its background, assesses it and returns it to context afterwards. Not - judging a book by its cover...etc. Also, how one assesses an artwork, regardless of its artist, pedigree, reputation, history, etc.

She delivers some facts and makes a fairly impassioned value-judgment. Does one question the facts, sure. Can one disagree with her opinion? Fine. But sensationalist, I don't think.

"These abortion laws aren't what pro-choice is supposed to mean". (McCaughy)

I resonated with her opinion because in all 4-5 decades of being staunchly pro-abortion (in a once socially repressive society) because it liberated women (and men) - it never dawned on me and the others, female, mostly, that anyone would choose, or desire to, demand a late abortion.  This was a foreign idea to all of us then. You needed a ~legal~ abortion: You had it done - the sooner the better. (Then I came across Rand who memorably presented the *moral* choice of abortion).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2019 at 12:38 PM, whYNOT said:

it never dawned on me and the others, female, mostly, that anyone would choose, or desire to, demand a late abortion.

Yeah, we went over this before. Very few people ask for it, and the people who do, ask for it out of medical necessity. Just because it's hard to imagine a reason doesn't mean there is no reason. It is weird to think about, because it never needs to enter into your thinking (it's hard to imagine why people need certain medical procedures when you can't even make use of the procedure). I've brought up many times that waiting is generally not ideal, but that itself is not even that big of a moral error. And sometimes it is the most moral option. If you only want to talk about whether abortion is immoral at later stages (but still legal), then engage that part. But you still can't declare a broad category of women immoral because a late-term abortion is so foreign to you.

On 6/20/2019 at 12:38 PM, whYNOT said:

But sensationalist, I don't think.

Let's go over the vague statements that make the sensationalism.

"Fetal abnormalities “make up a small minority of later abortions,” reports Diana Greene Foster of the University of California, San Francisco, the lead investigator on the largest-ever study of women seeking late-term abortions. She adds that abortions prompted by threats to the health of the mother are even rarer. The study found that women’s reasons were all over the place, including travel considerations, expense, indecision and disagreements with the father."

Are fetal abnormalities the only kind of medical necessity? What about medical concerns for the mother's body? What does "travel considerations" mean? And besides that, what do any of these reasons matter? It says what the study found, without mentioning numbers. That's the first step to making misleading articles - use vague quantifiers without numbers. Notice how it says 12,000 late-term abortions (without defining specifically what late-term means, which the study would have specified and might not be what laypeople mean by late-term).

"16 percent of abortion facilities terminate pregnancies that are 24 weeks along, when many fetuses are viable outside the womb, according to the Congressional Research Service."

Which ones? In the entire US? Maybe. What specifically qualifies as an abortion facility? Hospitals? This is easily misleading.

"Some legislation would even allow doctors the discretion to withhold from newborns who survived abortion the routine treatments all preemies need to breathe and survive. That would doom them to die within hours. Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed such macabre legislation on Jan. 22 and celebrated by having One World Trade Center lighted pink."

Misleading again. It's kind of like begging the question. Sure, a fetus could survive an abortion. But then it is still a fetus. This is the whole question though, is the fetus a baby? This paragraph works for people who already agree with the author. It's an emotional appeal, "can you believe that they are denied the things preemies are given?"

"After-birth abortion happens when a fetus survives a chemically induced abortion. In the more common surgical abortions, the fetus is dismembered inside the mother’s body and then removed piece by piece with forceps."

Once we got the emotional appeals down, by associating vaguely similar ideas (newborns, preemies, fetuses, all of these may have superficial similarities but are all very different in various ways) - procedures will feel gruesome, terrible, and immoral. Then it returns to talking about babies, as if it's immensely obvious that the fetus that comes out must be a premature baby rather than a fetus that looks a lot like a baby. But the specification is not required. The article is going for emotional appeal.

"Even if you are pro-choice, as I am, this grisly denial of the value of the nearly born and newly born shocks the conscience."

It doesn't even mention the newly born being mistreated. It's working from the assumption that you've made an emotional association between two images in your mind. 

"Princeton University bioethicist Peter Singer, meanwhile, insists that late-stage fetuses and newborns, though they look human, lack the mental awareness to be considered persons. Singer says “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.” He calls it “infanticide.”"

Out of context quote to create moral outrage. To be sure, I don't like Singer, but the context may have been a discussion on moral equivalency. And he probably has a nuanced definition of person, because he's a vegan, and clearly stands morally and probably legally against killing many kinds of non-persons. And if he called it infanticide, I can guarantee you he didn't support it...

Notice that I didn't say these things aren't falsehoods. I'm saying they are misleading and only give a very fuzzy picture. The NYP by nature appreciates and is fine with sensationalism, so this opinion piece passes editorial approval. That's the type of writing that they desire. Keep in mind this post is about how sensationalism can influence opinions on abortion.

Edited by Eiuol
Typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2019 at 6:16 AM, whYNOT said:

Hell, this guy must work for CNN. Muckraking into past records attempting to dig up dirt on one's character. What the infantile, concrete-bound and dirty Leftist media excel at.

CNN excels at using this forum's search feature? By "past records" you mean your own posts on this forum, right? And by "dig up dirt" you mean that I read and referenced those posts that you wrote about your own history with women.

On 6/20/2019 at 6:16 AM, whYNOT said:

If you think fetuses should be given life and can make a comprehensive ~ Objectivist ~ argument for it, like I have, you are anti-women, misogynist and probably a rapist.

 1. You haven't made an Objectivist argument. The Objectivist argument against late-term abortions would be that the fetus is a potential life, not an actual one. Then we could debate the morality of certain decisions in certain scenarios in which that potential is destroyed (or preserved) for some reason. For example, I would not judge a woman negatively for not wanting to give birth to a child whose father suddenly, in the third trimester, cheated on her or abandoned her. It is up to her to decide whether she wants to bring such a man's child into the world. 

2. Your misogyny has nothing to do with your particular position on abortion. It has to do with your general view of women.

3. Who said anything about you being a rapist?

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

For example, I would not judge a woman negatively for not wanting to give birth to a child whose father suddenly, in the third trimester, cheated on her or abandoned her. It is up to her to decide whether she wants to bring such a man's child into the world. 

 

If you had followed so far, you would be clearer that this fetus is  - objectively - an autonomous life, with all attributes and properties of a human, one you are being so casual about aborting.

"The Objectivist argument against late-term abortions would be that the fetus is a potential life not an actual one". Huh? I think you meant "for".

Leaving that, and what you're transposing and taking out of context, is Rand on ~potential vs. actual~ but "essentially, this concerns the first three months" of pregnancy. NOT the last three months. She talks of a "clump of cells". Remember? She didn't mention late-term, except saying that after the first trimester, the subject is "debatable". The argument now, is that this fetus IS actual.

So your "Objectivist argument" doesn't hold water for third trimester abortion, and going by her philosophy it is doubtful she would "embrace it" - as someone said here .

"Up to her". 

What if that woman's husband "suddenly" leaves her one day before, or at the last second, on the day of its birth, what then? What a terrible inconvenience. Of course, she'd have every cause to abort it! After all, a baby has zero value to her, now. This action indicates sacrificial immorality and cynical unconcern for her life and any life - but you'd not judge it "negatively". 

Maybe it is equally "up to her" for a mother to murder her baby just *after* its birth? After all, if her husband cheats on/abandons her, she is morally justified, by your standards. Oh, but then she'd be charged by the law.

A baby which, by your reckoning, wasn't a human life one minute or one day earlier, suddenly and magically becomes "life" by emerging from the womb. Work that out. 

Therefore your argument is irrelevant, amoral and ultimately, circular. 

Circling back to what has been endlessly repeated: What is human life (and when) - and *should* it be protected?

Self-evidently, if it has become a viable, independent, surviving human body/life, as everybody beyond doubt knows and can see it has (whenever a fetus has had to be removed early) - at THAT stage of third trimester development, whether in or out of its mother's uterus, it is identified as a human being.

Of course, if one insists as you and, quite likely most late-abortionists do, that a fetus is an integral "part" of a mother, i.e. like any one of her vital organs - heart, kidneys, stomach, or her limbs - THEN, isn't that nice, one may dismiss a grown fetus with easier conscience, and late-abort it without guilt or a rational morality. In that case, again, everyone will repeat  - "this is the mother's body and her life, she can choose what she wants with it...etc, etc", justifying the choice of, er, ~ removal ~ of this so-called, "part" of her.

Except, sorry to break it to you, the fetus as being "her body" or "her life" is a biological and metaphysical falsity, and the excuses made break down to justification or evasion.  

Putting "a self-sustaining and self-generating process" into this context - a fetus possesses its OWN physicality and ACTS towards its OWN life.

Its existence depends on its 'environment', of course, as do all living things, and babies and adults, but it is "an end in itself". Since fertilization, it was never an integral "part" of anything or anyone else, physically (later, also consciously). Rand's preamble to rational *selfishness* covers this ground, and obviously with good reason..

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

CNN excels at using this forum's search feature? By "past records" you mean your own posts on this forum, right? And by "dig up dirt" you mean that I read and referenced those posts that you wrote about your own history with women.

 

2. Your misogyny has nothing to do with your particular position on abortion. It has to do with your general view of women.

3. Who said anything about you being a rapist?

You're covering up.

Anyone can easily deduce your simplistic thinking:

A. "This poster thinks late abortions are wrong". 

B. "Women have abortions".

C. "Yes! I have found this poster is anti-woman. A misogynist!"

D. "Therefore his views on abortion are prejudiced against women, and so I can expose him!"

A psychologizer, who has added nothing of value on this topic.

You not only are illogical,  not only believe that PC slogans are meaningful, you have lowdown motives in trying, for lack of any reasoned argument, to impugn my character, especially lifting from a thread in which I was offering my honest advice to someone from past experiences.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

A baby which, by your reckoning, wasn't a human life one minute or one day earlier, suddenly and magically becomes "life" by emerging from the womb.

You don't need to keep repeating this line. Okay, Swig I think would be technically wrong to say that a fetus is not a life. But I think you get the point - it still isn't an entity that bears any rights. It isn't magical, just that you don't like the dividing line that has been selected. It doesn't sound like you're trying to participate in good faith.

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You not only are illogical,  not only believe that PC slogans are meaningful

Swig might have been going a bit far, but you're the one who introduced whatever PC slogan you are talking about. "Misogynist" isn't a PC term. But it seems that most of your moral disapproval revolves around how late term abortion is foreign to you, that delaying an abortion is a grave moral error even if the fetus had no rights, and other things like that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I removed a post containing an unnecessary personal attack above under the "no personal attacks" Forum Guideline.

Quote

No personal attacks

Healthy debate is encouraged, but participants agree not resort to personal attacks, and do not belittle someone else's argument. Instead of making it personal, participants agree to use rational, persuasive skills to make a point or criticize another’s.

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/guidelines/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You don't need to keep repeating this line. Okay, Swig I think would be technically wrong to say that a fetus is not a life. But I think you get the point - it still isn't an entity that bears any rights. It isn't magical, just that you don't like the dividing line that has been selected. It doesn't sound like you're trying to participate in good faith.

Swig might have been going a bit far, but you're the one who introduced whatever PC slogan you are talking about. "Misogynist" isn't a PC term. But it seems that most of your moral disapproval revolves around how late term abortion is foreign to you, that delaying an abortion is a grave moral error even if the fetus had no rights, and other things like that. 

 

"Misogynist" may not be a common PC term, yet. Just like "---phobe", one sees this used most often in order to

(a). assert for oneself the moral high ground (b). substitute for reasoning (c). "shame'' one's opponent into silence.  

You must be aware of how much this ploy is used, particularly from the modern Left.

And  you claim - I - "...introduced whatever PC slogan..."? What? I have not used derogatory "slogans" of any type to anyone.

It seems odd to explain on this forum what is a rationally-selfish "moral disapproval". "Values", supreme value, sacrifice of values, and so on.

Also, I made a passing remark about late abortion "foreign" to us (the early pro-choice liberals, in this country) and that you believe is my whole argument?! Did I say we "disapproved" of it? I did not. I intimated that it was the furthest thing from our minds. Getting a legal abortion, and soon, was all that counted. Sure. If known back then, I have no doubt it would have been rejected as immoral/unconscionable, as it is largely today by women (as well-expressed by the pro-choice writer above)..

I think you should not put words in my mouth, I will be doubting that you "participate in good faith". .. 

"It still isn't an entity that bears any rights". And why not, in future? When an "objective" - not arbitrary, not subjective, not religious, law comes into place, that can change. I believe it will. All western nations have similar laws, but all lack an objective basis.

 I repeat simply. Is it ethical to kill a human? Not of course a human zygote or embryo -- but a fully-formed fetus? One with vital life-signs and viability? If that is answered, then the laws and rights will follow. If it's immoral, then the fetus gets the same protection of law a baby would. Then you'd see late-abortion doctors arrested and charged with infanticide.. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2019 at 8:17 AM, whYNOT said:

Surely, the rights aspect is a done deal? Nothing and no one has the right to interfere with the mother's rights of choice to end her pregnancy. But this needs to be separated from what also matters, to my mind, the morality of so-called "full term" abortion.

Speaking solely on "right to life", Rand put it: "To equate the potential with an actual, is vicious, to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable..."  I agree fully.

Does this mean that "the potential" is of zero value? A student engineer is a potential engineer, for instance, with the actuality in his future. I suggest, this is arguable, that there is a sliding time scale between potential and actual, in which a potential gradually gains in value, objectively, as the vital signs and "viablity" of the fetus increase. Late -term (or 'full-term') abortion for arbitrary, subjective-emotional reasons, would be irrational. A woman who casually has avoided making a decision (with all the highly-available previous interventions of her pregnancy, including the adoption option) up until the moment of birth, when a potential life was growing inside her, strikes me as hedonistic, irrational and immoral (and the surgical procedure is quite horrible to imagine). Her right to do so remains.

I agree, it's a done deal. Even an irrational, immoral woman should have the right to a last-minute abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...