RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 3:40:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Bounty, if you want to argue that abortion is morally wrong, fine, I can understand that However, outlawing abortion would force people's actions to follow your beliefs, and I will argue that until the end of time Aren't people who want unrestricted immigrantion trying to force those who don't want open borders to follow their beliefs? Don't those who want decriminallization of drugs want to force those who think that drugs destroy lives to follow their beliefs? Any law that anyone supports can be described as an attempt to force those who disagree to follow the beliefs of the laws supporters. If everyone agreed on what everyone should do there would be no need for laws. Unless they are forcing you to take drugs, they are not forcing you to follow their beliefs. Ironically, it's the libertarian argument Bounty said that outlawing abortion was not forcing others to follow your beliefs. I argued it is forcing your beliefs. That's all. But the rejoinder is - outlawing murder has nothing to do about "my beliefs" or "your beliefs". We outlaw it. In the same way - outlawing abortion doesn't force someone to follow my beliefs. It is functionally and logically identical to outlawing murder. In fact, I would state exactly the contrary point. We have carved out an exception for murder by abortion - forcing the beliefs of those that are pro-abortion on others. Do you get the point? We start from a position (historically) that all murder is wrong. This was changed to allow women to murder babies. It isn't the protesters attempting to force their beliefs on others - it abortion rights people forcing their beliefs.

Lucylastic -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 3:51:39 PM)
Historically? What....7000 years of thou shalt not kill, suddenly means women have to give birth. Wow.lol

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 3:58:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Historically? What....7000 years of thou shalt not kill, suddenly means women have to give birth. Wow.lol This is the original version of the Hippocratic Oath, in Greek and then followed by the English translation: ὄμνυμι Ἀπόλλωνα ἰητρὸν καὶ Ἀσκληπιὸν καὶ Ὑγείαν καὶ Πανάκειαν καὶ θεοὺς πάντας τε καὶπάσας, ἵστορας ποιεύμενος, ἐπιτελέα ποιήσειν κατὰ δύναμιν καὶ κρίσιν ἐμὴν ὅρκον τόνδε καὶσυγγραφὴν τήνδε: ἡγήσεσθαι μὲν τὸν διδάξαντά με τὴν τέχνην ταύτην ἴσα γενέτῃσιν ἐμοῖς,καὶ βίου κοινώσεσθαι, καὶ χρεῶν χρηΐζοντι μετάδοσιν ποιήσεσθαι, καὶ γένος τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦἀδελφοῖς ἴσον ἐπικρινεῖν ἄρρεσι, καὶ διδάξειν τὴν τέχνην ταύτην, ἢν χρηΐζωσι μανθάνειν,ἄνευ μισθοῦ καὶ συγγραφῆς, παραγγελίης τε καὶ ἀκροήσιος καὶ τῆς λοίπης ἁπάσης μαθήσιοςμετάδοσιν ποιήσεσθαι υἱοῖς τε ἐμοῖς καὶ τοῖς τοῦ ἐμὲ διδάξαντος, καὶ μαθητῇσισυγγεγραμμένοις τε καὶ ὡρκισμένοις νόμῳ ἰητρικῷ, ἄλλῳ δὲ οὐδενί. διαιτήμασί τε χρήσομαιἐπ᾽ ὠφελείῃ καμνόντων κατὰ δύναμιν καὶ κρίσιν ἐμήν, ἐπὶ δηλήσει δὲ καὶ ἀδικίῃ εἴρξειν. οὐδώσω δὲ οὐδὲ φάρμακον οὐδενὶ αἰτηθεὶς θανάσιμον, οὐδὲ ὑφηγήσομαι συμ βουλίηντοιήνδε: ὁμοίως δὲ οὐδὲ γυναικὶ πεσσὸν φθόριον δώσω. ἁγνῶς δὲ καὶ ὁσίως διατηρήσω βίοντὸν ἐμὸν καὶ τέχνην τὴν ἐμήν. οὐ τεμέω δὲ οὐδὲ μὴν λιθιῶντας, ἐκχωρήσω δὲ ἐργάτῃσιν ἀνδράσι πρήξιος τῆσδε. ἐς οἰκίας δὲ ὁκόσας ἂν ἐσίω, ἐσελεύσομαι ἐπ᾽ ὠφελείῃκαμνόντων, ἐκτὸς ἐὼν πάσης ἀδικίης ἑκουσίης καὶ φθορίης, τῆς τε ἄλλης καὶ ἀφροδισίωνἔργων ἐπί τε γυναικείων σωμάτων καὶ ἀνδρῴων, ἐλευθέρων τε καὶ δούλων. ἃ δ᾽ ἂν ἐνθεραπείῃ ἢ ἴδω ἢ ἀκούσω, ἢ καὶ ἄνευ θεραπείης κατὰ βίον ἀνθρώπων, ἃ μὴ χρή ποτεἐκλαλεῖσθαι ἔξω, σιγήσομαι, ἄρρητα ἡγεύμενος εἶναι τὰ τοιαῦτα. ὅρκον μὲν οὖν μοι τόνδεἐπιτελέα ποιέοντι, καὶ μὴ συγχέοντι, εἴη ἐπαύρασθαι καὶ βίου καὶ τέχνης δοξαζομένῳ παρὰπᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐς τὸν αἰεὶ χρόνον: παραβαίνοντι δὲ καὶ ἐπιορκέοντι, τἀναντία τούτων.[4] I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius the surgeon, likewise Hygeia and Panacea, and call all the gods and goddesses to witness, that I will observe and keep this underwritten oath, to the utmost of my power and judgment. I will reverence my master who taught me the art. Equally with my parents, will I allow him things necessary for his support, and will consider his sons as brothers. I will teach them my art without reward or agreement; and I will impart all my acquirement, instructions, and whatever I know, to my master's children, as to my own; and likewise to all my pupils, who shall bind and tie themselves by a professional oath, but to none else. With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage. Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child. Further, I will comport myself and use my knowledge in a godly manner. I will not cut for the stone, but will commit that affair entirely to the surgeons. Whatsoever house I may enter, my visit shall be for the convenience and advantage of the patient; and I will willingly refrain from doing any injury or wrong from falsehood, and (in an especial manner) from acts of an amorous nature, whatever may be the rank of those who it may be my duty to cure, whether mistress or servant, bond or free. Whatever, in the course of my practice, I may see or hear (even when not invited), whatever I may happen to obtain knowledge of, if it be not proper to repeat it, I will keep sacred and secret within my own breast. If I faithfully observe this oath, may I thrive and prosper in my fortune and profession, and live in the estimation of posterity; or on breach thereof, may the reverse be my fate![5]

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 4:02:59 PM)
The hippocratic oath is one of the oldest writings we have. It included the phrase not to administer something to harm the chlld. This prohibition was part of the AMA's hippocratic oath until 1976, as I recall, ie., for the vast majority of the practise of western medicine.

Lucylastic -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 4:03:29 PM)
Oh fuck me sideways. Is that supposed to be impressive? I know what the hippocratic oath is.... And doctors have been doing far worse things to humans since.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 4:21:06 PM)
I wonder if Doctor Mengele took that oath ? Or Doctor Crippin for that matter ? Yes, it's a very old oath.......does that make it special or valid today in some way ? There are plenty of old books that state things as being the truth and facts that should be adhered to. They seem to have fallen by the wayside as it was discovered they were wrong, invalid or just plain obsolete. And before you start sputtering Fido, NO I am not going to start looking for quotes on google or wikepedia. If you want ém, go find ém yourself.

bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 4:36:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux But the rejoinder is - outlawing murder has nothing to do about "my beliefs" or "your beliefs". We outlaw it. In the same way - outlawing abortion doesn't force someone to follow my beliefs. It is functionally and logically identical to outlawing murder. In fact, I would state exactly the contrary point. We have carved out an exception for murder by abortion - forcing the beliefs of those that are pro-abortion on others. Do you get the point? We start from a position (historically) that all murder is wrong. This was changed to allow women to murder babies. It isn't the protesters attempting to force their beliefs on others - it abortion rights people forcing their beliefs. that boldened part is what ive been saying/trying to get across to the guy from the beginning when I asked him to consider the argument from the perspective of the baby. but I think you've done a better job of articulating it.

bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 4:45:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Bounty, if you want to argue that abortion is morally wrong, fine, I can understand that However, outlawing abortion would force people's actions to follow your beliefs, and I will argue that until the end of time Aren't people who want unrestricted immigrantion trying to force those who don't want open borders to follow their beliefs? Don't those who want decriminallization of drugs want to force those who think that drugs destroy lives to follow their beliefs? Any law that anyone supports can be described as an attempt to force those who disagree to follow the beliefs of the laws supporters. If everyone agreed on what everyone should do there would be no need for laws. Unless they are forcing you to take drugs, they are not forcing you to follow their beliefs. Ironically, it's the libertarian argument Bounty said that outlawing abortion was not forcing others to follow your beliefs. I argued it is forcing your beliefs. That's all. setting the murder argument aside for a moment, which was my main starting position... I just went back through all my posts on the matter and though I could be wrong, I don't see anywhere that I said "that outlawing abortion was not forcing others to follow your beliefs." so maybe you can find that? that said, you ignored most of bama's post, which is also trying to get to the one of the hearts of the matter. in particular, you argued the Christian protesting as a point of criticism. the downstream conclusion to that then is that all laws are forcing at least some others against their beliefs...yes? if that is true, unless youre an anarchist, how is that a criticism in general, and of Christians outside a baby killing place in particular?

BamaD -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 4:51:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Bounty, if you want to argue that abortion is morally wrong, fine, I can understand that However, outlawing abortion would force people's actions to follow your beliefs, and I will argue that until the end of time Aren't people who want unrestricted immigrantion trying to force those who don't want open borders to follow their beliefs? Don't those who want decriminallization of drugs want to force those who think that drugs destroy lives to follow their beliefs? Any law that anyone supports can be described as an attempt to force those who disagree to follow the beliefs of the laws supporters. If everyone agreed on what everyone should do there would be no need for laws. Unless they are forcing you to take drugs, they are not forcing you to follow their beliefs. Ironically, it's the libertarian argument Bounty said that outlawing abortion was not forcing others to follow your beliefs. I argued it is forcing your beliefs. That's all. I repeat, every law is, by your standard, forcing someone to accept someone else's beliefs. Drug usage leads to crime, making it legal to become addicted to drugs makes it more likely that I am a victim, so no it doesn't only affect me if they force me to use drugs. If I am agaisnt murder, and I like MLK (quoted above) think that abortion is murder, when you legalize it you force me to turn my back on murder because your values say it isn't. The same argument can be used for honor killings. Prosecuting them is forcing western befiefs on people from other cultures who live here.

bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 4:59:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I wonder if Doctor Mengele took that oath ? Or Doctor Crippin for that matter ? Yes, it's a very old oath.......does that make it special or valid today in some way ? There are plenty of old books that state things as being the truth and facts that should be adhered to. They seem to have fallen by the wayside as it was discovered they were wrong, invalid or just plain obsolete. And before you start sputtering Fido, NO I am not going to start looking for quotes on google or wikepedia. If you want ém, go find ém yourself. i suppose that is another one of the differences between conservative types and liberals---the former see the worth and have a desire to hold to the meaningful and valuable traditions of the past. quote: How the Hippocratic Oath was allowed to atrophy The Enlightenment challenged the ascendancy of Christian moral absolutes. By the early 20th century, secular humanism was increasingly dominant. In the Soviet Union, the ideology of Marxist-Leninism introduced and sanctioned abortion on demand as social progress. The Sexual Revolution of the 1960s effectively ensured the retreat of Christian values from the public domain. The 1967 British Abortion Act , allied with the emerging feminist movement, triggered the wave of legal abortion that would sweep through the western world over the next decade. A crucial factor with the passing of the 1967 Abortion Act was the overnight conversion of the British medical establishment. Once the law was passed by Parliament , the establishment ended any opposition and accepted the new legal reality. Doctors who continued to oppose abortion found themselves a minority within the profession and facing peer disapproval within their practices. The Hippocratic Oath with its prohibition on performing abortions, clearly conflicted with the new legal and ethical realities of medical practice. Medical schools chose to drop the Oath or administer a more ambiguous one that suited the new era... The Oath and Changes in Medical Ethics Dr J.P.Wilkie, in "Why Can't We Love Them Both?" illustrated the change of policy in the American Medical Association's ethical leadership, by quoting from editorial in the Journal of California State Medical Association, September 1970: "The reverence of each and every human life has been a keystone of Western medicine, and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong and enhance every human life." It has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone knows, that human life begins at conception, and is continuous, whether intra-or extra-uterine, until death." Then and now: 1871 to 1970 Dr Wilkie then contrasted the AMA's attitude on abortion from the 1870's to 1970: What is abortion? 1859 - "The slaughter of countless children; such unwarranted destruction of human life." 1871 - "The work of destruction; the wholesale destruction of unborn infants." 1967 - "The interruption of pregnancy; the induced termination of pregnancy." 1970 - "A medical procedure." What should the ethics of abortion be? 1871 - "Thou shalt not kill. This commandment is given to all without exception. It matters not at what stage of development his victim may have arrived." 1967 "This is a personal and moral consideration, which in all cases must be faced according to the dictates of the conscience of the patients and her physician." Who should perform abortions? 1871 - "It will be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion." 1970 - "Abortion should be performed only by a duly licensed physician." Who are doctor abortionists? 1871 - "Men who cling to a noble profession only to dishonour it, false brethren, educated assassins, modern Herods, the executioners." 1967 - "Conscientious practitioners, conscientious physicians." What should be done to physician abortionists? 1871 - "These men should be marked as Cain was marked; they should be made the outcasts of society." 1970 - They should be permitted to perform as long as they take place in an accredited hospital." http://www.life.org.nz/abortion/abortionmedicalkeyissues/hippocraticoath/

Dvr22999874 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 5:09:43 PM)
That is a load of Kack Bounty, on many levels..........firstly, you don't which side of politics I choose or even if I really give a shit for either side. secondly if you and your ilk always want to maintain the status quo, I would like to visit your cave sometime and see your cave paintings. They are a VERY valuable tradition of the past. One thing I will grant you, which you didn't mention; I believe the bible MAY be a valid historical document up to a point, but after that, I think I would prefer to read Winnie the Pooh. He makes a lot more sense than some of the shit in that book. No, I am not a theist or an atheist. I honestly don't give a shit until somebody tries forcing their beliefs, or non-beliefs on me. I walk my own patrol and have done so for many years now. Maybe you should try doing the same instead of following the herd.

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 5:15:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Oh fuck me sideways. Is that supposed to be impressive? I know what the hippocratic oath is.... And doctors have been doing far worse things to humans since. Sure, flippancy is your only real answer. The fact is that the first collection of medical ethics was Hippocrates Hippocratic Corpus. And the fundamental principle of the hippocratic oath - was to do no harm to any. This was the bedrock of the American practice of medicine, repeated again, and again and again. There is and was a wisdom in the hippocratic oath, in that patients could trust a doctor no to sell poisons for any purpose; not to commit abortions, not to harm. It gave doctors a elevated status. Personally, I think that if you were to allow abortion, and to allow eugenics, euthanasia - that it should not be a doctor - it should be a thanostician - os that the roles in society are clearly understood. If you were nearing your end of life, and were consulting with a physician, knowing if he were a doctor or a thanatician would clarify his position. But musing and your flippancy aside - it still remains true that the bedrock of western medical tradition was that a doctor would not do abortions. We contradict the vast majority of the history of our country, and the wisdom of the medical tradition and decided that mass murder is a good thing. And we did it - not by passing enacting the will of the people by passing the law - but by 7 people inventing a right, denying the people and the legislative branch their constitutional prerogatives. 55 million people? No I seriously doubt doctors have done worse things.

bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 5:30:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 That is a load of Kack Bounty, on many levels..........firstly, you don't which side of politics I choose or even if I really give a shit for either side. secondly if you and your ilk always want to maintain the status quo, I would like to visit your cave sometime and see your cave paintings. They are a VERY valuable tradition of the past. One thing I will grant you, which you didn't mention; I believe the bible MAY be a valid historical document up to a point, but after that, I think I would prefer to read Winnie the Pooh. He makes a lot more sense than some of the shit in that book. No, I am not a theist or an atheist. I honestly don't give a shit until somebody tries forcing their beliefs, or non-beliefs on me. I walk my own patrol and have done so for many years now. Maybe you should try doing the same instead of following the herd. I made no implication at all to YOUR politics, I was just speaking in general. sorry, sleeping in a cave is not a valuable, meaningful tradition from the past. you want to imply that conservatives are against material progress? and excuse me? "following the herd?" you know virtually nothing about me and to think otherwise is pure presumption.

Lucylastic -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 5:37:48 PM)
And neither have indevidual women. Which was your immediate issue. Your cut and paste didnt mention the criticism over it or that there are various "updated oaths" Thou shalt not killl came from god to moses via the commandments Hippocrates had various gods and women died in childbirth a great deal. Also yes, doctors do harm all the time.....and there are no penalties for breaking the hippocratic oath. Only when you get caught. Women still die in childbirth a lot now, its reducedbut a long way from zero Mass killinghmmmm. A collective eh? Lol Like wars ...muslim or christians..... And those people were actual real breathing humans. Yet you are trying so hard to cling to guns so you can kill someone if they threaten your safety....those who are all ready living indepenently. That you are ignoring do not kill.... why not go for the other one......thou shalt not commit adultery.... How old is the story of moses, the ot was the word of god for millenia. But lets not kid ourselves, that men have been controlling the bodies of women, or at least attempting to, since "eve"

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 5:57:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Thou shalt not killl came from god to moses via the commandments That you are ignoring do not kill.... why not go for the other one......thou shalt not commit adultery.... οὐ φονεύσεις The translation property rendered is - thou shalt not murder. Self defense is not against the bible. You can argue with me if you wish - and I will present you with more than a dozen proofs of the matter. Including that the bible has different punishments for murder, death etc. Why in the world do you think I am against any of the other ones? If you want to have a discussion of any of the ten commandments - open a thread.

Lucylastic -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 6:03:11 PM)
Nope, you are the one bringing up ancient history pretending that doctors dont ever do harm.

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 6:07:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Bounty, if you want to argue that abortion is morally wrong, fine, I can understand that However, outlawing abortion would force people's actions to follow your beliefs, and I will argue that until the end of time Aren't people who want unrestricted immigrantion trying to force those who don't want open borders to follow their beliefs? Don't those who want decriminallization of drugs want to force those who think that drugs destroy lives to follow their beliefs? Any law that anyone supports can be described as an attempt to force those who disagree to follow the beliefs of the laws supporters. If everyone agreed on what everyone should do there would be no need for laws. Unless they are forcing you to take drugs, they are not forcing you to follow their beliefs. Ironically, it's the libertarian argument Bounty said that outlawing abortion was not forcing others to follow your beliefs. I argued it is forcing your beliefs. That's all. I repeat, every law is, by your standard, forcing someone to accept someone else's beliefs. Drug usage leads to crime, making it legal to become addicted to drugs makes it more likely that I am a victim, so no it doesn't only affect me if they force me to use drugs. If I am agaisnt murder, and I like MLK (quoted above) think that abortion is murder, when you legalize it you force me to turn my back on murder because your values say it isn't. The same argument can be used for honor killings. Prosecuting them is forcing western befiefs on people from other cultures who live here. I think you're agreeing with me. Allowing me express some small distinctions. We do not force western values on people - we force conformity to western law. They are entitled to believe in honor killing, if they wish. But if they act on it and are caught, they will be punished. It is the action and not the belief that is constrained. Second: A baptist, a catholic, a jew, an atheist, and a secular humanist are protesting at an abortion clinic. No one's belief is being imposed.

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 6:14:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Nope, you are the one bringing up ancient history pretending that doctors dont ever do harm. Thats a pretty feeble response Lucy. I never said Doctor's never harm. People steal, cheat lie - and Doctor's are people. So the fact that some Doctors do all of these things is a given, and not an answer to the point. You asked when did "thou shalt not kill " become thou shalt not do abortions. The answer is always - or for at least as long as we have recorded medical ethics - thou shalt not murder has included abortions. This has been a constant in the practice of medicine for thousands of years and in our country for all its history.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 6:32:51 PM)
The differences between conservative and liberal thinking was not an implication that I was a liberal ? Balls Sleeping in a cave was a VERY important tradition in it's time, and the cave painting still are. Yes, you follow the herd ...................if christianity isn't a herd mentality, what is ? Enough of this shit anyway. I know that nobody can win an argument, so I am not even going to try because you and your ilk always fall back on the 'belief is the key to everything' and I saw enough of that in West Africa where it did NOT stop the white man's bullets. And why didn't it ? Because the dead person didn't believe strongly enough, So okay bounty, you win and I will leave the field to you, basically because I really CGAS

Lucylastic -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 7:59:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Nope, you are the one bringing up ancient history pretending that doctors dont ever do harm. Thats a pretty feeble response Lucy. I never said Doctor's never harm. People steal, cheat lie - and Doctor's are people. So the fact that some Doctors do all of these things is a given, and not an answer to the point. You asked when did "thou shalt not kill " become thou shalt not do abortions. The answer is always - or for at least as long as we have recorded medical ethics - thou shalt not murder has included abortions. This has been a constant in the practice of medicine for thousands of years and in our country for all its history. No, it wasnt, you Just stated it says do not kill But people kill all the time.. Murder and killing....allowed by mankind, excused by mankind for the justification of whatever is being killed. Kill in self defence, kill as punishment kill them before they kill us...you justify it however you wish. Thou shalt not murder??You are denying your own fact. I didnt ask " when did thou shalt not kill" Historically was a ? Not the statement after it. You stated i was a murderer, im not, never killed anything more than a bunny for food. You feel the need to call me a killer, why? Ive given life to three, You. .???? I was there for them 24/7 till they reached adulthood. Im still there for them now. Sorry pal, you dont get to tell me anything. Especially interfearing in my gentalia, or my morals, or what anywomen out there that doesnt belong to you. Rules were changed in the 60s to protect women from dying from back alley abortions. You want to go back to that?

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875