|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted April 08, 2010 01:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
oh dear, elodin. time to go back to primary biology again.
The womb is part of the womans body. if it was a seperate entity, it wouldn't need the blood vessals inside it and outside in order to survive.
so what if the DNA in the baby is different from hers. so is a bacteria. are you saying we don't have the right to get rid of bacterias in our body?
Yes, the womb is part of the body of the mother. However, the baby in the womb is not part of her body becaue it has unique human DNA.
Humans and bacteria are different species in case you didn't realize that.  The mother has a right to kill the bacteria but not to kill the baby.
Quote:
Pro-choice could be classed, with alot of pushing, as pro-fetus murder. I doubt any woman with two braincells would leave her abortion so late that it becomes a baby.
A fetus is a yong human life. A human baby in the womb.
So pro-choice could be classified as pro-baby-murder as long as the baby is understood to be in the womb or in the process of being born since some abortions kill the baby during the birthing process or induce labor early so that the baby will not be able to survive long after birth. Obama voted to not require medical aid for babies born alive as a result of induced labor abortion by the way.
Quote:
No, pro-life means you are taking rights away from a womans body, so you are pro-female-subjecation.
Sorry, pro-life. Supporter-of-life. Pro-lifers defend the right of the baby to live. We support the right of the baby to live, while "pro-choice" folks oppose the right of the baby to live.
Quote:
I can't see the logic of not allowing a woman a right to her body, exactly the same rights she has been given as a human bearing a double X chromozone.
some people just don't see eye to eye
I'm all for a woman's right to control her body as long as that right does not harm another.
I'm all for a man's right to control his body as long as that does not harm another. For example, I don't support the right of a man to use the hands he has a right to control to choke another person to death.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I would also like to say that criminalising something does not make it go away.
So since laws against theft and rape can't stop people from stealing and raping you are opposed to laws against those actions? That hardly seems rational.
STRAWMAN!
No you said abortion shoujld be legal becaue laws can't prevent abortion. Using the same logic, laws have not prevented rape or theft. So you should logically oppose laws against theft and rape because such laws don't prevent those actions.
Quote:
When did I say that I was against the laws relating to rape and theft! Give me an example of when I said that!
I did not say you said it, I asked if you oppose such laws because that is where your logic leads. Do you see the "?" in the a couple of quotes above? That indicates that a question is being asked.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 01:12 AM |
|
|
Pro-lifers can be pro-aboters as well.
If the pro-lifer does not believe a fetus to be alive, it will be logical to them as seeing themselves as pro-lifers.
The same can be said about hunters, seeing themselves as pro-lifers still killing for the sport.
Male who rapes male, likewise often see themselves as heterosexuals, eventhough they do gay acts.
Or christians who do not live up to your definition of a christian by the way you understand the bible (your logic) can still see themselves as christians by their own logic, thereby in their own view still be christians.
My point is really simple, it makes little sense to tell someone they can't from their own perception define themselves to be in a certain group. What one can say however is that one does not perceive them to be under the definition of certain groups.
That's, everyone have the right to their opinion.
Quote:
The mother has a right to kill the bacteria but not to kill the baby.
Why make this difference?  Both have unique DNA and both have cell replication under the correct circumstances.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 08:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Pro-lifers can be pro-aboters as well.
If the pro-lifer does not believe a fetus to be alive, it will be logical to them as seeing themselves as pro-lifers.
No, "pro-life" specificly refers to a person who opposes abortion.
Quote:
The same can be said about hunters, seeing themselves as pro-lifers still killing for the sport.
The pro-life movement has not the slightest thing to do with hunting. You are thinking of animal rights.
Quote:
Male who rapes male, likewise often see themselves as heterosexuals, eventhough they do gay acts.
Sorry, I don't see how a male who rapes another male could see himslef as heterosexual.
Quote:
Or christians who do not live up to your definition of a christian by the way you understand the bible (your logic) can still see themselves as christians by their own logic, thereby in their own view still be christians.
No, a person who is an actual Christian fits the Bible definition of a Christian. A person who worships a toad frog may say he is a Christian but he does not fit what a Christian is.
Quote:
Quote:
The mother has a right to kill the bacteria but not to kill the baby.
Why make this difference? Both have unique DNA and both have cell replication under the correct circumstances.
Because human life is infinitely lmore valuable than the life of bacteria and a woman has a right to protect herself from bacteria.
____________
Revelation
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 09:40 AM |
|
|
@ Elodin
Would you be so kind and give me a (serious) source where the definition of "a part of something" is strongly related to the same DNA?
Or the other way around if it is easier: Where does it say, everything which doesn't have the same DNA as a specific object is NOT part of this object, no matter where it is located!
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 11:19 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 05:14, 19 Aug 2011.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Pro-choice could be classed, with alot of pushing, as pro-fetus murder. I doubt any woman with two braincells would leave her abortion so late that it becomes a baby.
A fetus is a yong human life. A human baby in the womb.
So?
babies have been killed, raped and tortured when they are just out of the womb before. At least when they are in the womb they don't feel it.
You know, Elodin, if you are pro-choice, You can choose NOT to abort the fetus.
just saying.
Quote:
So pro-choice could be classified as pro-baby-murder as long as the baby is understood to be in the womb or in the process of being born since some abortions kill the baby during the birthing process or induce labor early so that the baby will not be able to survive long after birth. Obama voted to not require medical aid for babies born alive as a result of induced labor abortion by the way.
Elodin, you really have some sick fantasies don't you.
and before you give an example of how you found a baby in a dumpster, I will just like to say 1) it's probably fictious 2)the woman obviously gave birth to it and left it there, KOing you're argument that abortions are worse as that baby would have had a long, painful death outside the womb, whilst inside it's quick and painless, 3) that is just one case, One case is over a million. it is not the norm, it is one case, and not a justifiable way of saying abortions are bad and 4) what kind of neighbourhood do you live in! Gotham city?!
Quote:
Quote:
No, pro-life means you are taking rights away from a womans body, so you are pro-female-subjecation.
Sorry, pro-life. Supporter-of-life. Pro-lifers defend the right of the baby to live. We support the right of the baby to live, while "pro-choice" folks oppose the right of the baby to live.
Look at the words, Elodin.
Pro= meaning for
Choice
You have the right to choose what happens. We are not living in some orwellian nightmare were doctors are gleefully murdering infants and putting them around their neck like grissily bling necklaces. people have the choice. If you oppose that choice, then do you really live in a free society, and are you any better than those who want to censor freedom of expression?
Quote:
Quote:
I can't see the logic of not allowing a woman a right to her body, exactly the same rights she has been given as a human bearing a double X chromozone.
some people just don't see eye to eye
I'm all for a woman's right to control her body
no you're not. If you were, you'd be pro-choice.
Quote:
For example, I don't support the right of a man to use the hands he has a right to control to choke another person to death.
**** happens, deal with it
when rights come along, people are going to abuse them. do we take those rights away because some people are t**t's? no. no we don't, and if you really cared about civil liberties, you'd understand.
But what if that choking was happening in the privacy of his own house, under his own roof, with the money he paid for, and he wasn't doing it out of hatred, but so the person he was choking could get a high, because they have some strange choking fetish?!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I would also like to say that criminalising something does not make it go away.
So since laws against theft and rape can't stop people from stealing and raping you are opposed to laws against those actions? That hardly seems rational.
STRAWMAN!
No you said abortion shoujld be legal becaue laws can't prevent abortion. Using the same logic, laws have not prevented rape or theft. So you should logically oppose laws against theft and rape because such laws don't prevent those actions.
no I didn't.
what I said was, just because you criminalise something, doesn't make it go away. Laws are meant to be what is good for society, and abortions benefit to society goes something like this.
women in the work force is a good thing, as that means the economy, as a whole, is more productive. having a child restricts that oportunity, as they will have to raise the kid when they aren't ready. this leads to a less well off economy, a disappointed mum and a f**ked up child.
when a woman is ready to settle down, when she hasn't got her whole life ahead of her, she might want to have kids, and raise them in a loving environment. this leads to a better off economy, as the woman would have worked in it for longer, a more satisfied mum, and a well adjusted child.
You support the former. I support the latter.
Quote:
Quote:
When did I say that I was against the laws relating to rape and theft! Give me an example of when I said that!
I did not say you said it, I asked if you oppose such laws because that is where your logic leads. Do you see the "?" in the a couple of quotes above? That indicates that a question is being asked.
obviously I don't, and stop being so being such a bloody smartarse, we both know that it was a rheotrical question.
My logic goes where I decide, not for you to meddle with.
stop being so bloody smug, and maybe I'll consider you a human being.
MOD EDIT: Profanity sensoring.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 12:13 PM |
|
|
When you wrote pro-life, I assumed it meant exactly what it said 'for life' equivalent to 'supporter of life'.
I have seen the term on other internet forums as well, and in my experience that is the way people generally uses it.
However, in case you're talking about the historic way the term came to be, or a group named pro-life with a specific target about abortion, then I misunderstood your use of the term.
Anyway, it doesn't have much to do with my point, because my point is, that people defines what they're themselves, eventhough others disagree with it, it's the matter of perspective. I know you disagree with e.g. a man who rapes another man can be heterosexual, however the man who does this, thinks of himself as heterosexual, which cannot be denied as possible (and for what I know, most often is the case).
That's the difference of perspective.
With this in mind, then sure, from your perspective, someone who claims to be a pro-lifer cannot be for abortion, while from others it can. The real question is, how do one use the given term, at which our misunderstanding rose.
For, if pro-lifers is a movement defined as a group and those groups actions is what specifies what it is to be a pro-lifer, then by this objective standard you're right in your claim, given they're against abortion. However if pro-lifer simply means the literal meaning, that they're for life, then it all depends on how each pereson defines what's life.
Quote:
a woman has a right to protect herself from bacteria.
Let's assume the bacteria is part of the metabolism and is not a threat in any way.
Quote:
Because human life is infinitely lmore valuable than the life of bacteria
My opinion may differ from yours here.
I don't want to make the difference between species, races, genders, and how one else can differ upon observation by our very own senses.
Rather I want to make the difference based on what I believe is important, for me what's truely important is everything that's alive, which we should strive to maximize freedom for, in my opinion.
Which means that for me the common denominator is life, or being alive to be more precise, but the question is then, how does one differ those?
Biological speaking, defining life as a machinery able to reproduce via a self supplied convertion of energy and then simply let the cause of evolution determine what survives and thereby what machinery fits this definition best, a bacteria is just as much a life form as a human being this way. Heck even cells are unique life forms.
(Note, it make N (a number) cells who share energy just as much alive as one unit likewise as N unique units).
This definition, may be true to the aspect of what we observe around us, but it doesn't really work well, when trying to focus on what's important, because it tells nothing about the nature of the living things, only what happens to fit the given environment the best.
And it is the nature of the living thing we should, in my opinion, focus on, it is what differs the existing entity from the biological machine. In my opinion that difference, is what you probably know as the soul, and what I understand as our consciousness. The 'us' who is 'behind' our eyes, who observe the world.
To illustrate:
Observation -> Observator = Existing being.
Observation -> No Observer = Complex machinery.
The reaction, which is what we in principle measure, that's the action of other people, is not something that tells if they've observed or not, because you don't need free will to have a consciousness.
All in all, I agree that human life are more valueable, but it is because I find it more likely that humans are existing entities, whereas bacteries probably aren't.
Should it happen I am wrong, then I won't differ the importance of anyone higher, humans as well as bacterias, except those I love and care for.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 06:13 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 18:14, 08 Apr 2010.
|
Quote:
@ Elodin
Would you be so kind and give me a (serious) source where the definition of "a part of something" is strongly related to the same DNA?
Or the other way around if it is easier: Where does it say, everything which doesn't have the same DNA as a specific object is NOT part of this object, no matter where it is located!
DNA fingerprinting
Quote:
Like the fingerprints that came into use by detectives and police labs during the 1930s, each person has a unique DNA fingerprint. Unlike a conventional fingerprint that occurs only on the fingertips and can be altered by surgery, a DNA fingerprint is the same for every cell, tissue, and organ of a person. It cannot be altered by any known treatment. Consequently, DNA fingerprinting is rapidly becoming the primary method for identifying and distinguishing among individual human beings.
Quote:
Quote:
So pro-choice could be classified as pro-baby-murder as long as the baby is understood to be in the womb or in the process of being born since some abortions kill the baby during the birthing process or induce labor early so that the baby will not be able to survive long after birth. Obama voted to not require medical aid for babies born alive as a result of induced labor abortion by the way.
Elodin, you really have some sick fantasies don't you.
No.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 06:25 PM |
|
|
Actually, I think it is an old belief that DNA doesn't change. DNA mutates all the time, that's probably the main reason there's something called evolution in the first place.
However, for what I know, for DNA fingerprints, certain parts of the DNA is looked for, which probably doesn't undergo mutation that often and it is similarities, I believe, one looks for.
Finally, I'd claim the bacterias that we live in a kind of symbiose with, is just as much a part of our body. If not, then it would be legal to remove these, practically making it legal to kill others, as I understand our metabolism won't function properly without these.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 06:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
@ Elodin
Would you be so kind and give me a (serious) source where the definition of "a part of something" is strongly related to the same DNA?
Or the other way around if it is easier: Where does it say, everything which doesn't have the same DNA as a specific object is NOT part of this object, no matter where it is located!
DNA fingerprinting
Lemurs also have fingerprints...
does that make them human?
Quote:
Quote:
So pro-choice could be classified as pro-baby-murder as long as the baby is understood to be in the womb or in the process of being born since some abortions kill the baby during the birthing process or induce labor early so that the baby will not be able to survive long after birth. Obama voted to not require medical aid for babies born alive as a result of induced labor abortion by the way.
Elodin, you really have some sick fantasies don't you.
No.
All this talk of baby-murder...Freud would say either you've got something planned or you're mind is seriously screwed.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 08, 2010 07:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
@ Elodin
Would you be so kind and give me a (serious) source where the definition of "a part of something" is strongly related to the same DNA?
Or the other way around if it is easier: Where does it say, everything which doesn't have the same DNA as a specific object is NOT part of this object, no matter where it is located!
DNA fingerprinting
And how does this answer my question at all?
I know what DNA means and how it works. But you (again?) failed to answer the main point of a question.
You claim "everything which doesn't have my DNA is not part of my body". I dare to disagree. Example: transplantation.
So where does it say a transplanted organ is NOT part of the "new" body?
And if a transplanted organ is counted as part of my body, even though it has its own DNA, why is this different from a fetus then?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 12:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You claim "everything which doesn't have my DNA is not part of my body". I dare to disagree. Example: transplantation.
So where does it say a transplanted organ is NOT part of the "new" body?
And if a transplanted organ is counted as part of my body, even though it has its own DNA, why is this different from a fetus then?
"DNA fingerprint is the same for every cell, tissue, and organ of a person."
How exactly does that quote not answer what you asked?
I don't consider a transplant to be part of the human body, but to be an organic version of an artificial heart for instance. When a transplant is done the body can certainly reject it.
Now, as to whether medical science says the translanted organ is "part of the body" or not I am unsure.
But regardless, speaking of a transplanted organ has not the slighted thing to do with human reproduction or the unborn child. A fetus has multiplying cells, and so is alive. A fetus has unique human DNA and is the product of human reproduction and so is a unique human life.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 10:04 AM |
|
|
Pigs is alive, got organs, and got uniqe DNA fingerprints.
Can we kill them?
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 04:17 PM |
|
|
A pig is a pig, not a human. Killing a human is murder. Killing a pig is not. I don't believe in killing an animal for no reason however. I personally am a vegetarian but eating animals is not wrong.
____________
Revelation
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 04:43 PM |
|
|
Still, the difference is quite little when we compare it to your argument?
And ever better: Pigs are somewhat organ compatible with humans, transplantations have been done several times. Which would make them equals to us, since they also got several of our nice features?
Well, they are quite mindless compares to the great race we are, there is no denying that. But so is small children.
Quote:
Sorry, I don't see how a male who rapes another male could see himslef as heterosexual.
Rape for pure pleasure, rape is all about dominance and control. If somebody has a sick enough fetish for rape itself, they could end up doing something like that in worst case scenario.....
Well, can we all just agree on that we will never agree on when the human life truely starts? There is issues over ones body, which sort of skewers half the debate. The other part is of course what we never can agree on.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 11:43 AM |
|
|
Clicky
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A father of six pleaded not guilty Wednesday to an attempted murder charge that accuses him of trying to force his girlfriend at gunpoint to have an abortion.
Authorities say Dominic Holt-Reid pointed a handgun at his pregnant girlfriend and forced her to drive to a women's clinic, where she was able to slip a note to an employee who got help. She was not harmed.
Holt-Reid entered the not guilty plea in Franklin County Common Pleas Court and was ordered held on $350,000 bond. A public defense attorney for him did not comment.
In court, public defender Priya Tamilarasan said Holt-Reid is a lifelong Columbus resident and father of six children who lives with his aunt. He attends Columbus State Community College full time, taking classes on heating and air conditioning, school spokesman David Wayne said.
The attempted murder count was filed because Holt-Reid tried "at gunpoint to force her to have an abortion against her will," county prosecutor Ron O'Brien said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
O'Brien said Ohio previously rewrote its murder law to prohibit the "unlawful termination of a pregnancy" to avoid a debate over an unborn fetus' legal rights. The statute has allowed his office to win convictions on two counts in murder cases in which the victim was pregnant, he said.
The Columbus Dispatch first reported O'Brien's filing.
Police said Holt-Reid had become angry with Yolanda Burgess because she refused to go through with an abortion scheduled Oct. 6 at a women's clinic. After the two dropped their 5-year-old child off at school, Holt-Reid took a loaded .45-caliber handgun out of the glove compartment of Burgess' car, aimed it at her, threatened her and forced her to drive to the clinic, police said.
Once there, Burgess was able to slip a note to an employee, who notified police.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted October 22, 2010 09:39 PM |
|
|
I'll take you're charge of one man forcing a woman to get an abortion, and I raise you the calculated leaking of personal information about abortion doctors, including addresses, work addresses, looks, features, car-license plates and family details.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0g8HW-GTmc
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 19, 2011 11:28 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 11:31, 19 Aug 2011.
|
Abortion survivor awarded $36Million
Quote:
A Florida judge has dismissed a request by a Florida abortion practitioner looking to get out of paying a the survivor of a failed abortion $36 million in damages for injuries she suffered from the abortion.
James Pendergraft is the owner of five abortion facilities in Florida and a late-term clinic in D.C. “specializing” in abortions past the 24th week of pregnancy. He has had his medical license suspended four times for botched abortions, illegal late-term abortions, and dispensing drugs without a license. He has also faced legal and disciplinary actions for making up false threats from pro-life advocates and “reporting” them to authorities.
The plan was for the daughter, identified as JH in court documents according to a pro-life advocate familiar with the case, to be delivered stillborn into a toilet. After 12 hours of labor, the mother left the abortion clinic very upset and went to a nearby hospital because the process was taking too long. There, she gave birth to a girl weighing 1 lb 6 oz, who is now 10-years-old. She has cerebral palsy, no function on the left side of her body, strokes and brain damage, physical, emotional and cognitive delays, lung damage, chronic lung disease and seizure disorders.
Pendergraft was found liable for damages and Pendergraft was ordered to pay Howard $18,255,000 in punitive damages, $18,000,000 in compensatory damages and over $400,000 in court costs.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted August 19, 2011 01:31 PM |
|
|
Oh well: What is the Abortion law of Florida? I lack context.
Edit:
Law seems reasonable except the "need a second experts advice", which can mess up a lot of things.
This is not a case of "abortionist" either, but "medical malpractice being allowed to run afoul because of lack of regulation".
The most worrysome part is that there are women that are desperat enough to seek a malpracticing doctor who have had his license revoked, which means that there is clearly something very wrong in all states he has a shop in.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 19, 2011 11:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This is not a case of "abortionist" either, but "medical malpractice being allowed to run afoul because of lack of regulation".
The most worrysome part is that there are women that are desperat enough to seek a malpracticing doctor who have had his license revoked, which means that there is clearly something very wrong in all states he has a shop in.
Uh, I'm not sure how you can say Pendergraft is not an abortionist. The judge award the victim of the abortion (who is now 10 years old) $36million dollars.
I think cases like this show the insanity of legalized abortions. The 10 year old girl had no right to live when she was in her mother's womb (according to the judges who made abortion legal)but because she did live and sustained birth defects she is entitled to compensation.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted August 20, 2011 04:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
This is not a case of "abortionist" either, but "medical malpractice being allowed to run afoul because of lack of regulation".
The most worrysome part is that there are women that are desperat enough to seek a malpracticing doctor who have had his license revoked, which means that there is clearly something very wrong in all states he has a shop in.
Uh, I'm not sure how you can say Pendergraft is not an abortionist. The judge award the victim of the abortion (who is now 10 years old) $36million dollars.
I think cases like this show the insanity of legalized abortions. The 10 year old girl had no right to live when she was in her mother's womb (according to the judges who made abortion legal)but because she did live and sustained birth defects she is entitled to compensation.
Didn't you read the news you quoted? Medical malprace and lack of regulation.
The fact that he was not uprooted when he started the practice is a decent sign of lack of goverment regulation.
Another very alarming sign is that you have girls looking for such a ticket out in the first place.
I dare image it would have turned out today.
She would have asked on 4chan and looked at web sources, before asking a friend of bribing a surgeon, and done a extremely unsafe abortion without proper medical facilities.
Then she would have either bleed to death, or been hospitalized with permanet damage.
Which I find extremely horrifying.
Add on the fact that he was not a "abortionist", because that is a title.
You do not call a person who randomly saws of peoples limbs a "surgon", you call him a "butcher" if the title was not protected.
To be a "abortionist" you need to use sanctioned methods, and have papers on the fact you master your trade. I guess your full title would be "doctor of X", with some additional papers and education that would entail something about being pregnant and some other medical things.
The fact that he failed at doing what he claimed to be his job, and that he has failed before means that he has no rights or claims on such a proper title.
What I find even more horrifing is that his papers was not flagged the moment his license was revoked, and they did not do some paperwork surveilance of him.
The fact that he had joined or started some new clinic is a large enough danger sign to warrent a proper investigation, which did not happen.
What have truely happened is that the law is poor, and the safetylocks from the states side has failed in removing such vermin before they started doing extreme damage.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
