The pro-life grassroots movement would be more effective if it were to focus its collective energies on the cause rather than the effect. By providing education and information on preventative measures, making birth control readily available and inexpensive or free, pro-lifers would be able to establish and promote more empathetic and efficacious life-saving goals. For those most at risk, this support would help to obviate the rate of abortion. It woul, arguably, be more cost-effective than lobbying for social welfare programs to support the mother and child. And more effective than marches, protests and shouting matches. This goal would also help to ameliorate our public health crises by reducing the critical mass of STDs caused by unsafe sex.
HEALTH
Pro-Lifers In Obamaland
Now that the political climate has changed, will those dedicated to eradicating abortion embrace abortion-reduction strategies instead?
Jan 27, 2009
-
Posted By: boredwell @ 09/12/2009 12:53:25 AM
-
Posted By: anothermrsjohnson @ 09/11/2009 10:28:20 AM
I"m deeply disappointed to see Newsweek use the term "pro-life" in disregard of AP Style. The most recent edition of the AP Stylebook says "Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-choice." By using the charged "pro-life," you speak on behalf of Newsweek that proponents of abortion rights are pro-death, anti-life. Please improve the quality of your journalism and editing. This story is slanted and unbiased by the repeated use of "pro-life." Disgusting.
-
Posted By: logicteacher @ 01/27/2009 5:55:49 PM
Serious question for the pro choice. Is it a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate the life of her child because she cant take care of the child ?
-
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/27/2009 6:06:16 PM
"Serious question for the pro choice. Is it a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate the life of her child because she cant take care of the child ?"
That is not a serious question at all. Once a child is born it is alve and has rights. Then it is murder.-
Posted By: riggs614 @ 01/27/2009 10:51:01 PM
Constitution Lover,
I assume you voted for our oh so wonderfully amazing President Obama, who respects the Constitution.
Right?
Read some of his legislation from Illinois state senate and what you were to do for babies who were born, thus alive, breathing, legal human beings, during a botched abortion.
Since I know you won't go look for things that the anointed one has done wrong. Let me tell you that he lets them die. He lets them slowly starve, suffocate, bleed to death. He restricts health care from any individual if the mother doesn't "want" the "fetus" or is it a legal human being now?
He's so virtuous!-
Posted By: mcgreen @ 08/03/2009 10:41:10 PM
you people are absolutely amazing in your ability to perpetuate foolish and exaggerated falsehoods.
you make up stories to sensationalize your cause, no wonder prolifers get such a bad reputation.
-
-
Posted By: riggs614 @ 01/27/2009 10:53:32 PM
"That is not a serious question at all. Once a child is born it is alve and has rights. Then it is murder."
Have you heard of Obama's legislation in the Illinois senate? He is all for letting "fetuses" born, who then are magically turned into legal human beings, die and not be treated and allowed to survive if the mother does not wish.
Hope you can believe in!
It is a sad world we live in where people don't have love and compassion for one another-
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/28/2009 10:36:06 AM
riggs,
The minute you use terms like "anointed one " to describe President Obama anything else you say can be ignored.
But to address your claims about Obama and wht he did in the Illinois legistlature, you are not telling the truth. IF you actually knew anything about thei issue you would know that the bill put before Illinois was NOT the sme as the one that passed Congress a year earlier. It had subtle but imporatant differences in language and included a companion bill that was the reason that Obama and many others objected to it. The companion bill was an attempt to do an end run around the US Suprpeme Court Roe v Wade decision and because the sponsors of the firrst bill demanded that they be taken together or not a tll it was correct for Obama to reject it. After he left for the US senate a new bill wihtout the illegal companion bill and that was just like the federal bill was passed. Had that bill been before Obama he said that he would have had no problem with it.-
Posted By: RENEEK @ 01/29/2009 10:54:28 PM
Yes, but President Obama has already told planned parenthood in July 2007, that if he is elected President, the first thing he'll do, is pass FOCA, which shows how little respect he has for human life.
-
Posted By: Thevail @ 04/23/2009 1:41:58 PM
To be fair..it obviously WAS NOT the first thing he did, was it. I mean he's been the POTUS for several months now. And he's done a lot of stuff..A LOT...Like passing the Lilly Ledbetter Act which enforces equal pay for women..pretty repectful.. Stopped torture..once again, pretty respectful..
-
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/30/2009 2:21:12 PM
If you have actually read the bills (I have) they in no way show that he has little respect for human life.
-
-
-
Posted By: RENEEK @ 01/29/2009 10:50:13 PM
I could'nt agree with you more!!! Thank you for you wonderful input.
-
-
Posted By: riggs614 @ 01/27/2009 10:50:21 PM
Constitution Lover,
I assume you voted for our oh so wonderfully amazing President Obama, who respects the Constitution.
Right?
Read some of his legislation from Illinois state senate and what you were to do for babies who were born, thus alive, breathing, legal human beings, during a botched abortion.
Since I know you won't go look for things that the anointed one has done wrong. Let me tell you that he lets them die. He lets them slowly starve, suffocate, bleed to death. He restricts health care from any individual if the mother doesn't "want" the "fetus" or is it a legal human being now?
He's so virtuous! -
Posted By: riggs614 @ 01/27/2009 10:49:01 PM
Constitution Lover,
I assume you voted for our oh so wonderfully amazing President Obama, who respects the Constitution.
Right?
Read some of his legislation from Illinois state senate and what you were to do for babies who were born, thus alive, breathing, legal human beings, during a botched abortion.
Since I know you won't go look for things that the anointed one has done wrong. Let me tell you that he lets them die. He lets them slowly starve, suffocate, bleed to death. He restricts health care from any individual if the mother doesn't "want" the "fetus" or is it a legal human being now?
He's so virtuous!
-
-
Posted By: bkrummel @ 01/27/2009 6:47:55 PM
Fair enough. To clarify the question, let me say I think "taking care of a child" includes both caring the child to term and raising the child once it is born. If a mother is able to carry the child to term but can not raise the child, an abortion is simply murder as the mother has the option of putting the child up for adoption. If the mother is unable to be pregnant for 9 months due to school, a career, financial issues, etc. then it's a different issue. Pregnancies are very expensive in time and money and some women accidentally get pregnant and can not go through with it. Life happens. It seems like the only options would be to have an abortion or to acquire sufficient support to go through with the pregnancy. If the woman chooses to have an abortion, it is undesirable but understandable. But this could be avoided by providing the woman with support, which is the ideal approach. Let me emphasize that this is my opinion and that I feel the abortion would be understandable if the pregnancy itself is an unmanageable significant hardship or threatens the life of the mom, not if someone just doesn't feel like being pregnant. Moreover, this does nothing to say how adoptions or "providing support" would be handed or how to properly regulate abortions, if at all, so there are still a number of policy concerns to be addressed.
-
Posted By: Thevail @ 04/23/2009 1:46:11 PM
I get your point, and I can see merit in it. I think for me the scariest thing is that this IS a moral issue..and really should not be a LEGISLATIVE issue. Laws are blind, mostly good, tools of the government to help society control itself and continue to operate. But they shouldn't be used to enforce any one person's opinion on something that's a personal moral choice.
-
-
-
Posted By: logicteacher @ 01/28/2009 10:29:36 AM
And when / if society or tax payers decide they dont have the money to raise 1, 2 or 3 year olds do we solve it the same way. Wake UP ! money should NEVER determine whether a child lives or dies.
-
Posted By: PalmBeach50 @ 01/28/2009 11:01:57 AM
I agree, how much more of your salary are you willing to give up? Costs allot of money to not only care for those kids, but give quality care to the moms prior to birth.
Make a 1000, now you take home 800? How would take home of 500 be, maybe 400? theyre kids after all...300?
Does it end? The republicans might have something to say about that, they hate abortion until it starts to effect their wallet, then watch out!-
Posted By: Sik&Tyerd @ 01/28/2009 5:00:10 PM
I would think that people should just learn to be more responsible when having their fun. No one is telling them how to live their lives, all people are asking is to please be conscience of the grown babies they are murdering. There are things out there that PREVENT pregnacy, so why are people believing that aborting is the only option? There are SO many preventative measures. So whats the problem with asking women to be careful that they dont bring a life into this world, so they dont resort to chopping their lil baby into peices?
-
Posted By: mcgreen @ 08/03/2009 10:35:22 PM
why is it that people believe these methods are always 100% effective? and the corollary - that ones partners are always considerate of your wishes regarding impregnation? right... and of course alll the that practice incest or rape, surely they also always use 100% effective birth control... and of course if a girl is female and gets impregnated at nine years old, surely her body will speed up its development so she can survive carrying a baby to term.
-
-
Posted By: RENEEK @ 01/29/2009 10:07:43 PM
Unwanted babies that when nursed back to health, can be adopted out to a family whose be on waiting lists for years. How is this affecting your wallet?
-
Posted By: Thevail @ 04/23/2009 1:59:11 PM
Who's paying for the birth? The shots? The car seat? Until it is "nursed back to health"?
-
-
-
Posted By: Doc Howl @ 01/28/2009 11:11:18 AM
Good. Then you won't mind an increase in your taxes to help raise all these unwanted children you insist on.
-
Posted By: RENEEK @ 01/28/2009 11:59:33 PM
How would you feel if you as a taxpayer had to pay for something you strongly oppose. If FOCA becomes law, that is exactly what will happen.
-
Posted By: Thevail @ 04/23/2009 1:58:10 PM
I already do...abstinence only education in AIDS ridden Africa. For what it's cost us tax-payers..we could have coated those countries and inch deep in condoms.
-
Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/06/2009 9:04:47 PM
Pretty bad. I feel that way about many things already: high taxes, the pyramid scheme of social security, military presence in some 150 countries, faith-based programs, 700 mile fence for a 3000+ mile border, etc.
What does this have to do with the topic, though? -
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/29/2009 9:18:19 AM
It happens all the time.
I strongly opposed the war in Iraq.
I strongly oppose religious institutions getting tax-exemot status for their religous activities (I have no problem with them getting exemptions for those activities that they undertake to provide non-religious services to the community as a whole as long as they do not engage in any evangelizing while doing so.).
There are other things that I strongly oppose but I realize that there are people like you who oppose programs and laws that I agree with so it all evens out in the end.
-
-
Posted By: PalmBeach50 @ 01/28/2009 11:18:49 AM
Dont forget prenatel care and college, we want them educated so theyre not running around all night. Dont forget socialized medicine either, 40 million more folks, is 40 mil more in the system.
Yup...working for free will never be more...rewarding.
-
-
Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 01/28/2009 12:02:24 PM
yea, tell that to the parents that get turned away at the emergency room for lack of insurance... money does determine whether people live or die, or do you live in a secret utopia of perfection where everyone lives happily and gets everything they ever wanted? cuz i want to know where that reality is so i can move in as soon as possible...
-
Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/06/2009 9:05:33 PM
Where do parents get turned away from the ER?
-
-
Posted By: cobalt6 @ 01/28/2009 1:02:29 PM
logicteacher: No one on here is talking about 1, 2 or 3 year olds. Wake UP!!!! Abortion is for the unborn!! Children who are already born do need to be taken care of the right way. The State gives money to alot of these kids and there are alot of people who take these kids in and try to give them a better life. The fact is some people should not have kids because they never take care of them the way a child should be cared for.
-
Posted By: logicteacher @ 01/28/2009 4:23:47 PM
so location ( in the womb or out ) and age determines if we kill them ? wrong pace at the wrong tmie and YOUR DEAD ? think your answers through to there logical conclusion before you post.
-
Posted By: cobalt6 @ 01/28/2009 11:53:21 PM
logicteacher: you are the one who has no logic!! Abortions are done before 3 month's of pregnancy. A fetus can not survive on it's own at that point so stop calling it murder!!!!
-
-
-
Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 01/28/2009 11:39:52 AM
DING DING DING....REALITY CHECK....
what about the world we live in is NOT about money? ESPECIALLY now with the economy in the crapper? go tell that soon to be dad that was just laid off from the only good job he ever had that now he has to raise twins with an unemployment check, while finding a job that can sufficiently support childeren and pay for a roof over they're heads, food on the table, car payments, gas, utilities, doctor visits...
what the hell do you think the government looks at the average citizen like? a number, another contributor to the income tax and social security, another person to tax. its all about money...
would you prefer that a bunch of homeless people (and by the looks of things, the number of homeless in america is steadily rising) start having babies born in squalor? would you prefer that the crack head mother give birth to an innocent child that now grows up not only in a terrible environment, but with learning disablities and handicaps because the mother did drugs daily while pregnant?
you cant have your cake and eat it too... there is a beleife, and then theres the cold hard b*tch that is reality. refocus your mind and ground yourself in the here and now. we dont live in a utopia where people are perfectly responsible, always have money in the bank, always work a good job, everyone goes to the best schools and has the best opportunities, this is not a world out of a book of fiction...this is the united states of failing america. our whole country is falling deeper into a hole, not just us, the world, there are wars, there are evil people, there are murders and genocide and mass disease and hunger. this is reality my friend, and its time you pull your head out of the clouds and see whats taking place right in your front yard...
there are mothers that resent they;re childeren, while childless mothers would kill for those kids, there are fathers that could give a sh*t less about the kids they brought into the world, and then there are the fathers that want nothing more than to be there for the kids and the mother takes them away out of spite, there are women that have kids simply for leverage and to make a check every month until that child is 18. REALITY...NOT A FAIRYTALE ENDING WITH ANGELS AND SMILES AND RAINBOWS AND FLOWERS....
its time you get used to it.
-
-
Posted By: mcgreen @ 08/03/2009 10:29:27 PM
These would be steps I could conscience - it has seemed morally dishonest to me the number of people vehemently 'pro-life' who are equally anti contraception, anti aid fo women with dependent children. And why is it that IVG gets a pass for disposing of or freezing embryos forever. Abortion should be reduced to the a rare and sadly sought solution to save the live of the mother, rape and incest victims.
If men got pregnant we would have reliable contraception freely available now so that poverty wasn't such a determining factor to those who seek abortions.
-
Posted By: Ace574 @ 04/24/2009 4:42:27 PM
I'll agree with abortion reduction when they ban IVF, and make adoption cheaper and easier.
-
Posted By: joebloww @ 01/27/2009 11:23:17 AM
all pro-lifers are hypocrites. why is it bad to kill unborn fetuses but ok to kill children and adults who already exist? people are dying on every continent because of malnutrition, no health care, pointless wars.
religious zealots are the biggest hypocrites! they just want more poor young men who grow up in poverty, and have no choice to make a living but to join the military and die in their pointless wars.-
Posted By: Triplet Mom @ 01/27/2009 2:29:07 PM
Your comment "all pro-lifers are hypocrits', is ridiculous. Though many people die needlesssly in this world that is no reason to kill more innocent people through the horrible act of abortion. It is not the unborn babies' fault the world has problems. We can eliminate the drug problem by killig all addicts drug pushers etc. but no one is suggesting this. The women's body argument is ridiculous! An unborn child has a heart, lungs, hands feet etc. These organs do not belong to the mother. Partial birth aborton is a particularly horrendous act. The spinal cord (the center for nerves and feeling) is one of the first things to develop in an unborn child. the baby who is aborted feels the terrible paiin inflicted by its mother. Obama, the real hypocrit here, pushed to allow babies who do not die through the abortion process to be left in a room to die! That we elected someone with this belief is beyond my comprehension! If we did this to animals there would be an uproar. The pro-death supporters are seriously misguided. No one has the right to take another's life.
-
Posted By: Thevail @ 04/23/2009 2:07:05 PM
If you argue that a fetus is an equal human being to a grown woman..the let it exist on it's own..at 28 days..
-
Posted By: RENEEK @ 01/29/2009 11:24:01 PM
EVERYTHING that you've stated is absolutely true, and I agree with you 110%. Kudos to you!!!
-
Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 01/27/2009 3:01:18 PM
no one is PRO DEATH, no one likes death, no one enjoys getting they're thights spread open and basically having an egg beater shoved up there, no one enjoys an abortion...its not like people go and have an abortion celebration party after.... its about democracy, its about choice, its about individuals choices and how it affects them and they'er personal lives....
if you wish to live in a fascist totalotarian country that doesnt allow any freedoms move to china or iran...
and if no one has the right to take anothers life i suggest you look no further than the bush administration... did you vote republican?
-
-
Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 01/27/2009 11:38:48 AM
although i agree that many are hypocrites, i dont think we should paint them with a broad brush...know what i mean? i know plenty of conservatives that dont agree with abortion based on personal ethics and morals, but they understand certain situations where an abortion is neccessary....
and its not only "religious zealots" that dont approve of abortions...my girlfriend actually is a hardcore aetheist and hates the idea of killing a life that she helped create, and im with her on that.
but, the whole point of this issue is a matter of choices...the options should be there, if one would CHOOSE to utilize those options...
-
-
Posted By: seti2008 @ 01/27/2009 6:40:55 PM
Constitution Lover, how many adoptions should I put you down for?Let's see. Counting the children who are sitting in foster homes and group homes right now, I'd say, You should adopt ten. If every American family, or adult, would adopt at least two children a piece, the unwanted child problem should be resolved.
-
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/27/2009 9:07:15 PM
"Constitution Lover, how many adoptions should I put you down for?Let's see. Counting the children who are sitting in foster homes and group homes right now, I'd say, You should adopt ten. If every American family, or adult, would adopt at least two children a piece, the unwanted child problem should be resolved. "
Excuse me. I am pro-choice. Try reading what I wrote. My comment is that a child is only alive and with rights AFTER it is born, not while it is in a womb. In act I only use the term "child" AFTER birth. Before that it is a fetus or earlier in term an embryo.-
Posted By: RENEEK @ 01/27/2009 10:03:01 PM
I JUST HAD TO RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENT. HOW FAR DID YOU GET IN SCHOOL? BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU ARE VERY UNEDUCATED. THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS DOCTORS THAT HAVE TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT THEY CAN NOW SEE A HEARTBEAT AS EARLY AS 28 DAYS INTO A PREGNANCY. IF THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE A HUMAN LIFE THEN I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT IT IS. AND IF YOU SUPPORT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, THEN THERE ARE SOME SERIOUS MENTAL ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED!!! I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD GIVE YOUR CHILDREN TRUTHFUL INFORMATION ABOUT ABORTION INSTEAD OF LYING TO THEM THE WAY PLANNED PARENTHOOD HAS DONE TO MILLIONS OF NAIVE WOMEN AND YOUNG ADULTS!!!
-
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/28/2009 10:22:45 AM
"I JUST HAD TO RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENT. HOW FAR DID YOU GET IN SCHOOL? BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU ARE VERY UNEDUCATED."
Two PhD's. Probably far more educated than you are. (I also know enough about computers to not type in all caps.)
"IF THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE A HUMAN LIFE THEN I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT IT IS."
If you had bothered to read my other post you would already have an answer to that. It is not a normally independently viable life. It has no rights and is not yet truly alive.
"AND IF YOU SUPPORT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, THEN THERE ARE SOME SERIOUS MENTAL ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED!!!"
First off, there is no such thing as "partial birth abortion". That is a propaganda term not a valid medical term. And there are valid medical rasons for late term abortions. The only mental issues are yours.
"I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD GIVE YOUR CHILDREN TRUTHFUL INFORMATION ABOUT ABORTION INSTEAD OF LYING TO THEM THE WAY PLANNED PARENTHOOD HAS DONE TO MILLIONS OF NAIVE WOMEN AND YOUNG ADULTS!!! "
The only lies I have seen are from your side of the arguement.-
Posted By: RENEEK @ 01/28/2009 10:47:34 PM
IT REALLY MAKES ME SAD TO THINK THAT YOU HAVE TWO PHD'S. AND BY THE WAY, YOU NEVER STATED WHAT YOU HAD A PHD IN. YOU MUST ONLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR OR WHAT ONE SIDE IS TELLING YOU. ARE YOU TELLING ME ALL THE TIME YOU SAY YOU'VE SPENT IN SCHOOL, YOU HAVN'T HEARD THE DIALOGUE OF ONE DOCTOR TALK ABOUT ABORTION AND STATE THE TRUTH. TRY GOOGLING THE PRO-CHOICE NURSE THAT YES ASSISTED IN A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND THEN TELL ME THAT IT IS NOT HUMAN. ALL I CAN SAY ABOUT YOU IS THERE IS NO HOPE-YOU ARE COMPLETELY BRAINWASHED. AND NO I WILL NOT STOP WRITING IN ALL CAPS!!!!
-
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/29/2009 9:43:51 AM
"IT REALLY MAKES ME SAD TO THINK THAT YOU HAVE TWO PHD'S. "
Poor baby.
"AND BY THE WAY, YOU NEVER STATED WHAT YOU HAD A PHD IN. "
It actually is not relevant. Having two PhDs means that I have taken advanced classes in research.
"YOU MUST ONLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR OR WHAT ONE SIDE IS TELLING YOU."
Not at all. I have heard both sides and have come to my views after much research.
"ARE YOU TELLING ME ALL THE TIME YOU SAY YOU'VE SPENT IN SCHOOL, YOU HAVN'T HEARD THE DIALOGUE OF ONE DOCTOR TALK ABOUT ABORTION AND STATE THE TRUTH."
I have heard many doctors (and others including scientists and medical ethicists) talk about abortion from both sides of the debate. After careful consideration I have come to the viewpoint that I have. "Just becuase you think that your view is the truth does not make it so. There is no one view on whether a fetus is a "life" in the same way a born human being, and no one view on what, if any legal rights it has. THAT is the only truth on the issue.
"TRY GOOGLING THE PRO-CHOICE NURSE THAT YES ASSISTED IN A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND THEN TELL ME THAT IT IS NOT HUMAN."
Late Term abortions are NOT the main issue. At most they comprise 1.4 percent of abortions (if one uses the 21st week of gestation as the cut of) and .08 percent if one uses the 27th week. Since it is generally agreed by medical science that before 21 weeks a fetus is considered pre-viable that means that at most 1.4 percent of abortions are performed after a fetus is viable.
"ALL I CAN SAY ABOUT YOU IS THERE IS NO HOPE-YOU ARE COMPLETELY BRAINWASHED. "
Given that I have reached my conclusion after years of detailed research you obviously do not know the meaning of the term brainwashed. You must think it means open-mindedly and independently well educated.-
Posted By: RENEEK @ 01/29/2009 10:46:59 PM
I guess everyone should listen to what you have to say, because God knows there is no one out there smarter than you and your two PhD's!!! And as far as your late term abortions (as you want them to be called) are concerned; need to be banned forever because like it or not, it is very viable. And when that life, given the chance can become a healthy human being. A womens selfishness should not result in taking an innocent life!!!
-
Posted By: Thevail @ 04/23/2009 2:05:14 PM
Stop getting personal..and here I was all happy....but the frothing begins...a sad blow to my faith in humanity.
-
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/30/2009 10:27:10 AM
"I guess everyone should listen to what you have to say, because God knows there is no one out there smarter than you and your two PhD's!!! "
I never said that everyone should listen to me. I am putting forth one perspective about why a fetus is NOT the same a a living child, why saying that one is "killing" a fetus is invalid, and why a fetus does notahve anywhere near the same legal rights as the woman or as a born child. As for my two PhD's, I only mentioned those in response to yuor post of 1-27-09 "HOW FAR DID YOU GET IN SCHOOL? BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU ARE VERY UNEDUCATED. " It was pointing out that although you may not be able to understand what I am saying it is not being said by an uneducated person. They are based onyears of research and many conversations with doctors, medical ethicists, physiologists and other scientists (as well as with several theologians.)
"And as far as your late term abortions (as you want them to be called) are concerned; need to be banned forever because like it or not, it is very viable. And when that life, given the chance can become a healthy human being. A womens selfishness should not result in taking an innocent life!!!"
I looked through all of my posts up to this point. I never said that late term abortions of fetus over 27 weeks into gestation for any purpose other the woman's health or life cannot (and even should not) be restricted. What I said is that they are not the main issue here. There are pro-choice people such as myself who see the validity the US Supreme Court's restricting them.
Try reading what I wrote.
Even my comment to lam3rd on 1-29-09 that a 6 month old fetus cannot survive is accurate (although I now realize that my statement should have said "under 27 week old" instead since it is more accurate) does not say that I approve of them being used as a mode of birth control. It says that until it would be normally independently viable that it is a woman's choice. That does not say that I agree with her choice, but the it can be argued that law says that it is her choice.
In fact, on 1-28-09, in response to one of your posts I wrote "BTW, I am not saying that I approve of the procedure except when the woman's life and health are at risk."
-
-
-
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/29/2009 9:45:59 AM
"AND NO I WILL NOT STOP WRITING IN ALL CAPS!!!!"
Then you can legitamately be considered a screaming child and can be ignored.-
Posted By: RENEEK @ 01/29/2009 10:37:30 PM
If I'm acting like such a child, then why are you still responding?
-
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/30/2009 10:27:48 AM
And my point about using all caps was that they adversely affect your ability to put forth your message. A lot of readers refuse to even read all caps posts because they consider them screaming or the work of children, even if they are not written by children or not meant to be screaming. That is simply how those posts come off. And, especially on serious issues (and abortion is a very serious issue) most people ignore or will not listen to children and and screamers (or those they think are due to the way they post.) They are not the ones who respond to psts. They are just the ones who read what is written. And they make up a decent portion of those who view the comments. Whether I agree with your ideas or not, I would imagine that you want them to be read. That was my point. Believe it or not, I was trying to help you on that one.
-
-
-
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/29/2009 10:01:08 AM
Lastly,
Given that the US Supreme court has consistently ruled that any prohibition on abortion MUST have an exception for a woman's life and has also ruled that, on a case by case basis, an exception for a woman's health (with valid medical evidence) is appropriate. Since theyhave not yet shown any intention of removing the risk to ife exception, it can be argued that even the US Supreme Court puts the woman's life at the forefront thereby sayig that the rights of the fetus are not as great as those of the woman. Also the court has also used the viablity idea in some of its ruling, supporting the idea that viablity of the fetus IS relevant and saying that a non-viable fetus may in fact not have rights. Mind you, that is one interpretation that many legal scholars have put forth but it is not the only interpretation there is.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Jimbobmacca @ 01/29/2009 1:04:46 AM
The so called pro life movement in america is doomed to failure whist they insist on an all or nothing approach. An overwhelming majority of americans beleive in abortion rights. The fact that pro lifers want to restrict access to contraceptives shows just how ideological the pro life movement is considering the fact that an unconcieved baby is one that cannot be aborted.
Shame to the old style prolife people, they are responsible for millions of abortions that could otherwise be prevented.-
Posted By: RENEEK @ 01/29/2009 9:54:16 PM
I am pro-life. But I do agree that we need to come to a compromise, otherwise this issue will never be resolved!!! Contraceptives are not a form of abortion, but a preventative measure. If were going to get anywhere in this country regarding abortion, contraceptives must always be made available.
-
Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/06/2009 9:20:00 PM
Please suggest a compromise.
-
Posted By: Thevail @ 04/23/2009 1:55:17 PM
Contraceptives easily available...parents without obsessive hang-ups actually providing their children with good solid technical information "in case" they DO have sex...and abortions available for the first 2 trimesters without question. Abortions on a medical, individual basis upon consultation with a FEMALE DOCTOR after that.
I'm sure lots of people will disagree
-
-
Posted By: Thevail @ 04/23/2009 1:21:46 PM
Thanks...sometimes, because all the pro-lifers one sees are on TV or in front of an abortion clinic frothing at the mouth, it's easy as a pro-choice person to think that they're all completely crazy. It's nice to see someone who isn't crazy representing your side :)
-
-
Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 01/29/2009 11:14:11 AM
true....
they must re-invent the movement, re-format, and re-think...
in just about any situation in history, the folks that are hardlined on any issue have always been met with equal and opposite hardlined views. "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".
its time for compromise and collaboration on this issue, because its an "everybody" issue, not just democrats or republicans, religious conservatives and liberal atheists.
two heads are better than one...
its a real shame that the politics of it make the issue so devisive and polarizing at a time when we should be working together to solve problems instead of this immature highschool mindset of "well our clique is right, your wrong and we are going to prove it, so there".
as ive stated previously throughout this entire discussion, a wide range of options give potential mothers more outlets and answers to they're dire questions and needs...and thats the answer. the more options available, the less likely that a child will be aborted.
i dont think many women walk into an abortion clinic with a smile on they're face and a sign that says, "hi, im about to murder an innocent life, have a nice day". no one enjoys the decision, and im 100% sure no one enjoys the process or the mental angst afterwards. i know they dont enjoy the conservative camp marginalizing them, verbally (and somtimes physically) attacking them, they dont enjoy the realization of them being irresponsible or realizing that one fun night created a life altering issue.
no one is pro-death. but i do advocate any rapist, pedophile, murderer ect be put to death or be castrated because they no longer deserve to have the gift of reproductive organs if they abuse it in such terrible ways. and if we started having some more severe penalties for such people, than maybe they would think twice about what they are about to do (i know if i was about to rape a woman, and then thought about getting caught and getting my dick cut off i would probably rethink my motives and just try and find a girlfriend instead, most men like they're penis just as it is...in place, and functioning). i know of murderers that get out of jail faster than someone that gets busted for growing marijauna, a little backwards i think.
im rambling now...-
Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/06/2009 9:24:11 PM
"its time for compromise and collaboration on this issue, because its an "everybody" issue, not just democrats or republicans, religious conservatives and liberal atheists."
Why exactly do you associate liberal and atheists in the manner as if the two are the same?
The vast majority of abortions in the country are had by ... drum roll --- CHRISTIANS!!!!
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
70% of them, as the above research would indicate.
It is not an everybody issue, it is only an issue for women.
But you amuse me with your stereotyping. Please present a compromise between legally allowing an abortion and not allowing an abortion.
If abortion is to be outlawed, suggest the penalties you would propose.
-
-
-
Posted By: Willian C DeMuth @ 01/27/2009 11:37:07 AM
Aborting Christians is an idea that might catch on, or at least sterilizing them.
It is the only way to end the infection.-
Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 01/27/2009 11:54:18 AM
u know....if it werent for a christian somewhere back in time, im 99% sure you wouldnt even exist to say that...
-
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/27/2009 12:14:32 PM
99%? No where near that number.
And if it were not for Christans (both in Russia and in Germany) there would be many more of my family alive.-
Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 01/27/2009 12:55:48 PM
great...
but i wasnt talking to you, nor was anyone else.
i was speaking to someone by the name of william c. demuth. which is a very white, christian, descendant from european settlers name. so, im 99% sure that since he, (NOT YOU, william c demuth) wouldnt be able to exist without previous christian (and when i say "christian" i mean everything from a pentacoastal to a protestant to an irish catholic and every denomination inbetween) heritage.
yup. 99% sure of it.
i agree that christians have shed much blood in the name of religion, so dont get me wrong, there would be many many more people alive today were it not for religion in general, regardless of creed.-
Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 01/27/2009 1:06:48 PM
and really, just because you have some kind of personal beef with christianity doesnt mean that every christian is a war mongering, mouth breathing, backwards thinking cave man hell bent on saving the unborn babies...
-
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/27/2009 3:50:10 PM
OK. I stand corrected. Rereading your post I can see that I mistook what you were posting and did not realize that you were posting to one specific poster when you made the 99% comment.
As for you comment "nor was anyone else". That is of not importance or validity since I was responding (incorrectly) ONLY to your post.
BT, I do nto have a personal beef against Christianity,just against those who think that said religion speaks for all or that their beliefs are relevant to US Law. I know many many Christians who are pro-choice and even more who wholy oppose religious intervention in US law.-
Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 01/27/2009 4:10:27 PM
alright then, we are all good. im aetheist for the record.
-
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/28/2009 10:52:40 AM
Good.
I too am atheist although I prefer referring to myself as a Bright. I do not believe in supernatural entities or in supernatural intervention in things (deities would qualify as supernatural entities).-
Posted By: RENEEK @ 01/29/2009 11:18:50 PM
That explains your extreme liberal views. I guess you don't believe that God created the earth and our very existence. So how did all of this come to be?
-
Posted By: Thevail @ 04/23/2009 1:38:15 PM
Not quite...being Christian may explain someone being a conservative..if they feel that those views are what they MUST believe to be in accordance with their religion.
But being atheistic, or agnostic does not explain being liberal. Because it doesn't require you to believe any particular thing.
Perhaps people who tend toward a more liberal thought process eventually reject most of the dogma of organized religion because they don't feel like any big powerful group (which most organized religions are) should be telling them how to make moral and ethical decisions in their own lives.
But then equally I would have to say that perhaps people who have a more conservative mind frame tend to like the comfort and security of knowing that there is a dogmatic structure in their lives, a sort of moral compass. I'm not going to go too far with this one since it isn't my niche and I'd hate to over generalize.
Me..I'm militantly Agnostic...I believe what I believe (it really is none of anyone's business) but I'm not SURE..not CERTAIN. The reason I say militantly agnostic is that I don't know for sure..AND neither do you. You may have the answer for you, but you don't have the answer for me..just as I don't have the answer for you. And most importantly..that's OK..for both of us. -
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/30/2009 11:37:36 PM
Part 2
And on a side note, not all atheists are liberals. Whoever told you that is a fool.
I have met atheists who supported Goldwater and Reagan.
I have met atheists who are anti-abortion.
I have met atheists who are hard line hawks.
I have met Marines, Sailors and Soldiers who are atheists. (The idea that there are not atheists in foxholes is a invalid. I could actually introduce you to two who currently serve in Iraq who even uinder fire, and wounded, never stopped being atheists.) -
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/30/2009 2:35:50 PM
"That explains your extreme liberal views."
I do not have extreme liberal views.
" I guess you don't believe that God created the earth and our very existence."
That is correct. I also do not believe in an afterlife, eternal judgement, or a need for "salvation".
"So how did all of this come to be?"
Not quite sure, but there is no irrefutable evidence (in real evidence at all) that there is a supernatural entity that some call God or that even if said entity exists outside of human imagination that it had anything to do with anything.
What caused our solar system to come into being is unlikely ever to be determined and outside of the scientific aspects of it (those things that upon understanding them might enable us to undo the damage the planet has already suffered), does not really matter in the general sense. It does not define morality, ethics or justice.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Thevail @ 04/23/2009 1:28:59 PM
Have you read abook called Snow Crash?? If not, you should..
-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 01/27/2009 11:42:22 AM
wrong. learn to have some love for your fellow human being.
-
-
Posted By: WrongIsNotRight @ 04/03/2009 5:37:21 PM
Joe ,
ROTFL so let me get this straight, you take the most notorious criminals and duh forget about the absolute zillions of people throughout history who were great including those who were not great but gave their contribution to society ... thus good people ... and you compare them to the few ... criminals. Remember honey, the vast, vast majority of people on this earth are good people ... not killers or perverts. Thus far more human lives affect society in a positiive way than a negative. If human beings were generallly bad then ... we would all be ... dead! ;)
ROTFL duh ... Typical of you who try to play the devils advocate ... but do it very weakly.
Bottom line, abortion is murder ... the intentional, pre-meditated killing of an innocent human being. The only thing that separates abortion from murder is not the definition of murder but the ruling of law. In reality, abortion is murder with an exception. Abortion is murder in its purest form.
Fact ... A baby in the womb is not an unborn mouse, horse, cow or snake ... it is a human being. The idea of a human fetus not being a human being is abortionists trying to convince us that a baby in the womb is ROTFL something else! DUH. Lets realize this fact! "Fetus" is the latin word for ... "Baby"! Need we say more ;)-
Posted By: Thevail @ 04/23/2009 1:26:10 PM
I don't quite think you're getting this..we don't necessarily care what your religion says. And no law whatsoever should be based on anything in anyone's religion. Otherwise according to the bible women can still be sold by their fathers...
-
-
Posted By: Thevail @ 04/23/2009 1:18:04 PM
I'm all for reducing abortions. I think (probably along with 99% of people) that they are a horrible thing. Whether you're a life begins at conceptionist, or a jeez teen-agers shouldn't have to make horrible decisions like that-ist, or even a this is costing a lot of people a lot of money-ist, or an illegal abortions cost us all thousands more in medical care each year-ist..
The reality is that no one is pro-abortion. That's just a phrase used to demonize others. But the majority of people in the U.S. are pro-CHOICE about what we do with our own bodies. And boy am I sick of seeing guys think they have any say in this. It is not your uterus, you will never have to live with the consequences of whatever laws get passed. And any anti-abortion law that gets passed sets the precedent that it's OK (for a largely male group-congress) to pass a law that only affects the opposite (female) gender.
As a woman, are you ready for "seperate but equal" treatment under the law? What next..pregnant women have to go ona state supervised diet..to keep that fetus healthy? We can pass that law too. But most guys like women skinny..soo why not just make it so that they have to stay on a strict diet all the time..in case they get pregnant. I mean obesity can cause all sorts of complications in a pregnancy!
I realize that this is all hypothetical, I really do, but..before you go saying it "can't" happen.. realize that 9-11 "couldn't" happen, a U.S. President authorizing torture against the Geneva Convention "couldn't" happen. A lot of things can and do happen because of precedent.
Get 'em on birth control first..stop the unwanted pregnancy from happening and then there will be a lot less abortions to end unwanted pregnancy. Please look up the "unwanted pregnancy" stats for other countries and realize that America is really not doing this particular thing very well.
Really (leaving religion out of it for the moment) how is an anti-abortion law different from an anti-tattoo law, or an anti- tonsilectomy law?? Hold up..I know I know..the child, that's why I said leave religion out of it. Not all religions share the belief that a couple of cells make a kid.
And should people who don't want a kid..I mean really don't want to deal with one, have kids. Raises the chances of abuse, abandonment, and neglect pretty high for that kid.
Then there are all the rape/incest questions to think of. But I have to defend my pro-choice attitude here by saying..
There probably are women who are stupid enough to use abortion as birth control..once..but any woman who does it routinely..she's probably up there with the number of teachers who molest kids percentage wise. There are bad people, there will always be some bad irresponsible people. But no one should enact laws that actively affect EVERYONE equally, when the problem is just a small percentage of the population.
-
Posted By: petergauhar @ 04/21/2009 7:14:02 PM
The Early Christian View
In sharp contrast, early Christians took a firm stand against abortions. Durant adds: ???Abortion and infanticide, which were decimating pagan society, were forbidden to Christians as the equivalents of murder.??? So while family limitation became an outstanding social phenomenon of both the Greek and the Roman eras, the Christian community stood firmly on a strict moral code that built respect for the sanctity of life. As in ancient Israel, children were a mark of the Creator???s blessing. The psalmist states: ???Look! Sons are an inheritance from Jehovah; the fruitage of the belly is a reward.??????Psalm 127:3.
It is evident from God???s Word, the Bible, that Jehovah, ???the source of life,??? recognizes the right to life of the unborn child. How? First, the Bible shows that he deems the unborn to be more than just a glob of tissue. God???s interest in his marvelous creative arrangement is described by the psalmist this way: ???You [Jehovah] kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. . . . Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.??????Psalm 36:9; 139:13-16.
Further, God calls to account the individual who accidentally interferes with the natural course of events involving an unborn child. Notice that the Mosaic Law put a heavy responsibility on such ones, stating: ???If men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman???s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life.??????Exodus 21:22, 23, American Standard Version.
Now if Jehovah views an accidental interference with the unborn child to be a matter of such serious consequence, how much greater accountability would there be with deliberate interference, as in the case of abortion! Also, since God gave no limitations as to the age of the unborn in his law expressed at Exodus chapter 21, arguments based on age become moot.
-
Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/06/2009 8:59:18 PM
l
-
Posted By: ZappoDaClown @ 01/30/2009 6:49:11 PM
For those on the fence, take a look at this video...you'll be pretty surprised...I was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c&eurl=http://www.catholicvote.com/static/flash/cv_yt_player.swf&feature=player_embedded-
Posted By: bkrummel @ 01/30/2009 9:47:06 PM
Um, so because you find one person that wasn't aborted and goes on to great things, you imply the pro-life side is right. No policy or argument, just a YouTube video. So I suppose if I found a video proving that Hitler's mom considered aborting him or could find a mom that went on to great things after having an abortion, you'd be in pro-choice? This is just shallow and weak.
So do you actually have a serious policy reducing the number of abortions and addressing the pro-lifers' concerns, or are just full of emotional arguments and shocked by our side?-
Posted By: joe_mama @ 04/01/2009 11:21:37 AM
"Um, so because you find one person that wasn't aborted and goes on to great things, you imply the pro-life side is right"
People never bring up Dahmer, Manson, Ramirez (LA's Night stalker), the Boston Strangler or any of the other NON-aborted fetuses who went on to do terrible, horrible things.
Their argument is not a logical argument in any way shape or form and should categorically dismissed.
Love,
JM -
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/30/2009 11:49:06 PM
Actually you don't even have to use a hypothetical.
I remeber reading a story 10 years ago about two different murders who mothers had thought about aborting them but did not either due to religious pressure or becuase in one case, abortions were not easily accesible where she grew up.
The argument about the possibilty that an aborted fetus could become a great person is completley flawed at it core because it is a two edged sword. What if sceanrios of that type have no worth in scientific or intellectual conversation.
The probability is that the exact same percentage of both truly great people and truly monsterous criminals (and everything in between) that society currently has would be represented in the aborted embryos and fetuses.
-
-
-
Posted By: alba214 @ 01/30/2009 5:56:19 PM
Constitution Lover, you want another reason why someone might use all caps?? How about eyesight? Did it ever occur to anyone that some people have vision problems and it is easier for them to read what they wrote in all caps? And since we are reading with our eyes and not reading with our ears who cares if its all in caps. This idea that its rude, that its shouting is stupid. Its typing.
-
Posted By: joe_mama @ 04/01/2009 11:17:45 AM
"How about eyesight? Did it ever occur to anyone that some people have vision problems and it is easier for them to read what they wrote in all caps?"
How about changing your screen resolution?
Also, if you have Vista, you adjust accessibility settings to use a larger font type.
Sorry, but posting in ALL CAPS is childish and has been (and continues) to be interpreted as yelling since Al Gore invented the internet (sorry, couldn't resist). These people know what they're doing, and they know they posts are without merit, so they use CAPS to try to get our attention.
AND they give ME an eyesight problem (make my eyes hurt) which is why I usually ignore anything in CAPS that's longer than a paragraph.
Love,
JM
PS--Case in point, PJupdike's post right above yours! -
Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 01/30/2009 11:29:16 PM
"Constitution Lover, you want another reason why someone might use all caps?? How about eyesight? Did it ever occur to anyone that some people have vision problems and it is easier for them to read what they wrote in all caps?"
Alba,
That is a valid reason which is why I asked Likeitis WHY he was doing it that way. If that was his answer then it would be a valid one.
"And since we are reading with our eyes and not reading with our ears who cares if its all in caps. This idea that its rude, that its shouting is stupid."
Not at all. It is because several studies have shown, time and itme again that it is HARDER for most people to read more than five or six words typed or printed in all caps. It is because of the way we read with out eyes and that a mixture of upper and lower case makes it easier for most people to read. That was originally discovered for the print media and was confirmed for the internet. And because capitalized words (except for acronyms) have always been used to highlight or accentuate the impact of words (which is why Headlines and titles are usually all caps), in normal conversation that translates to shouting or screaming (which most people would consider rude.) There is nothing stupid about it. It is the way it is. -
Posted By: bkrummel @ 01/30/2009 6:36:29 PM
You could also occasionally explain when you use cap locks that you are doing it for health reasons and not to be a jerk. We would respect that. Some people do use cap locks just to yell and be a jerk and some of these cap locked comments seem to be doing just that. We just want respect and are happy to extend earned respect as well.
-
Posted By: bkrummel @ 01/30/2009 6:30:37 PM
You could try increasing your screen resolution. None of us would notice or take offense. You could probably read much better too. Just a thought.
-
-
Posted By: MyShieldCorp @ 03/18/2009 2:33:03 PM
Hi, Ted Anderson CEO*Chairman attempting to Re-secure our LOST link with the World Super Investors. My Shield Corp www.myshield.us is setup for Investors*Stakeholders*Job Seekers
We have three special top secret Task Forces: to help STOP:
??? Spammers
??? Fraud Investors
??? Killers
??? We will support Disasters around the world....
Please let everyone you know about:
www.myshield.us
Sincerely, Ted Anderson
ceo@myshield.us
We will have complexes with our new safe rooms, by the hundreds/thousands in all major cities, they are for:
??? To replace: Friendship homes
??? Unemployed
??? Low income persons
??? Women/Women with children in trouble: safe location to live
and now added
??? For families that have lost their homes to foreclosures
We want NOTHING to do with home/internet spam???s/pyramid programs!
If that is all you do, then don't request to be a member of our group
Sincerely, Ted Anderson
-
Posted By: MyShieldCorp @ 03/18/2009 2:30:18 PM
My Shield Corporation
www.myshield.us
Ted Anderson CEO*Chairman
O: 360-336-3057 PST USA
F: 360-982-2528 24/7
E: ceo@myshield.us
Defense Systems Contractor
Major*Super Global Developer:
Infrastructure*Residential*Commercial*EMS 911 Control Stations
We will support Disasters around the world
We have numerous extremely important Top Secret Projects: One of them involves the Super Volcano which could destroy
Most of Planet Earth
WE MUST GET FUNDING * WE ARE READY TO START!
Other extremely Important Projects:
-
Posted By: MyShieldCorp @ 03/18/2009 2:29:15 PM
Hi, Ted Anderson CEO*Chairman attempting to Re-secure our LOST link with the World Super Investors. My Shield Corp www.myshield.us is setup for Investors*Stakeholders*Job Seekers
We have three special top secret Task Forces: to help STOP:
??? Spammers
??? Fraud Investors
??? Killers
??? We will support Disasters around the world....
Please let everyone you know about:
www.myshield.us
Sincerely, Ted Anderson
ceo@myshield.us
We want NOTHING to do with home/internet spam???s/pyramid programs!
If that is all you do, then don't request to be a member of our group
Sincerely, Ted Anderson
-
Posted By: MyShieldCorp @ 03/18/2009 2:28:57 PM
Hi, Ted Anderson CEO*Chairman attempting to Re-secure our LOST link with the World Super Investors. My Shield Corp www.myshield.us is setup for Investors*Stakeholders*Job Seekers
We have three special top secret Task Forces: to help STOP:
??? Spammers
??? Fraud Investors
??? Killers
??? We will support Disasters around the world....
Please let everyone you know about:
www.myshield.us
Sincerely, Ted Anderson
ceo@myshield.us
We want NOTHING to do with home/internet spam???s/pyramid programs!
If that is all you do, then don't request to be a member of our group
Sincerely, Ted Anderson
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- It is my intention to finish the job Obama, on sending additional troops to AfghanistanUSAT
- We cannot, by ourselves, win Carl Levin, on the U.S. needing help from Afghans in the warAP
- Black Friday should unleash pent-up demand. Analyst Bill DreherNYT
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
Discuss