|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't.
You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise?
|
On November 18 2024 21:45 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't. You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise?
Here we go again with the fringe cases that don't make sense...
Doctors are strictly not allowed to kill the fetus after viability. It's illegal. If the fetus dies, it's the consequence of a calculated risk that ended in death.
|
On November 18 2024 21:53 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 21:45 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't. You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise? Here we go again with the fringe cases that don't make sense... Doctors are strictly not allowed to kill the fetus after viability. It's illegal. If the fetus dies, it's the consequence of a calculated risk that ended in death.
This is both not true and hasn't ever been true federally in the modern era.
Roe v. Wade said you can't restrict before viability (essentially).
There have been and still are states that allow elective abortion at any period.
|
On November 18 2024 21:53 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 21:45 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't. You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise? Here we go again with the fringe cases that don't make sense... Doctors are strictly not allowed to kill the fetus after viability. It's illegal. If the fetus dies, it's the consequence of a calculated risk that ended in death.
In your country or mine? You know the laws of all 50 states? Something tells me you don’t.
Here’s a clinic that offers abortions in the 3rd trimester
https://abortionclinics.org/late-term-abortion-care/
They offer abortions for pregnancies up to 35 weeks. Here’s a description of an induction abortion procedure from their website.
This is usually a 3-day procedure depending on your medical history. First, an ultrasound will be done. This is done by passing a microphone-like instrument over your abdomen (belly) which measures the size of your pregnancy. The final decision as to whether the induction can be done will depend on your medical history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and the assessment of your doctor. On the first day, the cervix is slowly opened with plastic or metal rods, each one slightly larger than the last. When the cervix is as open as possible, small sponges (laminaria) that take up water from your body will be placed; they swell and continue to open the cervix overnight. The next morning the laminaria are removed and new laminaria are placed. This is repeated as needed until the cervix is sufficiently open. The induction abortion ends with the start of labor and delivery of a stillborn.
The demise of the fetus is very much intentional.
|
On November 18 2024 22:08 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 21:53 Magic Powers wrote:On November 18 2024 21:45 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't. You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise? Here we go again with the fringe cases that don't make sense... Doctors are strictly not allowed to kill the fetus after viability. It's illegal. If the fetus dies, it's the consequence of a calculated risk that ended in death. In your country or mine? You know the laws of all 50 states? Something tells me you don’t. Here’s a clinic that offers abortions in the 3rd trimester https://abortionclinics.org/late-term-abortion-care/They offer abortions for pregnancies up to 35 weeks. Here’s a description of an induction abortion procedure from their website. Show nested quote + This is usually a 3-day procedure depending on your medical history. First, an ultrasound will be done. This is done by passing a microphone-like instrument over your abdomen (belly) which measures the size of your pregnancy. The final decision as to whether the induction can be done will depend on your medical history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and the assessment of your doctor. On the first day, the cervix is slowly opened with plastic or metal rods, each one slightly larger than the last. When the cervix is as open as possible, small sponges (laminaria) that take up water from your body will be placed; they swell and continue to open the cervix overnight. The next morning the laminaria are removed and new laminaria are placed. This is repeated as needed until the cervix is sufficiently open. The induction abortion ends with the start of labor and delivery of a stillborn. The demise of the fetus is very much intentional.
So you're talking about state law, not federal law?
|
To the people wondering why abortions after 35 weeks do make sense in plenty of cases and why they're not going to result in women aborting recklessly.
Take a chill pill for a second and read this article.
"Conti: There are many reasons why women may need to access abortion later in pregnancy, including maternal health endangerment, diagnosis of fetal abnormalities or restrictive laws delaying earlier access to abortion care. Those exceptionally rare cases that happen after 24 weeks are often because a fetus has a condition that cannot be treated and will never be able to survive – regardless of the gestational age or trimester."
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-explainer/index.html
These are extremely rare instances where no good path is available. All choices suck, all choices are horrible. Among other reasons for such late abortions, the fetus will not have a life worth living, or the woman's life is in serious danger if abortion us unavailable. There are also instances where the woman required abortion earlier but couldn't have it for whichever reason.
These are not cases you have to be concerned with. This is not your realm, you're not doctors and you're not a pregnant woman who has to make the most difficult choice in her life.
|
United States42212 Posts
On November 18 2024 21:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 20:40 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 20:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm not saying it's 0% for either, I just think both numbers are lower. If you say 10% instead of 35%, sure, that's plausible - but also significantly lower. I disagree. Americans are extremely indoctrinated on this issue. The specifics really don’t matter to a lot of people, you’ll get a reflexive “all abortions are okay” and “no abortions are okay” segment of the population to any question. They’re not considering the scenario, opposing abortion is just a part of their identity. That's largely my point. I think that if they actually considered a specific scenario that would be covered by their reflexive answer then there are scenarios that would make some of them go 'oh hm I guess I don't support that'. Fine and understandable if you have less faith in americans.
It’s an unprovable hypothesis because it relies on actual consideration. There’s a significant minority that will never actually consider it. Supposing what they might think if they were to consider is a waste of time.
|
United States42212 Posts
On November 18 2024 21:45 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't. You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise?
They’re called inducing labour. Inducing labour doesn’t typically end in executing the baby. Nor does a c section. Hospitals are very equipped to end pregnancies after 8 months. It happens all the time. Hell, it happened with my wife and I with our first child, we prematurely terminated the pregnancy on medical advice. It literally happened to us. The procedure is routine.
If you and your healthcare provider make a decision to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months they are very able to perform that without any killing. There are loads of facilities for that. It’s no problem.
|
United States42212 Posts
On November 18 2024 21:44 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't. A 9 month c-section plain isn't an abortion tho? I mean your arguing against/for people that even accuse pro-choicers of wanting "post birth abortions" and they don't mean putting the child up for adoption by that...
It’s a termination of the pregnancy. Abortion = voluntary termination.
|
Kwark, technically thats not true. Spontaneous abortions do happen when the embryo isn't viable for example. But that's kind of nitpicking.
Eclampsia, as an extreme example, is a very serious issue that occurs in quite a late stage in the pregnancy and induction is often necessary (or abortion of the pregnancy), to save the life of both mother and child.
Certain people (in here) don't know what they're talking about because they haven't had the experience of being pregnant. And yes, even though only the woman is truly pregnant, a pregnancy is something you go through together.
|
United States42212 Posts
Spontaneous abortion is as relevant to the abortion debate as the sun is to the nuclear power debate.
|
For sure, so why explicitly state it?
Actually eclampsia is a nice example of a spontaeous abortion killing the mother in the process. It needs an intervention, with cases where actual voluntary abortion is necessary.
|
I would argue the Sun and with that Solar is far from irrelevant to the Nuclear Power debate  .
At least as relevant as bringing up c-sections/early births when talking about late term abortions.
|
You can't act like the bans on abortion are approaching any kind of nuance between what is and isn't an abortion when the discussion can barely get out of carving out exceptions for it. If the laws were empowering Doctors to act when the life of the mother was threatened we wouldn't see women dying from not getting life-saving care due to the hospital being afraid it would be charged with administering an abortion. Women are dying right now because Republicans refuse to get off the base of "no abortions" and engage in any kind of good faith interpretation of what is and isn't an abortion in their laws.
The Cruelty is the point. They think abortions are done by women with loose morals and that some women dying from not getting them is the same cost of doing busienss as school shootings is for gun control.
|
On November 18 2024 23:55 KwarK wrote:
Spontaneous abortion is as relevant to the abortion debate as the sun is to the nuclear power debate.
No, it is not. Read up on prosecution in Latin countries of women being accused of willingly aborting after rape after spontaneous abortions. It is disgusting. You are also given the same medication to get rid of a dead fetus as a living one. Some babies might still live, but have a deformity so it clearly won't survive. That is also an abortion.
Every abortion is its own little world of reasons. Being "against" or "for" abortion is not clear cut, there are many nuances in every direction, which are not talked enough about.
|
On November 18 2024 22:52 Magic Powers wrote:To the people wondering why abortions after 35 weeks do make sense in plenty of cases and why they're not going to result in women aborting recklessly. Take a chill pill for a second and read this article. "Conti: There are many reasons why women may need to access abortion later in pregnancy, including maternal health endangerment, diagnosis of fetal abnormalities or restrictive laws delaying earlier access to abortion care. Those exceptionally rare cases that happen after 24 weeks are often because a fetus has a condition that cannot be treated and will never be able to survive – regardless of the gestational age or trimester." https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-explainer/index.htmlThese are extremely rare instances where no good path is available. All choices suck, all choices are horrible. Among other reasons for such late abortions, the fetus will not have a life worth living, or the woman's life is in serious danger if abortion us unavailable. There are also instances where the woman required abortion earlier but couldn't have it for whichever reason.
Takes you one page to go from "it's illegal" to "of course it's happening," might want to mind the subject by knowing the relevant law.
Any distribution of stats showing you how far along women get elective abortions is immediately constrained by the options already in the population. If it's available until viability you will see more 5th/6th month abortions. If you look at a population like Europe they won't be getting them in those months when they can't. Doesn't follow that they would or wouldn't or therefore should or shouldn't. The frequency of happening is not related to whether it's right or wrong.
In most of the US informed consent in medical ethics doesn't even allow an adult to make the determination their own life is "not worth living," let alone another's life, which is the issue at the point of viability.
If they "required" it but didn't have it, and both they and the fetus still exist, how could they "require" it in any way that isn't already covered by life of the mother exceptions?
On November 18 2024 22:52 Magic Powers wrote:
These are not cases you have to be concerned with. This is not your realm, you're not doctors and you're not a pregnant woman who has to make the most difficult choice in her life.
Are you?
Doctors have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans from the opioid epidemic alone. The Hippocratic Oath is not a full-proof universal crutch that justifies anything any doctor does and absolves any mistakes.
|
On November 19 2024 02:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 22:52 Magic Powers wrote:To the people wondering why abortions after 35 weeks do make sense in plenty of cases and why they're not going to result in women aborting recklessly. Take a chill pill for a second and read this article. "Conti: There are many reasons why women may need to access abortion later in pregnancy, including maternal health endangerment, diagnosis of fetal abnormalities or restrictive laws delaying earlier access to abortion care. Those exceptionally rare cases that happen after 24 weeks are often because a fetus has a condition that cannot be treated and will never be able to survive – regardless of the gestational age or trimester." https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-explainer/index.htmlThese are extremely rare instances where no good path is available. All choices suck, all choices are horrible. Among other reasons for such late abortions, the fetus will not have a life worth living, or the woman's life is in serious danger if abortion us unavailable. There are also instances where the woman required abortion earlier but couldn't have it for whichever reason. Takes you one page to go from "it's illegal" to "of course it's happening," might want to mind the subject by knowing the relevant law. Any distribution of stats showing you how far along women get elective abortions is immediately constrained by the options already in the population. If it's available until viability you will see more 5th/6th month abortions. If you look at a population like Europe they won't be getting them in those months when they can't. Doesn't follow that they would or wouldn't or therefore should or shouldn't. The frequency of happening is not related to whether it's right or wrong. In most of the US informed consent in medical ethics doesn't even allow an adult to make the determination their own life is "not worth living," let alone another's life, which is the issue at the point of viability. If they "required" it but didn't have it, and both they and the fetus still exist, how could they "require" it in any way that isn't already covered by life of the mother exceptions? Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 22:52 Magic Powers wrote:
These are not cases you have to be concerned with. This is not your realm, you're not doctors and you're not a pregnant woman who has to make the most difficult choice in her life. Are you? Doctors have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans from the opioid epidemic alone. The Hippocratic Oath is not a full-proof universal crutch that justifies anything any doctor does and absolves any mistakes.
Why do you even ask me questions? I won't respond to you anymore.
|
On November 19 2024 02:42 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 02:27 oBlade wrote:On November 18 2024 22:52 Magic Powers wrote:To the people wondering why abortions after 35 weeks do make sense in plenty of cases and why they're not going to result in women aborting recklessly. Take a chill pill for a second and read this article. "Conti: There are many reasons why women may need to access abortion later in pregnancy, including maternal health endangerment, diagnosis of fetal abnormalities or restrictive laws delaying earlier access to abortion care. Those exceptionally rare cases that happen after 24 weeks are often because a fetus has a condition that cannot be treated and will never be able to survive – regardless of the gestational age or trimester." https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-explainer/index.htmlThese are extremely rare instances where no good path is available. All choices suck, all choices are horrible. Among other reasons for such late abortions, the fetus will not have a life worth living, or the woman's life is in serious danger if abortion us unavailable. There are also instances where the woman required abortion earlier but couldn't have it for whichever reason. Takes you one page to go from "it's illegal" to "of course it's happening," might want to mind the subject by knowing the relevant law. Any distribution of stats showing you how far along women get elective abortions is immediately constrained by the options already in the population. If it's available until viability you will see more 5th/6th month abortions. If you look at a population like Europe they won't be getting them in those months when they can't. Doesn't follow that they would or wouldn't or therefore should or shouldn't. The frequency of happening is not related to whether it's right or wrong. In most of the US informed consent in medical ethics doesn't even allow an adult to make the determination their own life is "not worth living," let alone another's life, which is the issue at the point of viability. If they "required" it but didn't have it, and both they and the fetus still exist, how could they "require" it in any way that isn't already covered by life of the mother exceptions? On November 18 2024 22:52 Magic Powers wrote:
These are not cases you have to be concerned with. This is not your realm, you're not doctors and you're not a pregnant woman who has to make the most difficult choice in her life. Are you? Doctors have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans from the opioid epidemic alone. The Hippocratic Oath is not a full-proof universal crutch that justifies anything any doctor does and absolves any mistakes. Why do you even ask me questions? I won't respond to you anymore.
You not answering questions would not represent a significant change, nevertheless there's a chance you or someone might absorb an intuition of why many people of both sexes find something wrong with unrestricted technological/selective eugenics when those people are just as unqualified as you and so their opinions no less valid.
|
I think the abortion thing is kinda just a bad faith wedge issue. Wanna cutdown on non-medical related abortions? Reduce unwanted/unplanned pregnancies. How to do that? Sex ed and free or really cheap contraceptives for all.
Pretty sure republicans rail against both of those things.
|
On November 19 2024 03:15 oBlade wrote:
many people of both sexes find something wrong with unrestricted technological/selective eugenics
This is the first time anyone has mentioned eugenics. Why are you talking about eugenics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
