neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 03:23 pm
BTW, I'm so glad to have you back, Frank.

The board seems to have been overrun by sissies.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 03:25 pm
neologist wrote:
I have always maintained the conviction that every zygote should be allowed a short period of time to voice its own opinion, say 18 years, a relatively short time, don't you think?

Then the pro choice position would be universally pro choice.


I guess that is one way to justify telling women that they are not allowed to control their own bodies if they happen to be pregnant.

And to be honest, it makes as much sense as almost any of the other stuff being offered by the anti-choice side.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 03:25 pm
Good to see you, too, Neo!
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 03:36 pm
I think we open a huge can of worms when we subject this decision to legislation.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 04:14 pm
I always find it silly when anti-choice people try to control the woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body. And I find it, yet, extremely silly when men are in favor of it… what the heck does a man know about being pregnant?
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 04:24 pm
According to science...neither the pro choice nor pro life stances have paid much attention to the scientific facts.

I quote from the scientist Dr. Frederick Zugibe:

"These facts have been obscured on both sides by individuals who do not possess the necessary education, training and experience in science to evaluate and interpret the materials and render valid conclusions or who, influenced by their religious or chauvinistic fervor have reached erroneous or untenable suppositions and conclusions, argumentum ad hominem."

Here is a link in case it matters.....

http://www.e-forensicmedicine.net/code.htm
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 04:39 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Shocked Shocked But, if it were proven that it is a child from the point of conception how can you say it's not killing a person or can you? How can you say anyone has the right to decide who lives or who dies?

You would be trashing someone else's rights in order for the mother to have her rights? I just don't understand it.

Ok, I'm flabbergasted I won't deny it. Frank, you have said that God is barbaric on many occasions because he would wipe out innocent children. In this scenarior, YOU would be doing the same thing? I don't understand at all.


Momma Angel,
You should now be able to see the nonsensical views of those who answered in the affirmative. They still do not see that it would be murder under your senario. These folks seem to think that a "woman's rights" trumps any logic, law, morality, common sense, and rights of the baby that (under your proposition) would be considered a living human.

It boggles the mind to try and understand them.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 04:50 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Shocked Shocked But, if it were proven that it is a child from the point of conception how can you say it's not killing a person or can you? How can you say anyone has the right to decide who lives or who dies?

You would be trashing someone else's rights in order for the mother to have her rights? I just don't understand it.

Ok, I'm flabbergasted I won't deny it. Frank, you have said that God is barbaric on many occasions because he would wipe out innocent children. In this scenarior, YOU would be doing the same thing? I don't understand at all.


Momma Angel,
You should now be able to see the nonsensical views of those who answered in the affirmative. They still do not see that it would be murder under your senario. These folks seem to think that a "woman's rights" trumps any logic, law, morality, common sense, and rights of the baby that (under your proposition) would be considered a living human.

It boggles the mind to try and understand them.


The only minds that get boggled by trying to understand that some people feel a woman should have control over her own body...and that the government should not be able to compel her to continue a pregnancy should she choose to terminate it...

...is a very, very, very small mind.

And a closed very, very, very small mind, at that.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 04:51 pm
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
I always find it silly when anti-choice people try to control the woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body. And I find it, yet, extremely silly when men are in favor of it… what the heck does a man know about being pregnant?


I always find it ludricrous in the extreme when someone will try to pretend that the unborn is part of the mother's body.

Doctors consider the unborn a separate patient, and have for many years.

(Interested parties would be well advised to read the amicus brief submitted in the Roe v Wade decision by a group representing physicians.)

The American Academy of Family Physicians wrote:



Fetal medicine: treating the unborn patient[/u][/i]

American Family Physician, Oct, 1995 by Pamela Camosy


The past 10 years have seen dramatic improvements in the understanding of fetal anatomy and physiology, as well as in the technology required to visualize the hidden world of the fetus. With advances in fetal medicine, the unborn patient is the focus more than ever before, with specialists from the fields of obstetrics, neonatology, surgery and even medical ethics and social services joining together. When a family physician is the primary physician, a working knowledge of the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to the unborn patient will enhance the physician's role as advocate for the parents and their baby.

Guiding Principles of Prenatal Diagnosis and Treatment

The maternal-fetal relationship is unique in that it involves two inter-related patients. Physicians rarely visualize or touch the unborn patient directly. Instead they must rely on indirect means of diagnosis, always keeping in mind that the mother's safety and health are paramount and that fetal maneuvers may be undertaken only if they do not place her at inordinate risk.

The development of specific methods of prenatal therapy has stemmed, in large part, from frustration over the failure of neonatal treatment of some conditions. While treatment just after birth is effective for the majority of congenital abnormalities, for many conditions, such as erythroblastosis fetalis, neonatal therapy may be too little, too late. This frustration fortuitously coincided with exponential improvements in fetal ultrasound technology. Real-time ultrasonography provides a dynamic view of the fetus, and improved ultrasound resolution allows more detailed diagnosis. In addition, real-time sonography can be used to guide intricate treatment procedures.

While in the past prenatal therapy has been mostly empiric, experience and ethical considerations have yielded a logical and stepwise approach, which is outlined in Figure 1. Ideally, once the possibility of prenatal therapy is considered, many steps should be undertaken, including studies of animal models, before clinical use.[1] If therapy is successful in animal models, it is then attempted in human fetuses, with investigators reporting the results, even if negative, to one of several multicenter registries. This system allows the sharing of data and the development of patient selection criteria. In general, no prenatal treatment is given to a fetus with severe irreversible damage or a uniformly fatal abnormality.

When a fetus with an abnormality is identified, the clinical team must decide whether prenatal or postnatal treatment, or no treatment, is indicated. Options for postnatal treatment include induced preterm delivery (generally after 32 weeks, gestation) and term delivery, either vaginally or by means of cesarean section. Specialized personnel and equipment can be anticipated to enhance the baby's survival chances. Clinical criteria for selecting those patients suited for prenatal therapy are listed in Table 1.

Table 1
Criteria for Prenatal Therapy
Surgical Treatment of the Fetus

With improved imaging of the fetus came the possibility of applying neonatal surgical techniques to fetuses with anomalies. Fetal procedures range in complexity from needle aspiration of accumulated fluid to hysterotomy and exteriorization of the fetus for surgical repair.

UNIQUE ASPECTS OF PRENATAL SURGERY

Preterm labor is a risk inherent in all invasive procedures and is prevented through maternal administration of betamimetics or indomethacin (Indocin). A careful balance must be maintained between uterine relaxation and the risk of uterine hemorrhage.

Wound healing in the fetus after a surgical procedure is superior to wound healing in neonates. Acute inflammation, fibroplasia and collagen deposition do not occur. The amniotic fluid is a sterile environment rich in substances that stimulate a unique healing process. As a result, fetal skin heals without a scar.[14]

Fetal pain pathways function after six to eight weeks, gestation, often necessitating sedation and anesthesia for both mother and child.[15] Narcotics and benzodiazepines given to the mother enter the fetal circulation; general anesthesia administered to the mother will also anesthetize and immobilize the fetus.

To ensure a safe procedure, fetal paralysis can be effected with pancuronium (Pavulon), administered intravenously or intramuscularly to the fetus.[16]

SPECIFIC PROCEDURES

The most common type of invasive prenatal procedure is sonographically guided intrauterine shunt placement to drain abnormally accumulated fluid, thus allowing normal organ development. Varying degrees of success have been achieved in different fetal organ systems.

Obstructive uropathy, which results in oligohydramnios and pulmonary hypoplasia, is an example of a fetal anomaly that has been treated successfully prenatally. Prenatal treatment prevents irreversible renal damage and allows normal development of the kidneys and lungs. For these reasons, it is superior to neonatal treatment in select cases--specifically, in fetuces with obstruction but preserved renal function as assessed by fetal urinary production, ultrasonic appearance of the kidneys and chemical analysis of fetal urine.[17] Urinary diversion with a vesicoamniotic shunt placed under ultrasonic guidance (Figure 2, is now a routine procedure. Open urinary diversion--ureterostomy or vesicostomy--is being performed on select fetuses (Figure 3), with promising results.[3]

Intrauterine placement of a pleuroamniotic shunt is beneficial in some patients with significant pleural effusion. The mortality rate in untreated fetuses with pleural effusion is high because of compression and poor lung development. Early shunting can prevent such pulmonary hypoplasia.[18] In some fetuses, ascites is treated with paracentesis immediately before delivery to decompress the fetal abdomen for vaginal delivery.[3]

The morbidity and mortality associated with congenital hydrocephalus prompted early enthusiasm for the possibility of in utero shunt placement to allow normal brain development and improve neurologic outcome. During the 1980s, decompression was performed in carefully selected patients by inserting a valved shunt into the lateral ventricle, with the distal end draining into the amniotic fluid. Problems have included dislodgement and clogging of the shunt, but the greatest disappointment has been the lack of improvement in neurologic outcomes in shunted versus unshunted patients, as reported by the International Fetal Surgery Registry.[16] Shunts for hydrocephalus are currently not being placed, but methods for improving the technique and patient selection criteria are being studied.

Because most newborns with diaphragmatic hernia die of pulmonary failure despite appropriate neonatal care, prenatal correction was proposed to prevent compression of the developing lung. Several types of intervention are being studied. Perhaps the most dramatic involves hysterotomy and exteriorization of the fetus, followed by reduction of the bowel from the thorax and surgical repair of the diaphragmatic defect.[19] Several children are now thriving after successful hernia repair in utero. A less invasive technique called PLUG (plug the lung until it grows), involves endoscopic occlusion of the fetal trachea, which results in a beneficial accumulation of lung fluid. As lung volume expands, the herniated intestinal viscera are propelled through the diaphragmatic defect back into the abdomen.[20] Palliative surgery--creation of an artificial gastroschisis--reduces the viscera from the chest in preparation for postnatal diaphragm repair. Finally, immunologic tolerance for postnatal lung transplantation may be induced prenatally.[21] Other fetal procedures, such as those in Table 3,[16,13,16,22-27] are being performed in clinical and research settings.

[TABULAR DATA 3 OMITTED]

Open fetal cardiac surgery is theoretically possible, including ligation of the ductus arteriosus for tetralogy of Fallot, valvulotomy for pulmonic or aortic valve atresia and enlargement of the foramen ovale for hypoplastic left heart syndrome.[3]

Final Comment

Treatment of the unborn patient is an exciting endeavor that is itself in its infancy. The heretofore hidden world of the fetus is coming under closer scrutiny, and the scope of medicine, both its science and its humanity, has been forever broadened. Many prenatal treatments have been proved safe; many more must be subjected to prospective controlled trials to determine outcomes and selection criteria.

Research and clinical advances must be accompanied by exploration of social and ethical questions. In most medical centers where fetal therapy is performed, the many dimensions of each case are studied by an ethics committee of clinicians, ethicists and patient advocates.

Figure 2 reprinted with permission from Hobbins JC, Benacerraf BR, eds. Diagnosis and therapy of fetal anomalies. New York City: Churchill-Livingstone, 1989:273. Figure 3 reprinted with permission from Harrison MR, Golbus MS, eds. he unborn patient. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1990:384.

RELATED ARTICLE: Fetal Medicine Registries

International Fetal Surgery Registry Frank Manning, M.D., Department of Obstetrics-Gynecology, Women's Hospital, Health Sciences Center, 735 Notre Dame Ave., Winnepeg, Manitoba R3E OL8; 204-787-3991

Registry for Treated Cases of Metabolic Fetal Diseases Mark Evans, M.D., Department of Reproductive Genetics, Hutzel Hospital, 4707 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48201; 313-745-7066

Registry for Treated Fetuses with Cardiac Disease Charles Kleinman, M.D., Department of Pediatrics, 333 Cedar St., New Haven, CT 06510; 203-785-2022

[Figure 1-3 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

REFERENCES

[1.] Creasy RK, Resnik R, eds. Maternal-fetal medicine: principles and practice. 3d ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1994. [2.] Pinsky WW, Rayburn WF, Evans MI. Pharmacologic therapy for fetal arrhythmias. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1991;34:304-9. [3.] Harrison MR, Golbus MS, Filly RA, eds. The unborn patient: prenatal diagnosis and treatment. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1990. [4.] Copel JA, Cullen MT, Grannum PA, Hobbins JC. Invasive fetal assessment in the antepartum period. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1990;17:201-21. [5.] Reece EA, Goldstein I, Chatwani A, Brown R Homko C, Wiznitzer A. Transabdominal needle embryofetoscopy: a new technique paving the way for early fetal therapy Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:634-6. [6.] Luks FI, Deprest JA, Vandenberghe K, Brosens IA, Lerut T. A model for fetal surgery through intrauterine endoscopy. J Pediatr Surg 1994; 29:1007-9. [7.] Weiner CP, Williamson RA, Wenstrom KD, Sipes SL, Widness JA, Grant SS, et al. Management of fetal hemolytic disease by cordocentesis. II. Outcome of treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165 (Pt 1):1302-7. [8.] Miller RK. Fetal drug therapy: principles and issues. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1991;34:241-9. [9.] Morales WJ. Antenatal therapy to minimize neonatal intraventricular hemorrhage. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1991;34:328-35. [10.] Reece EA, et al., eds. Medicine of the fetus and mother. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1992. [11.] Evans Ml, Schulman JD. In utero treatment of fetal metabolic disorders. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1991; 34:268-76. 12. Murphy MF, Waters AH, Doughty HA, Hambley H, Mibashan RS, Nicolaides K, et al. Antenatal management of fetomaternal alloimmune thrombocytopenia--a report of 15 affected pregnancies. Transfus Med 1994;4:281-92. [13.] Lin CC, Verp MS, Sabbagha RE, eds. The high-risk fetus. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1993. [14.] Adzick NS, Longaker MT, eds. Fetal wound healing. New York: Elsevier, 1992. [15.] Druffner M. What pain? Linacre Q 1987;51:79-85. [16.] Adzick NS, Harrison MR. Fetal surgical therapy. Lancet 1994;343:897-902. [17.] Gloor JM. Management of prenatally detected fetal hydronephrosis. Mayo Clin Proc 1995;70: 45-52. [18.] Becker R, Arabin B, Novak A, Entezami M, Weitzel HK. Successful treatment of primary fetal hydrothorax by long-time drainage from week 23. Fetal Diagn Ther 1993;8:331-7. [19.] Harrison MR, Adzick NS, Longaker MT, Goldberg JD, Rosen MA, Filly RA, et al. Successful repair in utero of a fetal diaphragmatic hernia after removal of herniated viscera from the left thorax N Engl J Med 1990;322:1582-4. [20.] Hedrick MH, Estes JM, Sullivan KM, Bealer JF, Kitterman JA, Flake AW, et al. Plug the lung until it grows (PLUG): a new method to treat congenital diaphragmatic hernia in utero. J Pediatr Surg 1994; 29:612-7. [21.] Ford WD. Fetal intervention for congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Fetal Diagn Ther 1"94;9:398408. [22.] Pinckert TL, Kiernan SC. In utero nephrostomy catheter placement. Fetal Diagn Ther 1994:9:348-52. [23.] Kyle PM, Lange IR, Menticoglou SM, Harman CR, Manning FA. Intrauterine thoracentesis of fetal cystic lung malformations. Fetal Diagn Ther 1,l94;9:84-7. [24.] Campbell WA, Yamase HT, Salafia CA, Vintzileos AM, Rodis JF. Fetal renal biopsy: technique development. Fetal Diagn Ther 1993;8:135-43. [25.] Meagher SE, Fisk NM, Boogert A, Russell P. Fetal ovarian cysts: diagnostic and therapeutic role for intrauterine aspiration. Fetal Diagn Ther 1993;8: 195-9. [26.] Allan LD, Maxwell DJ, Carminati M, Tynan MJ. Survival after fetal aortic balloon valvoplasty Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;5:90-1. [27.] Canady JW, Landas SK, Morris H, Thompson SA. In utero cleft palate repair in the ovine model. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1994;31:37-44.

PAMELA A. CAMOSY, M.D. is a family physician in private practice in San Antonio, Tex. Dr. Camosy graduated from the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and completed a family practice internship and residency at the Naval Hospital, Jacksonville, Fla.

Address correspondence to Pamela A. Camosy, M.D., Greenway Park Medical Group, 2455 N.E. Loop 410. Suite 100, San Antonio, TX 78217.

COPYRIGHT 1995 American Academy of Family Physicians




But then, you know better, right?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 04:54 pm
real life wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
I always find it silly when anti-choice people try to control the woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body. And I find it, yet, extremely silly when men are in favor of it… what the heck does a man know about being pregnant?


I always find it ludricrous in the extreme when someone will try to pretend that the unborn is part of the mother's body.

Doctors consider the unborn a separate patient, and have for many years.


A woman should be able to make decisions regarding her own body...and pregnancy, admittedly a unique situation, does not take those rights away from her.

Unfortunately, there are those who would have women revert to where they were 2000 years ago...and become chattels of the men in their lives and of the state.

Luckily...those poor boobs are in the minority in our country.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 04:55 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Shocked Shocked But, if it were proven that it is a child from the point of conception how can you say it's not killing a person or can you? How can you say anyone has the right to decide who lives or who dies?

You would be trashing someone else's rights in order for the mother to have her rights? I just don't understand it.

Ok, I'm flabbergasted I won't deny it. Frank, you have said that God is barbaric on many occasions because he would wipe out innocent children. In this scenarior, YOU would be doing the same thing? I don't understand at all.


Momma Angel,
You should now be able to see the nonsensical views of those who answered in the affirmative. They still do not see that it would be murder under your senario. These folks seem to think that a "woman's rights" trumps any logic, law, morality, common sense, and rights of the baby that (under your proposition) would be considered a living human.

It boggles the mind to try and understand them.


The only minds that get boggled by trying to understand that some people feel a woman should have control over her own body...and that the government should not be able to compel her to continue a pregnancy should she choose to terminate it...

...is a very, very, very small mind.

And a closed very, very, very small mind, at that.


Even given the supposition that Momma Angel made if it was somehow decided and proven that life begins at conception? If this is the case, the tiny, closed and unmoved mind is not mine.
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 05:05 pm
real life wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
I always find it silly when anti-choice people try to control the woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body. And I find it, yet, extremely silly when men are in favor of it… what the heck does a man know about being pregnant?


I always find it ludricrous in the extreme when someone will try to pretend that the unborn is part of the mother's body.

Doctors consider the unborn a separate patient, and have for many years.

(Interested parties would be well advised to read the amicus brief submitted in the Roe v Wade decision by a group representing physicians.)


You mean to tell me that man should have the right to claim property over the woman's body? This isn't just funny…it's the ideal concept of a sitcom, buddy.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 05:08 pm
Frank,

Ok, we will just ignore the ad hominems you continually throw out, ok? No big deal.

Let me ask you this. Are you against captial punishment? I believe (I could be wrong though) that you are against the death penalty?

Well, before I continue, I will wait and find out your answer. I don't want to assume or rely on my memory, as this is important.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 05:12 pm
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
real life wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
I always find it silly when anti-choice people try to control the woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body. And I find it, yet, extremely silly when men are in favor of it… what the heck does a man know about being pregnant?


I always find it ludricrous in the extreme when someone will try to pretend that the unborn is part of the mother's body.

Doctors consider the unborn a separate patient, and have for many years.

(Interested parties would be well advised to read the amicus brief submitted in the Roe v Wade decision by a group representing physicians.)


You mean to tell me that man should have the right to claim property over the woman's body? This isn't just funny…it's the ideal concept of a sitcom, buddy.


Claim property?..........Property? Property over a woman's body?

What do you mean Jason?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 05:13 pm
Intrepid and Real Life,

It wouldn't matter if science proved to Frank or some others that it was a human being from conception. They have already said the woman's right trumps the right of the child in that scenario. And they wonder why WE think it's killing a child? Mind-boggling.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 05:15 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Intrepid and Real Life,

It wouldn't matter if science proved to Frank or some others that it was a human being from conception. They have already said the woman's right trumps the right of the child in that scenario. And they wonder why WE think it's killing a child? Mind-boggling.


No, Momma... it is way beyond mind boggling.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 05:19 pm
Intrepid,

I hear ya. It has rendered me speechless on more than one occasion lately and caused me to pray like you would't believe. I take that back. You would believe it.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 05:27 pm
Intrepid wrote:

Quote:
Even given the supposition that Momma Angel made if it was somehow decided and proven that life begins at conception?


Absolutely!

NO MATTER WHAT...A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY...AND YOU, MA, OR THE GOVERNMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ANY SAY IN THE MATTER.


Quote:
If this is the case, the tiny, closed and unmoved mind is not mine.


Oh yes it is. In spades!
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 05:27 pm
Bartikus wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
real life wrote:
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
I always find it silly when anti-choice people try to control the woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body. And I find it, yet, extremely silly when men are in favor of it… what the heck does a man know about being pregnant?


I always find it ludricrous in the extreme when someone will try to pretend that the unborn is part of the mother's body.

Doctors consider the unborn a separate patient, and have for many years.

(Interested parties would be well advised to read the amicus brief submitted in the Roe v Wade decision by a group representing physicians.)


You mean to tell me that man should have the right to claim property over the woman's body? This isn't just funny…it's the ideal concept of a sitcom, buddy.


Claim property?..........Property? Property over a woman's body?

What do you mean Jason?


The subject and the argument here is "man"…if man has the right to forbid a woman from doing what she wants with her body. If man prohibits the woman from doing what she wants with her body, then he's claiming what isn't his…understand? For the love of grey-eyed Athena, daughter to the all-mighty Zeus…it's the woman's body!!!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 05:28 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Frank,

Ok, we will just ignore the ad hominems you continually throw out, ok? No big deal.

Let me ask you this. Are you against captial punishment? I believe (I could be wrong though) that you are against the death penalty?

Well, before I continue, I will wait and find out your answer. I don't want to assume or rely on my memory, as this is important.


Have no problem with the death penalty...except that is very, very costly.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » ABORTION.......
  3. » Page 158
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/18/2025 at 09:55:02