3/07/2006

"Fathers By Force" Form Eight New Chapters in SD


Fathers By Force, a rapist paternity rights advocacy organization, has announced the formation of eight new chapters in South Dakota, in the wake of their much-publicized victory there. "We just want to raise awareness on the issue of rapists' rights." said Alex Braun, an inmate organizer and activist. "They say every child a wanted child. Well, we say every father a wanted father. And apparently, the courts agree with us." Braun expressed concerns about plans for an informal "underground railroad" to help women escape the state. "Hopefully, other states will put the kibosh on that by passing an amendment." Braun's group is also hopeful that the Bush Administration will finally have an incentive to address lax border control. "They can't let these women just leave, after all."
Republican strategists find the idea of an amendment promising for upcoming midterm elections: 'Nothing gets states rights people out in droves on election day like the lure of a constitutional amendment!"

398 comments:

1 – 200 of 398   Newer›   Newest»
Rhino-itall said...

Yes, it's a terrible thing what they're doing in S.Dakota, i mean trying to save unborn children like that..... who do they think they are? Next you're gonna tell me they want to recite the pledge of allegiance in school.... Bastards!

That Damned Jezebel said...

As much god as their amendment sloughing fingers can muster...I hear thats the new motto, rhino

Rhino-itall said...

According to Scalia, roe was a bad decision. There is no "right" to abortion in the constitution. I'm a big Scalia fan. (surprise) Besides roe barely exists anymore. the most important part of roe was the trimester deal, that's why it was able to get through. That went the way of the dinousaur, and now we're killing babies as they're being born, literally seconds before in some cases. To me that's the problem. not the "morning after pill". I think S.D. lawmakers are over reaching here though, i think a outright ban on partial birth, and an exception for rape/incest/health of mother would be easier to pass.

That Damned Jezebel said...

No Rhino, that does not surprise me at all. Just don't stare at my decisis.

Easier to pass, or the right thing to do?

I think many of us are in favor of the partial birth abortion ban. Well, I am. But it depends on the definition of life. Thats the trouble.If it is at conception, its all a fight for some people. If its about relative viability, independence, its at about six months. If its about independence, well, I suppose eight months would be acceptable for that camp. Some say everything should be prohibited, some say anything goes. I think most Americans support choice in first trimester, extenuating circumstances for the second, and almost no criteria for third trimester if I had to guess.

I don't think many Americans say 'anything goes'.

Leslie said...

Hi Lily,
I've linked to you on my blog too [and LOC].

Is this group a bad joke? Rapists shouldn't have paternity rights.

That Damned Jezebel said...

Yeah, its a bad joke- to highlight how assanine this is- the point is being made by the state, not by us.

Left of Center said...

Fatherhood not withstanding, these "religious folks" need to reexamine their theological stances. Isn't it the work of the church to save souls not lives? If so there end result may be valid, but the whole reason they give for banning abortion would not be. You see, if the more Christ-like duty of saving the soul was the real reason, then these folks were be more concerned about the mother having the abortion and the doctor performing it. I would assume that the souls of aborted babies would get a free pass to heaven. Is this a really weird point? Ok, back to eating my Van Camp Pork and beans.

edjog said...

You know what? I cannot tell if this is serious... I mean, i'd not be surprised by any lunatic, repressive, regressive legislation going on in the US... but surely not? Rapists rights? In a nation with capital punishment? Does the hypocrisy know no bounds?

Something i really think needs to be stressed here is that a woman's body is not the property of anyone but herself: personally, i cannot see a justification for any legislation which seeks to undermine her right to do with it as she pleases; except where that actually does impinge upon the rights of a person. Even a living new-born baby is not a person. It has less of any criteria by which personhood could be measured than a chimpanzee, but i don't see many people clamouring for a bill of rights for them, or any of our other Great Ape cousins. Although, actually, i'm in favour of a limited version.

Unless, of course, a religious argument about the sanctity of human life only was espoused. But then again, i do believe that the seperation of church and state is supposed to be a fundamental tenet of the US Constitution. Still, there's no talking to the followers of organised religions: their ability to reason has been subsumed by their need to cling to a spurious sense of community; mockery is the only fit response, imho.

In that vein: sanctity? What would a follower of barbarous repression know about sanctity? Not content to ruin their own potential for enjoyable life, no, they must see to it that as many others suffer as possible. To prevent them from having to suffer the pangs of jealousy!

Thanx for the link, btw, fosco. Reciprocated.

Lew Scannon said...

The reason Christianazis oppose abortion are numerous.1). They fear that abortion is the devil's way of preventing Baby Jesus from coming back (like that's gonna happen). Apparently their all-powerful God is only all powerful some of the time.2). It's hard for child less couples to adopt a healthy white baby. Apparently when their all powerful God says he doesn't think you'll be good parents, they don't listen (also this is a tad bit racist).3) A woman's place is chained to the stove in the kitchen squeezing out puppies to fight in Jesus' name against the barbarian Muslims. The hypocrisy of the right on this matter is stunning. They say the government should stay out of their rights, but should intrude on the rights of women. They claim to protect the rights of the unborn, then support a war where our own army is using depleted uranium, which has been proven to causebirth defects, some deadly, in the children of US soldiers returning from Iraq. And of course, once the child is born, they deny it any federal benefits, or even any sort of health care. That's your compassionate conservatism for you.

LILY BRANFORD said...

Damn Lew, testify!

Rex Kramer, Danger Seeker said...

Thank God for those brave South Dakotans, er, South Dakotaites, um PATRIOTS! These people recognize that a life is a life is a life, and that the fertilized egg of a "victim" of rape (who more than likely had it cominng) or incest (if she didn't want it, why'd she dress so purty for daddy?) is as entitled to life as you or I. Well, maybe not you, since everyone reading this is an America-hating hippie, but certainly I!

Rex

P.S. If this comment doesn't get the hate mail flowing, nothing will.

MMark said...

This is a good discussion, and it is also a good example of why people believing like the "majority" of posters are dooming themselves to loose the rights that they believe important, like the right to a legal abortion.
You(sterotypical liberal thinkers) give no creedence to the people who truely believe that the act of sucking a developed fetus out of a woman's womb is a crime, regardless of who put it there. Instead of considering that you are perhaps alienating athiests with morals and convictions, agnostic folks, non-practicing Catholics, practicing Catholics, Jews(practicing or not), Muslims(practicing or not), and worshipers of any religion that involves Jesus, Mohamad, Buddah, and some greek God's. You seem to classify all who believe in something that they can't directly touch to be fools.
It is partially because of this reason that women might eventually loose the right to legal abortions in some states. It is not soley because of the conservative groups , but because of your one thinking mind(s) inability to sell those conservative groups on your product, which is full, unmonitored, legal abortions.
Don't give the Republicans so much credit, they are not that bright(easy to footnote).
Your problem is that you lack any organized form of communication. If there was a way to sew all the liberal blogs together and come up with a consensus you all could change the world.
I'll use your own comments as an example of your patented way to loose a fight.
LEFT OF CENTER
1. "these "religious folks".

2. "I would assume that the souls of aborted babies would get a free pass to heaven"

3. "Isn't it the work of the church to save souls not lives?"

EDJOG SAID.
1. " Even a living new-born baby is not a person. It has less of any criteria by which personhood could be measured than a chimpanzee, but i don't see many people clamouring for a bill of rights for them, or any of our other Great Ape cousins. Although, actually, i'm in favour of a limited version."

2. "Still, there's no talking to the followers of organised religions: their ability to reason has been subsumed by their need to cling to a spurious sense of community; mockery is the only fit response, imho."( replace organized religion with mainstream liberal's).

3. "What would a follower of barbarous repression know about sanctity?"

lew scannon said.

1. "The reason Christianazis oppose abortion..."
2. " Apparently their all-powerful God is only all powerful some of the time".
3."A woman's place is chained to the stove in the kitchen squeezing out puppies to fight in Jesus' name against the barbarian Muslims."
4. The Christianazis..." say the government should stay out of their rights, but should intrude on the rights of women. They claim to protect the rights of the unborn, then support a war where our own army is using depleted uranium, which has been proven to causebirth defects, some deadly, in the children of US soldiers returning from Iraq. And of course, once the child is born, they deny it any federal benefits, or even any sort of health care".( in one comment Lew has alienated all organized religions, anyone supporting the war, and those who have spent there lives working for the VA).

It is this type of disorganized thinking that leads to your consistant defeats. If you realize that groups in this country represent others, many who think differently then you, and you learn how to effectivly "sell" an idea to these people , then you all might have a shot. Until then though, with the exception of the occasional walk-in, you will be preaching to the choir.( Most of Hollywood is exempt from this last comment).

Rhino-itall said...

did someone say a living newborn baby is not a person? Umm ok. so how is eveyone feeling today?

seriously though fosco made sense there at the top.i too think most people would agree with the first trimester, which is the original roe ruling. I too think that partial birth should be banned altogether, and i think most people would agree with that. and i think it would be easier to get through, and it would be the right thing to do.

LILY BRANFORD said...

Perhaps it is not obvious that blogs are not cookie cutter articulations of a view. Even among us, on this blog, we have differences in views. And further, commenters come from all persuasions, stitching together does NOT require that we all have the same views. In fact there were many views expressed in these comments and many views have been expressed here in the past. Let me go out on a limb and suggest that ego and competition stop MANY people from doing REAL stitching. Stitching is perhaps another subject we can touch on later.

Who said that liberals categorically believe that NO restrictions are EVER appropriate? Some do, some do not. I don't agree with saline births at 37 weeks- but thats ME. The majority of Americans seem to believe the criteria changes considerably after the first trimester. Many clinics require women to wait for the 14-16 week window. I know women that had to come back further in for their procedural reasons.

The criticism of the left is often based on this idea that to be effective and cohesive we must be stripped of all variance and placed into a neat package to 'sell' against the 'on message' republicans. Even people on the left insist that the problem is message, or lack of. Lack of clarity. What do we stand for? Well- unlike people that are dictated to, we stand for many things- only I will agree we do not sell THAT very well.

But is it possible that there is some strength in our diversity of opinion, the idea that people can formulate policy based on multiple and often competing interests? You will NEVER EVER get consensus on when life begins. Never. People cannot debate faith, spirituality, convictions, etc.

You can only go so far. Then it breaks down, we all know this. That is why I believe in choice because I know my reasoning does not apply to everyone in America. Choice is the only way to address a spectrum of beliefs. Consensus will not address it.

It sounds like you are saying that we should be more accommodating of a middle ground? I think many of us are in the early, rare, prevention camp. Not in the "who cares" camp. But the 'lets make it as unnecessary as possible' camp. Certainly it is not helpful to prevent women from getting contraception or plan B. And other technology that may be on the horizon.

Lew Scannon said...

What Fosco was refering to in his original post was the lack of safeguards for women who have been impregnated by rape. Not only does she have to go through the horror of some slime bucket forcing himself upon her, now they are stating that she has to carry the result of the crime with her for nine months, reminding her through every day of morning sickness, every moment until the painful horror of delivery of the sadistic act of rape. What I was referring to was the hypocrisy of those beer swilling brain damaged chemically imbalanced flag waving paranoiacs who oppose abortion, yet support a war where we drop white phosphorous, which burns through to the bone, on civilian populations containing women children and babies. Where we send our troops to be exposed to depleted uranium that will not only cause birth defects to their children, can also lead to uterine cancer in their wives, as well as numerous health problems for the soldiers themselves, all in the name of Christianity.

tp said...

It goes beyond that- there is the issue of whether or not a woman can prevent the rapist from custody or a say in adoption! Termination of rights enters into this now.

Thats the real subject here, not just the SD law although that is important and has more reaching consequences for more people. But this is kind of a new wrinkle. In the past many have said rape is different. but- This supreme court is different too, you'll see. life is life and a rapists baby is a baby. They will not succeed on that count but Roe will be thrown out as soon as a good case comes up that tests the scenario the way they want. The case that will be the undoing will come froma challenge of SD and they are already preparing I am sure. All part of the long term plan.

Past that is the matter of letting these men have an actual say in the placement of this baby, ludicrous. thats why it is such a crazy joke because it is not really funny in that context, is it? I am pro-life mostly, in that I think after the very beginning it is like murder, but thats just my take not for a woman to be forced to accept. So I keep my mouth shut and let others decide. I feel what I feel. I can say I am on the left but am religious, Lutheran but see religion as force of peace, not violence. So what can I do? If we all had the same beliefs, but we don't.

But a rapist should have NO say! IN anything.

MMark said...

I respect you opinion, but in general, liberal bloggers leave a bad taste in the mouth's of American voters.
The problem with your opponent's(conservatives) is that they do vote, and a good portion of your "army"(liberals) does not. You are armed with free thinking youth's and early thirties and forties, and they(conservatives) fill there ranks with established thirtysomes to senior citizens, they own the vote.
All I state is that you (liberals) should spend more time comming up with a plan in which you could effectivly communicate your beliefs and motives to a group(conservatives) that believes differently then you. Bill Clinton was a pro at doing just that. The blog circut does no good at all(in my thoughts) in changing the things with which you disagree. It is a forum for people of like minds to compasionaltly insult those who believe differently from them.
It gives us the oppourtunity to get cheered on for being geo-centric, ethno-centric, and faith-centric. It allows us to do that while not only feeling good about our posts, but feeling better because we re-inforced the hate twords our enemy of the day.
Perhaps your thinking group has no interest in unity, maybe you feel that the current anarchy will work. I wish you the best, but history tell's me that you will lose.
Did woman gain the right to vote by staying in the kitchen and saying how much it pissed them off , or was it because they organized, and took it to the people who could vote.
A wild child late night approach to real life will not even make you a bookmark in history. Get onboard.

Wadena said...

Rhino.....how did you get your head up your ass with that big horn on your nose?

Inquiring minds want to know.

:D

Xanthippas said...

Not that anybody cares, but I'm about fed up with every two bit right-winger out there who's never so much as read Roe proclaiming that the Constitution does not support any right to an abortion. Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. The right to an abortion is premised on the right of privacy, which actually has a long and respected constitutional jurisprudence, only in other contexts. There are plenty of liberties that we enjoy these days which are not explicitly laid out in the constitution; they instead are derivations and extrapolations of well-respected constitutional principles. Nowhere does the Constitution say you have a right to talk on the phone without the government listening in at all times, and yet...we do. Saying that a "right" must be explicitly written into the constitution for it to exist indicates a failure to understand history or Constitutional jurisprudence. Additionally, you will not find me to be one of those liberals who believes that since Roe is a "weak" decision, that it would be best to let this be decided by the democratic process so we can have an "honest debate" on abortion, because I do believe that a woman has a right to utter control over her body to a certain point, and I'm unwilling to see that provided to her in some states, and taken away utterly in others. Roe, and it's permutations in Casey, should be upheld. 'Nuff said.

Earl Bockenfeld said...

This might become a serious first-responder training issue in South Dakota, instead of just a discussion point. One of my favorite forced birth conundrums guaranteed to make wingnut "life begins at conception" heads explode. If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you can only save a petri dish with five blastulae or a two-year old child, which do you save?

Here's an extension of the 5 blastulae or the 2-year-old question. Do first responders, like fire fighters, have training and equipment to rescue petri dishes? Would they run into a burning building to save them even if there weren't any 2 year olds? Do they have protocols? Will they need to train in South Dakota? What are the emergency evacuation policies in fertility clinics?

I can't wait for the first South Dakota Republican politician to get nailed in a paternity suit because a DNA test proved him to be somebody's papa. They are going to be wishing they had their abortion clinics back in business.....

Chronic (male) masturbators will soon be prosecuted under the Genocide Convention.

You know who you are.

MMark said...

Xanthippas said... " I'm about fed up with every two bit right-winger out there who's never so much as read Roe proclaiming that the Constitution does not support any right to an abortion. Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about".

Whenever I'm trying to convince someone the way I think is the right way I always go in with aggression, that works best.

Thanks for supporting my argument.

a rose is a rose said...

thank you for the posting fosco - if you only knew.........

LILY BRANFORD said...

Well not to bring this up every time, but isn't it a bit ridiculous to presume to know what any of us do in our real lives? Or who we are? You make sweeping conclusions about us based on what you see, and assume that you have it all down? See every now and then we go through this with somebody who comes along and critices one of us for what we are doing, not doing, etc. In all fairness, you have no idea. You have no idea what our efforts include, what or who we are in real life. You seem to think we hang our hopes on this-the one thing you personally can observe- as the extent of what we do? How is any idea furthered by coming here and drawing broad conclusions about people and what they do, with so little to base it on?

Further, step up on this. Would you mind telling us what YOU do? Are you Clinton the Great's advisor? What?? If criticism is a waste of time, and our actions so misguided,certainly you must engage in far more than participating in what you purport to scorn, right? SO, tell us what you do that is more noble. More constructive. Tell us how you apply your expertise. Tell us an example of something you do that defies your own criticism made here. It would really benefit us to know. TELL us how you are better- please. As a public service. An example, please. Something you are doing that is in line with your comments. That is superior, that is better than what you imagine we are doing.

We are a diverse group of people and we do not fit into your 'angry liberals that do nothing but mental masturbation' all day box. And I'll tell you, nothing feels good about being characterized erroneously and being put on the defense as though all that you conclude is accurate. You presume to know what motivates us and what we are trying or not trying to achieve.

I never said I expected a blog to change the world. What I expected was to engage in dialogue on issues so we can benefit from many views. THIS does far more than making up the positions and activities of others, which is what you are doing. Much of what you say about 'liberal bloggers' has nothing to do with the primary goal here.

This is a very,very small part of who most of us are. Your generalizations and assumptions are far less constructive because in the end you don't have to 'hear' to do what you are doing, you base your opinions of people here on your predetermined assumptions and then set out to criticize us for what you wrongfully assume. There's even less point in that than blogging, really.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
LILY BRANFORD said...

Ok as an explanation, I did remove the comment because it was an attempt to give identifying information, and while I really have no idea if it is true because I don't really know the blogger in question- I just figured it was best to delete it. It was not to censor something I did not agree with, as most of you know, we let those stand as part of the discussion. Even the nasty things, we don't censor.

Rhino-itall said...

Couple of things:
Wadena, lets just say lots of lube

Lily what is stitching?

xanthippas i've read roe, but i'm not a lawyer so i go by the judgement of someone who is not only a lawyer, but one of the most respected legal minds in history. I think i mentioned that earlier.
Maybe you're smarter than Scalia, maybe you see something he doesn't, but i haven't seen your qualifications, just your emotions. and clearly that's the way the roe case was decided, by emotion, and incorrectly.

LILY BRANFORD said...

Stitching didn't come from me, it came from a comment. About liberal blogs not stitching themselves together, our futility, blah blah.

Rhinalito, we know you love Scalia. But his is not the only qualified legal mind out there that a person can align themselves with. (He's no Justice Black, for damn sure :)) Obviously it takes SOME degree of credential to be put on the Supreme Court, thankfully those with little ended up just being a strategic p.r. nightmares. Borkgates.

But the crux of your contribution on Roe rests on the fact that Scalia is distinguished and intelligent and therefore HIS view of the constitution and unsettled law is beyond reproach. I happen to like Ginsburg and think SHE is competent and has an authority. Are you suggesting we discuss law in terms of who offers the best intellectual pedigree? Should they arm wrestle? That is why some dissent, the system is based on that dynamic.We know that Scalia and Thomas have a certain take on things, just as seperationists have a take on establishment. But that is what makes our system so fluid, because we do not defer to an authoritative dictator or elitist body entrusted by virtue of their presumed expertise. Our legal system is based on the ability to revisit settled law on the basis of significant developments as per SCALIA. And also to assert that some issues are done to death, resolved. It is true that Scalia and others like him view Roe as flawed, abortion as unsettled, the law much like a dirty sock put back in the drawer when it should be dealt with. I think that this court will in fact revisit the matter, very soon, as challenges of SD come in, they will choose the ideal case with which to settle this question to THEIR satisfaction. By all means correct me if I have it wrong, Rhino. I'm not a lawyer either.

Rhino-itall said...

Lily i don't like Scalia simply because of his intellect, i believe in his process as well. He's more of an originalist. he doesn't believe in a living breathing constitution that we can just change and mold to the times. If you can change the rules of the game at halftime, what game are you playing?
X says we're twobit, we haven't read roe, etc. i was pointing out that i might be that but scalia is not.
Excuse me for not sharing your enthusiasm for ginsburg, but i have a hard time with someone who was the lead council for a communist organization and was the first director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project.
I don't know for sure, but i think maybe she's a bit of an activist.
Scalia is the opposite, he believes that Scotus should have less power, he doesn't think the unelected judiciary should be so powerful. I'm with him on that. i don't think tyranny is a good thing whether i agree with the position of the tyrants or not.
Opinion is not wrong, so you can be right and i can be right, but the law shouldn't be so fluid. There is no guarantee to abortion in the constitution. It is not implied in any of the amendments either. It was decided by activist judges who act more like politicians.
By the way, according to what i've read, Scalia has never called for a ban on abortion. Scalia's position if i understand it correctly is that it is a legislative matter to be decided by the individual states. Of course there is always the chance i could be wrong too...... oh no that's not right, i forgot that i know it all. whew, i thought i might have been mistaken for a second there.

Rhino-itall said...

Lily i don't like Scalia simply because of his intellect, i believe in his process as well. He's more of an originalist. he doesn't believe in a living breathing constitution that we can just change and mold to the times. If you can change the rules of the game at halftime, what game are you playing?
X says we're twobit, we haven't read roe, etc. i was pointing out that i might be that but scalia is not.
Excuse me for not sharing your enthusiasm for ginsburg, but i have a hard time with someone who was the lead council for a communist organization and was the first director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project.
I don't know for sure, but i think maybe she's a bit of an activist.
Scalia is the opposite, he believes that Scotus should have less power, he doesn't think the unelected judiciary should be so powerful. I'm with him on that. i don't think tyranny is a good thing whether i agree with the position of the tyrants or not.
Opinion is not wrong, so you can be right and i can be right, but the law shouldn't be so fluid. There is no guarantee to abortion in the constitution. It is not implied in any of the amendments either. It was decided by activist judges who act more like politicians.
By the way, according to what i've read, Scalia has never called for a ban on abortion. Scalia's position if i understand it correctly is that it is a legislative matter to be decided by the individual states. Of course there is always the chance i could be wrong too...... oh no that's not right, i forgot that i know it all. whew, i thought i might have been mistaken for a second there.

LILY BRANFORD said...

Can you explain to my why people who believe in an originalist interpretation are so opposed to the causes taken up by the ACLU? Its just a side question. For example, if the establishment clause forbids public support for religion, why do people who claim to adhere to the Constitution hate the ACLU for defending a case on the basis of public money promoting a religious element? If you are an 'originalist' than you no doubt believe in the strict interpretation of providing for the public welfare, etc.. The right to protest and demonstrate and exercise free speech. The right to equality under the law. The ACLU is about asserting those rights spelled out by the Constitution, and yet you are so adamantly against them. Why? The essence of small government/conservativism is its emphasis on the individual. Yet when the ACLU goes to bat for individuals whose rights are being violated, they are the ones called communists? Civil rights are not exactly a communist characteristic. The over reaching state ironically is often what they dispute. I would think a communist mindset would render individuals far benaeth the will of the state, by its definition. No? If the ACLU were communists their agenda would be to supress all individual rights in favor of the state. I bet you would even agree with some of their cases, Rhino, if you got past your bias.

See the trouble is that on the right you have originalists mixed with thumpers and you have to sort out that contradiction. Your politicians must answer to both- we all talk about your clear message but actually the right condradicts itself all the time. The flock hears that the ACLU is a bad liberal batch of commies and so everyone falls in line? Why?

Now the states rights thing is a different matter. But why is it that with abortion and other matters, people are staunch states rights advocates. But when two gay guys want to get married, the right are all about amendments? What would a Scalia fan say of that?

See this is the problem we clash with all the time. Many of you will argue passionately about state rights, but push for federal laws when it comes to the wingnut agenda. Family based rights and autonomy, but debate Terri Schiavo all night. Strict interpretation, but permit faith based initiatives, and violate establishment. Pro Life, but pro death penalty. Anti social welfare, pro corporate welfare. Anti regulation, but pro surveillance and privacy invasion. Pro business rights, anti-people rights. Pro-globalism, but anti-outsourcing. Pro-fiscal accountability, but anti transparency.

Blame the smallest recipients of governemntal assistance, let the largest recipients off the hook. The ones who can best handle their own situations get the governmental love, while the poorest among us get screwed without dinner, punished. Was that the intent of the Constitution? I don't think so.

Earl Bockenfeld said...

Does 'life' begin at conception? Well, obviously the egg and the sperm are alive, so it depends on which cell's life we're focusing on and which is ignored. What happens when the one lucky sperm among millions reaches an egg first? What are the steps that can go right or wrong after that? What does the term conception cover?

Anyway, the point is that less than half of all the blind dates between sperm and egg make it successfully. And that's a conservative estimate. In most cases when the sperm strikes the egg's surface, the sperm dies, the egg dies, and/or whatever stage the embryo or pre-embryo is in, dies. So for the soundbite answer, it would be perfectly accurate to respond to the question of "What happens after conception", to say, "Usually, death".

Pregnancy results from a cascade of events, all as important as any other. There's fertilization, division, implantation, growing of the umbilicus, etc. If one of these events doesn't happen, there is no possibility of birth.

Why don't pro-lifers talk about ectopic pregnancies (where an egg implants outside the uterus, like in a fallopian tube). Even crazy Tom Coburn doesn't accept an ectopic pregnancy as life, since he performed an "abortion" to save a woman (sterilizing her against her will in the process). So, somewhere in the backs of their minds, they know the difference between a fertilized egg and a pregnancy.

Another example is known as a "blighted ovum", in which the blastocyst implants properly in the uterine lining and begins the process of gastrulation. Problem is that due to a chromosomal abnormality, the part of the blastocyst that becomes the yolk sac develops, but the part that is to become the embryo does not. So, conception has taken place, but no baby! Therefore, even though fertilization has taken place (the point at which lifers claim that there is a human), no human develops.

"When does life begin?"

The priest says "at conception," the minister says "at birth," the rabbi says, "once the kids have finished school and moved out of the house."

Its all a matter of perspective.

The mystic in me says:
The soul begins when the parents merge their own into a new one, usually before intercourse: then they reproduce a body for them to live in.

The homo sapiens begins when the total chromosomes of the gametes combine in a fertilized egg.

The person begins when they are accepted by a social group: usually within a few days after birth and often marked by a ceremony.

Life doesn't begin for a single person, who is a point in a continuum of lives reproducing since at latest the RNA churning in the primordial organic soup. "A life" is retroactive, without a beginning - just a transformation. And open-ended into the future, as the soul transcends the death of the human, the homo sapiens, even the person lost to history, but whose own life lived changes the world indelibly for all time, their soul part of the life the Universe.

"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt

Rhino-itall said...

Lilly, there is no clash, the establishment clause DOESN'T forbid funding go religious institutions, it forbids the ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL RELIGION. That doesn't mean that the ten commandments can't exist in a public park in idaho.
I bet i would agree with some ACLU causes, i bet you would agree with some President Bush causes, but you hate him anyway.
Gay marraige should be a state by state thing, but not a state supreme court, like in Mass. Where the supreme court made up a right to gay marraige. Read my comments, it should be a legislative deal.
If you're pro life, you want to defend an innocent life, that doesn't compare to pro death penalty for a convicted criminal.
I don't believe in corporate welfare. I do believe that we should help the neediest among us, i do believe the best way to do that is privately, not through a big government program. I'm a wingnut? i don't know what that means, but the ACLU is a commie organization. I know what that means.

Drew said...

How is defending American civil liberties a communist action? Wasn't the USSR adept at eliminating civil liberties, or was I just asleep during the Cold War. Please explain.

Earl Bockenfeld said...

Rhino, why is ACLU defending a drug addict, like Rush Limbaugh communistic instead of just plain stupid? And why do you think that defending the US constitution and the Bill of Rights is communistic? Did you also think the founding Fathers were communists?

fosco said...

OH For FUCKING PETES SAKE. You either have to relearn communism, learn about the ACLU, learn about civil liberties, or perhaps all of these things. You're not being reasonable. Who is going to provide privately for the poor? The bible for food programs? The tithe AND tax society?

You know you don't have an explanation for their inconsistencies. Maybe some are not your own inconsistencies but you seem to lump the left together alot. For a rapists baby, a life is a life. Life begins at conception. For a criminal, life ends at conviction? Thats scary.

get to the part about state rights and your anti-gay federal amendments again... you are saying that you do not want judicial activists- rather legislative actions- ok. Hear you somehwat there actually- but since you also say the constitution is not a living thing that should change, you would agree that an amendment banning gay marriage is wrong then? So federal courts should be limited but federal legislative power should not be proportionately limited if I understand you right. I have no problem with state rights but I don't think this administration is clear on where you republicans really stand.

So no gay marriage amendment then. right? Gay marriage and abortion should not be dealt with by courts, but by lawmakers, despite the fact that their consitutionality is subject to review?

rev. billy bob gisher ©2005 said...

"DOESN'T forbid funding go religious institutions, it forbids the ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL RELIGION. That doesn't mean that the ten commandments can't exist in a public park in idaho."

you know the constitution does not have one single line that says you can say whatever you want.

article 1:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."


note to rhino and all other illiterates:

"abridging the freedom of speech"

does not use the exact words "freedom of speech" it says "abridging". just like there are no exact words saying "seperation of church and state" in article 1 (which is your logic trail)

since you obviously do not know what "respecting an establishment" means then you could not possibly know what "abridging means".

so thsi means you do not have freedom of speech according to your "logic" trail, and that means you must shut the fuck up.

Rhino-itall said...

thanks reverend, that was very intelligent and christian of you. so what you should do is explain to me how the founding fathers didn't want any money going to support any religion and then appropriated money for christian missions in the indian territories. of course that's just one of thousands of examples i could cite, but its one i don't hear very often so i'm trying to stay fresh. also, i would like to know how allowing the pledge of allegiance to be recited, or the ten commandments to exist in a public place is abridging any other religion. Also, don't get so emotional, that's why people have so much trouble taking the libs seriously.

Anyway, fosco i do not believe that there should be a federal gay marraige amendment. do you? I do believe in states rights, and i do believe legislature's should be subject to review.
you don't understand me correctly, and i don't speak for the current or any other administration.
I didn't know this discussion was about Bush, but i guess you can't help yourself.
Finally, the aclu was founded by a group that included admitted communists,socialists, and anarchists. This is no secret. their goal was not, and is not to protect the bill of rights.

Kelli said...

If we're going to protect unborn children we should begin by protecting the preconceived.

I hear a lot of men get their prostatates removed just becaause of a silly inconvenience called cancer. I also hear that some men even go so far as to have chemo or radiation treatment for other forms of cancer which might render them sterile, not only killing the present load of little upstream swimmers, but murdering their unborn sperm in the process!


This is an abomination. It flies in the face of their Biblical right to keep women knocked up and barefoot! As long as their prostates are useful in the production of viable sperm we should clamp down on these ungodly procedures on the grounds that it destroys something which could conceivably develope into human life. After all, the sperm has a potential for developing into a cute, cuddly baby. How many adult men do you know who qualify as cute and cuddly anyhow? HMMMMMM?! Who CARES if some clumsy, plodding, hairy chested male suffers a long, painful death from cancer?

Life begins the moment an egg or a sperm cell comes into being. The cell is sacred the adult is not.

Better we watch a living, adult male die a long, painful death from cancer than we endanger the preconceived. I realize this takes away a man's right to control his reproductive rights, but these are MEN that we're talking about here.

I also think we should throw men in jail when they masturbate or have wet dreams. The seed they sow, afterall is human life.

Remember--the idea behind a devout, Biblical attitude towards life is to create as much misery as possible while mimimizing anything that might create a moment's pleasure for anyone. In this regard I think it might be argued that if misery were a blessing, those of us in the prolife movement must be saints.

Kelli

PS. If men had to have babies the human race would be exitinct in 70 years or less.

Rhino-itall said...

hey kelli how have you been? still stuck in the barefoot and pregnant faze of the feminist propoganda movement i see.
Isn't that a little bit old now? i mean that was the mantra back in the 70's right? shouldn't you have moved on to equal pay for equal work or something by now?

Drew said...

Rhino, you are correct that the ACLU was founded by some members with Communist worldviews, such as Roger Nash Baldwin. Baldwin also pushed the ACLU to BAR commnunists from the organization in the 40s as the Communist ideology of the early 20th century had birthed totalitarian dictatorships in many regimes. The ACLU did not and still does not support this form of government. Just because a founders political affiliation was Communist or Socialist in 1917 does not support your claim that the group now has a communist agenda.

From Wikipedia:

The ACLU's stated mission is to defend the rights of all citizens as enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. While the bulk of the ACLU's cases involve the First Amendment, Equal Protection and Due Process and cases involving the right to privacy (see, e.g., the Louisiana chapter [11]), the organization has taken positions on a wide range of controversial issues. In particular, the ACLU:

Supports the separation of church and state; under this mandate, the ACLU:

Opposes the government-sponsored display of religious symbols on public property;

Opposes official prayers, religious ceremonies, or moments of silence in public schools or schools funded with public money;

Supports full first amendment rights of citizens, organizations and the press, including school newspapers;

Supports reproductive rights, including the right to use contraception and to have an abortion;

Supports full civil rights for homosexuals, including government benefits for homosexual couples equal to those provided for heterosexual ones;

Supports affirmative action as a means of redressing past discrimination and achieving a racially diverse student body [12];

Supports the rights of defendants and suspects against unconstitutional police practices;

Supports the decriminalization of drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana [13];

Opposes demonstration permits and other requirements for protests in public places;

Is critical of current surveillance camera practices, citing privacy violations [14].

So where in that do you read in that they have a Communist Agenda?

Anonymous said...

If you can stand another 2-cents. Everytime this abortion issue comes up, it always ends up with big discussions about religion, god, when does life begin, and it gets real ugly, real fast.

But realistically, we need to all recognize that women have always had abortions and always will. Period. God & religion & destruction of possible life are all factors for each woman to decide. And they will decide based on their various backgrounds & beliefs (there's your societal input). Always have, always will. We all know abortion is not the only alternative & is rarely a first choice.

With abortion, the only issue I see is whether it remains available as a safe, medical procedure or reverts to the back-alley dangerous folk-cure it always was. Are you all too young to remember the bad old days of bloody deaths by self-administered methods too gruesome to contemplate?

One other possible issue is who pays for it. Freely available, or restricted somehow? But given my pragmatic approach, I see no purpose in discussing that issue with anyone who isn't also propounding freely available birth-control. Period. OK, that my full 2-cents.
D.K.

Anonymous said...

Imagine you are an incest victim and that you have to carry your uncle's baby.

I had an abortion when I was 13-years-old. My mother had separated from my dad and we ended up at my uncle's place, where he forced himself on me for the better part of six months. I was twelve years old when it started, and thirteen when I found out that I was pregnant. I was and still am THANKFUL for legal abortion. I do not feel guilty. I do not feel remorseful. And I certainly do not think that it was murder. It was a RELIEF Period.

Anyone who would force a woman or a child to carry an inhuman abomination like that is utterly inhuman him or herself.

Want to talk about rape victims? I can tell you here and now that my uncle's advances were more often than not painful and violent. Lately I have heard these prolifers claiming that it is impossible for women to get pregnant during rape because of the violent nature of the physical movements which take place during the assault. This is a scientific crock of shit, but they either believe it or are spreading lies by choice.

I see no reason to take these over Christianized fools (or are they UNDER-Christianized fools?) seriously when they distort so many facts.

I opernly encourage the Christian Right (which is neither) to ablish abortion. A majority o Americans believe in aborition for rape, incest, life of the mother, and, if I'm not mistaken, for the first ten weeks. Try going back to the days of back alleys, coat hangers, and trips down stairs, and the Christian Right will make the GOP a minority party for another forty years.

Daniel Gallagher said...

What's wrong with the Pledge of Allegiance in Schools? I said it as a kid! Some of the most powerful nations in the history of human civilization have imposed mandatory pledges, including Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. I'm damned fucking proud that the Reich Wingers want to put us in such good company! But then again, I've never minded being a bastard either!

Enlightenment said...

The problem here is that ultrafundamentalists want more than anything else to create an theocracy, but they can't come out and admit as much because the minute they do they reveal exactly how Unamerican and repressive their agenda really is.

As a matter of course, women and women's rights are always placed on the chopping block first, simply because religiouis fanatics know that if they can control the sexuality of their opponents they can control anything. We see this in cults, where the cult leader assumes control over every aspect of his victim's existance.

Moreover, the idea that we have to save every fertilized egg is arachaic in the extreme. These people are basing their prolife views on literal interpretations of the Bible, although the Biblical quotes pertaining to abortion are somewhat fuzzy to say the least.

Of more interest, the Bible was written at a time when warring nations needed massive numbers of soliders to protect themselves from invasion and to do the actual invading. War, disease, starvation, shorter life expedctancies, and higher infant mortality rates prompted larger families.

That might have worked 5000 years ago, but incase no one has been looking it is now 2006.

Do these people really think that every life (ever fertilized egg) is sacred, or on some primative level do they long for a time when women were little more than breeders for a warring state? If that's the case then we should be asking just what they are saving the unborn fetuses for.

Just food for thought.

Rhino-itall said...

Thats nice drew. I'm sure the mission statement is very impressive to you, but these are people who believe that it is unconstitutional for citizens to act on their moral judgments, They believe that the state has the right coercively to dictate matters of conscience. This is a communist ideal. It is anti first amendment. The boy scouts are a prime example. As these enemies of freedom, morality and responsibility see it, the Boy Scouts do not have the right to assert their First Amendment rights. yet they support NAMBLA?
It's a hate group. It always has been, since the day it was founded by Soviet-loving socialist radicals like Roger Baldwin. In those early days, Baldwin advised, "Do steer away from making it [the ACLU] look like a socialist enterprise. We want to look like patriots in every thing we do. We want to get a lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of the country and show we are really the folks that stand by the spirit of our institutions."
So then during the height of the "red scare", to deflect attention away from the organization, he and some others booted out some radical communists, so what?

LILY BRANFORD said...

Rhino you are not seeing that communism and advancing civil rights are incompatible?

In what case did the ACLU defend NAMBLA? Its like you are two different rhinos, talking about how the left want to moralize via the state but then talking about they want to prvent moralizing by the state. Your comments are oddly incongruous.

Great to see some of you that I know from elsewhere. Don't worry about Rhino. In the end, he'll get a hot hippie liberal pregnant and eat his words. KIDDING.

Oops, gotta run. We feminazis are hosting a tampon festival at a college to brainwash the students with our lefty disease. Only have two hours, then the RECRUITERS from the army get the caf.

abramoff's haberdasher said...

Curley vs NAMBLA.

Mrs Mia Wallace said...

Thanks, sweetie. Now pick up soy milk.

Jack's Hatter said...

Soy milk is People!!!!

Mrs Mia Wallace said...

Thats soylent green. Get me a paper, would ya?

-epm said...

Embryo is to baby as....

batter is to cake.

Troll Watcher said...

How did a post about abortion end up being a thread about the ACLU? Was it the interjection of the right wing, who when faced with reason, start attacking liberal institutions? Or did it pop in somehwere else? Damn, now I have to read the whole thread again.

That Damned Jezebel said...

Or worse, about eating the elderly? How do they always get us round to that?

Aloof Hitler said...

I stand corrected Mia

but when exactly does soylent green become people is the question. I love that I got a lib to quote Heston.

That Damned Jezebel said...

When they pry the senior from your cold dead fingers? Or when they pry you with their cold dead fingers?

I think the ACLU also opposes eating people, but I hear that that the Plaza Hotel, in the spirit of the wooly mammoth entree- is already taking reservations for Scalia burgers.

Lest you put all your chips on flights to the moon with the fuckass Virgin Air guy.

Left of Center said...

so what is the name of the organisation of conservitive lawyers that goes around standing up for peoples rights? umm.. hmmm.. I think.. it's.. ahhh what was the one that stood with Rush about his medical bills? umm, nevermind, that was the ACLU. hmm

MMark said...

Well Lily, despite you hostile post twords me, my prediction on your blog's discussion of this very important topic has been exemplified. Here is a great example of the uba-liberal mindset at work. You all go from discussing the topic of the possibility of Roe vs Wade being overturned, to a way out discussion on the ACLU. "..And we have concluded from this debate that..well...lets talk about something else."
On to your comments on my post, only becausenow this comment section has lost anything even close to the original topic.
" isn't it a bit ridiculous to presume to know what any of us do in our real lives? Or who we are?"
MY RESPONSE: Huh?

"You make sweeping conclusions about us based on what you see, and assume that you have it all down? ".
MY RESPONSE: Yes, that is true. My conclusions are based on the fact that thinkers like to yourself seem to almost always share a brain. There is never anything close to original out of any of your mouths.

"You have no idea what our efforts include, what or who we are in real life."
Mr response: That is an assumption on your part.

" Would you mind telling us what YOU do? Are you Clinton the Great's advisor? What?? If criticism is a waste of time, and our actions so misguided,certainly you must engage in far more than participating in what you purport to scorn, right? SO, tell us what you do that is more noble. More constructive."

My response: I will have no problem telling you what it is I do, but first you must share. I will give you as much detail as you give me(ie. I'm a social worker in New jersey...).
I do activley engage in a practice that is helping to change the way you live.

"How is any idea furthered by coming here and drawing broad conclusions about people and what they do, with so little to base it on?"

My response: My conclusions are based only on the written word in this case..

"You presume to know what motivates us and what we are trying or not trying to achieve."

My response: It is anger, but most of you don't know why, thats because it is misplaced anger, with the exception of maybe a few of you.

"Your generalizations and assumptions are far less constructive because in the end you don't have to 'hear' to do what you are doing, you base your opinions of people here on your predetermined assumptions and then set out to criticize us for what you wrongfully assume."

My response: My assumptions are based on what I have read. I feel my conclusion is valid.

MMark said...

Well Lily, despite you hostile post twords me, my prediction on your blog's discussion of this very important topic has been exemplified. Here is a great example of the uba-liberal mindset at work. You all go from discussing the topic of the possibility of Roe vs Wade being overturned, to a way out discussion on the ACLU. "..And we have concluded from this debate that..well...lets talk about something else."
On to your comments on my post, only becausenow this comment section has lost anything even close to the original topic.
" isn't it a bit ridiculous to presume to know what any of us do in our real lives? Or who we are?"
MY RESPONSE: Huh?

"You make sweeping conclusions about us based on what you see, and assume that you have it all down? ".
MY RESPONSE: Yes, that is true. My conclusions are based on the fact that thinkers like to yourself seem to almost always share a brain. There is never anything close to original out of any of your mouths.

"You have no idea what our efforts include, what or who we are in real life."
Mr response: That is an assumption on your part.

" Would you mind telling us what YOU do? Are you Clinton the Great's advisor? What?? If criticism is a waste of time, and our actions so misguided,certainly you must engage in far more than participating in what you purport to scorn, right? SO, tell us what you do that is more noble. More constructive."

My response: I will have no problem telling you what it is I do, but first you must share. I will give you as much detail as you give me(ie. I'm a social worker in New jersey...).
I do activley engage in a practice that is helping to change the way you live.

"How is any idea furthered by coming here and drawing broad conclusions about people and what they do, with so little to base it on?"

My response: My conclusions are based only on the written word in this case..

"You presume to know what motivates us and what we are trying or not trying to achieve."

My response: It is anger, but most of you don't know why, thats because it is misplaced anger, with the exception of maybe a few of you.

"Your generalizations and assumptions are far less constructive because in the end you don't have to 'hear' to do what you are doing, you base your opinions of people here on your predetermined assumptions and then set out to criticize us for what you wrongfully assume."

My response: My assumptions are based on what I have read. I feel my conclusion is valid.

LILY BRANFORD said...

Interesting but you did not really answer the question about how you know what I do or do not do unless you know me. You still insist you can and should jusdge me. Why? I gather from your answers you do know me? How else can you discuss what I do or do not do? If you do know me then you are aware of the organizations I work for and who I am, what positions I hold. If you are in New Jersey than we might have even crossed paths because I am among many things a social worker as well with fifteen years of experience in that field. Not being content with that alone though I went further in school to obtain degrees in policy analysis and then management, which brings me to my current field that incorporates all of those in addition to my work as an advocate and on boards. My point is that you are making broad conclusions about me based on what? A few comments on a blog? This is where we just exchange ideas, its not my life's work for goodness sake. Its a simple way to connect. To some degree we have tried to use this forum for some projects which were ok, given that this is not exactly Daily Kos.See you come along and read all sorts of intentions and point out where we are alike, or where we fail. As if THIS little forum defines me and what I do with respect to social justice and community organization.

Now I am not sure where you went to social work school, but number one, you do not LISTEN like a social worker. You do not express yourself like people in our field, and you make far too many assumptions and guesses to be really interested in dialogue about what anyone wants to achieve.

The fact that the conversation dwindled down has some super significance on the plight of women everywhere? Sorry, but only people that take themselves very seriously would think that. We don't. We talk seriously about issues every day, across the spectrum. Social Workers I know don't make snapshot judgements.

You came, threw unfounded criticism around, then you accused me of being hostile when I pointed out that you had no basis. If you define people by one comment thread, go ahead. But thats far more problematic as far as behavior is concerned. If I am guilty of group think and irrelevance I would choose that- over one who self righteously judges another based on such a myopic lens.

tp said...

The conversation always stops on abortion because really, it gets to impasse. Maybe you had higher hopes but we have been here, done this dozens of times. The fact that we don't feel the need to rehash it every day for 80 or 90 comments means something? The ACLU came up because of the question of Roe and different interpretations about the constitution because that is the basis of re-examining Roe. The differences in views on law came to the positions of justices on law, and then to the ACLU. Is there some formula that a discussion is supposed to follow, with regulations?

You say nobody has an original thought but then you say we are not supposed to deviate from some expectaion you have, some script?

Who is forcing you to spend your time this way? If a person watched tv for an hour, that would be more constructive? You never had a conversation about weather that turned into music or sports? Thats some big significant character defect? But because this is a blog it is open for insults concerning merit or validity. "You liberals.." whatever, get a life, man.

MMark said...

I have a very good life man.
So Lily, are we to leave it at that, don't ask don't tell. That would be fine with me. I was certain you were a social worker, maybe I picked the wrong state, how about Pennsylvania, either way, my guessing game is over.
I went to the University of Maine and got an associates degree in Forestry. Then I did other things, went back to school and finished college for the last time.
I am not a social worker, by any means.

Ambiguously Straight Robin said...

Holy words Batman!

Suddenly not so ambiguous Robin said...

Jesue was a social worker...

Earl Bockenfeld said...

This suit is being labeled as a Roe-vs-Wade suit for men. Of course another term could be welfare-dad.

Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.

"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.

LILY BRANFORD said...

Certain I am a social worker? Well thats strange because that hasn't been my job title, I misunderstood and thought you meant you were, and were giving an example about yourself. Forestry is an important field certainly, my sister is a botanist and works in forestry. I'm sorry you missed my posts on river corridor clearcuts/preservation because no doubt you would have had some constructive feedback. We used to have Maineiac here who seemed quite understanding of the development patterns and their threat, maybe you've run across him in blogarama.
Anyway, obviously I am not going to sit around typing specifics about myself so we can get into an argument about whether or not blogging is all I put effort into. We all can do more, every one of us regardless, and smugness just doesn't come to me as readily I guess. Instead of randomly attacking though it would have helped if you simply shared what you do that is so superior.

Rachel said...

RE
Embryo is to baby as....

batter is to cake.


For that matter, how often do we go toa restaurant and order scrambled chicks?

Troll Watcher said...

Gee Lily, sounds like mmmbop has access to the NSA file on you!

LILY BRANFORD said...

I have nothing to hide, troll watcher. I am open and honest, I don't scurry from my opinions like a scared rat, they win when we do that. They want people to be afraid of expressing themselves, so they can label us as unpatriotic or some otehr drivel. They can bring it on, I follow the law and its high time people said enough of this bullshit. When rights are not used they are quickly forgotten.

Anonymous said...

sailor moon hentai image sailor moon hentai image [url=http://hhent.com/index176.html]sailor moon hentai image[/url] sailor moon hentai image

This a good link's !
[i]Posted by Admin[/i]

Anonymous said...

What a great site » » »

Anonymous said...

Best regards from NY! paradym humidifiers Car seat covers and stuff The mortgage protection insurance company Affiliate software fusionquest featuring ultralinks Commission humidifier

Anonymous said...

Wonderful and informative web site. I used information from that site its great. video editing schools

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol 100mg online legal purchase tramadol online - trusted online pharmacy tramadol

Anonymous said...

tramadol buy tramadol dosage iv - purchase tramadol with mastercard

Anonymous said...

tramadol online tramadol 50 mg ultram - tramadol hcl for dogs dosage

Anonymous said...

buy klonopin online canada .25 mg klonopin side effects - klonopin withdrawal how long does it take

Anonymous said...

purchase tramadol buy tramadol online without rx - tramadol zanaflex

Anonymous said...

buy lorazepam buy ativan in us - ativan vs. xanax differences

Anonymous said...

tramadol online no prescription order tramadol online overnight shipping - tramadol 50 mg reviews

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol tablets tramadol dosage dogs - tramadol 93 58 side effects

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol cod buy tramadol online us pharmacy - tramadol addiction effects

Anonymous said...

buy klonopin online klonopin side effects common - klonopin withdrawal blurred vision

Anonymous said...

ativan lorazepam 2mg ativan high - ativan no prescription

Anonymous said...

ativan price 1mg lorazepam equivalent valium - permanent effects ativan overdose

Anonymous said...

ambien price ambien side effects forum - ambien cr maximum dosage

Anonymous said...

can you buy tramadol online tramadol for dogs what dosage - buy tramadol forum

Anonymous said...

buy klonopin online klonopin half life - klonopin much get high

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online online-viagra-tramadol.com - can you buy tramadol mexico

Anonymous said...

cheap lorazepam ativan zoloft withdrawal - lorazepam 1mg para que serve

Anonymous said...

buy generic tramadol no prescription tramadol hcl 50mg side effects in dogs - can you buy tramadol dominican republic

Anonymous said...

buy klonopin online klonopin 2mg overdose - klonopin overdose much

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol no rx tramadol 50 mg is equivalent to - tramadol 50 mg equivalent

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol overnight delivery tramadol hcl - tramadol online safe

Anonymous said...

buy cheap ambien order ambien visa - buy cheapest ambien online

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol buy tramadol online nz - purchase tramadol overnight

Anonymous said...

ativan lorazepam ativan buy online no prescription - ativan online purchase

Anonymous said...

purchase ambien ambien overdose many mg - ambien dosage wiki

Anonymous said...

best buy tramadol buy tramadol online usa cheap - tramadol hcl 30 mg

Anonymous said...

soma online soma san diego concerts - soma san diego zip code

Anonymous said...

order tramadol no prescription neurontin and tramadol high - tramadol stronger than vicodin

Anonymous said...

buy ambien ambien cr and hair loss - mail order ambien cr

Anonymous said...

cheapest ativan can i buy lorazepam online - ativan high experience

Anonymous said...

generic ambien best price ambien cr 12.5 - purchase ambien online overnight

Anonymous said...

tramadol online tramadol 100mg 2 ml - tramadol experiences

Anonymous said...

buy soma online no prescription who makes soma bras - buy soma online no prescription cheap

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol 100mg tramadol 37.5-325 - tramadol dosage bluelight

Anonymous said...

tramadol 50 mg buy tramadol pay cod - buy tramadol online cod

Anonymous said...

order zolpidem stories of ambien side effects - ambien cr high

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online buy tramadol money order - tramadol without prescription

Anonymous said...

order soma online order somatropin - kendrick lamar san diego soma tickets

Anonymous said...

generic ambien buy ambien online pharmacy - can order ambien online

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol ultram what does tramadol high feel like - buy tramadol hydrochloride

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol overnight cod buy 200 mg tramadol online - ordertramadolonline.org

Anonymous said...

tramadol online overnight tramadol dosage for high - buy tramadol online legit

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol no rx tramadol 50mg grasscity - buy tramadol rx online

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol buy tramadol online echeck - tramadol online fedex next day

Anonymous said...

klonopin pharmacy 2mg klonopin once - klonopin 93834

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online cod overnight tramadol hcl is used for what - buy tramadol in australia

Anonymous said...

buy ambien online ambien side effects wikipedia - ambien cr expiration date

Anonymous said...

soma online generic soma capsules - buy soma cheap online

Anonymous said...

ativan online ativan withdrawal time period - what are ativan withdrawal

Anonymous said...

buy klonopin buy clonazepam mastercard - klonopin .75mg

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol 180 buy tramadol online pay cod - tramadol hcl good pain

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online buy tramadol tablets online - tramadol hcl 100 mg iran chemie pharma

Anonymous said...

buy viagra online legal buy viagra online usa - does viagra work performance anxiety

Anonymous said...

buy viagra without prescriptions viagra online usa - generic viagra oral jelly

Anonymous said...

buy klonopin online can you buy clonazepam online - klonopin dosage alcohol withdrawal

Anonymous said...

buy ambien online how long ambien withdrawal last - ambien side effects rebound insomnia

Anonymous said...

viagra online purchase mail order viagra usa - is it legal to purchase viagra online

Anonymous said...

viagra online what dosage viagra works best - viagra dosage for older men

Anonymous said...

buy generic viagra jual viagra online - viagra 150 mg dose

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol no prescription overnight buy tramadol in egypt - buy ultram online no prescription

Anonymous said...

sildenafil tablets viagra for women nz - forum cheap-generic-viagra

Anonymous said...

klonopin online no prescription overnight long does 2mg klonopin stay system - 2mg klonopin price

Anonymous said...

buy viagra no prescription purchase real viagra online - buy cheap viagra online

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online no prescription ultram online prescription - tramadol 300 er

Anonymous said...

cheap klonopin online generic klonopin teva - klonopin making anxiety worse

Anonymous said...

generic soma online buy soma 350 mg online - generic soma description

Anonymous said...

tramadol online pharmacy can you buy tramadol over counter - tramadol hcl 25mg dogs

Anonymous said...

generic ambien ambien generic teva - ambien drug conflicts

Anonymous said...

buy carisoprodol online muscle relaxer soma flexeril - want buy somatropin

Anonymous said...

ambien online without rx ambien dosage lethal - need buy ambien

Anonymous said...

tramadol online tramadol 50mg to get high - tramadol hcl withdrawal

Anonymous said...

carisoprodol drug soma drug warnings - soma drug test

Anonymous said...

generic ambien ambien side effects sleep walking - ambien side effects anger

Anonymous said...

buy viagra cheap where to buy viagra online yahoo answers - is the viagra you buy online real

Anonymous said...

cialis online buy cialis online for cheap - brand cialis online

Anonymous said...

order soma online online soma cube - soma muscle relaxer wikipedia

Anonymous said...

cheap cialis cialis price - cialis 20mg price comparison

Anonymous said...

viagra online buy generic viagra online forum - buy viagra quebec

Anonymous said...

buy viagra now generic viagra online overnight delivery - cheap viagra sale online

Anonymous said...

buy viagra online viagra dosage twice day - viagra online nederland

Anonymous said...

order cialis from canada generic cialis good brand - cialis online rezeptfrei kaufen

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol with cod buy tramadol online 100mg - 50mg tramadol high dose

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online day 2 tramadol withdrawal - buy tramadol online for dogs

Anonymous said...

buy viagra online without rx buy viagra online overnight shipping - viagra 25 years old

Anonymous said...

cheap generic viagra buy cheap viagra online from india - buy viagra malaysia online

Anonymous said...

buy viagra online purchase viagra melbourne - viagra dosage after prostate surgery

Anonymous said...

cialis online cialis generic vs brand - cialis uses

Anonymous said...

generic soma online buy soma no script - soma medication online pharmacy

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol cod order tramadol cod overnight - tramadol stada 100mg retardtabletten nebenwirkungen

Anonymous said...

order herbal viagra cheap viagra scams - how to buy viagra online forum

Anonymous said...

buy generic viagra online overnight is there viagra for women - viagra buy in singapore

Anonymous said...

cialis online generic cialis line canada - cialis online canada paypal

Anonymous said...

can you buy tramadol online buy tramadol online from usa - what is tramadol 50mg for dogs

Anonymous said...

buy viagra 100mg viagra dosage difference - generic viagra release date

Anonymous said...

tramadol no rx buy tramadol with a mastercard - tramadol hcl xr side effects

Anonymous said...

cialis online cialis reviews for bph - cialis mexico

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online buy tramadol now - order tramadol online from usa

Anonymous said...

tramadol online tramadol overdose signs - where can i buy cheap tramadol

Anonymous said...

buy viagra buying viagra online guide - can you purchase viagra online

Anonymous said...

buy viagra professional buy viagra with discover card - viagra dosage vs levitra

Anonymous said...

buy propecia online propecia online yahoo - propecia cost nhs

Anonymous said...

buy cheap tramadol tramadol hcl liquid - tramadol tooth pain

Anonymous said...

cialis for sale buy cheap cialis australia - buy cialis online without rx

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online tramadol 50 mg oral tablet - tramadol hcl 50 mg picture

Anonymous said...

buy viagra pills buy viagra online overnight delivery - generic viagra online cheapest

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online tramadol no prescription overnight cod - can you buy tramadol in greece

Anonymous said...

buy propecia buy generic propecia usa - propecia side effects and pregnancy

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol no prescription overnight tramadol addiction lawsuits - tramadol 50mg street value

Anonymous said...

buy viagra online reviews ordering viagra online in canada - viagra online india

Anonymous said...

tramadol online buy tramadol overnight - tramadol tylenol high

Anonymous said...

cialis online cialis 30 day trial - reviews viagra vs cialis vs levitra

Anonymous said...

buy retin a no prescription retin a cream safe - buy retin a 0.05 cream

Anonymous said...

order viagra for women safe online pharmacy viagra - cheap generic viagra no prescription

Anonymous said...

generic strattera strattera xanax - strattera side effects prostate

Anonymous said...

order propecia online much generic propecia - great results propecia

Anonymous said...

buy propecia online propecia hair growth results - best place order propecia

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol 180 tramadol withdrawal exercise - buy cheap tramadol mastercard

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol with mastercard tramadol withdrawal muscle spasms - tramadol with no prescription

Anonymous said...

buy propecia online buy propecia 5mg uk - propecia to buy online

Anonymous said...

cialis online generic cialis approved fda - cheap cialis rx

Anonymous said...

buy retin-a retin a micro expiration date - retin a micro vs retin a for wrinkles

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol free shipping tramadol for dogs maximum dose - tramadol 50 mg bluelight

Anonymous said...

generic strattera strattera side effects mood swings - strattera side effects dry mouth

Anonymous said...

tramadol online pharmacy buy tramadol cheap no prescription - buy tramadol pay cod

Anonymous said...

buy tramadol online cheap tramadol 50 mg tylenol - tramadol 50 mg price per pill

Anonymous said...

buy retin-a retin a 0.1 cream reviews - retin-a creme acne

Anonymous said...

best buy tramadol tramadol hcl solubility - side effects tramadol hcl 50mg tablet

Anonymous said...

buy strattera adhd medication strattera side effects - strattera side effects in teenagers

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 398   Newer› Newest»
Graphics by Lily.Template Designed by Douglas Bowman - Updated to New Blogger by: Blogger Team
Modified for 3-Column Layout by Hoctro