NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Repeal Reproductive Freedoms

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Frustrated Franciscans
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 492
Founded: Aug 01, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Frustrated Franciscans » Sat May 28, 2016 6:20 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Why? Does a woman's body suddenly become not her own as the due date approaches?"


This is in an of itself an interesting (but in the end pointless) potential discussion on the question of absolute property rights, which we, of course, strongly object to. In this case we come to the question of the absolute property right of the self. To put this in a non abortion context, does a person who has a highly contagious disease have the unrestricted right to travel into public spaces where that disease may be spread, or in the case of diseases spread through sexual contact, though lying, hide such a state from potential sexual partners and in doing so, deliberately spread the disease.

it is therefore reasonable and logical to argue that as the progression of the person past viability outside of the womb continues, as well as the development of neurological systems designed to feel pain and react to the world around it, the use of physical force against that person becomes less and less justified.

In short, if someone squats in one of your properties, you do not have the right to ask the army to lob mustard gas grenades into your house to kill the squatter. (And it would be really wrong of the army not to tell you that these grenades could cause a fire in the inside of your house which may prevent anyone from living in the house ever again, even if you eventually wanted to rent out the property.)
Proud Member of the Tzorsland Puppet Federation

User avatar
Frustrated Franciscans
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 492
Founded: Aug 01, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Frustrated Franciscans » Sat May 28, 2016 6:24 pm

Herby wrote:This again? Why we gotta go through this every few months?


Because, oddly enough, it's actually FUN. If you believe in "rights" and "liberty" this is where the arguments are tested.
Proud Member of the Tzorsland Puppet Federation

User avatar
Tinfect
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5235
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tinfect » Sat May 28, 2016 7:13 pm

OOC:
Are we really doing this again? It's not going to happen, we are just going to retread ground that has already been worn to dust in previous attempts, and it's not going to pass.
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, He/Him
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, He/Him
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, She/Her


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM.

Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Sciongrad
Minister
 
Posts: 3060
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Sciongrad » Sat May 28, 2016 7:14 pm

"This is politically impossible. It cannot be done. I advise the proposing ambassador to disabuse themself of any notion that the World Assembly will every retreat on abortion rights."
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
United Massachusetts
Minister
 
Posts: 2574
Founded: Jan 17, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby United Massachusetts » Sun May 29, 2016 5:18 pm

Sciongrad wrote:"This is politically impossible. It cannot be done. I advise the proposing ambassador to disabuse themself of any notion that the World Assembly will every retreat on abortion rights."

"Thanks for the positivity."

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12664
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun May 29, 2016 6:15 pm

United Massachusetts wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:"This is politically impossible. It cannot be done. I advise the proposing ambassador to disabuse themself of any notion that the World Assembly will every retreat on abortion rights."

"Thanks for the positivity."

Truths are not necessarily positive.

Author: 1 SC and 56+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Ovybia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 578
Founded: Jun 25, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Ovybia » Sun May 29, 2016 6:51 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:"Thanks for the positivity."

Truths are not necessarily positive.

That depends on which side you're on. As for repealing Reproductive Freedoms being impossible, check out my motto for the answer to that. Although I must agree, for now, we should put this on hold for a later more favorable time.
Please approve Child Destruction Ban. If you don't, the Ovybian dragon will come eat you.
Prolife? Consider joining Right to Life, one of the 100 largest regions of NS
Signature Details
Practicing courteousness in an NS argument never hurt anyone.
Disclaimer: Admittedly sometimes I need to take my own advice.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16989
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun May 29, 2016 8:05 pm

Ovybia wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Truths are not necessarily positive.

That depends on which side you're on. As for repealing Reproductive Freedoms being impossible, check out my motto for the answer to that. Although I must agree, for now, we should put this on hold for a later more favorable time.

"A cute sentiment, but not terribly savvy."

His Worshipfulness, the Most Unscrupulous, Plainly Deceitful, Dissembling, Strategicly Calculating Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Scavara
Attaché
 
Posts: 93
Founded: May 18, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Scavara » Sun May 29, 2016 8:41 pm

At the moment of conception the embryo is no longer a "part of the woman's body." It is genetically distinct from the mother by virtue of the father's DNA. Naturally, given that, Scavara would support this repeal. And will keep supporting any repeals that come up no matter how tiring it is for the baby killers among our assembly.
Socialism is Communism's retarded little brother.

_[' ]_
(-_Q) If you support capitalism, put this in your signature.

User avatar
Ovybia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 578
Founded: Jun 25, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Ovybia » Sun May 29, 2016 9:31 pm

This proposal has the full support of Ovybia. Reproductive Freedoms is a horrible proposal that only passed because of its newspeak wording. Terms like "reproductive freedoms" implied to the unsuspecting that the resolution mandated the freedom to reproduce as opposed to what it actually does mandate the freedom to stop reproducing i.e. kill an unborn child, at any time during pregnancy, for any reason, in utero. This process was described under the terms "termination of pregnancy" which, at first glance, looks totally innocent.

I don't know if we could find one person who was opposed to a mother terminating her pregnancy when she and her doctor chooses. It's when one finds out that "termination of pregnancy" actually means literally any and all means of terminating pregnancy including killing the child or even, if taken to its logical outcome, killing the mother that one sees the craziness in this proposal. Something that no one in his right mind supports.

the abortion issue on NS should be left up to the individual nations. A large minority of NS is made up of pro-life nations who are morally opposed to abortion for good reasons and the pro-choice nations are, ironically, the ones taking away the choice of the pro-life nations to follow the moral principles of their pro-life doctrine.

Pro-life nations generally believe that all men are created equal and, upon creation, are endowed with the right to life. That's not such a crazy notion, you know.
Please approve Child Destruction Ban. If you don't, the Ovybian dragon will come eat you.
Prolife? Consider joining Right to Life, one of the 100 largest regions of NS
Signature Details
Practicing courteousness in an NS argument never hurt anyone.
Disclaimer: Admittedly sometimes I need to take my own advice.

User avatar
Linux and the X
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5487
Founded: Apr 29, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Linux and the X » Mon May 30, 2016 9:24 pm

Scavara wrote:the baby killers among our assembly.

We demand the immediate retraction of such outrageous language.
If you see I've made a mistake in my wording or a factual detail, telegram me and I'll fix it. I'll even give you credit for pointing it out, if you'd like.
BLUE LIVES MURDER

[violet]: Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Me, responding to a request to vote for a liberation: But... but that would blemish my near-perfect history of spitefully voting against anything the SC does!
Farnhamia: That is not to be taken as license to start calling people "buttmunch."

GPG key ID: A8960638 fingerprint: 2239 2687 0B50 2CEC 28F7 D950 CCD0 26FC A896 0638

they/them pronouns

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15899
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue May 31, 2016 8:50 am

Linux and the X wrote:
Scavara wrote:the baby killers among our assembly.

We demand the immediate retraction of such outrageous language.

Considering all the WA nations around here and out there, I'm sure that some of them have at some point, probably during a war, killed babies. Most likely the babies of other people or species, but still.
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Railana
Diplomat
 
Posts: 518
Founded: Apr 11, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Railana » Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:42 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Why? Does a woman's body suddenly become not her own as the due date approaches?"

Nobody has an absolute right to bodily sovereignty:
  • compulsory vaccinations
  • mandatory DNA swabbing
  • conscription
  • body cavity searches
  • imprisonment as punishment for a crime
  • ...
I could go on.

I am annoyed when people simply assert that a mother has a right to bodily sovereignty as justification for permitting abortion, as though that is sufficient to prove their case. The right to bodily sovereignty is qualified, like any other right.

The real question is: why is it that a mother's right to bodily sovereignty supercedes her parental obligations towards her child, as well as her child's very right to life? The purpose of parental obligations -- to ensure that a child is properly cared for prior to maturity -- would be defeated by arbitrarily exempting parents from this duty for the first nine months of the child's life. Moreover, the harms associated with nine months of pregnancy are not even remotely comparable to death.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly
Dominion of Railana
Also known as Auralia

"Lex naturalis voluntas Dei est."

User avatar
Oceanias Elena Inge Dreyden
Attaché
 
Posts: 86
Founded: May 28, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Oceanias Elena Inge Dreyden » Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:27 pm

Railana wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Why? Does a woman's body suddenly become not her own as the due date approaches?"

Nobody has an absolute right to bodily sovereignty:
  • compulsory vaccinations
  • mandatory DNA swabbing
  • conscription
  • body cavity searches
  • imprisonment as punishment for a crime
  • ...
I could go on.

I am annoyed when people simply assert that a mother has a right to bodily sovereignty as justification for permitting abortion, as though that is sufficient to prove their case. The right to bodily sovereignty is qualified, like any other right.

The real question is: why is it that a mother's right to bodily sovereignty supercedes her parental obligations towards her child, as well as her child's very right to life? The purpose of parental obligations -- to ensure that a child is properly cared for prior to maturity -- would be defeated by arbitrarily exempting parents from this duty for the first nine months of the child's life. Moreover, the harms associated with nine months of pregnancy are not even remotely comparable to death.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly


The nice thing about the abortion debate is that we can quibble over trimesters, but ultimately, there's a nice, clean line: birth.
Morally there isn't a lot of difference. Practically huge.
Official Puppet Of The United Socialist States of Europe and Oceania
Ambassador Elena Inge Dreyden. May Represent Europe and Oceania sometimes.
Official Ambassador Of The United Socialist States of Europe and Oceania and New Utopian World
Secretary of State for Europe and Oceania

Bernie Sanders For Pres. 2016

User avatar
Linux and the X
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5487
Founded: Apr 29, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Linux and the X » Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:45 pm

Oceanias Elena Inge Dreyden wrote:
Railana wrote:Nobody has an absolute right to bodily sovereignty:
  • compulsory vaccinations
  • mandatory DNA swabbing
  • conscription
  • body cavity searches
  • imprisonment as punishment for a crime
  • ...
I could go on.

I am annoyed when people simply assert that a mother has a right to bodily sovereignty as justification for permitting abortion, as though that is sufficient to prove their case. The right to bodily sovereignty is qualified, like any other right.

The real question is: why is it that a mother's right to bodily sovereignty supercedes her parental obligations towards her child, as well as her child's very right to life? The purpose of parental obligations -- to ensure that a child is properly cared for prior to maturity -- would be defeated by arbitrarily exempting parents from this duty for the first nine months of the child's life. Moreover, the harms associated with nine months of pregnancy are not even remotely comparable to death.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly


The nice thing about the abortion debate is that we can quibble over trimesters, but ultimately, there's a nice, clean line: birth.
Morally there isn't a lot of difference. Practically huge.

Okay, Dr House.
If you see I've made a mistake in my wording or a factual detail, telegram me and I'll fix it. I'll even give you credit for pointing it out, if you'd like.
BLUE LIVES MURDER

[violet]: Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Me, responding to a request to vote for a liberation: But... but that would blemish my near-perfect history of spitefully voting against anything the SC does!
Farnhamia: That is not to be taken as license to start calling people "buttmunch."

GPG key ID: A8960638 fingerprint: 2239 2687 0B50 2CEC 28F7 D950 CCD0 26FC A896 0638

they/them pronouns

User avatar
Oceanias Elena Inge Dreyden
Attaché
 
Posts: 86
Founded: May 28, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Oceanias Elena Inge Dreyden » Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:02 pm

Linux and the X wrote:
Oceanias Elena Inge Dreyden wrote:
The nice thing about the abortion debate is that we can quibble over trimesters, but ultimately, there's a nice, clean line: birth.
Morally there isn't a lot of difference. Practically huge.

Okay, Dr House.


lol.
Official Puppet Of The United Socialist States of Europe and Oceania
Ambassador Elena Inge Dreyden. May Represent Europe and Oceania sometimes.
Official Ambassador Of The United Socialist States of Europe and Oceania and New Utopian World
Secretary of State for Europe and Oceania

Bernie Sanders For Pres. 2016

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15899
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Jun 04, 2016 1:25 am

Railana wrote:The real question is: why is it that a mother's right to bodily sovereignty supercedes her parental obligations towards her child, as well as her child's very right to life?

Becoming pregnant is not and should not count as consent to becoming a parent, especially if the pregnancy is the end result from a failed prevention method, since the use of a prevention method means that they consent to sex but not pregnancy. Similarly having sex should not count as consent to becoming pregnant.

Unless your argument is that all sex should be homosexual, if women don't want to get pregnant. That's so strange a stance that I might actually get behind it.

As for the child's bodily rights, I already answered that...
Araraukar wrote:
Westercourt wrote:there is a logical, viable, and objective argument that the child also has bodily rights

Yes, and that is the point where it no longer is leeching off of another body's bloodstream to upkeep and build its own.

All the things you mentioned as violations to bodily rights do not mean that you would be parasitized in a manner that leeches away key nutrients in increasing amounts, and also increasingly invades your inner space in a manner that can endanger the proper workings of your inner organs, for about 9 months.

Would you happily allow a cancerous growth inside your body cavity to grow to 3 or more kilograms for 7-8 months after being detected, before having it removed? (OOC: For the sake of this argument we'll go for one of the cancers that don't like spreading to other organs.)
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5744
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sat Jun 04, 2016 12:34 pm

And now we're back to comparing unborn children to cancers. These abortion debates always go so well. :roll:
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15899
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Jun 04, 2016 6:35 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:And now we're back to comparing unborn children to cancers. These abortion debates always go so well. :roll:

OOC: I thought I'd cut through to about where we last left off. It's not like either side of the argument is ever going to change the mind of the other side of the argument, so we're going to keep on going in circles anyway.
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Ovybia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 578
Founded: Jun 25, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Ovybia » Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:45 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Railana wrote:The real question is: why is it that a mother's right to bodily sovereignty supercedes her parental obligations towards her child, as well as her child's very right to life?

Becoming pregnant is not and should not count as consent to becoming a parent, especially if the pregnancy is the end result from a failed prevention method, since the use of a prevention method means that they consent to sex but not pregnancy. Similarly having sex should not count as consent to becoming pregnant.

Unless your argument is that all sex should be homosexual, if women don't want to get pregnant. That's so strange a stance that I might actually get behind it.

Regardless of whether or not the mother wanted to become pregnant, in life things don't always happen as we want them to, but the baby still has, as you would say, a right to bodily sovereignty, namely, his life. Just because he is living inside of his mother doesn't give the mother a right to end an innocent person's life.

Also, all of our actions have consequences. If we jump off a cliff we may die even if we tried to bring a parachute along. If a woman has sex, she may have a child even if she tried to inhibit and destroy the natural reproduction process. That doesn't give her reason to kill the newly formed child. She made her choice, just as the cliff-jumper did, the nature of sex doesn't change because some don't like the way it is.
Please approve Child Destruction Ban. If you don't, the Ovybian dragon will come eat you.
Prolife? Consider joining Right to Life, one of the 100 largest regions of NS
Signature Details
Practicing courteousness in an NS argument never hurt anyone.
Disclaimer: Admittedly sometimes I need to take my own advice.

User avatar
Sciongrad
Minister
 
Posts: 3060
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Sciongrad » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:07 pm

"This is politically impossible. Given the opportunity, the World Assembly will move to the left on this issue always."
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Railana
Diplomat
 
Posts: 518
Founded: Apr 11, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Railana » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:08 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Railana wrote:The real question is: why is it that a mother's right to bodily sovereignty supercedes her parental obligations towards her child, as well as her child's very right to life?

Becoming pregnant is not and should not count as consent to becoming a parent, especially if the pregnancy is the end result from a failed prevention method, since the use of a prevention method means that they consent to sex but not pregnancy. Similarly having sex should not count as consent to becoming pregnant.


Certain obligations are binding even in the absence of consent. Parental duties are one such obligation -- to the best of my knowledge, no jurisdiction permits parents to unilaterally discharge their duty of care towards their children, at least after birth.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly
Dominion of Railana
Also known as Auralia

"Lex naturalis voluntas Dei est."

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22872
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:11 pm

Railana wrote:
Araraukar wrote:Becoming pregnant is not and should not count as consent to becoming a parent, especially if the pregnancy is the end result from a failed prevention method, since the use of a prevention method means that they consent to sex but not pregnancy. Similarly having sex should not count as consent to becoming pregnant.


Certain obligations are binding even in the absence of consent. Parental duties are one such obligation -- to the best of my knowledge, no jurisdiction permits parents to unilaterally discharge their duty of care towards their children, at least after birth.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

Ogenbond begins to raise his hand, then stops and rests it back down on the desk.
While she had no regrets about throwing the lever to douse her husband's mistress in molten gold, Blanche did feel a pang of conscience for the innocent bystanders whose proximity had caused them to suffer gilt by association.

King of Snark, Real Piece of Work, Metabolizer of Oxygen, Old Man from The East Pacific, by the Malevolence of Her Infinite Terribleness Catherine Gratwick the Sole and True Claimant to the Bears Armed Vacancy, Protector of the Realm

User avatar
Linux and the X
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5487
Founded: Apr 29, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Linux and the X » Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:16 pm

Railana wrote:
Araraukar wrote:Becoming pregnant is not and should not count as consent to becoming a parent, especially if the pregnancy is the end result from a failed prevention method, since the use of a prevention method means that they consent to sex but not pregnancy. Similarly having sex should not count as consent to becoming pregnant.


Certain obligations are binding even in the absence of consent. Parental duties are one such obligation -- to the best of my knowledge, no jurisdiction permits parents to unilaterally discharge their duty of care towards their children, at least after birth.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law
If you see I've made a mistake in my wording or a factual detail, telegram me and I'll fix it. I'll even give you credit for pointing it out, if you'd like.
BLUE LIVES MURDER

[violet]: Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Me, responding to a request to vote for a liberation: But... but that would blemish my near-perfect history of spitefully voting against anything the SC does!
Farnhamia: That is not to be taken as license to start calling people "buttmunch."

GPG key ID: A8960638 fingerprint: 2239 2687 0B50 2CEC 28F7 D950 CCD0 26FC A896 0638

they/them pronouns

User avatar
Ovybia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 578
Founded: Jun 25, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Ovybia » Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:35 pm

Linux and the X wrote:
Railana wrote:
Certain obligations are binding even in the absence of consent. Parental duties are one such obligation -- to the best of my knowledge, no jurisdiction permits parents to unilaterally discharge their duty of care towards their children, at least after birth.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law

"I believe this is missing the point. Reproductive Freedoms decriminalizes abortion, the deliberate killing of a totally innocent unborn child. We are not arguing over whether the mother has a duty to care for her child, only whether the mother has a right to kill her child." The Ovybian ambassador emphatically argues.
Last edited by Ovybia on Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Please approve Child Destruction Ban. If you don't, the Ovybian dragon will come eat you.
Prolife? Consider joining Right to Life, one of the 100 largest regions of NS
Signature Details
Practicing courteousness in an NS argument never hurt anyone.
Disclaimer: Admittedly sometimes I need to take my own advice.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads