Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 81
  1. #61
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Cowboy, thank you for offering support for this claim.

    Now, with that said, your support actually undermines your claim. The defendant didn’t use the “police grade” gear to hear the conversation. They used the equipment (which was police grade because it was concealable, not because it amplified sound presumably) to record the conversation.

    On the tape the defendant clearly could be seen to be responding to the plaintiff’s statements despite only using the unaided ear, correct?

    So given that, it would seem that the “unaided ear” actually was used here and that the conversation was perfectly understandable to the unaided ear, thus no expectation of privacy could be warranted, according to your source.
    I agree, the conversation was loud enough to hear with the unaided ear at the private table (I'll tentatively agree that the gear wasn't highly sensitive or amplified though I believe any such information would be made known to the jury as relevant).
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #62
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I agree, the conversation was loud enough to hear with the unaided ear at the private table (I'll tentatively agree that the gear wasn't highly sensitive or amplified though I believe any such information would be made known to the jury as relevant).
    So, you're even parsing out multiple challenges now? Are you even convincing your own self at this point that your debating tactics aren't disingenuous?

    And I quote:

    Now with that claim dismissed, can you support any of your other claims in this thread?
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  3. #63
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    So, you're even parsing out multiple challenges now? Are you even convincing your own self at this point that your debating tactics aren't disingenuous?

    And I quote:
    Are you saying that whether the conversation was loud enough to hear several tables away (or even at the next table) or just at the private table isn't relevant?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  4. #64
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Are you saying that whether the conversation was loud enough to hear several tables away (or even at the next table) or just at the private table isn't relevant?
    I'm saying that you're able to answer more than one portion of a post, especially when there are three challenges in it.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  5. #65
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    I'm saying that you're able to answer more than one portion of a post, especially when there are three challenges in it.
    Sure I am, but I don't have to. I'm currently exploring this.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  6. #66
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Sure I am, but I don't have to. I'm currently exploring this.
    To further clarify: what you've just said is that you haven't the least concern for what is a basic courtesy here, something that all of the regs here observe? Also, considering the challenge feature: if you do decide to ignore the challenges altogether, all of the regs here also know that is the definition of a retraction at ODN. Ignoring these two fundamental points is a demonstration that you haven't the slightest intent of being anything other than tiresome to the people that come here.

    Squatch, for example, is a serviceman and for that obvious reason his free time is precious to him. Others here can be terribly busy, myself included. We make the personal choice to come here, and if that involves having discussions with someone who completely ignores half if not more of what you have to say, there is that much less reason to come. If you haven't noticed, this site is basically a dying community.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  7. #67
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post

    Squatch, for example, is a serviceman and for that obvious reason his free time is precious to him. Others here can be terribly busy, myself included. We make the personal choice to come here, and if that involves having discussions with someone who completely ignores half if not more of what you have to say, there is that much less reason to come. If you haven't noticed, this site is basically a dying community.
    Ignoring something and taking things one at a time are two different things. Yours, Squatch's, any other servicemember's, any other person's time is no more valuable than mine. As for the page dying, well, that certainly isn't my fault. Perhaps it's the titanic size of the unreadable, unfollowable responses that make the threads boring and tedious.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #68
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Ignoring something and taking things one at a time are two different things. Yours, Squatch's, any other servicemember's, any other person's time is no more valuable than mine. As for the page dying, well, that certainly isn't my fault. Perhaps it's the titanic size of the unreadable, unfollowable responses that make the threads boring and tedious.
    Consider the highlighted portion again. Everyone's time is equally valuable. It also takes effort to compose responses to you, and that effort involves a time commitment. There are reasonable expectations involved here that people will be conscientious of others.

    Incredibly, you can't even respond to the points I made in the first paragraph of post #66. It's clear that you don't even think two paragraphs is worthy of a substantive response. In some cases not even more than one sentence lately. No, you can just cherry pick to your heart's content and everyone goes along with it. Let me guess... you're bored even reading this little post?

    And if you're going respond to anything, why not respond to this:

    Let's not fool ourselves, thinking that you honestly have the intention of responding to the challenges. No one believes, when you ignore their points, that you're going to come back to them when you get around to it.

    I'll have myself a hearty laugh, if you aren't even intellectually honest enough to quote those last two sentences.
    Last edited by Lukecash12; September 26th, 2015 at 11:36 PM.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  9. #69
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,478
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I agree, the conversation was loud enough to hear with the unaided ear at the private table (I'll tentatively agree that the gear wasn't highly sensitive or amplified though I believe any such information would be made known to the jury as relevant).
    Ahh, so it was available to hear with the unaided ear, meaning, according to the support you offered, it was not private speech and thus your claim was incorrect.


    Ok, now that that was resolved, can you answer the next challenge standing against you?


    According to whom? The PP person? Media Matters?

    And where do they say this "is our standard process?"

    You didn't answer the question above or meet the challenge.


    Do you mean A or B?


    a) They change their procedures for all patients. In which case you haven't supported the claim since your quote is only referring to abortions under which organs are harvested.


    OR


    b) They change their procedures just for those cases where organs are being harvested. In which case I would argue you haven't really supported the claim well given that the quote references changing the procedure based on what type (liver vs neural) of tissue is being asked for.


    If A, please support the claim that this is for all abortions.

    If B, please support that altering the procedure for abortions where organs are to be harvested falls within the scope of the law. IE:


    Challenge to support a claim.

    B) Can you support that changing standard procedures for the purpose of obtaining additional body parts is within the scope of the law?





    Additionally, you ignored my request for support, so
    Challenge to support a claim.


    Do you have any support that PP said what you imply? That when offered a payment higher than their stated cost they said, "we'll go back and look for additional costs?"

    ___


    You also seem to be ceding the argument that they were charging per body part obtained. Is that correct?

    ___


    You also didn't respond to this request for support, so Challenge to support a claim.


    Can you support that retroactive cost estimation based upon sales price is legal for non-profits? (hint: it isn't) or permissible under the law cited?

    Second, can you support that the acceptance of the additional payment was at all conditioned on the justification by higher costs in the dialogue quoted? Please be specific.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #70
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ahh, so it was available to hear with the unaided ear
    Not beyond the private table.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #71
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Okay, say hypothetically say in your favor that that was conceded altogether. We're still nowhere near hearing a response to this:

    Ok, now that that was resolved, can you answer the next challenge standing against you?

    According to whom? The PP person? Media Matters?

    And where do they say this "is our standard process?"

    You didn't answer the question above or meet the challenge.


    Do you mean A or B?


    a) They change their procedures for all patients. In which case you haven't supported the claim since your quote is only referring to abortions under which organs are harvested.


    OR


    b) They change their procedures just for those cases where organs are being harvested. In which case I would argue you haven't really supported the claim well given that the quote references changing the procedure based on what type (liver vs neural) of tissue is being asked for.


    If A, please support the claim that this is for all abortions.

    If B, please support that altering the procedure for abortions where organs are to be harvested falls within the scope of the law. IE:




    B) Can you support that changing standard procedures for the purpose of obtaining additional body parts is within the scope of the law?





    Additionally, you ignored my request for support, so



    Do you have any support that PP said what you imply? That when offered a payment higher than their stated cost they said, "we'll go back and look for additional costs?"

    ___


    You also seem to be ceding the argument that they were charging per body part obtained. Is that correct?

    ___


    You also didn't respond to this request for support, so


    Can you support that retroactive cost estimation based upon sales price is legal for non-profits? (hint: it isn't) or permissible under the law cited?

    Second, can you support that the acceptance of the additional payment was at all conditioned on the justification by higher costs in the dialogue quoted? Please be specific.
    Because apparently you're still fine with quoting 2-3 sentences and blithely ignoring the rest. Considering that you're probably going to evade everything else, in every thread, until the end of time... well let's just assume from now on that when you enter a debate you've automatically conceded everything aside from the snippets you choose to quote. Haven't ever been provided with any reasons not to make that assumption.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  12. #72
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    Okay, say hypothetically say in your favor that that was conceded altogether. We're still nowhere near hearing a response to this:

    Because apparently you're still fine with quoting 2-3 sentences and blithely ignoring the rest. Considering that you're probably going to evade everything else, in every thread, until the end of time... well let's just assume from now on that when you enter a debate you've automatically conceded everything aside from the snippets you choose to quote. Haven't ever been provided with any reasons not to make that assumption.
    As for "blithely ignoring the rest" I am going to refer you to post #44.

    Not only is this a thread I started (not that that should matter) but your own complaints and some evidence suggests that something is not driving posts here. (I happen to think it is many things).

    For my part I've noticed that I don't read threads I'm not involved in. Why? Because they are difficult to read and follow when you have manifesto length responses responding to manifesto length responses.

    I don't have time to chart it all out and the debates I have bothered to glance through usually boil down to two people posting insanely long responses with multiple lines of questioning to each other all with only portions of quotes.

    The "winner" of the debate is the person who has the time to sit down and crafting long responses. These are not timed or live debates...we have all the time in the world to get through all of the minutiae of these topics.

    So, my question to you is: why the rush?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  13. #73
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,478
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Not beyond the private table.
    Hmm, well that seems to also be the unsupported claim you initially made. Can you support it? Challenge to support a claim.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. #74
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Hmm, well that seems to also be the unsupported claim you initially made. Can you support it? Challenge to support a claim.
    I have seen no evidence of anyone beyond the table having heard the conversation. Have you?

    Further, there would be testimony for the jury to hear on whether the conversation was intended to be projected beyond the table. The question would be would a reasonable person speak of intimate subjects knowing that their conversation could be overheard and would they takes steps (looking around to seeing if anyone is paying attention to them, speaking in a quieter tone, turning your body differently, etc.) to prevent it from being overheard.

    She would obviously testify that she expected the conversation to be private. It wasn't a lecture hall, or a soapbox in the park, or a banquet hall where she was speaking to the entire audience/entire restaurant.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #75
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,478
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I have seen no evidence of anyone beyond the table having heard the conversation. Have you?
    That is not support of your claim. Do you have positive support of this claim, or will you retract it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Further, there would be testimony for the jury to hear on whether the conversation was intended to be projected beyond the table.
    No, that isn't what your earlier evidence said. It did not indicate that the intention to be heard had to be there at all. Only that a reasonable person would infer it could be heard beyond the table.

    If you are going to claim that intention is relevant here, you'll need to offer support of that modification.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  16. #76
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is not support of your claim. Do you have positive support of this claim, or will you retract it?
    It would support the plaintiff's credibility that she believed they had made accommodations to keep the conversation private.

    ---------- Post added at 11:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    No, that isn't what your earlier evidence said. It did not indicate that the intention to be heard had to be there at all. Only that a reasonable person would infer it could be heard beyond the table.

    If you are going to claim that intention is relevant here, you'll need to offer support of that modification.
    Intention would be relevant and brought up at trial. If the defense had an independent third party that overheard the conversation they would be used in their favor. Likewise, that none exists would again bolsters the plaintiffs credibility and her claim that she precautions to make sure the conversation was not overheard.

    Are you saying intent wouldn't be germane to the case?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  17. #77
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,478
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    It would support the plaintiff's credibility that she believed they had made accommodations to keep the conversation private.
    But the law doesn't ask if "she believed" anything. It asks if a "reasonable person" would have believed. You've offered no support that her personal belief is relevant to that legal standard.

    Do you have support of your claim from post 70, "Not beyond the private table."? Or will you retract it? Challenge to support a claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Are you saying intent wouldn't be germane to the case?
    I'm asking you to support your claim that intent is part of the legal standard applicable in the case. Can you support that claim or will you retract it? Challenge to support a claim.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  18. #78
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But the law doesn't ask if "she believed" anything. It asks if a "reasonable person" would have believed. You've offered no support that her personal belief is relevant to that legal standard.

    Do you have support of your claim from post 70, "Not beyond the private table."? Or will you retract it? Challenge to support a claim.
    Right, no case has been filed and there is no testimony and no argument has been made. We're talking about a hypothetical argument and defense. The plaintiff arguing that the conversation was supposed to be private and the defense that it was supposed to be public and what a reasonable person would decide on a jury.

    Would I, on date night at the same restaurant, expect that my conversation would be private and would I therefore speak about things at the table I wouldn't share with the rest of the restaurant? Or was this like when I spoke at my local chamber of commerce breakfast the other day (open to the public btw) where I stood at the podium and communicated my message openly to the whole room?

    I will retract my statement and replace it with no evidence has been produced that the conversation was heard or could be heard beyond the table.

    ---------- Post added at 02:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm asking you to support your claim that intent is part of the legal standard applicable in the case. Can you support that claim or will you retract it? Challenge to support a claim.
    My support in post 59 puts in caveats regarding the location. Its not just simply that you are in a public place, you are in a public space and speaking in a manner that allows people to overhear. So her intent would definitely come up at trial..."were you whispering", mouthing words, giving body signals, did you adjust your seating to face away from others...were others nearby.

    The defense would argue, as you are, that its public and that's that.

    That's not what my support says.

    The jury would then decide whose story is more reasonable.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  19. #79
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,478
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I will retract my statement and replace it with no evidence has been produced that the conversation was heard or could be heard beyond the table.
    Ok, that seems reasonable.

    So given that, as you seem to imply, no evidence has been provided. What evidence have you offered that this recording then, broke the law?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    My support in post 59 puts in caveats regarding the location. Its not just simply that you are in a public place, you are in a public space and speaking in a manner that allows people to overhear.
    Well, let's take a look at what your support actually said:

    As a general rule, there is no expectation of privacy in a conversation that can be overheard from a location where the interceptor has the legal right to be and where the interceptor uses only the unaided ear.

    He then goes on to offer an example.

    The phrase "as a general rule" means that it is the default position, and that the opposing party would need to show those conditions to be violated.

    Let me ask it this way, if we were to assume that no evidence is presented either way, as you seem to imply, what is the Jury's default ruling supposed to be?





    Also, let's take a look at the next paragraph following the section you quoted:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Glynco, Georgia Legal Division ... - Google Books 2015-.png 
Views:	35 
Size:	45.0 KB 
ID:	3768






    As a quick side note, can you show that the source you referenced in post 59 is discussing the law you cited earlier? This seems to be related to much more general US rather than California law.










    Can you support any of your other claims in this thread?

    According to whom? The PP person? Media Matters?

    And where do they say this "is our standard process?"

    You didn't answer the question above or meet the challenge.


    Do you mean A or B?


    a) They change their procedures for all patients. In which case you haven't supported the claim since your quote is only referring to abortions under which organs are harvested.


    OR


    b) They change their procedures just for those cases where organs are being harvested. In which case I would argue you haven't really supported the claim well given that the quote references changing the procedure based on what type (liver vs neural) of tissue is being asked for.


    If A, please support the claim that this is for all abortions.

    If B, please support that altering the procedure for abortions where organs are to be harvested falls within the scope of the law. IE:


    Challenge to support a claim.

    B) Can you support that changing standard procedures for the purpose of obtaining additional body parts is within the scope of the law?





    Additionally, you ignored my request for support, so
    Challenge to support a claim.


    Do you have any support that PP said what you imply? That when offered a payment higher than their stated cost they said, "we'll go back and look for additional costs?"

    ___


    You also seem to be ceding the argument that they were charging per body part obtained. Is that correct?

    ___


    You also didn't respond to this request for support, so Challenge to support a claim.


    Can you support that retroactive cost estimation based upon sales price is legal for non-profits? (hint: it isn't) or permissible under the law cited?

    Second, can you support that the acceptance of the additional payment was at all conditioned on the justification by higher costs in the dialogue quoted? Please be specific.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #80
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, that seems reasonable.

    So given that, as you seem to imply, no evidence has been provided. What evidence have you offered that this recording then, broke the law?


    Well, let's take a look at what your support actually said:

    As a general rule, there is no expectation of privacy in a conversation that can be overheard from a location where the interceptor has the legal right to be and where the interceptor uses only the unaided ear.

    He then goes on to offer an example.

    The phrase "as a general rule" means that it is the default position, and that the opposing party would need to show those conditions to be violated.

    Let me ask it this way, if we were to assume that no evidence is presented either way, as you seem to imply, what is the Jury's default ruling supposed to be?





    Also, let's take a look at the next paragraph following the section you quoted:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Glynco, Georgia Legal Division ... - Google Books 2015-.png 
Views:	35 
Size:	45.0 KB 
ID:	3768




    As a quick side note, can you show that the source you referenced in post 59 is discussing the law you cited earlier? This seems to be related to much more general US rather than California law.
    Here's the link to the California law:

    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/cali...-recording-law

    The skinny being that California has two party consent as a requirement of recording.

    "If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place."

    That, I take it, is what the jury would decide. (We agree that there was no consent, right?)
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 33
    Last Post: June 10th, 2010, 10:23 AM
  2. Truly Planned Parenthood
    By PallidaMors in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: May 18th, 2006, 02:50 AM
  3. Planned Parenthood cartoon
    By nanderson in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: August 10th, 2005, 06:01 PM
  4. Murder or Tissue Issue?
    By Dionysus in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: April 19th, 2005, 11:54 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •