|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:01 am
This isn't going to have them all for awhile, I figured I would start it now though. These are all arguements I've heard (Not all from Gaia though.) This thread is for people who need help with a debate when there's no one else online. Feel free to post your rebuttals as well.Quote: Even if she gives it up for adoption, the woman has to go through 9 months of hell with no reward at the end. This is a violation of her rights.
For instance, you can legally drive with a license once you're 16. You can legally drink once you're 19, but once your blood/alcohol level is at a certain point you are no longer legally allowed to drive. Someone could argue that it's their body that is drunk and they're legally allowed to drink, and since they have their license they should be legally allowed to drive under the influence. However they can't because they may in turn hurt someone else, which is where the line is drawn.Quote: Even abstinence essentially destroys potential life. I do not see any movements against abstinence.
1. DNA is what makes you different from every one else. That seems pretty universally known. The fetus is attached to the mother, yes. It is still something different, else it would have the mothers DNA.
2. An entity is relevant because it shows that there is a difference between, say, removing a tooth and having an abortion.
3. Sperm has the potential to become a potential baby. A fetus is human (Personhood is debated, but hasn't been applied in this debate.) and is alive. Basic biology proves that fact. So it is a potential baby, not a potential human or a potential life as it is already both of those.
Also sperm itself has no potential to become anything, it's not until you intervene and merge it with an egg that is has any potential. A sperm left to its own devices will remain sperm. A fertalized egg left to its own divices will either miscarry or become a baby.
Every living thing needs certain living conditions in order to continue life. Otherwise they would die. When put in these conditions they will carry on living, when taken out of these conditions they would die. This doesn't change the fact that left to their own devices, within those conditions they would continue living. Quote: We condemn the killing of humans because of the special human sentiments and human relationships that distinguish our species from all others.
You may say its wrong and give reasons, but if someone else argues that they aren't a person for said reasons (And perhaps more.) than how would you prove them wrong? You couldn't using your definition of personhood as it would be a long arguement over your definition vs. theirs. The only way you could get anywhere is sticking to scientific facts. This is basically the same as what I am doing. My definition of personhood and your definition are different. So I'm trying to stick to scientific facts, so far scientifically the fetus is a living human. Can you refute this without using personal opinion? Quote: My argument isn't based on mental capabilities. A full-grown cow has higher mental capabilities than a two-week old baby. I accept the killing of the former, but condemn killing the latter. Quote: It's wrong to kill a mentally incapasitated person because the chances are almost certain that somebody loves this child very much, even if the parents don't. The killing of this person would cause suffering among the people who loved him/her (through a human relationship), which is highly immoral. Quote: Science has no effect on the question of whether a fetus is a person. Quote: If I cut my thumb off, is my thumb therefore classified as a human being because it will have the same DNA makeup as myself?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:16 am
Quote: It's my body; I have the right to choose. Abortion kills an innocent human being who is distinct from his mother. A mother has no more right to kill her unborn child than she does her born child. From the moment of conception, the mother carries in her body a genetically unique human being. The mother cannot rightly take her life, much less her baby's. Think about it: does a father have the right to kill his child just because he lives in his father's house? Of course not. Neither does a mother have a right to kill her baby just because he/she lives in his/her mother's womb. Quote: The fetus is just a clump of cells, a glob of tissue Even when it is a single fertilized cell, the fetus already has its own life principle and its own genetic makeup. The tiny clump of cells is a uniquely distinct individual who, with only the addition of time and nutrition, will develop into a mature human being. The only significant difference between a fetus and a fifty-year-old is time and location! Just because the baby is small doesn't mean that it is not a human being. What else could the offspring of two humans be? At one time, you were "just a clump of cells." But what important cells they were for you--they were you! Quote: An unborn baby can't reason or interact with people. Therefore, it's not really a person, so we can kill it. What about children who are born with mental impairments that leave them without reason or the ability to interact with others? Are they non-persons that can be killed? What aobut people who go into comas? They cannot reason or interact with others. Do they cease to be person? Can we go ahead and kill them? Wouldn't the same logiv allow us to kill people who are unconscious or fast asleep? This definition of "person" is arbitrary and against sound philosophy, leading to conclusions that even many aboriton supporters wouldn't accept. Quote: A fetus becomes a human when it can live on its own, outside the mother's womb. How many newborns or even two-year olds can live on their own, without food and care from their mother/parents? Even as adults, we depend upon others to help keep us alive. But we are still human. If being dependent means not being human, then toddlers, the handicapped, the injured, the sick, and the aged could all be killed on demand. That abortion is legal is meaningless. It was legal to kill Jews in Nazi Germany. Slavery, in the US, was legal, as was the selling of slaves, the breeding of slaves, and the raping of female slaves. The only thing the legalization of abortion indicates is how far we have sunk as a society. Quote: If abortion becomes illegal, it will still go on in back alleys. Yes, abortion will continue. Rape also goes on in spite of laws against it--should it no longer be a crime? Should we spend tax money to buy the rapist a good clean hotel room to commit his deed in? After all: "he's just going to rape people anyway." The law is an educator. In the 1960s, civil rights changed the way most people viewed discrimination. Laws educate even when they are disobeyed. Quote: You can't legislate morality. We legislate morality all the time. We have laws against slavery, birgotry, rape, incest, theft, murder, drunk driving, and child abuse. Why? Because these things aren't right; they are instrinsically wrong. No one believes we should be allowed to practice child abuse "in the privacy of our own homes." We pass all kinds of laws to keep people from doing horrible things. Abortion is wrong, and our laws should say so. Quote: I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I'm not going to tell other people what to do. Abortion is not an issue on which we can remain neutral: it is either homicide (killing innocent human life) or harmless medicine (like removing a mole). If it is homicide, then we cannot allow it to continue. Imagine that you were walking down the street, and, looking up, you saw a woman about to drop her three-month-old baby out of a second story window. Would you turn and walk away saying, "Well, I wouldn't do that, but I won't interfere; after all, it's her decision."? Quote: I am opposed to late-term aboritons, but I think we should allow abortions in the first trimester (first 12 weeks of pregnancy). Every argument used to justify early abortions can be used to justify late abortions. Every argument against late abortions is equally valid against early abortions. What is there about a twelve-week fetus compared to a twenty-week fetus that allows us to say we can kill one, but not the other? This is a purely arbitrary division with no basis in biology, philosophy, or any kind of morality (but don't drag that in). Quote: We must make exceptions for rape and incest Rape and incest are hideous crimes; people who commit them should be punished. Neverhteless, a baby that results from rape of incest is an innocent human being with the same right to life as everyone else. Two wrongs don't make a right. Why should we add the crime of homicide to these other crimes? We should not kill a child for the sins of his father. Killing an innocent human being is never justifiable. Quote: Better an aborted baby than an unwanted baby. Once we decide we can kill a baby that is "unwanted," we are applying the same logic Hitler used to kill "unwanted" retarded children and "undesirable" races like the Jews. No unborn baby is unwanted, there are thousands of famillies longing to adopt. Quote: I couldn't give my baby up for someone else to raise. A child is not a possesion to control, but a person to love unconditionally. What kind of mother would rather kill her baby than give him a chance to be happy with an adoptive family? It's the height of selfishness to say: "It I can't have my child, no one will."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:53 pm
I think this is a really great source: Answers to ProChoice ArgumentsIt's got a lot of great rebuttals. Also, there's a book called, ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments, and it's quite a read, but it's really great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:45 pm
Oh, so *this* is what you printed off to show me in chemistry class, Miranda. Yes, tis quite good.
You have some really great arguments too, Diadema... You guys are both really good. If one of you were pro-choice, it would certainly be quite the debate, indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:00 pm
Quote: So it would not be much more hard of a stretch to force the woman to alter her lifestyle to accomodate for this fetus. That is, if pro-life TRULY cared about the fetus. A woman who smokes, drinks, and does other reckless things to her body should be punished, if pro-life had its way, as it will be the fetus who suffers. First, this makes it look like the Pro-Choice movement is only for legalized abortion in cases with a 'bad mother'. If this were so, I'd have a lot more respect for Pro-Choicers, though I'd still disagree. However, they are actually for abortion to be legal in all sorts of cases, including teenagers who were stupid and got pregnant on 'accident.' Second, she makes a good point. Maybe we should make laws about drinking/smoking while pregnant. I wonder how they'd feel about that now, even though we took the idea from them... Quote: Adoption implies a sacrifice on the woman's part. ...And abortion doesn't imply more of a sacrifice, or, at the very very least, an equal sacrifice? If the woman is going to be so traumatized by giving their child up for adoption, won't they be even more traumatized by getting an abortion? Quote: Banning abortion is just another way of trying to control women; Next thing you know, we'll have to walk three feet behind our men, barefoot, with our heads covered! This is silly, but I hear it so often. It seems to me that this is really something of a scare tactic; They are trying to convince women that this is the main point on the "women's rights" agenda, as though they'll slip back into midevil times (Not even stopping in the 20s or 30s or anything) and be forced to be kitchen slaves who aren't aloud out of the house except under extreme conditions, unless abortion is kept legal. It's really not a logical point, but as I said, it's one I've heard quite a lot. Quote: I feel that pro-choice offers a more empowering role of women. It seems to me that pro-choice emphasises getting a woman a decent education about sex, safe sex, abstinance, and a myraid of other choices concerning sexuality, her body, and pregnancy. An education usually does a good job at dispelling fear and dependancy (something, i might add, that religion doesn't do a very good job at ). This will in turn give the woman a sense of control over herself, especially if the pregnancy was an unexpected turn of events. Pro-Lifers are also for a good sex education, as the better the sex education, the fewer abortions there are even with them legal, at least hopefully. Quote: A women is an Actual, already existing person. Her rights override the fetus'. This is what I think of as a non-argument. Given that we consider the fetus to be a human being with the same rights as the mother's, it's really not a good argument to just say that the mother is real and her rights shouldn't be considered as less then the fetus'. Quote: You can't use Hitler, Godwin's law! Godwin's Law! Godwin's law goes something like this: The first side to use Hitler or the Nazis in order to insult the other side loses. However, Pro-Choicers translate this as, "You can't use Hitler or Nazis in your argument." Of course, they have good reason to translate it that way: Hitler and the Nazis are easily comparable, without being used merely as an insult, to the Pro-Choice point of view. And, last but not least: Quote: Well, Pro-Lifers are just a bunch of bible thumpers, trying to force their morals on us and trying to get rid of the seperation of church and state. Whether you are making a logical argument or not, Choicers seem to think of this as their 'trump' card. They seem to have decided that Pro-Lifers are mostly a bunch of Christians, who want to make the USA a Christian only country. They've decided that only fundamentalist, extremist Christian morals would ever think that abortion is wrong. Of course, this is ridiculous, especially given that one of our most outspoken members, the lovely toxic_lollipop, is Pagan. And I know she's not the only one. Some of these were taken from my journal entry the other day. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:09 pm
Mcphee Oh, so *this* is what you printed off to show me in chemistry class, Miranda. Yes, tis quite good. You have some really great arguments too, Diadema... You guys are both really good. If one of you were pro-choice, it would certainly be quite the debate, indeed. Thank you...but if Toxic or me was pro-choice and we were having the debate...she'd win. Hands down, no contest. *Bows to Toxic* Mostly I just do insane amounts of research and have a lot of great resources...I'm really a very crummy speaker. READ ME PLEASE: Okay, here's the deal on this set of rebuttals...they're in outline form, because they're from that book I mentioned above. If anybody has any questions about what any of the stuff means, or if you need a more in-depth explanation, or backup facts, or whatever, just PM and I'll give you all the bibliographical nonsense ya' need! On to the rebuttals... blaugh Quote: It is uncertain when human life begins; that's a religious question that cannot be answered by science. 1. If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life. 2. Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception. 3. Some of the world's most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a US Senate committee that human life begins at conception. 4. Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirned with certainty that human life begins at conception. 5. The possibility of human cloning does nothing to discredit the fact that all humans coceived in the conventional manner began their lives at conception. Quote: The fetus is just a part of the pregnant woman's body, like her tonsils or appendix. You can't seriously beleive that a frozen embryo is an actual person. 1. A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of the body; the unborn';s genetic code differs from his mother's. 2. The child may die and the mother live, or the mother may live and the child may die (refering to miscarriages), proving that they are two separate individuals. 3. The unborn child takes an active role in his/her own development, controling the course or the pregnancy, the time of birth, (and might I add that all the extra 'parts' are grown from his/her single cell ~Diadema) 4. Being inside something isnot the sam as being part of something. 5. Human beings should not be discriminate against because of their place of residence. 6. There is substantail scientific reason to beleive that frozen embryos are persons and should be granted the same rights as older, larger, and less vulnerable persons. MORE LATER I'M BEING KICKED OFF THE COMPUTER FOR A BIT!! HANG ON!! smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:09 pm
OKAY! ESTOY AQUI! whee Back to the arguments... Quote: The unborn is an embryo or a fetus--just a simple blob of tissue, a product of conception--not a baby. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child. 1. Like toddler or adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development. 2. Semantics affect perceptions, but they do not change realities; a baby is a baby no matter what we call him/her. 3. From the moment of conception, the unborn is not simple, but very complex ((If you need more details on the the biology, just send me a PM)). 4. Prior to the earliest of abortions, the unborn already has every body part he/she will every have. 5. Every abortion stops a beating heart and terminates measurable brain waves. 6. Even in the earliest surgical abortions, the unborn child is clearly human in appearance. 7. Even before the unborn is obviously human in appearance, he/she is what he/she is--a human being. 8. No matter how much better it sounds, "terminating a pregnancy" is still terminating a life. Quote: The fetus may be alive, but so are eggs and sperm. The fetus is a potential human being, not an acutal one, it's like a blueprint, not a house; an acorn, not an oak tree. 1. The ovum and sperm are each a product of another's body; unlike the coptus, neither is an independent entity. 2. The physical remains after an abortion indicate the end not of a potential life, but of an actual life ((That's really cryptic and not-in-depth-whatsoever. PM me if you want the rest of the bit)) 3. Something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger, whatever is human must be human from the beginning. 4. Comparing preborns and adults to acorns and oaks is dehumanizing and misleading ((Again, pretty cryptic)) 5. Even if the analogy were valid, scientifically speaking an acorn is simple a little oak tree, just as an embryo is a little person. Quote: The unborn isn't a person, with meaningful life. It's only inches in size cant even think; it's less advanced than an animal, and anyway, who says people have a greater right to live than animals? 1. Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species. 2. Personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence. 3. The unborn's status should be determinied on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood. 4. It is a scientific fact that there are thought processes at work in unborn babies ((i got the evidence if you want it)). 5. If the unborn's value can be compard to that of an animal, there isno reason not to also compare the value of born people to animals. 6. Even if someone believes that people are no better than animals, why would they abhor the killing of young animals, while advocationg the killing of young children? 7. It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful. 8. Arguments against the personhood of the unborn are shrouded in rationalization and denial ((again, more evidence if you want it))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:43 am
Diadema The unborn is an embryo or a fetus--just a simple blob of tissue, a product of conception--not a baby. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child. 1. Like toddler or adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development. You may want to reword that. As there are chicken embryo's and fetuses, wolf embryos and fetuses etc. The different is that it's a HUMAN embryo and fetus. It's not a species of its own, and so therefore must belong to a pre-existing species. The only logical explaination would be that it belonged to the species of the parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:48 am
toxic_lollipop Diadema The unborn is an embryo or a fetus--just a simple blob of tissue, a product of conception--not a baby. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child. 1. Like toddler or adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development. Ah, your right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Diadema Mcphee Oh, so *this* is what you printed off to show me in chemistry class, Miranda. Yes, tis quite good. You have some really great arguments too, Diadema... You guys are both really good. If one of you were pro-choice, it would certainly be quite the debate, indeed. Thank you...but if Toxic or me was pro-choice and we were having the debate...she'd win. Hands down, no contest. *Bows to Toxic* Mostly I just do insane amounts of research and have a lot of great resources...I'm really a very crummy speaker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:25 pm
toxic_lollipop Diadema Mcphee Oh, so *this* is what you printed off to show me in chemistry class, Miranda. Yes, tis quite good. You have some really great arguments too, Diadema... You guys are both really good. If one of you were pro-choice, it would certainly be quite the debate, indeed. Thank you...but if Toxic or me was pro-choice and we were having the debate...she'd win. Hands down, no contest. *Bows to Toxic* Mostly I just do insane amounts of research and have a lot of great resources...I'm really a very crummy speaker. haha. Well, I guess you would win, Miranda. I mean, you turned *me* pro-life! eek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:26 pm
toxic_lollipop This isn't going to have them all for awhile, I figured I would start it now though. These are all arguements I've heard (Not all from Gaia though.) This thread is for people who need help with a debate when there's no one else online. Feel free to post your rebuttals as well.Quote: Even if she gives it up for adoption, the woman has to go through 9 months of hell with no reward at the end. This is a violation of her rights.
For instance, you can legally drive with a license once you're 16. You can legally drink once you're 19, but once your blood/alcohol level is at a certain point you are no longer legally allowed to drive. Someone could argue that it's their body that is drunk and they're legally allowed to drink, and since they have their license they should be legally allowed to drive under the influence. However they can't because they may in turn hurt someone else, which is where the line is drawn. *claps* never thought of it that way. Just to add something. The pregnancy may be unlikeable, but it is something that goes away within 9 months. A human being deprived of living a life is a situation that they will deal with eternally. There is no end to the fact that someone cut their life. Eternity vs. 9 months. One's problem is a heck of a lot longer than the other's. toxic_lollipop Quote: Even abstinence essentially destroys potential life. I do not see any movements against abstinence.
1. DNA is what makes you different from every one else. That seems pretty universally known. The fetus is attached to the mother, yes. It is still something different, else it would have the mothers DNA.
2. An entity is relevant because it shows that there is a difference between, say, removing a tooth and having an abortion.
3. Sperm has the potential to become a potential baby. A fetus is human (Personhood is debated, but hasn't been applied in this debate.) and is alive. Basic biology proves that fact. So it is a potential baby, not a potential human or a potential life as it is already both of those.
Also sperm itself has no potential to become anything, it's not until you intervene and merge it with an egg that is has any potential. A sperm left to its own devices will remain sperm. A fertalized egg left to its own divices will either miscarry or become a baby.
Every living thing needs certain living conditions in order to continue life. Otherwise they would die. When put in these conditions they will carry on living, when taken out of these conditions they would die. This doesn't change the fact that left to their own devices, within those conditions they would continue living. See I'm pro-"life" not pro potential life. I don't beleive what is being killed is a potential life (maybe you didn't mean that, but that is what I'm feeling based on the wording). I veiw the individual in question as a legitimate life. Someone meeting the biological standards for a living organism. I think sperm and egg are potential lives, only when they meet do they become "actual" lives. The person whom you are rebutting however, doesn't veiw the fetus as a living based on their own ethics. And like Toxic says, there's not getting ANYWHERE in a debate when we base the arguements on something so subjective. Well as for me here are reasons I hear. Quote: Every child should be born wanted Every "fetus" by the time they have developed enough to live out in the world, have self worth. They cry when they are hungry and have needs they desire to be attended. Do you think they what is racing through their heads is "well maybe I should shut up because such and such doesn't want to do it?" No. They value their survival and THAT is why they cry. Every child is born wanted by the virtue that children WANT their survival the moment they come out of their mother. Quote: Why should a underdeveloped human have more rights than one fully developed? Because to be fully developed would indicate that the human is dead anyway. Development doesn't stop in the womb. A baby will need to develop, adults develop into a more elderly form, and the elderly continue to develop until the day they die. All living human beings are "underdeveloped" to some degree. Quote: Why is a baby any different then a cancerous cell? A cancerous cell is not by any means growing to be any legitimate human life. Being it isn't legitimate human life it isn't even up for discussion, heck the cancer is not even creating a distinct body part. A fetus on the other hand is developing into a being that is human and will be able to live like other humans once its body has matured long enough. Quote: The baby will not enjoy their life since the mother isn't ready to raise it This is subjective. You can have all the statistics money can buy, but there is no scientfic evidence that there is no way possible for the child to appreciate his or her life, let alone if they WILL. Quote: Abortion isn't affecting a pro lifer, you don't get hurt by a dead fetus This is a rebuttal that doesn't really focus much on science as much as it targets a pro lifer personally. It may not change our lives (and then again it may) but, the fetus misses out on a chance at living lives other human beings get to live. Say there is a bum on the street. No one knows about him, or heck doesn't care about him. If I take a gun and shoot him, and he dies, it isn't murdering him because I haven't "hurt" anyone in the process? No. Its still a murder. Why does every act of love have to subtly rest on this selfish notion that I MUST get something out of it in order to be loving? To me, being pro life is being loving. Because while the fetus being allowed to develop doesn't pay my electric bill, I do not beleive true love requires something in return for your warmth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:41 pm
Quote: Don't like abortions? Don't have one. (Replace "abortions" with "slaves") Don't like slaves? Don't have one. But that's really more to give a better understanding why simply turning a blind eye is unacceptable to us. It is a sentence/arguement used an awful lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:12 pm
Wait you all see words when the other sides talks?
Oh jk jk whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:53 pm
Quote: Quote: Even if she gives it up for adoption, the woman has to go through 9 months of hell with no reward at the end. This is a violation of her rights. Pregnancy is not Hell for every woman. My mother had virtually no side effects (apart from her stomach getting bigger, eating more, and then labour.) from the pregnancy. Nothing that could be considered "Hell". Life is not completely based on a reward system, perhaps it should be in an ideal world, but it's not. Simply because one doesn't get a reward doesn't mean that one can decide for someone else that they no longer get to live. While I agree that to some extent you must have the right to control your body (I'm for legalizing drugs, I'm for legalizing prostitution etc.) you must also draw the line at some point. There is a point at which someone else gets hurt, and you're no longer simply controlling your body you're controlling someone elses. For instance, you can legally drive with a license once you're 16. You can legally drink once you're 19, but once your blood/alcohol level is at a certain point you are no longer legally allowed to drive. Someone could argue that it's their body that is drunk and they're legally allowed to drink, and since they have their license they should be legally allowed to drive under the influence. However they can't because they may in turn hurt someone else, which is where the line is drawn. all they would say to that is "here is the price of live birth in the U.S. according to The Baby Center. com so most likely that would not work
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
