Do All Conservative Arguments Lead to Abortion?

In three or four unrelated conversations, I have had completely different people respond to something that I said about social justice, or theological liberals like Martin Luther King Jr., with objections that brought abortion into the discussion, even though it had not been mentioned. It was as though the reasoning was:

1) All liberals (whether morally, politically, economically, or theologically liberal seems not to matter – anyone who uses the term is lumped together) support abortion

2) MLK would not have supported abortion

3) Therefore MLK was not a liberal

And of course, in those discussions unrelated to MLK, the “logic” seemed to be rather something like the following: “You favor socialized health care, or are theologically liberal, therefore you must support abortion, therefore I can dismiss everything you say on every topic.”

Of course, the logic is faulty, since not everyone who is a theological liberal, or an economic liberal, or a political liberal, adopts the same view of abortion.

But nevertheless, if it is going to keep coming up, and potentially distracting from other topics, I guess I had better talk about abortion.

The topic is one that came up in my class on religion and science last semester, too, and I suggested that a perspective like that of process philosophy or theology might be more useful than one which looks to define an unchanging, static essence of personhood or humanity, and then tries to figure out when that essence is present.

Let's consider the focus of the subject, the life that is growing with the womb, by beginning at the end and beginning of the process. On one end of the spectrum, we have a baby being born. Once that baby is born, no one disputes that we are dealing with a human being with rights protected by law. As we move backwards in time, prior to the birth, I know of no one who claims that, just because a baby has not been born yet, it is OK to kill it the day before the anticipated delivery date. You could be forgiven for thinking that this view is widespread, with all the rhetoric of “baby killers” that gets thrown around. And maybe there are people out there who think this. But I have never encountered them, nor have I encountered a situation in which the law adopts this stance. And so if you have been given the impression that that is “what liberals think,” then you have been lied to, or perhaps have deluded yourself without outside assistance. Again, I am not saying that I am sure that no one thinks this. But it is not common and certainly isn't “the liberal viewpoint” on abortion or even “the pro-choice viewpoint.”

On the other end of the spectrum, we have sperm and one or more eggs. When an egg is fertilized, we refer to that as the moment of conception. But at that moment, all that has happened is that one living thing has transferred genetic material into another. One can scarcely make the statement that a fertilized ovum is a “person” in any of the senses in which that term is normally used.

But that is where things get challenging, because that single cell will, in a very large number of instances, develop into an entity that no one disputes is a person.

So why do so many people assume otherwise? I think the reason why many adopt the “life begins at conception” stance is the fact that there is no obvious dividing line at a later stage, and so it avoids messiness, uncertainty, and difficult questions.

But as came up in my class, if we are talking about life, then life was there even before conception. And if we mean not merely life but personhood, it seems not to be there yet, except as a potentiality for the future.

Some have tried to circumvent these difficulties by positing that there is a soul, a spiritual substance, which is inserted by God at conception, conferring the status of personhood at that moment.

Here is why I do not think that makes sense.

Identical twins are the result of a single fertilized egg producing not one person, but two. Unless one wishes to say that they share a single soul, then it is very hard to make the case that the soul of an individual is present from conception. Maybe one could say that the presence of two souls causes the single fertilized ovum to produce two people. But why would someone want to say that, other than as an ad hoc attempt to defend a foreordained conclusion? (And given all the things that can and sometimes do go wrong in the course of embryonic development, would that not inevitably mean that sometimes we end up with people with one body but two souls?) Is any such speculation helpful? Does it really add to our understanding or solve any of the problems related to this topic? And in the end, does it make sense to claim the presence of a key symbol of individual identity at a point when that which is developing could still become more than one individual?

Since a division into two embryos that will become identical twins can occur even up until the 9th day, it is hard to see in what sense one could claim that a zygote or blastocyst is a “person.” Can one person become two people? Were twins once the same person? A transporter accident on Star Trek can of course turn one person into two. But it can also separate out different aspects of the same person, and have other effects which suggest that, however interesting the thought experiments may be that we can engage in on the basis of Star Trek and its imaginary technology, it does not enable us to better answer these questions.

So what is my view? I consider abortion a tragedy at any stage. But I do not consider it equally tragic indifferent of the stage at which it occurs. And I therefore consider it appropriate that the woman who is pregnant be the one to decide whether ending the pregnancy as early as possible is more or less tragic than the possible impact of not doing so. I do not think that anyone actually desires to have an abortion, unless it is as an option weighed against alternatives that they find to be more tragic, whether it be the likelihood of having to drop out of school and thus be unable to care for oneself, much less the child, or the serious possibility that the mother may die resulting the loss of both lives.

The evidence does not support the view that terminating a pregnancy early on is “murder.” And most people, including most conservative Christians, seem to know this deep down. Few of them would like to see the death penalty for those women who get abortions. Most of them consider those who shoot doctors or bomb clinics to be deranged rather than heroic. And what little Biblical evidence there is would support them in this.

As for when to draw the line after which one attributes personhood, I will leave that to medical experts. It will be arbitrary, just like designating 18 as the end of being a minor, or any other milestone. But a dividing line for legal purposes is necessary – again, few would disagree about this, I think.

If the experts advise erring on the side of caution, I would concur. Doing that does not mean placing the dividing line at the moment of conception.

I continue to hope that more people will inform themselves about this topic, and as a result discover that their views fall in between the extremes, somewhere in the middle, where most people find themselves. If there is something particularly frustrating and disheartening about American politics, it is our penchant for pretending that we and those we disagree with are on polar extremes of the range of possibilities. Because of the de facto two-party system, views which are not that different are depicted as, and treated as though they were, polar opposites. This is not to say that we do not genuinely disagree – just that, if people actually talked to one another, they would realize that there is much that we can agree upon, and around which we can intelligently disagree, if we get beyond stereotypes and the attempt to force everyone to view a matter that is not clear cut exactly as we do.

I invite readers of this blog to get started on that discussion!

Other interesting posts on this topic from around the blogosphere include:

Bruce Gerencser blogged about false claims regarding Roe vs. Wade, writing:

Culture warriors like Walker have no problem lying, fudging, or distorting facts to advance their agenda. They lose all credibility when they do so. We need to have a serious debate in America about abortion, but how can we as long as one side of the debate lies and calls all who disagree with them murderers guilty of human rights abuse?

He, Theresa Johnson, Jerry Coyne, and Hemant Mehta all drew attention to a case in which a Catholic hospital argued against the personhood of fetuses in order to avoid having to pay out compensation.

Libby Anne blogged about a book by Jonathan Dudley, which offers an interesting historical perspective on Evangelical views concerning abortion and fetuses, and which includes this statement:

Evangelicalism has defined itself by weakly supported boundary markers, which are justified by a flawed understanding of biblical interpretation and maintained by suppressing those who disagree.

Bob Seidenstickter also blogged about pro-life claims about personhood, with a link to a post about the stance of a variety of Protestant churches only decades ago. See also an interesting conservative Evangelical response.

Fred Clark calls on Evangelical men to stop lying about women's reproductive issues, and also blogged about Roe vs. Wade.

Red Letter Christians has a post on the need to be consistently pro-life, “from the womb to the tomb.”

On a more distantly related note, Chad has a great post about the different sorts of marriage that are and are not discussed in the Bible.

 

  • RtRDH

    Hey James, thanks for the link, but actually, Chad is responsible for the post.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Oops, sorry! Thanks for pointing out the error – I have now fixed it!

  • http://www.facebook.com/Robertbobby91 Robert Gorman

    Personhood doesn’t begin at birth dude.

    So what you’re really doing is justifying infanticide as well. Not personally, but the argument can be extended over to that.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      I can’t help but wonder whether you read what I wrote…

    • BertramCabotJr

      Actually, the atheist philosopher of ethics at Princeton, Peter Singer, does aruge that personhood does not begin a birth.

      But the Post is well done.

      Killers can always find an excuse to kill if they want to.

  • IchBinLecher

    This is why knowing philosophy, especially metaphysics, can be important.  As a realist, I believe that all things have an essential nature that does not change though it’s entire being – even if we call it different things.  This means that I consider an acorn an oak, as its essential nature is that – its accidental properties simply haven’t caught up yet.

    Another way to say this, in more layman’s terms, is that it is a developing person.  I am also a developing person (at 22 years of age).  I am learning new things, I am personally working on developing my strength by working out, I develop in near every way that a human fetus does – capacity, size, producing new cells, etc.  Just because it is developing doesn’t mean it isn’t a person.

    As for the whole does it have two souls at conception garbage.  This is irrelevant to the discussion and used a complication to create confusion.  Let God deal with that particular side, and we can care about people whenever we see them – even if they were not there yesterday or there was only one there yesterday.

    • arcseconds

      What you describe as ‘realism’ sounds more like aristotelianism to me.

      ‘Realism’ isn’t really a particular position in philosophy, but rather a kind of position one can take on a particular issue.  One could be a realist about morals but an antirealist about science, for example (morals exist, but science is just a useful way of organising our experience).   ‘Realist’ on its own normally means ‘scientific realist’. You sound like you’re a realist about essences, which many scientific realists wouldn’t agree with.

  • T. Webb

    Actually, some are making a better argument. See the recent salon.com article at http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/… the author argues that human life begins at conception, but she’s still pro-abortion. I think that this refinement of the argument makes the debate more honest and straightforward. Okay, it’s human life. So what?

  • Tara

    James, this is my first time on your site, and I really liked this piece.  As the author of the “interesting conservative Evangelical response” you link to above, I appreciate the shout out.  I wonder, though, how you came to determine that I am a conservative Evangelical. That’s not a label I would use myself, but maybe it means something different to you.  In any case, I bless your desire to “get started on the discussion.”  

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Hi Tara! Welcome! I may have wrongly deduced how you would self-identify, based on your own opening statement. Most of the times, when someone self-identifies as you did (even with qualifications) as “an evangelical, homeschooling, anti-choice woman” then the phrase I used would fit. But I too confess that I had not been to your blog before, and so I will gladly replace the phrase in the link with one of your choice! :-)

      • Tara

        No need to change it, James.  I was just curious because the next line stated that  I was a “feminist who is agains the death penalty, voted for Ralph Nader every time that was an option, and supported Obama in each of the last two elections.”  My Republican Christian friends have certainly never accused me of being conservative! 

        Labels are tough, I know, and we all just do the best we can, recognizing that no person fits neatly into any of them.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          Well, I still apologize. I can’t honestly remember why I added “conservative” next to “Evangelical” and it may just have been force of habit from writing the phrase. The ironic thing is that I try to use that phrase precisely to make clear that there are Evangelicals who are not conservative, and then I ended up sticking the label on a non-conservative Evangelical! So my apologies again.

  • Susan Burns

    The availability of abortion in the first trimester means that a pregnancy in second or third trimester is desired by the mother. What would be the reasons a woman would terminate in the second or third but not the first if she had that option? It could only be her health or the viability of the fetus. Conservative propaganda wants us to believe that women are having late-term abortions because they do not value human life. They are, once again, devaluing women. We (liberal) women cannot be trusted with abortion rights because we will just terminate our pregnancies willy-nilly without regard for the potentiality of offspring. 

    • Susan Burns

      After all, since liberal women have not been transformed by the Holy Spirit how can they possibly have a moral compass?

    • Melanie Davidson

      I read something recently that suggested that socioeconomic status may play a role as well. Women who cannot afford an abortion let alone another child, tend to have to take the time to “save up” or borrow to pay for the abortion, which pushes it into the 2nd trimester, increasing risk. If mothers were better supported on the whole, or if birth control were more easily and reliably available and accessible (Thank you, affordable care act, for my free pills! Finally!), this might not happen as much.

      But your observation that late term abortions are generally “wanted” pregnancies where something went catastrophically wrong. That’s spot-on.

    • BertramCabotJr

      No, there could be other reasons.  Economic setback, the end of a relationship, just a change of mind, whatever.  It is not necessarly “only” health or viability.

      As for devaluing women, abortion kills more girls than boys.

      I call that a “devaluation”.

      • Susan Burns

        Nope. You have just devalued women. A pregnancy is a profound responsibility that only women have. You obviously have no clue whatsoever.

    • Bakakurisu

      Research indicates that 98% of all abortions are related to issues of
      “personal choice.”  The primary reasons women give for having an
      abortion include not feeling emotionally capable (32%) or financially
      capable (25%) of raising a child, and concern that having a child would
      drastically alter her life (16%).

      The three most frequently cited “hard cases” in which some argue
      abortion might be justified are rape, incest and protecting the life of
      the mother. However, women rarely report that they are seeking an
      abortion for any of these reasons:

      Rape: 0.3%

      Incest: 0.03%

      Protection of mother’s life: 0.2%

      In other words, out of 1,000 women procuring abortion, only three
      cite rape as the primary reason, and only two cite protecting her life
      as the reason for the abortion.  Out of 10,000 women procuring abortion,
      only three cite incest as a reason.
      Sources: Guttmacher Institute. 2008, July. Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html.Johnston, Wm. Robert. Reasons given for having abortions in the United States. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html. ____________________________
      Our problem is not with you guys “terminating pregnancies”, our problem is with you terminating living human beings. There is no such thing as “potentiality of offspring”.

      • Consumer Unit 5012

        Fred (Slacktivist) Clark has a post for you:

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/10/24/no-5k-for-the-biggest-killer-so-does-anyone-really-believe-its-a-killer/

        Short form: Half of all fertilized egg-cells ‘miscarry’ before the uterine superstructure sorry, breeding unit sorry, “women” ever even notice they were pregnant.

        So, why aren’t ‘right’ to ‘life’rs obsessed with the WORST MEDICAL KILLER IN HUMAN HISTORY?

        • Bakakurisu

          So your assertion is that it should be legal to deliberately slaughter innocent children because some of them die of natural causes???

          *FACEPALM*

          Is there ANY pro-abort out there that isn’t a complete retard?

          • rmwilliamsjr

            not some, most. the overwhelming majority of fertilized eggs are not capable of normal development.

            • bakakurisu

              “Most” is still some. You’re still talking about natural causes vs. deliberate homicide.

              Your argument is a non-sequitur. Your assertion is that because people die of natural causes, then homicide is justified… But only if the person is not born yet… And you have nothing to support that parameter.

              Your argument boils down to “abortion is OK because abortion is OK.”

              • rmwilliamsjr

                re:

                Your argument is a non-sequitur. Your assertion is that because people die of natural causes, then homicide is justified…

                no it is not. my point is that most fertilized eggs do not have the capacity to develop into functional human beings. embryos are not people, fetuses are not people, they are potential people IFF they complete development and are born.

        • rmwilliamsjr

          i had an extraordinary developmental bio class, 1st year grad class with more than half med students. the prof said one day, chill out you guys, you’ve already passed the most important test of your life, gastrulation, about 50-70% of all fertilized eggs have chromosomes so badly damaged that will not support development and die as a result.

          if one accepts the ensoulment at fertilization argument, then almost everyone in heaven was never even born because God made them so defective that they died in utero. odd conclusion to arrive at.

          • bakakurisu

            Umm… You lost me with ensoulment… You ARE aware that human life begins from conception, right? You ARE aware that there is a distinct, fundamental difference between dying of natural cause and being killed by deliberate homicide, right?

            Sorry, I can’t tell if you’re supporting or contesting what Consumer is saying… Could you clarify?

            • rmwilliamsjr

              re:

              You ARE aware that human life begins from conception, right?

              obviously those 50-70% are not human, nor could they ever be human, their genetic components are too badly damaged to structure their bodies properly. often trisomy for chr 1-21, 22 being the smallest just barely allows those to survive. an embryo is potential human life, it remains to be seen if it’s fully functional or not.

              • rmwilliamsjr

                as is common in these discussion the anti abortionists confuse life, with potentially human life, with human life, with personhood. all distinctively different things, maybe even significantly different levels in the discussion. but their desire seems to be to quash them down to a single item, a fertilized human egg is a person. i’m afraid that the onrush of biological science will make that a very difficult case to make. genetic testing is a fact and gene manipulation will be soon. the old categories will break as the boundaries of life, potential human life and personhood will be muddled by our ability to manipulate genetic material.

                just as the whole discussion of abortion is driven by medicine, both the ability to abort safely and to deliver and sustain premature human beings, the next discussion will be driven by new technologies we can only see in the movies.

                • bakakurisu

                  As is common in these discussions, the pro-aborts completely dimsiss facts and logic, and replace it with bumper sticker slogans and rhetoric. They willfully refuse to accept the fact that human life begins from conception not because they have any proof to the contrary (they absolutely do NOT), but because truth is simply inconvenient for them.

                  ====

                  “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”
                  - The official Senate report from Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981

                  Background on the Committee testifiers:
                  A group of internationally-known biologists and geneticists appeared to speak on behalf of the scientific community on the subject of when a human being begins. They all presented the same view and there was no opposing testimony. Among those testifying:

                  Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School
                  Dr. Jerome Lejeune (“Father of Modern Genetics”)
                  Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee
                  Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
                  Dr. Richard V. Jaynes
                  Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization”
                  Professor Eugene Diamond
                  Gordon, Hymie, M.D., F.R.C.P., Chairman of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester
                  C. Christopher Hook, M.D. Oncologist, Mayo Clinic, Director of Ethics Education, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine

                  .
                  ====
                  Now… Regarding “personhood”:

                  “..in the eyes of the law…the slave is not a person.” (Bailey/als. v. Poindexter’s Ex’or, 1858, Virginia Supreme Court)

                  “An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution.” (George Canfield, American Law Review, 1881)

                  “The statutory word ‘person’ did not in these circumstances include women.” –British Voting Rights case, 1909

                  “The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews…as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.” (1936 German Supreme Court decision)

                  “The word ‘person’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn.” (U.S. Supreme Court decision, 1973)
                  _________________________________
                  Are we noticing a pattern, here?

                  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                    I definitely see a pattern. You display a consistent pattern of copying and pasting material, and of trying to muddy the waters in the discussion. The issue of not treating full-grown human beings as persons is clearly a different one than asking at what stage in development human beings in general, conceived by people of any and all nationalities and ethnic backgrounds, the status of personhood is reached. A single fertilized cell is not a person in any meaningful sense of the term, and the attempt to pretend that it is does not help move the conversation forward.

              • bakakurisu

                So… Because they are “defective”, they are not human?

                What are your sources for this claim?

  • Lw

    Only in America you can cheerlead Obama the pro-war, pro-unnamed drone attacks, pro-nuclear weapons President – and yet still rage against all three.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XAHHPYRYZSUIEJZHHAH3WJMP3A Rick M

    Abortion is the greatest way to change the subject. If you are talking about the Newtown massacre and I sense you are going to suggest gun regulations, and I am opposed to gun restrictions because I’m a rightie, I will immediately talk about why you don’t grieve for the babies aborted every day (since the number of abortions far exceeds the number of kids gunned down in classrooms). Boom. I win the body count, and you can go back to your pinko Rachel Maddow show. 

  • http://brucegerencser.net/ Bruce Gerencser

    Thanks for the mention, James.  I support unrestricted access to abortion in the first trimester. 88% of all abortions take place in the first trimester.  However, I do not support unrestricted abortion, especially after viability. I know viability is a moving target. 

    Right to Life groups love to focus on later term abortions. (aka partial-birth abortions) 12,000 abortions (1.2%) occur after the 20th week. Most of these are medically necessary . Are some unnecessary late term abortions performed? Sure and we must work to make sure they don’t happen.

    Both side can be quite shrill at times but they are not equally shrill, Most of the shrill rhetoric comes from the pro-life side. Due to their religious beliefs they won’t or can’t compromise even if it means less abortions. More education, easy and free access to birth control for everyone able to conceive, and less restrictions on adoption will all reduce the number of abortions. But, pro-lifers will have none of it. It is total war for them. (and why it is usually a waste of time to talk  with them about the issue)

    The implications of personhood are many. I wrote on this  here http://brucegerencser.net/2012/08/abortion-facts-lies-and-contradictions/

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

    James: Excellent stuff. I immerse myself so much in fundamentalist Christian podcasts and blogs that it’s refreshing to see (IMO anyway) some sensible thinking from a Christian.

    The uncompromising view that some pro-lifers take seems wrong in so many ways, but let me point out just one. If abortion is the modern-day Holocaust that they say it is, society should do whatever it takes to bring the rate down. Our sex education has been so hobbled by those fundamentalists that we could probably halve our abortion rate with excellent education and easy access to contraceptives (the per capita rate in the Netherlands is one tenth that in the US).

    Why bang your head against the wall with the anti-abortion thing when you can focus instead on the issue that everyone is agreed to, that unwanted pregnancies should be minimized??

    • BertramCabotJr

      Yeah Bob, those fundies are idiots but James is one of the good Christians.

      Your attitude is disgusting…it reminds me of a guy who is prejudiced against a group but says to one of them, “But you are OK, you are one of the good ones”.

      You can’t even see it can you?

      Its called bigotry, Bob.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

        Can’t see it? Sure I can see it. I don’t like the attitude of some fundamentalists who want prayer in schools, prayer in the city council meeting, Creationism in schools, “In God We Trust” as our motto, and so on. In a country with an explicitly secular constitution, that bothers me.

        You call it bigotry. Uh … OK. That’s nice. I’d call it “justifiable outrage” or “judgment” perhaps. But whatever.

  • Elliott

    Religion has no place in the discussion of abortion. For Christians it is a distraction from focusing on Christ’s message of The Sermon on The Mount. We must all clean our own house, before focusing on the house of another. Until I can get pregnant, it is not my business. For women, until you are the other woman, you have no moral right to judge her.

    • Bakakurisu

       Are you in danger of being aborted?

      …Then what right do you have to support abortion?

  • Ward Ricker

    There are a host of problems with this article.  I will just briefly counter your main theme,
    that abortion is a conservative issue. 
    Abortion involves (or doesn’t) the killing of a young human being.  Does this really have anything to do with
    being conservative or liberal?

     

    Ditto for religion. 
    Your article makes a great deal of religion, but abortion is not a
    religious issue.  Abortion deals with the
    killing (or not) of a little human being. 
    Who the hell cares what your religion is?  I hope that people think killing people is
    unacceptable, regardless of their religion, or even if they have any religion.  (As a matter of clarification, I don’t have
    one.  And if you insult me by calling me
    a “conservative” you had better be ready to fight!)  So why are you talking about religion all the
    way through your article?

     

    Abortion deals with whether or not we are killing a little
    human being.  That is not a religious
    issue.  It is not a liberal or
    conservative issue.  I will also throw in
    that it is not a “social” issue either.  It is a human rights issue – pure and
    simple.  Either we are killing people (a horrendous
    human rights violation) or we are not (in which case there is no human rights
    violation and , therefore, no issue).

     

    Having said that, and not wanting to delve into all the
    various aspects of your article, I would just like to clarify one thing.  In your article you state, “I know of no
    one who claims that, just because a baby has not been born yet, it is OK to
    kill it the day before the anticipated delivery date….nor have I encountered a
    situation in which the law adopts this stance.”  The fact is that the law does adopt this
    stance – it is indeed “legal” to kill a preborn baby the day before
    it is born anywhere in the U.S.  Please
    realize this!  If you read the Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion
    “legal” in 1973, you will find that the decision barred states from
    prohibiting abortion anytime during the first two trimesters.  (The trimester system is not in effect since
    the Casey v. Planned Parenthood case
    of 1992, but the Supreme Court upheld the “essential holdings” of Roe
    v. Wade and the basic principles remain essentially the same.)  During the final trimester states were
    allowed to, but did not have to, place restrictions or prohibitions on abortion.  If a state did prohibit abortions during the
    third trimester it had to allow exceptions for the life or health of the
    mother.  The accompanying 1973 Doe v Bolton decision made it clear that
    the mother’s health included “physical, emotional, psychological,
    familial, and the woman’s age”. 

     

    Who decides if a woman’s emotional, psychological health
    will be hurt by continuing the pregnancy? 
    I believe that would be her doctor. 
    Who is a woman’s doctor?  Anyone
    who is licensed as such that she chooses to have as her doctor and is willing
    to have her as a patient.  Get the
    picture?  Yes, laws in states that choose
    to have laws prohibiting abortion may make things more difficult or expensive
    for the woman who might be seeking abortion, but, simply with the opinion of
    some doctor, it is “legal” in the U.S. to have an abortion right up
    to the day of delivery even in those states that choose to have laws
    “prohibiting” abortion.  And,
    of course, in states that don’t have such laws, she doesn’t even need to get
    the doctor’s opinion involved.  So,
    contrary to your contention, the law does indeed adopt the stance that it is
    okay to kill a baby the day before it is born. 
    This is a greatly misunderstood area, and I hope you will read the
    Supreme Court decisions and understand what it is that they actually say.  The law
    in our country supports killing preborn human beings right up until the time of
    birth.

     

    If you care about what is really happening in our society,
    take a look at the summary at my website: 
    http://www.abortionreason.com/fetaldevabortions.pdf.  Once you know what is actually taking place,
    then come back and discuss the situation.

     

    (Oh, and I just can’t resist this:  I just noticed the picture on your page,
    “No matter how strongly one may oppose abortion rights, the reality is that
    this is not a person … because it’s an elephant.”  So, you really believe that’s an elephant,
    huh….?)

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Indeed, killing human beings is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. Whether a fertilized egg is a person sometimes is. It doesn’t sound to me as though you read the post, since you don’t engage the details of the post – or even the photo of an elephant embryo (at around 11 weeks of development, I think), other than to mention it.

  • Ward Ricker

     My apologies for the bad paragraphing format.

  • Bakakurisu

    The problem is that you pro-aborts live in a fantasy world. The FACT of the matter is that you support homicide. Not liking facts doesn’t make them untrue.

    ====

    “We talk of human development not because a jumble of cells, which is perhaps initially atypical, gradually turns more and more into a human, but rather because the human being develops from a uniquely human cell. There is no state in human development prior to which one could claim that a being exists with not-yet-human individuality. On the basis of anatomical studies, we know today that no developmental phase exists that constitutes a transition from the not-yet-human to the human.”

    “In short, a fertilized egg (conceptus) is already a human being.”

    Erich Blechschmidt, Brian Freeman, The Ontogenetic Basis of Human Anatomy: The Biodynamic Approach to Development from Conception to Adulthood, North Atlantic Books, June 2004. pp 7,8

    ====

    “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

    “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

    Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 8th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. pp. 15, 2

    ====

    “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

    Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8

    ====

    “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”

    Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3

    ====

    “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

    Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3

    ====

    “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

    Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43

    ====

    Dr. Jerome Lejeune of Paris, France was a medical doctor, a Doctor of Science and a professor of Fundamental Genetics for over twenty years. Dr. Lejeune discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome, receiving the Kennedy Prize for the discovery and, in addition, received the Memorial Allen Award Medal, the world’s highest award for work in the field of Genetics. He is often called the “Father of Modern Genetics”. The following are some notable statements by him:

    “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
    - 1989 court testimony in Tennessee, cf. also Louisiana Legislature’s House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990

    “The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”
    - The Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Report to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th
    Congress, First Session, 1981

    ====

    “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”
    - The official Senate report from Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981

    Background on the Committee testifiers:
    A group of internationally-known biologists and geneticists appeared to speak on behalf of the scientific community on the subject of when a human being begins. They all presented the same view and there was no opposing testimony. Among those testifying:

    Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School
    Dr. Jerome Lejeune (“Father of Modern Genetics”)
    Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee
    Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
    Dr. Richard V. Jaynes
    Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization”
    Professor Eugene Diamond
    Gordon, Hymie, M.D., F.R.C.P., Chairman of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester
    C. Christopher Hook, M.D. Oncologist, Mayo Clinic, Director of Ethics Education, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine

    .
    ====

    • Bakakurisu

       I just find it ironic that you guys claim that all advocates of life only oppose abortion because of their religion (I am agnostic, by the way), yet you guys are the ones who are clutching to your dated, baseless, destructive BELIEFS.

      • Bakakurisu

        All you’re doing here is trying to draw entirely arbitrary lines on what qualifies as “personhood”, and putting up smokescreens to cover the holes. This is certainly not without precedence:
        _________________________________
        “..in the eyes of the law…the slave is not a person.” (Bailey/als. v. Poindexter’s Ex’or, 1858, Virginia Supreme Court)

        “An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution.” (George Canfield, American Law Review, 1881)

        “The statutory word ‘person’ did not in these circumstances include women.” –British Voting Rights case, 1909

        “The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews…as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.” (1936 German Supreme Court decision)

        “The word ‘person’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn.” (U.S. Supreme Court decision, 1973)
        ________________________________
        Are we noticing a pattern here?

        If you consider things like sentience and distinct self-awareness to be your arbitrarily-chosen qualifications for “personhood”, then you should know that these aren’t attained until a few months AFTER birth, when the synapses in the brain increase from around 56 trillion to well over a quadrillion. Some bioethicists assert that the human animal doesn’t become a “person” until 2 years of age.

        Your ridiculous parameters for “personhood” are inconsistent, semi-permeable, and ‘conveniently’ self-serving.

        As I have proven, human life begins from conception.
        ________________________________
        person  per·son (pûr’sən) n.
         A living human.
         The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
         The living body of a human. Physique and general appearance.

        The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
        Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

        ________________________________
        Note that that is an entry from a MEDICAL dictionary. What you’re proposing is that we drop proven science for the sake of self-serving desires that conveniently satisfy a eugenical agenda.

        You’re on the wrong side of morality, the wrong side of science, and the wrong side of history.

        • rmwilliamsjr

          re:

          As I have proven, human life begins from conception.

          is it possible to “prove” something like this unless you are merely unwrapping definitions. the fields that have an interest in this question would be at least law, morality and science. in none of these 3 fields do i see anything like deductive proof like i see in maths or logics, but rather there is something like evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

          in any case, the only way i see any hope of proving this idea-”human life begins from conception” is to define it from the start and argue in a vicious circle.

      • http://brucegerencser.net/ Bruce Gerencser

        As soon as you use words like murder and homicide you are making a moral argument, one often used by the proponents of religion.

        88% of all abortions take place in the first trimester, and most of them in the first eight weeks. Even if I agreed with your contentions, and I don’t, what injury occurs from a woman having an abortion in the first trimester?

        Are you opposed to abortion in all instances? Rape? Incest? Severe birth defect? Spontaneous abortion from use of birth control pills or an IUD? How about ectopic pregnancies?

        It is potential life that begins at conception. At birth, this potential life is legally deemed a person? (and sometimes before birth in some states) If life begins at conception and should be treated as a person under the law, I assume you consider the doctor, woman getting the abortion, nurse who helped the doctor, and the person who drove the woman to the clinic, a murderer and punishable by law? Sames goes for women who use birth control pills.

        Pro-life arguments are too simplistic and their arguments, if made law, would turn our legal system into a nightmare.

        • Bakakurisu

          *facepalm*

          You’re a little dense, aren’t you? READ what is said to you. Pay attention, and stay focused.

          First of all, I never ONCE used the word “murder”, and secondly, abortion IS homicide. How is that in any way a “moral argument”?
          ________________________________________
          hom·i·cide [hom-uh-sahyd, hoh-muh-] 
          noun 1. the killing of one human being by another.
          2. a person who kills another; murderer.

          Origin: 1325–75; Middle English  < Middle French  < Latin homicīdium  a killing, homicīda  killer, equivalent to homi-  (combining form of homō  man) + -cīdium, -cīda -cide

          ________________________________________
          What injury occurs from a woman having an abortion in the first trimester? Did you read the part where I proved IRREFUTABLY that human life begins at conception? Do you even know what abortion is?

          Hmmm… You tried to discredit my argument with the statement that 88% of abortions occur within the first trimester, then you throw down the rape and incest card? REALLY? Abortions for cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother equal about 0.8% COMBINED. Rest assured, if a developing child crawls out of the womb, rapes a woman, then puts a knife to his or mother's throat, I would support bringing the little bastard to trial. I don't play favorites… Which means that I don't support killing a child just because he or she is sick… Though I suppose you'd support killing any other human being who gets disfigured or "defected" at some point AFTER birth? Why, or why not?

          No, it is NOT a "potential life" that begins at conception. I have proven this. I consider the person who actively kills the child to be the murderer. As I have proven, abortion is HOMICIDE, and should be legally regarded as such. Birth control pills are not abortifacients – they are contraceptives. You are obscenely uneducated.

          Pro-abortion arguments are completely baseless – they have no root in fact or logic whatsoever, and the clumsy attempts at justifying it can be used to justify any OTHER holocaust. Fortunately, we're winning this fight. You're just going to have to get over it. :/

          Are there any pro-aborts here who have a better argument than "DERP! I DONT LYKE UR ARGYOOMINT SO IT MUST B RONG N STOOPID!!!1"? That seems to be all that Mr. Gerencser has to contribute… :/

          • http://brucegerencser.net/ Bruce Gerencser

            So far you have shown you can cut and paste. Now try engaging the questions I asked.

            BTW. Birth control pills and IUD’s can and do cause, at times, spontaneous abortion. Medical fact.

            Now I know when not to engage further and this it. I will leave to James to engage you further. I would love you to take a stab at my questions without using cut and paste.

            • Bakakurisu

               WOW…

              So… World-renowned embryologists, physicians, doctors, and medical dictionaries are wrong because the  bumper sticker slogans you keep belching out at me say so???

              You are pathetically desperate.

              Bring it on, James! ;)

            • newenglandsun

              Guest really doesn’t like to face the facts does he?

              “Are you opposed to abortion in all instances? Rape? Incest? Severe birth defect? Spontaneous abortion from use of birth control pills or an IUD? How about ectopic pregnancies?”

              Rape – can be solved by providing pregnant women who are victims of rape with the proper care they need and the right adoption plans. I saw an episode of House M.D. last week where Dr. House is trying to encourage a rape victim to have an abortion but she refuses due to her beliefs that life is sacred.

              Incest – Seriously? This is like under consensual sex and rape. See the arguments for that. The human life still has a right.

              Severe birth defect – So now you are in complete rejection of the Americans with disabilities act. You don’t actually view disabled people as “humans”. You should be ashamed of yourself.

              Spontaneous abortion – Is spontaneous. Classified under miscarriages.

              Ectopic pregancy – Actually threatens the mother’s life. In this case, a decision does have to be made and abortion should be reserved specifically for this.

        • rmwilliamsjr

          re:

          As soon as you use words like murder and homicide you are making a moral argument, one often used by the proponents of religion.

          is it a moral argument or a legal one?

          is personhood defined by law for a given society or is it some type of universal human moral category?

          anti-abortionists seem to propose that it is merely an acknowledgement of an universal. as Bakakurisu here seems to suggest that it is obvious that personhood is established in the fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm. but the only thing i see obvious is that a fertilized egg is alive as was the unfertilized one but that now it has embarked on a developmental journey that may or may not result in a human life. what it depends on is it’s complement of dna and the contents of the egg. most fertilized eggs are incapable of completely development, primarily due first to massive indel mutations and secondarily to fatal mutations/recombinations in genes or control sequences..

          if we look to science for some of the data we use to build or morality or laws, this fact should prevent use from arbitrary labeling potential human life a person until we see if it can function as a person and fully develop. this is essentially the functional definition of human that results from making birth the criteria for entry into personhood(not quite since so many birthed babies still die because of genetic defects).

      • newenglandsun

        I agree. If we just simply decide to try and define what is and isn’t human in terms of life, then we can justify Innocent III’s actions by safely reasoning that the Cathars weren’t actually “persons”. Heck, all genocides throughout histories can no longer be rendered as crimes against humanity because the people being killed off weren’t actually humans in the personhood sense of the word. This argument simply backfires on pro-abortion advocates.

        Sincerely,
        anarcho-pacifist

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501915913 Roger Wolsey

    i attended a debate the other night between two Catholics. the topic was
    “can the free market provide adequate welfare to the poor?” — much of
    night dealt with abortion and contraception; i.e., the HHS legislation
    that would have Catholic hospitals providing contraception to their
    employees — and Roe v. Wade. I was dismayed. : P

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      That a discussion can be hijacked to end up there, and once there can often never return to the original topic, makes the cynical side of me wonder how many politicians and other powerful parties push the issue not because they care about it, but because of its power to distract from other things they don’t want people to talk about.

  • newenglandsun

    “I do not think that anyone actually desires to have an abortion, unless it is as an option weighed against alternatives that they find to be more tragic, whether it be the likelihood of having to drop out of school and thus be unable to care for oneself, much less the child, or the serious possibility that the mother may die resulting the loss of both lives.”

    Well now, that’s a better argument than most pro-choice arguments I have seen. I do sincerely hope that you are right on this although I also think that if we sought to provide pregnant women with better equality protection that we would not even be bringing education opportunities up as a valid reason for abortion. I think that if the mother may die, abortion can be reserved as a doctor’s suggested opportunity. I view the woman and the unborn baby as equals which makes situations like that, though rare, a perfectly and completely reasonable argument in favor of it. But most pro-abortion arguments I have seen are simply based off of egotism.

    “The evidence does not support the view that terminating a pregnancy early on is “murder.””

    Incorrect assumption. The Ohio kidnapper was faced with the potential threat of murder charges for killing the unborn.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/05/201359211034888466.html

    And the death penalty is wrong because it only seeks to add more to the bloodshed.

    “Few of them would like to see the death penalty for those women who get abortions.”

    Interesting that you start off refuting a straw-man and then invoke a straw-man into your argument. Are you saying here that all people who are anti-abortion are also pro-death penalty? I am not. In particular, because I am not bound by any particular religious belief that requires me to hold that the death penalty was God-ordained and sanctioned at one point in time.

  • Pingback: yellow october

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: service training

  • Pingback: xxxcams.mobi

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: kangen water

  • Pingback: alkaline water benefits

  • Pingback: kangen water machine

  • Pingback: porno

  • Pingback: power bank

  • Pingback: armi

  • Pingback: adolescenti

  • Pingback: gioco azzardo

  • Pingback: paid backlinks hacking

  • Pingback: cheap viagra

  • Pingback: gruas burgos

  • Pingback: cheap viagra

  • Pingback: free porn movies $$$

  • Pingback: free money

  • Pingback: Online pharmacy

  • Pingback: earn money online free $$$

  • Pingback: free natural viagra $$$

  • Pingback: code de la route

  • Pingback: cheap website design

  • Pingback: Bargains

  • Pingback: cleaner

  • Pingback: colombian brides

  • Pingback: Usenext kostenlos

  • Pingback: url

  • Pingback: Actor Pictures

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: sell my Portland house quick

  • Pingback: fast payday loans

  • Pingback: sri lanka animal

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: vigra

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: MOT YORK

  • Pingback: Storage Auctions

  • Pingback: Online Storage Auction

  • Pingback: mattress singapore

  • Pingback: mattress singapore

  • Pingback: mattress singapore

  • Pingback: Storage Auctions

  • Pingback: storage auction

  • Pingback: binaere option BDSwiss

  • Pingback: paid backlinks hacking

  • Pingback: pet store franchise opportunities

  • Pingback: Call Frost & Remer at (734) 782-2411

  • Pingback: Porno

  • Pingback: place to get auto insurance in Flat Rock

  • Pingback: Usenet kostenlos

  • Pingback: Flat Rock auto insurance provider

  • Pingback: taco man long beach

  • Pingback: Frost & Remer Insurance

  • Pingback: make money taking surveys 2015

  • Pingback: taco man long beach

  • Pingback: place to get liability insurance in Flat Rock

  • Pingback: Nevada Casino

  • Pingback: Nevada Casino

  • Pingback: children's entertainment

  • Pingback: ??????????

  • Pingback: sex toys

  • Pingback: minoxidil efeitos colaterais

  • Pingback: minoxidil efeitos colaterais

  • Pingback: брокер

  • Pingback: sex toys

  • Pingback: http://www.binaryoptionstradingx.com

  • Pingback: Videos Porno

  • Pingback: std testing

  • Pingback: binaryoptionstradingx.com

  • Pingback: personal trainer singapore

  • Pingback: personal trainer

  • Pingback: Quantenheilung Köln

  • Pingback: spammy

  • Pingback: rent prostitute romania

  • Pingback: Fake Steroids Canada

  • Pingback: Steroids Scammer Canada

  • Pingback: appliance service in LA

  • Pingback: dishwasher repair Los Angeles

  • Pingback: cushion for dogs

  • Pingback: blood testing

  • Pingback: cushion for dogs

  • Pingback: Porno

  • Pingback: redtube

  • Pingback: lisinopril

  • Pingback: xenical

  • Pingback: masöz istanbul

  • Pingback: masöz istanbul

  • Pingback: masöz izmir

  • Pingback: masöz istanbul

  • Pingback: istanbul masöz

  • Pingback: Entertainment

  • Pingback: Celebrities

  • Pingback: Incestos

  • Pingback: News

  • Pingback: supreme youtube channel

  • Pingback: St.Lucia

  • Pingback: Epson & Sons Appliance Repair, Epson & Sons, Epson and Sons, Epson and Sons Appliance Repair, Epson & Sons Appliance Repair (562) 200-0545, (562) 200-0545, Epson and Sons (562) 200-0545, appliance repair in Long Beach, Long Beach appliance rep

  • Pingback: Epson & Sons Appliance Repair, Epson & Sons, Epson and Sons, Epson and Sons Appliance Repair, Epson & Sons Appliance Repair (562) 200-0545, (562) 200-0545, Epson and Sons (562) 200-0545, appliance repair in Long Beach, Long Beach appliance rep

  • Pingback: pain pills

  • Pingback: buy PBN

  • Pingback: cheap twitter followers

  • Pingback: PROOF OF INCOME

  • Pingback: visit the website

  • Pingback: Vietnam dong for sale

  • Pingback: Dong Vietnamese

  • Pingback: lose weight without exercise

  • Pingback: Dong investment

  • Pingback: (626) 551-4873

  • Pingback: Alhambra appliance repair company

  • Pingback: appliance repair company

  • Pingback: appliance repair company

  • Pingback: appliance repair company

  • Pingback: werkt niet

  • Pingback: appliance repair 91801

  • Pingback: oplichterij

  • Pingback: official site

  • Pingback: viagra sex

  • Pingback: wooden hot tubs

  • Pingback: Quantenheilung Köln

  • Pingback: rate

  • Pingback: antalya masaj

  • Pingback: videos porno

  • Pingback: Mcafee

  • Pingback: parachutisme soulac

  • Pingback: pic

  • Pingback: fmtrader احتيال

  • Pingback: fmtrader نصب

  • Pingback: colon cleanse maintenance

  • Pingback: colon cleanse weight loss powder

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: pinganillos

  • Pingback: escape singapore

  • Pingback: escape singapore

  • Pingback: escape room singapore

  • Pingback: fuck

  • Pingback: lida zayıflama hapı

  • Pingback: botanique at bartley

  • Pingback: maximum shred

  • Pingback: porno

  • Pingback: Naturkosmetik

  • Pingback: masquerade masks for men

  • Pingback: kroken

  • Pingback: orjinal lida

  • Pingback: videos porno gratis

  • Pingback: insurance

  • Pingback: online bookmarks

  • Pingback: water ionizer

  • Pingback: Southfields

  • Pingback: fmtrader احتيال

  • Pingback: cebu

  • Pingback: real estate

  • Pingback: sex

  • Pingback: Los Angeles legal recruiter

  • Pingback: Namecheap coupons

  • Pingback: advanced ambulance

  • Pingback: angel medflight

  • Pingback: maduras

  • Pingback: porno

  • Pingback: Porno

  • Pingback: investment

  • Pingback: investment

  • Pingback: lida

  • Pingback: allo pizza vesoul

  • Pingback: lida

  • Pingback: Viagra

  • Pingback: http://www.taigamebigone.mobi

  • Pingback: http://www.mngaragefloorcoatingstore.com

  • Pingback: free viagra

  • Pingback: the best positions she likes

  • Pingback: Santa Clarita Calendar

  • Pingback: Videos De Maduras

  • Pingback: Crime scene clean up

  • Pingback: Lake Norman bathroom remodel

  • Pingback: interior bedroom design uae

  • Pingback: Bed bug

  • Pingback: Crime scene clean up

  • Pingback: pebble tiles

  • Pingback: Botanique at bartley

  • Pingback: Viagra

  • Pingback: Viagra

  • Pingback: Bed bugs

  • Pingback: novelty techpoint

  • Pingback: Santa Clarita Business Directory

  • Pingback: Pure Garcinia Cambogia Extract

  • Pingback: muslim marriage events

  • Pingback: automotive

  • Pingback: government business grants

  • Pingback: Videos Gays

  • Pingback: alkaline water

  • Pingback: Sexo Gay

  • Pingback: Cheap Botox

  • Pingback: alkaline water

  • Pingback: masaj

  • Pingback: interior design singapore

  • Pingback: bd swiss trading platform

  • Pingback: exchange iphone

  • Pingback: bdswiss abzocke

  • Pingback: skup apple

  • Pingback: pizza vesoul

  • Pingback: terrible webhost

  • Pingback: Clarkston MI Small Business Lending

  • Pingback: Clarkston MI Small Company Lending

  • Pingback: porno

  • Pingback: Schlüsseldienst Düsseldorf

  • Pingback: Small Business Lending Clarkston Michigan

  • Pingback: Small Company Loans For High Risk Industries

  • Pingback: china

  • Pingback: hd porn

  • Pingback: gun

  • Pingback: buy prostitute online

  • Pingback: buy sex online

  • Pingback: free rape porn

  • Pingback: buy prostitute online

  • Pingback: tarjetas de visita baratas

  • Pingback: imprenta online

  • Pingback: porno

  • Pingback: ogrodzenia PCV

  • Pingback: Sztachety

  • Pingback: dui attorney dauphin county

  • Pingback: Merry Christmas from Poker Automatics

  • Pingback: treadmill belt review


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X