Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: Should abortion be legal?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • No - it is against God's will

    6 10.00%
  • No - it is murder

    6 10.00%
  • No - it is against the unborn child's rights

    6 10.00%
  • Yes - but only if the mother's life is in danger

    10 16.67%
  • Yes- but only if the mother's physical or mental health is in danger

    9 15.00%
  • Yes - in cases of rape

    15 25.00%
  • Yes - if the mother is underage

    11 18.33%
  • Yes - as long as it's early

    20 33.33%
  • Yes - it's better than bringing an unwanted child into the world

    19 31.67%
  • Yes - it should be entirely the woman's choice

    25 41.67%
  • Yes - it's just another form of contraception

    3 5.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 95

Thread: Should abortion be legal?

  1. #1
    DON'T PANIC! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tsuyoiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-05
    Posts
    979


    Country: United Kingdom



    Should abortion be legal?



    What are your views on abortion? Are you pro-life or pro-choice, or somewhere in between?

    The poll is multiple choice.

    BTW, I know this topic has been discussed before, but the thread died a long time ago, and I don't think the poll on it covers all the options.

  2. #2
    Chukchi Salmon Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-12-04
    Location
    Sunny South Korea
    Posts
    642


    Ethnic group
    Paleo-Asian
    Country: South Korea



    Talking I am not woman, only human,

    so I might have a bias towards men, women, and children in that regard.
    Nevertheless I believe the potential mother should have maximum rights to abortion since

    1) it is through her body that warmth, nourishment, and accomodation is provided for the embryo~fetus before it is born into the world. In that sense she is the landlady, the child the tenant. It should be the landlady's right to accept a tenant or not.

    2) if for any reason the potential mother feels unprepared to accpet the child, then it is fostering a bad envoronment for upbringing. The negative influence of an untimely child might have a hugely unfavorable impact on the child's upbringing.

    3) it would be a sexist act of violence to take away a woman's right to her body or the manner in which how she can excercise a choice of free will. Furthermore the government, the legal system, the labour union, the church, the market system, and any other interest group should stop trying to gain women's support and debilitate the family institution in the process, as women are the center of the family power structure.

    Aforementioned reasons lead me to believe that eveyone should just stay out of it, and let the women choose; is it going to be her career, her favourite party, the labour union, the child, or me ?

    my choices were all the Yesses except the first two with the limiting "only when"'s and the last as it is degrading of human life in general.
    Yes - in cases of rape 1 100.00%
    Yes - if the mother is underage 1 100.00%
    Yes - as long as it's early 1 100.00%
    Yes - it's better than bringing an unwanted child into the world 1 100.00%
    Yes - it should be entirely the woman's choice 1 100.00%
    ref: The Unabomber Manifesto, Dr. Theodore John Kaczynski, 1995

    Ted Kaczynski's analysis of the dissolution of the family system by the state (run by industrialist-government complex) deserves a close reading. In addition, regarding his deteriorated relationshionship with his family, esp. his mother and younger brother, leads me to suspect whether his mother bore him at an "inconvenient time." I apologise in advance if my liberal interpretation of Mr. Kaczynski is in any way detrimental to his public image.
    Last edited by lexico; 27-10-05 at 15:21.

  3. #3
    Angel of Life Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Kara_Nari's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-05-05
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Age
    38
    Posts
    147


    Country: South Korea



    I agree with it to a certain extent...
    I have met women who have had numerous abortions, this just angers me.
    Why can they not be a little more careful? Surely it would make more sense to have an operation, if they are too lazy to use any other form of contraception.

    I myself have never had an abortion, but I have known a lot of people that have, and even though they didnt want the baby for numerous valid reasons, they were so emotionally upset at the time from it, that they were much more careful afterwards.

    Its not fair for an unwanted child to be born into the world, there are so many of them here already. It really breaks my heart. I think it is entirely fair for a woman to have an abortion if she doesnt think she can give the baby a decent life, or if she just plainly doesnt want a child right at that moment.

    It must be hard for the women, when they dont think they're ready for the child, but the father of the unborn baby really wants to have it. Actually its so difficult for both of them. Either way, im not opposed to it, only when it gets to the 5th or 8th time.

    Kara-Nari Smarty-Pants Wiz-Girl of the Southern Pacific Queen of Communication and International Arbitration and Diplomatic Solutions to Hairy Territorial Issues Her Majesty the Empress コクネ・ you quite rightly deserve the title for your individuality !

  4. #4
    Horizon Rider Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Kinsao's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-05-05
    Location
    England
    Age
    40
    Posts
    592


    Country: United Kingdom



    An unborn baby is capable of feeling pain at 20 weeks' gestation (and possibly younger but I won't claim it as I'm not a scientist). Therefore, I think only to save the life of the mother. The methods used are painful and I certainly wouldn't inflict them on an animal.

    I wouldn't "condemn" anyone who had an abortion of course (I know a lot of people who have and they have without exception suffered from either mental, emotional or fertility problems in later years ).

  5. #5
    No Longer a Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    06-03-05
    Location
    Okayama, Japan
    Age
    43
    Posts
    374


    Ethnic group
    Native American
    Country: Japan



    To me, morality seems to be all about the promotion of happiness (includes future happiness, a reason I do not blow someone away in their sleep, or in a coma or stupor, or even a friendless bum on the street). Of course we cannot guarantee that anyone will be happy in better conditions, but we must try.

    Life is the absolute minimum condition for future happiness, and in that would I argue for the life-in-the-making. I would not lament the loss of my existence were I to have been aborted, and neither would I lament the loss of my life were someone to take a shotgun pointblank to my head while I was sleeping. But I know I would've missed out on a lot of happiness.

    I was put into foster homes, as my mother wasn't financially or emotionally prepared to take care of me, and then adopted at age five. Were abortions more easily accessible at that time, I wonder if my mother wouldn't have aborted me.

    I voted 'Yes- but only if the mother's physical or mental health is in danger'.
    "The whole purpose of religion is to facilitate love and compassion, patience, tolerance, humility, forgiveness."
    --H.H. the Dalai Lama

  6. #6
    Horizon Rider Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Kinsao's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-05-05
    Location
    England
    Age
    40
    Posts
    592


    Country: United Kingdom



    I agree with Revenant. Life is the most basic human right, and it is unquestionably a living thing.

    Also, there are many people (it seems to be getting more common - I don't know statistics? ) who find themselves unable to have children for one reason or another, and really want them. If I got pregnant, I'd definitely put the child up for adoption. Then I'd be able to think that even out of a distressing situation had come some good and some happiness for people.

  7. #7
    Your Goddess is here Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Ma Cherie's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-03-04
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    469


    Ethnic group
    African American
    Country: United States



    Hmmm.......this is a really difficult issue to talk about not to mention controversial. I really think it depends on the circumstances, like cases such as rape. Although I think abortion is immorally wrong, but I guess it's one of those necessary evils. In a sense I'm someone who is pro-choice, becasue I don't believe politicians and any other people for that matter should telll a woman what choices she make especially without understanding her situation. But then, sometimes I wonder how having an abortion would solve anything. Especially with the health problems involed, and possibly emotional.

    However, it really pisses me off when I hear stories about young women having unprotected sex and getting pregnant and then suddenly decide to have an abortion because she can't take responsibility for her actions.

    Since this isn't one of those right or wrong issues, I really believe it depends on the circumstances.
    “All right then, I’ll go to hell”―and tore it up. It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming.
    The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
    by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)

  8. #8
    Silent Assassin Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-02-05
    Location
    Living abroad in Las Vegas
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Ethnic group
    Chinese, Columbian, German, and Russian
    Country: United States



    Everytime I hear about abortion I always think of this particlar t-shirt and its saying.

    "Do you have a safe stance on abortion? Neither do I."

    Abortion is a tricky issue that requires an ethical standpoint than a religious or moral standpoint.

    Is it ethical to have an abortion?
    Is it ethical for the woman to choose?
    Is it ethical to have a partial fetal abortion even if the woman wasn't raped or in serious risk?
    Is it ethical to continuously have abortions for carelessness?
    Any many more.

    You have to ask yourselves the ethical values of abortion before you take a stance on abortion. For me I ending up choosing the following for my answers to the poll:

    Yes - but only if the mother's life is in danger
    Yes- but only if the mother's physical or mental health is in danger
    Yes - in cases of rape
    Yes - as long as it's early
    Yes - it should be entirely the woman's choice

    However, I do feel that partial fetal abortion is not only ethically wrong, but the defensive statements that women make for that particular action don't hold any water anyway.

    If the mother is underage
    It's better than bringing an unwanted child into the world
    It's just another form of contraception

    These types of excuses just go to show the lack of maturity and responsibility people take for their actions. It makes me sick to even know that there are people who continuously get abortions for their actions, and don't even care. All three choices show carelessness, selfishness, and are ethically all unsound.

    I personally feel ethically that it is murder to have a partial fetal abortion even if the baby is not wanted. You know it already is a life so why not let it live, and let somebody else who wants to raise the child into adulthood? It just doesn't click ethically to have that mind set about abortion IMHO.

    Doc
    "Suppress all compassion and you bear a weapon far greater than any held in the hand of a normal human being." - The Psychology of the Assassin

  9. #9
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Sensuikan San's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-02-05
    Location
    Nr. Vancouver, Canada
    Age
    76
    Posts
    346


    Ethnic group
    Anglo-Irish-Norse
    Country: Canada



    With respect .... I think all the guys should be banned from this thread!

    It's a "girl" issue IMHO.

    ジョン
    If you haven't been a Communist by the time you're 40 - then you don't have a heart.

    If you're still a Communist after the age of forty - you don't have a head ....

    (Denis Healey)

    If you're still a communist after the age of sixty ... you're coming to your senses again ....

    (Sensuikan San)

  10. #10
    Silent Assassin Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-02-05
    Location
    Living abroad in Las Vegas
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Ethnic group
    Chinese, Columbian, German, and Russian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Sensuikan San
    With respect .... I think all the guys should be banned from this thread!

    It's a "girl" issue IMHO.

    ジョン
    I ought to give you negative reputation points for that one, but I disagree with your point of view. Simply put this is just as much of an psychological issue for men as it is for women. So behaive yourself!

    Doc

  11. #11
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Sensuikan San's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-02-05
    Location
    Nr. Vancouver, Canada
    Age
    76
    Posts
    346


    Ethnic group
    Anglo-Irish-Norse
    Country: Canada



    Hi Doc !

    Yes - I agree ... to a point!

    I know a young guy and gal who have just had to go through this one, for real.

    I agree. It is a great psychological problem for a guy too. Undoubtedly.

    But for the woman - it's an incredible psychological problem PLUS a substantial physiological problem!

    Who's body is it anyway?

    Leave it to the ladies - I don't think they completely discount our feelings. But they have a lot more to think about on this one than we do in the final, total analysis.

    (Give me a bad rep. ..... and I'll tell all the gals .... !)

    ジョン

  12. #12
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Sensuikan San
    Who's body is it anyway?
    Actually, there are 2 bodies involved: mother & embryo

  13. #13
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Sensuikan San's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-02-05
    Location
    Nr. Vancouver, Canada
    Age
    76
    Posts
    346


    Ethnic group
    Anglo-Irish-Norse
    Country: Canada



    Yes ....

    .... I had a horrible feeling someone was going to say that
    !

    Laid myself wide open, didn't I !

    But ... (boy ...! This does get hard!) ... as my wife just asked me ... at what point does the fetus stop being part of the woman's body and become an entity of it's own ?

    ...or is "it" an entity of it's own from day one?

    (Damn! ... that's it! ... now I'm into the abortion debate!)

    Personally - and this may surprise many - I personally feel that the fetus is an entity from day one.

    However, I don't consider it to be a viable entity until it is able to sustain life, independently, without high-tech assistance.

    Until that stage is reached - I would consider "it" to be part of the woman's body ... and therefore within her own domain of decision.

    As to what prompts that decision - then I start to get a little severe. My own criteria would be very much -almost totally based on medical issues. If the woman's health or life be placed at risk ... no brainer! She gets the preference.

    For other reasons .... I can't think of many .... but there very well could be in certain circumstances, all of which would have to be judged on their merits.

    ジョン

  14. #14
    No Longer a Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    06-03-05
    Location
    Okayama, Japan
    Age
    43
    Posts
    374


    Ethnic group
    Native American
    Country: Japan



    An argument that I don't quite understand, is that since we don't know what a woman is going through, we have no right to make a judgement. To be honest, there are a lot of other immoral things done that I also do not fully understand. I do not understand why someone would want to rape (not really anyways, I can intellectualize), I do not understand what experiences, background, and circumstances drove someone to viciously maul someone, I can't say I actually understand their whole story, however, we still must make a judgement on the actions, and work for the prevention of these actions occuring again.

    Punishment is simply a conditioner, and some people must have limited freedoms for the safety and happiness of others. I am not a proponent of vengeful punishment or the death penalty. The last part is just to clarify, as I get a lot of people assuming that since I lean towards pro-life, I am also in favor of the death penalty.
    Last edited by Revenant; 31-10-05 at 11:31.

  15. #15
    gunjin Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Carlson's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-10-05
    Location
    Tokyo
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: Japan



    anything is legal as long as you dont get caught...

    i think it should be up to the mother.. if she wants to get pregnate every few months and get an abortion thats on her shoulders... if think it would be a usefull tool if used right.. but then who to say what is right and what is wrong?
    Picture Tokyo

    Catholic - which I was until I reached the age of reason.
    I've found him, I have Jesus in the trunk. - George Carlin Religion Quotes

  16. #16
    Horizon Rider Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Kinsao's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-05-05
    Location
    England
    Age
    40
    Posts
    592


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Sensuikan San
    Personally - and this may surprise many - I personally feel that the fetus is an entity from day one.

    However, I don't consider it to be a viable entity until it is able to sustain life, independently, without high-tech assistance.

    Until that stage is reached - I would consider "it" to be part of the woman's body ... and therefore within her own domain of decision.
    That's a difficult one. I, too, believe the fetus is an entity from day one, because it has its own separate genetic identity from conception onwards. It's not the mother, it's not the father. Of course, it's mind-bogglingly under-developed at that stage, but it's complete - no parts missing - and unique, with its own genes and therefore I would consider it as another individual.

    If the woman's health or life be placed at risk ... no brainer! She gets the preference.
    Yup, absolutely.

    On the other hand, I do have problems with issues around viability and "high-tech assistance". I see the point you're making, but... technology has changed so much recently. For instance, premature babies of a much earlier term can now be sustained by technology, enabled to live and recover to lead a normal life. And this is great news for the person and their parents. However, it does raise issues about the use of viability as a criterion for abortion, because many babies are aborted at a later stage of pregnancy than some of the premature babies who are assiduously cared for and who go on to survive. So therefore it does seem like a rather selfish and cruel case of some babies being got rid of because they're not wanted, and others being cared for. Incidentally, there is (or was - unfortunately I can't provide a source because I forgot where I read it ) a doctor in Holland who admits to routinely performing infanticide on premature babies. Why this should be seen as different from the later abortions I am not clear.

    Anyway, I have strayed off the point. ... high-tech assistance... yeah... I guess what I'm trying to say is that viability (with that assistance) has been going steadily up recently, younger and younger babies are enabled to survive. By specifying a point at which you cut off that assistance because the creature is not viable without it... well, I feel that it opens up many cans of worms in relation to other issues of dependence/independence as well. For instance, what about an adult person who relies on certain medical/technical gizmos or procedures to sustain their life (even relatively basic things such as insulin or dialysis)... could some people with twisted agendas use that kind of argument to push the case for refusing these treatments on the grounds that the person is being kept alive by artificial means?

  17. #17
    目録 Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Index's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-02-05
    Posts
    169


    Country: Poland



    It's a difficult issue, and everyone's opinion is valid. I think therefore that the choice should be left up to the woman who is pregnant. Nobody can make that decision for her, nor should anyone try, since it is her life and she has free will. Nobody can categorically state what is life, at what point a fetus is an independant being-there are arguments and counter arguments for every question, and since the particular women is closest to the issue, she should have the right to be final arbiter and decide.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Sensuikan San
    Until that stage is reached - I would consider "it" to be part of the woman's body ... and therefore within her own domain of decision.
    With the rest of your post, I can agree. With this part, though, I don't. Viable or not doesn't matter. As soon as the foetus can feel pain, it should be treated as you would treat any animal: avoid unnecessary suffering. & the foetus is never a "part of the woman's body". At best (or worst?) you could say it's a parasite living off the woman's body. Just because it cannot (yet) exist independently doesn't make it a body part.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Sensuikan San's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-02-05
    Location
    Nr. Vancouver, Canada
    Age
    76
    Posts
    346


    Ethnic group
    Anglo-Irish-Norse
    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    With the rest of your post, I can agree. With this part, though, I don't. Viable or not doesn't matter. As soon as the foetus can feel pain, it should be treated as you would treat any animal: avoid unnecessary suffering. & the foetus is never a "part of the woman's body". At best (or worst?) you could say it's a parasite living off the woman's body. Just because it cannot (yet) exist independently doesn't make it a body part.
    I must say ... it's very hard ....it's impossible to disagree with your argument isn't it!

    ... but is this not the source of the whole problem?

    Let us say that you're female - you have extreme medical problems - you're pregnant. The possibility of the child coming to term successfully is very remote .... and the probability of you suffering terminal illness or sudden death (prior to or during childbirth) is very high .......

    Whaddya gonna do?

    What's your husband/boyfriend/partner (who loves you deeply)gonna want you to do .... ?

    Not easy to sit on a high horse, is it?

    ジョン

  20. #20
    Horizon Rider Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Kinsao's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-05-05
    Location
    England
    Age
    40
    Posts
    592


    Country: United Kingdom



    Well, I think that if the mother's health and life is at risk, that would provide a valid justification for an abortion.

    I think where the problems arise is because of the fact that a large number of women have abortions because they don't want the child (for whatever reason), rather than for medical reasons.

  21. #21
    目録 Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Index's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-02-05
    Posts
    169


    Country: Poland



    Why do some people want to impose their ideas or beliefs on others? If the mother wants to have an abortion, she should be free to have one.

  22. #22
    DON'T PANIC! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tsuyoiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-05
    Posts
    979


    Country: United Kingdom



    Thanks for all your responses guys! I think you've all hit the nail on the head - there is no answer! No matter what someone does in this situation is going to be right in some sense, and wrong in some sense. I know I would never have an abortion unless my life depended on it, but part of me thinks that for some people it would be preferable to bringing a child into the world that they then resent for the rest of its life. I know of someone who (allegedly) had seven abortions then had a child she clearly didn't want, presumably because she couldn't have any more abortions. It's hard to see how to prevent situations like that, while still allowing genuine people to make an informed choice.

  23. #23
    No Longer a Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    06-03-05
    Location
    Okayama, Japan
    Age
    43
    Posts
    374


    Ethnic group
    Native American
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Index
    Why do some people want to impose their ideas or beliefs on others? If the mother wants to have an abortion, she should be free to have one.
    I would impose my idea that swindling is wrong, I would also impose the belief that murder was also wrong. It all has to do with doing one's best to protect the rights of others, and us pro-lifers believe it is protecting the fetus' rights to life and happiness.

    I agree with Kinsao's response to Sansuikan San's hyposthetical(?) question.

  24. #24
    No Longer a Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    06-03-05
    Location
    Okayama, Japan
    Age
    43
    Posts
    374


    Ethnic group
    Native American
    Country: Japan



    Apologies for the double post, but I found a post on another forum that articulates so well a part of what I would like to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck
    Society's acceptance of abortion is the result of a solipsistic culture that values the self over all other considerations.

    Once conceieved, the tiny mass of cells will, if left alone, barring any natural problems, become a human being. That it "doesn't feel pain" or "can't think" or "is not viable," is absolutley irrelevant. We are all continuously developing. It does not stop with birth. I am not the same man I was ten years ago, and am certainly not the same as I was at 5. Development starts with conception and ends with death. To stop the development during any stage is murder. No individual should claim a "right" to do this since it necessarily relies on the same individual. My three year old cannot survive without my direct involvement in his life. Does this mean he is "infringing" on my rights? Does this mean I have absolute control over his existence since he relies on me while I do not rely on him? If not, the argument that it is because he has a bunch more cells than an embryo, has developed the ability to experience pain, or can speak in monosyllabic utterances, is absolutely absurd.

    To argue that a life can be terminated at any stage is a justification for murder, whether they are an embryo, an unproductive mentally and physically challenged person, or a doddering old woman.

    To decide for someone else what constitutes an "acceptable" quality of life is also an exercise in unparalleled arrogance, as well as extraordinarily dangerous. Because someone doesn't have running water, adequate food, or any safeguards against horrific diseases is to condemn billions of people who lived prior to the twentieth century to death (as well as a great many in the 20th century). How can a group of people draw up what is considered a good quality of life for all of humanity? What is it based on, and does it ever change?

    Since you can't suggest that killing a human life inside of you is ok, you must naturally refute its humanity. This is a sophistry that is so ingrained in the minds of contemporaries, a view such as the one I offered above will seem intellectually stunted or enveloped in a simpleton's morality, and easily disregarded. Therefore, I can, unfortunately, see no end in sight for this practice.

  25. #25
    Horizon Rider Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Kinsao's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-05-05
    Location
    England
    Age
    40
    Posts
    592


    Country: United Kingdom



    FYI, the medical textbooks used for study of medicine and training doctors and nurses, they state that human life begins at conception.

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck
    To decide for someone else what constitutes an "acceptable" quality of life is also an exercise in unparalleled arrogance, as well as extraordinarily dangerous.
    Thank you for posting this, Revenant. I have often had reservations and thoughts like this when I hear the phrase "quality of life" - not especially in relation to the abortion debate, but in relation to the elderly and people with disabilities.

    I prefer to treat "life" as more important, first and foremost, than "quality of life".

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Abortion: Pro-life or Pro-choice?
    By Golgo_13 in forum Opinions
    Replies: 117
    Last Post: 30-08-18, 02:16
  2. Abortion Rights for underage girls
    By Mycernius in forum European News & Hot Topics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-07-11, 08:01
  3. Catholic church vows to excommunicate abortion supporters
    By Maciamo in forum European News & Hot Topics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 20-02-07, 18:28
  4. 1 pregnacy out of 5 ends up in abortion in Brussels
    By Maciamo in forum European News & Hot Topics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-09-06, 10:10
  5. Legal help
    By ax in forum Other Serious Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-01-05, 14:51

Posting Permissions

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