Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-02-2004, 08:03 AM   #1 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Manslaughter for miscarriage

It is now Law in the United States, that a fetus is protected from harm while in the womb of its' mother. Would it not follow that should a woman lose her child, due to a fall or other unfortunate situation, she could be charged with a crime against the life she carried?
Unlikely as it may seem, the recent case of a woman criticized for waiting on a C- section and losing one of her twins, is case in point. She could now, very easily be charged with a serious crime for her choice to do as she pleased with her body(I am aware she was a freak in the eyes of most people).
My questions are as follows:

Where do the rights of the fetus superscede the rights of the Mother?

At what point does the court decide a group of cells has become a fetus?

In the case of miscarriage, is the mother guilty of manslaughter?

What is the underlying motivation to qualify an undeveloped human as sentient,thus giving it rights it has no way of comprehending?

Where does religion fit into this descision?
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 08:36 AM   #2 (permalink)
My future is coming on
 
lurkette's Avatar
 
Moderator Emeritus
Location: east of the sun and west of the moon
Quote:
Originally posted by tecoyah
It is now Law in the United States, that a fetus is protected from harm while in the womb of its' mother. Would it not follow that should a woman lose her child, due to a fall or other unfortunate situation, she could be charged with a crime against the life she carried?
I'm not sure but I think the fetus is protected if the mother is harmed in the commission of a crime against her, the mother.

Quote:
Unlikely as it may seem, the recent case of a woman criticized for waiting on a C- section and losing one of her twins, is case in point. She could now, very easily be charged with a serious crime for her choice to do as she pleased with her body(I am aware she was a freak in the eyes of most people).
Whew, that's a shitty case. At what point do the motivations of the mother come into play? In this case, I think she didn't want a cesarean for cosmetic reasons (which is why there was such a fuss), but what if it was on religious grounds, or because she has a fear of surgery? Plus, we let selfish, shallow people have children all the time and fuck them up. Why should a fetus have more rights than an actual human?

Quote:
My questions are as follows:
In the case of miscarriage, is the mother guilty of manslaughter?
Imagine that a mother can't afford prenatal care for some reason, and has a miscarriage that could arguably have been prevented. Is she guilty? What about her employer who didn't provide health insurance? What if she had access to prenatal care but chose not to use it? I can see this getting way the fuck out of hand. What if she had gestational diabetes but kept eating ice cream anyhow?

Quote:
What is the underlying motivation to qualify an undeveloped human as sentient,thus giving it rights it has no way of comprehending?
We give rights to others who have no way of comprehending those rights - infants, children, people with mental disabilities, etc. The issue isn't sentience or capacity to understand, it's the decision to declare that something that isn't technically an individual yet (do we give all embryos social security numbers on conception? Can I collect SS death benefits if I have a miscarriage? /callous smartass mode) has rights.

I predict this conversation deteriorates into the usual pointless argument when life begins in 3....2....1....
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France
lurkette is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 08:38 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Is the child entitled to protections from unreasonable search and seizure? Is there a case to prohibit ultrasounds in light of this new right?

I think this law is silly. I'm sure there will be plenty of sore glad-hands in and around congress following its signing though.
filtherton is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 08:48 AM   #4 (permalink)
Banned
 
Where did you get the impression that in order to have rights, you must be able to comprehend them.

You can be pro-life without being religious.

7th - 8th week of development is usually the "fetal" period.

No, the mother is not guilty of manslaughter.

Time for lunch (thank god).
matthew330 is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 09:11 AM   #5 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally posted by matthew330
Time for lunch (thank god).
A-HA! This IS all about religion!
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 09:51 AM   #6 (permalink)
SiN
strangelove
 
SiN's Avatar
 
Location: ...more here than there...
Re: Manslaughter for miscarriage

[disclaimer] I usually stay out of the Politics Forum for various reasons, but I do have fairly strong opinions on this particular topic. Can't keep quiet. [/disclaimer]

Quote:
Originally posted by tecoyah

My questions are as follows:

Where do the rights of the fetus superscede the rights of the Mother?
I can't think of any where, tbh. (I'm not much of a 'fetal-rights' fan)


Quote:
Originally posted by tecoyah

At what point does the court decide a group of cells has become a fetus?
Nfi on the technical terms, tbh.

Quote:
Originally posted by tecoyah

In the case of miscarriage, is the mother guilty of manslaughter?
Hmm. In short, no.
However, this is not so simple. If the group of cells has reached the point of maturity where it could live on it's own without life support devices, and the mother does something extremely negligent to cause this miscarriage, then yes. Fair enough.

Quote:
Originally posted by tecoyah
What is the underlying motivation to qualify an undeveloped human as sentient,thus giving it rights it has no way of comprehending?
I surely have no answer to that one.

Quote:
Originally posted by tecoyah

Where does religion fit into this descision?
Abso-fucking-lutely nowhere, as far as laws are concerned.

There. my 2.
__________________
- + - GiRLie GeeK - + -
01110010011011110110111101110100001000000110110101100101
Therell be days/When Ill stray/I may appear to be/Constantly out of reach/I give in to sin/Because I like to practise what I preach
SiN is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 10:07 AM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
The new law makes it a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman. It only applies while a federal crime is being commited against the pregnant woman and has no bearing on state laws.

Many states already have laws that confer "rights" to a fetus and criminals who injure a fetus during the commission of a crime can face additional counts.

So, unless the pregnant woman falls while she is committing a federal crime, it's not even remotely an issue.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Last edited by onetime2; 04-02-2004 at 11:32 AM..
onetime2 is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 11:02 AM   #8 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
I'm not 100% familiar with the wording of the new law, but like most laws, those zealous on the right will try to extend it while those zealous on the left will try to restrict it.

Personally, I can see a reason why additional charges should be brought against someone who, while in the commission of a crime, harms a fetus, but I can also see where this law might be the thin end of the wedge to be used against abortion rights.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 11:30 AM   #9 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Re: Manslaughter for miscarriage

Quote:
Originally posted by tecoyah
It is now Law in the United States, that a fetus is protected from harm while in the womb of its' mother. Would it not follow that should a woman lose her child, due to a fall or other unfortunate situation, she could be charged with a crime against the life she carried?
Unlikely as it may seem, the recent case of a woman criticized for waiting on a C- section and losing one of her twins, is case in point. She could now, very easily be charged with a serious crime for her choice to do as she pleased with her body(I am aware she was a freak in the eyes of most people).
My questions are as follows:

Where do the rights of the fetus superscede the rights of the Mother?

At what point does the court decide a group of cells has become a fetus?

In the case of miscarriage, is the mother guilty of manslaughter?

What is the underlying motivation to qualify an undeveloped human as sentient,thus giving it rights it has no way of comprehending?

Where does religion fit into this descision?
Not trying to get back into politics here but read the law.

Its only a crime if its a federal offense.

Quote:
The measure Bush signed Thursday is limited in scope, applying only to harm to a fetus while a federal crime, such as a terrorist attack or drug-related shooting, is being committed against the pregnant mother. The legislation defines a potential victim as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
So perhaps your whole point is pointless at this time.

On a side note, my wife is pregnant, and if any attack on her caused the loss of the child, explain to me how thats different then if the child had just been born. Before you get up in arms about something, try thinking about both sides of the issue. Your extreme and make-believe examples are nothing but a straw man argument which bear no resemblance to the reality of the situation.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 11:59 AM   #10 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Re: Re: Manslaughter for miscarriage

Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
Not trying to get back into politics here but read the law.

Before you get up in arms about something, try thinking about both sides of the issue. Your extreme and make-believe examples are nothing but a straw man argument which bear no resemblance to the reality of the situation.
Wow....and ouch.
I didnt mean to seem up in arms...and was actually posting in an attempt to understand the implications of the new law. I am well aware of both sides of the situation, having three children myself. That does not mean I don't require the input of others, with different perspectives, in an effort to gain more insight.

I was asking questions, not just making a statement.
If the examples were far fetched.....and upset you, I am sorry.

(edit) By the way....my thanx to the opinions given so far, quite helpful.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Last edited by tecoyah; 04-02-2004 at 12:07 PM..
tecoyah is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 12:28 PM   #11 (permalink)
Psycho
 
iccky's Avatar
 
Location: Princeton, NJ
Quote:
So perhaps your whole point is pointless at this time.
I agree that at this time these questions don't apply, but i think its still think these are valid questions to ask. The law in its present form is a fairly good law, one that its hard to argue with. Since the fetus harmed is most likley going to be caried to term, the harm to the pregnant woman is causing harm to an actual human being, even if that human being won't exist for another few months. And I think we all can agree that an attack on a pregnant woman is a particularlly henious crime that deserves extra punishment.

That said, I worry that its a small step from here to charging pregnent women who drink or somke or do drugs with child abuse (I don't think they do this already, but I could be wrong). There are certianly arguments that could be made for laws like this, but then certainly these questions would come into play.
iccky is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 12:35 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by iccky
That said, I worry that its a small step from here to charging pregnent women who drink or somke or do drugs with child abuse (I don't think they do this already, but I could be wrong).
Some states do already have such laws.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 01:16 PM   #13 (permalink)
don't ignore this-->
 
bermuDa's Avatar
 
Location: CA
I think I heard about this on NPR. As much as I'd like to see people who kill pregnant go away for an extra long time, I'm afraid that a law that recognizes a fetus as a separate entity from the mother and another charge of murder/manslaughter is just an attempt to chip away at roe v. wade. And the thought that a miscarriage qualifies as manslaughter makes me wonder what an abortion would be called. Would planning a trip to the abortion clinic be considered conspiracy to commit murder?

As much as I want murderers who kill pregnant women to suffer as much as possible (as in the peterson case, actually I think this is called laci and conner's bill). If we give the anti-choice crowd any slack in this area they will use it to demolish the precedence set in 1973.
__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.
bermuDa is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 02:14 PM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
This law is just setting the table for challenges against abortion.
kutulu is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 02:22 PM   #15 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally posted by bermuDa
As much as I want murderers who kill pregnant women to suffer as much as possible (as in the peterson case, actually I think this is called laci and conner's bill). If we give the anti-choice crowd any slack in this area they will use it to demolish the precedence set in 1973.
And it's easy to see how. If you're going to treat it as less than human, be consistent. As long as abortion is legally okey-dokey, Mr. Peterson wasn't a double murderer. He committed one murder and destroyed property.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 03:00 PM   #16 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally posted by FoolThemAll
As long as abortion is legally okey-dokey, Mr. Peterson wasn't a double murderer. He committed one murder and destroyed property.
Scott Peterson isn't a murderer, at all, yet.

If convicted, however, the difference between Scott and some random killer is that he knew Laci was pregnant. I think that should be kept in mind when interpreting the ramifications of this law.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Last edited by smooth; 04-02-2004 at 03:02 PM..
smooth is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 03:07 PM   #17 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
If convicted, however, the difference between Scott and some random killer is that he knew Laci was pregnant. I think that should be kept in mind when interpreting the ramifications of this law.
Sure. He would have known that not only was he murdering a human begin, but he was also destroying some of her stuff as well. Whatever that's worth, that would indeed ring true.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 03:13 PM   #18 (permalink)
Gentlemen Farmer
 
j8ear's Avatar
 
Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey
The resitance to this by the pro-choice camp will turn out to be a huge loss for their cause, IMHO.

Just as resistance to partial birth abortion has.

Imagine the 'constitution' of someone who opposes this new law, protecting an unborn yet wanted fetus, and it's mother? Who in their right mind would be against this. Who in a lucid mind would support a cause so championed by someone opposed to this.

If there are dangers to infringing on a women's codified right to kill, I haven't heard, read or been directed to a source making the agrument effectively. If one exists please show me.

Current abortion rules will be over turned. I believe this will turn a 50/50 issue into a very pro-life one in less then a generation.

-bear
__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.
j8ear is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 03:15 PM   #19 (permalink)
mml
Adrift
 
Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life
I generally don't like "slippery slope" arguements, but this law was conceived (no pun intended) and nurtured by anti-abortion groups as a first step in establishing the rights of the unborn. So it is fair to ask questions as to where this type of legislation will lead. The line: "The legislation defines a potential victim as a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.", really opens the door for a test case to overthrow Roe v Wade.

I certainly think that supporters and opponents of this bill look at the murder of an unborn child, in the act of a federal crime, as something that is highly disturbing. The real question is where we go from here? I think it only makes our legal system stonger if we look at all of the possible outcomes of a law, since future laws are based on precident.
__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams
mml is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 03:27 PM   #20 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by mml
I generally don't like "slippery slope" arguements, but this law was conceived (no pun intended) and nurtured by anti-abortion groups as a first step in establishing the rights of the unborn. So it is fair to ask questions as to where this type of legislation will lead. The line: "The legislation defines a potential victim as a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.", really opens the door for a test case to overthrow Roe v Wade.

I certainly think that supporters and opponents of this bill look at the murder of an unborn child, in the act of a federal crime, as something that is highly disturbing. The real question is where we go from here? I think it only makes our legal system stonger if we look at all of the possible outcomes of a law, since future laws are based on precident.
This is more the direction I was hoping this thread would go. While I am sure we could discuss the moral implications of this law for months, I was hoping to see what legal ramifications were possible. I am aware the law is directed towards violent felony attack against a pregnant woman, but we all know the inclinations of the courts to re-interpret law.
Thus my original questions.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 03:47 PM   #21 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
So you are saying my unborn child should have no protection under the law because you WORRY that in the future someone might not be able to have an abortion? The current law is VERY clear, if anything is going to change it would require more laws and you can argue about them.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 03:51 PM   #22 (permalink)
Gentlemen Farmer
 
j8ear's Avatar
 
Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey
Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
So you are saying my unborn child should have no protection under the law because you WORRY that in the future someone might not be able to have an abortion?....
Well, yes, of course.

Good of the many out weigh good of the few after all.

/end sarcasm.
__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.
j8ear is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 05:57 PM   #23 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: st. louis
" At what point does the court decide a group of cells has become a fetus?"

i don't think any one has said this but i belive it 100% a fetus when we are capable of keeping the baby alive under unatural means i.e. outside of the mothers womb

i think when mothers atempt an abortion at this point it is terribly wrong and immoral
__________________
"The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited"

"Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt
fuzyfuzer is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 05:59 PM   #24 (permalink)
Junkie
 
hannukah harry's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
So you are saying my unborn child should have no protection under the law because you WORRY that in the future someone might not be able to have an abortion? The current law is VERY clear, if anything is going to change it would require more laws and you can argue about them.
not only what <b>j8ear</b> said, but i believe your unborn child is already protected in that it is illegal to hurt the mother, whether little ustwo is in the womb or not.
__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer
hannukah harry is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 06:08 PM   #25 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by hannukah harry
not only what <b>j8ear</b> said, but i believe your unborn child is already protected in that it is illegal to hurt the mother, whether little ustwo is in the womb or not.
Punch a pregnant woman in the stomach a few times, baby dies, mom is ok, you are arrested for assault. No different then being in a bar fight.

Justice is?

P.S. reread j8ear's post, you missed the point.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Last edited by Ustwo; 04-02-2004 at 06:27 PM..
Ustwo is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 06:37 PM   #26 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
Punch a pregnant woman in the stomach a few times, baby dies, mom is ok, you are arrested for assault. No different then being in a bar fight.

Justice is?
Just a sidenote: unless you can somehow make it a federal crime it doesn't apply.

Actually, even though it has been dubbed "laci and conner's bill" it wouldn't have applied to them anyway for just that reason.
filtherton is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 07:20 PM   #27 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
Just a sidenote: unless you can somehow make it a federal crime it doesn't apply.

Actually, even though it has been dubbed "laci and conner's bill" it wouldn't have applied to them anyway for just that reason.
I know I already posted that, but this slippery slope argument some seem to be clinging to is stupid.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 07:22 PM   #28 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
I know I already posted that, but this slippery slope argument some seem to be clinging to is stupid.
I don't know either way. Time will tell, as it always does.
filtherton is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 07:42 PM   #29 (permalink)
Flavor+noodles
 
qtpye4u84's Avatar
 
Location: oregon
miscarriages and abortion Have emo effects on the mother, I think man slaughter should only be charged on the person that Harms the mother and makes her lose the baby if it wasent an accident. If the mother does it its her choice, But if she gives
birth to it then she kills it and hides it or puts it in a dumpster then she should probably get charged with some thing.
__________________
The QTpie
qtpye4u84 is offline  
Old 04-03-2004, 08:55 AM   #30 (permalink)
Psycho
 
iccky's Avatar
 
Location: Princeton, NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
I know I already posted that, but this slippery slope argument some seem to be clinging to is stupid.
I think you need to do a little better than that. Lat me lay it out since it may not have been stated clearly enough in the past.

This law, for the first time, recognizes that an unborn child is an entity in and of itself. The intention of the anti-abortion groups who championed this bill is to achive this recognition so that in the future more rights may be attributed to a fetus including, possibly, the right not to be killed in the first trimester.

The effect of this is to frame the debate in a different light. Instead of abortion being about a woman's right to do something with her body, it becomes a debate about a woman's right to do something with an entity that is legally recognized to have rights independant of its mother. That's a very serious change, and one that makes banning abortion easier.

Quote:
Punch a pregnant woman in the stomach a few times, baby dies, mom is ok, you are arrested for assault. No different then being in a bar fight.
I agree that this is a pretty good argument for this kind of law. But I don't think the slippery slope argument can be dispensed with that easily.
iccky is offline  
Old 04-03-2004, 10:59 AM   #31 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by iccky
I agree that this is a pretty good argument for this kind of law. But I don't think the slippery slope argument can be dispensed with that easily.

The slippery slope argument is simply not valid. Perhaps in the future there will be more laws passed that outlaw abortion, but that is its own issue. If we can have harsher penalties for hate crimes, as asinine as that is, why can't we have harsher penalties for damage/death to a fetus? Is abortion so important that we must ignore justice just because maybe in some future the people of America decide to limit abortions? Perhaps the reason so many pro-abortion people fear this 'slippery slope' is they have come to realize that being pro-abortion is not a majority issue and they are afraid of it ever coming to a vote? They then fight any legislation no matter how just hoping to keep the issue of abortion out of the legislative branches?

GWB has stated many times that he only supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, and where the health of the mother is in danger, and the deepest darkest fear of the pro-abortion people is that someday such a position would come to a popular vote because its pretty clear it would pass. But you have to ask yourself is the fear of such a vote on abortion as a form of birth control, WORTH opposing fair and just laws?

What kind of person does that make you?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
 

Tags
manslaughter, miscarriage

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:48 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360