jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (99 posts)

Will you call them children now?

  1. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago

    After two years, this abortionist is finally on trial for murdering newborns that didn't die during the "proper" abortion procedure,  and for providing abortion service to women whose child was past the legal limit for abortion.

    To me, it's murder no matter what the age of the fetus.   And I'm wondering how the legal system is gonna handle this case.
    What do you think?

    Especially you liberals who are for abortion-----------  are you willing to call those newborn fetuses that this Doctor killed....."children" now?   Or do you still maintain that they were simply the result of a legal botched abortion procedure and therefore had to be killed anyway?



    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … -1.1293130

  2. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago

    Well?
    Anyone?

    Are they still just "fetuses" or "zygotes" or "parasites"?
    Or are they dead babies?

    Is that Doctor a murderer?
    Or just an accessory to murder, since the women came to him to have their children killed?
    Is one of the cases "statutory murder" only, since the Mom-to-be was only 14 years old?
    And is he just a scapegoat for the abortion movement?

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Obviously a born child is a baby and that's why he is being charged with murder.

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Would it have been murder 5 minutes before that if it had died in the womb?

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yup I believe the limit set by the Supreme Court is between 22 and 24 weeks in gestation.

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So, at 24 weeks, instead of 28 or 30,  it's just a thing, and therefore okay to kill;   is that what you're saying?

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              At 24 weeks is about when the baby becomes able to live independently, at that point it is no longer dependent. It also allows plenty of time for the mother to discover she is pregnant and have an abortion if she chooses rather than being forced to give birth.

              1. gmwilliams profile image82
                gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!!

  3. peeples profile image87
    peeplesposted 3 years ago

    There is a huge difference between pulling a crying baby out of a mother's womb and an abortion at say 8 weeks. It is not apples and apples no matter how hard people want to act like it is.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What is the difference?

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        At 8 weeks the fetus is not capable of thought, it's inert and has nothing that we would call a consciousness.

        1. gmwilliams profile image82
          gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          + a multillion percent.  Totally concur.

        2. janesix profile image58
          janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So it is ok to kill people who are unconscious?

          1. Zelkiiro profile image85
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The unconscious is part of our consciousness. The opposite of consciousness is mindlessness, a.k.a. viruses and zombies and zombie viruses. So, no.

      2. peeples profile image87
        peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        One is capable of life outside of another person. It's quite simple. The moment life is viable outside the mother abortion becomes murder.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How is a newborn capable of life outside the mother?
          For how long?
          A newborn can breathe, yes, but for how long without being fed by someone?   Can it choose to walk and go find food?   How long will it live by itself?

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The point is not that it does not need care but that it does not need care by the mother specifically, at that point others are able to do so, previously the mother had to and thus had the right to choose on her own basis.

          2. peeples profile image87
            peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Can you put a fetus on the boob? Hold it? Rock it to sleep? Change it's diaper? Does it cry? Does it breathe? Does it feel emotions? Does it have any resemblance to a baby at all? Apples and oranges. What do you suppose we do with all these unwanted children if you had a way and mothers were forced to deliver them?

            1. Superkev profile image85
              Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Maybe we should find a way to stop them from breeding all these unwanted babies in the first place? Perhaps teach them to keep their legs shut and their zippers too?

              Every bit of genetic code and material that makes you who you are or will be is present at the moment of conception. Would you agree or disagree with that?

              1. peeples profile image87
                peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The genetics are there but meaningless at the time. I agree, more education could help greatly. However what about all the moms who get pregnant when they aren't suppose to be able to? The antibiotic makes the birth control fail? The doctor who tells the woman they aren't suppose to be able to get pregnant? The man who has been snipped yet still gets his wife pregnant? Many women who get abortions are educated adults.

              2. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                If you got a drop of blood from both parents and put them in the same place you have all the genetic material that makes you who you are, that does not make it a baby.

                1. Superkev profile image85
                  Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You would have the mother's and father's DNA yes, but not the unique DNA and genetic code that makes a person a person until the moment of conception.

                  1. profile image0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    smile
                    Awesome reply.

                    Conception is such a unique,  interesting, thing!   I don't think some adults even consider what it is,  if they even realize the facts about it or the unique beauty and intricacies of it scientifically and biologically,  not to meantion humanly.

                    I found the following video online, and it illustrates how human life itself begins!    I wonder if pro-abortionists like to ignore facts, including the fact that a human life can only be formed by the union of a man's sperm and a woman's egg,  making the whole "women's rights" concept invalid from the start.    Not only is there a child involved, there's a man, a father, somewhere whose body helped form that baby.

                    And even the sperm and egg are mobile;  they move;  they are alive even before the joining together that forms a baby.    It simply follows that I can't imagine how anyone can treat the product of that union, an actual child, as though they weren't even a living thing.


                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFrVmDgh4v4

                  2. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No but I would have that in a drop of my blood, it still does not make the drop of blood a baby.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    - we all have souls.  Try to prove you don't.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      On the contrary you are making the claim i do you have to prove it, on assuming the basis of a fact the non existence of the supernatural must always come first, if I say "look a magic unicorn" I have to show you it you don't have to prove I did not see it, that would be ridiculous.

    2. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If your soul is tied to your body, what happens when you transplant your brain into another body?

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    - as soon as a sperm is united with a sperm we (as souls) enter the zygote
    (of our choice) and direct the unfolding of the genetic codes/RNA/DNA according to the light blueprint we carry with us from life time to life time. This is how we end up with similar facial features each lifetime.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      HAHAHAHAH OMG the "soul" is an STI big_smile

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        - nothing funny about it. It is indeed miraculous. Our consciousness is a true gift.
        As I see it.
        Peace.

  6. peeples profile image87
    peeplesposted 3 years ago

    "What do you suppose we do with all these unwanted children if you had your way and mothers were forced to deliver them? 
    A question almost always ignored by anti abortion people. Scream and hollar about protecting some cells but no real solutions for what to do with them once they are actually here.

    1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image75
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well you've really thought this through haven't you...I don't think so. There is an enormous amount of couples ready to adopt and can't find babies here in the US. Did it ever occur to you that if abortion was illegal people would have an incentive to avoid getting pregnant and getting abotions especially for the frivolous reasons given by the majority of those who get abortions. On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion:
      3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about
      3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and
      1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).
      Only 12% of women included a physical problem with their health among reasons for having an abortion (NAF).
      One per cent (of aborting women) reported that they were the survivors of rape (NAF). http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/u … tatistics/
      These statistics clearly demonstrate that because abortion has been made easily accessible murdering a living human being in the womb is viewed as nothing but an economic convenience. To change  that we need to make it an economic and/or legal inconvenience and I guarantee the abortion rate will drop and adoptions will rise. If there were an abundance of adoptions available society would find ways to meet the need. Besides pro abortionists don't care one iota about unwanted babies - their argument is totally based on the mother's right to kill her baby. Without that there is no justification for abortion. If your arguement  is that becasue babies are unwanted they should be killed then you are right up there with the likes of Hitler, congratulations!

      1. peeples profile image87
        peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Since you are obviously clueless to adoption in the states here are some facts for you:
        There are 423,773 children in the U.S. foster care system; 114,556 of these children are available for adoption. Their birth parent’s legal rights have been permanently terminated and children are left without a family.
        More children become available for adoption each year than are adopted. In 2009, 69,947 children had parental rights terminated by the courts, yet only 57,466 were adopted.
        Children often wait three years or more to be adopted.
        "their argument is totally based on the mother's right to kill her baby"
        My argument is based on being one of those adoptable foster children who never got adopted.Knowing we simply do not have enough homes for the adoptable children we already have out there, and knowing it makes NO sense to add to that already high number!
        "Did it ever occur to you that if abortion was illegal people would have an incentive to avoid getting pregnant"
        Yeah because we all know making things illegal works. Sure we have no crime whatsoever! After all there was only about a million illegal abortions known about each year before it was legal so that clearly shows how effective it being illegal is! You have thought no where outside your limited views. Get out and actually get invloved with the world, see what women suffer through, see the suffering the children go through. Then again I guess you prefer torture of a child than an abortion to some cells.

        1. Clint Ward profile image60
          Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Kind of getting the picture on gun control now. If  69,947 children were available for adoption and 57,466 were actually adopted I would say that is pretty damn good.

          "Yeah because we all know making things illegal works. Sure we have no crime whatsoever!"

          1. peeples profile image87
            peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "I would say that is pretty damn good." Of course you would if you weren't one of the 12000 left behind each year..

            1. Clint Ward profile image60
              Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Its pretty obvious you do not understand that the statistic you supplied on adoption is a huge success.

              1. peeples profile image87
                peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You are right it is a sucess for those actually adopted. It is also a HUGE failure to those who got left in the system to bounce around from home to home.

                1. Clint Ward profile image60
                  Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So your answer would be to abort them all? I was indifferent to abortion up to the time I read the post you originally responded to and now I see that abortion is merely a convenience for about 88% of women. That is a sad commentary on women.

                  1. peeples profile image87
                    peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Abortion statistics are all over the place and half aren't accurate. In a quick search I found multiple different statistics.
                    Social Reasons (given as primary reason)    
                           - Feels unready for child/responsibility     25%
                           - Feels she can't afford baby     23%
                           - Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities     19%
                           - Relationship problem/Single motherhood     8%
                           - Feels she isn't mature enough     7%
                           - Interference with education/career plans     4%
                           - Parents/Partner wants abortion     <1%
                           - Other reasons     <6.5%
                    This just being one. My answer is not to abort them all. My answer is not to add to an already troubled problem when not needed.

  7. Onusonus profile image85
    Onusonusposted 3 years ago

    From a scientific standpoint at the early stages of pregnancy we are talking about a living human with unique DNA. Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, or speak.  Not all people have feet, hands, can walk, and speak. They are humans because of their nature. At 8 weeks the fetus has developed a functioning heart, eyelids, a brain, hands and legs and many other human features.
    This is a video of a living person in the womb at 8 weeks, it is very apparent that it is more than a simple mass of cells:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkLeBnSHY3k

    When liberals say they prefer the term "pro-choice" over "pro-abortion" they do very little to justify that assertion. If in fact they did dislike abortion they would not vehemently attack any argument to reduce the outstanding numbers of abortions in the country. Instead they breed a culture that treats abortion as a widespread form of birth control for irresponsible teenagers.
    Sorry to say, but liberals are not just pro-choice, they are pro-abortion. Otherwise they would not be asking taxpayers to provide millions of dollars to Margaret Sangers "Negro project" ironically renamed planned parenthood.

    1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image75
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So true Onusonus - you hit the naill on the head - pro choice is just a term, like all liberal labels, designed to deceive. This doctor who killed multiple babies after botched abortions gets absolutely no coverage by the main stream (liberal) media who only reports on events they can spin to promote an agenda like gun control. You know if this doctor shot 8 babies with a gun it would be all over the news day in and day out with calls for more gun control but because it is associated with abortion - not a peep.

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      On the contrary it IS liberals who have instituted the successful plans to reduce abortions, blue states have much lower abortion rates than red states, what we understand is you don't achieve that by making things illegal and forcing women to give birth against their will, you achieve it by providing education, contraception and support for pregnant women.

      The results speak for themselves, it is conservatives whose policies lead to abortions and if those abortions were not made safe and legal by liberals they would lead to unsafe coat hanger abortions in back rooms.

      1. Onusonus profile image85
        Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Actually it is liberals who insist that laws be made to ensure that abortions are common place in our society. Liberals create the culture of lax morality, or moral relativism, or whatever the spin doctors choose to call it. Liberals insist on forcing everyone to pay for their sexual misconduct, and just because a state is blue or red does not mean that there presence is not there.

        Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.
        According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion
        On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. I bring up this statistic because the bulk of minorities get duped into believing that conservatives are racist, by the very party that systematically destroys their neighborhoods, weakens their families, steals their rights, destroys their morals, and kills their children.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes we know the poorer you are the more likely you are to get pregnant (and at a younger age) and therefore it is no surprise that black women have more abortions, that does not mean they should not have the right to do so. Letting people choose what they want to do is never discrimination.

        2. Cody Hodge5 profile image62
          Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Talking points much?

      2. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image75
        Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Josak summed it nicely - "forcing women to give birth against their will" as if women don't make choises that get them pregnant. So to liberals preserving life by making murder of infants illegal is "forcing women to give birth against their will" - can't get more sick or twisted than that sort of reasoning.

        1. Onusonus profile image85
          Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Pretty backwards.

        2. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          #1 Often women did not choose, an estimated 3% of abortions are from the product of rape.

          #2 Non criminal acts do not deprive one of rights, and sex is not a criminal act therefore having sex does not then mean you can be forced to give birth against your will.

          1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image75
            Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            #1 - I don't think 3% qualifies as often (except to a liberal trying to force an absurd point)
            #2 - makes no sense what so ever, but then neither does any of your arguements so no surprise there.

          2. Onusonus profile image85
            Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            3% can hardly be described as "often". the overwhelming majority of reasons for offing ones child is because Johnny didn't want to wear a condom.
            I understand why you would use that path of reasoning though since liberals tend to want to do things like ban AR-15's when more deaths are caused by angry people with hammers.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And Johnny not wanting to wear a condom is very dumb but it is not a crime so one cannot be forced to give birth because of it.

              I don't want to ban anything, that would be you wanting to ban abortion.

              1. Onusonus profile image85
                Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I never said I wanted to ban abortion.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So you think abortion should be legal? What are we even discussing then?

                  1. Onusonus profile image85
                    Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, I don't think it should be legal. But I was talking about defunding the abortion industry. I'm saying to let the free market take care of it so we can see just how much demand there really is for it.  After all if there is less availability of it, people might actually think about the consequences before they act.
                    I always hear liberals saying that if guns are made less available there would be less deaths. Yet you guys can't seem to wrap your brains around the same logic to stop abortions, or at least slow them down. And that is why most Liberals are pro-abortion and not even close to being "pro-choice".

                  2. Clint Ward profile image60
                    Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Abortion is legal and should continue to be legal, my reasons for posting on this doesn't have anything to do with legality but rather the reasons behind getting an abortion. As you said it shouldn't be easy and all avenues should be explored before the abortion is done. We should see that as few abortion occur as possible but there are organizations like planned parenthood who don't see it that way. I'll bet if bacteria were found on Mars these same organizations would hurt themselves to make sure that life was protected.

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    PS ...and if you don't want to kill or murder, don't conceive.
    Only you can prevent abortions.
    Step away from the eggs.
    Have some compassion for the souls who are sleeping peacefully in the arms of the angels.
    Don't bring 'em in to kill em.
    Sex is not a joke...
    ask Eve.

  9. Superkev profile image85
    Superkevposted 3 years ago

    I've always wondered why a woman can opt-out of being a parent but a man doesn't get that option.

    Should the father be able to force an abortion if he doesn't want to be a parent the same way a woman can? Or conversely should he be able to make her carry to term if he wants to be a parent even though she does not? After all, he will be held responsible for that child if it is born, right? So the man has just as much stake in that child's life as the mother.

    Why the gender bias when it comes to this? Aren't we all supposed to be about equal rights?

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Because the father does not have to carry the child or give birth to it, once the child is an independent being (defined by the supreme court as 22 to 24 weeks in) able to live without the direct sustenance of it's mother then both partners should have equal rights and responsibilities but until then the mother gets to choose what happens in and to her body.

      No one gets to tell anyone "you have to risk your life to have a baby because we think that is right" no one has the right to gamble with an independent person's life.

      1. Superkev profile image85
        Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        But killing a baby with a partial birth abortion IS a right huh?

        Don't the mass killings committed by Dr. Gosnell prove that we need tighter controls on abortions?

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well I don't think it is a right.

          Obviously what Dr Gosnell did is pretty horrific and now he is being charged with serial murder, it would have been better if he was caught sooner but it would be better if all serial killers were caught sooner.

          I don't think you can take enough precautions with abortion myself, show them a scan of the fetus, discuss adoption, make sure they really want to do it and have a professional witnessing doctor or nurse in the room to ensure the procedure is followed so long as you don't take away people's liberties by banning it, making it hard to get to or prohibitively expensive.

        2. Onusonus profile image85
          Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I think so.
          If we were talking about a crazed veterinarian severing the spinal chords of new born puppies we would be hearing about it on the news from here to kingdom come. But because there is a political agenda with buckets of money on the line we get a media blackout from all the liberal news channels.

          Planned parenthood is nothing more than a butcher factory. Just listen to this lobbyist try to come up with a politically correct way of asking permission to let living, breathing, babies die.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uax-FrhOioY

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I really doubt there would be three threads going on the issue right now if it was a veterinarian killing animals.

            1. Superkev profile image85
              Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Seems to me they made a bigger deal in the MSM about Michael Vick than they are with this story. In fact, it's barely been covered at all. Now that they have been publicly shamed the networks are saying they are going to send reporters. But you have to ask yourself why they didn't in the first place.

              Maybe if he had killed those babies with an AR-15 they would have found it newsworthy then, ya think?

              1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image75
                Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I saw a picture of the seats reserved for reporters during the trial - they were empty - Nobody even sent a reporter to cover the trial. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism … -Coverage.

            2. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image75
              Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting how the liberal totally ignores commenting on this post (because it is already proven to be true): "This doctor who killed multiple babies after botched abortions gets absolutely no coverage by the main stream (liberal) media who only reports on events they can spin to promote an agenda like gun control. You know if this doctor shot 8 babies with a gun it would be all over the news day in and day out with calls for more gun control but because it is associated with abortion - not a peep."
              but jumps to comment on a hypothetical like "a crazed veterinarian severing the spinal chords of new born puppies" Just more evidence of how manipulative and disingenuous liberals are in discussing an issue.

  10. Zelkiiro profile image85
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    ATTN: Onusonus. I found some required viewing for you.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w15OS2PdCKo

    Once you accept the truth, you'll feel better.

  11. Disappearinghead profile image88
    Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago

    Abortion is not a black or white subject. The point is women get pregnant and there are occasions where she does not wish to continue the pregnancy for all sorts of reasons. So let's assume abotion is illegal; where does she go? Back street coat hanger botched abortion holes run by organised criminals? Is that the solution? Force her against her will to give birth resulting in a life of resentment and emotional/mental issues? Another child added to dysfunctional state care systems?

    So to ensure that women are properrly cared for in a medically safe environment, away from criminals, abortion is legalised. It is the lesser of two evils. Now we have to define a gestation period where we draw the line of legality. Too late and viable babies unnecesarily die which I'm sure that 'liberals' would also find distastefull. Too early and the pregnancg is discovered too late. Its not ideal, it is a fudge, but a line must be drawn somewhere and there is no point in being irrational about it..

    Now I'm no doctor, but a statistic I heard on the radio recently was the 50% of pregnancies fail naturally. So if we are going to rant at those who assist in the manmade ending of a pregnancy, who are we going to rant at for those that end naturally?

    For those that oppose abortion for all circumstances what say you about the hundreds of thousands of babies/fetuses that just aren't made properly? Is it right to insist a pregnancy goes full term where the child's chance of survival in or out of the womb is on a knife edge and only can survive if 21st century healthcare is available and affordable?

    1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image75
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Here is where your logic falls apart.
      1) OK not black and white? Then why is murder not black and white? I can think of many better reasons to kill another person than abortion mother's give to kill their baby ...why don't we allow murder in general for those reasons? Once you establish (the truth) that a fetus is a human being and cannot be murdered then there is no reason for that murder and to compare murder to death by natural causes is just plain illogical and over the top by any standard.
      Society would adjust and if illegal abortions were to occur...well look at it this way - if someone tried to murder you would you care what their outcome would be? Would the government? I think the penalty for murder is death or life imprisonment -should be the same for anyone trying to abort their baby and if it was, I guarantee you babies would be born and given for adoption instead of risking a murder conviction. Probably women who really don't want a baby  would choose to tie their tubes. Whatever excuse you offer to justify abortion, it doesn't wash because it is murder and there is no consequence of preventing a murder that can't be dealt with by a society that values human life...we don't. Just like abortion has become an accepted part of daily living (by some) in society so would adoption and/or other measures that respect the unborn life become the accepted norm.

  12. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago

    I'm still waiting to hear the outcome of this man's trial.............

 
working