• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Refute this pro-choice argument

Lursa said:
Dont lie. I've done so many times and you continue to come back and post things that have already been refuted.
Click to expand...

If you think they're refuted then feel free to disengage. I seem to recall an uneven debate where you refuse to give straight answers to uncomfortable questions.

Lursa said:
It's insulting because you're reducing them to the same level as the unborn and its incomplete and unequal status. Feel free to continue to do so
Click to expand...

It's at once amusing and frustrating to try and ferret out a leftist's flowchart of who is equal to others.

Lursa said:
The unborn dont feel the shame of slavery, and they know and feel nothing during abortion...so you again lie or are very poorly informed.
Click to expand...

We could anaesthetize an infant and kill him. He neither knows nor feels his death. Why is that unacceptable?


That's right. There's precedent for killing some people given the right circumstances. There is no justifiable precedent for deliberately killing the innocent.


You didn't answer the question. Why can't we kill other people who are completely dependent? Or can we?

Lursa said:
Of course abortion is a moral act. It imposes no pain or suffering on the unborn...
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant. I can't deliberately kill innocent people whether they feel pain or not. If it did impose pain on the unborn, would your stance change? I doubt it.

Lursa said:
... while the woman is forced to suffer pain and sickness, possibly death...
Click to expand...

That's nature. Pregnancy and childbirth are risky and painful by their nature. No one is forcing that on them - nature forces that. I wish you'd stop using misleading terms. Laws against stealing food aren't forcing people to be hungry.

Lursa said:
...and the humiliation of women's marginalized role in our society where the unborn is valued above her life.
Click to expand...

The unborn is not valued above the mother's life. The two lives aren't in conflict. Both can live most of the time.


What is a "right to consent", and how does prohibiting a woman from killing her children infringe upon it? If self-determination means the freedom to kill people, then neither women nor men have it.
Lursa said:
But again, I'll always come down on the moral side of not intentionally causing pain and suffering in another...and the unborn suffers nothing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, nothing. Well... except death. Just death. Big deal.

Lursa said:
We're discussing real life. Not some extreme hypothetical. But if you want to create a case like I did above to support doing so 'morally', feel free.
Click to expand...

Okay, we'll try something more plausible: If pro-lifers succeed in amending the constitution such that it now protects human beings from conception, it would change your question from this:

The real question is when a human life has individual legal status and rights. According to the 14th Amendment, it's once you are born.

To this:

The real question is when a human life has individual legal status and rights. According to the 28th Amendment, it's at conception.

What would your argument be then? Probably that the 28th amendment is wrong, correct?
 
One question: Why you wonder why you don't get your questions answered?
 
Atreus21 said:
If you think they're refuted then feel free to disengage. I seem to recall an uneven debate where you refuse to give straight answers to uncomfortable questions.
Click to expand...

Oh I enjoy seeing you try again.

Atreus21 said:
It's at once amusing and frustrating to try and ferret out a leftist's flowchart of who is equal to others.
Click to expand...

All born people in America are equal. Period. And the Const, the 14th A, recognizes our rights and explicitly says 'born.'

Atreus21 said:
We could anaesthetize an infant and kill him. He neither knows nor feels his death. Why is that unacceptable?
Click to expand...

We were discussing why you dont kill entire peoples. And their awareness of their being hated or marginalized or discriminated against. We were discussing their value as peoples.

Atreus21 said:
That's right. There's precedent for killing some people given the right circumstances. There is no justifiable precedent for deliberately killing the innocent.
Click to expand...

You know this one, why pull it out again? The unborn arent 'innocent,' they cant act or even form intent. They are empty, a vacuum. And we kill all kinds of things with 'emptiness' in their heads. They arent innocent or guilty because they cant be. They are no more 'innocent' than a flower or a couch...which also are incapable of thought and intent.

Society is smarter than to value that meaningless emptiness, even if you do. So for most of America, as has been shown in the polls and votes...find abortion justifiable. Tsk tsk.
Atreus21 said:
You didn't answer the question. Why can't we kill other people who are completely dependent? Or can we?
Click to expand...

I answered it directly. I included it in my justifiable examples. Read better. And those completely dependent people still have rights...you ignored that.

Atreus21 said:
Which is irrelevant. I can't deliberately kill innocent people whether they feel pain or not. If it did impose pain on the unborn, would your stance change? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

No you cant. But we were discussing morality and a decision between 2. And I stated that since it's one or the other, I choose the path that includes not intentionally causing pain and suffering. I choose the moral side of causing the least pain and suffering.

YOu choose the opposite, which is immoral IMO. For all the reasons I wrote and you cant address directly

Atreus21 said:
That's nature. Pregnancy and childbirth are risky and painful by their nature. No one is forcing that on them - nature forces that. I wish you'd stop using misleading terms. Laws against stealing food aren't forcing people to be hungry.
Click to expand...

So, we use medical treatment and procedures to overcome the harm and pain of 'natural' things all the time.

Women have a 9th Amendment right to have sex. I can include that sourced list in another post. We can enjoy sex anytime we want and there is a safer medical procedure available if we dont want to be pregnant. You cant wish that away.

There's absolutely nothing in the Const about protecting the unborn. And nothing about violating women's bodily autonomy to force her to become pregnant, stay pregnant, or end a pregnancy.

Atreus21 said:
The unborn is not valued above the mother's life. The two lives aren't in conflict. Both can live most of the time.
Click to expand...

Yes they are and every single pregnancy risks a woman's life and health. And every single pregnancy does some harm to the woman

And the woman gets to decide if she wants to risk death or permanent health damage...not strangers, not the govt.

It's immoral that you think you're entitled to use force of law to do that.


 
Atreus21 said:
What is a "right to consent", and how does prohibiting a woman from killing her children infringe upon it? If self-determination means the freedom to kill people, then neither women nor men have it.
Click to expand...

It's inside her body...you violate her 4th A right to security of the person if you dont allow her to remove the dangerous entity inside her. If she doesnt consent to that damage and that pain, then the govt has no right to force it on her. The govt is obligated to protect her rights, including her life. The govt has no such obligation to protect the unborn....so of course it cannot force her to forego a safer procedure. WHy do you think all the new/reintstated laws dont criminalize having an abortion? They're all about punishing the providers because the govt cant preserve the unborn over her life and consent.

Atreus21 said:
Yeah, nothing. Well... except death. Just death. Big deal.
Click to expand...

Yup. There's no way to guarantee the woman's life. And her life is signficant to everyone around her, her loved ones, her employer, her community. Her loss would be felt and cause pain for others as well. The unborn would have no impact on any one except the woman and possible the sperm donor.
 
Atreus21 said:
Biology. Human beings, just like every other mammal, have their origin at conception.
Click to expand...
So? No one is disputing that. But it's nothing more than a single, undifferentiated cell at conception. We don't refer to our own cells as human beings. They're just cells.
Atreus21 said:
How long are you guys going to reject science on this subject, and do you really think that's a defensible position long-term?
Click to expand...
What rejection? Scientifically and legally, a ZEF is not yet a :human being," as an individual person.
 
Lursa said:
Oh I enjoy seeing you try again.

All born people in America are equal. Period. And the Const, the 14th A, recognizes our rights and explicitly says 'born.'
Click to expand...

If the constitution said unborn, would you become pro-life?

Lursa said:
We were discussing why you dont kill entire peoples. And their awareness of their being hated or marginalized or discriminated against. We were discussing their value as peoples.
Click to expand...

Is it okay to kill someone if they aren't aware of it and can feel no pain? Just yes or no.


This "empty vessel" silliness again? You guys are more mystical in your terminology than we supposedly religious people.

Innocence simply means not guilty of anything meriting a death sentence. There is precedent for killing guilty people. There is no justifying killing innocent ones.

Lursa said:
I answered it directly. I included it in my justifiable examples. Read better. And those completely dependent people still have rights...you ignored that.
Click to expand...

Okay. So being dependent on someone doesn't deprive them of their right to life.


You chose to destroy an innocent human being, and you consider that the "moral side causing the least pain and suffering"?

Lursa said:
So, we use medical treatment and procedures to overcome the harm and pain of 'natural' things all the time.
Click to expand...

Not the point. You said the mother is forced to endure pain and suffering. That's like saying laws against theft force thieves to endure hunger. Nature mandates that pregnancy is difficult, just as it mandates that we get hungry.

Lursa said:
Women have a 9th Amendment right to have sex. I can include that sourced list in another post. We can enjoy sex anytime we want and there is a safer medical procedure available if we dont want to be pregnant. You cant wish that away.
Click to expand...

We can if that "safer" medical procedure means killing someone.

Lursa said:
There's absolutely nothing in the Const about protecting the unborn.
Click to expand...

If there was, would you change your stance on abortion?

Lursa said:
And nothing about violating women's bodily autonomy to force her to become pregnant, stay pregnant, or end a pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Forcing a woman to become pregnant is rape. We don't disagree on that.

Lursa said:
Yes they are and every single pregnancy risks a woman's life and health. And every single pregnancy does some harm to the woman.
Click to expand...

Every act involves risk. The question is what risk justifies killing someone to mitigate. That question is rightly decided by society, such as when someone kills in self-defense. You can't simply say, "I felt my life was at risk, so I shot him." That claim must be demonstrated to be reasonable before it is allowed. A woman with an ectopic pregnancy, or a woman who's been told that childbirth could kill her, clearly have reasonable claims - their lives are under considerable threat. A healthy mother carrying a healthy 28-week old fetus doesn't.
Lursa said:
And the woman gets to decide if she wants to risk death or permanent health damage...not strangers, not the govt.

It's immoral that you think you're entitled to use force of law to do that.
Click to expand...

Not if she means to kill someone. That is by definition the concern of society.

There is no more just purpose of the law than to protect the lives of the innocent.
 
Lursa said:
It's inside her body...you violate her 4th A right to security of the person if you dont allow her to remove the dangerous entity inside her.
Click to expand...

It's a human being, inside his or her natural habitat, the organ specifically designed to maintain it. Describing it as a dangerous entity is dishonest.


I think they punish providers because it wants to go easier on the mothers.


Is it okay to kill a born person if their death will have no impact on his or her loved ones, employer, or community? For example if you stumble upon an unemployed homeless person who has no family?

Moreover, if it could be demonstrated that killing an unborn child would have a bad impact on say, the child's father and the child's grandparents (loved ones) would you say the abortion shouldn't be allowed?

Also you didn't answer my last question:

 
Gordy327 said:
So? No one is disputing that. But it's nothing more than a single, undifferentiated cell at conception. We don't refer to our own cells as human beings. They're just cells.
Click to expand...

You said no one is disputing it, then disputed it, in the line above.

Gordy327 said:
What rejection? Scientifically and legally, a ZEF is not yet a :human being," as an individual person.
Click to expand...

....yes it is. As I just said, biology considers human beings to exist at the moment of conception, just like with other mammals.
 
Atreus21 said:
You said no one is disputing it, then disputed it, in the line above
Click to expand...
Apparently you did not understand it.
Atreus21 said:
....yes it is. As I just said, biology considers human beings to exist at the moment of conception, just like with other mammals.
Click to expand...
No, it's a human cell. Not a human being, as in its not a person and no different than any other cell. You seem to ignore that particular point.
 
Atreus21 said:
If the constitution said unborn, would you become pro-life?
Click to expand...

Pro-life is a political position and/or a religious belief. Why would my position change? That change to the Const would be wrong, the change doesnt alter that.

If the Const was amended to allow slavery again, would you support that?

Atreus21 said:
Is it okay to kill someone if they aren't aware of it and can feel no pain? Just yes or no.
Click to expand...

That's not the only criteria, but when judged against an alternative that does not intentionally impose pain and suffering, I find it 'more moral.'

This is at least the 2nd time I've answered it. Stop repeating questions just because you dont like the answers and dont want to admit you cant refute it.

So it's meaningless then. Like I wrote. We kill innocent beings all the time, often to eat. Women arent guilty of anything either, why should they be forced to remain pregnant when there is a much much safer medical procedure they can choose?

And again...pulling the plug, assisted suicide...more 'innocents' and a great many Americans find those justifiable as well.

Atreus21 said:
You chose to destroy an innocent human being, and you consider that the "moral side causing the least pain and suffering"?
Click to expand...

I gave you a direct answer to that...did you not understand it? And yep. Why let it destroy another innocent human being, which is a very significant possibility. For many people, there's more to life than just breathing.

Many of us value quality of life over quantity. Quantity refers to numbers...why do you reduce the unborn to numbers in such a dehumanizing way?

Atreus21 said:
Not the point. You said the mother is forced to endure pain and suffering.
Click to expand...

COrrect. There is a much safer medical procedure she can choose.

Atreus21 said:
That's like saying laws against theft force thieves to endure hunger.
Click to expand...

Not remotely the same...people have rights to their property. The unborn have no rights.

Atreus21 said:
Nature mandates that pregnancy is difficult, just as it mandates that we get hungry.
Click to expand...

Again, already answered...why are you repeating yourself? Just so you dont have to quit and admit defeat?

Atreus21 said:
We can if that "safer" medical procedure means killing someone.
Click to expand...

There is no 'someone'.

Atreus21 said:
If there was, would you change your stance on abortion?
Click to expand...

You cant change the fact that for society to act on the unborn in anyway without the woman's consent, it violates many of her rights, possibly even her right to life, and that cannot be guaranteed.

Here, I'll play your game: "Nature" designed gestation so that the unborn is wholly physiologically intertwined with the woman and the woman can survive without it, but the unborn cannot survive without her (or any other outside support.)

Shouldnt we just accept what "Nature" designed?
 

And what risks to life does the govt force on Americans? None. Except the draft, which I object to but at least is done with for the purpose of national security. (There are no negative effects of abortion on society., unless you can list some?)

Why should the govt force women to risk their lives to protect the unborn? The women are existing members of society, already contributing...what is the justification for risking womens' lives and ability to fully participate and contribute? Please answer.

(And no, we dont need more people. THere are millions that would love to immigrate here legally if we needed more people.)

Atreus21 said:
Not if she means to kill someone. That is by definition the concern of society.
Click to expand...

There is no someone. That you choose to imagine it is disturbing but it's your prerogative. That unborn is not part of society and only the woman/partner know about it unless they choose to share the info. And only she has the right to determine what's best for her and society...her life, her contributions, her ability to care for her other dependents, her ability to do her job and serve the community, or have a kid and still hopefully be able to do the same.

No one knows that except each individual woman.

Atreus21 said:
There is no more just purpose of the law than to protect the lives of the innocent.
Click to expand...

Except when justifiable, like pulling the plug, assisted suicide, abortion....
 
Atreus21 said:
It's a human being, inside his or her natural habitat, the organ specifically designed to maintain it. Describing it as a dangerous entity is dishonest.
Click to expand...

So? Where is that covered in the law? Where in federal law does the unborn have a right to life?

ANd it is dangerous, to ignore that is 100% dishonest. ~1000 women die every year and another 86,700 nearly do. And many come away with permanent disability and harm.


Atreus21 said:
I think they punish providers because it wants to go easier on the mothers.
Click to expand...

I call BS on that. And if it's murder why on earth would you go easier on the mothers? If they didnt go to a provider, the unborn wouldnt die. Do you agree with that, letting women get away with murder? I mean if you consider it murder, they can still go to another state and commit that act.


Atreus21 said:
Is it okay to kill a born person if their death will have no impact on his or her loved ones, employer, or community? For example if you stumble upon an unemployed homeless person who has no family?
Click to expand...

Already answered.

All your questions focus on the unborn...it's obvious that you dont consider the woman at all. That's why I was very clear in my comments re: morality.

It's not just about the unborn...it's about the affects on the woman, her life, her health, her obligations and responsibilities in life, etc. You only consider the unborn and I've been very clear that while I value the unborn, I value all born people more.

So asking questions about killing born people make no sense, since killing them does not violate the woman's rights or risk her life.

Atreus21 said:
Moreover, if it could be demonstrated that killing an unborn child would have a bad impact on say, the child's father and the child's grandparents (loved ones) would you say the abortion shouldn't be allowed?
Click to expand...

See above.
 
Fishking said:
People have various levels of consciousness. In fact, humans often can be rendered unconscious. If someone gets choked out can they then be declared not human life and then killed?
Click to expand...
I feel that there is a difference between someone who has had consciousness before, and is temporarily unable to, and something that may have consciousness in the future.

One is already as person as they have experienced consciousness, and one is yet to be a person.
 
Atreus21 said:
Look if you guys want to argue that not all human beings are "persons", and we may kill the non-persons, have at it. You're in good company throughout history with slavers, Nazis, and who knows who else.
Click to expand...

Godwin's Law.


Atreus21 said:
Is it okay to kill what are determined by science to be human beings? What other human beings can we kill because you don't think they're "persons"?
Click to expand...
Any that are inside of and attached to the body of someone.
 
Gordy327 said:
Apparently you did not understand it.
Click to expand...

Could you explain it?

Gordy327 said:
No, it's a human cell. Not a human being, as in its not a person and no different than any other cell. You seem to ignore that particular point.
Click to expand...

I can only continue to redirect you to biology. A human being begins as fertilized egg just as all other mammals do. I don't know how else to explain this. Your answer seems to be no more than, "No it isn't."
 
Atreus21 said:
Could you explain it?
Click to expand...
I can't make it any simpler than I already have.
Atreus21 said:
I can only continue to redirect you to biology. A human being begins as fertilized egg just as all other mammals do. I don't know how else to explain this. Your answer seems to be no more than, "No it isn't."
Click to expand...
No one is debating if a zygote is a human or not. But it's no more of a "human being" than any other cell in the body. And it's certainly not a person. You seem to conflate the two.
 
Atreus21 said:
Could you explain it?



I can only continue to redirect you to biology. A human being begins as fertilized egg just as all other mammals do. I don't know how else to explain this. Your answer seems to be no more than, "No it isn't."
Click to expand...

Where does science, biology, recognize rights for any species?

What authority does say that the unborn have rights?
 
Lursa said:
Where does science, biology, recognize rights for any species?
Click to expand...

They don't.

Lursa said:
What authority does say that the unborn have rights?
Click to expand...

The same authority that says the born have rights, whatever that may be. Which authority that is doesn't really matter - most sane people hold as axiomatic that all human beings have a right to life. The job of the pro-lifer is simply to convince them that the unborn are human beings, which science attests to, and are thus covered under the axiom "human beings have a right to life."

It's only if you claim that not all human beings have a right to life that we need to get into your question about authority. But if you say that, I'd like to know first what other human beings we can kill according to this claim.
 
Atreus21 said:
The same authority that says the born have rights, whatever that may be. Which authority that is doesn't really matter - most sane people hold as axiomatic that all human beings have a right to life.
Click to expand...
There is no authority that deems the unborn to have rights. I defy you to prove otherwise!
Atreus21 said:
The job of the pro-lifer is simply to convince them that the unborn are human beings, which science attests to, and are thus covered under the axiom "human beings have a right to life."
Click to expand...
Then they suck at their "jobs" (which is just sanctimonious nonsense), as they cannot demonstrate the unborn are akin to actual born human beings with rights. The majority of people support abortion rights.
Atreus21 said:
It's only if you claim that not all human beings have a right to life that we need to get into your question about authority. But if you say that, I'd like to know first what other human beings we can kill according to this claim.
Click to expand...
The right to life applies to the born, not the unborn.
 

In the US, it's the Constitution and it explicitly states born. See: the 14th Amendment. And no federal laws or court decisions interpret that differently...none recognize any rights for the unborn.

There...that's the answer. So...the unborn have no right to life. If you disagree, provide sources that prove otherwise.

Atreus21 said:
It's only if you claim that not all human beings have a right to life that we need to get into your question about authority. But if you say that, I'd like to know first what other human beings we can kill according to this claim.
Click to expand...

It's not my claim, it's the law and I agree with it. And I've said so. Unborn humans do not and should not have rights. Certainly never anything that supersedes the rights of the woman they are inside of.

And we cant legally commit unjustified killing against people...people have rights. This is why we have laws and a Const...to protect people. And we've discussed justified killing already. If you dont like it, you're not alone. Not everyone agrees but as a society, we recognize killing such as pulling the plug, assisted suicide, abortion, as justified.

Dont ask me again...asked and answered. Just because you dont like the answer does not invalidate it's truth.
 

But the constitution, as you said earlier, could be wrong. If a federal law, court decision, or constitutional amendment established protections for the unborn, you wouldn't then believe that abortion was wrong. So the constitution clearly isn't your authority. What is?


I'd like you to cite one legal example, apart from abortion, of our being allowed to deliberately killing the innocent. Not a brain dead person cut off from life support (because that's not deliberate) and not capital punishment (because they're not innocent).

Lursa said:
Dont ask me again...asked and answered. Just because you dont like the answer does not invalidate it's truth.
Click to expand...

Well, it might if it's not the truth.
 
Gordy327 said:
There is no authority that deems the unborn to have rights. I defy you to prove otherwise!
Click to expand...

If I could cite no authority that deemed teenagers to have rights, would that mean teenagers don't have rights?

No. Again, my ability to cite an authority on this is irrelevant. People generally believe, for whatever reason and by whatever authority, that human beings have rights. All I have to do is convince them hat the unborn are included in the classification "human beings". Most attempts to do that meet with evasion and waffling.

Gordy327 said:
Then they suck at their "jobs" (which is just sanctimonious nonsense), as they cannot demonstrate the unborn are akin to actual born human beings with rights. The majority of people support abortion rights.
Click to expand...

Of course I can. Look at this unborn child:



Anyone who tells me the figure on the left isn't a human being, but the one on the right is, is lying. Any sensible person knows that at some point the unborn are human beings.

If abortion is generally supported it's a testament to the skill of its advocates at keeping the reality of abortion safely in the dark.

Gordy327 said:
The right to life applies to the born, not the unborn.
Click to expand...

Why? They're human beings, just like you are. Why are you entitled to a right to life which other fellow humans are denied?
 
Atreus21 said:
But the constitution, as you said earlier, could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that? Quote?

Atreus21 said:
If a federal law, court decision, or constitutional amendment established protections for the unborn, you wouldn't then believe that abortion was wrong. So the constitution clearly isn't your authority. What is?
Click to expand...

Protections are not rights. We protect lots of things, like endangered species, livestock, forests...but where do we recognize rights for them? RIghts that supersede those for men and women?


Why do I have to? You already provided examples, which you acknowledge Why is abortion different? Please explain your distinction so that I understand it? And when you do so, please remember that the unborn is not the only one facing death or significant health consequences or the sacrifice of being able to provide for food and housing for other dependents (children, elderly, disabled). Please explain where...if...you include the woman in your equation.

 
Atreus21 said:
If I could cite no authority that deemed teenagers to have rights, would that mean teenagers don't have rights?
Click to expand...
I'll take your deflection to mean that you cannot demonstrate where it's textualized that the unborn have rights!
Atreus21 said:
No. Again, my ability to cite an authority on this is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You're the one implying the unborn has rights through an "authority." So prove it! Claiming it's irrelevant means you can cite no such authority and your statement is BS!

Atreus21 said:
People generally believe, for whatever reason and by whatever authority, that human beings have rights.
Click to expand...
Belief is what is irrelevant. It's what the law actually says that is.
Atreus21 said:
All I have to do is convince them hat the unborn are included in the classification "human beings". Most attempts to do that meet with evasion and waffling.
Click to expand...
No, your attempts is what fails, as the unborn are not deemed human beings with rights. Perhaps if you could cite the law that does make that determination, perhaps your attempts might be more successful. But you also deem that irrelevant, as are your attempts to convince anyone of anything.
Atreus21 said:
Anyone who tells me the figure on the left isn't a human being, but the one on the right is, is lying. Any sensible person knows that at some point the unborn are human beings.
Click to expand...
That point is called "birth." You're simply trying to make an appeal to emotion.
Atreus21 said:
If abortion is generally supported it's a testament to the skill of its advocates at keeping the reality of abortion safely in the dark.
Click to expand...
No, it means most people support it. People generally know what an abortion is.
Atreus21 said:
Why? They're human beings, just like you are.
Click to expand...
Not yet they're not.
Atreus21 said:
Why are you entitled to a right to life which other fellow humans are denied?
Click to expand...
Because I am already born and Because there is no legal text or acknowledgement they have rights and there's no way to grant such rights without forcibly removing rights from the already born and actual human woman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…