'Partial Birth' abortion legislation

[Sir Toose]

How do you feel about it?

I'm frankly shocked at what I'm hearing. I've heard people saying that the 'decision' lies with the mother only and that she should be able to do as she wishes.

I'm in a gray area (to me) in the months that incorporate the first trimester of a pregnancy. I see both sides of the argument in this time frame and tend to think that the law has no business in the womb (but I feel abortion is morally wrong). I wouldn't presume to force my morals on someone else during this time period.

After the three months, though it seems clear to me that it should imperative that the pregnancy go on. If there is a medical necessity (mother in trouble) then those issues should be dealt with individually (yes that allows for abuse). Barring that... three months should be ample time for a woman to decide if she wants a baby or not.

Am I missing something?

[Sexy Celebrity]

Am I missing something?

Yes. Your own vagina.

[Caitlyn]

I’ve said it before and I will say it again… education is the key. A lot of people don’t even realize what a partial-birth abortion even involves…

[Mary Loquacious]

No, Toose, I think you're absolutely right.

One of the things that always bothers me about abortion and the choice to make an abortion is that people always say it's the woman's choice. However, it's not simply the woman's choice--it's the man's choice as well, if he is a figure in the woman's and the baby's life. It's a parent issue, to decide whether or not you can be a parent. So often, though, in situations where abortion becomes an option, the father simply isn't involved, emotionally or otherwise, so by default it becomes the "woman's choice."

However, partial birth abortions are another matter entirely. I'd never really thought about it before, when considering my stance on the issue, but three months (or the period immediately following the discovery of the pregnancy, whenever that occurs) should definitely be enough time to make the decision to have the baby or not. It ain't like picking out a movie at the video store--it's a life-changing decision that's one of the most important anyone can make. And you don't just walk around for months upon months with a baby inside you and then freak out and say, "Oh, I can't handle this. It's abortion time." If you allow the pregnancy to continue into the advanced stages, then you've already made a commitment.

Backing out then... well, I've never been one to cite abortion in and of itself as "murder" (I'm pro-choice, as you can probably tell), but that's about as close as it can come to murder, in my book.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I have to say this - it's never said enough these days. If you really want to avoid a pregnancy, try ABSTINENCE! I mean, make it into a cool thing or something. Tell everyone that you're practicing abstinence. Work to make it become a normal part of society instead of everything being SEX! SEX! SEX! Don't read my "Like a Virgin" thread and get tempted. In fact, I should make a thread called "STAY A VIRGIN!" There doesn't need to be a sexual revolution right now. You're better off not having sex! TAKE THE MOST IMPORTANT PRECAUTION. ABSTINENCE. ABSTINENCE. ABSTINENCE!

Rape victims who become pregnant: There are two ways of looking at it. I have always felt that a rape victim who becomes pregnant should not have the child. I don't believe that it is fair to the woman in so many ways - especially since she'll be raising the child of someone that cruel, someone she doesn't love (or maybe it's someone she does know, and she thinks she loves him, even though he raped her -- too confusing. See a psychiatrist.) someone who took away her choices.

I don't know. Maybe there are women who are looking for a sperm donor, a man just happens to rape her, she becomes pregnant, she opens a bottle of champagne. OK, let me stop talking about the kooks.

A woman who is raped, but cannot kill human life, may find peace raising the child because she isn't lowering herself to the rapist's level. He rapes, she murders... she feels just as bad. I personally wouldn't understand this emotion (I'm a man, if I was a woman and I became pregnant because of a rape, it is OUT.) But the woman who becomes pregnant because of a rapist could see herself as the better person and play loving, harmonious, embraces innocence, Angel of God, Mother Nature Mother.

Anyway,

The Reverend Sexy Celebrity has spoken

[Sexy Celebrity]

One of the things that always bothers me about abortion and the choice to make an abortion is that people always say it's the woman's choice. However, it's not simply the woman's choice--it's the man's choice as well, if he is a figure in the woman's and the baby's life. It's a parent issue, to decide whether or not you can be a parent. So often, though, in situations where abortion becomes an option, the father simply isn't involved, emotionally or otherwise, so by default it becomes the "woman's choice."

I don't know why we're arguing about male/female stuff when it comes to a woman bringing life into the world. IT IS THE WOMAN'S CHOICE. It's her body. Woman rules nature, not man. Woman brings man into the world. What if a woman has a physical problem/is in pain, cannot do the pregnancy, but her husband makes her, she goes along with it, she dies in childbirth. I WOULD BE A PRETTY PISSED OFF GHOST!

If you're married to a great lady - got a career going, got sexy looks, got it all - and you get her pregnant time after time, and everytime she gets pregnant she checks herself into the abortion clinic because she refuses to have kids - and that makes you ANNNNNGGGGGGRRYYYYY -- divorce the child murdering, cold and frigid psychopath! You either put your money into a soda machine and get a soda, or you put your money into a soda machine that gives you nothing! GO TO ANOTHER MACHINE.

Women are the real providers - men are the payers.

[r3port3r66]

Ugh, this is such a complex and grotesque discussion. I can't even watch the Discovery Channel without being grossed-out by the real surgeries they always show on that channel. However I am a horror movie fan--go figure. But the thought of a 3 month old human fetus being "sucked" out of a womb piece-by-segmented-piece, just makes me want to vomit. Perhaps that is where my disdain for the partial birth abortion lays. For some reason I'm totallty comfortable with a woman's right to choose if that choice is made within the first month, I'm not so comfortable with it, if the child has gestated long enough to form a head, arms, legs, etc.

And another thing: Who can afford such a procedure? Partial birth abortions must be very expensive as opposed to an abortion of the DNC type (scraping and flushing out of the uterus). It is of my opinion that only the lower, poorer classes get the majority abortions, and I'm thinking they know what they want as soon as they find out they're pregnant. Who waits 3, 4 or even 5 months into the pregnancy to decide they want the fetus removed? I say only rich folk because they, or their sugar daddies, can afford it.

And the whole murder thing. I know my mother would have liked to kill me (literally) a few times in my teens, but had she cut me up into little pieces and flushed me down the toilet then, that would have been murder, so what's the difference?

[Sexy Celebrity]

And the whole murder thing. I know my mother would have liked to kill me (literally) a few times in my teens, but had she cut me up into little pieces and flushed me down the toilet then, that would have been murder, so what's the difference?

You were already past your birthdate. No mother gets to say "I want an abortion!" right after her baby's been born.

Personally, I went through something far worse than abortion right after I was born ---- CIRCUMCISION!

[Sir Toose]

Yes. Your own vagina.

Are you volunteering yours? :randy:

[bolverk]

The baby is living by the thrid month but it isn't cognitive. I am not saying it is right, but if it is even slightly neccesary I wouldn't mind. Population control needs to be taken into consideration; oh heaven forbid someone irresponsible get pregnant, some may not notice till three months into it- although I'm not sure about that because I know nothing about when morning sickness kicks in and whatnot - and if something is so unaware of its existence it shouldn't be a problem. I don't quite know how I feel about this, but if you are extremely militant about anti-abortion(as no one in this thread seems to be of yet) I hope you don't eat eggs.

[jrs]

Are you volunteering yours? :randy:

:laugh:

[Revenge of Mr M]

I’ve said it before and I will say it again… education is the key. A lot of people don’t even realize what a partial-birth abortion even involves…

Like me... er, what does it involve?

[Sir Toose]

Like me... er, what does it involve?



In a nutshell... after 3 months a baby is pretty much formed. It'll grow, of course... but fingers and toes are there. Before Alex (my first) was born, I was truly amazed at the 5 month ultrasound (to determine sex). You can see mouth moving, fingers wiggling etc. Anyways... the process of aborting at this stage involves using implements to tear the fetus apart into small and manageable pieces to allow extraction. I had the unfortunate honor of seeing the end result of one of these while working as a cabinet maker in a hospital. One of the doctors had a baby's remains in a glass jar and it was horrifying.

[Sir Toose]

The baby is living by the thrid month but it isn't cognitive. I am not saying it is right, but if it is even slightly neccesary I wouldn't mind. Population control needs to be taken into consideration; oh heaven forbid someone irresponsible get pregnant, some may not notice till three months into it- although I'm not sure about that because I know nothing about when morning sickness kicks in and whatnot - and if something is so unaware of its existence it shouldn't be a problem. I don't quite know how I feel about this, but if you are extremely militant about anti-abortion(as no one in this thread seems to be of yet) I hope you don't eat eggs.

Population control?

Population control needs to be considered BEFORE a pregnancy.... don't you think?

[Revenge of Mr M]

Partial birth abortions sound pretty nasty, and I think a ban would not be such a bad thing; however, doing a little reading, I hear suggestions that banning pba is just the banning, and will eventually lead to a wider ban on all forms of abortion, including prosecution of doctors performing abortions 8 weeks into pregnancy, which sounds pretty extreme, and certainly not something I'd expect of a supposedly free community! I hope wider bans never happen, because it would bring back the days of unqualified surgeons performing illegal operations which quite often led to permanent and sometimes fatal injuries to women.

[Sir Toose]

Partial birth abortions sound pretty nasty, and I think a ban would not be such a bad thing; however, doing a little reading, I hear suggestions that banning pba is just the banning, and will eventually lead to a wider ban on all forms of abortion, including prosecution of doctors performing abortions 8 weeks into pregnancy, which sounds pretty extreme, and certainly not something I'd expect of a supposedly free community! I hope wider bans never happen, because it would bring back the days of unqualified surgeons performing illegal operations which quite often led to permanent and sometimes fatal injuries to women.


I think the contention is the time frame. I also think that all of the chicken little sky is falling panic from the left is unfounded. To attempt to write a law that bans all abortion is to commit political suicide and none of these a-holes from either side are willing to do that.

The populous is centrist on average. Abortion is a centrist issue... as half the population will never be happy with any form of resolution.

[Yoda]

Population control needs to be taken into consideration
Seeing as how pro-lifers contend that the fetus may very well be, in fact, human, the "population control" argument is meaningless unless you're willing to defend the killing of fully birthed human beings for the same reasons.


I don't quite know how I feel about this, but if you are extremely militant about anti-abortion(as no one in this thread seems to be of yet) I hope you don't eat eggs.I fail to see the connection, unless we were all to agree that eating chickens is immoral.

[r3port3r66]

I only eat the white of the egg myself.

[blibblobblib]

[spoilers=The Gory Details]

Oh my god.....thats horrific. :sick:

Thats worse than when my mum told me what those little nappies were that women wear sometimes.

[Mary Loquacious]

The baby is living by the thrid month but it isn't cognitive. I am not saying it is right, but if it is even slightly neccesary I wouldn't mind. Population control needs to be taken into consideration

Seeing as how pro-lifers contend that the fetus may very well be, in fact, human, the "population control" argument is meaningless unless you're willing to defend the killing of fully birthed human beings for the same reasons.

Yoda's right--abortion, at least in our society, is not a form of population control. That would be where contraceptives come into play, ideally. There's also Sexy's abstinence platform. And what a crazy place that is, especially for someone who calls himself Sexy. ;)

The legislators who are trying to stop the ban are mainly using the "if the mother is in danger" argument, but this doesn't work for me, considering that I have found no instances wherein this has been an issue. If anyone has any info, please share it--I'd like to know if there's any evidence in the form of examples to support the argument.

[nebbit]

I have to say this - it's never said enough these days. If you really want to avoid a pregnancy, try ABSTINENCE! I mean, make it into a cool thing or something. Tell everyone that you're practicing abstinence. Work to make it become a normal part of society instead of everything being SEX! SEX! SEX! Don't read my "Like a Virgin" thread and get tempted. In fact, I should make a thread called "STAY A VIRGIN!" There doesn't need to be a sexual revolution right now. You're better off not having sex! TAKE THE MOST IMPORTANT PRECAUTION. ABSTINENCE. ABSTINENCE. ABSTINENCE!

Once when i was visiting a Dr for, you know for women's things, he asked me what i was using for contraception, I said ABSTINENCE, he looked at me for a long time and then said, "Well thats a new one" :eek:

[Sexy Celebrity]

There's also Sexy's abstinence platform. And what a crazy place that is, especially for someone who calls himself Sexy. ;)

You should call yourself Sister Mary Loquacious.
http://www.maskon.com/marti/Hallow/Images/nun.jpg
And wear this Whoopi Goldberg/Sister Act costume.

[Mary Loquacious]

You should call yourself Sister Mary Loquacious.


I tried, but it was too long of a username.

Seriously.

[Sir Toose]

***SIDEBAR***


Haha

I have a friend named Sue (as opposed to a boy named...oh gawd, never mind).

Anyways, I've known her since we were in our early teens. She was a hellion (now a HS guidance counselor) who would get these strange flashes of propriety usually in the midst of some sort of mayhem that we were perpetrating.

These flashes earned her the moniker (coined by me :D ) of Sister Susan Mary (middle name Mary).

I still call her that... 20 something years later.

***/SIDEBAR***

[Nikki]

I don't believe in abortion for myself...........but I have not been in that situation where I have had to consider one..............but I believe that all women should be able to obtain a voluntary abortion if they wish.........and not be judged by her choice.....

Abortion........partial birth abortion....... should be a decision between a patient and her doctor, without the interference of any third party...........................bringing politics into the examination room will prevent doctors from providing the best and safest health care for women...................This directly and inappropriately interferes with the practice of medicine and the patient-doctor relationship and prevents women from making decisions about their own health........and that is dangerous.

[Yoda]

I don't believe in abortion for myself...........but I have not been in that situation where I have had to consider one..............but I believe that all women should be able to obtain a voluntary abortion if they wish.........and not be judged by her choice.....

Abortion........partial birth abortion....... should be a decision between a patient and her doctor, without the interference of any third party...........................bringing politics into the examination room will prevent doctors from providing the best and safest health care for women...................This directly and inappropriately interferes with the practice of medicine and the patient-doctor relationship and prevents women from making decisions about their own health........and that is dangerous.
Saying that banning partial-birth abortion interferes with medicine is like saying a law against organized crime interferes with business transactions. While there's certainly something to be said for the health side of things, why should the welfare of the mother take automatic, unquestioned precedent over what is clearly, at least at that point, a human child?

[nebbit]

While there's certainly something to be said for the health side of things, why should the welfare of the mother take automatic, unquestioned precedent over what is clearly, at least at that point, a human child?

I am not sure that Nikki said that the mother automatically takes unquestioned precedence over the unborn child, wasn't she talking about women deciding about there own health.

Who do you think should talk for the unborn child???

[Yoda]

I am not sure that Nikki said that the mother automatically takes unquestioned precedence over the unborn child, wasn't she talking about women deciding about there own health.
"Abortion........partial birth abortion....... should be a decision between a patient and her doctor, without the interference of any third party"

Yes, she was talking about a woman deciding about her health, but she also said that if the woman and the doctor decide that her health could be at risk, there should be no stopping the action. Logically, this means that the mother's health will overrule the life of the fetus, which is where my statement about precedence came from.


Who do you think should talk for the unborn child???
Nobody truly can. But we should be able to agree that "life" would probably be numero uno on the child's list of demands, if it could write one.

[nebbit]

[i]"[i]Nobody truly can. But we should be able to agree that "life" would probably be numero uno on the child's list of demands, if it could write one.

Yes the child has a right to live, but I am not sure it is as simple as that.

If the child is unwanted, what about the mother and child's mental health, after birth.

A friends daughter was pregnant with her 2nd child, on ultra sound the baby had a deformity that would kill the mother at birth and the baby would die soon after birth, They had to choose between having the baby terminated, or let the pregnancy go full term and for them both to die, a discussion was made to terminate the baby at 5mths gestation, the parents also had a 2 year old boy who would be left without a mother if the pregnancy continued. Because of their choice they were shunned by the church they loved because of its stand on abortion.

They now have a healthy 2nd child, but the church has not forgiven them. :(

[Yoda]

Yes the child has a right to live, but I am not sure it is as simple as that.

If the child is unwanted, what about the mother and child's mental health, after birth.I think that clearly has to take a back seat. Being unwanted is not a good enough reason to kill a child. If it were, my family would not exist.A friends daughter was pregnant with her 2nd child, on ultra sound the baby had a deformity that would kill the mother at birth and the baby would die soon after birth, They had to choose between having the baby terminated, or let the pregnancy go full term and for them both to die, a discussion was made to terminate the baby at 5mths gestation, the parents also had a 2 year old boy who would be left without a mother if the pregnancy continued. Because of their choice they were shunned by the church they loved because of its stand on abortion.

They now have a healthy 2nd child, but the church has not forgiven them. :(That, granted, is another matter entirely. If we're talking two deaths versus one, the situation needs to be re-evaluated. I'm referring more, though, to any sentiment that, before labor, we can treat the fetus like a clipped toenail; a remnant of the body to be disposed of. It is very, very obviously a human being at some point before it is technically birthed.

Do you remember what type of deformity it was, or what it was called?

[nebbit]

. Being unwanted is not a good enough reason to kill a child. If it were, my family would not exist.

I'm referring more, though, to any sentiment that, before labor, we can treat the fetus like a clipped toenail; a remnant of the body to be disposed of. It is very, very obviously a human being at some point before it is technically birthed.

Do you remember what type of deformity it was, or what it was called?

Being unwanted may not be an issue in your family as it would be in mine, but in some families it is, as a counsellor I see a lot of very unhappy adults that have suffered a lot of emotional abuse because of being an unwanted child.

I don't think I have ever met a woman that has had an abortion who hasn't agonised over the decision, and would never think of the child as a clipped toenail to be disposed so callously without some emotional pain.

The baby had no brain and other problems that infect and kill the mother, only the mother through the umbilical cord was keeping it alive, before ultrasounds this was only diagnosed on autopsy of mother and child.

So what do you think of what the church rejecting this couple and the family, they told them that it is the will of God and they must go through with the pregnancy.

[Yoda]

Being unwanted may not be an issue in your family as it would be in mine, but in some families it is, as a counsellor I see a lot of very unhappy adults that have suffered a lot of emotional abuse because of being an unwanted child.
I think you've misunderstood me; I said it was an issue in my family. My father was not particularly wanted, and without him, there's no us.

Regardless, are you suggesting that it's better to die than live under parents who don't want you? If this were true, would it then be best to kill all existing orphans?


I don't think I have ever met a woman that has had an abortion who hasn't agonised over the decision, and would never think of the child as a clipped toenail to be disposed so callously without some emotional pain.
Sadly, I've met someone who has treated it not unlike that. I realize this is an exception and not a rule, but the sentiment expressed in Nikki's post (the belief that the woman takes unequivocal precedence over the fetus) is not a far cry from it. You can't take that stance without simultaneously regarding the fetus as significantly inferior. You have to strip the fetus of its humanity if you want to justify killing it.


The baby had no brain and other problems that infect and kill the mother, only the mother through the umbilical cord was keeping it alive, before ultrasounds this was only diagnosed on autopsy of mother and child.

So what do you think of what the church rejecting this couple and the family, they told them that it is the will of God and they must go through with the pregnancy.
I would think it would go without saying that I reject their rejection. Even if we were to assume that her act was wrong (and I'm by no means convinced that it was), the Church is still the type of organization that ought to be in the business of forgiving.

[Knoxville]

It's such a complicated matter, I personally don't believe in abortion, but obviously, I can't talk for all women. At the end of the day it should be down to the individual, whether you agree with their choice or not.

[nebbit]

I think you've misunderstood me; I said it was an issue in my family. My father was not particularly wanted, and without him, there's no us.

Regardless, are you suggesting that it's better to die than live under parents who don't want you? If this were true, would it then be best to kill all existing orphans?

the Church is still the type of organization that ought to be in the business of forgiving.

Sorry I did misunderstand you and I am glad that it turned out well for your father and family.

No i am not suggesting it is better to die if unwanted, or that all orphans should die, I do think the whole thing is a complicated issue and can not be just a black and white debate. I have 2 friends that are adopted, for them it has been a positive experience and they love there adopted parents very much. I have clients who say that they would have rather died as there life has been hell, they also belong to groups that help adoptees who have had a terrible life and i was shocked to realise how many go to these meetings in a small city like i live in, so i am not sure what the answer is, again i say it is a complex issue that has lots of shades of grey.

Yes you are right the church in this Catholic should be in the business of forgiveness, this is one reason that I find religion confusing. :confused:

[Sexy Celebrity]

I think you've misunderstood me; I said it was an issue in my family. My father was not particularly wanted, and without him, there's no us.

And no MoFo.

I'm a big believer in that any small change, of any minor detail, can drastically change the moves of this big chess game called life. It may not show up until years to come, but it happens. Going to Wendy's instead of McDonalds can even change the outcome of the world. Look at what happened because Yoda's father is here!

[Django]

Scary thought! :eek:

(j/k ;))

[Sir Toose]

You have to strip the fetus of its humanity if you want to justify killing it.


This is very true. I am, in my heart, very much against abortion. That being said, I don't think the law has a place in this (prior to the first trimester).

The weightiest argument I hear on the pro-choice side is that a fetus is not a human. To me, this is glossing over the truth. Call it what it is, at least. If it takes two humans to make it, it's a human. I defy anyone to make me a human without the aid of egg and sperm. It cannot be done, therefore a fetus is a human.

I recognize all of the things that could go wrong. What if a woman is raped, what if having a child were harmful to a mother's health, what if the baby were going to be deformed and so forth? I would bet that these cases are not the rule, but the exception. I have been through this with my wife (who was my girlfriend at the time). The doctors office was full of people like us (we spoke with them). Too young and too dumb to have kids. Obviously I'm telling my story here, not necessarily a situation that would apply to all. My wife has never gotten over that abortion now over 18 years ago. It's not an emotionally unscarring process post-op, and I can't help but think that there's a reason for that.

Anyways, I just wanted to say that it's my view that up to and including the first trimester I think it's up the people involved and God... not the law. After that, I think it's an unholy undertaking (barring health issues etc).

[7thson]

This may sound like a silly question, but why is it that so many lib's are pro-choice and so many conservatives are pro-life? I mean think about it for a moment with politics in mind. Pro-choicers do not like to be told what to do or how to do it: leave us alone and let us live our lives and do what we want with our bodies. Pro-lifers tend to think that after a certain time a woman should be told what to do with her body and that of the unborn: abortion is murder.

Maybe the pro-choicers should expand this to less government and let people live their lives without trying to tell them what to do.


Just a thought.

[mark f]

Your basic hypothesis is semi-true, but based on personal experience, I do not know of anybody who believes they SHOULD get an abortion when push comes to shove. I'm under the impression that many abortions are done to keep the "new parents" from getting into extreme trouble with their families or to keep certain people who never intended to have kids from overcomplicating their lives. Aside from those reasons and stopping the birth of babies who are doomed to be extremely diseased or deformed, why else do people get abortions?

[7thson]

Aside from those reasons and stopping the birth of babies who are doomed to be extremely diseased or deformed, why else do people get abortions?


I guess my post really belongs in its own thread, but I thought it might hold more thoughtfulness here. I was not trying to discuss reasons, but more so the right to whatever reason one has.

[mark f]

Yes, you implied that the Left was "Conservative" and the Right was "Liberal", at least in the way that government interferes in people's lives concerning abortion. It's mostly a question about the fluidity of certain laws where at some times it's a form of murder and at other times, it's strictly legal.

[7thson]

It's mostly a question about the fluidity of certain laws where at some times it's a form of murder and at other times, it's strictly legal.


Yup....it is a simple thing, but it is good to see that some, agree or not, get it.

Thanks.

:)

[FILMFREAK087]

The way I see it, IMO, if you have a potential child, who is disabled to the point of not being able to even fend for themselves, and live a painful existence, then I can understand a partial birth abortion. To me, I see it as cruel to force such an existence on a human being. I see it as some-what misguided, self-serving decision making on the part of the parents, who feel better with the socially acceptable decision, over the more merciful one.

Also, who the hell is forcing anyone to get an abortion? "libs" fight to keep it from being illegalized. The only cases I could see where it is even suggested are rape, or incest. So in a way, yes, it contradicts both precepts of the political parties.

[rufnek]

The way I see it, IMO, if you have a potential child, who is disabled to the point of not being able to even fend for themselves, and live a painful existence, then I can understand a partial birth abortion. To me, I see it as cruel to force such an existence on a human being. I see it as some-what misguided, self-serving decision making on the part of the parents, who feel better with the socially acceptable decision, over the more merciful one.

Also, who the hell is forcing anyone to get an abortion? "libs" fight to keep it from being illegalized. The only cases I could see where it is even suggested are rape, or incest. So in a way, yes, it contradicts both precepts of the political parties.

I've seen handicapped children who were dearly loved and cared for and, yes, even happy. There is no one solution that fits all cases. My basic position is only the woman carrying the child knows if she's capable of dealing with its birth. I think adoption would be a good alternative, but I've never been an unwed teen out on the streets facing the birth of a handicapped child. I'm not willing to dictate what she must or must not do.

[christine]

am I missing something?


Yes. Your own vagina.


this made me laugh a lot :laugh:

[honeykid]

I didn't know they came seperately now. Although, there's probably plenty of women who'll tell you they have for a great many years.
;) :D