I'm ok with letting people have their opinions. If the church wants to be staunchly pro-life, that's their business and they can think that. But there is no way this child could have given birth to twins, even medically speaking; let alone the moral problems with the pregnancy resulting from sexual abuse. I can't believe the church is doing this.
She goes by Hinda, but that's not her real name. That's what she's called by the many Iraqi sex traffickers and pimps who contact her several times a week from across the country. They think she is one of them, a peddler of sexual slaves. Little do they know that the stocky auburn-haired woman is an undercover human-rights activist who has been quietly mapping out their murky underworld since 2006.
That underworld is a place where nefarious female pimps hold sway and where impoverished mothers sell their teenage daughters into a sex market that believes females who reach the age of 20 are too old to fetch a good price. The youngest victims, some ages 11 and 12, are sold for as much as $30,000, while others can go for as little as $2,000. "The buying and selling of girls in Iraq, it's like the trade in cattle," Hinda says. "I've seen mothers haggle with agents over the price of their daughters."
The trafficking routes are both local and international, and most often connect to Syria, Jordan and the gulf (primarily the United Arab Emirates). The victims are trafficked either illegally on forged passports or "legally" through forced marriages. A married female, even one as young as 14, raises few suspicions if she's traveling with her "husband." The girls are then divorced upon arrival and put to work.
Nobody knows exactly how many Iraqi women and children have been sold into sexual slavery since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. There is no official number because of the shadowy nature of the business. Baghdad-based activists like Hinda and others estimate it to be in the tens of thousands. Still, it remains a hidden crime, one that the 2008 U.S. State Department's Trafficking in Persons report says the Iraqi government is not combating. Baghdad, the report says, "offers no protection services to victims of trafficking, reported no efforts to prevent trafficking in persons and does not acknowledge trafficking to be a problem in the country."
While sexual violence has accompanied warfare for millenniums and insecurity always provides opportunities for criminal elements to profit, what is happening in Iraq today reveals how far a once progressive country (relative to its neighbors) has regressed on the issue of women's rights and how ferociously the seams of a traditional Arab society that values female virginity have been ripped apart. Baghdad's Minister of Women's Affairs, Nawal al-Samarraie, resigned last month in protest of the lack of resources provided to her by the government. "The ministry is just an empty post," she told TIME. "Why do I come to the office every day if I don't have any resources?" Yet even al-Samarraie doesn't think sex-trafficking is an issue. "It's limited," she said, adding that she believed the girls involved choose to engage in prostitution.
That's a view that infuriates activists like Yanar Mohammed, who heads the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq. "Let me take her to the nightclubs of Damascus and show her [trafficked] women by the thousands," she says. To date, the government has not prosecuted any traffickers. And for the past year it has prevented groups like Mohammed's from visiting women's prisons, where they have previously identified victims, many of whom are jailed for acts committed as a result of being trafficked, such as prostitution or possessing forged documents.
That's where Mohammed's group first saw Atoor several years ago, at the Khadimiya Women's Prison in northern Baghdad. Now 18, Atoor married her 19-year-old sweetheart, a policeman called Bilal, when she was 15. Three months later he was dead, killed during one of the many bloody episodes in Iraq's brutal war. After the obligatory four-month mourning period dictated by Islamic Shari'a law, Atoor's mother and two brothers made it clear that they intended to sell her to a brothel close to their home in western Baghdad, just as they had sold her older twin sisters. Frightened, she told a friend in the police force to raid her home and the nearby brothel. His unit did, and Atoor spent the next two years in prison. She was not charged with anything, but that's how long it took for her to come before a judge and be released. "I wanted to go to prison — I didn't want to be sold," she says. "I didn't think it would happen to me. My mother used to spoil me. Yes, she sold my sisters, but she regretted that. I thought that she loved me."
Hinda the activist-investigator also knows what it's like to be betrayed by family and considered human merchandise. Raped at 16, she was disowned by her family and left homeless. In many parts of the Arab world, the stigma of compromised chastity, even if it was stolen, is such that victims are at best outcasts and at worst killed for "dishonoring" their family or community. Desperate and destitute, Hinda turned to prostitution.
Now 33, she is using her knowledge of the industry to infiltrate trafficking rings across the country. She gathers information about the victims, where they are from, how much they're sold for and who is buying them. Most often she poses as a buyer for overseas clients, a cover that enables her to snap pictures of victims and claim that they are for her potential customers. She drags out the negotiations for several days, knowing that the victims are usually sold during that period. Playing a disappointed pimp helps keep her cover intact, she says. She can't rescue the girls, but the hope is that when the government decides to take trafficking seriously, her work and that of others will eventually help prosecute offenders and identify victims. She moves away from each trafficking ring as quickly as she can. To linger would be to invite suspicion.
These days, she says, suspicion is getting harder to avoid. She has been beaten before, by the security guards of pimps who suspect her of encouraging young victims to escape or offering them help. In the past week she has received several death threats, some so frightening and persistent that she penned a farewell letter to her mother. "I'm scared. I'm scared that I'll be killed," she says, wiping away her tears. "But I will not surrender to that fear. If I do, it means I've given up, and I won't do that. I have to work to stop this."
I'm ok with letting people have their opinions. If the church wants to be staunchly pro-life, that's their business and they can think that. But there is no way this child could have given birth to twins, even medically speaking; let alone the moral problems with the pregnancy resulting from sexual abuse. I can't believe the church is doing this.
The problem is they're not just harmlessly voicing their opinion. Excommunication can have serious consequences in some communities. The doctor may lose patients because of the branding. The family may be ostracized by their friends who are all still members of the church.
The call by some right wing leaders for rebellion and for the military to refuse the commander in chief’s orders is joined by Chuck Norris who claims that thousands of right wing cell groups have organized and are ready for a second American Revolution. During an appearance on the Glen Beck radio show he promised that if things get any worse from his point of view he may “run for president of Texas.” The martial artist/actor/activist claims that Texas was never formally a part of the United States in the first place and that if rebellion is to come through secession Texas would lead the way.
Today in his syndicated column on WorldNetDaily Norris reiterates the point: “That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.”
He continues; calling on a second American Revolution; “…we've bastardized the First Amendment, reinterpreted America's religious history and secularized our society until we ooze skepticism and circumvent religion on every level of public and private life.
How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution? We the people have the authority according to America's Declaration of Independence, which states: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
Norris claims that; “Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation.” The right wing cells will meet during a live telecast, "We Surround Them," on Friday March 13 at 5 p.m.
He closes with the words of Sam Houston followed by a plug for his next martial arts event.
“We view ourselves on the eve of battle."
(Note: Speaking of showdowns, Chuck is also inviting anyone near the Houston area this weekend to see a good example of the raw Texas fighting spirit by joining him and others for the national martial arts event, "Showdown in H-Town.")“
See, he's assuming that Texas' secession will incite a second American Revolution. He assumes that people care enough about a state of religious zealots instituting a secession to fight to retain them. Would anybody miss them? Really?
Also, I find it odd that about 2 years ago Chuck Norris would probably say that it was "unpatriotic" to question our involvement in Iraq and challenge the president's decisions. Funny how his opinion has suddenly changed now that things aren't going his way.
Well, I'm not really sure if abortion is right when the pregnancy is result of a rape. I am in favor of it when the pregnancy constitutes a serious risk (read: DEATH) to the mother's life. But the argument that the Church poses is very valid: How can one choose that one life is worthier than the other? On what grounds can I be the judge to decide that the mother is more important than the baby she is carrying? The only real alternative (within this line of thought) is to let nature run its course and hope that both will survive.
Well, I'm not really sure if abortion is right when the pregnancy is result of a rape. I am in favor of it when the pregnancy constitutes a serious risk (read: DEATH) to the mother's life. But the argument that the Church poses is very valid: How can one choose that one life is worthier than the other? On what grounds can I be the judge to decide that the mother is more important than the baby she is carrying? The only real alternative (within this line of thought) is to let nature run its course and hope that both will survive.
I would agree with this sentiment, if only the Church itself wasn't making that decision that it says no one else can make -- the unborn children, in its view, is a higher priority than the nine year old girl. I certainly don't think anyone else should be making this decision -- not the clergy, not the government, not even her doctors. Since she's a minor, I'm perfectly comfortable with her legal guardian signing off on it to save her life.
This is a complicated issue full of nuance and soul-testing struggles. To automatically excommunicate those who tried, however flawed, to save this girl's life and not be particularly interested in excommunicating her rapist stepfather denotes a gross disorganization of priorities.
...But the argument that the Church poses is very valid: How can one choose that one life is worthier than the other?
Actually, the answer is right under your nose. The nine year old's uterus was deemed too small to successfully carry one baby, let alone two. Even if she had tried to continue the pregnancy, odds are high that all three of them would have died.
If the mother dies, the babies generally do, too, especially if it's not the last month of pregnancy yet.
I like the Mormon's (my) beliefs on Abortion. Victims of rape and incest are allowed to abort, as well as when the child could cause permanent harm. The mother is ALWAYS more important than the unborn child.
And I agree with Jake. You'd think the rapist would be immediately excommunicated, whereas the doctor that tried to make things right in the only way he could would get a nearly gold chain for his efforts. Things get effed-up a lot, though...
I like the Mormon's (my) beliefs on Abortion. Victims of rape and incest are allowed to abort, as well as when the child could cause permanent harm.
I mean, I hate to play devil's advocate on this one, but how can anyone be sure that the woman was the victim of rape or incest? There are plenty of people screwed up to lie about whether they were raped or not to be socially (or religiously) accepted.
I'm not trying to stir controversy, it was just the first thing that popped into my mind
I'd say he's talking religion without reference to actual law. He's simply suggesting that it should be morally OK to abort under those circumstances. If someone gets an abortion for other reasons, then it's on their own head that they did something wrong.
Putting this into law and enforcing it would be a different issue.
Actually, the answer is right under your nose. The nine year old's uterus was deemed too small to successfully carry one baby, let alone two. Even if she had tried to continue the pregnancy, odds are high that all three of them would have died.
If the mother dies, the babies generally do, too, especially if it's not the last month of pregnancy yet.
No, that doesn't mean that one life is worthier than the other, it means that it is more viable than the other, if anything. I have personally met a 10 year old girl who had a baby (granted, it wasn't twins) and who was in perfect health status.
Well she was a lucky at best, even if it's possible the chances were she would die with her babies. They had the option of taking 1% chance she would be fine versus the 100% chance she would be fine after the abortion.
No, that doesn't mean that one life is worthier than the other, it means that it is more viable than the other, if anything. I have personally met a 10 year old girl who had a baby (granted, it wasn't twins) and who was in perfect health status.
I think you missed my point, a little.
I was not saying one life was worthier, either. I'm saying the argument was moot. In that instance, according to the news article, the pregnancy was not viable, indeed. Therefore there was no way of choosing the babies' lives over the mother's.
Anecdotal evidence aside, it's generally not healthy for barely pubescent girls to have babies. I'm sure you can agree that far.
Edit: I misunderstood an issue here. But let's go ahead and put it on the books that only medical reasons, rape, and incest are acceptable, m'kay? So thought experiment, leaving the medical aside (because judges and lawyers should definitely second-guess doctors and encourage malpractice insurance to go up): now the burden is on the girl/woman to prove that she's a victim of rape/incest. Given the low percentage of victims who are currently willing to report it ALREADY, that sounds like a FANTASTIC idea to me. /snark
now the burden is on the girl/woman to prove that she's a victim of rape/incest. Given the low percentage of victims who are currently willing to report it ALREADY, that sounds like a FANTASTIC idea to me. /snark
So you are suggesting that we change civil rights to presumption of guiltiness instead of innocence? Yeah that sounds like an even better idea. Heck, let's go back to the inquisitive system, too! And bring weighted evidence and trials by ordeals as well.
So you are suggesting that we change civil rights to presumption of guiltiness instead of innocence? Yeah that sounds like an even better idea. Heck, let's go back to the inquisitive system, too! And bring weighted evidence and trials by ordeals as well.
First, I was being sarcastic.
Second, do you not realize what a low percentage of rapes are reported? And then, how few of them are actually prosecuted successfully? Of course I don't want to presume guilt. But it's damn hard to prove it, and in the end, all too often, the victim loses once from the rape itself, and again should she choose to speak up about it and lose her case. How many people just on this board immediately wondered about all those women who bring false charges? Presumption of innocence is one thing, but punishing the victim further... well, do you see my problem now?
I argue that, should rape have to proven for a girl/woman to obtain an abortion, that would be a third time she would pay, because the likelihood is low that she would be successful at doing so.
So you are suggesting that we change civil rights to presumption of guiltiness instead of innocence? Yeah that sounds like an even better idea. Heck, let's go back to the inquisitive system, too! And bring weighted evidence and trials by ordeals as well.
So you'd rather blame the victim for being a woman? Furthermore, this girl isn't on trial here, no matter how much you try and make it. While I understand where you're coming from and what you're trying to say, why is the immediate reaction to an accusation of rape that it can't be true until someone is proven guilty? Does this mean, then, that there isn't a victim until there's a convicted perpetrator?
You do realize how prevalent rape and other sexual violence is, right?
Workers at a Texas state school for mentally handicapped adults are believed to have been staging a "fight club" among residents, encouraging them to physically battle one another, police told CNN Tuesday.
A cell phone containing videos of the alleged abuse at the Corpus Christi State School in Corpus Christi, Texas, was turned over to police last week, and authorities are expecting to file arrest warrants this week, Corpus Christi police Capt. Tim Wilson told CNN.
The incidents are believed to have taken place in a school dormitory, Wilson said.
"This has been going on for some time," Wilson said. "That is what makes this an exceptional case. It is not the workers abusing the clients, so to speak. The workers are not hitting them, but they are allowing these clients to fight with each other, thereby endangering their well-being."
"These people are charged with the care and custody of these clients, and they are exploiting (them)," he said.
Those involved will likely face charges of injury of a disabled person, Wilson said. The charge's severity can range up to a third-class felony, depending on the extent of a person's involvement, he said. The actual charges, however are left up to the Nueces County District Attorney, which is participating in the investigation along with the Texas Inspector General's Office, he said.
Seven school employees have been placed on paid emergency leave by the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services, according to spokeswoman Cecilia Fedorov. Some former workers also will be interviewed, authorities said.
Fedorov said the agency received a phone call Friday from the state Department of Family and Protective Services, saying they had been alerted to the situation by police and were opening an investigation into possible abuse or neglect.
The employees on leave cannot come on to campus, but must sign in at the gate every day they are on leave, Fedorov said.
State officials are awaiting the outcome of the investigation to determine whether they should take further action, she said.
Wilson said Corpus Christi police received the cell phone a week ago, when a citizen found it and gave it to an officer working security at a hospital. The officer looked at several of the videos, then gave the phone to the police's forensic unit for analysis. More videos were found in the phone's memory.
"It appears it was some sort of a fight club," Wilson said. Twenty videos were found on the phone, with dates going back about a year. All the videos featured the school's "clients," who are severely mentally handicapped, he said.
On the videos, "they (the clients) are not upset like they are being forced," Wilson said. "They are being more goaded into it. There's a lot of voices on there from workers ... saying, 'Look at that, ha ha' ... laughing, stuff like that."
No clients are seen crying, upset or injured on the videos, he said, but no workers are seen stopping the fighting.
"The fighting entails pushing, wrestling and some shoving," Wilson said. Police do not believe anyone was seriously injured, he said, but the investigation is ongoing.
"Four or five clients have been identified and at least five workers, possibly as many as 10," he said. "Some are more active in staging the fights, and some others passively stand around not doing anything."
The clients are all adult males, ranging in age from their late teens into their 30s, he said. As part of the investigation, the Inspector General's office has interviewed some of the clients, Wilson said.
Asked whether the school had previously been investigated for abuse, he said, "This is the exception. Over the years, we have had isolated instances of abuse we have investigated. Every once in a while, the school itself would report a case, but this appears to be organized."
Police believe, based on the videos, the "fight club" was confined to one dormitory, he said.
I hope President Norris does something about this.
Second, do you not realize what a low percentage of rapes are reported? And then, how few of them are actually prosecuted successfully? Of course I don't want to presume guilt. But it's damn hard to prove it, and in the end, all too often, the victim loses once from the rape itself, and again should she choose to speak up about it and lose her case. How many people just on this board immediately wondered about all those women who bring false charges? Presumption of innocence is one thing, but punishing the victim further... well, do you see my problem now?
I argue that, should rape have to proven for a girl/woman to obtain an abortion, that would be a third time she would pay, because the likelihood is low that she would be successful at doing so.
That's just my opinion, though.
I think I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Because you mentioned judges and lawyers I was under the impression that you were against the woman having to prove that she was raped during a trial. It's obviously not necesary to prove her rape when asking for an abortion.
Hey, more fuck Catholicism news. This is one I'm particularly passionate about, because Catholics are indirectly killing people in the name of "morals".
(CNN) -- Pope Benedict XVI refused Wednesday to soften the Vatican's ban on condom use as he arrived in Africa for his first visit to the continent as pope.
He landed in Cameroon, the first stop on a trip that will also take him to Angola.
Sub-Saharan Africa has been hit harder by AIDS and HIV than any other region of the world, according to the United Nations and World Health Organization. There has been fierce debate between those who advocate the use of condoms to help stop the spread of the epidemic and those who oppose it.
The pontiff reiterated the Vatican's policy on condom use as he flew from Rome to Yaounde, the capital of Cameroon, CNN Vatican analyst John Allen said.
Pope Benedict has always made it clear he intends to uphold the traditional Catholic teaching on artificial contraception -- a "clear moral prohibition" -- Allen said. But his remarks Tuesday were among the first times he stated the policy explicitly since he became pope nearly four years ago.
He has, however, assembled a panel of scientists and theologians to consider the narrow question of whether to allow condoms for married couples, one of whom has HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
It is still not clear how the pope will rule on the matter, said Allen, who is also a senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter.
The Catholic Church has long been on the front line of HIV care, he said, adding that it is probably the largest private provider of HIV care in the world.
More than 22 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are infected with HIV, according to a 2008 UNAIDS/WHO report. Nine out of 10 children with HIV in the world live in the region, which has 11.4 million orphans because of AIDS, the report said, and 1.5 million people there died of the disease in 2007.
Philip Chawner, 53, and his 57-year-old wife Audrey weigh 24st. Their daughter Emma, 19, weighs 17st, while her older sister Samantha, 21, weighs 18st.
The family from Blackburn claim £22,508 a year in benefits, equivalent to the take-home pay from a £30,000 salary.
The Chawners, haven't worked in 11 years, claim their weight is a hereditary condition and the money they receive is insufficient to live on.
Mr Chawner said: "What we get barely covers the bills and puts food on the table. It's not our fault we can't work. We deserve more."
The family claim to spend £50 a week on food and consume 3,000 calories each a day. The recommended maximum intake is 2,000 for women and 2,500 for men.
"We have cereal for breakfast, bacon butties for lunch and microwave pies with mashed potato or chips for dinner," Mrs Chawner told Closer magazine.
"All that healthy food, like fruit and veg, is too expensive. We're fat because it's in our genes. Our whole family is overweight," she added.
Each week, Mr and Mrs Chawner, who have been married for 23 years, receive £177 in income support and incapacity benefit. Mrs Chawner is paid an extra £330-a-month disability allowance for epilepsy and asthma, both a result of being overweight.
Mr Chawner gets £71 a month after developing Type 2 diabetes because of his size. He was on a waiting list for a gastric band last year, but a heart condition made the operation unsuitable. Their daughter Samantha receives £84 in Jobseekers' Allowance each fortnight while Emma, who is training to be a hairdresser, gets £58 every two weeks under a hardship fund for low-income students.
Emma, said: "I'm a student and don't have time to exercise" she said "We all want to lose weight to stop the abuse we get in the street, but we don't know how."
This... is just bloody ridiculous. That dude isn't really fat at all, from the picture. The three women are, but you're right, fatter people work all the damn time.
And we really see the truth of the matter at the end with the daughter's statement... "We all want to lose weight to stop the abuse we get in the street, but we don't know how."
I'm sure part of it is laziness. "I'm a student and don't have time to exercise" doesn't cut it, EVER. Especially in hairdresser school. PhD students who teach two classes and take two classes AND have to work on their dissertations still find time to exercise. So can you.
Comments
The problem is they're not just harmlessly voicing their opinion. Excommunication can have serious consequences in some communities. The doctor may lose patients because of the branding. The family may be ostracized by their friends who are all still members of the church.
Chuck Norris Calls for Overthrow of Government
Also, I find it odd that about 2 years ago Chuck Norris would probably say that it was "unpatriotic" to question our involvement in Iraq and challenge the president's decisions. Funny how his opinion has suddenly changed now that things aren't going his way.
Then take another state and divide it in two, so we can still have 50 states and not need to change our flag. I'm thinking Michigan.
I would agree with this sentiment, if only the Church itself wasn't making that decision that it says no one else can make -- the unborn children, in its view, is a higher priority than the nine year old girl. I certainly don't think anyone else should be making this decision -- not the clergy, not the government, not even her doctors. Since she's a minor, I'm perfectly comfortable with her legal guardian signing off on it to save her life.
This is a complicated issue full of nuance and soul-testing struggles. To automatically excommunicate those who tried, however flawed, to save this girl's life and not be particularly interested in excommunicating her rapist stepfather denotes a gross disorganization of priorities.
Actually, the answer is right under your nose. The nine year old's uterus was deemed too small to successfully carry one baby, let alone two. Even if she had tried to continue the pregnancy, odds are high that all three of them would have died.
If the mother dies, the babies generally do, too, especially if it's not the last month of pregnancy yet.
And I agree with Jake. You'd think the rapist would be immediately excommunicated, whereas the doctor that tried to make things right in the only way he could would get a nearly gold chain for his efforts. Things get effed-up a lot, though...
I mean, I hate to play devil's advocate on this one, but how can anyone be sure that the woman was the victim of rape or incest? There are plenty of people screwed up to lie about whether they were raped or not to be socially (or religiously) accepted.
I'm not trying to stir controversy, it was just the first thing that popped into my mind
Putting this into law and enforcing it would be a different issue.
No, that doesn't mean that one life is worthier than the other, it means that it is more viable than the other, if anything. I have personally met a 10 year old girl who had a baby (granted, it wasn't twins) and who was in perfect health status.
I think you missed my point, a little.
I was not saying one life was worthier, either. I'm saying the argument was moot. In that instance, according to the news article, the pregnancy was not viable, indeed. Therefore there was no way of choosing the babies' lives over the mother's.
Anecdotal evidence aside, it's generally not healthy for barely pubescent girls to have babies. I'm sure you can agree that far.
Edit: I misunderstood an issue here. But let's go ahead and put it on the books that only medical reasons, rape, and incest are acceptable, m'kay? So thought experiment, leaving the medical aside (because judges and lawyers should definitely second-guess doctors and encourage malpractice insurance to go up): now the burden is on the girl/woman to prove that she's a victim of rape/incest. Given the low percentage of victims who are currently willing to report it ALREADY, that sounds like a FANTASTIC idea to me. /snark
So you are suggesting that we change civil rights to presumption of guiltiness instead of innocence? Yeah that sounds like an even better idea. Heck, let's go back to the inquisitive system, too! And bring weighted evidence and trials by ordeals as well.
First, I was being sarcastic.
Second, do you not realize what a low percentage of rapes are reported? And then, how few of them are actually prosecuted successfully? Of course I don't want to presume guilt. But it's damn hard to prove it, and in the end, all too often, the victim loses once from the rape itself, and again should she choose to speak up about it and lose her case. How many people just on this board immediately wondered about all those women who bring false charges? Presumption of innocence is one thing, but punishing the victim further... well, do you see my problem now?
I argue that, should rape have to proven for a girl/woman to obtain an abortion, that would be a third time she would pay, because the likelihood is low that she would be successful at doing so.
That's just my opinion, though.
So you'd rather blame the victim for being a woman? Furthermore, this girl isn't on trial here, no matter how much you try and make it. While I understand where you're coming from and what you're trying to say, why is the immediate reaction to an accusation of rape that it can't be true until someone is proven guilty? Does this mean, then, that there isn't a victim until there's a convicted perpetrator?
You do realize how prevalent rape and other sexual violence is, right?
First Rule of Fight Club: No Drooling
I hope President Norris does something about this.
Yeah. I'm going to hell. I know.
I think I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Because you mentioned judges and lawyers I was under the impression that you were against the woman having to prove that she was raped during a trial. It's obviously not necesary to prove her rape when asking for an abortion.
Pope visits Africa, reaffirms ban on condoms
Family who are 'too fat to work' say £22,000 worth of benefits is not enough
And we really see the truth of the matter at the end with the daughter's statement... "We all want to lose weight to stop the abuse we get in the street, but we don't know how."
I'm sure part of it is laziness. "I'm a student and don't have time to exercise" doesn't cut it, EVER. Especially in hairdresser school. PhD students who teach two classes and take two classes AND have to work on their dissertations still find time to exercise. So can you.
They had a good dodge, but they got greedy. Now they're, albeit briefly, famous laughingstocks for being fat, lazy and as thick as two short planks.