Why does life begin at conception and not at ejaculation?

[7,052,770]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

     The zygote is a genetically complete organism of the species H. sapiens, and with proper care and nourishment can eventually grow into an adult of the species. The sperm and the egg individually are just cells, and unless they combine and form a zygote will invariably wither and die as such.

Fertility clinics have thrown out millions of zygotes without a peep from pro-lifers.

You really don't know a thing about the pro-life movement, do you?

So these anti-abortion laws being pushed also ban fertility clinics?

The Mississippi Personhood Initiative would have closed them all down, and that was a major reason it lost in a landslide. That and the banning of birth control pills and IUDs.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

A sperm, all alone, will never grow to be a human being.  It cannot.  A fertilized egg, left alone, with nothing else added to it, will pass through the stages of human development as I did.  

A fertilized egg is infused with an eternal soul at the time of conception.

That's Human Life in God's Eyes, and it's long been settled in Heaven, regardless of the nonsense on Earth.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Both of these posts are extremely stupid, even by your side's low standards.

Why is flour not a cake? Why is oxygen not water? Why is a letter not a variable?

It lacks some other element or characteristic that makes it essentially so. Did you sleep through sex ed and biology class?

In my science classes and biology, I learned that plants are "living."
Am I committing murder (or another type of wrong) when I mow my lawn?

     Sperm and eggs are living too. That isn't the key factor here.

[7,052,770]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

A sperm, all alone, will never grow to be a human being.  It cannot.  A fertilized egg, left alone, with nothing else added to it, will pass through the stages of human development as I did.  

A fertilized egg is infused with an eternal soul at the time of conception.

That's Human Life in God's Eyes, and it's long been settled in Heaven, regardless of the nonsense on Earth.

But actually less than half of them do.

[Cashew]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

A sperm, all alone, will never grow to be a human being.  It cannot.  A fertilized egg, left alone, with nothing else added to it, will pass through the stages of human development as I did.  

A fertilized egg is infused with an eternal soul at the time of conception.

That's Human Life in God's Eyes, and it's long been settled in Heaven, regardless of the nonsense on Earth.

The majority of  fertilized eggs don't make it the whole nine months. Do you think the afterlife is mainly populated by the "unborn"?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

A sperm, all alone, will never grow to be a human being.  It cannot.  A fertilized egg, left alone, with nothing else added to it, will pass through the stages of human development as I did.  

A fertilized egg is infused with an eternal soul at the time of conception.

That's Human Life in God's Eyes, and it's long been settled in Heaven, regardless of the nonsense on Earth.

The majority of  fertilized eggs don't make it the whole nine months. Do you think the afterlife is mainly populated by the "unborn"?

I don't believe so, but what's the significance of that if that's the case?

[Crumpets]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

     The zygote is a genetically complete organism of the species H. sapiens, and with proper care and nourishment can eventually grow into an adult of the species. The sperm and the egg individually are just cells, and unless they combine and form a zygote will invariably wither and die as such.

I generally agree with this, but I would also like to draw your attention to an important word choice you used: You said "with proper care an nourishment can eventually grow into an adult of the species." This might be splitting hairs, but I think it's kind of at the crux as to where we differ on this issue. Just because something "can" eventually grow into an adult doesn't mean it legally must under penalty of the law.

A zygote can become a human life. It can also:

- Be used to regrow tissue including restoring brain function
- Not implant in the uterus and simply pass out of the reproductive system
- Result in a miscarriage
- Develop with life-incompatible medical conditions
- Develop in such a way that birth threatens the life of the mother
- Die during childbirth

And let me be totally clear: I do not think that if you believe a zygote is alive that you are absolutely wrong, immoral, or misguided. I simply believe that the government does not and should not have the power to implement a policy that requires everyone to abide by that same definition of life when others can just as easily provide alternate, equally valid definitions for what constitutes "life."

If we give the government the power to declare that anything that any "genetically complete organism of the species H. sapiens," that "with proper care and nourishment can eventually grow into an adult of the species," is, in fact, a full living human being, we also give them the right to investigate the roughly half of all conceptions that do not result in a life birth as potential negligent manslaughter. We also open the door for the government requiring that all stem cells and in vitro zygotes are given the full care nourishment to become adult humans.

We would also be giving the government the power to use any arbitrary definition of life that it chooses. Greeny leftist states could remove the "of the species H. sapiens" clause and declare that bacteria, mold, plants, and animals all have the same rights. Or, on the flipside, you could have states that remove "genetically complete" and declare masturbation to be murder.

Really, I think whether you identify as pro-life or pro-choice, we should all worry about giving the government the power that Roe v. Wade has ensured it does not wield. Consider what the other side will do with that power.

[Cashew]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

A sperm, all alone, will never grow to be a human being.  It cannot.  A fertilized egg, left alone, with nothing else added to it, will pass through the stages of human development as I did.  

A fertilized egg is infused with an eternal soul at the time of conception.

That's Human Life in God's Eyes, and it's long been settled in Heaven, regardless of the nonsense on Earth.

The majority of  fertilized eggs don't make it the whole nine months. Do you think the afterlife is mainly populated by the "unborn"?

I don't believe so, but what's the significance of that if that's the case?

To believe that "A fertilized egg is infused with an eternal soul at the time of conception" requires that God be wasteful and inefficient with human souls, going so far as to put souls in embryos that will die a week later apparently just for the sake of having more life regardless of the zygote's inability to do anything with it in it's brief existence.

[Person Man]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

A sperm, all alone, will never grow to be a human being.  It cannot.  A fertilized egg, left alone, with nothing else added to it, will pass through the stages of human development as I did.  

A fertilized egg is infused with an eternal soul at the time of conception.

That's Human Life in God's Eyes, and it's long been settled in Heaven, regardless of the nonsense on Earth.

The majority of  fertilized eggs don't make it the whole nine months. Do you think the afterlife is mainly populated by the "unborn"?

I don't believe so, but what's the significance of that if that's the case?

To believe that "A fertilized egg is infused with an eternal soul at the time of conception" requires that God be wasteful and inefficient with human souls, going so far as to put souls in embryos that will die a week later apparently just for the sake of having more life regardless of the zygote's inability to do anything with it in it's brief existence.

Can everyone just read what they write every once in a while? This is hillarious!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

nope can't use any more souls this week, filled quota already.

[Person Man]

nope can't use any more souls this week, filled quota already.

All of this talk about souls. Wish I could do this.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Shang+tsung+and+souls&&view=detail&mid=B98DBBD17C3FFD29D8B5B98DBBD17C3FFD29D8B5&rvsmid=B46C1AFECD38E389F9ECB46C1AFECD38E389F9EC&FORM=VDQVAP

[Person Man]

No one really addressed the fact not every person alive today is the fusion of One Egg and One Sperm but rather that they did not become anything atomic themselves until perhaps as many as two weeks later. Twins.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I generally agree with this, but I would also like to draw your attention to an important word choice you used: You said "with proper care an nourishment can eventually grow into an adult of the species." This might be splitting hairs, but I think it's kind of at the crux as to where we differ on this issue. Just because something "can" eventually grow into an adult doesn't mean it legally must under penalty of the law.

A zygote can become a human life. It can also:

- Be used to regrow tissue including restoring brain function
- Not implant in the uterus and simply pass out of the reproductive system
- Result in a miscarriage
- Develop with life-incompatible medical conditions
- Develop in such a way that birth threatens the life of the mother
- Die during childbirth

    Can because there is a high chance of it dying naturally. We don't make exceptions where it is okay for us to just 86 someone because they are highly likely to suffer a natural death.

And let me be totally clear: I do not think that if you believe a zygote is alive that you are absolutely wrong, immoral, or misguided. I simply believe that the government does not and should not have the power to implement a policy that requires everyone to abide by that same definition of life when others can just as easily provide alternate, equally valid definitions for what constitutes "life."

     The government creates a policy that enforces a particular standard already. The lives that are lost as a result of abortion never agreed to the government-endorsed standard, and yet it was brutally forced upon them. The choice argument is peculiar to someone who already presupposes that the fetus does not merit protection under the law. Likewise I welcome you to hold that belief if it is what makes sense to you, but I think I should say that it's not going to be persuasive to the pro-life sort. At least you did not come out directly and chastise me for forcing my morality on others, like some people do.

If we give the government the power to declare that anything that any "genetically complete organism of the species H. sapiens," that "with proper care and nourishment can eventually grow into an adult of the species," is, in fact, a full living human being, we also give them the right to investigate the roughly half of all conceptions that do not result in a life birth as potential negligent manslaughter. We also open the door for the government requiring that all stem cells and in vitro zygotes are given the full care nourishment to become adult humans.

     Does the government investigate centegenarians who die under unremarkable circumstances as potential negligent manslaughter? Some segments of the population are more prone than others to die of natural causes. This isn't something new or unprecedented, and there is little reason to believe that the government would actively pursue miscarrying mothers unless there was a very good reason to suspect foul play.

     As for the in vitro zygotes and those conceived for stem cell harvesting, I am fine with saying that they should be protected.

We would also be giving the government the power to use any arbitrary definition of life that it chooses. Greeny leftist states could remove the "of the species H. sapiens" clause and declare that bacteria, mold, plants, and animals all have the same rights. Or, on the flipside, you could have states that remove "genetically complete" and declare masturbation to be murder.

     They could also just scratch it out entirely and democide everyone. I don't see much value to entertaining bizarre pie in the sky hypotheticals.

Really, I think whether you identify as pro-life or pro-choice, we should all worry about giving the government the power that Roe v. Wade has ensured it does not wield. Consider what the other side will do with that power.

     The power to protect unborn lives? The very low expected value of a downside carries little weight compared to the benefit of something being done about this.

[7,052,770]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

A sperm, all alone, will never grow to be a human being.  It cannot.  A fertilized egg, left alone, with nothing else added to it, will pass through the stages of human development as I did.  

A fertilized egg is infused with an eternal soul at the time of conception.

That's Human Life in God's Eyes, and it's long been settled in Heaven, regardless of the nonsense on Earth.

The majority of  fertilized eggs don't make it the whole nine months. Do you think the afterlife is mainly populated by the "unborn"?

I don't believe so, but what's the significance of that if that's the case?

... But ... why not?

You say that all fertilized eggs have a soul, and everyone goes to Heaven if they did before their 12th birthdate.

So if 50% of fertilized eggs don't implant, then half of everyone in Heaven would be single-cells if all born humans made it to Heaven too. On top of that, you've made it VERY clear that no non-Christians go to Heaven, so we're now talking like a 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of non-borns to borns in Heaven, probably more since you've also suggested that a lot of self-identified Christians don't make it there.

And I say this not to pick a fight about the belief, just to point out that you can't simultaneously believe that fertilized eggs have souls and go to Heaven AND disagree that most souls in Heaven would be non-implanting fertilized eggs.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

A sperm, all alone, will never grow to be a human being.  It cannot.  A fertilized egg, left alone, with nothing else added to it, will pass through the stages of human development as I did.  

A fertilized egg is infused with an eternal soul at the time of conception.

That's Human Life in God's Eyes, and it's long been settled in Heaven, regardless of the nonsense on Earth.

The majority of  fertilized eggs don't make it the whole nine months. Do you think the afterlife is mainly populated by the "unborn"?

I don't believe so, but what's the significance of that if that's the case?

... But ... why not?

You say that all fertilized eggs have a soul, and everyone goes to Heaven if they did before their 12th birthdate.

So if 50% of fertilized eggs don't implant, then half of everyone in Heaven would be single-cells if all born humans made it to Heaven too. On top of that, you've made it VERY clear that no non-Christians go to Heaven, so we're now talking like a 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of non-borns to borns in Heaven, probably more since you've also suggested that a lot of self-identified Christians don't make it there.

And I say this not to pick a fight about the belief, just to point out that you can't simultaneously believe that fertilized eggs have souls and go to Heaven AND disagree that most souls in Heaven would be non-implanting fertilized eggs.

Children under the age of 12 are saved.  Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu; all go to Heaven under the age of 12 (which is the Biblical Age of Responsibility).

[cvparty]

Both of these posts are extremely stupid, even by your side's low standards.

Why is flour not a cake? Why is oxygen not water? Why is a letter not a variable?

It lacks some other element or characteristic that makes it essentially so. Did you sleep through sex ed and biology class?

you kind of went off here

[7,052,770]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

A sperm, all alone, will never grow to be a human being.  It cannot.  A fertilized egg, left alone, with nothing else added to it, will pass through the stages of human development as I did.  

A fertilized egg is infused with an eternal soul at the time of conception.

That's Human Life in God's Eyes, and it's long been settled in Heaven, regardless of the nonsense on Earth.

The majority of  fertilized eggs don't make it the whole nine months. Do you think the afterlife is mainly populated by the "unborn"?

I don't believe so, but what's the significance of that if that's the case?

... But ... why not?

You say that all fertilized eggs have a soul, and everyone goes to Heaven if they did before their 12th birthdate.

So if 50% of fertilized eggs don't implant, then half of everyone in Heaven would be single-cells if all born humans made it to Heaven too. On top of that, you've made it VERY clear that no non-Christians go to Heaven, so we're now talking like a 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of non-borns to borns in Heaven, probably more since you've also suggested that a lot of self-identified Christians don't make it there.

And I say this not to pick a fight about the belief, just to point out that you can't simultaneously believe that fertilized eggs have souls and go to Heaven AND disagree that most souls in Heaven would be non-implanting fertilized eggs.

Children under the age of 12 are saved.  Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu; all go to Heaven under the age of 12 (which is the Biblical Age of Responsibility).

Yes, I factored that in to my post.

[Ilhan Apologist]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

It is a dumb argument because basic biology will tell you a zygote is not the same as individual gametes.

(sigh) Basic biology will also tell you a baby is not the same thing as a zygote

[fhtagn]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

It is a dumb argument because basic biology will tell you a zygote is not the same as individual gametes.

(sigh) Basic biology will also tell you a baby is not the same thing as a zygote

Nowhere in my argument did I say baby = zygote. In fact nowhere in my argument did I say baby at all.

That being said, I suggest reading what I actually said, and maybe spending some of your time going after some sources that do use the term "baby" when referring to a zygote. Might be more worth your time.

[Ilhan Apologist]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

It is a dumb argument because basic biology will tell you a zygote is not the same as individual gametes.

(sigh) Basic biology will also tell you a baby is not the same thing as a zygote

Nowhere in my argument did I say baby = zygote. In fact nowhere in my argument did I say baby at all.

That being said, I suggest reading what I actually said, and maybe spending some of your time going after some sources that do use the term "baby" when referring to a zygote. Might be more worth your time.

I think I was more than fair to you. You said that this is a poor argument since sperm cells are different from zygotes. But zygotes are also different from babies. So why is killing a sperm cell not murder if killing a zygote is?

[afleitch]

No one really addressed the fact not every person alive today is the fusion of One Egg and One Sperm but rather that they did not become anything atomic themselves until perhaps as many as two weeks later. Twins.

Shh. That's too complicated.

[fhtagn]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Good to hear that you've never taken a basic biology course.

If this is an easy argument to refute biologically, then why don't you do so? You've just said "this is a dumb argument" twice with nothing to back it up. What about a fertilized egg constitutes inviolable and legal "life" that does not apply to individual gametes?

It is a dumb argument because basic biology will tell you a zygote is not the same as individual gametes.

(sigh) Basic biology will also tell you a baby is not the same thing as a zygote

Nowhere in my argument did I say baby = zygote. In fact nowhere in my argument did I say baby at all.

That being said, I suggest reading what I actually said, and maybe spending some of your time going after some sources that do use the term "baby" when referring to a zygote. Might be more worth your time.

I think I was more than fair to you. You said that this is a poor argument since sperm cells are different from zygotes. But zygotes are also different from babies. So why is killing a sperm cell not murder if killing a zygote is?

I also did not use the terms "murder" or "killing", but apparently basic reading comprehension skills are lost with you.

And a sperm cell only contains your own genetic material. A zygote is no longer only your own. This shouldn't be so hard for you to understand.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Why persist with your intellectual disingenuousness? It only stains your soul.

[T'Chenka]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Why persist with your intellectual disingenuousness? It only stains your soul.

The Republican Convention, StormFront, Breitbart, etc etc are basically just a bunch of walking talking stained biomasses communicating with each other, which presumably would have souls deep within if you cut them open.

[Person Man]

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen pro-choicers give on this issue. Even when I was still pro-choice, this argument was so bad that I never used it.

Good to hear you've officially abandoned the pretense of being favorite women's rights to fit in with your new Chums. Disgusting, but entirely predictable.

Shes going back for her MRS degree.