Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Prop. 73 Would Change California's Abortion Law
Parental Notification Would Be Required

POSTED: 5:17 pm PDT October 13, 2005
UPDATED: 10:05 am PDT October 14, 2005

SAN DIEGO -- A controversial proposition on this November's ballot would prevent teens from having abortions without parental notification.

Proposition 73 would require a doctor to notify parents 48 hours before performing an underage abortion. Supporters say the legislation would force teens to get proper medical care.

"A child under the age of 18 cannot get a tooth pulled; they can't even get an aspirin from a nurse without their parent's permission," said Prop. 73 supporter Maria Garcia. "But they can get a surgical abortion without either parent knowing. Statistics show that most of these girls that obtain these abortions do not go to their follow-up appointments, which puts them at risk."

Proposition 73 opponents say the legislation will not protect teens.

"In the real world, some teenagers can't tell their parents," said Vince Hall, of Planned Parenthood. "It might be because they're from a home that has alcoholism or drug abuse or violence, or they might be so afraid of disappointing their parents and make a decision to terminate the pregnancy on their own. They might take the trolley to Mexico or they might attempt to self-induce an abortion, which has grave consequences for their health and for their life."

According to Planned Parenthood, California's teen pregnancy rate has declined by 41 percent in the last 10 years.




What do u think?

I feel the parent has a right to know

I would like to hear the opinons of parents on here and everyone else.

Do parents have a right to know?

In my opinion, parents have an absolute right to know and be involved in the process.  Until the child is an adult, her parents are responsible for her.  However, if a child needs an abortion for life threatening reasons or any other reason deemed acceptable by Californians (I personally support abortion for any reason in the first trimester) that child should be able to appeal to a judge who can override her parents.  Responsibility is a large tent of issues and problems.  Allowing a teenager to full around and use abortion as birth control behind their parents back isn't justified nor do I believe anyone can provide me with a reason as to why the parents shouldn't be informed in the process.  If for no other reason than liability, the parents should be involved in the process.

I think prop 73 sounds great.  I haven't read the entire text though.  It seems like there should be some exceptions for sexual abuse.

Yes I think it would be good, but there should be possible expections. (Religion and other problems within the family)

I'm undecided, because some parents are volatile. They may hurt their child or kick her out of the home. I think it should be the girl's choice. Her parents should be notified only if she consents to it.

um.. then there wouldn't be any point of this law, would it?
If she wouldn't want her parents to be notified I think the girl should have good reasons for it, instead of "I don't wanna"

That's what I meant. It shouldn't be a law, but rather an option.

But I think me as a father would have the right to know, even if my "little" girl would be araid to tell me.

I agree with you. I would definitely want to know if my child was being operated on. I would never hurt my child for being pregnant, and I know you wouldn't either. However, we have to consider the other side of the spectrum. In reality there are some very non-supportive and aggressive parents out there. Would it do more harm than good?

would it then be such a bad thing that it would be known how unsuportive, violent or agressive parents she has?

It's eihter that parents will be informed or that she sees someone to talk to someone who makes the decissions will they be informed or not.

There are also some very greedy abortion providers out there.

We live in a flawed society. Not all families are cut from the same cloth.

The law seems kind of strange to me, because even though the parents are notified, they can't keep their daughter from having the abortion. She can still have the operation without their permission.

I'm sure there are.

Believe me, I don't support abortion, but I do support the rights of people.

It's up to you to become the kind of father to encourage your girl to tell you about these personnal things !
If I was to vote I'd vote against it !

So everyone who supports prop 73 must be against "the rights of people"?

In the vast majority of cases, the parents hold the interest of their daughter dearer than an abortion provider who stands to lose a profit if the baby is given up for adoption.

In our opinion well yes - the right of a young girl to dispose of its own body.

But prop 73 does not ban her from having the abortion, it just requires that her parents are notified. And even then prop 73 allows her not to do so by petitioning a juvenile court for a waiver if it is the case that notifying her parents is not in her best interest. How is that against the so called "right of a young girl to dispose of its own body" :confused:

ok pratical case now - if she doesn't want to keep the baby but the parents are religious and against abortions ? Do you the girl will have a normal life w/ her parents once the abortion's done ? I guess not. I still think that it's up to her to come up with an already difficult decision to make.

Perhaps she will, perhaps she won't. But how is notifying them against the so called "right of a young girl to dispose of its own body," which is what you said?

If parents are pro-life - how can you expect the girl to make her own decision - she is underage and still needs her parents right ? How are the chances, if her parents don't agree that she gets the abortion ?  ::)
If she does - she's courageous enough to go against her parents' values but she'll be living in hell, so to speak.

You'd vote against what kind of father I'd be?  ???

The point is she can still have the abortion, so no one is taking away this so called "right," so how can you say people who support prop 73 are against people's rights ???

And if you want to go into hypotheticals, we can do this all day long. Here's another practical case. A 16 year old girl is rushed by planned parenthood into having an abortion instead of giving the baby up for adoption because planned parenthood makes its money like that. The girl is scared, she doesn't know how her parents will react if they find out, so she? decides to go ahead with the "advice" from the planned parenthood salesman, sorry, I meant "counselor." Then, after thinking seriously about it, she comes to the conclusion that abortion is wrong and for the rest of her life regrets and struggles with the decision she took.

What is what you don't understand in what I keep on repeting ? In my opinion (because when it comes down to abortion it's down to someone's opinion!) allowing the parents to know is not giving the girl the entire say in that decision ! ie not giving the girl the right to entirely dispose of its own body. I answered D initial question - If I was to vote I'd vote against and I gave the reasons for it ! If you don't agree that's fine with me !

All societies don't give children the same rights as adults.

We vote in just a few weeks, and I'm voting yes on this proposition. : ok:

I tend to disagree, I mean it's not for the parents to tell their daughter that she must have the child and bring it up when she is smart enough (yes she should have been smart enough to avoid it in the first place but thats another thread) to realise it's not the right time for her or the child's welfare, to have a baby.

I think I would end up voting "yes".  I think parents have the right to know.  When I worked in a doctor's office, we needed parental consent for everything, for anyone under the age of 18.  The only exception had to do with sex, birth control, pregnancy, abortion, etc.  Coming from the perspective of a parent, this never made sense to me.  I mean, I do understand the touchiness of this issue and some of the reasons behind it, but I just think a child is either under the age of consent or they are not.       

Why are there statutory rape laws then?  Those laws surely get in the way of a young girl who wants to do what ever she wants with her body?

I waffle on this one as I see both sides of the argument. ?As a parent, I'd want to know if my child was having a medical procedure performed on her. ?On the flip side....I can see the argument that some parents would not be understanding, might withhold consent based on their personal beliefs, etc, which would have long lasting effects on the girl's life.

It's a catch-22 and, unless you could provide some "out" as an alternate path (involving a trained, indepedant social worker as an alternative to parental consent, maybe?..and even that brings with it it's own set of issues), it doesn't seem like there is an easy answer.

...the thing that gets me is that if you make it mandatory for the parents to be notified, the kids are going to go for (lack of a better term) the back alley abortion route...out of fear of parental explosion....what if the kid is pregnant because they are a victum of incest? What if they were raped...what are the numbers on the kids under 18 getting abortions that this is even an issue? This sounds like a red herring issue to take people's minds off of more important issues...I don't know, I'm not a parent...

They'd be better off not living with that type of parent. An abortion will only cover up the crime of that father and  make it possible for the abuse to continue. But those are relatively rare cases, and for them prop 73 provides a waiver which makes it possible not to notify the parents. The vast majority of parents are good responsible parents, who, even if they are pro-life, will continue to love their daughter if she chooses to have an abortion. You can't deny their rights because of a few extreme cases.

That's my concern also. Many girls may be reluctant to go to anyone for help, if their privacy is at stake.

When abortion was illegalized in the early 70s, there was an epidemic of girls giving themselves abortions at home. Thousands of girls were dying everyday because of it.

Can you please back that up with a credible source?

Yes please do, cause that's a complete bullshit statistic.  My mother runs the pre-natal program for a major health insurance company and i know that this is not true by any stetch of the term.  While I am pro-choice, the number of rapes and incest related abortions are minute and not even a percent of all abortions.  People who aren't honest enough to admit that they favor the human euthanizing of humans point out examples as rape to make themselves feel better.  The more realistic reason a underage girl would not want to tell her parents she's preagnant is because her parents probably don't know she's sexually active and certainly wouldn't condone it.  Personal feelings aside, it is a parents responsibility to care for that child until they are an adult and that child doesn't have total freedom to do as they wish.  IMO, some of you are upset because you don't like the idea of your parents knowing some of the shit you did as a teenager.

It's a pretty well known fact. Although it would be impossible to give stats one way or the other.

Our conspiracy theorist chimes in that it's "pretty well know fact." Imagine that  :hihi:

If it was a well know "fact," actually that would make it really easy to show stats.

You left out the rest of my post and took it out of context (imagine that, you spinning). It is a fact that illegal abortions were performed at that time.

and....

I said that there are no facts either way to deny or support this. So neither one of you can be validated.

Now would be a good time for you to change the subject...... :hihi:

I just spoke with my mother and appoximately 100 women were dying a day from abortion - not thousands. ?I'm sure we'll just hear how you were making an example and Pop and I are making a big del out of nothing. ?Point being you exagerated the situation to strengthen your argument. ?every time we catch someone doing this, it just makes me wonder how many times we don't. ?Claims of racism and bigotry are expected. ?: ok:

She was speaking of illegal abortions......wasn't she?

And if you want to be smart about it, using your mother as a source is a logical fallacy.  ;D

yes she was, because that was what we were discussing.  I'd like to see where using your mother is a logical fallacy SLC. :P

How about using as a source NARAL co-founder Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who later confessed to doctoring the abortion statistics, among other things. It wasn't 1000 or a 100 daily that died from illegal abortions, it was 200-250 annually. You can read his confession as to how he and his organization duped and made a mockery out of the American public, in its entirety, right here:
http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST

By Dr. Bernard Nathanson

 ?
I am ?personally ?responsible ?for 75,000 ?abortions. ?This ?legitimises ?my ?credentials
to speak ?to you ?with some authority ?on the issue. ?I was ?one of ?the founders of ?the
National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws ?(NARAL) ?in the U.S. ?in ?1968.
A truthful ?poll ?of opinion ?then ?would have ?found ?that most ?Americans ?were against
permissive abortion. ?Yet ?within ?five ?years ?we had ?convinced ?the U.S. Supreme Court
to issue ?the decision ?which legalised abortion ?throughout America in 1973 and produced
virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand
the tactics ?involved ?because these tactics ?have been used throughout the western world
with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
 
THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA


We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a ?liberal ?enlightened,
sophisticated one. ?Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated,
we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. ?We announced ?to the media ?that we
had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. ?This is
the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. ?Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused
enough sympathy ?to sell our program ?of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of
illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but
the figure ?we gave ?to the media ?repeatedly was 1,000,000. ?Repeating the big lie often
enough convinces the public. ?The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around
200-250 ?annually. ?The figure ?we constantly fed ?to the media ?was 10,000. ?These false
figures ?took root ?in the consciousness ?of Americans ?convincing many that we needed to
crack ?the ?abortion law. Another myth ?we fed ?to the public through the media was that
legalising abortion ?would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then
be done legally. ?In fact, ?of course, ?abortion is now being used as a primary method of
birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since
legalisation. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
 
THE SECOND KEY TACTIC WAS TO PLAY THE CATHOLIC CARD


We systematically ?vilified ?the Catholic Church ?and its ?"socially backward ideas" ?and
picked ?on the Catholic hierarchy ?as the villain ?in opposing abortion. ?This theme ?was
played endlessly. ?We fed the media such lies as "we all know that opposition to abortion
comes ?from the hierarchy ?and not ?from ?most Catholics" and "Polls prove time and again
that most Catholics want abortion law reform". And the media drum-fired all this into the
American people, ?persuading ?them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under
the ?influence ?of the ?Catholic hierarchy ?and ?that Catholics in favour of abortion are
enlightened and forward-looking. ?An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-
Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian
religions ?were ?{and ?still are) ?monolithically ?opposed ?to ?abortion ?was ?constantly
suppressed, along with pro-life atheists' opinions. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
 
THE THIRD KEY TACTIC WAS THE DENIGRATION AND SUPPRESSION OF ALL
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION


I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist
to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New
York City ?and had ?to set up ?a prenatal research unit, just at the start of a great new
technology ?which we now ?use every day to study the foetus in the womb. A favourite pro-
abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; ?that
the question is ?a theological or moral or philosophical one, ?anything ?but a scientific
one. ?Foetology ?makes it undeniably evident ?that life begins at conception and requires
all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. ?Why, ?you may well ask, ?do some
American doctors ?who are privy ?to the findings ?of foetology, ?discredit ?themselves by
carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an
industry ?generating ?$500,000,000 annually, ?of which ?most ?goes into the pocket of the
physician ?doing ?the ?abortion. ?It is clear ?that ?permissive ?abortion ?is ?purposeful
destruction ?of ?what ?is ?undeniably ?human life. ?It is ?an impermissible act of deadly
violence. ?One ?must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma,
but ?to look ?for its solution ?in a deliberate act ?of destruction ?is to trash the vast
resourcefulness ?of human ?ingenuity, ?and to ?surrender ?the public weal ?to the classic
utilitarian answer to social problems. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
 
AS A SCIENTIST I KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, KNOW THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT
CONCEPTION


Although ?I am not ?a formal religionist, ?I believe ?with all my heart ?that there is ?a
divinity of existence ?which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this
infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
 ?

[Dr. Nathanson has since converted to Catholicism, being baptised in 1996.]

OK then......

A girl can't get her ears pierced without parental consent, but can have an abortion? WTF!!

If the parents are not responsible adults and the girl is worried about them beating the shit out of her for being pregnant, she can ( or should be able to ) take legal action to get around that, if special circumstances exist & can be proven.

Oh thank God its just 100 a day, that makes it alright! ::)


there are girls who throw their babies in the trash, murder them and all kinds of shit because they are scared of letting their parents know.

There is a girl where I am from who got pregnant and kept her pregnancy a secret, had the baby at home, wrapped it in plastic and threw it under her porch just so her boyfriend wouldnt find out and dump her.

I dont agree with abortions but Id rather a girl be safe and have it done professionally then harm herself or a born baby.


My momma said that happiness is little rays of sunshine that come down from heaven when u are feelin blue.

Oh, thank God a doctor surgically removed the baby and threw it in the trash instead of the girl throwing it in the trash herself, that make it alright! ::)

Not mother per se.....But using anybody "you know" as an expert does not count.


So are you saying a hundred a day from illegal or legal then?

The point wasn't if it is right or not.

That is not what his reply was in reference to.

So killing a BORN child is the same as scraping the womb after a few weeks?

what are you scraping out of the womb?

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/

So much for the generally accepted media LIE that only 'religious conservatives' are pro-life.

What does this have to do with the thread?

And what evidence do you have to support your claim that the "generally accepted media" claims religious conseratves are the only ones who are pro life?

You never posted anything off topic in a thread? Does it bother you that people should know it is not true that pro-lifers are all backward and/or narrow minded 'religious conservatives,' as they are portrayed in the media.



Do you want me to dig up articles that refer to pro-lifers as "religious conservatives"? It wouldn't be hard at all,? I just didn't think it was necessary, since they come a dime a dozen. But if you're the one person who hasn't encountered that, I'll do it for you...

You are changing the subject yet again to back up changing the subject. You are way off course now.



Hey...what's good for the goose.

Be ready for your own medicine if you do that though.

Don't get all pissy when the shoe is on the other foot.

Before 1973, abortions were performed illegally, and in unskilled ways. many women died from the awful infections and intense bleeding. In some cases, it also caused a permanent inability to have children.

Hangers and other sharp objects were often used in these illegal abortions. The fact is , since abortion became legal in 1973, deaths from abortion are rare and unlikely. In 1973, the risk was 3.4 deaths per 100,000 women; by 1985, it had dropped to .4 deaths per 100,000.

By the 1960s, almost one hundred years had passed since women had lost the right to legal abortion, and much had changed. Women had won the vote in 1920, and the development of antibiotics and the vacuum aspiration abortion technique made abortion medically safer. A landmark case, Griswold v. Connecticut, established for the first time that married coupled had a right to use contraception?and it established a right to privacy that would set the stage for a test case to decriminalize abortion. Significantly, whereas abortion had not been a common topic of conversation, there was a growing public consciousness of the dangerous choices faced by women who wished to terminate a pregnancy. Before 1973, it has been estimated that as many as 1.2 million illegal abortions happened each year, with thousands of women dying or getting injured in the process.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_030100_prochoiceand.htm

I stated that based on my mother's professional opinion (as someone who runs the pre-natal department at a major health insurance company; meaning she approves abortions through people's medical insurance with the company) the number was around 100 a day from a study. ?I base this on my mother's profession, not because she is my mother. ?And yes SLC, I was talking about ILLEGAL abortions. ?As stated earlier, I am pro-choice but I believe that life begins at conception (as all other claims would be arbitrary and based solely on moral or religious beliefs) but accept the humane euthanization of human life.

You said "Thousands of girls were dying everyday because of it." Nowhere in this source does it say that thousands of girls were dying every day. It says thousands were dying or getting injured, each year.

Why can't pro abortionists make their case without sexing up the facts?

And I like to know who did this 'estimation.' I sure hope it wasn't Dr. Bernard Nathanson or someone like him.

Your quote just said abortions that is what I thought you meant.

It doesn't matter if she was your Mother or not. You were using an argument from hearsay.

Can you make one without changing the subject?

Not changing the subject. We've been discussing this for a while now ::)

I'm sorry that I was off on my original estimation. I'm not a historian.

By the way, I'm not a pro abortionist. I'm pro rights. I told you that in an earlier post.

Actually....it's not.

The truth is, the stat that "thousands" of girls were dying was from a book called "Abortion, Spontaneous and Induced " in the 1930's by Dr. Frederick Taussig. ?It isn't a great indicator because of some "fuzzy" math, though it is often quoted.

The Pro-Lifers use some "fuzzy math" of their own, and assert it's more like 100 to 200 deaths annually. ?That, too, has been proven to be not quite accurate.

The truth is, statistics on the subject, at a national level, are almost impossible to come by until after Roe v Wade (with the exception of some widely spaced out, and all inclusive, CDC figures). ?Once Roe v Wade occurred, no one can deny that the mortality rate dropped. ?The problem is..no one can really tell by just how much.

Personally, I think the fact that it dropped (even by the Pro-Lifers estimation) from 100 to 200 down to about 40 the year after R v W (according to the CDC) is still pretty compelling. ?No matter WHICH numbers we use, there was a dramatic drop in the mortality rate.

Not true, either.  Hundreds annually, but not per day.  At least by the conservative estimates.  CDC figures say you'd have to go back to the 40's to find, illegal and legal combined, more than 1000 deaths.

Here you go:

http://villagevoice.com/news/0540,tamanaha,68544,2.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/18/opinion/edstem.php

Okay, I'm glad we established that, because the pro abortion rights movement was based on lies about the number of illegal abortion deaths, by the admission of one of the founding characters behind the movement.

And saying someone is pro rights is so general that it's meaningless. Everyone is pro rights! The question is which rights are you pro? The right of the parent to know? Or the right of a child to have unfettered access to abortion?

OK, Pop metal answer to a popmetal post:

That doesn't prove anything.....

 ;D

Again I was refering to back room abortions taking place, not the numbers quoted.


This is what I meant by " Although it would be impossible to give stats one way or the other. "


See whudda mean Vern?

You wanted me to provide articles where the media refers to pro-lifers as religious conservatives and I did exactly that. You can take what you want out of that, I'm not saying it "proves" anything. If you want to disagree with my opinion that the media tends to paint pro-lifers as 'religious conservative' that is certainly a valid point of view and you're entitled to it.

To  answer my thread though I think Parents have the right to know.

I dont think a 12 or 13 year old has the mental capacity to make such a decision and to handle the consequences on their own.

I pretty much told you what I was going to do before you even did it. I'm still laughing that you bothered to look that crap up. :hihi:

It was hardly a bother. Only a quick google search.

Parents should know...what? Wait a minute...

They should take care of their children IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I have absolutely no understanding for a girl getting pregnant at age 12. For me, that's a case of "unfit to live" - both her and the father should be locked up in a mental hopital and their parents should go to jail forever. All those people do is screw with their own lifes, and when they start treating the unborn life, and therefor life itself, with that same disrecpect then what's their use in this world? No one needs that human garbage.

Morally, on the general subject of abortion, I'm against it. Exception only in case of rape.

However, in this world, I'd say leave it up to those concerned. After all, this is none of my fucken business.

If I had a daughter in that position I'd be 100% behind her, trying to help her making a decision only she can make. But the point is: at this age (- 20) you can not make such a decision because you don't know shit about life AND if I had a daughter, she wouldn't be in the position in the first place because I'd do my "job" as a father.

Parents aren't perfect. They can't be with their children all the time.

My brother became a father at 15 years old. My parents supported him and made sure he went to college.

Yeah, me too.? The "thousands of deaths" statistic is in specific reference to illegal abortions in his text.? And it's wrong.? He uses some self-created modifier on the statistics (which include comorbidity factors and Method of Injury (MOI) on treated patients in NYC) that he DID have that completely botches the numbers.? And the "fuzzy math" created a pretty sensational statistic that Planned Parenthood has quoted, ad nauseum (including in court filings)....so it tends to be pretty well soaked into the public conciousness.

Which sorta sucks.? Not that the stat is wrong, but that BECAUSE the stat is wrong, those that are against abortion discredit the entire argument that mortality rate improved once abortions were legal by poo-pooing the incorrect claim.? Of course, the truth is, no matter WHICH numbers you use, you see a dramatic decrease in deaths.


I sure do.

Those are some pretty harsh words.? However, I'm glad you'd be behind your child 100%.? But to say she wouldn't be in that position in the first place - shit does happen.? Kids under 18 do have sex, unprotected sex because they are not prepared, and then they have to deal with the consequences.? I don't think it matters how good a parent you are- kids still experiment & do things when mom & dad aren't looking.  All we can do is try and lay the groundwork, so to speak, and hope they will be able to make sound decisions.? I think what's important is to be there for them even when, and maybe especially when, they get into "trouble".? Which is another reason why I would want to be informed.? ?

I agree. There is no getting around that part of life....

  Not sure how to take that response....

Agreeing and meaning...."shit does happen"

You have to live life on lifes terms....Not really your own. You can only control so much of your life.

Hows that?

That does clear things up for me.? Thanks.? I just wasn't sure if you were agreeing with "shit happens" or talking about, you know, shit, because there's no getting around that either. Sometimes it's difficult to interpret people's meanings.? Sorry.? ?:)?

It can be tough when it is only words, yes, no problem.

I did some cleaning in this thread. Because if you're banned from here, it means stay away!





/jarmo