The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
|
Can The Liberals Explain This?
|
You guys are both correct, but I don't see how that supports this view:
"The inalienable right to life of the unborn should not be contingent on the choice of anyone else." Prior to the the case of Jeanna Geise, rabies was deemed to have a 100% mortality rate among non-vaccinated humans. Prior to that case, would you have supported the killing of rabies victims because they are no chance to live and pose serious health threats to others? Things just don't line up. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.