Bet you CBC didn’t expect this one
CBC is on Facebook with The Great Canadian Wish List. Basically the idea was to interact with viewers and listeners and the people who pay to keep it going (in other words all of us). It’s innovative for them although I suspect the results aren’t what they expected. The number one list will be featured on CBC on Canada Day.
#1 by a mile is Abolish Abortion in Canada. It started strong and has remained strong. Abortion supporters have been rallying hard and have managed to pull within a distant second.
Here’s what else is interesting. 3rd place is a wish for spiritual revival in Canada and 4th is restore the traditional definition of marriage.
Wow!
The folks who are rallying at number two are complaining that the site has been hijacked and tainted. Bull. In fact possibly the opposite is true with pro-abortion groups rallying the call and openly trying to recruit people who aren't even Canadian to sign up and try to tip the balance.
Besides, no one is probably more nervous than CBC that they might have to do a story on Canada Day that Canadians want babies to have rights within the womb. The project is open to everyone equally. The only difference is those views are rarely heard in the mainstream media, particularly on CBC. CBC finally opened itself up to hear something besides the usual groupthink they get every day and regardless of the outcome, there’s a strong message there.
If you wish to add your voice regarding the abortion issue you can follow the instructions at Big Blue Wave. (You can of course join another wish or add your own as well).
posted by
Spinks at 8:37 PM -
link
...
... 
28 Comments
Oh now come on. You know that the site was hijacked by special interest groups. Seriously. Be reasonable. Right-wingers aren't CBC's core audience. I wouldn't get too excited about this. You just know that someone is eventually going to leak e-mails from religious organizations urging people to vote for the right wing agenda. This is their right, of course... but don't get too excited that this is some sort of revolution or anything. And yes, I'm sure the people at CBC are shaking in their sandals. :)
6:29 AM
Right-wingers aren't CBC's core audience.
Boy isn't that the truth but why are left wingers their core audience. How about some balance?
Anyway that's another topic. While hardly a revolution this is showcasing that there are other opinions on subjects such as these that the MSM largely ignores. Besides the pro-abortion special interest groups seems to be the one engaged in hijacking the site. It's one thing to say, hey this is a neat project and if you're like minded sign up, it's another when you start "recruiting" non-Canadians (as abortion supporters are doing) to try to stack the numbers. As I wrote a few weeks ago a CBC Newfoundland reporter waded into this debate when he saw a poll that suggested the Canadian conscience isn't quite as clean on abortion as the MSM would lead us to believe. This one's always worth a debate and regardles of the end result this is bringing attention to an issue that shouldn't be swept under the rug.
6:45 AM
I think you made Brian's point for him. YOu have links to all the pro abortion and bloggers who are all advocating like minded people get to the site, but not the site itself.
A similar complaint was made when CBC set up a site for high schoolers, and suddenly all the talk was about abortion, and all the people there were over thirty.
The complaint was that CBC was using facebook instead of setting up their own blogs so they wouldn't have to be responsible for them.
But again, what YOU mean by 'right' is 'religion'. Not all those on the 'right' are christian or religious, and it was only recently that abortion was even thought of as 'right wing' issue.
There is an excellent podcast on that from TVO, I'll post it later when I have a moment, and the CBC simply does the same thing as many media do, which is avoid religious issues for fear of offending anyone. So they also don't have stories on the good points of why women wear burkha's either. That's not 'right' or 'left', thats simply a media that isn't 'christian' or 'muslim'.
This is simply a 'special interest group', we saw the same thing when the same sex marriage bill was being passed. When organizations and bloggers act together its easy to make it LOOK like there is a large contingency. In reality it proves the opposite. Like SSM those opposed are typically male, typically older, and typically fundamentalist christian.
So thats a small group, but when something like this comes along then it makes it LOOK big because as Spinks states often, the CBC has a pretty small demographic that would even know about this.
The unfortunate thing is that it simply hijacks the whole endevour. Ask most canadians what is on their wish list and that's pretty far down the list...it affects a very small percentage of the population. And again, the unfortunate thing is those who protest are often the very impediment to lowering the incidence of abortion through availability of condoms, massive sexual education, easy availability of the morning after pill, better doctor availability, etc. Notice how NB is talking about letting pharmacists write prescriptions when a woman can't even get birth control pills without a doctor, and most doctors won't even give out the morning after pills.
8:10 AM
I forgot one other thing, which is that religious conservatism is INTERNATIONAL. Much of the funding for the lobbying on the SSM bill came from the US, and so when there is an online poll like this, its impossible to know where the people are from, they could all be from Alabama. Churches are an effective means of getting issues out there. Canada has always been about five to ten years behind the states on large movements, and what we are seeing is the same thing as with Bush. A small demographic that gains unproportional power by using the political tools available. It's helpful that the majority of canadians, like the majority of americans, pay zero attention to politics. So again, you have this 'idea' that this small group has overwhelming support.
But as said elsewhere, nobody LIKES abortion. You'll notice in that wish list a big glaring fact-that most of the people want rights for babies, or want abortion illegal, but interestingly enough, none of those people express the wish that the woman hadn't become pregnant in the first place. That's interesting.
8:16 AM
Oops again, that first sentence was supposed to be 'anti' abortion.
8:19 AM
Mike, you still around. :)
Abortion is far more than simply a religious issue although supporters of it have done an awesome job painting it that way. To simplify it to that doesn’t do the issue any service but I’ll grant you it stifles debate.
8:34 AM
Mike is always around when there is a good, civil discussion going on. Unfortunately, after a couple of his long leftist diatribes, that ends pretty quick. ;-)
9:41 AM
You guys really have to look up what 'left' and 'right' mean. Virtually every anti abortion group in the country is religous and specifically christian. Find me just ONE that isn't and I'll give that line some credit. I've never seen anybody approach the issue but from a religious viewpoint. Just go listen to the interviews charles does at the anti abortion house in Fredericton. You don't get much more christian than that.
Stating that it is religious certainly doesn't stifle debate, there is no reason it would. Last year there was tons of online debate and media attention on virtually anything to do with muslims. Just because nobody is commenting on it doesn't mean debate is stifled, it simply means not that many are interested. At this site its no doubt because its been discussed so many times that there is really nothing left to say about it specifically. However, when you keep saying "debate is stifled" and "there is no common ground" then I'd suggest THAT stifles debate. If there is no common ground then that means there is no point debating it. That's also something that I believe is wrong as well, the only time there is no 'common ground' is when certain groups reject anything but but stopping it completely.
However, the fact that this is not a 'right' or a 'left' issue can be shown simply by this: the CBC rarely covers the abortion issue that's true, unless there is a protest or something. Yet here is a case where a province is specifically breaking the Canada Health Act, and there is no coverage of it. If Quebec had used its notwithstanding clause for virtually any reason it would be all over the media all the time..as we saw with the language issue.
So here is New Brunswick breaking canadian law, yet we almost never hear about it on CBC (or any other media).
So IF this were a right or left issue then it can easily be argued that the CBC actually has a RIGHT wing bias.
Until the lawsuit was announced a couple months ago it was rarely covered. Even when the latest poll came out stating that 57% of New Brunswickers want abortions available at medical clinics the fact that the province is breaking the Canada Health Act wasn't even mentioned.
So that's a RIGHT wing bias.
And I thought YOU had given up, the blogs have been pretty sparse of late.
12:22 PM
Spinks, you were looking a little lonely here so I thought I'd wade in. I read Mikel's comment that "something like this comes along then it makes it LOOK big..." and I was reminded of a Politicswatch article (http://www.politicswatch.com/cbc-june5-2007.htm) where they noted CBC refused to cover a rally of 7,000 pro-life supporters on Parliament Hill. I guess CBC thought that would "LOOK" too big as well. Shaping public perception must be somewhere in the mandate of CBC.
1:28 PM
And another thing, when you eliminate religion from the public square altogether, you essentially have atheism. I would challenge Mikel et al to point out a moral code that is not coloured by some religious underpinnings. I would submit what the anti-religious left wants libertarianism that cherry-picks moral imperative. "Don't kill" - that's OK, but "Don't commit adultery" is violating my human rights. No, we should not legislate morality, but neither should should we discourage people of religious conviction from engaging in the public debate. The shared moral code of traditional Canadian values cannot be divorced from its religious foundations. I think issues should be debated on the substance, not on whether a person has religious beliefs or not.
1:51 PM
Good comments but a little inflammatory. The article at Politics watch said the protest WASN"T covered on the CBC "The National". Very few protests are covered on the national. And the article says it WASN"T covered, not that they 'refused' to cover it. Was it covered on CBC radio? Was it mentioned anywhere on the two 24 hour news channels? We don't know, it doesn't say, it talks only about one newsshow.
Thats what I mean about 'perception'. Those who care deeply and expect that their own interests should be translated into national coverage will point at 'bias'.
Just go to the CBC website and type in 'abortion' and even 'abortion protest' and there is dozens of stuff.
So now take a look at something like native rights. Natives have long complained that when they have protests, unless they do something violent it is never covered. Again, thats a RIGHT wing bias.
But like I said, there isn't a 'right' or 'left' bias there, it is simply that the side of the issue that a person has isn't given frontline coverage. It's also the nature of media.
So look at Irving newspapers. How often do they talk about abortion? Very rarely. Does that mean Irving is a left wing publication?
Notice also that in that Politics watch that the only things that conservative MP's could come up with to lambast the CBC with was maybe eight items over two to three years. Compared to private broadcasters that's nothing, just go to the National Post and type in 'Israel' and you can see how one sided their reporting is. Of course CBC has a special mandate, but like I said, eight complaints over two years for 24 hour television and radio reporting is pretty insignificant.
As for religion, people miss what media does. On a newscast you don't just say "hey, lets talk about the catholic church". You report on news.
And actually I find that the opposite is the case. Just read the letters to the editor at the Irving papers and you will see TONS of stuff on religion and religious points of view. But once again the problem is that the priorities of New Brunswickers are not national ones.
But many people's idea of talking about religion is proselytizing their specific religion, which obviously media tries not to do. 7000 people at a national protest is actually pretty small, for much of the country abortion is not the hot button issue it is in New Brunswick, and again to point at that survey, New Brunswickers CLEARLY want more expanded abortion services.
There is lots of talk about morals, but in a multicultural society the point is to take that discussion away from religion for the simple reason that there are hundreds of religions. Specific religions are still covered though, TVO, Ontario's public broadcaster has just finished two weeks of talking about nothing but religion on their flagship current affairs show. So there is media on it, however, people confuse talking about religion with espousing their particular religious views. Those are two very different things.
2:39 PM
Mikel et al. LOL! Good one Phil. I guess I'll just call 'em Al for short.
3:00 PM
I went and supported some of the wishes but probably not the ones you would like.I think this is an interesting idea for the CBC and I will be watching now to see which wishes remain at the top.
7:24 PM
Not so j@ckp1ne. (btw folks check out j@ckp1ne's blog. NB issues from time to time from a liberal point of view - don't say I never give liberal sites a plug). Everyone has their own point of view and that point of view is valid. Support what you wish. This is my blog so obviously I have no interest in supporting abortion so I'm hardly going to point anyone in that direction as Mike suggests I should. My concern is when points of view that may different are completely blown off as irrelevant as my good friend mikel often likes to do. I really don't see abortion going anywhere but it should always be discussed. More than 3000 people have visited a website to say they'd like to see abortion abolished but all those opinions are being blown off as irrelevant by my good friend mike. A huge effort is being mounted by abortion supporters to counter it. Frankly I'm glad people are weighing in on both sides. regardless of the outcome, the issue is going to be discussed. That's good. Dismembering and mummifying babies in the womb is a pretty dastardly business. We shouldn't forget that. Mike may write that no one is pro-abortion but 90%plus of the referrals most Planned Parentood groups do to moms to be are to abortuarys. I don't get the feeling that they're trying too hard to suggest adoption or keeping the baby.
Sheesh mike, gave up because I've been posting every two days instead of every day. While I enjoy the blog, it's still a hobby not my life. I like you ladies and genetlemen fine but not above all else. It's almosy summer folks. Get outside!
7:56 PM
Well said, spinks. To the beach I go!!!
8:08 PM
Pointing to the wish list website isn't supporting one side or another.
I also didn't say anything at all about writing off opinions or blowing anything off. I simply gave a response to why there was so little response. I also simply disagreed that CBC or any media is practising a left wing bias simply because they don't push anti abortionists agenda. That's it, that's all. If I was blowing off people's opinions then I'd just ignore the blog, but like you say, it IS important. But so are a lot of things.
I agree that it should be discussed more and CBC could be leading that charge, although they are limited in their mandate. Abortion should definitely be discussed more often, that's why we put up two of Charles interviews with the pro abortion guys with still more to come and an interview with some pro choice people are in the works.
But I claim the opposite, that the CBC is bending to the right by not covering the fact that New Brunswick is breaking the law, and that survey I mentioned where a vast majority want more abortion services. Breaking national law on health care should be a news story every day of the week, it SHOULD be national news. Peter Mansbridge should be mentioning it at least once a month on the national news. He's not, so again, is that a 'right wing bias'?
But this is a contentious issue, so I can see why they stear clear of it but the idea that its a 'left wing' conspiracy doesn't hold water for the reasons I just mentioned.
I think its hugely important to talk about it because it also often becomes clear that the biggest impediment to stopping abortions are those policies of the ones who protest (who again, seem to be very often men). Higher minimum wages, more government services, more sexual education, better medical access all could help with the problem but those are typically shouted down.
Some of the views are even outright crazy. While I put up the interview for the same reason I put up all audio, you can listen to charles interview and get some interesting insights, like the guy who actually beleives, and even says that during a rape a woman releases hormones that will prohibit procreation. That's just right out there.
Finally, nobody says you have to post everyday, like I said, there was a space of four or five days which is an eternity in blogworld, so I thought you packed it in. Several bloggers have packed it in, politics isn't a huge draw, but its important. It may be a hobby to you, but just remember its also a public service, even if I don't often agree with ya, New Brunswick needs all the voices out there it can get.
PS, I spend all day outside everyday-except for lunch. We're not all white collar bureaucrats like spinks:)
8:23 PM
White collar bureaucrat
Ouch! Now that's hitting below the belt.
9:04 AM
I have posted a non-religious defense of the right to life on my blog . http://nealnews.blogspot.com
11:01 AM
Yeah that WAS a low blow,for that I will out and out apologize profusely! I cannot apologize deeply enough for that, tweedledee is something you'd put on your tombstone in comparison:)
Neal, I didn't say that abortion couldn't be disputed without religion, I said that all, or damn close to all of the groups that protest abortion are religious-I haven't heard any otherwise.
Religion certainly isn't necessary to defend right to life in New Brunswick, there is a dwindling population.
But part of the problem is the religious issue, like Neals notion that it is a 'human being' at the moment of conception. Like I said, such extreme opinions make it harder to compromise because in such a case its even impossible to bring in the morning after pill. And trying to make the argument without religion that the moment of conception, when there is nothing remotely 'human' about it, simply makes more problems.
The morning after pill and other research being done is a perfect compromise. There is no more of that mummification and nasty vacuuming and the things so often complained about. Suddenly those pictures are no longer relevent.
But the argument is made "no, we can't have that, because it starts at CONCEPTION, which, unless you have a specific religious bent is outright crazy. A salamander is more 'human' than what is present at the moment of conception.
So that's just ONE example, there are numerous others. So like I said, there IS room to compromise, but not if people refuse to compromise. Back outside for me...
2:01 PM
I just wanted to say that mikel is awesome. I also want to add that this Wishlist thing has become a bit of a joke. If you spend any time on the discussion boards in there you will see what I mean.
I think the CBC means well but this will end up as another bit of useless fluff (like the Seven Wonders extravaganza). All the Wishlist proves is that the fundies can use computers.
2:19 PM
Sheesh we'll never get mike calmed down now that he's awesome. LOL.
I don't think what CBC has done is a joke. I think it's definately taken a turn they never expected but they're hearing views they don't usually get because they tend to talk to the same people all the time...and get the same points if view. People have control this time not CBC. I have little doubt that abortion from one side or the other will finish at the top and force CBC to take a look at it from both sides hopefully more indepth. That's not a bad thing.
4:58 PM
My wife and mother have always told me I"m awesome, that's no surprise-they're the smartest people I know:)
I just wanted to add that this is a perfect opportunity to test that little theory about media bias. IF the CBC is biased and wants to avoid this, then the contest or whatever it is will be avoided once its finished. If not, well then that shows that they aren't going out of their way to 'refuse' to cover it.
But that is a problem when special interest groups are given free reign. That's why its structure could have been set up much better. That CBC couldn't be bothered to set up their own forum says it all. So ask one simple question, IF this were such a big huge issue then why doesn't it even get mentioned in most election polls? There's a reason that when people say what their issues are it is the enviromment, health and education.
In most places cases this is a non issue, in ontario there are no protests at city clinics, in NB its more of an issue because what the government is doing is illegal and now is getting sued for it. So its discussed more because the status quo is being questioned. Again, just look at the last poll done in New Brunswick and the 'wish list' was for more abortion services specifically in clinics.
For opposite reasons I agree with Spinks, hopefully we'll hear lots more on it.
I haven't found that link yet, but on TVO there was media panel discussion which did mirror Spinks point that people in media are often not religious, not poor, not single mothers, not minorities, so there is a bias at work there. It was funny because one old white even said how wonderful they did being sensitive to some racial group or something, as though that means there's no bias.
Why spanish has anything to do with this I don't know, but like I said, its empathy, NOT semantics. Spinks thinks that those who disagree with him are being 'pro abortion' but thats not the case at all. I've never heard ANYBODY say 'abortion is a GOOD thing'. It sometimes is a NECESSARY thing, but that's it. That's not as bad as calling somebody tweedledum, which is over the top I agree, but it is insulting, and is easily rectified, so if you are going to use it, then don't be surprised when people resort to the same tactics.
IF there are any groups or people who aren't attacking this from a religious point of view I'd like to hear it. Specifically, the two sides could join together to make the morning after pill more widely available and make sure people are educated on it-both men and women. Unless of course it isn't about the vacuuming and mummifying at all.
6:05 PM
Mike wrote; I haven't found that link yet, but on TVO there was media panel discussion which did mirror Spinks point that people in media are often not religious, not poor, not single mothers, not minorities, so there is a bias at work there. It was funny because one old white even said how wonderful they did being sensitive to some racial group or something, as though that means there's no bias.
Yep. In fact most media go out of their way to try to be so sensitive that the facts or other opinions often get completely ignored. By golly mike we finally agree on something.
8:42 PM
Mikel seems to think that the majority of arguements against abortion are religious. Leaving moral beliefs aside, there are still many good reasons for opposing abortion.
Proportionality is one. Statistics Canada reports an average of more than 105,000 abortions every year in Canada. That represents a ratio of over 30 abortions/100 live births nationwide. Is it realistic to argue that that many abortions are "NECESSARY" as Mike contends?
There is also an argument from rationality. Perhaps it would be better called irrationality. For example, one of the most oft repeated axioms is "A woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body." I would wholeheartedly agree, with one caveat - it is not HER body that she is destroying! Unless you are so callous as to suggest that a human embryo is nothing more than an unwanted growth to be surgically removed, we should place some value on the body she is in fact destroying.
As for the 'life at conception' argument, the radical opposite is also true. Abortion is legal in Canada almost to the moment of birth. If life does not begin at conception, when does it begin? When the heart begins its regular rhythm? Has it begun when partial birth abortion is effected? Does the woman still have the right to choose?
As much as pro-abortionists would like to dismiss the argument as so much "right wing religious fervor" it is hard to make the case for 105,000 deaths each year as anything other than a convenience in many cases. That is a moral shame in any book.
12:06 AM
Not in any book. First, you didn't read my comments as I clearly said that GROUPS opposing abortions are overwhelmingly religious. Like I said, in a province like NB where the population is decreasing, then its easy to make a non religious argument-that NB needs more people.
I also don't remember saying anywhere that abortion is 'necessary'. Nothing is 'necessary'. Even if the mother was going to die if she didn't have the baby its not 'necessary' because it can be argued that one life is being picked over another.
Its also a mistake to say that abortion is legal right up to birth, that's not true, and is only possible in very specific cases.
As for the 'life' argument, I'm not going to retype the whole argument but the question is not about 'life', its about a 'separate life', ie . a person. Your sperm is alive, an egg is alive. Every cell in your body is alive. But if you cut yourself we don't call it an abortion.
That argument comes down to when its a 'separate persone', and once again that's a problem, namely of course because technically, it IS part of womans body. Its attached by an umbilical cord and of course is enveloped inside her.
So philosophical arguments don't really hold up, and thats no surprise, most don't. Just because it has a brain is also irrelevant, as lots of organisms have more than one brain, but they aren't separate organisms.
And again, recently a female hammerhead shark gave birth with no male present, its called pathogenesis. So 'life' didn't 'begin' when a sperm hit an egg because there was no sperm. Those are the problems one gets into in arguig it philosophically.
And again, by helping lobby for better access to the morning after pill a good many of those problems go away. No violence, no vacuuming, there is no 'brain' present.
1:25 PM
Mike: You're a hoot, but here's what you said, "I've never heard ANYBODY say 'abortion is a GOOD thing'. It sometimes is a NECESSARY thing, but that's it." (see above).
Actually, I'm glad that you extended the argument about 'being part of a woman's body' to the umbilical cord. That is exactly the argument that proponents of allowing a baby to be partially born, then terminating its life make (the cord is still attached and they are not fully out of the womb - presto: partial birth abortion) I think even you have some reticence with that method.
It seems that you are hinting that individual viability might be a benchmark for deciding when abortions should be allowed. If a baby could survive outside the womb (with such assistance as is often necessary even after birth) would that qualify as a viable person?
Lastly, I don't buy all the arguments that say birth control will solve unwanted pregnancies. Contraceptives, prophylactics and other methods of birth control have been promoted by "planned parenting" types for decades. The result is still a consistent average of 105,000 abortions per year. I'm sorry, that number is just shocking! The same StatsCan reports say that represents 30/100 live births (30%) I don't hardly see how rates could have dropped 43% to 1/3 of babies conceived, but if you say so - OK.
All in all, thanks for keeping the debate 'above the belt.'
3:13 PM
That means its necessary to the woman, and it is her choice, not that it is a medical or philosophical necessity (and thats what I meant, sorry). I'm a man and so like all men the argument is hypothetical. I have no problems with abortions, in fact if you look at the rates the largest increase was right after it was legalized, no surprise, and now its begun to decrease. Numerous studies have shown that abortions decrease fastest in areas with easy access to birth control and sexual education.
I have no interest really as to whether it is partial abortion or any of those other things. It's a nasty world, and like I've said often, we treat species that have far more nerves, more brain function, more feeling and more consciousness in a far worse way as a matter of course. Go take a look at how you got your dinner sometime, I mean from start to finish. It's horribly violent and disgusting. If you've spent anytime on a farm or with animals you know what I mean. Imagine taking your dog and grabbing him by the back leg and throwing him into a truck with hundreds of others and then putting an electric bolt to his brain, or worse, in many cases sending them straight to the cutting floor while still alive.
Those animals are far more 'human' than what is inside a woman at three months and no doubt most people reading this are simply so bloodthirsty that that won't even connect. Maybe the next generation will start questioning and say "why do we care so much about a single celled organism than we do about all the animals around us?"
So abortion really doesn't register with me, except that it does worry me because obviously even not paying for it isn't enough and people want it outright illegal which will simply make it worse for everybody.
It's also somewhat hypocritical, I've seen people buy into the most specious arguments from the anti abortion groups, but just a claim that a common contraceptive device decreaseed abortions seems incredulous to the above.
And like I said, its no coincidence that a good percentage of people protesting seem to be men, and ones with some pretty crazy ideas as you heard on that interview. Actually, I didn't even know that women are only fertile about five days out of the month, which makes it all the more reasonable that the MA pill be more available. I'd be interested to know how much it is, I've heard from several sources that some doctors will refuse to prescribe it, and in NB you can't go to another physician. So thats pretty *&^^ed up medically, that's why I say, if you REALLY want to stop abortions, get on the horn to your provincial politician and get active, not by judging people, by by lobbying those who can make the difference.
4:40 PM
Abortion is far more than simply a religious issue although supporters of it have done an awesome job painting it that way.
I am best described at Atheist, not actually anti God or anti religion, I am simply unable to believe in the supernatural. To me, it is not logical. I am aware that many people do not think logically and I can live with that. It doesn't mean they are bad, just illogical.
Whatever our reasons, we agree, it is wrong to kill unborn babies Her are a couple of reasons I can think of ... the first being it's immoral. Next, it's barbaric. Next, it is now so rampant in western society along with birth control that are committing demographic suicide.
The Muslims love that. There will far fewer of us to kill off if they finally take over.
Listening to CBC, I get the impression that this is what they want anyway.
I have heard it said that the Muslims won't be a civil society until they love their children more than they hate us.
It could be said that we won't be a civil society until we love our children more than we hate the idea of having any.
12:19 PM
Post a Comment
Home