The baby in the box
This was produced by the people at what used to be named Crisis magazine that has switched to become an internet-only publication and renamed Inside Catholic.
[HT: Br. Francis]
Nov.17, 2007 4:29 am |
Uncategorized |
[HT: Br. Francis]
Commenting Rules
Do's
- “Criticize ideas, not people.”
- Create one original moniker and stick with it.
- Please use a unique name.
- Be civil and considerate.
- Read fully and consider carefully before responding.
Do Not's
- Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
- No swearing or slandering of others.
- No deliberate inflammatory comments.
- Do not violate another’s privacy.
- Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
- No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
- Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I really like that.
A woman isn’t a box. You do realize that, right? Women are not objects; we’re people.
Tp, it’s an analogy (the box would be analogous to the womb, not the woman). No one thinks a woman is a box. The point is that if there is a chance that a baby exists inside of her, why would you take the chance of killing? Would you do it if babies were in boxes and not wombs?
Oops correction:
Would you crush the box if a baby was *possibly* in a box?
Would you crush the box if a baby was *possibly* in a box?
Bethany, depends on why the box should be crushed in the first place.
Doug
So what would be a good reason, in your opinion, Doug, to crush a box if you have knowledge that the box could hold a baby?
What would be a good reason for another person to crush a box that could possibly contain you?
Doug, so you’re saying there are good reasons for crushing a box with a baby in it?
I personally like the box analogy…cause the box can never be restored to its original state after it has crushed the baby..it always looks crumpled in some way. Kind of like the women who are emotionally/physically damaged by abortions.
Elizabeth,
Excellent analogy!!!
:)
Hi Elizabeth,
Great point. Once you’ve aborted, you can’t go back and change you’re mind, or go back and have a re-do. Abortion in a final.
I find it interesting that none of the PCer’s talk about the founding mother’s of feminism, or that abortion split the feminist movement in the 1960’s. They don’t want anyone to know. Real Feminists are pro-life!
Here are some quotes:
Susan B. Anthony
In her publication The Revolution, was written:
“Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”
Abortion was referred to as “child murder.”
The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
She classified abortion as a form of “infanticide.”
The Revolution, 1(5):1, February 5, 1868
“When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”
Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe’s diary at Harvard University Library
Emma Goldman
“The custom of procuring abortions has reached such appalling proportions in America as to be beyond belief…So great is the misery of the working classes that seventeen abortions are committed in every one hundred pregnancies.”
Mother Earth, 1911
Mattie Brinkerhoff
“When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society – so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged.”
The Revolution, 4(9):138-9 September 2, 1869
Victoria Woodhull
The first female presidential candidate was a strong opponent of abortion.
“The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus.”
Woodhull’s and Claflin’s Weekly 2(6):4 December 24, 1870
“Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth.”
Wheeling, West Virginia Evening Standard, November 17, 1875
Sarah Norton
“Child murderers practice their profession without let or hindrance, and open infant butcheries unquestioned…Is there no remedy for all this ante-natal child murder?…Perhaps there will come a time when…an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood…and when the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with.”
Woodhull’s and Claffin’s Weekly, November 19, 1870
We need to re-educate our kids about real feminism, not pro-death, anti-male, nothing but woman power feminism. It is so destructive. Ultimately women will cause our own demise through abortion.
So what would be a good reason, in your opinion, Doug, to crush a box if you have knowledge that the box could hold a baby?
Bethany, none immediately comes to mind, and just how far does the hypothetical go? If it’s just a “maybe” as far as a baby being there, and there’s a guy holding a gun to a baby’s head, then I’d pick the maybe over the sure thing. Farfetched, certainly, but the example is already far different from it being a pregnant woman rather than a box.
……
What would be a good reason for another person to crush a box that could possibly contain you?
You’d have to ask them – good question. Maybe I really made them mad on a message board?
Doug
“…depends on why the box should be crushed in the first place.”
Doug
+++++++++++++++
That’s pretty frigid, Doug.
Tara, thank you for an excellent post!
Bethany, none immediately comes to mind, and just how far does the hypothetical go? If it’s just a “maybe” as far as a baby being there, and there’s a guy holding a gun to a baby’s head, then I’d pick the maybe over the sure thing. Farfetched, certainly, but the example is already far different from it being a pregnant woman rather than a box.
No, the hypothetical does not go that far, because there would already be an exception for the life of the mother if we were to make abortion illegal.
But, it is actually interesting to note that even in your own perception of the hypothetical situation, the only good enough reason to allow a possible baby to be crushed is in order to save another’s life. Not because someone wants to use the box for something else, etc.
Why is that not the case with abortion?
So I ask again: What reason, in your opinion, is good enough to allow a baby, which might possibly be in a box, to be crushed inside that box?
but the example is already far different from it being a pregnant woman rather than a box.
The box is analogous to the womb, not the woman.
Starts out as a great message against domestic violence than takes a turn into a gobldy gook. If you think you might be pregnant, don’t crush your uterous because if there is any chance that you are pregnant, there is baby in your ‘box’? Whatever!
“…depends on why the box should be crushed in the first place.”
Carder: That’s pretty frigid, Doug.
So you say, but it’s a straight answer to her question.
But, it is actually interesting to note that even in your own perception of the hypothetical situation, the only good enough reason to allow a possible baby to be crushed is in order to save another’s life. Not because someone wants to use the box for something else, etc.
Bethany, I agree that it’s interesting and it was a fair question. Somebody wanting to “use a box for something else,” and I guess having to crush it for that, is a far cry from a pregnant woman. Do we really need to have the box crushed? Probably not. Do we really need to force the woman to remain pregnant against her will? I say of course not, and though you and others may disagree, at the least it’s a much different situation.
……
Why is that not the case with abortion?
So I ask again: What reason, in your opinion, is good enough to allow a baby, which might possibly be in a box, to be crushed inside that box?
In the normal course of events (outside of extreme examples), I see no reasons that are good enough. The box does not have rights, cares, emotions, desires, etc., as do pregnant women.
……
The box is analogous to the womb, not the woman.
Then outside of our wild and crazy examples, I see no reason why somebody else should crush the box, and I see no reason why somebody else should tell the woman what to do with her womb.
Doug
DOUG, ABORTION IS MURDER!!!!
Doug aka./broken record…………A woman HAS control over her womb before sex. That’s it!!!
A woman HAS control over her womb before sex. That’s it!
No, Heather, afterwards as well.
No, Heather, afterwards as well.
Not if a hole is poked in it, or if her bowels are pulled through the hole…or if the cervix is weakened, or punctured, or if she becomes infertile as a result of her abortion. She isn’t always in control.
P.S. The cervix is always weakened by abortion. There are variations as to how much it weakens the cervix, but there is always a weakening of some extent- the cervix isn’t meant to be opened unnaturally like that.
(This is why instead of choosing to have a D & C when I found out I was going to miscarry, I chose natural miscarriage. I wanted to ensure that future pregnancies would have a chance)
I think the clip needs refinement. It draws an uneven parallel to abortion, but if they want to get some sort of message across, I suppose they’re on the right track. It just doesn’t seem like it strikes the right chord.
Heather, do you ever have anything constructive to say?
Carder: That’s pretty frigid, Doug.
So you say, but it’s a straight answer to her question.
**********
Which is why it makes it so frigid.
Great video.
“…depends on why the box should be crushed in the first place.”
Carder: That’s pretty frigid, Doug.
“So you say, but it’s a straight answer to her question.”
Which is why it makes it so frigid.
Well, it is not correct to say that circumstances and motivations have no meaning to people, and – heck, winter is coming anyway.
Well, thank goodnes abortion is legal so we don’t have to worry about finding babies in cardboard boxes, dumpsters and garbage cans as often as we would if it was illegal!!
Besides, if I thought a baby might be in some box I would open the damn box and let the baby out!
Bethany, abortion does not cause risk to future pregnancies.
Also, Bethany, childbirth damages the cervix more than abortion does.
I can examine your cervix and make a pretty good estimate how many kids you’ve had by the residual damage to the cervix.
Bethany, abortion does not cause risk to future pregnancies.
Yes it can, SOMG.
“Extensive scarring of the uterus may occur after over-aggressive scraping during D & C, leading to a condition called Asherman’s syndrome. The major symptoms of Asherman’s syndrome are light or absent menstrual periods, infertility, and recurrent miscarriages. Scar tissue can be removed with surgery in most women, although approximately 20
Bethany, here’s an exercise for you: Find out how common Asherman’s Syndrome is after D&C.
Answer: Rare.
Find an exact number, Somg. Rare could mean 1 in 100, like the article specified above.
I notice you didn’t comment on the perforation of the uterus, recurrant miscarriages in subsequent pregnancies, ectopic pregnancy, placenta previa, placenta accreta, etc …
The following information was compiled by a pro-life site, but the references are valid. I have them noted the relevant ones at the bottom of this post.
http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/healthrisks.html
“Cervical damage is another leading cause of long term complications following abortion. According to one hospital study, 12.5% of first trimester abortions required stitching for cervical lacerations. (9) Another study found that lacerations occurred in 22% of aborted women. (10) And women under the age of 17 have been found to face twice the normal risk of suffering cervical damage. (11)
“Whether microscopic or macroscopic in nature, the cervical damage which results during abortion frequently results in a permanent weakening of the cervix. This weakening may result in an
Oops, forgot reference for 10.
“While the actual occurrence rate is hard to determine, Copperman says, “Any time there’s a surgical procedure performed inside the uterus, there’s a chance for scarring to occur.” It typically results from common surgeries such as D&C following miscarriage or birth, as well as intrauterine procedures for fibroid removal, to correct structural abnormalities of the uterus, or cesarean section. Additionally, inflammation and infection from any foreign object within the uterus, such as an IUD (intrauterine device for contraception), may result in Asherman’s.”
Why is the actual occurance rate hard to determine, SOMG?
Oops, that was from this link:
http://www.integramed.com/inmdweb/content/cons/conceptions/ashermans.jsp
If having more births causes more cervical damage, then why are Michelle Duggar and Wendy Deub not infertile by now? Since they are definitely having plenty of births, you would think they would have so much damage to their cervix’s that they would never be able to have a child again.
Michelle just delivered her 17th baby recently, and Wendy delivered her 14th.
SOMG, tell me this. Does having multiple abortions increase your risk for infertility or other issues with the cervix? Is it unsafe to have repeated abortions?
No risk to future pregnancies, eh?
Induced abortion: a risk factor for placenta previa.
Barrett JM, Boehm FH, Killam AP.
A threefold increase in the incidence of placenta previa, from one in 318 deliveries (0.3%) in 1972-1974 to one in 109 deliveries (0.9%) in the twelve-month period ending June 30, 1980, was noted at Vanderbilt University Hospital. Two large groups of patients not present in 1972-1974 were found to be responsible for this increased incidence of placenta previa: one-way maternal transports and women who had had induced first trimester abortions. The frequency of maternal transports having placenta previa was 3.3% (p less than 0.0001), and the frequency of placenta previa in women after an induced first trimester abortion was 3.8% (p less than 0.0001). When correction for maternal transports was made, the endogenous induced first trimester abortion population had a frequency of placenta previa of 2.1% (p less than 0.004), whereas the remainder of the endogenous population had an incidence of placenta previa similar to that found in the years 1972-1974. Induced first trimester abortion is seen as a significant factor predisposing to placenta previa.
PIP: Risk factors associated with the development of placenta previa, a significant complication of pregnancy, are multiparity, advancing age, multifetal gestation, cigarette smoking, and a history of previous abortion. Vanderbilt University Hospital experienced a 3-fold increase in the prevalence of placenta previa, from 1 out of 318 deliveries (0.3%) in 1972-1974 to 1 out of 109 deliveries (o.9%) in the 12-month period ending June 30, 1981. This study retrospectively evaluated the causes for this increase in the frequency of placenta previa. Total number of deliveries, prevalence of placenta previa, maternal age, parity, race, and abortion history were evaluated during the periods 1972-1974 and July 1, 1979 to June 30, 1980. In all cases of placenta previa, the diagnosis was confirmed at the time of Cesarian section. Poisson distribution was used to determine the probability of placenta previa occuring in the various risk groups during 1979-1980, while Chi-square analysis was used to compare frequencies of placenta previa, spontaneous abortion, and induced abortion during the 2 periods. The increased incidence of placenta previa was attributed to 2 large groups of patients not present in 1972-1974: 1-way maternal transports and women who had had induced first trimester abortions. Of 332 maternal transports, 11 (3.3%) had placenta previa (p0.001). Of 210 patients with a history of induced first trimester abortions, 8 (3.8%) had placenta previa (p0.0001). 150 were in their first pregnancy since the induced first trimester abortion, with 7 (4.6%) having placenta previa (p0.001). 4 (2.1%) of 195 nontransport patients who had undergone induced first trimester abortion had placenta previa (p0.0004). Suction curettage was the abortion method performed in 6 of 8 women with placenta previa. Mean time interval between induced first trimester abortion and termination of pregnancy complicated by placenta previa was 42.25 months. Average age and parity of patients was 28.6 years and 1.95 respectively, significantly higher than that of the general population (p0.001). Endometrial curettage may play a role in the increased incidence of placenta previa subsequent to induced first trimester abortion. Limitation of this study is the relatively small sample size. Further research should be done to elucidate the potential risks of induced first trimester abortion.
Induced abortion doesn’t cause any problems for future pregnancies, eh…..???
History of induced abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in European countries: results of the EUROPOP survey
Pierre-Yves Ancel1,3, Nathalie Lelong1, Emile Papiernik2, Marie-Jos
Bethany,
I did tell you how elated I am to see you back on the blog track, didn’t I?
Lest I didn’t , I’ll say it again: “I’m thrilled to pieces you’re back defending life. Grill’em.”
Carder, that means a lot to me!
Bethany, you can grill me anytime.
hehe that’s what I’m here for, doug. ;)
Bethany, that’s an interesting study.
One point the article makes is that parity is itself a risk factor for preterm delivery. So I wonder which increases the risk more: abortion or childbirth.
It’s also small. Three thousand premature births, how many of them had abortions? Less than half, anyway. So that’s at most 1500 abortion patients in the case group of the study.
SOMG, is that all you are going to address? Really?
Hmm, and where’s your study, SOMG? You know, the one with more than 1500 abortion patients…
SOMG, this below I gleaned from the Physicians For Life site. It contains objective references:
Pre-term Delivery Increases After Abortion, French Study (BJOG,4/05)
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/717/26/
Women with Abortion History Are at Increased Risk of Delivering Very Preterm Babies in Subsequent Pregnancies — [study published in 4/05 issue, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Reuters Health]. Abstract:
Previous induced abortions and the risk of very preterm delivery: results of the EPIPAGE study. BJOG. 2005 Apr;112(4):430-7.
Moreau C, Kaminski M, Ancel PY, Bouyer J, Escande B, Thiriez G, Boulot P, Fresson J, Arnaud C, Subtil D, Marpeau L, Roze JC, Maillard F, Larroque B; EPIPAGE Group.
Epidemiological Research Unit on Perinatal and Women’s Health, INSERM U149, Villejuif, France.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the risk of very preterm birth (22-32 weeks of gestation) associated with previous induced abortion according to the complications leading to very preterm delivery in singletons.
DESIGN: Multicentre, case-control study (the French EPIPAGE study).
SETTING: Regionally defined population of births in France.
SAMPLE: The sample consisted of 1943 very preterm live-born singletons (http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/wrtk
Read a full PDF version of the above including references at: http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf
[from 1,100 Excess Brain Damaged Babies are Born
At least 49 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant
increase in premature births (PB) or low birth weight (LBW) risk in
women with prior induced abortions (IAs). This paper will focus on
the risk of early premature births (EPBs) (
Studies that showed a statistically
significant increase in preterm birth after induced abortion
*Ancel P-V, Saurel-Cubizolles M-J, Renzo GCD,
Papiernik E, Breart G. Very and moderate
preterm births: are the risk factors different?
1999;106:1162-1170.
Barsy G, Sarkany J. Impact of induced abortion
on the birth rate and infant mortality.
1963;6:427-467.
Berkowitz GS. An epidemiologic study of
preterm
delivery.
1981;113:81-92.
BognarZ,CzeizelA.Mortalityandmorbidityasso-
ciated with legal abortions in Hungary, 1960-
1973.
1976;66:568-575.
CzeizelA, Bognar Z, Tusnady G, et al. Changesin
mean birth weight and proportion of low-
weight births in Hungary
1970;24:146-153.
Drac P, Nekvasilova Z. Premature termination of
pregnancy after previous interruption of preg-
nancy.
1970;35:332-333.
Furusawa Y, Koya Y. The influence of artificial
abortion on delivery. In: Koya Y, ed.
Tokyo: Family
PlanningFederationofJapan;1966:74-83.
Br
JObstetGynaecol
Demografia
Am J Epidemiol
AmJPublicHealth
. Br J Prev Soc Med
CeskGynekol
Harmful
Effects of Induced Abortion.
48
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 8 Number 2
Summer 2003
Hogue CJ, Cates W Jr., Tietze C. Impact of vacuum aspiration on future
childbearing:areview.
1983;15:119-126.
Lumley J. The association between prior spontaneous abortion, prior in-
duced abortion and preterm birth in first singleton births.
1998;3:21-24.
Martius JA, Steck T, Oehler MK, Wulf K-H. Risk factors associated with
preterm (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:pujuow2q7wAJ:www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf+Previous+induced+abortions+and+the+risk+of+very+preterm+delivery&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a
SOMG, Top that.
One point the article makes is that parity is itself a risk factor for preterm delivery. So I wonder which increases the risk more: abortion or childbirth.
I guess we know now.
Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1990 Jun;4(2):391-405. The effect of pregnancy termination on future reproduction.Atrash HK, Hogue CJ.
A variety of conditions have been anecdotally ascribed to induced abortion, including subsequent reproductive complications. Since most women obtaining induced abortions are at the beginning of their reproductive life, the effect of induced abortion on subsequent reproduction becomes a very significant one. Our review of the literature confirms findings reported previously. First, except in the case where an infection complicates induced abortion, there is no evidence of an association between induced abortion and secondary infertility or ectopic pregnancy. Second, the risk of midtrimester abortion, premature delivery and low birthweight in women whose first pregnancy is terminated by vacuum aspiration is not higher than that in women in their first pregnancy or women in their second pregnancy whose first pregnancy was carried to term. However, the risk of having a premature delivery or a low birthweight baby tends to be higher (but not significantly) among women whose first pregnancy is terminated by induced abortion when compared with women in their second pregnancy than when compared with women in their first pregnancy. This suggests that an induced abortion does not protect a women against the known risk of low birthweight for first-born offspring. Finally, women whose pregnancy is terminated by dilatation and evacuation may have an increased risk of subsequent premature delivery and a low birthweight baby. Very little has been published and no conclusions can be made regarding the effects of instillation procedures and repeat abortions on future reproduction. In conclusion, except for the association between pregnancies following dilatation and evacuation procedures and premature delivery and low birthweight, no significantly increased risk of adverse reproductive health has been observed following induced abortion.
Also, Bethany, the review you cited was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a well-known pay-to-publish rag. If the results are meaningful, why didn’t they publish in a real journal?
The authors of all 49 studies listed are biased, SOMG?
Or just one you cherry picked?
Well without links I cannot determine the size of any of the 49 studies. My bet: small.
Oh SOMG, use Google, it’s great!
LOL I picked one at random, and here’s what it said:
Abstract
To assess epidemiologic risk factors for preterm birth subcategories in an urban population, we undertook a study of 31,107 singleton livebirths that took place at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City between 1986 and 1994. We subdivided the preterm births into preterm premature rupture of the membranes, preterm labor, and medically induced births. We obtained information regarding the preterm subtypes and their epidemiologic risk factors from a computerized perinatal database. Adjusted odds ratios showed an increased risk for all three preterm birth subtypes in women who were black (1.9 for preterm premature rupture of membranes, 2.1 for preterm labor, and 1.7 for medically induced births) or Hispanic (1.7 for preterm premature rupture of membranes, 1.9 for preterm labor, and 1.6 for medically induced births), those who had had a previous preterm birth (3.2 for preterm premature rupture of membranes, 4.5 for preterm labor, and 3.3 for medically induced births), those who began prenatal care after the first trimester (1.4 for preterm premature rupture of membranes, 1.3 for preterm labor, and 1.3 for medically induced births), women who had been exposed to diethylstilbestrol in utero (3.1 for preterm premature rupture of membranes, 4.1 for preterm labor, and 3.7 for medically induced births), patients with preexisting diabetes mellitus (2.2 for preterm premature rupture of membranes, 2.4 for preterm labor, and 9.5 for medically induced births), and those with antepartum bleeding (2.8 for preterm premature rupture of membranes, 3.6 for preterm labor, and 3.7 for medically induced births). Other sociodemographic, constitutional, life-style, and obstetrical characteristics differed across the groups. Variation in some of the risk factors among the preterm subtypes implies that epidemiologic assessment of the more specific outcomes would be advisable.
That’s an interesting abstract, Bethany. Do you notice something about the risk factors for pre-term birth? The risk factors listed are Blacks, Hispanics, previous pre-term birth, DES exposure, diabetes, and antepartum bleeding; previous induced abortion is NOT listed as a risk factor.
LOL, indeed.
SOMG, oops with the bold. It went all over the place.
So Bethany, why didn’t they include previous induced abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth?
They listed the risk factors right there in the abstract, and abortion isn’t one of them.
SOMG that wasn’t the whole thing, that wasn’t the part I meant to paste there. Darn.
That may be but my question still stands: Why didn’t they list previous abortion as one of the risk factors?
I don’t know, SOMG. I must have made a mistake in posting that link, thinking it pertained to our discussion and it did not.
But I would love it if you could respond to the rest of the articles I posted before I even got into the long list of references. Premature subsequent birth is only the tip of the iceburg.
BTW, mistakes like that are common for me. I’ve always been a little bit of a scatterbrain. lol
Hmmmm…. The American Pregnancy Association lists “multiple first-trimester abortions or one second- or third-trimester abortion” as a medical risk factor for premature delivery. They do not give an odds ratio, though. It could be a small effect.
What I’d like to see would be a study like the Danish Abortion-Breast Cancer study by Melbye et al.
In other words, follow the entire population of Denmark for three decades and really get some good numbers.
There’s no reason this couldn’t be done with already existing data.
Conclusion: induced abortion “increases the risk of preterm births, particularly extremely preterm deliveries;” more research is needed “to assess the differences in the level of risk according to the technique used for abortion”.
Bethany, even if this is true, what is it to a woman wanting to end a pregnancy, necessarily?
If she does not want to have kids in the first place, then it’s a moot point.
Even if she does, she may well want to accept the risk, no different from accepting the risk that continuing pregnancies and giving birth presents.
Doug
SOMG, sorry that I got a little cocky earlier today. I have not had the best day. Hope that you are having a good evening. We’ll continue these discussions on another topic I guess, since this one is unfortunately bumped down.
Bethany, here’s hoping that all your days are good.
U-Turn: Where Are You Headed?
U-Turn: Where Are You Headed?American Chronicle,?CA?-Apr 5, 2007I was driving with the husband when we approached a fork in the
Exclusive Interview: Kathleen DuJour, 1st
Exclusive Interview: Kathleen DuJour, 1st Eliminated Model on …BuddyTV?-Mar 1, 2007Kathleen DuJour became the first eliminated contestant on Cycle