Tory MPs line up to disagree with Jacob Rees-Mogg's 'utterly abhorrent' views on abortion

by Guest Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:29 am

First topic message reminder :

A number of Conservative MPs have criticised Jacob Rees-Mogg's views on abortion, some expressing vehement disagreement while others have gently espoused their more liberal stances.

On Wednesday, Mr Rees-Mogg, who is tipped to one day take over from Theresa May and become Tory leader, said he disagreed with abortion in every circumstance, including in cases of incest and rape. He also said that because he is a Catholic, he disagrees with same-sex marriage.

Margot James MP said: "Agree with @TimesOpinion about Jacob R-M who I like very much; but his views on pregnant women are utterly abhorrent"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/07/tory-mps-line-disagree-jacob-rees-moggs-utterly-abhorrent-views/

Religious beliefs again, at the forefront of idiocy.

by Raggamuffin Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:28 pm

So basically, people are saying that we do have abortion on demand in this country and that it's legal. Either that or the law is being broken all the time, yes?

by Guest Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:29 pm

Spindleshanks wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

can i ask you a question??

do you support the death penalty for criminals??

They are two completely different issues.

there is a link

i would like to hear her answer

by Spindleshanks Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Spindleshanks wrote:

The first clause of the abortion act is fairly all encompassing Raggamuffin. Not wanting a baby, being too young, not the right time, can't afford another child, contraception failed etc, all of these especially in early pregnancy and certainly pre the 12 to 13 week mark when most abortions are performed would fall under that clause simply because of the effect having an unwanted pregnancy would have on someone's mental health. Therefore refusing to sign at this stage would most likely be on conscientious grounds rather than other grounds and yes, I think they are expected to refer to a doctor who will sign if they object because they don't agree with abortion.

Who says that the first clause encompasses all those thing? The doctor might not disagree with abortion at all, he/she just doesn't think the reason is good enough or legal. In that case, perhaps it's up to the woman to find another doctor.

Trust me, the first clause would encompass all those things and more Raggamuffin.

by Spindleshanks Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:So basically, people are saying that we do have abortion on demand in this country and that it's legal. Either that or the law is being broken all the time, yes?

Pretty much in the first 12 weeks then yes, we could be classified as having abortion on demand.

by Spindleshanks Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:56 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Spindleshanks wrote:

They are two completely different issues.

there is a link

i would like to hear her answer

There is no link, the death penalty is a punishment prescribed in law, performed on someone who has committed a crime, abortion is not and no, I don't agree with the death penalty.

by Syl Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:07 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

To you and me those reasons are trivial, to her they are not.
The Dr's opinion would probably be to refer her for a termination.
Doctors don't judge a persons morals.

can i ask you a question??

do you support the death penalty for criminals??

Yes, for the most heinous of crimes I do.
Why?

by Syl Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:16 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

To you and me those reasons are trivial, to her they are not.
The Dr's opinion would probably be to refer her for a termination.
Doctors don't judge a persons morals.

Doctors are supposed to obey the law though, and clearly those reasons would be considered trivial and not in the spirit of the Abortion Act.

Well I believe what was said days ago on this thread does apply.

For all intents and purposes women can and do get abortions on demand.....IF the time limit has not been exceeded.

Why would a Dr refuse to terminate a 10 week old fetus if he knows the woman will probably return weeks even months later more desperate and more convinced she doesn't want a baby?
By then he would probably think her well being will be affected by the birth...result, she will get the abortion weeks later than she would have if he had acted sooner.
Performing an abortion at 10 - 12 weeks must be a lot different to performing one at 24 weeks or later, when its possible the baby could have lived.

by Guest Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:23 pm

Spindleshanks wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

there is a link

i would like to hear her answer

There is no link, the death penalty is a punishment prescribed in law, performed on someone who has committed a crime, abortion is not and no, I don't agree with the death penalty.

He is going to make a poor argument based on the taking of life and I grantee he will end up contradicting himself.

I will be interested to see if goes down the road of sanctioned or unsanctioned taking of life

by Raggamuffin Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:28 pm

Spindleshanks wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So basically, people are saying that we do have abortion on demand in this country and that it's legal. Either that or the law is being broken all the time, yes?

Pretty much in the first 12 weeks then yes, we could be classified as having abortion on demand.

Then why is no one ever prosecuted for it as it's against the law?

If we're going to have abortion on demand, and nobody is prepared to stick to the law, maybe the law should be changed and then women can pay for their own abortions as it's a lifestyle choice, not a medical issue.

by Raggamuffin Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:30 pm

Spindleshanks wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Who says that the first clause encompasses all those thing? The doctor might not disagree with abortion at all, he/she just doesn't think the reason is good enough or legal. In that case, perhaps it's up to the woman to find another doctor.

Trust me, the first clause would encompass all those things and more Raggamuffin.

Only if the law is broken.

by Guest Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:39 pm

Syl wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

can i ask you a question??

do you support the death penalty for criminals??

Yes, for the most heinous of crimes I do.
Why?

No reason that matters now

by Syl Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:48 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

Yes, for the most heinous of crimes I do.
Why?

No reason that matters now

An odd question to throw into a debate about abortion. scratch

We have had several threads on here about capital punishment, start another one if that's what you wanted to talk about.

by Spindleshanks Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Spindleshanks wrote:

Pretty much in the first 12 weeks then yes, we could be classified as having abortion on demand.

Then why is no one ever prosecuted for it as it's against the law?

If we're going to have abortion on demand, and nobody is prepared to stick to the law, maybe the law should be changed and then women can pay for their own abortions as it's a lifestyle choice, not a medical issue.

For exactly the reasons I stated Raggamuffin, in early pregnancy especially just about any reason you could think of would come under the first clause.

by Spindleshanks Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:42 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Spindleshanks wrote:

Trust me, the first clause would encompass all those things and more Raggamuffin.

Only if the law is broken.

Not really because the first clause does not specify what reasons for abortion would detrimentally affect a woman's physical or mental wellbeing.

If it stated she could only have an abortion under this clause if..... then you might be right, but it doesn't.

by Guest Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:43 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Spindleshanks wrote:

Pretty much in the first 12 weeks then yes, we could be classified as having abortion on demand.

Then why is no one ever prosecuted for it as it's against the law?

If we're going to have abortion on demand, and nobody is prepared to stick to the law, maybe the law should be changed and then women can pay for their own abortions as it's a lifestyle choice, not a medical issue.

Abortion is big business, lot of people made their fortune from aborting babies

by Syl Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:11 pm

Typical tory hypocrite. Rolling Eyes

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/anti-abortion-mp-jacob-rees-mogg-admits-making-money-from-abortion-pills/ar-AAsHdSc?li=AA59G2&ocid=spartandhp

"Jacob Rees-Mogg has admitted his investment firm makes money from abortion pills, despite recently saying he was against abortion even if a woman has been raped.
The devout catholic, tipped as a potential replacement for Theresa May as Tory leader, defended the company’s £5million stake in an Indonesian firm called Kalbe Farma.
Kalbe Farma produces termination drug misoprostol – sold under the brand name Invitec.
Invitec is made to treat stomach ulcers but is widely used to trigger terminations in Indonesia, where abortions are illegal.
He told the Sunday Mirror: “It would be wrong to pretend that I like it but the world is not always what you want it to be."

by Guest Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:27 pm

Syl wrote:Typical tory hypocrite.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/anti-abortion-mp-jacob-rees-mogg-admits-making-money-from-abortion-pills/ar-AAsHdSc?li=AA59G2&ocid=spartandhp

"Jacob Rees-Mogg has admitted his investment firm makes money from abortion pills, despite recently saying he was against abortion even if a woman has been raped.
The devout catholic, tipped as a potential replacement for Theresa May as Tory leader, defended the company’s £5million stake in an Indonesian firm called Kalbe Farma.
Kalbe Farma produces termination drug misoprostol – sold under the brand name Invitec.
Invitec is made to treat stomach ulcers but is widely used to trigger terminations in Indonesia, where abortions are illegal.
He told the Sunday Mirror: “It would be wrong to pretend that I like it but the world is not always what you want it to be."

NOT REALLY A HYPOCRITE THOUGH IS HE???

by Syl Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:32 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:Typical tory hypocrite.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/anti-abortion-mp-jacob-rees-mogg-admits-making-money-from-abortion-pills/ar-AAsHdSc?li=AA59G2&ocid=spartandhp

"Jacob Rees-Mogg has admitted his investment firm makes money from abortion pills, despite recently saying he was against abortion even if a woman has been raped.
The devout catholic, tipped as a potential replacement for Theresa May as Tory leader, defended the company’s £5million stake in an Indonesian firm called Kalbe Farma.
Kalbe Farma produces termination drug misoprostol – sold under the brand name Invitec.
Invitec is made to treat stomach ulcers but is widely used to trigger terminations in Indonesia, where abortions are illegal.
He told the Sunday Mirror: “It would be wrong to pretend that I like it but the world is not always what you want it to be."

NOT REALLY A HYPOCRITE THOUGH IS HE???

Yes he is.

by Guest Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:50 pm

Syl wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

NOT REALLY A HYPOCRITE THOUGH IS HE???

Yes he is.

why??

by Tommy Monk Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:28 pm

The drug is for treating stomach ulcers...

Many drugs can be misused for a number of reasons...

by Syl Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The drug is for treating stomach ulcers...

Many drugs can be misused for a number of reasons...

The drug is also widely used to trigger abortions, which he is well aware of, yet he is happy to take huge profits from its sale.
Given his unwavering condemnation of abortions, this makes him a hypocrite, no matter which way you look at it.

by Tommy Monk Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:56 pm

Misused... and where it is illegal...

Being a distant investor into a company that produces numerous products for good and legitimate purposes... doesnt make you responsible for any illegal misuse of any of the products that production company makes for good and legitimate purposes...

by Syl Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:07 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Misused... and where it is illegal...

Being a distant investor into a company that produces numerous products for good and legitimate purposes... doesnt make you responsible for any illegal misuse of any of the products that production company makes for good and legitimate purposes...

Many drugs are sold to treat one condition yet work perfectly well to treat an unconnected condition.
This one is widely and knowingly used to trigger terminations.

He knows this, yet preaches to others abortion is wrong.....hypocrite.

by nicko Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:18 am

I hope he becomes Prime Minister one day.

by Andy Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:13 am

There is more chance that Boris will be caught banging Theresa May.

by Guest Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:03 am

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:The drug is for treating stomach ulcers...

Many drugs can be misused for a number of reasons...

The drug is also widely used to trigger abortions, which he is well aware of, yet he is happy to take huge profits from its sale.
Given his unwavering condemnation of abortions, this makes him a hypocrite, no matter which way you look at it.

No matter which way YOU look at it.

I don't see it that way

by Syl Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:10 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

The drug is also widely used to trigger abortions, which he is well aware of, yet he is happy to take huge profits from its sale.
Given his unwavering condemnation of abortions, this makes him a hypocrite, no matter which way you look at it.

No matter which way YOU look at it.

I don't see it that way

Our moral compass is obviously set differently.

by Raggamuffin Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:20 pm

Misoprostol is a drug which is legally used to induce abortion, but if it's not its primary use, it's difficult to say whether he's being a hypocrite or not. There are other drugs which can be used to induce abortion, but they're also used for other things. Methotrexate is one such drug.

by Syl Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:31 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Misoprostol is a drug which is legally used to induce abortion, but if it's not its primary use, it's difficult to say whether he's being a hypocrite or not. There are other drugs which can be used to induce abortion, but they're also used for other things. Methotrexate is one such drugs.

For him to be associated and making money out of any drug which is knowingly widely used to trigger abortion, when he is such a vocal pro life supporter is hypocritical.
Obviously money is more important to him than morals.

by Raggamuffin Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:40 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Misoprostol is a drug which is legally used to induce abortion, but if it's not its primary use, it's difficult to say whether he's being a hypocrite or not. There are other drugs which can be used to induce abortion, but they're also used for other things. Methotrexate is one such drugs.

For him to be associated and making money out of any drug which is knowingly widely used to trigger abortion, when he is such a vocal pro life supporter is hypocritical.
Obviously money is more important to him than morals.

Yes, if misoprostol was a drug which had abortion listed merely as a side effect, it would be acceptable, but that side effect has been utilised to make it into a legal abortion pill along with its primary use.

by Syl Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:44 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

For him to be associated and making money out of any drug which is knowingly widely used to trigger abortion, when he is such a vocal pro life supporter is hypocritical.
Obviously money is more important to him than morals.

Yes, if misoprostol was a drug which had abortion listed merely as a side effect, it would be acceptable, but that side effect has been utilised to make it into a legal abortion pill along with it's primary use.

Exactly.
He knows this, admits he doesn't like it....but hey, its making him lots of money so what the hell. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:45 pm

Syl wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

No matter which way YOU look at it.

I don't see it that way

Our moral compass is obviously set differently.

Thankfully

by Syl Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:49 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

Our moral compass is obviously set differently.

Thankfully

Quite.

by Guest Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:39 pm

hmm, it does rather seem as though he has conveniently brushed his principles aside in order to make room for money

by Guest Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:45 pm

gelico wrote:

hmm, it does rather seem as though he has conveniently brushed his principles aside in order to make room for money

Eh??

How so??

You know that primark turtleneck you're wearing??

Made by child slaves.

Doesn't stop you buying it though does it.

Every though that maybe the moggster understands that abortion will happen despite his views and has decided to make the best and safest products avaialiabe instead of the usual back Street bleach gargling?

No you didn't think of that did you naughty gelico

by Guest Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:50 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
gelico wrote:

hmm, it does rather seem as though he has conveniently brushed his principles aside in order to make room for money

Eh??

How so??

You know that primark turtleneck you're wearing??

Made by child slaves.

Doesn't stop you buying it though does it.

Every though that maybe the moggster understands that abortion will happen despite his views and has decided to make the best and safest products avaialiabe instead of the usual back Street bleach gargling?

No you didn't think of that did you naughty gelico

primark turtleneck?

you can fuck right off

by Guest Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:59 pm

gelico wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Eh??

How so??

You know that primark turtleneck you're wearing??

Made by child slaves.

Doesn't stop you buying it though does it.

Every though that maybe the moggster understands that abortion will happen despite his views and has decided to make the best and safest products avaialiabe instead of the usual back Street bleach gargling?

No you didn't think of that did you naughty gelico

primark turtleneck?

you can fuck right off

LOL

come on gelico, don't tell me you don't lurk around the bargain bucket in primark

by Raggamuffin Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:06 pm

If someone was buying things from Primark whilst at the same time objecting to the way Primark sourced their products, that would be hypocritical, but is anyone doing that?

by Guest Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:If someone was buying things from Primark whilst at the same time objecting to the way Primark sourced their products, that would be hypocritical, but is anyone doing that?

no but the point is it knowing that it involves child slavery makes anyone who buys their stuff complicit - but when asked if they agreed with child slavery would probably say ''oh no, that's awful'' but still shops there anyway,,,,why? cos it's cheap is why

we are all guilty of our own hypocrisies

like the anti capitalist protestors who are busy texting their mates on their iphones etc to get them to come and join in the protest

um,,,,

by Raggamuffin Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:34 pm

gelico wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:If someone was buying things from Primark whilst at the same time objecting to the way Primark sourced their products, that would be hypocritical, but is anyone doing that?

no but the point is it knowing that it involves child slavery makes anyone who buys their stuff complicit - but when asked if they agreed with child slavery would probably say ''oh no, that's awful'' but still shops there anyway,,,,why? cos it's cheap is why

we are all guilty of our own hypocrisies

like the anti capitalist protestors who are busy texting their mates on their iphones etc to get them to come and join in the protest

um,,,,

I don't know if Primark uses child slavery anyway, but the point of this discussion is that a chap who objects to abortion has financial interests in a company which makes drugs which are used to induce abortions. If he had never said anything about abortion, it wouldn't be an issue.

by Guest Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:05 pm

gelico wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:If someone was buying things from Primark whilst at the same time objecting to the way Primark sourced their products, that would be hypocritical, but is anyone doing that?

no but the point is it knowing that it involves child slavery makes anyone who buys their stuff complicit - but when asked if they agreed with child slavery would probably say ''oh no, that's awful'' but still shops there anyway,,,,why? cos it's cheap is why

we are all guilty of our own hypocrisies

like the anti capitalist protestors who are busy texting their mates on their iphones etc to get them to come and join in the protest

um,,,,

Um as in "shit I just disproved myself"

by Tommy Monk Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:00 pm

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Misused... and where it is illegal...

Being a distant investor into a company that produces numerous products for good and legitimate purposes... doesnt make you responsible for any illegal misuse of any of the products that production company makes for good and legitimate purposes...

Many drugs are sold to treat one condition yet work perfectly well to treat an unconnected condition.
This one is widely and knowingly used to trigger terminations.

He knows this, yet preaches to others abortion is wrong.....hypocrite.

'...is made to treat stomach ulcers but is widely used to trigger terminations in Indonesia, where abortions are illegal...'

JRM doesn't preach... he was asked his personal view on something and was honest in his reply, something you don't get from the vast majority of lab/lib dem MP's...!

He also said that it was not for him to decide what others do, but that he respected the decisions made as a result of all opinions being made/considered and voted on through democratic process...!

by Guest Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:21 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
gelico wrote:

no but the point is it knowing that it involves child slavery makes anyone who buys their stuff complicit - but when asked if they agreed with child slavery would probably say ''oh no, that's awful'' but still shops there anyway,,,,why? cos it's cheap is why

we are all guilty of our own hypocrisies

like the anti capitalist protestors who are busy texting their mates on their iphones etc to get them to come and join in the protest

um,,,,

Um as in "shit I just disproved myself"

easy to forget principles when convenient,,,,,or there's money involved

by Guest Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:06 pm

gelico wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Um as in "shit I just disproved myself"

easy to forget principles when convenient,,,,,or there's money involved

I wouldn't worry too much, just be an utter bastard......like me

I'm a realist you see, I don't hold on to pipe dreams and fairytales.

Ii

by Syl Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:11 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Syl wrote:

Many drugs are sold to treat one condition yet work perfectly well to treat an unconnected condition.
This one is widely and knowingly used to trigger terminations.

He knows this, yet preaches to others abortion is wrong.....hypocrite.

'...is made to treat stomach ulcers but is widely used to trigger terminations in Indonesia, where abortions are illegal...'

JRM doesn't preach... he was asked his personal view on something and was honest in his reply, something you don't get from the vast majority of lab/lib dem MP's...!

He also said that it was not for him to decide what others do, but that he respected the decisions made as a result of all opinions being made/considered and voted on through democratic process...!

No one is disputing his right to hold the view he does, even though its a ridiculous one.
No one is saying he shouldn't give an honest reply when he is asked a question....good on him for that.
He is imo wrong and hypocritical for continuing to gain financially from a drug that he knows is widely used to trigger abortions.
He says he doesn't like it.....well then he shouldn't do it.

by Guest Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:24 pm

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

'...is made to treat stomach ulcers but is widely used to trigger terminations in Indonesia, where abortions are illegal...'

JRM doesn't preach... he was asked his personal view on something and was honest in his reply, something you don't get from the vast majority of lab/lib dem MP's...!

He also said that it was not for him to decide what others do, but that he respected the decisions made as a result of all opinions being made/considered and voted on through democratic process...!

No one is disputing his right to hold the view he does, even though its a ridiculous one.
No one is saying he shouldn't give an honest reply when he is asked a question....good on him for that.
He is imo wrong and hypocritical for continuing to gain financially from a drug that he knows is widely used to trigger abortions.
He says he doesn't like it.....well then he shouldn't do it.

I serious doubt you live within the limits of your principles.

by Syl Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:52 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

No one is disputing his right to hold the view he does, even though its a ridiculous one.
No one is saying he shouldn't give an honest reply when he is asked a question....good on him for that.
He is imo wrong and hypocritical for continuing to gain financially from a drug that he knows is widely used to trigger abortions.
He says he doesn't like it.....well then he shouldn't do it.

I serious doubt you live within the limits of your principles.

Well I don't wear Primark turtlenecks just to save a few quid, and I wouldn't profit from something I was vehemently against either. Tory MPs line up to disagree with Jacob Rees-Mogg's 'utterly abhorrent' views on abortion - Page 10 4214183177

Tory MPs line up to disagree with Jacob Rees-Mogg's 'utterly abhorrent' views on abortion - Page 10 4214183177

by Guest Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:42 pm

Syl wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

I serious doubt you live within the limits of your principles.

Well I don't wear Primark turtlenecks just to save a few quid, and I wouldn't profit from something I was vehemently against either.

Don't stress it Syl.

I'm sure you're a paragon of virtue

by Syl Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:58 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

Well I don't wear Primark turtlenecks just to save a few quid, and I wouldn't profit from something I was vehemently against either.

Don't stress it Syl.

I'm sure you're a paragon of virtue

Bit of an obvious deflection from the topic, but thanks anyway. grin angel

by Tommy Monk Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:08 pm

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

'...is made to treat stomach ulcers but is widely used to trigger terminations in Indonesia, where abortions are illegal...'

JRM doesn't preach... he was asked his personal view on something and was honest in his reply, something you don't get from the vast majority of lab/lib dem MP's...!

He also said that it was not for him to decide what others do, but that he respected the decisions made as a result of all opinions being made/considered and voted on through democratic process...!

No one is disputing his right to hold the view he does, even though its a ridiculous one.
No one is saying he shouldn't give an honest reply when he is asked a question....good on him for that.
He is imo wrong and hypocritical for continuing to gain financially from a drug that he knows is widely used to trigger abortions.
He says he doesn't like it.....well then he shouldn't do it.

He says he doesn't like the way that this particular drug is sometimes used... which is not the intended purpose of the drug, but a side effect of it...

by Sponsored content