Gay abortion football

CBS, the network airing the Super Bowl this weekend, recently announced that they would not be airing an ad for a Toronto company catering to straight-identifying men who might be in the market for their first homosexual experience during the Sunday broadcast. The network said that it wasn’t anything personal, but that they weren’t accepting any “issue advertising.” That doesn’t, however, appear to be the case for the anti-gay advocacy organization Focus on the Family, which was successful in securing a 30-second Super Bowl spot for their anti-abortion ad featuring University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother Pam. The ad hasn’t been released yet, but folks seem to think that it will focus on Tebow’s mother’s decision not to follow the advice of her doctor and abort the future Heisman Trophy-winner. According to the story, this took place in the Philippines, where Tebow’s mother had been working as a Christian missionary. According to Mrs. Tebow, she was suffering from amoebic dysentery, and her doctors were afraid that the medicine used to treat the illness might result in a life-threatening fetal deformity. So, they proposed abortion. Some, however, aren’t buying it. Attorney Gloria Allred, for one, thinks it’s highly unlikely, given that abortions were illegal in the Philippines in 1987.

…Allred says she believes it an impossible scenario to believe that Philippine doctors would [have] ever suggested abortion as a viable option for Tebow in the first place. And when you learn that physicians and midwives who perform abortions in the Philippines face six years in prison, and may have their licenses suspended or revoked, and that women who receive abortions — no matter the reason — may be punished with imprisonment for two to six years, it’s easy to see why…

Regardless of whether or not we might believe the Tebow story, though, does it make sense for CBS to air an ad for Focus on the Family while rejecting an ad showing two seemingly straight men brushing up against one another while reaching into a bowl of chips, and becoming aroused?

Personally, I think the folks at (the company proposing the gay-sex-for-straight-people ad) are better off this way. Their company is getting tons of press, and they’re not having to shell out a single dime to the network that gave us Petticoat Junction. I suspect that was their plan from the start, but that’s not the point. The point is that CBS is being hypocritical. And, they should be punished for it. I know it’s too much to ask that you not tune in to the Super Bowl, but what if we all promise, at the very least, to call a gay abortion provider during a break in the action, perform a gay act of some kind, or go outside and offer someone money for an abortion? Can we at least do that much?

And I’m not sure what Tebow and his mom want, anyway. Do they want to live in a country where, if you’re given drugs known to cause serious fetal abnormalities, you’re not given the option of terminating pregnancy? I mean, I love their story, and I think it’s great that he was born healthy, but can we really set policy based on that one data point? Out of 100 times that a doctor tells a patient that she’s going to have a child with severe, life-threatening deformities, how often does it turn out not to be the case? And, in how many of those instances, does the baby grow up to win the Heisman Trophy?

One last thing… Who here thinks, if there was a test that could determine the sexual preference of a fetus, that a good number of folks on the religious right wouldn’t suddenly be alright with the idea of abortion?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Lacy
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 12:08 am | Permalink

    Hmmmmmm? I can’t figure out why CBS wouldn’t accept a fake ad where they were unable to verify the credit status of a company that launched this month and couldn’t even pay for the $2.5 million spot.

    (A better question is why is Focus on the Family is spending $2.5 million on a reproductive rights ad targeted at men.)

    Any discrimination from CBS was on the bottom line. The company didn’t have the money. CBS wouldn’t have accepted the ad if it was for a pill that turned a pink pecker into a pigskin.

  2. Posted February 2, 2010 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    It’s not like they run the ads and then a company a bill. I would assume that companies, especially small, new companies, like and GoDaddy, would pay up front. So, I don’t think that’s the issue. I think that it’s much more likely that they thought the idea of seeing two men making out on Super Bowl Sunday would cost them viewers, and thus advertising dollars.

  3. Burt Reynolds
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Great Point Mark. My Mom fell down some stairs when pregnant with me and I turned out fine. Doesn’t mean I’ll be advocating for spiral staircases at the OBGYN ward at the U.

  4. STS
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    The only thing gayer than football is full-on, balls-out gay sex. Who do they think they’re fooling?

  5. Eliot
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    We haven’t seen the Tebow ad yet for Focus on the Family. Maybe it’s all about gay sex.

    It could be advocating gay sex in order to keep our abortion rates down.

  6. Posted February 2, 2010 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    That ManCrunch ad is ridiculous and mildly offensive. The making out is SNL-level fake, and while you don’t have to show actual man-making-out I can’t help but feel if you are actually trying to appeal to gay men (or men interested in a gay experience or whatever it’s about) you don’t snag them with an Adam Sandler skit. It’s got to be a joke.

    CBS is certainly going against their policy by showing the Tebow ad, but the gay ad is a red herring in the whole thing.

  7. Lacy
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    The production quality is amateurish. CBS isn’t going to run Superbowl adds for $2-3million that took $2-3 hundred to make.

  8. Elf
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    So, you’ve seen the add, Supergay? I can’t seem to find it online.

  9. thed
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    I think it’s a publicity stunt. And a very good one at that for reasons mentioned earlier. Also, I’m betting ultra conservative group Focus on the Family thinks they can connect to guys by saying “Hey, this guy you love, Tim Tiebow, wouldn’t have been here if his mother hadn’t chosen to carry on her pregnancy…” Thing is, I don’t want a lecture on the culture war while watching the Saints smoke the Colts. I think it’ll backfire.

    Great move for ManCrunch, bad one for the Focus Family.

  10. Kelp
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    I’m a straight man and I enjoy watching gay porn during the Super Bowl. And I suspect that I’m not alone.

  11. Elf
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    OK. I found the ad, and it sucks.;selector-perfector

    Clearly they had no intention of airing it. It looks as though it was filmed on a cell phone. And, while I’m not gay, I can’t imagine any scenario where an adult human being would find this at all sexy or provocative.

  12. 2 Cents
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    Waiting to see the response from EOS on this issue….

  13. Andy C
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    Peta gets turned down year after year. It’s all political agenda.

  14. EOS
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    I haven’t seen the Tebow ad. I can’t imagine why a man who is thankful that his mother didn’t abort him can cause such an uproar by stating that publicly. I imagine we are all thankful that we weren’t aborted. I think Focus on the Family is a great organization. They did not spend ministry funds to pay for this expensive commercial – a donor designated funds specifically for this purpose.

    But I’m still trying to figure out why Mark thinks heterosexual men would be in the market for a homosexual experience?

  15. Peter Larson
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    Well, the gay Superbowl ad is getting constant rotation on CNN today for absolutely free. I just saw it twice and found it to be moronic.

  16. квартиры в херсоне
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    И как это автору не влом столько времени на написание статей тратить, мы конечно очень благодарны, но вот я на такой альтруизм не способен

    TRANSLATION: “In Russia, the footboll is gay with you!”

  17. Your Co-Pilot
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    Does everything have to be politically charged with you people today? Jesus Christ!(no, not you, son. Dad is just pissed at earth again)
    I just want to watch my Saints give it to those Colts…I could care less about your bullshit. Bring on the funny commercials! CBS… if you screw up the Superbowl, I’ll make you wish you were ION…and that’s not a good thing.


    P.S. – EOS sucks it! haha! I hate that guy too….

  18. Kevin
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    I’m thankful a piece of Skylab didn’t kill me when it came crashing to earth. Should I make a Superbowl ad? How about an ad thanking Ralph Nader for seatbelts? Or, should I make an ad thanking my mother for feeding me?

    Parents do a lot of things to protect their children. That’s not what this is about though. This is about people who want for there to be no alternative but to have children that are dreadfully ill, the result of rape, or otherwise unwanted. This is about taking that choice that Pam Tebow made (if you believe her) away. This isn’t about empowering mothers to do the right thing and keep their babies. This isn’t about passing laws to aid young, single parents get educations. This is about men telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Abortion to Burkas – it’s a slippery slope.

  19. Larry Craig
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 1:00 pm | Permalink


    I’d love to explain it to you sometime. Give me a call the next time you’re in Idaho.


  20. Glen S.
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    I saw the ad on YouTube, and I’m inclined to agree it is fake. My suspicion is this comes from those lovable political pranksters, the Yes Men (

  21. Ale Roka
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Has anyone ever seen any commercial on network TV (or basic cable) that shows two gay men kissing (that wasn’t meant for comedic affect) or on any network TV program, for that matter?

    You can watch hetero couples doing it every imaginable way, from every possible angle, but you can’t see a couple of men brush lips.

    Seems like what’s on TV the other 364 days of the year, not this stupid prank, is the real issue.

  22. EOS
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 1:52 pm | Permalink


    No, this is about showing respect for life. About treating human beings as more worthy than inanimate objects. This is about encouraging women to make choices EVERYONE can live with. Because a society that can endorse killing a baby as it is being born (partial birth abortion) is one that will consider allowing all sorts of evil, to the detriment of us all.

  23. Posted February 2, 2010 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    No, it’s about power and politics and it has no place in football.

  24. Soup-er Bowler
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    EOS…last time I checked, abortion was a legal medical procedure…so shut the fuck up, and watch the game. What if Tebow’s mom didn’t have an abortion, and instead gave lil’ Timmy up for an adoption to a gay couple? You’d shoot that idea down too, so step off with the pro life bullshit. You only care about pushing your own personal adgenda. It’s too bad there isn’t a such thing as post-birth abortions…I’d nominate you.

  25. EOS
    Posted February 2, 2010 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    Hey Souper-

    Slavery was legal at one time too, but that didn’t make it morally right.

    There are such things as post birth abortions. Then State Senator Obama voted 3 times against IL’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He argued that it would be a “burden” to a mother’s “original decision” to assess and treat babies that were “accidentally” born alive during late-term abortions.

    So why is it O.K. for you to push your own personal pro-death agenda?

  26. Peter Larson
    Posted February 3, 2010 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    Well, regardless of politics, the ad is irresponsible in that the mother had contracted amoebic dysentery, a condition which can not only lead to deformations in a fetus, but also spontaneous abortion and premature labor. While the details of the extent of her infection are absolutely unknown and likely will never be known, if, in fact, the infection were too severe to be treated succesfully and safely with drugs, and if the risks of continuing the pregnancy given the infection were extremely high, the attending physician likely provided responsible advice.

    I understand that right wingers have a political stake in saying that doctors don’t know what they are doing when it comes to mother/child health (anti-vac groups?), but the empirical evidence remains that amoebic dysentery does present extremely high risks to mothers and unborn children, and this commercial ignores that. It also ignores the numbers of children born with debilitating deformities that do not last beyond a few months. If we dictate, in the name of politics and religious hegemony, that a mother must carry an highly dangerous pregnancy to term, then we not only induce needless pain and suffering, but we also reduce the liklihood that the mother may at a later time be able to carry a healthy fetus to term safely.

  27. Me
    Posted February 3, 2010 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    Speaking of vaccines, I heard yesterday that the medical journal the Lancet withdrew the big article linking MMR and autism.

  28. EOS
    Posted February 3, 2010 at 9:42 am | Permalink


    If continuing a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, then terminating the pregnancy is the pro-life position. However, if continuing a pregnancy would merely jeopardize the mother’s ability for subsequent pregnancies, then termination is not justified. And if continuing a pregnancy would result in a less than perfect baby such as one born with congenital deformities, then termination is not justified then either.

    The flaw in your logic is that killing a baby is justified where there is a possibility of detrimental effects, but as the Tebow’s illustrate, the negative effects are not inevitable.

  29. Edward
    Posted February 3, 2010 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    A petition to stop CBS from showing the Tebone ad.

  30. TeacherPatti
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    EOS, Are you operating from the standpoint that it is a “life” immediately upon conception? So if I got raped and pregnant (next to impossible since I exercised my choice and got myself spayed and neutered up in here, thanx), you would force me to give birth? (Yeah, I know I totally loaded that question, didn’t I?:)) I just hear different standpoints from folks and I wanted to see where yours is coming from….

  31. Jules
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    EOS “However, if continuing a pregnancy would merely jeopardize the mother’s ability for subsequent pregnancies, then termination is not justified.”

    The inclusion of the word “merely” pretty much sums it up. That’s right, women shouldn’t have the ultimate say in what happens to their health, their life, if they happen to be pregnant with a deformed or otherwise messed up fetus. To you, it’s “merely” our reproductive health. I’d really like to be civil but y’know what, EOS? Screw you. Someone with the mindset that women have no say in what happens with their bodies or the impact that something like this has on the rest of their lives is not someone I feel an obligation to be civil with.

  32. EOS
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    Yes, if a woman gets pregnant as a result of a rape she should carry the baby to term and if she is unable to love and care for that child, should give him/her up for adoption. It isn’t the baby’s fault that the father is a rapist. The mother has already been traumatized by the act of violence. Why should she be further traumatized by the guilt associated with killing her baby and denying a life.

    I’d really like to be civil with you as well, but I don’t understand how anyone can think that the life of an existing child is of lesser value than the potential reproductive future of the mother. What if you kill the child and then find out that the mother can’t conceive regardless? How do you think that might impact the rest of the mother’s life?

  33. Jules
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    A dose of reality for you, EOS. Though, I’m pretty sure you really won’t get it.

  34. The Kingpin
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    EOS, you are a real piece of work.

  35. thed
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Go Saints!

    I don’t think there’s a difference in right wingers anywhere in the world. The cultures that treat women as second-class citizens share the same DNA strain with right wingers in the U.S. It’s about pure domination over the female. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m betting EOS is a middle-aged to older male.

  36. Jules
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    EOS, I’d like to turn the scenarios you asserted back around.
    Quoting Saletan, from the above linked article “Pam’s story certainly is moving. But as a guide to making abortion decisions, it’s misleading. Doctors are right to worry about continuing pregnancies like hers. Placental abruption has killed thousands of women and fetuses. No doubt some of these women trusted in God and said no to abortion, as she did. But they didn’t end up with Heisman-winning sons. They ended up dead.
    Being dead is just the first problem with dying in pregnancy. Another problem is that the fetus you were trying to save dies with you. A third problem is that your existing kids lose their mother. A fourth problem is that if you had aborted the pregnancy, you might have gotten pregnant again and brought a new baby into the world, but now you can’t. And now the Tebows have exposed a fifth problem: You can’t make a TV ad.”
    Whether you like it or not, there are many shades of grey in this situation.

  37. Gretchen
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    The think that irks me is that I’m positive that 90% of these men, if their wives or daughters got pregnant as a result of rape, would not hesitate one moment inn having it aborted. And that’s always been the case. When wealthy white kids got pregnant, their parents flew them off to Sweden. Poor kids, though, didn’t have that option. This is about class, power and sexism.

  38. Stan
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    We should organize a moment to seduce and impregnate the wives and daughters of far right lunatics.

  39. EOS
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 1:40 pm | Permalink


    Placental abruption is an uncommon obstetrical complication. The incidence of placental abruption is 0.42%
    (Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(1):40-4)

    Fetal mortality (in these cases) is 37.77%
    (Tunis Med. 2005; 83(10):603-6)

    The incidence of maternal mortality is about 3.9%
    (Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2003; 31(5):429-33)

    So… Less than 1/2 of 1% of pregnancies result in placental abruption. More than 60% of the babies survive and more than 96% of the women survive. And these statistics include patients who sought no medical treatment whatsoever and with fetuses that may have been mere weeks in gestation.

    So rather than terminating every pregnancy where this condition might be the outcome, doctors could monitor the patients and be ready to provide emergency c-sections when and if it becomes necessary. Then both mother and baby are likely to survive and none of your five problems would be the resultant scenario.

    I gave you the real statistics and referenced the medical journals. I get it.

  40. Posted February 5, 2010 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    EOS. Wow. Way to presume: “Why should she be further traumatized by the guilt associated with killing her baby and denying a life.”
    Uh…I know plenty of women who had abortions and a) they aren’t guilty and b) they didn’t kill anyone/anything. And if you care so much about women…how about giving us the freedom to make decisions? And if you are so forced birth, then I’m sure you are working to end unwanted pregnancies, right?

    Anyway, I better let you get back to all those unwanted babies that you have adopted. I’m sure you did, right? I mean, I’m sure you also get up at all hours and help the mothers you and your ilk forced into giving birth? Right? So, again, I’m sorry for taking your time away from all of the unwanted babies that you adopted b/c I know people who are forced birth ALWAYS care about babies that are outside of the uterus.

    Come on folks. Can we please just admit that for most of the “forced birth” group, this is about controlling women. For so many of them, it has nothing to do with “babies” b/c if it did, they would give a shit about all of the unwanted “babies” walking the streets as I type.

    PS: EOS, I sincerely hope that your mother/sister/daughter/future daughter never gets raped and pregnant. To think of a person forcing their loved one to give birth makes me sick.

  41. Posted February 5, 2010 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    And btw, I understand that about 1/4 or so of pregnancies tend to self-terminate before the 3rd month of pregnancy (I know this b/c of my sister in law’s long struggles with miscarriages). So to those who believe that God creates life at conception and God controls all of this and all of these pregnancies kind of end like that…um….that kind of makes me wonder about God.

  42. EOS
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    For Superbowl viewers –

    There is an ad that will run during the pregame show. Don’t be confused – this isn’t the Tebow ad. The Tebow ad will run during the first quarter of the game. I’m anxious to hear what you think of the ad after you have actually seen it.

  43. Dan Ryan
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    Wow. I’m not pro-life, but I have no problem with the Tebow commercial airing. Isn’t it better than another vapid beer commercial? I don’t think it’s going to hurt any viewer and it might spark some conversation that’s more interesting than what the cup size might be of the latest star of the GoDaddy spot.

    And reading these comments, I have to feel that the people attacking EOS are doing damage to their own cause. If you can’t argue without name calling, don’t argue at all.

  44. Curt Waugh
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    We just beat up EOS for fun. It’s like the national sport of He likes to tell us how the bible wants us to live, so we like to poke him in the eye. We’d probably be nicer to him if he didn’t hide in anonymity. But it’s all good.

  45. EOS
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    Curt –
    I don’t like being anonymous either, but my parents won’t let me use my real name on the Internet.

  46. Jules
    Posted February 5, 2010 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    For the record, I don’t give a crap about the Tebow ad, but I don’t think it would pass a decent fact checking. I also have a problem with CBS changing their policy for this one ad. But I also feel that people are free not to watch, so it doesn’t upset me.
    EOS, when you talk about the very real women affected by placental abruption, you make it sound so abstract. It’s only abstract when you’re not the one being affected. You are not the one at risk, they are. I trust them to make the best decision for them. That’s the difference between us.

  47. Mr.SwettyBallz
    Posted February 7, 2010 at 1:46 am | Permalink

    Stan, I hope you mean to abandon those snooty little sluts after you impregnate them. Cause it is no fun with a far right lunatic as a father in law or even worse sharing a ho with one of those crazies. Watch out for the shotgun wedding, dude.

  48. Mr.SwettyBallz
    Posted February 7, 2010 at 1:50 am | Permalink

    And why would anybody be “in the market for a gay experience” anyway? Just go down to your local highway rest stop and stick your ha-ha-ho clonker in the glory hole. You’ll get your experience, all right. There aint no market for it but that one.

  49. Mr.SwettyBallz
    Posted February 7, 2010 at 2:21 am | Permalink

    Whoa, Stan. Wait a minute. I am absolutely not fucking any of those things that Lynn Cheney Manufacturing has been putting out.
    Do you know of any far right lunatics with mildly relatively hot daughters or wives. Cause so far I am thinking “No way!” to your idea.
    And Bristol Palin has already been knocked up.

  50. Kim
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    What a huge letdown that ad was.

    A football player tackling his mother does not say “family values” to me.


    And what’s with all the Betty White love these days?

  51. Peter Larson
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    I was looking straight at the TV when the ad was on and didn’t even notice that it had aired. It was obviously an incredibly lame ad. Dorito’s should have probably made it for them.

  52. Ed
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    Did they launch the new product, Abortion Doritos, last night?

  53. Kelty
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    I LOVE Abortion Doritos! There’s nothing better after a night of debauchery than a Bloody Mary and a spicy bag of baby killers.

  54. Curt Waugh
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    Apparently, they have killer Doritos instead of just regular old Doritos now. You throw them like one of those martial arts throwing stars. But they appear to only kill adults, according to the commercial.

  55. Fred
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    Here’s the Tebow ad, for those of you who didn’t see it.

    It is terrible.

  56. EOS
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    That was for those wanting to watch the whole story.

  57. Kill Babies
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think anyone here gives a shit.

  58. Stephen
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Most of us may be pro-choice, but that doesn’t mean that we aren’t sympathetic. In spite of the sometimes tasteless humor, I think that you’d find most of us to be quite reflective on this issue. I don’t, in other words, think that many of us would have abortions lightly. Most, I’m guessing, would agree with the goal of having abortions “safe, legal and rare”. No one likes abortion.

  59. Jules
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Stephen. My girlfriends and I are all reflectively sympathetic when we get together for our bimonthly abortion parties. You could say we DO like abortion. Speak for yourself, buddy.

  60. Mr.SwettyBallz
    Posted February 9, 2010 at 1:10 am | Permalink

    Well, I have been reflecting lately on abortion and I mean all three of them that I “advised” my girlfirends to have. And I have put some thought into Doritos too. And I have been thinking about the Constution and how it is not worth the former goat’s ass that it is scribbled upon.
    I don’t know much about TV commercials or The Law, but I have seen Angie Harmon enough to fantasize about a five pound bag of Doritos crumbs lighlty dusted over her resplendent, golden tanned haunches. I just know I would lap it up like an Alaskan Malamute and then woo-woo-woof for more. And then chew and eat the fetus that results from aforementioned mangey, raunchy foreplay.
    And you betta believe I would tackle my Momma if I was even half her size.
    And Jules, don’t kid yourself. Nobody who reads has any friends.
    But can I come to one of your abortion parties?

  61. Mrs.SwettyBallz
    Posted February 9, 2010 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    You are coming very close to crossing the line, my dear.

  62. Mr.SwettyBallz
    Posted February 10, 2010 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    Mrs. Swetty, I think I know who you are now. Could we have a divorce? We could call it amicable, since we have no kids together that survived.

  63. Mash Dare
    Posted March 5, 2010 at 2:54 am | Permalink

    I am disappointed. I came here looking for information about the sport Gay Abortion Football.

  64. Cindy Gregson
    Posted August 10, 2010 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    I’m looking for a gay abortionist in the Toledo metro area. Can someone help me?

  65. Trina Ipsen
    Posted December 16, 2010 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    Can girls play?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative VG 3D