Why do pro choice people lie and say "Nobody wants abortions at 9 months"?

[DemocratsRDumb]

Its obviously a lie because you wouldn't make something legal if you didn't want it to ever happen. And if you're a democrat these laws are something YOU have to own.

For example in Colorado, the law does not specifically restrict reasons for abortions at 9 months. According to the Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA), abortion is legally permitted up to the point of birth. This includes cases involving various reasons, whether medical, personal, or otherwise.

So don't come at me with "but thats only in cases of the life of the mother."

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

>> And the 5th amendment gives you the right to remain silent. I suppose that means you have to shut up<<

Nope. The 5th amendment cannot be interpreted that way.

>>Laws are based on what they *do* say, not what they *don't say*. <<

Wrong.

1. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Issue: The right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. However, the Court ruled that the Constitution contains implied "zones of privacy" created by the "penumbras" of other explicit rights (from the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments).

2. Roe v. Wade (1973)
Issue: The Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to an abortion, but the Court ruled that the implied right to privacy, derived from the Fourteenth Amendment, extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion.

3. Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Issue: The Constitution does not explicitly protect consensual sexual activity between adults in private. The Court interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to include an implied right to privacy in intimate, consensual relationships.

4. Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Issue: The Constitution does not explicitly mention marriage as a fundamental right. The Court, however, interpreted the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to imply a right to marry, striking down laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

5. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
Issue: The Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to same-sex marriage. The Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses imply a right to marry that cannot be denied based on gender.

6. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Issue: The Constitution does not explicitly require law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights before interrogation. The Court interpreted the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination to imply that suspects must be informed of their rights to remain silent and have legal counsel (Miranda rights).

7. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Issue: The Constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the power to create a national bank. However, the Court ruled that the Necessary and Proper Clause implies the authority for Congress to enact laws that help execute its enumerated powers, such as creating a national bank.

8. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Issue: The Constitution does not explicitly define the extent of Congress' power over interstate commerce. The Court interpreted the Commerce Clause to imply broad federal power to regulate interstate economic activity, including local activities that affect commerce.

9. Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
Issue: The Constitution does not explicitly state that Congress can regulate personal farming for home consumption. The Court expanded the interpretation of the Commerce Clause, implying that even non-commercial activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce can be regulated.

10. Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
Issue: The Constitution does not explicitly mention "separation of church and state." However, the Court interpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to imply that government actions must neither support nor interfere with religion, reinforcing the principle of separation between government and religious institutions.
These cases highlight the Court’s interpretation of rights and powers that are not explicitly stated in legal texts

[Juxtapose]

The thing is the Constitution is not a list of our rights, it is a list of restrictions upon the government. And whatever the Constitution doesn't cover is left up to the states.

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

@Juxtapose
False. While it's true that the U. S. Constitution places restrictions on government powers, it also guarantees certain individual rights, especially in the Bill of Rights and other amendments.

>>whatever the Constitution doesn't cover is left up to the states.<<
Also Wrong.
The Supremacy Clause: The U. S. Constitution, under Article VI, states that federal law is the "supreme law of the land." This means that even when the Constitution doesn't explicitly cover something, federal laws (created by Congress or interpreted by federal courts) can still override state laws.

The 10th Amendment: This amendment supports the principle of federalism by stating that powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people. However, this does not mean that states have absolute power over issues not mentioned in the Constitution, as federal laws or court rulings can still impact state authority.

Federal Powers: The Constitution grants Congress broad powers through clauses like the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, which allow the federal government to legislate on many issues not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

While states have authority in many areas not covered explicitly by the Constitution, their powers are limited by federal law and the broader interpretation of federal powers.

And by the way thats completely irrelvent to what i said.
The idea that the Constitution can only be applied as it's explicitly written is known as strict constructionism or textualism, but that is only one approach. In practice, the Constitution is often interpreted more broadly, based on the intent of its principles and how they apply to modern circumstances.

[RainbowMarinade]

No woman is carrying a child into the 9 month only to abort it just because. Have you ever actually know a pregnant woman? Like in real life?
The reason why abortion needs to be available in the later month is so when emergencies arise, they don’t have to sit around and discuss the legal aspects of the medial care that might be needed. They can just go ahead and do what’s necessary.
Wouldn’t you prefer it of your doctors could make instantaneous decisions about your healthcare without having to discuss it in a committee first?

Yeah you would.

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

Talk about a strawman. What woman is aborting at ANY time... "just because." Have you ever actually known a good argument? Like even in fictional books?
Probably not, since you obviously can't read.
The op literally said "This includes cases involving various reasons, whether medical, personal, or otherwise. So don't come at me with "but thats only in cases of the life of the mother."

Also, your two other arguments are contradictions. So not only can you not read, you can't make a coherent argument.

You first argue that you dont want doctors making "instantaneous decisions" but you also argue abortions need to be had because some are medical emergencies.

Guess what genius. Who is the person deeming its a medical emergency? YOU? or the Doctor?
Doctors GENERALLY don't just make "instantaneous decisions" when it comes to medical emergencies. Their license would get pulled.

They also wouldn't go "discuss it in a committee" Thats literally not how ANY medical decisions are made.

Wouldn't you prefer it of your doctors just allow YOU to make your own instantaneous decisions about your healthcare without even discussing it with them first?
I mean who are they, what do they know about the human body. They're just DOCTORS.

Yeah you would.

HAHAHA.

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

by the way. Abortion is just as much "healthcare" as legalizing men to "grape" women.
Yes it is the same thing. Dont bother with saying its not.
You are not allowed to say what a man can do with his body.
His health GREATLY benefits.
Lowering blood pressure
Burning calories and strengthening muscles
Increasing heart health and reducing the risk of heart disease, stroke, and hypertension
Boosting your immune system by producing higher levels of immune-fighting antibodies
Increasing libido and happiness
And increases his chances to reproduce. Because sometimes a woman could decide to keep the grapists baby.
Its evolutionary survival.
Am i saying men should be able to grape women? NO.
But its the same thing as saying women should be able to END another persons life on grounds they think its "their body." (when its not) And on grounds its "healthcare".
HAHA.

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

Again. Even if i granted you all of that. That wouldn't change a single thing. You dont go and make a law making it LEGAL to get abortions for things OTHER than medical emergences, unless you wanted them to be able to have them.

You want women to be able to murder completely healthy 9 month old children half way out of the womb.
Yeah you do.

[RainbowMarinade]

@Thatgirlyouhate33
Talk about a strawman”…..”A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion.” The more you know. 😉
Have you known many women who have aborted in the later months? I don’t know any. Where do these women live? Honestly?
“You first argue that you don’t want doctors making "instantaneous decisions"
I did? What words did I use that gave you that impression?
“Doctors GENERALLY don't just make "instantaneous decisions" when it comes to medical emergencies.” So what happens when a patient is unconscious and needs some emergency work? They suddenly start haemorrhaging, for example. Do you believe they wait for the patient to come out of it first so they can consent to life saving measures?
“Thats literally not how ANY medical decisions are made.” LoL 🙄 What does a doctor do when faced with a patient who he believes needs a certain procedure, but he’s not sure of the legalities of said procedure? Are you gonna tell me now how he should just know, and if he doesn’t he should risk his license and livelihood to help his patient anyway? You wouldn’t be the first to tell me that.
“Wouldn't you prefer it of your doctors just allow YOU to make your own instantaneous decisions about your healthcare….” I would prefer the government let ME and my doctor yo make those decisions. Together. And I would also like those doctors to have the freedom to do what they believe is necessary to save my life should I ever be in a situation where I cannot advocate for myself. I’ll take doctors making those decisions over politicians any day.

[RainbowMarinade]

@thatgirlyouhate33
“Abortion is just as much "healthcare" as legalizing men to "grape" women.”
I do so love this. It’s a great position.
If women have the audacity to believe they don’t have to carry a man’s seed, he should able to forcible have sex with her.
Is a woman’s body ever actually hers? Or is it solely for the use of others?

“You want women to be able to murder completely healthy 9 month old children half way out of the womb.”
Moronic

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

Great. You know what a strawman is. Shame you still did them. Oh too bad.

>>Have you known many women who have aborted in the later months? I don’t know any. Where do these women live? Honestly?<<

Yawn. Argument from incredulity is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.
The more you know!

>>I did? What words did I use that gave you that impression?<<
Um learn to read your own posts. Its not that hard.

>>So what happens when a patient is unconscious and needs some emergency work? They suddenly start haemorrhaging, for example. Do you believe they wait for the patient to come out of it first so they can consent to life saving measures?<<

Thats STILL not an instantaneous decision. Genius.
Instantaneous definition: done, occurring, or acting without any perceptible duration of time
The more you know!
The doctor doesn't make decisions in this way. They make "fast" judgements based upon perceptible durations of time. And they do this based upon JUDGEMENTS of symptoms.
Which requires perceptible durations of time.

Continued...

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

>>What does a doctor do when faced with a patient who he believes needs a certain procedure, but he’s not sure of the legalities of said procedure? Are you gonna tell me now how he should just know, and if he doesn’t he should risk his license and livelihood to help his patient anyway? You wouldn’t be the first to tell me that.<<
LMAFO!!! HAHAHA.

Its common knowledge that they would do AND THEY DO the following:
Assess the Urgency:
Determine Immediate Needs: Quickly assess the severity of the patient’s condition and the urgency of the procedure. The priority is to ensure the patient’s immediate safety and address any life-threatening issues. (this is in cases they dont already know)

And they SHOULD know already, if they dont then they dont know how to do their job properly. What should they do so they can know?
**2. Consult Available Resources:
Use Institutional Protocols: Refer to any existing institutional protocols or guidelines for handling urgent procedures. Many institutions have emergency procedures in place that provide guidance on how to proceed.
Reach Out for Immediate Legal Advice: If possible, contact the institution’s legal department or on-call legal counsel for rapid advice. Some hospitals have 24/7 legal support for urgent situations.
FAIL.

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

>>I would prefer the government let ME and my doctor yo make those decisions. Together.<<
That wasn't the question. Dishonest much?
The question is based upon who understands the human body. YOU, or doctors.

Im sure its you. Of course.

>>And I would also like those doctors to have the freedom to do what they believe is necessary to save my life should I ever be in a situation where I cannot advocate for myself. <<

But wait, thats a violation of your bodily autonomy. How are you going to concent to the treatment if you are unconscious. Nah, better to let you die. After all you need to hold on to your religious belief of bodily autonomy. Right? Oh you want to make an exception do you?

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception.
The more you know.

>>I’ll take doctors making those decisions over politicians any day.<<
Yawn.
Politicians are what allow doctors through the use of force to do any kind of work. Oh but they shouldn't? We dont live in "should" world. We live in reality. And the fact is, the government is what allows doctors to do "good" things too.
Utter fail.

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

>>I do so love this. It’s a great position.<<
I agree. Thats why i used it. Thanks.
Shame its not an actual valid argument. Just like all of your others, and the ones that are coming up.

>>If women have the audacity to believe they don’t have to carry a man’s seed, he should able to forcible have sex with her.<<

Who made this argument? Oh right. You apparently know what a strawman is? Well stop doing it.
You really are terrible at this.

"Is a woman’s body ever actually hers? Or is it solely for the use of others?"
Moronic.

And yes you do want that. You are on the side of the people who made a law making it legal for abortions for ALL reasons at any time. Including 9 months. YOU belong to that group. You have to own it.
To argue against that, is frankly... Moronic.

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

Why dont you answer the questions instead of being a coward and dodging them?
Do you feel SORRY for a man who dies as a result of trying to rape a woman. Yes or no?
If you dont, then i seriously am not going to feel sorry for a 12 year old who dies, trying to murder someone.
LMFAO.
HAHA!

[RainbowMarinade]

@Thatgirlyouhate33
I’m not wasting my time with that
Enjoy your day

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

Because you got destroyed and rage quit.
Enjoy being a coward.

[RainbowMarinade]

@Thatgirlyouhate33
LoL
You win the internet today. Give yourself a pat in the back.
Well done!
🏆

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

Thanks. But we both know i won a long time ago.
Nice COPE.
LOL.

[RainbowMarinade]

@Thatgirlyouhate33
Ahhh! It’s so important to you….
Have two more
🏆🏆

😂🤣😂🤣
Okay. I’m done for reals now.
Buh bye 👋

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

Still Coping?
LOL.

[DrPepper12]

You're right It's not only in the cases of the mother, it's also for the life of the fetus! If the fetus is non-viable or has horrific and unbearable birth defects that the fetus would die shortly after birth Why would you complicate the health of the mother delivering sector child in such trauma rather than aborting it, however unfortunate?

by the way, 99% of abortions are performed before the 21st week & 80% are performed and under 8 weeks. Since your gonna ask, here you go:

https://www. cdc. gov/reproductive-health/data-statistics/abortion-surveillance-findings-reports. html

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

Yawn. Why can't pro choicers read properly?
"This includes cases involving various reasons, whether medical, personal, or otherwise."

Oh since a small percentage of the population rapes people, therefore it's okay.
And by the way "unbearable" is subjective and so is "non viable". So your argument is terrible.

You dont make a law making it legal for abortions for ALL reasons if you dont want them to happen for ANY reason at all.
Try again.

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

>>Why would you complicate the health of the mother delivering sector child in such trauma rather than aborting it, however unfortunate?<<

Oh i dont know, maybe, just maybe because if both people COULD survive from a procedure, you have something called the Hippocratic Oath?
You know, that's kind of a thing.
Shame you don't know that.

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

Also "however unfortunate?" Thats question begging.
What does it matter if its just a clump of cells, or a parasite? ITs technically not alive even if its outside the womb, completely healthy? How do we know this? Because its technically still a womans body and not viable because the cord has not been cut.

Until then, its not alive.
I dont make the rules. You sad people do.

[DrPepper12]

When was the last time you laughed? Had an orgasm? Related to other humans without arrogance and vitriol? Go check your blood pressure

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

LOL. Cope.

[ɹǝʇʇɐɥpɐW]

Having just went and read the RHEA, no it doesn't. The words "up to the point of birth" are not in the document at all, nor is there anything implying such. It simply states that a woman has the right to decide for herself if she would like to continue or discontinue a pregnancy and that it would be illegal to take any action to prevent her from having an abortion if she chose to do so.

[ɹǝʇʇɐɥpɐW]

Uh-huh. And the 5th amendment gives you the right to remain silent. I suppose that means you have to shut up. Laws are based on what they *do* say, not what they *don't say*. Come on, kid. You're smarter than that. And you surely have better things to do than troll online. Stop letting yourself down.

[DemocratsRDumb]

Section 2(a) of the RHEA says: "A person has the fundamental right to make decisions about the person’s own reproductive health, including the right to use or refuse to use contraception, the right to continue a pregnancy, and the right to terminate a pregnancy."

Section 2(c) states: "The state shall not deny, restrict, or interfere with an individual’s right to terminate a pregnancy."

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

LMAO. You got destroyed.
Keep telling yourself you didn't. Everyone else except you can see that.

[HawkPerception]

Less than 1% of all abortions happen in the third trimester. 80% of abortions happen within the first 12 weeks.

It is true that no one wants an abortion at 9 months for both ethical and health reasons.

www.axios.com/.../abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

Yawn. Your logic is terrible. So because something is "illegal" therefore nobody wants it to happen.
You literally claimed that "no one wants a thing"
And your source was a legal ban.
HAHAHA.

Also. There are laws on the books in states where they allow ALL abortions, for ANY reason up to the point of birth. You dont go and make such a law if you didn't have the desire to want people to at least have the ability to do it.
So WRONG.

[HawkPerception]

@Thatgirlyouhaye33 I've seen enough of your opinions recently to know you have the IQ of a donkey.

And the fact you can't understand why I sourced legal bans in different states to show that practically no where even allows abortions after a certain point just further proves that.

You're the type of trashy girl that has 0 debate skills. You just insult. It's actually pathetic.

[LOLATYOULMFAO]

Lol You got destroyed.
Well I've seen enough of your opinions recently to know you have the iq of pond scum.
I win.

And the fact you can't understand why your argument as it was laid out was terrible just further proves that.

The fact that your pathetic point is to say "practically no where even allows abortions" is an obvious strawman to the original post is hilarious. Since nobody is arguing against that. Which also further proves that.

You're the type of brain damaged man, that has NEGATIVE debate skills. She just insults does she?
Pointing out where your logic does not work, is an example of not an insult. Dummy.
The fact that someone argues AND insults, does not mean they "just" insult.

I guess following that logic, all YOU do is insult. And if you are going to complain about insults you shouldn't have done that very thing JUST NOW.
I actually feel sorry for you.

[HawkPerception]

@LOLATYOULMFAO Another trash joins the fray 😂

[Youarenotbright]

HAHAHA. Look. You made yet another comment that isn't an argument, proving how trash your debate skills are. Cope harder.
LOL

[exitseven]

Abortion is really the only thing the democrats have that is polling better than President Trump so they want to appeal to even the most rabid pro-murder voter.
Notice that during the debate Harris refused to answer President Trump when he asked her is she supported abortion in the 7th, 8th and 9th month.

[ProbablyClueless]

Mainstream Democrats have a really tough time understanding that their party is not the one they thought they were signing up for. They simply don't believe the stuff is real because of how many times conservatives have been caught lying about this stuff before.

Late term abortions, the racial and gender theory stuff, the immigration stance; all that stuff beggars belief. It's hard to believe that otherwise sane people would support that kind of thing.

[LOLATYOULMFAO]

HawkPerception isn't very bright.

I've seen enough of his opinions recently to know you have the iq of pond scum.
I win.

And the fact he can't understand why his argument as it was laid out was terrible just further proves that.

The fact that his pathetic point is to say "practically no where even allows abortions" is an obvious strawman to the original post is hilarious. Since nobody is arguing against that. Which also further proves that.

He's the type of brain damaged man, that has NEGATIVE debate skills. She just insults does she?
Pointing out where your logic does not work, is an example of not an insult. Dummy.
The fact that someone argues AND insults, does not mean they "just" insult.

I guess following that logic, all HE does is insult. And he's you are going to complain about insults he shouldn't have done that very thing.
I actually feel sorry for him.

[Twalli]

Actually, people who have not had or sought one for 9 months don't want one. They don't wait until the last possible moment. So those that have late term abortions are those who need it to save their life. Even then they'd still prefer a cesarean to ensure their life and that of the baby.

[DemocratsRDumb]

Actually, if you didn't want people having 9 month abortions, YOU wouldn't MAKE A LAW ALLOWING THEM.

[Twalli]

We don't want you decide for others

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

Irrelevant. That wouldn't change the fact that if you dont want 9-month abortions to happen you dont make a law making it legal. That comment is literally meaningless.

[Twalli]

@Thatgirlyouhate33 I don't see how my wants matter I'm not being pregnant. If guys decide what a woman can do with their own body women should have the same decisions over a man's body.

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

Thats also irrelevant. But ill engage in this.
1. A child is half a mans DNA. He has as much right to that kid as she does. Her bearing it for 9 months doesn't change that fact.
2. A baby inside a womans body is not "her body". I suppose you're going to tell me when a man has intercourse with a woman she gets to decide whether or not to "off" him. Because after all its her body and the mere fact he's "inside" her therefore that man is also "her."

3. How many brains and hearts does a woman typically have? 9? I mean the octomom had 9 kids does that mean all of those were her body? Thats awesome. Except no.

4. Special pleading. So are you against all laws? No? Why not? Thats exactly what all laws do. They tell people what they can or cannot do with their body. You cannot use your body to steal anymore than a woman can use her body to END the child.

5. Contradiction.
Even if you say you dont have a right to decide what to do with a womans body... you are also violating that rule. HOW? Because you are then saying a WOMAN has the right to say a MAN does not have the right to do a thing with his body. Even if that thing is only preventative.
Either way someones freedom to choose is violated.

[AviatorTom]

That's not a lie. An abortion after fetal viability outside the womb is not what pro-choice people want. That should only happen in extreme situations where the mother's health or the health of the fetus is at serious risk.

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

Yes it is a lie. You dont go around making a law where it allows 9 months abortions INCLUDING ones that aren't for medical necessity.
You are just wrong. Mr. bot.
Beep bop boop.

[AviatorTom]

@Thatgirlyouhate33 Please reread what I said., and I'll be more specific this time. A 9-month abortion is wrong (except in very specific situations of danger to the mother and/or fetus), that's well after fetal viability, which is typically around 30 weeks gestation.

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

I dont have to re-read it. What i said was correct. It's a lie. And its precisely a lie REGARDLESS if a 9 month abortion is wrong.
Again, something can be objectively wrong and people can still want it to happen. Just because YOU dont want it to happen does not mean the people writing the bills dont.
Again, you dont make a law making 9 month abortions LEGAL (for ANY REASON) if you didn't want the possibility of them happening. Again, this is allowing for other reasons other than danger to the mother or fetus.
Try again.

[strateguy632]

Good point. If nobody did it then forbid it as a decent compromise.

Meanwhile failed abortion with LIVE baby GET killed instead of ethical obligation to save them.

[Abbycado]

Lmfao how many times has Trump lied?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump

you fuckin nitwit XD

[DemocratsRDumb]

LMFAO, First off.. WIKI? HAHAHAHA.
Wikipedia entries are written and edited by a broad and often anonymous group of contributors. This lack of formal authorship and oversight can lead to inaccuracies or biased information.

Harvard University Library: Harvard advises against using Wikipedia as a primary source for academic work, citing concerns over the accuracy and reliability of its content.

University of California, Berkeley: Berkeley’s library guides also caution against using Wikipedia as a primary academic source due to its variable accuracy and the lack of formal review.

You fuckin nitwit. HAHAHAHAH. XDDDDD

[DemocratsRDumb]

You better block me.

[DemocratsRDumb]

Secondly, Your logic is terrible. Tu Quoque Fallacy (Appeal to Hypocrisy).

Even if its TRUE that Trump is the worst liar in the history of the universe. Does that mean pro choicers did not lie?
Oh wait, it doesn't.

You fuckin nitwit. XD
HAHAHA>

[Abbycado]

Lmaooooooo @Agape93

[Agape93]

Verdammt I thought my dad was retarded. Lol that you Walter?

[Thatgirlyouhate33]

Lmaoooooo@U.
You got destroyed.

[Drewtate]

Liberals want the right to abort a kid at any age

[RoronoaZoro8]

What if for some reason an abortion is medically nessecary at 9 months?

[DemocratsRDumb]

Then you'd make the law restricting all of them except for medical necessity.
I already told you not to come at me with that.

[DemocratsRDumb]

The laws say ALL of them area allowed, not just medical necessity.
Again, you dont make laws ALLOWING 9-month abortions FOR ANY REASON if you didn't want them to happen.

[Agape93]

Lmao wow xD

[eagle1951]

everyone lies about everything

[dougeats]

go back to Russia

[Walksbehindtherows]

I have no idea