Question for pro-lifers out there.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So the chief argument I hear against pro-choicers is this: A child shouldn't have to die because you decided to have unprotected sex. Well that sort of makes sense, I don't fully agree with it but I can understand it. Despite being pro-choice I do not believe in sleeping around or having unprotected sex at all, what with all the STIs out there.

But anyway, here's my question: What about the man? You know, the guy who was either too disrespectful or too dumb to put a condom on? Even if the woman is on birth control, it's both people's responsibility to, well, be responsible and use protection because birth control does fail. Do you honestly think someone like that is going to stick around for an unwanted pregnancy? Of course not. Okay some do, and more power to them for making the responsible decision, but I assume that in many cases someone too irresponsible to use protection is also not going to make the responsible choice to take care of a child he didn't want.

tl;dr: Why should the woman have to suffer, while the man who shares just as much blame gets off scotch free?

PS: I know there are other arguments on the topic as well, such as the definition of life, etc. There are other threads for those. Let's try to stay on topic rather than go into a full-on political debate, please.

EDIT: What I mean by 'suffer' is why should she be forced to keep and maintain (care for, pay for, etc.) while the father isn't legally bound? True if he is found, for instance by a paternity test, then yea he can be made to pay child support, but what if he isn't found or refuses to pay child support?

MFW 18 years of child support if you can prove paternity? I'd hardly call that scotch free. (scotch free? Scot free? Scott free?) Anyway, there are probably issues with determining paternity which I don't know about, but there is definitely a cost for the man as well, if this is the case.

There is a sort of hypocrisy here, but it's on the other side: why does a woman get to unilaterally decide whether or not to get an abortion (where it is legal, etc.)? It's a messy question and not at issue here, but it needs to be noted.

randomsix:
MFW 18 years of child support if you can prove paternity? I'd hardly call that scotch free. (scotch free? Scot free? Scott free?)

But the OP is about cases where the woman wants an abortion (and has to suffer all the blame for the pregnancy) so what you mention isn't kind of relevant here?

Or am I missing something?

I'm not sure I see your point. If you accept that an unborn child's right to life over-rides any mistakes in a woman's sexual health, then the man's mistakes are just the same, no? It takes two for a man to not use a condom by the way. Sure, it would be nice for equality purposes if men could get pregnant too, but that doesn't change the reality, and it doesn't change the ethical nature of fetal termination.

My own opinion is that abortion must be legal because its criminality doesn't stop it from happening, and that black market abortions are more horrific and more dangerous than those done under proper medical guidance. I do not approve unenforceable and counter productive laws. You can make it legal without condoning it ethically, and while still doing all in your power (through education or welfare, say) to prevent it.

It's "Scot-free" incidentally.

im not necessarily pro-life or pro-choice, i personally do not agree with mary sue nobirthcontrol and johnny fuckwits nocondom getting an abortion since its their respective faults. now if johnny nocondom leaves the woman and somehow goes into hiding and can not be found. mary sue is fucked and should decide what to do.

the problem is we do not know how many loser dads are out their, if it was a high enough percentage to were i would consider it being a rampant problem sure i would say go ahead. but if tis a low percentage then i wouldn't agree with it. plus it seems people like to leave out adoption and act as if the mother has to provide for the kid her whole life.

You know, I'm pretty sure it's more often that the abortion happens because they decided to have protected sex...

MomoElektra:

randomsix:
MFW 18 years of child support if you can prove paternity? I'd hardly call that scotch free. (scotch free? Scot free? Scott free?)

But the OP is about cases where the woman wants an abortion (and has to suffer all the blame for the pregnancy) so what you mention isn't kind of relevant here?

Or am I missing something?

With this I now see almost two double standards. If an unwanted pregnancy happens and the woman get an abortion the woman typical get blamed how ever if she has the child and the father is still absent from raising said child regardless of if the child is put up for adoption or raised by the woman she is absolved of guilt and the father is blamed.

The complexity of this in hurting my brain, perhaps simply because if an unwanted pregnancy happens I blame both the woman and the man regardless of the outcome. If the mom raises it as a single parent, if the father raises it as a single parent if they both raise the child, if it is adopted or aborted the fact remains the same same I blame each party.

Because people aren't in the habit of doing paternity tests on dead babies, so there's no evidence to declare who the father is?

renegade7:
tl;dr: Why should the woman have to suffer, while the man who shares just as much blame gets off scot-free?

I'm confused by the question. Are we talking about the suffering coming from the physical and or emotional/psychological trauma of having an abortion? Or the sociological stigma from those who disagree with the act? Or the burdens of keeping the child (in which case the father does have to suffer the burden)?

Need clarification.

MomoElektra:

randomsix:
MFW 18 years of child support if you can prove paternity? I'd hardly call that scotch free. (scotch free? Scot free? Scott free?)

But the OP is about cases where the woman wants an abortion (and has to suffer all the blame for the pregnancy) so what you mention isn't kind of relevant here?

Or am I missing something?

No the wording OP used and the title suggest that the baby is born. The question OP asks is then why the mother is then saddled with the responsibility of raising it when the dad can just bail. My understanding is that there are laws to guarantee that the father is at the very least financially supporting the child.

It isn't about blame in this case.

I agree any man who has the balls to get a women pregnate by stupidity or by accident by law needs to care for it not just for the women to suffer alone.

The guy needs to take responsibility too, you cant just pin this all on the woman.

It's a difficult subject, even protected sex can fail and it is not the fault of the man. If a guy/girl goes and has unprotected sex with other people, he/she is a moron.I believe abortion should be a viable option for people not ready to have a child.

renegade7:
So the chief argument I hear against pro-choicers is this: A child shouldn't have to die because you decided to have unprotected sex. Well that sort of makes sense, I don't fully agree with it but I can understand it. Despite being pro-choice I do not believe in sleeping around or having unprotected sex at all, what with all the STIs out there.

But anyway, here's my question: What about the man? You know, the guy who was either too disrespectful or too dumb to put a condom on? Even if the woman is on birth control, it's both people's responsibility to, well, be responsible and use protection because birth control does fail. Do you honestly think someone like that is going to stick around for an unwanted pregnancy? Of course not. Okay some do, and more power to them for making the responsible decision, but I assume that in many cases someone too irresponsible to use protection is also not going to make the responsible choice to take care of a child he didn't want.

tl;dr: Why should the woman have to suffer, while the man who shares just as much blame gets off scotch free?

PS: I know there are other arguments on the topic as well, such as the definition of life, etc. There are other threads for those. Let's try to stay on topic rather than go into a full-on political debate, please.

How does the woman suffer? I do not see what you mean.

WoW Killer:
I'm not sure I see your point. If you accept that an unborn child's right to life over-rides any mistakes in a woman's sexual health, then the man's mistakes are just the same, no? It takes two for a man to not use a condom by the way. Sure, it would be nice for equality purposes if men could get pregnant too, but that doesn't change the reality, and it doesn't change the ethical nature of fetal termination.

My own opinion is that abortion must be legal because its criminality doesn't stop it from happening, and that black market abortions are more horrific and more dangerous than those done under proper medical guidance. I do not approve unenforceable and counter productive laws. You can make it legal without condoning it ethically, and while still doing all in your power (through education or welfare, say) to prevent it.

It's "Scot-free" incidentally.

First, thanks I was always wondering how that was spelled :)

Second, what I mean is that women are coming under fire in conservative media for wanting abortions or wanting easier access to birth control, whereas comparatively little attention is being given to the fact that it does take two to get someone pregnant. The focus seems to be entirely on women. What I'm trying to say is, the media seems to suggests that it's a woman's fault that she's pregnant, ergo she should keep the baby. But no one is saying that the father should also be forced to stay and help maintain the child just as the mother is. That's more what I'm trying to call attention to. Is this actually about rights to life or is it just the continuation of the GOP's War on Women?

TizzytheTormentor:
It's a difficult subject, even protected sex can fail and it is not the fault of the man. If a guy/girl goes and has unprotected sex with other people, he/she is a moron.I believe abortion should be a viable option for people not ready to have a child.

I agree with you (I'm sorry, did my post come off as a bit more pro-life than I intended? If so, I apologize). Birth control does fail. You take birth control because you don't want, aren't ready for, or can't support a child. Abortions exist for the same reason.

But my point was, if the woman is forced to keep and support the baby, why shouldn't the man be? I mean obviously, he can't actually get pregnant or give birth, but he can certainly provide financial support at the very least. Not to mention that these "Family-Values" groups who push for abortion being banned seem so hell-bent on the idea that a child should have a father figure, yet they don't seem to say that the father figure should stick around if it's illegal to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

It just seems a little unfair to me, that the law intended to "Prevent women from walking away from their mistakes" just seem to forget that it's just as much the man's responsibility and that the men who just walk away from this mistake don't get nearly as much attention.

renegade7:

WoW Killer:
I'm not sure I see your point. If you accept that an unborn child's right to life over-rides any mistakes in a woman's sexual health, then the man's mistakes are just the same, no? It takes two for a man to not use a condom by the way. Sure, it would be nice for equality purposes if men could get pregnant too, but that doesn't change the reality, and it doesn't change the ethical nature of fetal termination.

My own opinion is that abortion must be legal because its criminality doesn't stop it from happening, and that black market abortions are more horrific and more dangerous than those done under proper medical guidance. I do not approve unenforceable and counter productive laws. You can make it legal without condoning it ethically, and while still doing all in your power (through education or welfare, say) to prevent it.

It's "Scot-free" incidentally.

First, thanks I was always wondering how that was spelled :)

Second, what I mean is that women are coming under fire in conservative media for wanting abortions or wanting easier access to birth control, whereas comparatively little attention is being given to the fact that it does take two to get someone pregnant. The focus seems to be entirely on women. What I'm trying to say is, the media seems to suggests that it's a woman's fault that she's pregnant, ergo she should keep the baby. But no one is saying that the father should also be forced to stay and help maintain the child just as the mother is. That's more what I'm trying to call attention to. Is this actually about rights to life or is it just the continuation of the GOP's War on Women?

First of there is no more a "War on Women" than there is a "War on Religion" going on in the United States. People use the word "War" in a political sense to drum up partisan support and create an "us vs them" mentality but in fact its all bs.

Second of all I would point out that while you shouldnt be allowed to have your own child killed in the womb barring some kind of health hazard, the government can't force you to raise the child. You can always put them up for adoption or look for a surrogate.

renegade7:

TizzytheTormentor:
It's a difficult subject, even protected sex can fail and it is not the fault of the man. If a guy/girl goes and has unprotected sex with other people, he/she is a moron.I believe abortion should be a viable option for people not ready to have a child.

I agree with you (I'm sorry, did my post come off as a bit more pro-life than I intended? If so, I apologize). Birth control does fail. You take birth control because you don't want, aren't ready for, or can't support a child. Abortions exist for the same reason.

But my point was, if the woman is forced to keep and support the baby, why shouldn't the man be? I mean obviously, he can't actually get pregnant or give birth, but he can certainly provide financial support at the very least. Not to mention that these "Family-Values" groups who push for abortion being banned seem so hell-bent on the idea that a child should have a father figure, yet they don't seem to say that the father figure should stick around if it's illegal to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

It just seems a little unfair to me, that the law intended to "Prevent women from walking away from their mistakes" just seem to forget that it's just as much the man's responsibility and that the men who just walk away from this mistake don't get nearly as much attention.

in this modern day society if you cant track down your low life dead beat dad and force him by the court of law to pay child support til the child is 18 you either live in a fucked country or are too lazy. plus it seems you are ignoring adoption again, like everyone does.

keiskay:

renegade7:

TizzytheTormentor:
It's a difficult subject, even protected sex can fail and it is not the fault of the man. If a guy/girl goes and has unprotected sex with other people, he/she is a moron.I believe abortion should be a viable option for people not ready to have a child.

I agree with you (I'm sorry, did my post come off as a bit more pro-life than I intended? If so, I apologize). Birth control does fail. You take birth control because you don't want, aren't ready for, or can't support a child. Abortions exist for the same reason.

But my point was, if the woman is forced to keep and support the baby, why shouldn't the man be? I mean obviously, he can't actually get pregnant or give birth, but he can certainly provide financial support at the very least. Not to mention that these "Family-Values" groups who push for abortion being banned seem so hell-bent on the idea that a child should have a father figure, yet they don't seem to say that the father figure should stick around if it's illegal to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

It just seems a little unfair to me, that the law intended to "Prevent women from walking away from their mistakes" just seem to forget that it's just as much the man's responsibility and that the men who just walk away from this mistake don't get nearly as much attention.

in this modern day society if you cant track down your low life dead beat dad and force him by the court of law to pay child support til the child is 18 you either live in a fucked country or are too lazy. plus it seems you are ignoring adoption again, like everyone does.

Yea keep the baby for 9 months even if she does go the adoption route. So basically, if she's young (like high school or college age) kiss higher education goodbye. An abortion is a medical procedure, so those records will be sealed. Even if she's older then she gets to deal with 9 months of shame of having been knocked up and then bailed on.

renegade7:

keiskay:

renegade7:

I agree with you (I'm sorry, did my post come off as a bit more pro-life than I intended? If so, I apologize). Birth control does fail. You take birth control because you don't want, aren't ready for, or can't support a child. Abortions exist for the same reason.

But my point was, if the woman is forced to keep and support the baby, why shouldn't the man be? I mean obviously, he can't actually get pregnant or give birth, but he can certainly provide financial support at the very least. Not to mention that these "Family-Values" groups who push for abortion being banned seem so hell-bent on the idea that a child should have a father figure, yet they don't seem to say that the father figure should stick around if it's illegal to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

It just seems a little unfair to me, that the law intended to "Prevent women from walking away from their mistakes" just seem to forget that it's just as much the man's responsibility and that the men who just walk away from this mistake don't get nearly as much attention.

in this modern day society if you cant track down your low life dead beat dad and force him by the court of law to pay child support til the child is 18 you either live in a fucked country or are too lazy. plus it seems you are ignoring adoption again, like everyone does.

Yea keep the baby for 9 months even if she does go the adoption route. So basically, if she's young (like high school or college age) kiss higher education goodbye. An abortion is a medical procedure, so those records will be sealed. Even if she's older then she gets to deal with 9 months of shame of having been knocked up and then bailed on.

sorry but ive never seen that happen in anything but movies and propaganda, heck there where pregnant kids in my high school who still went. they weren't ridiculed or outcast. they still finished high school and some that wanted to went to college. this isnt the fucking 50's.

keiskay:
in this modern day society if you cant track down your low life dead beat dad and force him by the court of law to pay child support til the child is 18 you either live in a fucked country or are too lazy. plus it seems you are ignoring adoption again, like everyone does.

Adoption, a.k.a. going through a whole pregnancy, huge hormonal influence, going through childbirth which is painfull to the point where a man would die from the sheer pain alone and where there's always a risk of complications resulting in possible death, followed by a severe traumatic experience of giving away a child while every instinct in a mother is screaming to keep it.

So, yeah, everybody is ignoring adoption, because they have a brain, and the least bit of humanity.

keiskay:
sorry but ive never seen that happen in anything but movies and propaganda, heck there where pregnant kids in my high school who still went. they weren't ridiculed or outcast. they still finished high school and some that wanted to went to college. this isnt the fucking 50's.

That's only because they lived at home and were backed by their parents. In reality, the sheer time consumption of a young child make it utterly impossible.

Unwanted child = byebye education is the rule of the thumb. Where that doesn't happen are the exceptions.

renegade7:
tl;dr: Why should the woman have to suffer, while the man who shares just as much blame gets off scotch free?

Right now you can't foreswear paternity, so I wouldn't call it that. Obviously this is a situation that needs rectifying. From the concept of the right of integrity of the own body (UN human rights charter) follows that you can't force a woman to either have or not have an abortion, it's her choice alone.

However, there needs be a provision to foreswear paternity as well, as it's equally unfair to not have an abortion when the man doesn't want a child in any way, and then force fatherhood upon him.

The instances won't be too many, but still, it's something that needs to be taken care of.

Blablahb:

keiskay:
in this modern day society if you cant track down your low life dead beat dad and force him by the court of law to pay child support til the child is 18 you either live in a fucked country or are too lazy. plus it seems you are ignoring adoption again, like everyone does.

Adoption, a.k.a. going through a whole pregnancy, huge hormonal influence, going through childbirth which is painfull to the point where a man would die from the sheer pain alone and where there's always a risk of complications resulting in possible death, followed by a severe traumatic experience of giving away a child while every instinct in a mother is screaming to keep it.

So, yeah, everybody is ignoring adoption, because they have a brain, and the least bit of humanity.

renegade7:
tl;dr: Why should the woman have to suffer, while the man who shares just as much blame gets off scotch free?

Right now you can't foreswear paternity, so I wouldn't call it that. Obviously this is a situation that needs rectifying. From the concept of the right of integrity of the own body (UN human rights charter) follows that you can't force a woman to either have or not have an abortion, it's her choice alone.

However, there needs be a provision to foreswear paternity as well, as it's equally unfair to not have an abortion when the man doesn't want a child in any way, and then force fatherhood upon him.

The instances won't be too many, but still, it's something that needs to be taken care of.

nice so do you have a real argument against adoptions besides appeals to emotion and appeals to humanity? i mean surely its so great of humanity to kill unwanted children because two idiots dont know how to use protection. or by people who are to selfish to even consider facing the consequences of their actions.

sorry but no if you get a women pregnant but dont want to be a father or provide in anyway, too fucking bad. next time dont stick your dick in some one unless your willing to take that risk.

keiskay:
nice so do you have a real argument against adoptions besides appeals to emotion and appeals to humanity? i mean surely its so great of humanity to kill unwanted children because two idiots dont know how to use protection. or by people who are to selfish to even consider facing the consequences of their actions.

You are aware of the existance of religions right? You know, those things that cause parents to punish children for having sex or possessing condoms, or keep girls too afraid to ask for the pill. You know, that thing that causes the vast majority of all abortions.

People are about as guilty to having an unwanted child as you are guilty of the crusades by being a Christian.

Blablahb:

keiskay:
nice so do you have a real argument against adoptions besides appeals to emotion and appeals to humanity? i mean surely its so great of humanity to kill unwanted children because two idiots dont know how to use protection. or by people who are to selfish to even consider facing the consequences of their actions.

You are aware of the existance of religions right? You know, those things that cause parents to punish children for having sex or possessing condoms, or keep girls too afraid to ask for the pill. You know, that thing that causes the vast majority of all abortions.

People are about as guilty to having an unwanted child as you are guilty of the crusades by being a Christian.

irrelevant and a broad over generalization. do you wanna try again with a real argument or are you gonna keep pulling sensationalism out of your ass.

if you dont wanna be a father blab don't stick your dick in a chick or get a vasectomy.

Blablahb, continuing to add nothing but Non sequiturs to a discussion

keiskay:
irrelevant and a broad over generalization.

You mean kind of like saying "People who are pregnant, it's their own damn fault!1!"?

By the way, note how people are free. This means you don't get to control their life, or their sexuality, and you're in no position to ban sexual intercourse for them because you don't like what happens if your religion has it's usual destructive influence on the consequences of people's sex lives.

Don't like that, then first argue all civil rights be abolished and people become state property. Then after that you may use arguments that are based on the premise of controlling people's sexuality.

But if you're not willing to go there, then don't argue things like sex being someone's fault or anything. Actually, I'm pretty sure there's some nice psychological things to be said about the bitterness of people arguing things like that, which points towards they themselves not even subscribing to their own arguments.

Blablahb:

keiskay:
irrelevant and a broad over generalization.

You mean kind of like saying "People who are pregnant, it's their own damn fault!1!"?

By the way, note how people are free. This means you don't get to control their life, or their sexuality, and you're in no position to ban sexual intercourse for them because you don't like what happens if your religion has it's usual destructive influence on the consequences of people's sex lives.

Don't like that, then first argue all civil rights be abolished and people become state property. Then after that you may use arguments that are based on the premise of controlling people's sexuality.

But if you're not willing to go there, then don't argue things like sex being someone's fault or anything. Actually, I'm pretty sure there's some nice psychological things to be said about the bitterness of people arguing things like that, which points towards they themselves not even subscribing to their own arguments.

sorry but you should recognize possible consequences for your actions, if fucking a woman has the possibility of providing you with a child, and you do not want a child, get a vasectomy or dont fuck. it simple as that.

as for the rest of your argument, straw man much?

as i said attack me with real arguments, with real sources, then ill take you seriously and debate you seriously.

keiskay:
sorry but you should recognize possible consequences for your actions, if fucking a woman has the possibility of providing you with a child, and you do not want a child, get a vasectomy or dont fuck. it simple as that.

Just as long as you don't blame a single party for an outcome that requires the participation of two parties to occur.

DevilWithaHalo:

keiskay:
sorry but you should recognize possible consequences for your actions, if fucking a woman has the possibility of providing you with a child, and you do not want a child, get a vasectomy or dont fuck. it simple as that.

Just as long as you don't blame a single party for an outcome that requires the participation of two parties to occur.

I recognize that it takes both parties, but if a woman does not give up her child for adoption or abortion, the man should still have to pay as well. i find this whole debate where a man gets a say on whether he should pay child support or not as childish.

I find abortions rather distasteful, but outlawing it completely is stupid. Someone mentioned back alley abortions...yeah, they're real...and messy. I'd rather we just keep the option there for women who need it, rather than just shut it off because people made mistakes.

Personally, I'm pro-life in that I'm anti-death...but I'm more pro-option than pro-choice if that makes any sense.

keiskay:
I recognize that it takes both parties, but if a woman does not give up her child for adoption or abortion, the man should still have to pay as well. i find this whole debate where a man gets a say on whether he should pay child support or not as childish.

Would you offer concessions in extenuating circumstances? Deceit, or either intentional subterfuge and/or failures in protection methods? IE; sperm jacking or failure in vasectomies?

I do believe in insuring people pay the consequences for their actions, but the failure of the system is that one party gets to decide the outcome for both parties, regardless of intentions and/or methods.

keiskay:
nice so do you have a real argument against adoptions besides appeals to emotion and appeals to humanity? i mean surely its so great of humanity to kill unwanted children because two idiots dont know how to use protection. or by people who are to selfish to even consider facing the consequences of their actions.

sorry but no if you get a women pregnant but dont want to be a father or provide in anyway, too fucking bad. next time dont stick your dick in some one unless your willing to take that risk.

So you're expressing your opinion in a way which involves incorrect grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation while attacking your opponents arguments for not being well constructed? I see.

So! You have sex. Your girlfriend gets pregnant. You made a mistake. It can be fixed. You see, in my world, bitter and cynical people don't doom children to be raised by idiots who don't want them. Everyone makes mistakes. We can fix those mistakes sometimes, so we do.

Inevitably, we're going to have to discuss why fetuses aren't people, which addresses the "killing children" part. But first, I'll let you respond to my above statement, if you care to.

The Thinker:

keiskay:
nice so do you have a real argument against adoptions besides appeals to emotion and appeals to humanity? i mean surely its so great of humanity to kill unwanted children because two idiots dont know how to use protection. or by people who are to selfish to even consider facing the consequences of their actions.

sorry but no if you get a women pregnant but dont want to be a father or provide in anyway, too fucking bad. next time dont stick your dick in some one unless your willing to take that risk.

So you're expressing your opinion in a way which involves incorrect grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation while attacking your opponents arguments for not being well constructed? I see.

So! You have sex. Your girlfriend gets pregnant. You made a mistake. It can be fixed. You see, in my world, bitter and cynical people don't doom children to be raised by idiots who don't want them. Everyone makes mistakes. We can fix those mistakes sometimes, so we do.

Inevitably, we're going to have to discuss why fetuses aren't people, which addresses the "killing children" part. But first, I'll let you respond to my above statement, if you care to.

so before i engage further, why do you think i brought up adoption?

keiskay:
so before i engage further, why do you think i brought up adoption?

Adoption is an option, although it does not help at all with avoiding forcing pregnancy on women as well as all the health risks etc. associated with it. It helps obviously with the long-term consequences of unwanted pregnancy of having to raise a child, but I don't think that is sufficient considering all the strings that are attached to a pregnancy itself.

keiskay:
so before i engage further, why do you think i brought up adoption?

Bring up adoption... *checks* so you did. And I've sort of forgotten what what I said has to do with fathers not giving child support. Hmm...
However, as mentioned, adoption takes nine months at least, and I hear pregnancy is quite the expensive pain. Abortion is more efficient, in most cases.

EDIT: Wait, I remembered! If your girlfriend wants the child, and you don't, then you'd be forced to pay for a child because of your mistake. Meanwhile, the man doesn't get the final say, leaving it entirely up to only one of the parties. This doesn't seem fair. Imagine the reverse situation.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked