Not a Tailor

Us CABA ladies could drive a saint to drink...
But as VOL would no doubt tell us, a nice Philippines lady would just bring him the drink and rub his feet.

Sounds like a classic case of a little bit of freudian slip--He likes the long, hard shafts of those heels, huh?

So how do you test to make sure that a gay male is really gay or that a gay woman is really gay? What about bisexual men and women? Are they not permitted to be near your children at all?
(Genuinely curious, btw. I've never met anyone before who has claimed that gay men shouldn't be near boys who actually followed through to the point of not allowing their daughters to go to slumber parties with families where the mother was not divorced or sending the father away--I've never even encountered a slumber party without the father present, in fact)

Sounds like a classic case of a little bit of freudian slip--He likes the long, hard shafts of those heels, huh?

Wow. Putting the RUB in rub and tug, huh? Pay your buck, get it your way...

With their hair and makeup all did, nails perfectly polished, every inch of skin lotioned and buffed to absolute perfection. While they demurely say 'Sorry, no English.'

Us CABA ladies could drive a saint to drink...
But as VOL would no doubt tell us, a nice Philippines lady would just bring him the drink and rub his feet.

Sounds like a classic case of a little bit of freudian slip--He likes the long, hard shafts of those heels, huh?

Wow. Putting the RUB in rub and tug, huh? Pay your buck, get it your way...

With their hair and makeup all did, nails perfectly polished, every inch of skin lotioned and buffed to absolute perfection. While they demurely say 'Sorry, no English.'

Us CABA ladies could drive a saint to drink...
But as VOL would no doubt tell us, a nice Philippines lady would just bring him the drink and rub his feet.

Us CABA ladies could drive a saint to drink...
But as VOL would no doubt tell us, a nice Philippines lady would just bring him the drink and rub his feet.

With their hair and makeup all did, nails perfectly polished, every inch of skin lotioned and buffed to absolute perfection. While they demurely say 'Sorry, no English.'

So sorry about this J. You moved mountains to make it work. If anyone deserves to be happy, it's most certainly you.

With their hair and makeup all did, nails perfectly polished, every inch of skin lotioned and buffed to absolute perfection. While they demurely say 'Sorry, no English.'

Us CABA ladies could drive a saint to drink...
But as VOL would no doubt tell us, a nice Philippines lady would just bring him the drink and rub his feet.

No, Planned Parenthood Isn’t Selling ‘Aborted Baby Parts’

I'm so sorry to hear that, Janelle. I've been hoping and hoping for you all this time.
I do have to say, just as an aside, parents were strongly encouraged to get to know one another and the leaders--most of the leaders were parents of some of the Scouts in the troop and, for example, I was really good friends with Scouter M's daughter, so my parents ended up getting to know him really well. The best way for a Scout troop to run is for parents to be involved and for leaders to know they have parents watching them. Short of isolating kids from all social interaction away from their parents, it's the safest thing there is--parental involvement. I am very, very much for parents getting to know their children's friends' parents and their children's extracurricular activity leaders/teachers/etc.

Honestly, the Girl Scouts of America have been allowing GLBT youth and leaders for awhile now--they openly embrace transwomen, which is really amazingly awesome of them. While they typically don't have men along on overnights or as leaders as far as I know (I was in Girl Guides in Canada for awhile before I was a Scout--we did allow men to come along on mother-daughter camps when there was no mother in the picture) they have allowed lesbian leaders for some time.
Other models include Campfire Boys and Girls, and Girls and Boys clubs, as well as Christian Youth Groups--all of which are often co-ed and which have both male and female leaders present at overnights. I am not saying a gay man is a woman, but if heterosexual men and women are allowed along on co-ed sleepovers, well, what's the difference between that and a gay man on a boys-only sleep over.
So is your daughter not allowed to go to slumber parties if the other girl's father will be present?

Your question would show tremendous shortsightedness and unfamiliarity of how the Scouts operate.
Other pertinent questions would be: Is this person qualified for this task? What is the history of this person with the group he/she will be chaperoning during the weekend? Will there be other chaperons accompanying the group? What is the location of the outing? What are the resources at the site? How will the group be transported to/fro their departure point?

So my question is, why did they become slave owners? What were the laws, in that time, on how one freed a slave? Are these people then considered slave owners even after they free their slaves? What were the working conditions for freshly freed black slaves?
For example, let's say that Bob Smith is freed by his white owner. His wife and four children are still with his former Master. Does Bob Smith then have to buy his wife and children? Does this, then, make him a slave owner? What if he then frees them? Is he counted as a slave owner then?
Or another example, let's say that Bob Smith is best friends with Joe Blow and Bob Smith is freed by his white owner. Bob works his butt off to get ahead in the world to be able to afford to buy Joe Blow from his former master. Unfortunately, the job market is terrible right now. Bob has a job but Joe will have an impossible time finding a job. Bob keeps ownership of Joe, with Joe's permission, until the job market changes, so that Joe will not have economic or legal consequences due to being an unemployed black man.
What legal rigamarole was involved in actually freeing the slaves? Could a former slave who had bought his wife and best friend from his former master and who was illiterate have navigated this?
I am not saying that these examples are how every black slave owner may have functioned, certainly. Often, marginalized groups mimic the dominant culture as a desperate attempt at legitimizing their position in society--meaning that freed black men who had reasonably humane masters may have looked at the white, slave owning culture and decided 'well, my master was a decent man who held a good position in this society and looked after me reasonably well and let me earn my freedom and in order to function in this white, slave owning society and survive, I will have to own slaves myself or I will not fit in.'

If they are so scared something will happen to their children they should take them out of Boy Scouts. Their children should be protected from pedophiles and rapist, not against a particular group of individuals who have life styles they don't approve of.

So my question is, why did they become slave owners? What were the laws, in that time, on how one freed a slave? Are these people then considered slave owners even after they free their slaves? What were the working conditions for freshly freed black slaves?
For example, let's say that Bob Smith is freed by his white owner. His wife and four children are still with his former Master. Does Bob Smith then have to buy his wife and children? Does this, then, make him a slave owner? What if he then frees them? Is he counted as a slave owner then?
Or another example, let's say that Bob Smith is best friends with Joe Blow and Bob Smith is freed by his white owner. Bob works his butt off to get ahead in the world to be able to afford to buy Joe Blow from his former master. Unfortunately, the job market is terrible right now. Bob has a job but Joe will have an impossible time finding a job. Bob keeps ownership of Joe, with Joe's permission, until the job market changes, so that Joe will not have economic or legal consequences due to being an unemployed black man.
What legal rigamarole was involved in actually freeing the slaves? Could a former slave who had bought his wife and best friend from his former master and who was illiterate have navigated this?
I am not saying that these examples are how every black slave owner may have functioned, certainly. Often, marginalized groups mimic the dominant culture as a desperate attempt at legitimizing their position in society--meaning that freed black men who had reasonably humane masters may have looked at the white, slave owning culture and decided 'well, my master was a decent man who held a good position in this society and looked after me reasonably well and let me earn my freedom and in order to function in this white, slave owning society and survive, I will have to own slaves myself or I will not fit in.'

So my question is, why did they become slave owners? What were the laws, in that time, on how one freed a slave? Are these people then considered slave owners even after they free their slaves? What were the working conditions for freshly freed black slaves?
For example, let's say that Bob Smith is freed by his white owner. His wife and four children are still with his former Master. Does Bob Smith then have to buy his wife and children? Does this, then, make him a slave owner? What if he then frees them? Is he counted as a slave owner then?
Or another example, let's say that Bob Smith is best friends with Joe Blow and Bob Smith is freed by his white owner. Bob works his butt off to get ahead in the world to be able to afford to buy Joe Blow from his former master. Unfortunately, the job market is terrible right now. Bob has a job but Joe will have an impossible time finding a job. Bob keeps ownership of Joe, with Joe's permission, until the job market changes, so that Joe will not have economic or legal consequences due to being an unemployed black man.
What legal rigamarole was involved in actually freeing the slaves? Could a former slave who had bought his wife and best friend from his former master and who was illiterate have navigated this?
I am not saying that these examples are how every black slave owner may have functioned, certainly. Often, marginalized groups mimic the dominant culture as a desperate attempt at legitimizing their position in society--meaning that freed black men who had reasonably humane masters may have looked at the white, slave owning culture and decided 'well, my master was a decent man who held a good position in this society and looked after me reasonably well and let me earn my freedom and in order to function in this white, slave owning society and survive, I will have to own slaves myself or I will not fit in.'

Danno is that you? Just the terminology used in the OP shows the obvious pro life (forget about the fact that the parts and tissues are likely to be used to help a living and fully born human) slant trying to paint the discussion in as inflammatory language as possible.
I think abortion is legal. I also think that using the organs and tissues is a good idea.