Babies.

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
chicagolaw2013
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby chicagolaw2013 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:49 pm

jhare wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:
Go tell your woman to get back in the kitchen. :roll:



wow, great argument.


Didn't think you really deserved an argument back, since this isn't the 1950's anymore, but since you asked...

My parents both worked full-time. They raised 3 children who all have advanced degrees. Both of my sisters and their husbands work full time, and they have children who do EXTREMELY well in all facets of their lives.

And I don't see why pre-K/nursery school is a bad thing. Made me interested in learning. They had me reading when I was 3 years old, along with my parents, who also had me counting to 10 in 4 different languages at the dinner table when I wouldn't eat.

How a child is raised has NOTHING to do with both parents working, but with the caliber of those people who decide to have children. I agree with you on your point of not having kids if you plan to SEND THEM OFF i.e. boarding school, but I think your argument that having a two-income household being an irresponsible situation for a child to be completely unjustified, and stupid, quite frankly.

So until you realize that we've moved past the time where one parent always has to stay at home, regardless of if you agree that it's no longer the woman that must be that stay at home person, since you look like you're aiming to be the breadwinner, you better tell that woman of yours to remember her place, cook you some goddamn dinner, and raise those kids.

12262010
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby 12262010 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:55 pm

UFstudent wrote:Only children do just fine.

"Falbo and Polit (1986) conducted six meta-analyses of studies that
had been done with children in order to examine the only child.
A better relationship with parents and a better developmental outcome
were also found to be traits of only children. The areas of
achievement, intelligence and character for only borns were above
their peers who had siblings."


not most of the ones I know. and save your psychobabble for someone who cares.

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Babies.

Postby James Bond » Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:06 pm

jmhendri wrote:
nygrrrl wrote:
jhare wrote:Seriously, this hyper-feminism stuff has seriously grown out of control. I'm all for equal treatment of women, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a career, have one. If you want kids, have them. But know that having both (without a dedicated stay-at-home significant other) is reckless and irresponsible.

Because, you know, it's ok for guys to have kids and careers because... wait, why is that again?



House man FTW!!!


I wouldn't mind working from home to take care of the kids during the day, completely serious, but I'd need to have a good job that I could actually do from home in order to pull that off. I couldn't just be the male equivalent of a housewife and clean house and change diapers all day.

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:51 pm

chicagolaw2013 wrote:
jhare wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:
Go tell your woman to get back in the kitchen. :roll:



wow, great argument.


Didn't think you really deserved an argument back, since this isn't the 1950's anymore, but since you asked...

My parents both worked full-time. They raised 3 children who all have advanced degrees. Both of my sisters and their husbands work full time, and they have children who do EXTREMELY well in all facets of their lives.

And I don't see why pre-K/nursery school is a bad thing. Made me interested in learning. They had me reading when I was 3 years old, along with my parents, who also had me counting to 10 in 4 different languages at the dinner table when I wouldn't eat.

How a child is raised has NOTHING to do with both parents working, but with the caliber of those people who decide to have children. I agree with you on your point of not having kids if you plan to SEND THEM OFF i.e. boarding school, but I think your argument that having a two-income household being an irresponsible situation for a child to be completely unjustified, and stupid, quite frankly.

So until you realize that we've moved past the time where one parent always has to stay at home, regardless of if you agree that it's no longer the woman that must be that stay at home person, since you look like you're aiming to be the breadwinner, you better tell that woman of yours to remember her place, cook you some goddamn dinner, and raise those kids.



As always, people continue to sway the argument to what benefits them. I said in that comment that it's okay if both parents work, my argument is that there is no point in having kids if they aren't your FIRST priority. Do me a favor and read the first 8-9 pages of this. The people were talking about how "inconvenient" having kids were, or that they wanted to establish their careers first despite the clear evidence that the chances of birth defects grow as women have children later in life. You can't tell me that the same people that put off kids for 15+ years to "establish" their careers would be okay with raising a down syndrome child?

Oh, and FWIW, if you're going to throw out generalizations about me and my family, I can do the same to you. Sounds like you've had a perfect life. I've actually had to make something out of myself because I received NO help from my parents (both worked 60+ hours a week). We can give anecdotal evidence all day on this board but my point stands.

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:02 am

chicagolaw2013 wrote:
jhare wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:
Go tell your woman to get back in the kitchen. :roll:



wow, great argument.


Didn't think you really deserved an argument back, since this isn't the 1950's anymore, but since you asked...

My parents both worked full-time. They raised 3 children who all have advanced degrees. Both of my sisters and their husbands work full time, and they have children who do EXTREMELY well in all facets of their lives.

And I don't see why pre-K/nursery school is a bad thing. Made me interested in learning. They had me reading when I was 3 years old, along with my parents, who also had me counting to 10 in 4 different languages at the dinner table when I wouldn't eat.

How a child is raised has NOTHING to do with both parents working, but with the caliber of those people who decide to have children. I agree with you on your point of not having kids if you plan to SEND THEM OFF i.e. boarding school, but I think your argument that having a two-income household being an irresponsible situation for a child to be completely unjustified, and stupid, quite frankly.

So until you realize that we've moved past the time where one parent always has to stay at home, regardless of if you agree that it's no longer the woman that must be that stay at home person, since you look like you're aiming to be the breadwinner, you better tell that woman of yours to remember her place, cook you some goddamn dinner, and raise those kids.



Why is does it have to be the 1950s to have a dedicated parent that can take care of their kids? I thought in today's age a woman has the right to choose what they want to do without being disrespected? My wife has the choice to do what she wishes, but she WANTS to stay at home and raise our child. Being a stay at home mom is not just "cooking and cleaning", it's a real job, but I guess your mom never taught you that because she let other people raise you anyway.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby IAFG » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:05 am

jhare wrote: I said in that comment that it's okay if both parents work, my argument is that there is no point in having kids if they aren't your FIRST priority.

i would probably take this further and say that your marriage, the foundation of your home, should be your first priority, before your career. building castles on sand, etc.

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:07 am

IAFG wrote:
jhare wrote: I said in that comment that it's okay if both parents work, my argument is that there is no point in having kids if they aren't your FIRST priority.

i would probably take this further and say that your marriage, the foundation of your home, should be your first priority, before your career. building castles on sand, etc.


Thanks, very true. I completely agree.

User avatar
chicagolaw2013
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby chicagolaw2013 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:08 am

jhare wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:
jhare wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:
Go tell your woman to get back in the kitchen. :roll:



wow, great argument.


Didn't think you really deserved an argument back, since this isn't the 1950's anymore, but since you asked...

My parents both worked full-time. They raised 3 children who all have advanced degrees. Both of my sisters and their husbands work full time, and they have children who do EXTREMELY well in all facets of their lives.

And I don't see why pre-K/nursery school is a bad thing. Made me interested in learning. They had me reading when I was 3 years old, along with my parents, who also had me counting to 10 in 4 different languages at the dinner table when I wouldn't eat.

How a child is raised has NOTHING to do with both parents working, but with the caliber of those people who decide to have children. I agree with you on your point of not having kids if you plan to SEND THEM OFF i.e. boarding school, but I think your argument that having a two-income household being an irresponsible situation for a child to be completely unjustified, and stupid, quite frankly.

So until you realize that we've moved past the time where one parent always has to stay at home, regardless of if you agree that it's no longer the woman that must be that stay at home person, since you look like you're aiming to be the breadwinner, you better tell that woman of yours to remember her place, cook you some goddamn dinner, and raise those kids.



As always, people continue to sway the argument to what benefits them. I said in that comment that it's okay if both parents work, my argument is that there is no point in having kids if they aren't your FIRST priority. Do me a favor and read the first 8-9 pages of this. The people were talking about how "inconvenient" having kids were, or that they wanted to establish their careers first despite the clear evidence that the chances of birth defects grow as women have children later in life. You can't tell me that the same people that put off kids for 15+ years to "establish" their careers would be okay with raising a down syndrome child?

Oh, and FWIW, if you're going to throw out generalizations about me and my family, I can do the same to you. Sounds like you've had a perfect life. I've actually had to make something out of myself because I received NO help from my parents (both worked 60+ hours a week). We can give anecdotal evidence all day on this board but my point stands.


If we are going to go on the road to help from parents, because I'm assuming you think I was some blessed kid that had mommy and daddy pay for everything, my parents weren't "loving" in that way. They supported me financially within boundaries until 18, and then I was on my own. I worked near full-time while being full-time at a top UG institution. Go preach to someone else on that.

And, as I stated before in this thread (if YOU'D read, you would have realized as much), genetics play a part in how susceptible a person is to giving birth to a child with defects at an older age. It's correlation, not causation. Being an older child-bearer is correlated to birth defects, but being older doesn't necessarily CAUSE birth defects. There are usually other mitigating factors, some that likely have to do with age, that cause said defects...it's not just the age of the woman in and of itself. For those people saying as much, that it is a cause and effect relationship, show me research that supports your claim speaking about direct causation of age to birth defects, because I have seen nothing of the sort. I'd be glad to debate with you if you can back up your claim.

TaiRuiJin
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:34 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby TaiRuiJin » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:10 am

yinz wrote:There is a strong undercurrent of baby-mongering going on here (is this what the women's bathroom sounds like?) and that scares me more than all of the numbers and percentages. This is like the time someone brought a baby into work last week and within seconds seven twenty-somethings were going gaga over the googoo.


Here's my advice: Do not have children until you can afford to have someone take care of them.


This is one of the reasons why China has the social issues they do today....

User avatar
dominkay
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby dominkay » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:11 am

IAFG wrote:
jhare wrote: I said in that comment that it's okay if both parents work, my argument is that there is no point in having kids if they aren't your FIRST priority.

i would probably take this further and say that your marriage, the foundation of your home, should be your first priority, before your career. building castles on sand, etc.


I think making your marriage the first priority in your life is courting disaster, given how many marriages end in divorce.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby IAFG » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:12 am

dominkay wrote:
IAFG wrote:
jhare wrote: I said in that comment that it's okay if both parents work, my argument is that there is no point in having kids if they aren't your FIRST priority.

i would probably take this further and say that your marriage, the foundation of your home, should be your first priority, before your career. building castles on sand, etc.


I think making your marriage the first priority in your life is courting disaster, given how many marriages end in divorce.

couldn't be... because people don't make their marriages their first priority, hmm?

User avatar
nygrrrl
Posts: 4948
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Babies.

Postby nygrrrl » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:13 am

jhare wrote:
nygrrrl wrote:
jhare wrote:Seriously, this hyper-feminism stuff has seriously grown out of control. I'm all for equal treatment of women, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a career, have one. If you want kids, have them. But know that having both (without a dedicated stay-at-home significant other) is reckless and irresponsible.

Because, you know, it's ok for guys to have kids and careers because... wait, why is that again?


Huh? I think I understand what you're saying, and my argument isn't about sexes. I'm looking at this from outside that viewpoint. Whether it's a working mom and stay at home dad, working dad and stay at home mom, working dad and stay at home dad (if that's what you prefer), or even if the parents decide to choose careers that are accommodating to having children, etc; my argument is that a child needs a PARENT to raise them, not day care workers/ nannies/ boarding schools.

I know a lot of single moms who've done just fine.
Both of my parents worked, I was a latch key kid with occasional sitters.
You don't have kids yet, do you.

User avatar
chicagolaw2013
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby chicagolaw2013 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:14 am

dominkay wrote:
IAFG wrote:
jhare wrote: I said in that comment that it's okay if both parents work, my argument is that there is no point in having kids if they aren't your FIRST priority.

i would probably take this further and say that your marriage, the foundation of your home, should be your first priority, before your career. building castles on sand, etc.


I think making your marriage the first priority in your life is courting disaster, given how many marriages end in divorce.


I see your point here, dominkay, but I think she's making the point that making the marriage work would then lead to a more cohesive family unit, a happier home for the kids (if it is indeed a workable marriage...at some points, divorce would probably be better for the kids...but we could debate that all day haha).

User avatar
dominkay
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby dominkay » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:20 am

IAFG wrote:
dominkay wrote:
IAFG wrote:
jhare wrote: I said in that comment that it's okay if both parents work, my argument is that there is no point in having kids if they aren't your FIRST priority.

i would probably take this further and say that your marriage, the foundation of your home, should be your first priority, before your career. building castles on sand, etc.


I think making your marriage the first priority in your life is courting disaster, given how many marriages end in divorce.

couldn't be... because people don't make their marriages their first priority, hmm?


Maybe.

The thing is, your marriage might be the most important thing in your life, but if your spouse doesn't feel the same way and decides to leave... you're up shit creek. Especially if you have a whole bunch of kids and no career. I know several women who've had their lives ruined in this way.

I feel like being a stay-at-home mom is almost as risky as attending at TTT at sticker.

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:20 am

chicagolaw2013 wrote:If we are going to go on the road to help from parents, because I'm assuming you think I was some blessed kid that had mommy and daddy pay for everything, my parents weren't "loving" in that way. They supported me financially within boundaries until 18, and then I was on my own. I worked near full-time while being full-time at a top UG institution. Go preach to someone else on that.


EXACTLY.

chicagolaw2013 wrote:And, as I stated before in this thread (if YOU'D read, you would have realized as much), genetics play a part in how susceptible a person is to giving birth to a child with defects at an older age. It's correlation, not causation. Being an older child-bearer is correlated to birth defects, but being older doesn't necessarily CAUSE birth defects. There are usually other mitigating factors, some that likely have to do with age, that cause said defects...it's not just the age of the woman in and of itself. For those people saying as much, that it is a cause and effect relationship, show me research that supports your claim speaking about direct causation of age to birth defects, because I have seen nothing of the sort. I'd be glad to debate with you if you can back up your claim.


Directly from the March of Dimes website:
A woman’s risk of having a baby with certain birth defects involving chromosomes (the structures in cells that contain genes) increases with age. Down syndrome is the most common chromosomal birth defect. Affected children have varying degrees of mental retardation and physical birth defects. A woman’s risk of having a baby with Down syndrome is (1):

At age 25, 1 in 1,250
At age 30, 1 in 1,000
At age 35, 1 in 400
At age 40, 1 in 100
At 45, 1 in 30
At 49, a 1 in 10

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:23 am

nygrrrl wrote:
jhare wrote:
nygrrrl wrote:
jhare wrote:Seriously, this hyper-feminism stuff has seriously grown out of control. I'm all for equal treatment of women, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a career, have one. If you want kids, have them. But know that having both (without a dedicated stay-at-home significant other) is reckless and irresponsible.

Because, you know, it's ok for guys to have kids and careers because... wait, why is that again?


Huh? I think I understand what you're saying, and my argument isn't about sexes. I'm looking at this from outside that viewpoint. Whether it's a working mom and stay at home dad, working dad and stay at home mom, working dad and stay at home dad (if that's what you prefer), or even if the parents decide to choose careers that are accommodating to having children, etc; my argument is that a child needs a PARENT to raise them, not day care workers/ nannies/ boarding schools.

I know a lot of single moms who've done just fine.
Both of my parents worked, I was a latch key kid with occasional sitters.
You don't have kids yet, do you.


Yes, I do have kids. And of course there are single moms who do fine, but it's not an ideal situation. Ask those women whether they would like the help of a loving husband and most of them would say yes. Do you have kids?

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby IAFG » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:26 am

dominkay wrote:Maybe.

The thing is, your marriage might be the most important thing in your life, but if your spouse doesn't feel the same way and decides to leave... you're up shit creek. Especially if you have a whole bunch of kids and no career. I know several women who've had their lives ruined in this way.

I feel like being a stay-at-home mom is almost as risky as attending at TTT at sticker.

i agree being a stay-at-home mom isn't ideal. just that, if i should have children, i would want to mommy-track, so i could be a better parent, and because i assume that i will feel a biological want to be as available for my children as is reasonable. i still want my career, i just acknowledge you can't be everything to everyone all at once.

as far as making your marriage the center of your life goes, you have to be very careful who you choose to start a life with, but after you make that choice, you can't be guarded and thinking offensively.

User avatar
chicagolaw2013
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby chicagolaw2013 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:29 am

dominkay wrote:

I feel like being a stay-at-home mom is almost as risky as attending at TTT at sticker.


LOL at the analogy, but agreed...same thing for a stay at home dad. Doing nothing but raising your child 24/7 is a wonderful goal, and althoug it is definitely a full time job in and of itself, it still KILLS one's resume. If there is some serious defect in the relationship, or if some tragedy happens, that person would be stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you've been home with the kids for years, it's rough getting back in the saddle in your field, especially ITE. I have a friend whose father died unexpectedly (heart attack), and her mom had been a stay at home mom for 15 years...she had a 14 year old (my friend) and 11 year old at the time, and had one hell of a time getting back into her legal career (ironic much?), and this was during the good years in this country. Thank goodness for life insurance that kept them afloat for a while.

My fiance wants to work from home to some extent because he can, and be home at least a couple of days a week with the kids. I'm thrilled, but don't expect him (or myself) to completely stay home and end, to a point, a career just to have children. You really never know what could happen...for example, one of us could die the next day, and the parent who's left would have to support that family. We are in agreement that we want both of us to be viable for such a role if that occurs, god forbid.

User avatar
dominkay
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby dominkay » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:34 am

IAFG wrote:
dominkay wrote:Maybe.

The thing is, your marriage might be the most important thing in your life, but if your spouse doesn't feel the same way and decides to leave... you're up shit creek. Especially if you have a whole bunch of kids and no career. I know several women who've had their lives ruined in this way.

I feel like being a stay-at-home mom is almost as risky as attending at TTT at sticker.

i agree being a stay-at-home mom isn't ideal. just that, if i should have children, i would want to mommy-track, so i could be a better parent, and because i assume that i will feel a biological want to be as available for my children as is reasonable. i still want my career, i just acknowledge you can't be everything to everyone all at once.

as far as making your marriage the center of your life goes, you have to be very careful who you choose to start a life with, but after you make that choice, you can't be guarded and thinking offensively.


You have to be very careful who you choose to start a life with, and you can't ever stop thinking defensively. You can love someone fully without losing your head. In my experience, the people who are most adamant that they're going to be together forever, no matter what, are the ones who break up fastest (and their breakups are really messy). My boyfriend and I have been together for almost four years, and I hope we will be together forever, but I make all my decisions keeping in mind that a breakup is a possibility and I need to be able to stand on my own. My first responsibility is to myself. That won't change when we get married.

I also think this is kind of a sexist thing; I don't often hear men being advised to make their marriage the center of their lives.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby IAFG » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:36 am

dominkay wrote:I also think this is kind of a sexist thing; I don't often hear men being advised to make their marriage the center of their lives.

i hear this every sunday

User avatar
Scallywaggums
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby Scallywaggums » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:36 am

jhare wrote:Down syndrome...
At age 25, 1 in 1,250
At age 30, 1 in 1,000
At age 35, 1 in 400
At age 40, 1 in 100
At 45, 1 in 30
At 49, a 1 in 10[/i]


Has anyone come across any studies correlating age of mother with any positive metrics? (any standardized test, quality of life, self-reported happiness, education, income, whatevs)

User avatar
dominkay
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby dominkay » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:38 am

IAFG wrote:
dominkay wrote:I also think this is kind of a sexist thing; I don't often hear men being advised to make their marriage the center of their lives.

i hear this every sunday


I admit to not spending very much time at church. :)

User avatar
chicagolaw2013
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby chicagolaw2013 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:43 am

Just an FYI...trying to find the actual study with data for you guys:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Most+birth+defects+don't+rise+with+age.+(age+of+mother)-a010527677

Proof to my point that age really has nothing to do with birth defects in most cases unless there are mitigating factors (i.e. other genetic factors). Screens are done as precautions for chromosomal abnormalities, which in many cases are unavoidable regardless of age, but as I said, there is a correlation with age, not a causation by age in most cases.

jhare
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Babies.

Postby jhare » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:58 am

chicagolaw2013 wrote:Just an FYI...trying to find the actual study with data for you guys:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Most+birth+defects+don't+rise+with+age.+(age+of+mother)-a010527677

Proof to my point that age really has nothing to do with birth defects in most cases unless there are mitigating factors (i.e. other genetic factors). Screens are done as precautions for chromosomal abnormalities, which in many cases are unavoidable regardless of age, but as I said, there is a correlation with age, not a causation by age in most cases.



LoL at the fact that the website URL says "MOST birth defects don't..." . Fail.

User avatar
chicagolaw2013
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Babies.

Postby chicagolaw2013 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:14 am

jhare wrote:
chicagolaw2013 wrote:Just an FYI...trying to find the actual study with data for you guys:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Most+birth+defects+don't+rise+with+age.+(age+of+mother)-a010527677

Proof to my point that age really has nothing to do with birth defects in most cases unless there are mitigating factors (i.e. other genetic factors). Screens are done as precautions for chromosomal abnormalities, which in many cases are unavoidable regardless of age, but as I said, there is a correlation with age, not a causation by age in most cases.



LoL at the fact that the website URL says "MOST birth defects don't..." . Fail.


LOL HARRRRRD at the fact that you seem not to have read that I said "many" or "most" 3 times in my last post, but you seem to have missed that. RC fail on your part there, buckaroo.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], lenardizag and 12 guests