You couldn't get 300,000 people annually. I guarantee it. Liberals are lazy, stupid, and ugly. Haha, they need help wiping their own asses.
All kidding aside, "winning" does not make a difference. You protest abortion to simply indicate that, "Yes, we're opposed to the Roe v. Wade decision and we're still here in 2007." Pro-Life people don't seem to be going away for some reason. The decision was made in 1973. And we're still here.
but it didn't take off until the 80s when pat robertson and jerry jenkins (i hope he's burning in hell) hijacked christianity to exploit it for political purposes and ronald reagan played the part of their point man. you could bump it up even later by saying it wasn't a huge issue until the 90s when newt decided america needed a contract to battle the decadence of bill clinton's sex life (you know, having the mistress and everything... wait, that WAS newt!). it's just a political football, and a very effective one.
in any case, id see roe v overturned myself. let the voters speak.
but it didn't take off until the 80s when pat robertson and jerry jenkins (i hope he's burning in hell) hijacked christianity to exploit it for political purposes and ronald reagan played the part of their point man. you could bump it up even later by saying it wasn't a huge issue until the 90s when newt decided america needed a contract to battle the decadence of bill clinton's sex life (you know, having the mistress and everything... wait, that WAS newt!). it's just a political football, and a very effective one.
in any case, id see roe v overturned myself. let the voters speak.
Christians have always opposed abortion. That's nothing new. Robertson et al made it a political movement because evangelicals had no cohesive movement back then.
Nothing wrong with organizing.
It's very easy to say that you want to let the voters speak now. Back in 1973, we didn't have that opportunity. After 25 years of legal abortion, plenty of voters have been influenced by a pro-choice culture and think it is normal. Had they grown up in a society where abortion was illegal, many would have different views.
A majority of the states had laws on the books already that addressed abortion. The voters HAD spoken and leftist judges took that right from them.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Christians have always opposed abortion. That's nothing new. Robertson et al made it a political movement because evangelicals had no cohesive movement back then.
Nothing wrong with organizing.
It's very easy to say that you want to let the voters speak now. Back in 1973, we didn't have that opportunity. After 25 years of legal abortion, plenty of voters have been influenced by a pro-choice culture and think it is normal. Had they grown up in a society where abortion was illegal, many would have different views.
A majority of the states had laws on the books already that addressed abortion. The voters HAD spoken and leftist judges took that right from them.
Honest question. You know that if abortion was illegal, people would still do it, in much more dangerous ways. Would you do anything to combat that?
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
A majority of the states had laws on the books already that addressed abortion. The voters HAD spoken and leftist judges took that right from them.
Curious how that happens, considering that of the nine Justices sitting on the bench when Roe was decided, six were appointed by Republicans.
Roe v. Wade had a vote split of 7-2. Five of those Republican Justices ruled in favor of legal abortion. Of the two that dissented, one was appointed by JFK.
In fact, the Supreme Court has been mostly Republican since, yet still Roe v. Wade is considered established law.
Ah well. I suppose as long as Republicans have something to run on, it's O.K. that nothing's really done about it.
Curious how that happens, considering that of the nine Justices sitting on the bench when Roe was decided, six were appointed by Republicans.
Roe v. Wade had a vote split of 7-2. Five of those Republican Justices ruled in favor of legal abortion. Of the two that dissented, one was appointed by JFK.
In fact, the Supreme Court has been mostly Republican since, yet still Roe v. Wade is considered established law.
Ah well. I suppose as long as Republicans have something to run on, it's O.K. that nothing's really done about it.
I don't know what the fuck yer talking about. Justices are neither Republican nor Democrat, but conservative or liberal. The person who appointed them doesn't matter as we've seen with Souter and O'Connor.
Stealth nominees have frequently been wolves in sheep's clothing.
God will judge them too.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
I really don't see why anyone would have such a hard time with this question. I'd say if the woman chooses an abortion once it has been outlawed, then she should serve the same sentence as any other murderer. Or perhaps, since she herself does not actually kill the baby it should be conspiracy to commit murder.
I have absolutely no problem with putting the woman who has an abortion on the same level as someone who hires a hitman to kill his or her neighbour, and putting the doctor who performs the abortion on the same level as a hitman. It seems pretty simple to me.
The ONLY scenario in which I don't believe abortion should be outlawed at all is if the mother's life is at serious risk. I still don't necessarily agree with abortion even then, since it's like somebody saying "well, it's either me or some other (innocent) person who must die, so I choose for the other person to die". Seems pretty selfish to me, and who is any one person to say that one life (even his or her own) is more valuable than that of another? HOWEVER, by that same reasoning, who are we as a society or the government, to say that one life (the baby's) is more valuable than another (the mother's)? Therefore, it should not be the right of anyone else to essentially hand out a death sentence to a woman in order to save the life of her child. This is THE ONLY situation in which I do believe the woman should have the right to choose, regardless of whether or not her choice is morally right or wrong.
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
Christians have always opposed abortion. That's nothing new. Robertson et al made it a political movement because evangelicals had no cohesive movement back then.
Nothing wrong with organizing.
It's very easy to say that you want to let the voters speak now. Back in 1973, we didn't have that opportunity. After 25 years of legal abortion, plenty of voters have been influenced by a pro-choice culture and think it is normal. Had they grown up in a society where abortion was illegal, many would have different views.
A majority of the states had laws on the books already that addressed abortion. The voters HAD spoken and leftist judges took that right from them.
how patently conservative... people are weak-minded sheep who need to be told what to think... we need the church to police people's thinking, lest they start thinking gays are humans or something crazy like that.
I don't know what the fuck yer talking about. Justices are neither Republican nor Democrat, but conservative or liberal. The person who appointed them doesn't matter as we've seen with Souter and O'Connor.
Stealth nominees have frequently been wolves in sheep's clothing.
God will judge them too.
Yeah, but fortunately God doesn't sit on any of our benches.
I just wonder why it is Republican presidents keep appointing liberal judges. I mean, are Republican presidents not that bright, or are good judges just inherently liberal?
In the end, I suppose it means voting Republican doesn't do anything as far as stopping abortion.
how patently conservative... people are weak-minded sheep who need to be told what to think...
People already HAD their thoughts on abortion and they opposed it. They expressed that in the legislative process. It seems quite hypocritical for you to say that when it was LIBERAL justices who told us what to think when the people already had voted on abortion. They overturned the will of the people in a majority of the states. THAT is patently liberal! We're too weak-minded to know what those pro-abortion justices knew and we needed to be told what to think!
lol!
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
I really don't see why anyone would have such a hard time with this question. I'd say if the woman chooses an abortion once it has been outlawed, then she should serve the same sentence as any other murderer. Or perhaps, since she herself does not actually kill the baby it should be conspiracy to commit murder.
I have absolutely no problem with putting the woman who has an abortion on the same level as someone who hires a hitman to kill his or her neighbour, and putting the doctor who performs the abortion on the same level as a hitman. It seems pretty simple to me.
So it's the death penalty for women who have abortions and the doctors that perform them? From my perspective, the conservative movement needs more people like you and CorporateWhore.
I'm just here to remind people what voting Republican has gotten them. Now get out there and start campaigning for murder charges against women and their abortionist doctors. Go man, Go!
If you are going to consider Abortion as Murder... you need to consider contributing factors and accomplices.
The Doctor who performs the abortion... murderer.
The Woman who allows it... murderer.
The Man who contributed to the act that got her in this situation... accomplice to murder.
...
Plus... you toss in any doctor's assistances.
...
Looks like we're gonna need more prisons to house all of these murderers. Virginia seems to have planty of open land... that gets my vote.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
If you are going to consider Abortion as Murder... you need to consider contributing factors and accomplices.
The Doctor who performs the abortion... murderer.
The Woman who allows it... murderer.
The Man who contributed to the act that got her in this situation... accomplice to murder.
...
Plus... you toss in any doctor's assistances.
...
Looks like we're gonna need more prisons to house all of these murderers. Virginia seems to have planty of open land... that gets my vote.
Why would the man who contributed to the act that got her in this situation only be considered an accomplice?
Why would the man who contributed to the act that got her in this situation only be considered an accomplice?
cos he didn't make the abortion decision. you don't hold a murder victim's parents guilt for creating the victim. if he was involved in the decision he goes down.
Christians have always opposed abortion. That's nothing new. Robertson et al made it a political movement because evangelicals had no cohesive movement back then.
Allow me to make an important point here. I am Christian and am pro-choice. I know many people who are Christian and are pro-choice. And, get ready for this, I also believe in evolution. So, in other words, I believe mothers should be allowed to kill their babies and my uncle is a monkey. Does that sound about right?
So it's the death penalty for women who have abortions and the doctors that perform them? From my perspective, the conservative movement needs more people like you and CorporateWhore.
Well, I disagree with the death penalty all together, so no I don't think they should be put to death. However, I'm no less opposed to capital punishment in the case of abortion as I am opposed to it in the case of a random shooting or something like that.
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
cos he didn't make the abortion decision. you don't hold a murder victim's parents guilt for creating the victim. if he was involved in the decision he goes down.
...
In which HE needs to bears some of the costs and responsibility for banging her...
If he says he wants the baby... HE has to accept full custody of it to at least age 18... including paying for all of HER prenatal care as well as all costs for the birth. The mother relinquishes all rights... just as if she had given the baby up for adoption.
If he agrees to the Abortion... he is as guilty as the guy driving the car in a drive-by murder... right?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
cos he didn't make the abortion decision. you don't hold a murder victim's parents guilt for creating the victim. if he was involved in the decision he goes down.
If the father really encouraged it, then yes he should be an acomplice or something. Unfortunately as it stands, the father can say what he wants, but he's really still powerless. Still doesn't make it right for him to encourage an abortion, though.
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
cos he didn't make the abortion decision. you don't hold a murder victim's parents guilt for creating the victim. if he was involved in the decision he goes down.
Why wouldn't the law consider that he if wasn't participating actively in the intent to keep the foetus alive that he is also guilty of murder?
I thought people could also be charged with murder if their actions could be construed to have also contributed?
A murder victims parents is not really the same thing.
If the father really encouraged it, then yes he should be an acomplice or something. Unfortunately as it stands, the father can say what he wants, but he's really still powerless. Still doesn't make it right for him to encourage an abortion, though.
...
Then shift half of the responsibility onto the MAN in the case. If he objects to abortion... HE gets to keep the baby after HE pays for her to continue the pregnancy... and HE pays for the birth. She forfeits all parantal claims on the child after birth... just as a woman who adopts out her baby. No child support involved for her.
If he agrees to the abortion... he becomes a party to it. if you are going to talk tough about Abortion... then you need to inclued all involved. Or drop it all together. This blaming one side is what pussies do.
Make the MAN responsible for his 2 minutes of irresponsibility.
...
ADD:
If she wants to keep the baby and he wants her to get an abortion... hold him for conspiracy to commit murder.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
The truth is, it still comes down to the issue of abortion itself. Does the fetus constitute a human life, with all inherent rights and respect afforded to the rest of human life? Does a woman have the right to do whatever she wants with her body, regardless of how it affects a fetus, and regardless of whether or not that fetus can be considered as much a human life as any other person already born? Do we, as a society, have the right to impose laws and restrictions on what a person (ie. a woman) should be allowed to do?
It doesn't make sense to pose a hypothetical question like "how much time should they serve?" if we're then going to turn around and say "but it's just a cluster of cells". If that is your argument, then stick with that argument - don't pretend that that is not the issue at hand. If you were to suppose that that were not the issue, and that abortion is murder, then it makes perfect sense for those taking part in abortions to be looked on as murderers.
In other words, don't pretend that the problem is women going to jail or jails being overcrowded (because if you really could put those other questions aside and hypothetically accept that abortion is akin to murder, then these consequences would not be nearly sufficient to justify allowing such crimes to persist), but rather continue to insist that the problem is that women should have the right to choose - that's it! Defend that stance.
You pretend to suspend your bias in favour of objectivity, and pose a hypothetical situation arising from the opposing (ie. pro-life) stance, and claim to find loopholes further along the opponent's line of reasoning that are really only problematic if you never accepted the very fundamentals of the opposing stance to begin with. Do you see why this sort of circular argument is pointless? You're just insulting my intelligence, and you're not really furthering your argument at all.
Granted, there are some people who would call themselves pro-life and would still find your question to be a stumbling block, but I'm sure I could find people who call themselves pro-choice and are just as easily tripped up by equally frivolous, albeit unexpected, questions. Let's look at the argument itself, not those few arguers who really don't know where they stand as well as they think they know.
Sorry, that may be excessively wordy and a little too involved. It's just that I've been meaning to say this for a while, as it has applied to many arguments I've heard, and I really wanted to make myself understood. Did I make myself understood, or did that come across as complete gibberish?
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
...
Then shift half of the responsibility onto the MAN in the case. If he objects to abortion... HE gets to keep the baby after HE pays for her to continue the pregnancy... and HE pays for the birth. She forfeits all parantal claims on the child after birth... just as a woman who adopts out her baby. No child support involved for her.
If he agrees to the abortion... he becomes a party to it. if you are going to talk tough about Abortion... then you need to inclued all involved. Or drop it all together. This blaming one side is what pussies do.
Make the MAN responsible for his 2 minutes of irresponsibility.
...
ADD:
If she wants to keep the baby and he wants her to get an abortion... hold him for conspiracy to commit murder.
Absolutely! Sounds good to me.
I still don't believe in abortion even if both parties agree. I must admit though, I really do like your idea. It is an innovative and much more inclusive take on parenting.
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
Is there even a woman involved in this conversation? Or is it all about men here as usual?
Who gives a fuck whether it's women or men. Men are just as involved in abortion. They can perform the abortions and they can help produce the aborted fetus.
This kind of sexism is veiled because feminazis think that men have no say over the life of their unborn child. Men can and should step up to save the child from being destroyed though. Abortion is as much the man's fault as the woman's because had he offered to care for it, perhaps the woman would not abort it.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
...
Then shift half of the responsibility onto the MAN in the case. If he objects to abortion... HE gets to keep the baby after HE pays for her to continue the pregnancy... and HE pays for the birth. She forfeits all parantal claims on the child after birth... just as a woman who adopts out her baby. No child support involved for her.
If he agrees to the abortion... he becomes a party to it. if you are going to talk tough about Abortion... then you need to inclued all involved. Or drop it all together. This blaming one side is what pussies do.
Make the MAN responsible for his 2 minutes of irresponsibility.
...
ADD:
If she wants to keep the baby and he wants her to get an abortion... hold him for conspiracy to commit murder.
Sounds good to me.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
In other words, don't pretend that the problem is women going to jail or jails being overcrowded (because if you really could put those other questions aside and hypothetically accept that abortion is akin to murder, then these consequences would not be nearly sufficient to justify allowing such crimes to persist), but rather continue to insist that the problem is that women should have the right to choose - that's it! Defend that stance.
I do defend that stance, as do plenty of others on this board. We're only asking that the pro-life side defend the stance that abortion is the same thing as murder, and to therefore insist that women getting abortions be treated as murderers and sentenced accordingly.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Comments
but it didn't take off until the 80s when pat robertson and jerry jenkins (i hope he's burning in hell) hijacked christianity to exploit it for political purposes and ronald reagan played the part of their point man. you could bump it up even later by saying it wasn't a huge issue until the 90s when newt decided america needed a contract to battle the decadence of bill clinton's sex life (you know, having the mistress and everything... wait, that WAS newt!). it's just a political football, and a very effective one.
in any case, id see roe v overturned myself. let the voters speak.
Christians have always opposed abortion. That's nothing new. Robertson et al made it a political movement because evangelicals had no cohesive movement back then.
Nothing wrong with organizing.
It's very easy to say that you want to let the voters speak now. Back in 1973, we didn't have that opportunity. After 25 years of legal abortion, plenty of voters have been influenced by a pro-choice culture and think it is normal. Had they grown up in a society where abortion was illegal, many would have different views.
A majority of the states had laws on the books already that addressed abortion. The voters HAD spoken and leftist judges took that right from them.
-Enoch Powell
Yeah sure. Make it illegal to do abortion in dangerous ways too. Safe or dangerous, abortion would occur far less if it were illegal.
Put people in jail for a long time if they perform an abortion or have one performed.
-Enoch Powell
What about cases where the mother is in danger, or in cases of rape?
naděje umírá poslední
Roe v. Wade had a vote split of 7-2. Five of those Republican Justices ruled in favor of legal abortion. Of the two that dissented, one was appointed by JFK.
In fact, the Supreme Court has been mostly Republican since, yet still Roe v. Wade is considered established law.
Ah well. I suppose as long as Republicans have something to run on, it's O.K. that nothing's really done about it.
I don't know what the fuck yer talking about. Justices are neither Republican nor Democrat, but conservative or liberal. The person who appointed them doesn't matter as we've seen with Souter and O'Connor.
Stealth nominees have frequently been wolves in sheep's clothing.
God will judge them too.
-Enoch Powell
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
I have absolutely no problem with putting the woman who has an abortion on the same level as someone who hires a hitman to kill his or her neighbour, and putting the doctor who performs the abortion on the same level as a hitman. It seems pretty simple to me.
The ONLY scenario in which I don't believe abortion should be outlawed at all is if the mother's life is at serious risk. I still don't necessarily agree with abortion even then, since it's like somebody saying "well, it's either me or some other (innocent) person who must die, so I choose for the other person to die". Seems pretty selfish to me, and who is any one person to say that one life (even his or her own) is more valuable than that of another? HOWEVER, by that same reasoning, who are we as a society or the government, to say that one life (the baby's) is more valuable than another (the mother's)? Therefore, it should not be the right of anyone else to essentially hand out a death sentence to a woman in order to save the life of her child. This is THE ONLY situation in which I do believe the woman should have the right to choose, regardless of whether or not her choice is morally right or wrong.
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
how patently conservative... people are weak-minded sheep who need to be told what to think... we need the church to police people's thinking, lest they start thinking gays are humans or something crazy like that.
I just wonder why it is Republican presidents keep appointing liberal judges. I mean, are Republican presidents not that bright, or are good judges just inherently liberal?
In the end, I suppose it means voting Republican doesn't do anything as far as stopping abortion.
SO WHY NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT?
No.
Bush nominated Alito and Roberts. They're solid conservatives.
People already HAD their thoughts on abortion and they opposed it. They expressed that in the legislative process. It seems quite hypocritical for you to say that when it was LIBERAL justices who told us what to think when the people already had voted on abortion. They overturned the will of the people in a majority of the states. THAT is patently liberal! We're too weak-minded to know what those pro-abortion justices knew and we needed to be told what to think!
lol!
-Enoch Powell
I'm just here to remind people what voting Republican has gotten them. Now get out there and start campaigning for murder charges against women and their abortionist doctors. Go man, Go!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
The Doctor who performs the abortion... murderer.
The Woman who allows it... murderer.
The Man who contributed to the act that got her in this situation... accomplice to murder.
...
Plus... you toss in any doctor's assistances.
...
Looks like we're gonna need more prisons to house all of these murderers. Virginia seems to have planty of open land... that gets my vote.
Hail, Hail!!!
Why would the man who contributed to the act that got her in this situation only be considered an accomplice?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
cos he didn't make the abortion decision. you don't hold a murder victim's parents guilt for creating the victim. if he was involved in the decision he goes down.
Allow me to make an important point here. I am Christian and am pro-choice. I know many people who are Christian and are pro-choice. And, get ready for this, I also believe in evolution. So, in other words, I believe mothers should be allowed to kill their babies and my uncle is a monkey. Does that sound about right?
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
In which HE needs to bears some of the costs and responsibility for banging her...
If he says he wants the baby... HE has to accept full custody of it to at least age 18... including paying for all of HER prenatal care as well as all costs for the birth. The mother relinquishes all rights... just as if she had given the baby up for adoption.
If he agrees to the Abortion... he is as guilty as the guy driving the car in a drive-by murder... right?
Hail, Hail!!!
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
Why wouldn't the law consider that he if wasn't participating actively in the intent to keep the foetus alive that he is also guilty of murder?
I thought people could also be charged with murder if their actions could be construed to have also contributed?
A murder victims parents is not really the same thing.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Then shift half of the responsibility onto the MAN in the case. If he objects to abortion... HE gets to keep the baby after HE pays for her to continue the pregnancy... and HE pays for the birth. She forfeits all parantal claims on the child after birth... just as a woman who adopts out her baby. No child support involved for her.
If he agrees to the abortion... he becomes a party to it. if you are going to talk tough about Abortion... then you need to inclued all involved. Or drop it all together. This blaming one side is what pussies do.
Make the MAN responsible for his 2 minutes of irresponsibility.
...
ADD:
If she wants to keep the baby and he wants her to get an abortion... hold him for conspiracy to commit murder.
Hail, Hail!!!
It doesn't make sense to pose a hypothetical question like "how much time should they serve?" if we're then going to turn around and say "but it's just a cluster of cells". If that is your argument, then stick with that argument - don't pretend that that is not the issue at hand. If you were to suppose that that were not the issue, and that abortion is murder, then it makes perfect sense for those taking part in abortions to be looked on as murderers.
In other words, don't pretend that the problem is women going to jail or jails being overcrowded (because if you really could put those other questions aside and hypothetically accept that abortion is akin to murder, then these consequences would not be nearly sufficient to justify allowing such crimes to persist), but rather continue to insist that the problem is that women should have the right to choose - that's it! Defend that stance.
You pretend to suspend your bias in favour of objectivity, and pose a hypothetical situation arising from the opposing (ie. pro-life) stance, and claim to find loopholes further along the opponent's line of reasoning that are really only problematic if you never accepted the very fundamentals of the opposing stance to begin with. Do you see why this sort of circular argument is pointless? You're just insulting my intelligence, and you're not really furthering your argument at all.
Granted, there are some people who would call themselves pro-life and would still find your question to be a stumbling block, but I'm sure I could find people who call themselves pro-choice and are just as easily tripped up by equally frivolous, albeit unexpected, questions. Let's look at the argument itself, not those few arguers who really don't know where they stand as well as they think they know.
Sorry, that may be excessively wordy and a little too involved. It's just that I've been meaning to say this for a while, as it has applied to many arguments I've heard, and I really wanted to make myself understood. Did I make myself understood, or did that come across as complete gibberish?
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
I still don't believe in abortion even if both parties agree. I must admit though, I really do like your idea. It is an innovative and much more inclusive take on parenting.
"It was Luke's fault" (Ed after stumbling on Soon Forget at Kitchener '05)
Who gives a fuck whether it's women or men. Men are just as involved in abortion. They can perform the abortions and they can help produce the aborted fetus.
This kind of sexism is veiled because feminazis think that men have no say over the life of their unborn child. Men can and should step up to save the child from being destroyed though. Abortion is as much the man's fault as the woman's because had he offered to care for it, perhaps the woman would not abort it.
-Enoch Powell
Sounds good to me.
-Enoch Powell