Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 226 of 441 (837605)
08-06-2018 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Tangle
08-06-2018 4:31 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
After a child is born it is impossible to abort the child.
If it was one tenth of a second before the child was born I would give you the prior answer, I simply do not have enough information to make a judgement. I have no way to know or tell.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Tangle, posted 08-06-2018 4:31 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Tangle, posted 08-06-2018 4:46 PM jar has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 227 of 441 (837610)
08-06-2018 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by jar
08-06-2018 4:34 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Jar writes:
After a child is born it is impossible to abort the child.
Wow, equivocation. Ok, let's lose the word abortion then. I hope I don't have to ask if you would allow the mother to kill the newborn baby?
If it was one tenth of a second before the child was born I would give you the prior answer, I simply do not have enough information to make a judgement. I have no way to know or tell.
But 1/10th of a second earlier you suddenly have no opinion. Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by jar, posted 08-06-2018 4:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by jar, posted 08-06-2018 4:49 PM Tangle has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 228 of 441 (837611)
08-06-2018 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Tangle
08-06-2018 4:46 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
But 1/10th of a second earlier you suddenly have no opinion. Liar, liar, pants on fire.
No Tangle, it's just that I'm honest.
The point you seem to have failed to understand is that my opinion, whatever it might be, is totally irrelevant to the issue when it comes to abortion.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Tangle, posted 08-06-2018 4:46 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Tangle, posted 08-06-2018 5:05 PM jar has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 229 of 441 (837613)
08-06-2018 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by jar
08-06-2018 4:49 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Jar writes:
No Tangle, it's just that I'm honest.
No, you're just making a useless debating point. This is real life and death, you do have an opinion, you know that it would be an enormous wrong to kill a baby just before birth.
The point you seem to have failed to understand is that my opinion, whatever it might be, is totally irrelevant to the issue when it comes to abortion.
'Your' opinion is short hand for society's opinion. If your own opinion mirrored sociey's we would allow abortion at term and that would be murder.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by jar, posted 08-06-2018 4:49 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by jar, posted 08-06-2018 5:13 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 237 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-06-2018 11:12 PM Tangle has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 230 of 441 (837616)
08-06-2018 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Tangle
08-06-2018 5:05 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
'Your' opinion is short hand for society's opinion. If your own opinion mirrored sociey's we would allow abortion at term and that would be murder.
But my opinion is not universal, it is my opinion and so irrelevant.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Tangle, posted 08-06-2018 5:05 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Tangle, posted 08-06-2018 5:24 PM jar has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 231 of 441 (837619)
08-06-2018 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by jar
08-06-2018 5:13 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Jar writes:
But my opinion is not universal, it is my opinion and so irrelevant.
Utter crap. The killing of babies at term is a universally abhorrent idea. You do not actually believe what you are saying.
Unless, of course, you're a psychopath. In which case you're right, but need close watching.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by jar, posted 08-06-2018 5:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by jar, posted 08-06-2018 6:02 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 235 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2018 7:16 PM Tangle has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 232 of 441 (837620)
08-06-2018 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Tangle
08-06-2018 2:23 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
Percy writes:
You can't pretend NoNukes rebuttals of this argument didn't happen just because I'm not NoNukes.
And I have rebutted his rebuttal.
And he yours. Let me know when you win.
Conception is only one of many distinctions. You're ignoring creation of the gamete producers (parents), gamete production, gamete delivery, implantation, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus. How much harm is associated with any of these stages? Give your reasons.
Conception is the first stage at which a baby will be born if no further interventions are made - either by man or nature. There is no earlier point that you can know this.
But you don't know this. No one knows when conception happens, except after the fact. It's estimated that for 50% of conceptions there isn't any knowledge that it ever happened. So much for knowing anything.
I already looked up the harm principle, etc
So you'll be able to answer the question I asked of you which was to give a few example of laws that don't either seek to remedy or prevent harm.
Capital punishment. Anti-dancing laws. Anti-driving laws. Blue laws. Jim Crow laws. Voter ID laws. Incarceration for non-payment of legal bills (modern version of debtor's prison). Criminalizing honest mistakes on welfare forms ("I swear under penalty of perjury that the above is true and accurate..."). NFL games cannot be televised at the same time as college games. Prohibition. Taxes. Some zoning laws. Tobacco subsidies. Fugitive Slave Act. Stand your ground laws. Patriot Act (unlimited surveillance). Indian Removal Act. Internment of Japanese Americans law. Sodomy laws. Adultery laws.
Okay, so I'll repeat what I said before, which is a question since you haven't provided enough information: When does life begin?
That is not an answer and you know it. This is not a theoretical excercise, we - society - have to decide. It's your vote, is it yes or no?
You neglected to provide your question, which was, "Should a woman be able to abort her foetus one hour before its birth?" You tell me when life begins and I'll answer your question. Why are you so resistant to providing that information?
I can't pretend that the unanswerable questions don't exist.
If you can but notice, that's precisely what I'm not doing. And have not been doing it for dozens of posts. Nevertheless, real life and death decisions have to be made on the knowledge we have. What is your vote?
Why are you holding a vote on what a women gets to do with her body when you can't even tell us when life begins?
It's an Of Human Bondage kind of thing - people are people. They aren't going to change.
Well it's the human condition and we do make progress.
People are not changing. Evolution doesn't happen that fast. But environments, particularly social, cultural, political and economic, can change very fast, and people are products of their environment. Any improvement trends are a result of increasing wealth trends, and if those wealth trends reverse then so will the other trends.
It's a 20 minute video so I hope you'll forgive me for just reading the one sentence summary.
It's also a 2 thick book and I commend it to you.
Thanks. In discussion here, though, could you please make your arguments in your own words and offer links and videos and so forth as supporting references? Not necessary in this case, as I already told you I'm already familiar with this.
That there's a long term trend of declining violence is well known, even through the bloody twentieth century and the wars in the Middle East. What I said agrees with Pinker, so I don't know why you bothered posting his video, though by the way it's embeddable.
You said you were pessimistic about our future and that we have learned nothing.
And I gave examples of repeating the same mistakes today that we made in the past.
Pinker's *objective* analysis says otherwise as you would know had you either read the book or watched the video.
I said I agreed with him. I'm talking about going forward. I believe how civilized we are is a function of how wealthy we are. I believe declining wealth for a substantial segment of people in the US and Europe is driving anti-migration and right wing sentiments, and there could be worse to come. I don't believe it's inevitable, but I do believe it's wise to be concerned. It could be a race to see whether technology will bail us out before population and climate change and energy costs overwhelm us.
Try reading for comprehension so that when someone presents evidence of a lack of moral progress that your response is in some way relevant.
Do try not to be an arse, we might make more progress.
Gee, this is going well.
Slavery's still with us, by the way, e.g., Which countries have the highest rates of modern slavery and most victims?:
Ffs. Yes I know. Please try to both keeping to the point and assuming a little intelligence on my side.
How would I know what you already know? I can assure with great confidence that I will continue to not know what you already know and could easily introduce information you already know in the future. Better get used to it.
Modern slavery is more evidence that people today are no different than thousands of years ago, even just a hundred or two years ago.
Slavery and many other horrors are still with us but they are no longer universal. People are still human, it's only when we develop our institutions that we begin to regulate their behaviours. Many parts of the world lag behind the West but change is happening.
Yes, of course. Improving social attitudes go right along with increasing wealth. But what if wealth stops increasing?
That's what I've been telling you. You're going by your feelings, and your use of terms like "definitive" are not appropriate to the high degree of subjectivity involved.
The point of conception is definitive. Scientifically and objectively definitive. Ok?
Definitive of what? The point after which harm is possible? If so then no, conception is not scientifically and objectively definitive of the point where harm is possible. It's how you feel about it, but that isn't definitive of anything.
Whether we say abortion is ok is not definitive, it is based on our feelings. ok?
I think there was a doubled "is not" in there, I deleted it. Yes, just what I've been saying.
I'm sure many Jews also said, "This too will pass," after Kristallnacht on the eve of WWII.
And it did pass. And they got a homeland. And good triumphed over evil. But it was a horror and it likely will happen again.
That it will likely happen again is my point.
But gradually things are getting better.
Overall world-wide? Yes, for now.
Again, I do not share your optimism.
Well that's just your subjective feelings talking...
I recounted history, not my feelings.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Tangle, posted 08-06-2018 2:23 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 233 of 441 (837621)
08-06-2018 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Tangle
08-06-2018 4:06 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
Ok I've now repeated myself too many times to hope that more repetition will get through to you.
Yes, I'm very hard to get through to, I'm sure it's all me.
Let's cut to the chase.
Had I known there was a chase I would have cut to it long ago.
My position, like yours, is that there is no objective point when life can be declared as life. The conception point is a red herring - it's the definitive start of the development of a human being but that doesn't help us with the decision we have to make.
How do you know we're the right people to make the decision? What established our right to do this or gave us jurisdiction?
You say that it's the woman's choice, that the government has no role to play. I ask you whether the woman can terminate her pregnancy a day before term. You refuse to answer because you lack information.
Yes, that's correct.
But life is not like that. We have to have an answer. What is it? There is no ‘don't know’ here, a policy is required. The options are no abortion, woman's choice or some regulated methodology.
Oh, I didn't know you would permit me "women's choice" as an answer. I thought you were demanding I answer yes or no. I choose women's choice.
Edge cases matter because they help us get to the nub of the problem.
Agreed.
For what it's worth, because it *is* an obvious harm to abort a foetus - particularly late stage foetuses - I believe it needs to be regulated and I do not believe that a woman has an absolute right to do what she likes with the foetus within her.
Some of us see danger in certainty and prefer more tentativeness and deliberativeness in decision making.
As to the point at which a termination should not be allowed (without medical necessity) I’ll bow to scientific advice as to when that date should be.
Me too.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Tangle, posted 08-06-2018 4:06 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2018 2:50 AM Percy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 234 of 441 (837622)
08-06-2018 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Tangle
08-06-2018 5:24 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
Utter crap. The killing of babies at term is a universally abhorrent idea. You do not actually believe what you are saying.
Unless, of course, you're a psychopath. In which case you're right, but need close watching.
You and Faith and Marc are really fond of saying really stupid stuff it seems.
And yes, I actually believe what I say but it seems you are still incapable of actually reading what I post.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Tangle, posted 08-06-2018 5:24 PM Tangle has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 235 of 441 (837623)
08-06-2018 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Tangle
08-06-2018 5:24 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Utter crap. The killing of babies at term is a universally abhorrent idea. You do not actually believe what you are saying.
No, Tangle, it is not. At a minimum, the health of the mother is always a concern, and without knowing the details, we cannot say that on balance that aborting a baby prior to the point where the mother's health is no longer at issue, is universally abhorrent and to be avoided.
And in the US, the law current reflects what I consider to be a proper balancing. After the point at which we know the embryo is viable, we don't allow abortions unless a proper balancing is done.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Tangle, posted 08-06-2018 5:24 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by jar, posted 08-06-2018 7:48 PM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 239 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2018 3:01 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 236 of 441 (837624)
08-06-2018 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by NoNukes
08-06-2018 7:16 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
NoNukes writes:
And in the US, the law current reflects what I consider to be a proper balancing. After the point at which we know the embryo is viable, we don't allow abortions unless a proper balancing is done.
And the decision is based on more than just some timeline and is made not by folk posting in forums but by the individuals involved in that specific case; the mother, possibly father and the medical people.
What MY opinion might be is really not relevant and decisions need to be made based on the specifics of each case not some blanket timeline.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2018 7:16 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 237 of 441 (837626)
08-06-2018 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Tangle
08-06-2018 5:05 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
quote:
If your own opinion mirrored societies we would allow abortion at term and that would be murder.
Here is the best visual device ever to see what percentage of people in EACH state say that abortion should be illegal in all or most circumstances (has a big bright blue horizontal line graph for each state (and the number percentage is labeled too) which allows for an easy comparison.
EXAMPLE
Ohio has 48% support for the illegal position as represented by the left side of the graph and it is in dark blue. (47% legal is in a light blue graph to the right)
Above Ohio is North Dakota which has 47% illegal views, and the graph makes it very easy to see Ohio is more Pro Life than North Dakota.
Below is Oklahoma which is 51% supportive of illegality is all or most cases,
Views about abortion by state - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center
This Gallop poll history has all sorts of questions and all sorts of historical poll results.
It has results for May 10 2018
60% say abortion should be legal in the first 3 months. (34% say illegal)
28% say it should be legal in the second 3 months (65% say illegal)
81% say it should be illegal in the last 3 months.
Abortion | Gallup Historical Trends
quote:
A hefty majority of Americans - including a majority of those who consider themselves pro-choice - support substantial abortion restrictions, says a new Marist Poll commissioned by the Knights of Columbus and released Tuesday.
The survey found that 81 percent of Americans and 66 percent of those who identify as pro-choice would restrict abortion to - at most - the first three months of pregnancy. Eighty two percent of women agree with that. The pollster says these findings have been consistent for the last eight years.
In addition, 55 percent of American overall agree that abortion ultimately does a woman more harm than good; 56 percent of women and 27 percent of pro-choice advocates agree. Six in 10 Americans - including 61 percent of women - say abortion is morally wrong. One-third of pro-choice Americans agree.
Another 77 percent overall - including 79 percent of women and 71 percent of pro-choice supporters - say that laws can protect both a mother and her unborn child. Seventeen percent of Americans overall, 15 percent of women, 23 percent of pro-choice identifiers disagree.
Abortion poll finds 81% Americans, 66% pro-choice advocates support restrictions on procedure - Washington Times
Polls seem to suggest a ban after 12 weeks.
Almost every state poll I have seen is consistent with such.
The voters often reject bans (of 12 or 20 weeks) in referendums sue to a Pro Choice campaign that sounds that alarm on access and women's health (and life).
The ironic thing is that presently, looking at Supreme Court precedents, Anthony Kennedy (and the majority) only seemed to allow ban's of up to around 22 weeks.
Thus all the 12 and 20 week abortion bans were very much unconstitutional.
That might change.
I suspect the Court will move slowly and won't make bans prior to 12 weeks constitutional because the larger public strongly opposed bans much (?) before 12 weeks. It must be admitted than questions are rarely asked centering around a 10 week ban (or even 6 week).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Tangle, posted 08-06-2018 5:05 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 238 of 441 (837631)
08-07-2018 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Percy
08-06-2018 5:55 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Percy writes:
How do you know we're the right people to make the decision? What established our right to do this or gave us jurisdiction?
Who has the right to make a decision about locking someone up for a crime? For enforcing a speed limit? For preventing smoking in public places? Why do you think this decision is outwith public policy?
Oh, I didn't know you would permit me "women's choice" as an answer. I thought you were demanding I answer yes or no. I choose women's choice.
You finally got off the fence. Are you sure you think it right to allow a woman to kill her baby a moment before birth? Really?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Percy, posted 08-06-2018 5:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Percy, posted 08-07-2018 11:03 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 239 of 441 (837632)
08-07-2018 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by NoNukes
08-06-2018 7:16 PM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
NoNukes writes:
No, Tangle, it is not. At a minimum, the health of the mother is always a concern, and without knowing the details, we cannot say that on balance that aborting a baby prior to the point where the mother's health is no longer at issue, is universally abhorrent and to be avoided.
You have introduced a qualifyer. I did not and neither has Percy. Percy's only concern has been whether a foetus is life.
And in the US, the law current reflects what I consider to be a proper balancing. After the point at which we know the embryo is viable, we don't allow abortions unless a proper balancing is done.
As do most modern societies. But note, the law is there to protect the foetus from a mother's (non-medical) choice to kill the foetus after that point. All other things being equal, a mother killing her baby a moment prior to birth would be breaking the law. Percy and Jar disagree with that law. You and I do not.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2018 7:16 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by jar, posted 08-07-2018 6:51 AM Tangle has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 240 of 441 (837636)
08-07-2018 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Tangle
08-07-2018 3:01 AM


Re: If abortion is understood to be ending a human life, THEN we can talk alternatives
Tangle writes:
Percy and Jar disagree with that law.
Bullshit and just more utter dishonesty and misrepresentation from you.
Neither Percy or I have said we disagree with that law. You really need to learn how to read.
What we have said is that the decision should not be simply based on a timeline, that we do not have sufficient information, that we are not the people to make such decisions and that our personal opinions do not matter and are irrelevant.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2018 3:01 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2018 7:30 AM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024