Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2017 1:27 AM
379 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 812,040 Year: 16,646/21,208 Month: 2,535/3,593 Week: 2/646 Day: 2/78 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   A very brief history of Human Life
ringo
Member
Posts: 13191
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 31 of 59 (798783)
02-05-2017 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
02-05-2017 1:56 PM


Re: It's a human being at every stage of life
Faith writes:

No.


Why not? If abortion is murder and it's okay to execute murderers then how is it not okay to execute somebody who commits murder?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 1:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 2:30 PM ringo has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25291
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 32 of 59 (798791)
02-05-2017 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ringo
02-05-2017 2:03 PM


Re: It's a human being at every stage of life
....

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 02-05-2017 2:03 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 02-05-2017 2:34 PM Faith has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13191
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 33 of 59 (798792)
02-05-2017 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
02-05-2017 2:30 PM


Re: It's a human being at every stage of life
Faith writes:

Stop playing demented word games.


There are no word games involved. If abortion is murder and it's okay to execute murderers, how is it not oaky to execute a murderer?

Your position seems to be self-contradictory. Kindly explain more clearly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 2:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 2:42 PM ringo has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25291
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 34 of 59 (798793)
02-05-2017 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ringo
02-05-2017 2:34 PM


Re: It's a human being at every stage of life
Yes it's just word games. EvC posts are almost nothing else. Your irrelevant one-liners that aren't based on reading much of what I said are a pain in the neck.

I'm not stuck on the word "murder," I mean KILLING A HUMAN BEING in a formative stage, and murder is the usual term for ending a human life; and I clearly said in a recent post that I put the mother's life above the child's. I'm also not stuck on "human being" I've said many times I'm talking about the inevitability of its becoming a human being so that if you kiil it you are ending a human life.

I'm not for prosecuting anybody at this point, and certainly not the mother who doesn't usually know what she's doing and often sorely regrets it when she knows. Stop projecting stuff on me. I said what I meant given the limits of language. Nitpicking pedantry is a stu/pid word game. Try reading in context.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 02-05-2017 2:34 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 02-05-2017 2:50 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Tangle, posted 02-05-2017 3:00 PM Faith has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13191
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 35 of 59 (798800)
02-05-2017 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
02-05-2017 2:42 PM


Re: It's a human being at every stage of life
Faith writes:

Stop projecting stuff on me.


I'm not projecting anything on you. I asked a simple question. If you'd reply properly in the first place instead of being so combative I wouldn't have to use a crowbar to pry an honest answer out of you.

Faith writes:

I'm not stuck on the word "murder," I mean KILLING A HUMAN BEING in a formative stage, and murder is the usual term for ending a human life; and I clearly said in a recent post that I put the mother's life above the child's. I'm also not stuck on "human being" I've said many times I'm talking about the inevitability of its becoming a human being so that if you kiil it you are ending a human life.


Thanks. We're actually on the same page about abortion but it might help if you used words correctly instead of right-wing rhetoric.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 2:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4766
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 36 of 59 (798804)
02-05-2017 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
02-05-2017 2:42 PM


Re: It's a human being at every stage of life
He's got you Faith. If you believe that abortion is murder, then the people involved in the deed deserve death themselves - according to your own beliefs. it's not a word game, it's the logic of your beliefs.

What you indulged in in your response was the rationalisation we're talking about and you previously agreed with.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"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 34 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 2:42 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 3:02 PM Tangle has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25291
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 37 of 59 (798806)
02-05-2017 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tangle
02-05-2017 3:00 PM


Re: It's a human being at every stage of life
I think people who make stu/pid straw man arguments ought to be executed by firing squad.

There.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tangle, posted 02-05-2017 3:00 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 02-05-2017 3:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 38 of 59 (798810)
02-05-2017 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
02-05-2017 11:11 AM


Re: It's a human being at every stage of life
It's got all the stuff for making a human being already present. ...
... It doesn't matter what you call it at any stage, it's got all the stuff for developing into a human being, so if you kill it at any stage you are ending the life of that human being. ...

No it doesn't, otherwise it could survive and grow outside the woman\uterus.

... There's no need to get into all the definitional nitpicking, it WILL BE a human being if it develops naturally without interference. ...

Except when that "interference" comes from within the DNA or from conflict with the woman (blood incompatibility) or when it goes through the uterus and down the toilet because it failed to attach to the uterus wall.

Because 55% if zygotes never attach to the uterus in the first week, and 15% will end up as miscarriages (due to natural interference) during weeks 4-12. Curiously we don't know how many miscarriages occur between weeks 1 and 4, but it is likely to be higher than 2% per week because the rate of miscarriages drops with time.

Assuming the same rate of miscarriages for the 11 weeks from the end of the fist week (where we are down to 45% of the original zygotes) as document for the 8 weeks between week 4 and 12 gives

15% x 11 weeks / 8 weeks = 20.6% miscarriages

So 20.6% of the remaining 45% of zygotes = 9% ending up in miscarriages on top of the 55% lost in the first week, for a total of 64% of the original zygotes that don't have the stuff to become human beings.

Only 36% of the original zygotes have the 'stuff' to make it to week 12, and they are not out of the woods yet. Miscarriages still occur right up to birth with still-borns.

... That's up to nature, and none of those possibilities justify killing it. ...

Unless continuing the pregnancy will kill the woman or disable her permanently, unless the fetus will develop abnormally and severely handicapped such that survival at birth is unlikely. Deaths after birth occur, often because of internal deformities or incomplete developments. More often with preemies.

... I think this is instinctively understood by everybody but it's suppressed by all this rationalization and nitpicking that propagandizes women into killing their children.

And yet we aren't talking instinct and emotion, we are talking objective empirical evidence.

People have ultrasounds, not to make a picture for their wall or to check the sex, but to see if the fetus is malformed or damaged. Other tests are also made to ensure health and proper development, like Amnio Tests, especially in older women:

quote:
Why Is an Amniocentesis Performed?

A complete anatomical ultrasound will be done prior to amniocentesis. but amniocentesis is performed to look for certain types of birth defects, such as Down syndrome, a chromosomal abnormality.

Because amniocentesis presents a small risk for both the mother and her baby, the prenatal test is generally offered to women who have a significant risk for genetic diseases, including those who:

  • Have an abnormal ultrasound
  • Have a family history of certain birth defects
  • Have previously had a child or pregnancy with a birth defect

Amniocentesis does not detect all birth defects, but it can be used to detect the following conditions if the parents have a significant genetic risk:

  • Down syndrome
  • Sickle cell disease
  • Cystic fibrosis
  • Muscular dystrophy
  • Tay-Sachs and similar diseases

Amniocentesis can detect certain neural tube defects (diseases where the brain and spinal column don't develop properly), such as spina bifida and anencephaly.


Some people that want a healthy normal baby will choose to abort one that is damaged so that they can proceed to try again.

That is THEIR choice.

It's not propaganda, it's FACT.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 11:11 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 5:45 PM RAZD has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4766
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 39 of 59 (798812)
02-05-2017 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
02-05-2017 3:02 PM


Re: It's a human being at every stage of life
1. Abortion is murder
2. Murderers should be executed
3. Therefore those who abort children should be executed

I'm finding it difficult to spot the straw man. It's not like he's got many places to hide.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"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 37 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 3:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 40 of 59 (798813)
02-05-2017 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
02-05-2017 11:35 AM


Re: What is and isn't pro-life
I don't suppose you'd care to require that marriage be emphasized as the healthy happy envionrment that children should grow up in ...

As long as it is a loving respectful sharing marriage, yes. My wife and I got married after getting pregnant because we wanted to be sure it worked before making such a life commitment.

But a "marriage" where the husband comes home drunk and beats the wife when the baby cries is not a better environment than a single mother can provide by herself.

... and put a lot of energy into the cultural critique of free sex and fatherless children and solutions to it. ...

Wouldn't that come under teaching children about sex, how their bodies work (and how to respect each other)? Wouldn't that come under counseling on how to improve\maximize the chances of having a healthy baby?

... That's a direction I think we should go, not just for the sake of the mother and child, but for the sake of society.

So you are in favor of open sex education and teaching respect and cooperation. good.

Beyond that, pro-life counseling is often denounced and prevented by the pro-abortion people. What it does, however, is counsel women with unwanted pregnancies about how it really is a human being, and encourages them to bring it to term, ...

And it is denounced because they don't listen to what the pregnant woman wants, they tell her what they want and impose their values on the pregnant woman. That is evil.

imho if you want to convince someone to carry a baby to term they should adopt the mother and provide a happy respectful home for her and the child.

... These ministries are all over the country.

So where are they before the pregnancy, are they teaching sex education?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 11:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25291
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 41 of 59 (798821)
02-05-2017 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by RAZD
02-05-2017 3:26 PM


Re: It's a human being at every stage of life
Nothing that occurs in the natural course of pregnancy justifies killing the developing baby, so there's no point in going on and on about those natural processes. If they lead to miscarriage that's not murder.

I already said the mother's life is more important than the baby's. A threat to her life or health is really the only justification for terminating a pregnancy. Deformities of the child are not a reason to my mind.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2017 3:26 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2017 8:34 AM Faith has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 42 of 59 (798873)
02-06-2017 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
02-05-2017 5:45 PM


when does personhood begin revisited
Faith,

Nothing that occurs in the natural course of pregnancy justifies killing the developing baby, so there's no point in going on and on about those natural processes. If they lead to miscarriage that's not murder.

In your opinion.

In msg 10: when does personhood begin I talked about personhood and the pluralistic approach to declaring when the essential essence of a person is dead, and how it is legally and morally up to the family to decide when to pull the plug on a terminally in person:

quote:
The above definitions of death are used to determine when a terminally ill person has passed the threshold from human life to not human life, even though significant portions of living cells still persist. This allows for organ transplants, say of a kidney to improve the quality of life for a person that was on dialysis.

Of course the decision to pull the plug lies with the family, in consultation with the doctor and after review of the prognosis. The family can also decide whether or not to allow organ transplants (depending on any directives of the patient, such as “no heroic measures”).

So we see that the decisions around personhood and death deserve a pluralistic approach to allow people with different belief systems to choose when and how to declare death, and such a pluralistic approach should also apply to when a human person begins.

So the question then becomes when does “personhood” begin.


So it should come as no surprise that a similar pluralistic approach can be taken for determining when personhood begins, dealing with the quality of life, and the wide variety of beliefs in families, such that no one simple rule can be applied.

I already said the mother's life is more important than the baby's. A threat to her life or health is really the only justification for terminating a pregnancy. ...

So we have some agreement that the known life of the mother is more important than the potential life of a fetus.

... Deformities of the child are not a reason to my mind.

In your opinion, certainly not in everyone's opinion, hence pluralism -- where families decide on a case by case basis.

In The pro-life claim "life is created at conception" is just wrong I provided a chart of stages in development, and looking at the first week

Blastocystby day 5Hollow Ball of cells, external and internal different. ca. 100 cells inner 50 are pleuripotent stem cells. External will become placenta, internal will become embryo
day 7 - 9Blastocyst implants in wall of uterus
(55% of Zygotes never reach this stage.)

Up to the stage in development when the blastocyst implants I personally see no difference morally or legally between using a "morning after" pill and contraceptives when the goal is to prevent pregnancies.

quote:
How Emergency Contraception Works
Does emergency contraception cause an abortion?

No, using emergency contraceptive pills (also called "morning after pills" or "day after pills") prevents pregnancy after sex. It does not cause an abortion. (In fact, because emergency contraception helps women avoid getting pregnant when they are not ready or able to have children, it can reduce the need for abortion.)

Emergency contraceptive pills work before pregnancy begins. According to leading medical authorities – such as the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists – pregnancy begins when the fertilized egg implants in the lining of a woman's uterus. Implantation begins five to seven days after sperm fertilizes the egg, and the process is completed several days later. Emergency contraception will not work if a woman is already pregnant.


Nor do I see any moral or legal issues with using an abortifacient like RU 486 in the early stages (first month). Looking at the table again:

quote:
Embryonic phase:
gastrula
day 30Lengthens and differentiates into
ecto-, meso-, & endo derm

At the end of the first month of development the gastrula does not look anything like a human being with a brain and a heart and lungs, it is basically an elongated layered bag of cells. Certainly there can be no personhood issue at this stage.

quote:
Abortifacients: An Overview

“To make an informed choice, women must know that [emergency contraceptive pills] … prevent pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization, but may at times inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium,”

Dr. James Trussell is the Director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton and considered to be one of the world’s top authorities on the morning after pill. He made the above statement about the drug in an academic review on the drug dated February 2013, co-authored with Dr. Elizabeth G. Raymond. The full review is available here: http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ec-review.pdf

There’s a new abortifacient drug you need to be aware of. It’s called ellaOne, a cross between so-called emergency contraception and the abortion pill RU 486. Its stated goal is to expand the window of opportunity of taking a drug they say prevents pregnancy after unprotected sex. But testing shows ellaOne is toxic to embryos. It also caused miscarriages in women who were found to be pregnant when taking the drug—thus its true potential to the abortion industry. They want to first get FDA approval for prescription use and later for over the counter. It’s a not-so-subtle process of trying to blur the line between abortion and contraception. And they want to make chemical abortion drugs easily accessible to anyone. – Bradley Mattes, Executive Director, Life Issues Institute
Click here to learn more about ellaOne.


Note that I have again used a pro-life source, so I judge the information should be seen as accurate.

If the goal is to prevent pregnancy, then contraceptives, morning-after pills and abortifacients (like RU 486 and elleOne) are all imho both morally and legally valid means to achieve that end.

But that after that first month has passed, we should be dealing with people that wanted a pregnancy but end up getting an abortion. In msg 23: moral objections differ -- life vs death I gave several examples of conditions that can lead people to choose an abortion:

quote:
It is not that simple, the people involved in the decision do so because of several factors, often it is the severely deformed fetus with no chance of a normal life. Recently the news was all about the zika virus causing birth defects resulting in extremely tiny brains and babies with constant pain and short lives. So I can understand that some may consider abortion mercy in such a case while others don't and proceed to birth. That is their choice as far as I am concerned.

We also have instances where the mother will survive but be permanently disabled and they have a right to make a quality of life decision about their life.

Or the parents are impoverished barely able to feed and house themselves to say nothing of the care of a child, one that would be sentenced to a life of malnutrition and poor health, a very low quality of life for the child.

Or the mother is a drug addict and the fetus has been affected by the drugs and can never become a normal person, another low quality of life for the child born mentally challenged.

Or the father has disappeared or been killed and the mother knows she won't be able to provide a good life on her own, a decreased quality of life for parent and child.

Such decisions are not made lightly. I've known women that remember the day, how old the child would be, but still would have made that decision again. And that is HER choice.


In Message 38 I listed a bunch of reasons for people that feel an abortion is justified (in their opinions):

quote:
Why Is an Amniocentesis Performed?

A complete anatomical ultrasound will be done prior to amniocentesis. but amniocentesis is performed to look for certain types of birth defects, such as Down syndrome, a chromosomal abnormality.

Because amniocentesis presents a small risk for both the mother and her baby, the prenatal test is generally offered to women who have a significant risk for genetic diseases, including those who:

  • Have an abnormal ultrasound
  • Have a family history of certain birth defects
  • Have previously had a child or pregnancy with a birth defect

Amniocentesis does not detect all birth defects, but it can be used to detect the following conditions if the parents have a significant genetic risk:

  • Down syndrome
  • Sickle cell disease
  • Cystic fibrosis
  • Muscular dystrophy
  • Tay-Sachs and similar diseases

Amniocentesis can detect certain neural tube defects (diseases where the brain and spinal column don't develop properly), such as spina bifida and anencephaly.


And I repeat that some people that want a healthy normal baby will choose to abort a fetus that is damaged so that they can proceed to try again. And that legally and morally imho that it is THEIR choice.

What is rather obvious is that society has decided that it is moral and legal to have an abortion, and that it is the family that decides, not government or doctors or strident protesters.

Because that is a pluralistic approach that recognizes that different people have different values and beliefs about the beginning of personhood just as they do about terminally ill people.

A duty of a moral society imho is to accommodate that pluralism in our laws so that the people can decide their personal cases according to their beliefs and the medical facts.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 02-05-2017 5:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 02-06-2017 9:07 AM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25291
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 43 of 59 (798878)
02-06-2017 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
02-06-2017 8:34 AM


Re: when does personhood begin revisited
I don't think it's relevant when something you would define as "personhood" begins, since the point I've been arguing is that if you leave it alone at any stage it will inevitably become a person, barring the effect of abnormal processes.

I also have a problem based on this reasoning, with any abortifacient or contraceptive that interferes after egg and sperm have combined, because all the genetic material is there for the making of the human being. I might be forced to make an exception for it just because it's popular and not gruesome like abortion, but logically I'm against the exception.

I expect to meet my own child in heaven, the one that I aborted when I was twenty, which was done at the age of about seven weeks. If the fertilized ovum is also a child IN GOD'S EYES, then there are going to be a lot of children meeting their Christian parents in heaven. I don't know of course. There may be an early stage of purely physical formation before the soul is infused by God. Nobody knows that. I rather think if the genetic material is all there, then it's the person in the making already. BUT, again, since we can't know that, I suppose I have to make the exception for the earliest stages.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2017 8:34 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Theodoric, posted 02-06-2017 9:16 AM Faith has responded
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2017 12:03 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 02-06-2017 12:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 44 of 59 (798879)
02-06-2017 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
02-06-2017 9:07 AM


Re: when does personhood begin revisited
barring the effect of abnormal processes

All the processes that result in a spontaneous abortion are normal. It is normal for a woman's body to do this. It happens in about 1/5th of all pregnancies.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 02-06-2017 9:07 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 02-06-2017 9:18 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25291
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 45 of 59 (798880)
02-06-2017 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Theodoric
02-06-2017 9:16 AM


Re: when does personhood begin revisited
OK.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Theodoric, posted 02-06-2017 9:16 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017