RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

CrappyDom -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 8:03:37 AM)

For many the right to life ends at birth and they see no contradiction in that.

What it boils down to is that it is easy to care for a mythical clump of cells because it is "pure and sin free" but the minute the crack addled whore squirts out a black child, they can't wait to deprive that kid of nutrition, health care, education and simply live for they day they can self righteously lock the kid up and throw away the key.

When they truly start caring for the living, I might join them in caring for the unborn, but till then I just see hypocrisy.



meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 8:09:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

1) Abortion is about civil liberties and the right to self-determination.
 


This argument is a red herring, there are many areas where the individual doesn't have right of self-determination in our society and civil liberties are arbitarily defined by interest groups and have no foundation in an intellectual argument (if discussing abortion can ever get as far as an intellectual argument.)



juliaoceania -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 8:27:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

1) Abortion is about civil liberties and the right to self-determination.
 


This argument is a red herring, there are many areas where the individual doesn't have right of self-determination in our society and civil liberties are arbitarily defined by interest groups and have no foundation in an intellectual argument (if discussing abortion can ever get as far as an intellectual argument.)



Even if you were to buy into the argument of self determination, we cannot force others to enable our right to self determination. In this argument the unborn becomes a parasite keeping the woman from her self determination. It could be argued that no one has the right to force another person to nourish an unborn organism.

If we start down the slope of forcing women to support the life of another with their body it could be argued that anyone that does not give food and shelter to another person is depriving them of their civil liberties... it would solve the homeless issue, wouldn't it?



LadyEllen -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 8:31:41 AM)

Abortion is never a good solution, as it destroys the fetus and scars the woman emotionally for life. But abortion will occur, whether there is a law against it or not, and since in the case of a ban, those seeking an abortion will have to resort to the knitting needles et al with the dangers that entails, it is on balance better to permit abortion legally, albeit with strict controls over it. Its going to happen either way, however hard we might wish it wouldnt, so its best to have it not happen underground.

Given that its going to (regrettably) happen anyway, what then is the problem with using the expelled fetal material? Any soul that was present, is now gone, and we are left with biological material that often as not will not even receive a burial or any attempt at treating it with dignity. Subject to the agreement of the mother, then why should that material not be used for research to help others? If the fetus had been born and grown to adulthood and helped others, then we would all applaud that, so why is it a problem for the same "person" to be of help to others, even though that person never had a chance at life for themselves? If we are to talk about the loss of the soul of the aborted fetus, then surely that soul will be received in heaven as an innocent under even the most extreme Christian view, and under the less extreme would be received as one whose life was beneficial for others? Surely it is more ethical to use the aborted material, than as now in many cases, simply to throw it in the incinerator?

Meanwhile, we have people young and old suffering incredible pain and degeneration through diseases and conditions which we may be able to alleviate through the research we could carry out by using aborted fetal material. This is not just about prolonging the life of those who have already lived their life - there are small children with these problems, living in constant pain and physical degeneration. How is it ethical to prevent research to help them, using material which would otherwise be destroyed?

E




CrappyDom -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 8:41:42 AM)

Since by definition, "stem cells" are best harvested PRIOR to the embryo developing nerve cells, it isn't ANYTHING at that point but a glob of undefined cells. 

Again, before people start trying to protect that, why not spend some time protecting the already born?



philosophy -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 8:46:20 AM)

"When they truly start caring for the living, I might join them in caring for the unborn, but till then I just see hypocrisy."

...just thought that CD's point here was so germane i'd quote it again. If anyone wants to call themselves pro-life they are hypocritical if they don't defend all life. That includes, say, the life of illegal immigrants......it also includes the lives of convicted murders and rapists. If you're pro-life you're anti-war........if you're pro-life you're also anti-death penalty. If you're pro-life then any system that denies a kidney transplant to someone because of economic grounds is equally wrong, if you're pro-life you surely must be pro-universal health care and redistribution of wealth so that no-one dies through lack of food. If you're really, truly pro-life what are you willing to give up so that others can live? 



LadyEllen -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 9:08:43 AM)

The Dalai Lama on stem cell research - a view from another culture other than the Judeo-Christian one which always informs debate for us;

"On the questions about stem cell research, I am thinking about the issue of when an embryo becomes sentient from the Buddhist point of view. The Abhidharma texts mention that consciousness enters the embryo through the meeting of the regenerative substances of the father and mother, and at that point it becomes a sentient being. The term that is used implies that, at that point, the embryo is becoming a human. From the classical Buddhist standpoint, it has become a sentient being and extermination of that would be morally equivalent, almost, to killing a human being.

"But how do we understand at what point consciousness enters the embryo? This is problematic. A fetus, which is becoming a human is already a sentient being. But a fertilized egg may actually bifurcate into 8, 16, 32, 64 cells and become an embryo, and yet be naturally aborted and never become a human being. This is why I feel that for the formation of life, for something to actually become a human, something more is needed than simply a fertilized egg. It may be that what you do to a conglomeration of cells that have the possibility of becoming human entails no negative or karmically unwholesome act. However, when you're dealing with a configuration of cells that are definitely on the track to becoming a human being, it's a different situation.
http://www.mandalamagazine.org/2003/march/stemcell.asp (my emphasis)

E



meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 10:19:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

"When they truly start caring for the living, I might join them in caring for the unborn, but till then I just see hypocrisy."

...just thought that CD's point here was so germane i'd quote it again. If anyone wants to call themselves pro-life they are hypocritical if they don't defend all life. That includes, say, the life of illegal immigrants......it also includes the lives of convicted murders and rapists. If you're pro-life you're anti-war........if you're pro-life you're also anti-death penalty. If you're pro-life then any system that denies a kidney transplant to someone because of economic grounds is equally wrong, if you're pro-life you surely must be pro-universal health care and redistribution of wealth so that no-one dies through lack of food. If you're really, truly pro-life what are you willing to give up so that others can live? 



Philosophy, you're making the assumption that everyone who questions abortion used as an alternative to contraception as a rabid religious right wing nut!

You only have to see a couple of live fetus' swirling around in a kidney tray to question the morality of abortion used as birth control.



philosophy -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 10:27:43 AM)

"Philosophy, you're making the assumption that everyone who questions abortion used as an alternative to contraception as a rabid religious right wing nut!

You only have to see a couple of live fetus' swirling around in a kidney tray to question the morality of abortion used as birth control."

...sorry, but you are mistaken MC......what annoys me is the semantic argument implied by the phrase 'pro-life'. It implies that to oppose the position espoused by those who self identify as 'pro-life' is to be 'anti-life'. My post was merely to point out some of the inevitable corrolaries of being truly pro-life, as opposed to those using language as an insidious ad hominem attack tactic.
Your own characterisation of my motives and intention include at least as many assumptions as you accuse me of having. Please point out to me where i explicitly discussed the link between abortion and contraceptive, or indeed any post on this thread where i have typed both those words apart from this one. Once you have performed that exercise ask yourself why you saw my posts in the way you did, and what assumptions you have brought to the table.



NorthernGent -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 10:44:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

We are talking about OTHER people being expected to compromise THEIR principles to help someone get out of a mess.
 
Public resources are scarce and most abortions are late contraception and an unnecessary drain. We have already seen cancer patients having to do with inferior drugs because there is not the resources available to provide the best ones. WHAT ABOUT THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS?
 


1) Civil liberties is a concept which does not discriminate according to issue. By your logic, bang goes your right to divorce as the decision should be transferred to the church on the grounds that somebody somewhere believes marriage is not taken seriously by all. As a man married 3 times, I'm sure you'll be uncomfortable with this and you'll point to your civil liberties being eroded. Similarly, a woman with a life-changing decision to make will expect the right to make that decision.

I've a feeling you'll claim you only have an issue with those not taking care but where do you draw the line?, what constitutes not taking care?, and who decides the definition of not taking care?. What about marriage? some are rushed and care is not taken, do you want to draw a line here? and draw a line between the "deserving" and "non-deserving" obese? and those "deserving" and "non-deserving" of social welfare. It is not practical or right.

2) Someone has to make a decision on abortion. The unborn child/foetus is not qualified for obvious reasons. Thus, the decision rests with the would-be-mother or the Government/pressure groups. If the decision is taken from the would-be-mother then bang goes someone's civil liberties. Next time, it may be your civil liberties in areas such as alcohol, drugs, divorce etc.

3) A high rate of unwanted pregnancy is a social issue. To tackle the problem, like anything in life, you need to get at its root cause rather than the symptom (i.e. abortion). The root cause is one of, or a combination of, a failing education system, a value system, poverty and a blase attitude to the consequences of sex (among other things).

Conclusion, if you attempt to ban abortion (or even draw a line under those deemed to be deserving and non-deserving, which is a draconian measure by the way) then it follows that you can expect a ban on everything from divorce, to treatment for obesity to social welfare to drug/acohol use. If you want to place life-changing decisions in the hands of the Church/Govt/pressure groups then we're simply devolving 300 years.

We all know there are men/women who are blase about the consequences of sex. I would hazard a guess that most of us have displayed this. The problem with your argument is that you're in the realms of attempting to define who is deserving and who is undeserving. This sort of thinking was left behind in Britain a long time ago. The majority of the population accept than when it comes to decisions such as social welfare, divorce or abortion it is wrong and impractical to attempt to draw a line between "deserving" and "undeserving".



juliaoceania -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 10:48:55 AM)

It is important to differentiate between a fetus and an embryo


Definition of Fetus

Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.
 
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3424

So abortions that take place before the 8th week involve embryos, not a fetus... just to be clear

Here is an article originally posted on about.com in reference to the brain activity in a fetus also, for those who would define life based on self awareness and brain activity.
http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm

Just to show reasonable people can disagree and both sides have their points. I have the utmost respect for other people's beliefs, but not all reasonable people believe the same way



NorthernGent -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 10:58:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

"When they truly start caring for the living, I might join them in caring for the unborn, but till then I just see hypocrisy."

...just thought that CD's point here was so germane i'd quote it again. If anyone wants to call themselves pro-life they are hypocritical if they don't defend all life. That includes, say, the life of illegal immigrants......it also includes the lives of convicted murders and rapists. If you're pro-life you're anti-war........if you're pro-life you're also anti-death penalty. If you're pro-life then any system that denies a kidney transplant to someone because of economic grounds is equally wrong, if you're pro-life you surely must be pro-universal health care and redistribution of wealth so that no-one dies through lack of food. If you're really, truly pro-life what are you willing to give up so that others can live? 



Philosophy, you're making the assumption that everyone who questions abortion used as an alternative to contraception as a rabid religious right wing nut!

You only have to see a couple of live fetus' swirling around in a kidney tray to question the morality of abortion used as birth control.


And the problem with the above is that it suggests those who support the right to abortion are unable to see the other side of the argument i.e. a potential life ended before even started.

Abortion must be heart-breaking for all concerned. On balance though, the decision rests with the mother (not pressure groups) as it his her civil liberties, her right to self-determination.

If you want to play the "abortion is used as a birth control" card 1) It is a wild, sweeping statement 2) It is callous as I would imagine most women who find themselves pregnant do not see it as a form of birth control 3) For those who are extremely blase about the whole thing then that is a social issue to be tackled rather than a case used to argue against abortion.



meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 12:08:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

"When they truly start caring for the living, I might join them in caring for the unborn, but till then I just see hypocrisy."

...just thought that CD's point here was so germane i'd quote it again. If anyone wants to call themselves pro-life they are hypocritical if they don't defend all life. That includes, say, the life of illegal immigrants......it also includes the lives of convicted murders and rapists. If you're pro-life you're anti-war........if you're pro-life you're also anti-death penalty. If you're pro-life then any system that denies a kidney transplant to someone because of economic grounds is equally wrong, if you're pro-life you surely must be pro-universal health care and redistribution of wealth so that no-one dies through lack of food. If you're really, truly pro-life what are you willing to give up so that others can live? 



Philosophy, you're making the assumption that everyone who questions abortion used as an alternative to contraception as a rabid religious right wing nut!

You only have to see a couple of live fetus' swirling around in a kidney tray to question the morality of abortion used as birth control.


And the problem with the above is that it suggests those who support the right to abortion are unable to see the other side of the argument i.e. a potential life ended before even started.

Abortion must be heart-breaking for all concerned. On balance though, the decision rests with the mother (not pressure groups) as it his her civil liberties, her right to self-determination.

If you want to play the "abortion is used as a birth control" card 1) It is a wild, sweeping statement 2) It is callous as I would imagine most women who find themselves pregnant do not see it as a form of birth control 3) For those who are extremely blase about the whole thing then that is a social issue to be tackled rather than a case used to argue against abortion.



Don't forget I've lived a bit as well and know very well that abortion isn't heart breaking for all women but typical of our society, it is seen as a convenient solution to a problem. Statistics are impossible to collect about feelings and responses but I know enough women who quite openly say it was a convenience. That is not to take away the male role in all of this but men only have personal influence in a woman's decision, after all, its her body.

81% of abortions in Britain are none medical.

The abortion rate was highest, at 31.9 per 1000, for women in the 18-19 and 20-24 age groups. That tells a story in itself.

Call me callous to question the morality of abortion but I see your response as an intellectual shield to protect your conscience from what really happens on the abortion table.

And yes, I put my money where my mouth is. I pay the full upkeep of my two daughters and more and would have them live with me if their mothers didn't prefer to have them to live with them.  I could have had one sluiced down the pan because the mother was in two minds but thankfully I persuaded her against it and she is glad now that I did.



meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 12:13:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

So abortions that take place before the 8th week involve embryos, not a fetus... just to be clear



40% of abortions in Britain are carried out over ten weeks and 12% over 13 weeks. I was witnessing a fetus swirling around in a kidney tray.



meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 12:32:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


1) Civil liberties is a concept which does not discriminate according to issue. By your logic, bang goes your right to divorce as the decision should be transferred to the church on the grounds that somebody somewhere believes marriage is not taken seriously by all. As a man married 3 times, I'm sure you'll be uncomfortable with this and you'll point to your civil liberties being eroded. Similarly, a woman with a life-changing decision to make will expect the right to make that decision.

In marriage there is usually no victim being sluiced down the pan. Well, most of the time there is't.
 
Civil liberties is meaningless jargon that means all things to all men depending on their own self interests like everything else.


I've a feeling you'll claim you only have an issue with those not taking care but where do you draw the line?, what constitutes not taking care?, and who decides the definition of not taking care?. What about marriage? some are rushed and care is not taken, do you want to draw a line here? and draw a line between the "deserving" and "non-deserving" obese? and those "deserving" and "non-deserving" of social welfare. It is not practical or right.

Lines are drawn, they have always been drawn and have to be drawn because there are not enough resources for everyone's needs, hence unnecessary medical intevention should be paid for. Just because allocation isn't publicly discussed, we all know some conditions get funding and others don't.

2) Someone has to make a decision on abortion. The unborn child/foetus is not qualified for obvious reasons. Thus, the decision rests with the would-be-mother or the Government/pressure groups. If the decision is taken from the would-be-mother then bang goes someone's civil liberties. Next time, it may be your civil liberties in areas such as alcohol, drugs, divorce etc.

Civil liberties is just a word used as a bludgeon in an argument and is meaningless. It avoids discussing the heart of the issue, which is washing a potential life down the pan.

3) A high rate of unwanted pregnancy is a social issue. To tackle the problem, like anything in life, you need to get at its root cause rather than the symptom (i.e. abortion). The root cause is one of, or a combination of, a failing education system, a value system, poverty and a blase attitude to the consequences of sex (among other things).

Abortion tackles the symptom and abortion is going up. One could speculate why it is going up, maybe it is the convenience factor. I doubt it is the education system but a British cultural phenomenon of 'nothing is your fault' it's the systems!

Conclusion, if you attempt to ban abortion (or even draw a line under those deemed to be deserving and non-deserving, which is a draconian measure by the way) then it follows that you can expect a ban on everything from divorce, to treatment for obesity to social welfare to drug/acohol use. If you want to place life-changing decisions in the hands of the Church/Govt/pressure groups then we're simply devolving 300 years.

I never said anything about banning abortion, if you read what I wrote I said I am against banning because it would drive abortion underground. I said abortion should be paid for in full and medical staff who are not happy with abortions shouldn't be pressured into medical interventions they think unethical.

It's not about deserving and undeserving, its about necessary and unnecessary medical procedures. In the case of abortion, 81% are unnecessary medical interventions.



NorthernGent -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 12:38:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Don't forget I've lived a bit as well and know very well that abortion isn't heart breaking for all women but typical of our society, it is seen as a convenient solution to a problem. Statistics are impossible to collect about feelings and responses but I know enough women who quite openly say it was a convenience. That is not to take away the male role in all of this but men only have personal influence in a woman's decision, after all, its her body.

81% of abortions in Britain are none medical.

The abortion rate was highest, at 31.9 per 1000, for women in the 18-19 and 20-24 age groups. That tells a story in itself.

Call me callous to question the morality of abortion but I see your response as an intellectual shield to protect your conscience from what really happens on the abortion table.

I didn't call you callous for questioning the morality of abortion. Giving you the benefit of the doubt I'll say you have misunderstood. I called you callous for making the statement that women see abortion as no more than contraception. Maybe some are careless but I doubt very much that when push comes to shove (i.e. when women are faced with the prospect of aborting an embryo/foetus) it is a decision taken lightly and merely seen as a form of contraception.
 
As for intellectual shields, you're in realms of assumptions and casting assertions that have nothing to do with my posts.
 
Ultimately, we have a difference of opinion, we've discussed it, we still disagree.  That's life.




meatcleaver -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 3:39:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

...sorry, but you are mistaken MC......what annoys me is the semantic argument implied by the phrase 'pro-life'. It implies that to oppose the position espoused by those who self identify as 'pro-life' is to be 'anti-life'. My post was merely to point out some of the inevitable corrolaries of being truly pro-life, as opposed to those using language as an insidious ad hominem attack tactic.


I'm not particularly enamoured by the term 'pro-life' either but it is no more corrupt and hypocritical than the term 'pro-choice'. They are both convenient euphemisms diverting attention away from the activities and beliefs at the heart of their respective campaigns.



Level -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 4:02:14 PM)

"According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the nation’s leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood:

At current rates, an estimated 43 percent of American women will have at least one abortion by the age of 45.
  • Two-thirds of all abortions are among never-married women.
  • Fifty-two percent of U.S. women having abortions are younger than 25 years old.
  • About 13,000 abortions each year are attributed to rape and incest—representing 1 percent of all abortions.3 "





      Social Reasons (given as primary reason)


         - Feels unready for responsibility
      21%

         - Feels she can't afford baby
      21%

         - Concern for how baby would change her life
      16%

         - Relationship problem
      12%

         - Feels she isn't mature enough
      11%

         - Has all the children she wants
      8%

         - Other reasons
      4-5%




      TOTAL:
      93%


      "Hard Cases" (given as primary reason)


         - Mother's Health
      3%

         - Baby may have health problem
      3%

         - Rape or Incest
      1%




       
      TOTAL:



      7%



      Source:  Aida Torres and J.D. Forrest, "Why Do Women Have Abortions?"
      Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 20 No. 4 (July/August 1988) p. 170.
       
      According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, there has been nearly 40,000,000 abortions in the United States from 1973 through 1998. If the above cited statistics are correct, that means over 37,000,000 were for "convience".
      -------------------
      Week 3

      At this point, the blastocyst, or developing embryo, is looking for a spot to implant in the uterus.  Early formation of the central nervous system, backbone, and spinal column has begun.  The gastrointestinal system has also begun to develop with the kidneys, liver, and intestines forming.  The heart has begun to form. 

      Week 5

      The embryo’s tiny heart begins to beat by day twenty-one.  The brain has developed into 5 areas and some cranial nerves are visible.  Arm and leg buds are visible and the formation of the eyes, lips, and nose has begun.  The spinal cord grows faster than the rest of the body giving a tail like appearance which disappears as the embryo continues to grow.  The placenta begins to provide nourishment for the embryo.   

      Week 7

      Major organs have all begun to form.  The embryo has developed its own blood type, unique from the mother’s.  Hair follicles and nipples form and knees and elbows are visible.  Facial features are also observable.  The eyes have a retina and lens.  The major muscle system is developed and the embryo is able to move.

      Weeks 9-12

      The heart is almost completely developed and the heart rate can be heard on a Doppler machine at the doctor’s office.  Most major organs and tissues have developed and red blood cells are now produced in the liver.  The face is well formed and the eyes are almost fully developed.  The eyelids will close and not reopen until the 28th week.  Arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet, and toes are fully formed.  Nails and earlobes start to form and tooth buds develop in the gums.  Fetus can make a fist with its finger.  Testosterone (male sex hormone) is produced by the testes in male fetus. 

      And so on. For anyone wishing to see images of the fetal development spoken about above, here are a couple of  links:  http://www.wprc.org/trimester1.phtml   or http://www.realalternatives.org/pregnant/fetaldevelopment.htm




      • Level -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 4:04:55 PM)

      quote:

      ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

      quote:

      Exactly, my friend. If one believes a human life is being threatened, unborn or not, it's a horrific abdication of decency and responsibility to ignore it. That's a point I wish some would understand, even if they don't agree with it.

       
      I understand your belief  that it is a sentient life in the first trimester and no different in your mind than a born child, but I just do not agree with you. I respect your belief, I just do not share it. To me defending something without cognitive ability and understanding is not the same as defending the life of something that does have cognitive ability and understanding and self awareness...

      Like I said, I respect your beliefs, I just do not share them. It does not equate to the same thing in my moral compass, and if it did I guess I would feel as strongly as you. There are lots of cruelties to living things with more awareness than a developing embryo, cows have more self awareness, and I am more upset about how veal is produced than abortion...and I say that as someone that would like to see meat produced in a more humane way.

      A pregnancy in the first trimester is the promise of a new life, but it is not viable, self aware human life.


      And I respect that you and others believe differently, julia.



      nefertari -> RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman (10/31/2006 4:13:25 PM)

      Just to make a point -

      And before anyone accuses me again of making a blanket statement that I didn't make - I know that contraceptive is very effective and reduces unwanted pregnancy dramatically.  That being said, I got pregnant with my daughter while diagnosed with endometriosis (the leading cause of infertility) and simultaneously on the birth control pill - taken as prescribed, never missed a dose.  And a close friend of mine got pregnant with her 4th child while nursing and on a low dose birth control pill.  I also worked with a woman who got pregnant 3 months after having a tubal.

      It's not supposed to happen and it's supposedly rare.  But keep that in mind when you are referring to people who you think were just careless.



      Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

      Valid CSS!




      Collarchat.com © 2025
      Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
      0.0625