Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Abortion

Rate this topic


semm

Recommended Posts

AisA,

I used to be pro-choice in my youth, but I have since changed my position: I am pro-life. My reasons are that, biologically speaking, life is a continuum that begins at conception. Drawing a line anywhere else makes "life" dependent upon arbitrary definitions, which I see as dangerous. For example, if a baby has a right to life only when it leaves the womb, are we saying that life depends upon location? Why can we kill a baby right up until the time of birth as long as it's in the womb (or, in the case of partial-birth abortion, the skull is still in the birth canal), but somehow, magically, a change of location renders it "alive" and possessing rights? If we restrict abortions to, say, the first trimester, how is the fetus magically more "alive" at 91 days than it was the day before? Nor do I accept definitions of "personhood" as being the determining factor: far too subjective, and history is replete with examples of whole classes of people being considered "non-persons", with a resulting loss of rights. I want something firm, that's based on science. And that tells me that life begins at conception. No one needs to be religious to accept this, whether you agree with me or not. And even if you don't agree with me, you have to spell out logically the exact point in time when life begins. It can't be as arbitrary as someone wanting it to be life or not because of its inconvenience. If A is A, then that life is a human life, albeit in its first stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA,

I used to be pro-choice in my youth, but I have since changed my position: I am pro-life. My reasons are that, biologically speaking, life is a continuum that begins at conception. Drawing a line anywhere else makes "life" dependent upon arbitrary definitions, which I see as dangerous. For example, if a baby has a right to life only when it leaves the womb, are we saying that life depends upon location? Why can we kill a baby right up until the time of birth as long as it's in the womb (or, in the case of partial-birth abortion, the skull is still in the birth canal), but somehow, magically, a change of location renders it "alive" and possessing rights? If we restrict abortions to, say, the first trimester, how is the fetus magically more "alive" at 91 days than it was the day before? Nor do I accept definitions of "personhood" as being the determining factor: far too subjective, and history is replete with examples of whole classes of people being considered "non-persons", with a resulting loss of rights. I want something firm, that's based on science. And that tells me that life begins at conception. No one needs to be religious to accept this, whether you agree with me or not. And even if you don't agree with me, you have to spell out logically the exact point in time when life begins. It can't be as arbitrary as someone wanting it to be life or not because of its inconvenience. If A is A, then that life is a human life, albeit in its first stages.

Thank you for explaining your position.

Before I reply, may I ask: Are you familiar with the Obectivist view of man's rights and their source? If so, do you agree or disagree with that view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far you have implictely revealed that you believe to be living is all that is needed for an entity to have rights. What other premise would allow you to attach rights to a being at the moment that its life begins.

You should be asking what else an entity needs in order to have rights, which goes back to answering AisA's most recent question.

Only after and understanding/agreement is reached about the source of rights, can you then analize any particular case such as the present one. Once it is realized what an entity needs to be in order to aquire rights, then you can analyze whether the entity in a mother's womb has those attributes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AndrewSternberg,

You wrote: "So far you have implictely revealed that you believe to be living is all that is needed for an entity to have rights. What other premise would allow you to attach rights to a being at the moment that its life begins."

Yes, let me be more explicit: one needs to be alive in order for one to have rights. Dead people don't have rights, as you may have noticed. As the Declaration states, we have inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Notice that the right to life comes first, as without it the others are non-existent. So, yes, I believe that human beings have a right to life that cannot be rescinded. Of course, capital punishment removes this right, but only after a determination of guilt for some particularly heinous crime is made. How is an embryo "guilty" of anything that would warrant that life being taken?

You wrote: "You should be asking what else an entity needs in order to have rights, which goes back to answering AisA's most recent question."

I am not speaking of all rights, as not all rights are "inalienable", as the Declaration states. An infant does not have a "right" to drive a car. It does have a right not to be killed. An 18-year old kid does not have a "right" to have a job or health care; he does have a right not to be killed. A mentally retarded individual does not have a "right" to a paycheck; he does have a right not to be killed. In short, the right to life is basic and primary. Being alive and being human are the only requirements for the right to life: human corpses don't have rights, and non-humans obviously do not share human rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA,

You asked, "Before I reply, may I ask: Are you familiar with the Obectivist view of man's rights and their source? If so, do you agree or disagree with that view?"

I am familiar with them, and indeed used to think of myself as an Objectivist. However, I'm not so sure my understanding was or is very complete, which is why I'm on this forum. So far, it has been fairly helpful: on one thread, at least, the Speichers cleared up what I thought was a contradiction (or at least a confusion), for which I'm thankful. However, this question seems very basic to me: when, biologically speaking, does life begin? Science seems to answer that one clearly. And I don't think that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is OK---it's as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, let me be more explicit: one needs to be alive in order for one to have rights.

So, yes, I believe that human beings have a right to life that cannot be rescinded.

How is an embryo "guilty" of anything that would warrant that life being taken?

Being alive and being human are the only requirements for the right to life: human corpses don't have rights, and non-humans obviously do not share human rights.

However, this question seems very basic to me: when, biologically speaking, does life begin? Science seems to answer that one clearly. And I don't think that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is OK---it's as simple as that.

The issue is what seperates human life? The DNA, or the ability to reason? That is a topic explored in detail in many Objectivist books, such as the VOR and ITOE. An embryo cannot reason. It has no volition or the other characteristics which seperate human life from animal life. From the life of an amoeba. Except DNA. DNA doesn't secure the right to life. Why would human DNA on it's own, make an embryo have a *right to life* when a cow doesn't have such a thing? Unless you are also opposed to killing animals for our nourishment, clothing etc.? Also, by that reasoning you could not remove a cancerous tumor, since it also has human DNA, and is in fact alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA,

You asked, "Before I reply, may I ask: Are you familiar with the Obectivist view of man's rights and their source? If so, do you agree or disagree with that view?"

I am familiar with them, and indeed used to think of myself as an Objectivist. However, I'm not so sure my understanding was or is very complete, which is why I'm on this forum. So far, it has been fairly helpful: on one thread, at least, the Speichers cleared up what I thought was a contradiction (or at least a confusion), for which I'm thankful. However, this question seems very basic to me: when, biologically speaking, does life begin? Science seems to answer that one clearly. And I don't think that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is OK---it's as simple as that.

If you know the Objectivist theory of rights, you know that rights are possed by human beings -- not by human life. Prior to birth, the organism is alive in the same sense as the body's organs are alive. However, it is not at that point a being. It is not a separate entity from its mother.

You said you wanted something firm, based on science, to resolve this issue. The issue, however, is philosophic, not scientific. Objectivism offers a rigorously logical proof that human beings possess rights. But there is no proof that human life possess rights.

In view of MisterSwig's request, I will write nothing more until the thread is split.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dominique,

You wrote: " The issue is what seperates human life? The DNA, or the ability to reason? That is a topic explored in detail in many Objectivist books, such as the VOR and ITOE. An embryo cannot reason"

Neither can infants: does that make it OK to kill them? Neither can severely retarded individuals: you're OK about killing them?

You asked, "Why would human DNA on it's own, make an embryo have a *right to life* when a cow doesn't have such a thing?"

Wow---this is an obvious one: because a cow doesn't have human DNA, a human does.

You asked, "Unless you are also opposed to killing animals for our nourishment, clothing etc.?

Of course not---they're not human, and thus cannot have human rights (PETA-types notwithstanding...)

You wrote: "Also, by that reasoning you could not remove a cancerous tumor, since it also has human DNA, and is in fact alive."

It does not have human DNA that is distinct from its victim. A human embryo has its own distinct, individual DNA.

So, I take it that partial-birth abortion as well as infanticide are OK with you, since the capacity to reason is not evident?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AisA,

You wrote: "Prior to birth, the organism is alive in the same sense as the body's organs are alive."

No, it's very, very different. The body's organs contain the same DNA "fingerprint" as the body they are a part of. They can never develop into a human adult.

You wrote: "It is not a separate entity from its mother."

I think you need to study some basic embryology! It has it's own distinct DNA, and as early as eight weeks, it has a beating heart, brain waves, kidneys, liver---all the basic components of a mature adult. It is indeed a separate entity---just ask anyone who has had a very early "preemie" baby.

You wrote: "Objectivism offers a rigorously logical proof that human beings possess rights. But there is no proof that human life possess rights."

I understand what you are saying, but then you are in the position of saying who and who is not a human being. That's too subjective: Dominique suggests that it's the capacity for reason that determines the existence of rights, which presumably means it's OK to kill infants and the severely retarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator's Note: I can see it bears repeating in this thread, though I stated this in the thread pointing to this one;

If you are not familiar with ground that has already been covered in this thread, read through the arguments that have already been presented and see if you have something new to offer.

Sherlock, you in particular are addressing issues that came up early in this thread by GC, AshRyan and others. It's clear that you did not heed my suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dominique,

You wrote: " The issue is what seperates human life? The DNA, or the ability to reason? That is a topic explored in detail in many Objectivist books, such as the VOR and ITOE. An embryo cannot reason"

Neither can infants: does that make it OK to kill them? Neither can severely retarded individuals: you're OK about killing them?

Perhaps I did not get specific enough. Once born an infant has a right to life.

You asked, "Why would human DNA on it's own, make an embryo have a *right to life* when a cow doesn't have such a thing?"

Wow---this is an obvious one: because a cow doesn't have human DNA, a human does. 

Right, but see if you understand better with the emphasis I added now.

You wrote: "Also, by that reasoning you could not remove a cancerous tumor, since it also has human DNA, and is in fact alive."

It does not have human DNA that is distinct from its victim. A human embryo has its own distinct, individual DNA.

Outside Source

The preceding are the standard implications recognized by most conservatives. However, there are a number of others which are usually conveniently ignored. For instance, all forms of birth control must be ruled out if potential persons are the locus of value. After all, sperm and ovum are just as much potential persons as are embryos, even if they only contain half of the genetic material. According to this view, manslaughter occurs whenever a woman menstruates, and mass murder occurs when a man has a wet dream!

The "fun" doesn't stop here, though. Recognize that with the advent of modern genetics, scientists could extract the DNA of individual human cells in order to make clones. This capability means that the tiniest skin cell is a potential person. If potential persons must not be killed, then it is immoral and unjust for me to scratch my elbow, because doing so will result in the deaths of millions of potential persons.

Logically, the reverence for the potential person implies utter contempt for the actual person. If any rights are granted to potential persons at all, then the only result can be the total and complete erosion of the rights of actual persons. They very process of living entails the need for humans to shed skin, menstruate, have wet dreams, etc. Actual human life entails the death of potential persons. To implement the logical requirements of a reverence for potential persons is to ecclipse actual human life. It makes little sense to treat potential entities as worthy of more respect than actual ones.

You asked, "Unless you are also opposed to killing animals for our nourishment, clothing etc.?

Of course not---they're not human, and thus cannot have human rights (PETA-types notwithstanding...)

right-you're being redundant, my point was if human DNA is not so special, then all life is equal, but you have already stated that you believe human DNA to contain special *rights-bearing* qualities.

So, I take it that partial-birth abortion as well as infanticide are OK with you, since the capacity to reason is not evident?

Outside Source

It may seem this way. However, several points are relevant here: First, our standard of ethical truth is facts, not babies. The fact that a logical theory might seem to imply an unpleasant thought (infanticide) does not dispute the logic of the theory. To say that such a position might justify infanticide is not to say that the position's justification of abortion rights is flawed.

Furthermore, this position does not justify infanticide. The tiny difference between the womb and the outside world is literally the difference between day and night --to the child. The mere introduction of the child to the world unleashes a torrent of activity within the child's mind. From day one, the brain begins to integrate percepts. After a number of months, the child forms its first concept. All of this activity is explained by the emergence of the child from the womb.

But you might press further and ask, "Well, it looks as if being born is certainly a necessary condition for being rational and having rights, but it doesn't seem to be a sufficient condition." I respond: It has to be a sufficient condition, because there is no other point at which a line between rational and non-rational can be drawn. The scale of a child's cognitive development is a scale of degrees. There is no specific point at which the child suddenly becomes rational. Rather, the change is gradual. Rationality must exist in some quantity but may exist in any quantity. Thus, as a matter of principle(*), we must draw the line at birth, the point at which that gradual ascension begins. The degree of rationality is proportional to the degree of rights possesed by the child. From the beginning, it has the right not to be killed. As time goes by, it gradually acquires other rights to liberty and property.

Because the fetus has no rights, disposing of it is well within the right of the woman. She has a right to live, which means the right to engage in any actions conducive to her life. This is why the "pro-choice" position is really the only "pro-life" position. It is in favor of the woman's life.

You can read the whole presentation at the links I provided at the top of the quotes from the Outside Source I referenced, which, if you don't want to read through the whole thread here, will provide you a condensed version of the Objectivist view.

Edited to try and shorten and for clarity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about debating Christians. I am saying that an atheist can be against abortion purely on the grounds of embryology: the fetus is human; it's unique (has its own DNA); and is alive.

I am not sure what this argument is about. I personally know several biologists who are atheistic yet against abortion unless under unusal circumstances. Clearly the anti-abortion crowd is overwhelmingly composed of religious folk, but that fact does not exclude some relatively small group of atheists from thinking the same. However, these biologists whom I mentioned certainly could not claim to be Objectivists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to be pro-choice in my youth, but I have since changed my position: I am pro-life. My reasons are that, biologically speaking, life is a continuum that begins at conception.

I doubt that anyone here would disagree with that. But the issue is not when life begins, but rather as to when the fetus becomes a human being.

Drawing a line anywhere else makes "life" dependent upon arbitrary definitions, which I see as dangerous. For example, if a baby has a right to life only when it leaves the womb, are we saying that life depends upon location?

Now you have jumped from the issue of life to the issue of rights, and rights apply not simply to "life" but solely to human beings. Plants are alive, but they certainly do not have rights. The reason that a newborn acquires rights is because it is only then that it becomes a human being, i.e., a biologically independent human entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalCop,

Yes, I did heed your suggestion. My participation, with the exception of my initial statement that there were some atheist pro-lifers, has largely consisted of responding to questions that are directed towards me. Perhaps your comments, then, would be more usefully directed to the people asking me questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dominique,

You wrote: "Perhaps I did not get specific enough. Once born an infant has a right to life."

Why? So the all-important question of whether or not its OK to kill a person depends upon location?

As for your quote "Outside Source": how can I take this argument seriously, when it states "After all, sperm and ovum are just as much potential persons as are embryos, even if they only contain half of the genetic material. According to this view, manslaughter occurs whenever a woman menstruates, and mass murder occurs when a man has a wet dream!" This is not supportable: a sperm is not an embryo, nor is an egg. They do not grow into humans on their own, and so are not "potential persons". Each egg or sperm contains the DNA of the individual carrying them, not a separate, individual DNA as does a growing, developing embryo.

You wrote: "right-you're being redundant, my point was if human DNA is not so special, then all life is equal, but you have already stated that you believe human DNA to contain special *rights-bearing* qualities."

No, I did not state that. A human life has a right to life, that is what I am stating. I bring up the DNA aspect because it proves that the growing embryo is distinct and is materially different from an organ of the mother, as has been suggested.

Your other outside source states: "It (being born) has to be a sufficient condition, because there is no other point at which a line between rational and non-rational can be drawn."

Eh? But a baby isn't rational, regardless of whether it's just born, or in the womb five minutes earlier. It doesn't appear that rationality is the determining condition after all, according to the writer, but location. The only reason that it "has" to be a sufficient condition is that the writer wants it to be.

And I really like this: "The scale of a child's cognitive development is a scale of degrees. There is no specific point at which the child suddenly becomes rational. Rather, the change is gradual."

That's exactly my point! Life is a continuum, and if you don't kill that fetus, it will become rational (hopefully---there are those who are mentally retarded). It seems arbitrary to decide on location as the cutting-off point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Life is a continuum"
Life is a continuum, but a potential human does not have the rights of an actual human. A living human is a self-sustaining entity, so a fetus is not a living human, and potentially being one does not mean to treat it as if it were one.

It seems arbitrary to decide on location as the cutting-off point.

"Location" determines whether the entity is a human being, or part of a human being. Parts of human beings do not have rights, only human beings have rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to be pro-choice in my youth, but I have since changed my position: I am pro-life. My reasons are that, biologically speaking, life is a continuum that begins at conception. Drawing a line anywhere else makes "life" dependent upon arbitrary definitions, which I see as dangerous.

Living tissue changes and evolves. I live and create living sperm which unites with a living egg to create a living fertilized egg which changes, grows and matures until it becomes a fully formed living human being. Why don't you begin your continuum with me? Why can't I be the starting point of all life which flows from me? I gave rise to the sperm that gave rise to the fetus which gave rise to the human being. You are the one creating an arbitrary starting point for life.

Furthermore, you are implying that a fertilized egg is biologically equivalent to a newborn baby. That is pure fantasy. You are focusing on DNA to the exclusion of the entity to which that DNA is only a part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps your comments, then, would be more usefully directed to the people asking me questions.

Nope, that doesn't wash. If you look at the time line, those questions were asked prior to my notice and moving of the thread. In fact, the last post before the move was by user AisA which stated he would wait to comment further after the thread was split. You were the first to post after my notice, and after the moving of the thread. It was your post(s) after the move and after the notice that I was addressing. I cannot hold them accountable for my notice before it was given.

There are posts at the beginning of this thread that address arguments you are making. If you did in fact read them, then it would appear you ignored them, or failed to consider them in typing your responses. So which is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dominique,

This is not supportable: a sperm is not an embryo, nor is an egg. They do not grow into humans on their own, and so are not "potential persons". Each egg or sperm contains the DNA of the individual carrying them, not a separate individual DNA as does a growing, developing embryo.

The embryo does not grow into a baby on it's own. Each embryo must rely on the mother's body for it's life giving sustenance to grow until it is viable. The embryo itself is only part of the equation. So by your own logic: an embryo is not a person, nor is a placenta, they do not grow into humans on their own, and so are not "potential persons"

You wrote: "right-you're being redundant, my point was if human DNA is not so special, then all life is equal, but you have already stated that you believe human DNA to contain special *rights-bearing* qualities."

No, I did not state that. A human life has a right to life, that is what I am stating. I bring up the DNA aspect because it proves that the growing embryo is distinct and is materially different from an organ of the mother, as has been suggested.

The emphasis I added in your top quote is to point out the way you hold that seperate DNA is the mitigating factor. If you do not believe the DNA is what makes all the difference to you what is your argument?

That's exactly my point! Life is a continuum, and if you don't kill that fetus, it will become rational (hopefully---there are those who are mentally retarded). It seems arbitrary to decide on location as the cutting-off point.

So do you propose that the embryo and/or fetus are developing rationally in the womb? Is that your position? Embryo's have a *right* to host bodies? What is your position here? Are you arguing against Objectivism in general?

Edit to fix quotes

Edited by Dominique
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalCop,

You wrote: "There are posts at the beginning of this thread that address arguments you are making. If you did in fact read them, then it would appear you ignored them, or failed to consider them in typing your responses. So which is it?"

Neither. I have my own perspective, which is not necessarily the same as those already stated. I would prefer to express my opinion in MY words, not by saying, "please scroll down to post such-and-such for an opinion that mostly matches mine". From the standpoint of time, it is too time-consuming to scroll and quote from other posts when I can be more specific on my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mister Swig,

You wrote: "Why don't you begin your continuum with me? Why can't I be the starting point of all life which flows from me? I gave rise to the sperm that gave rise to the fetus which gave rise to the human being. You are the one creating an arbitrary starting point for life."

You are necessary for a new life fathered by you, but you are not "the new life"---i.e., a child fathered by you is its own distinct entity, and unless you kill it, will develop into a mature adult. Your sperm on its own cannot do this (I can't believe I'm having to point this out). The new life begins when that distinct entity begins to develop, which is when it is conceived---how is that arbitrary?

If you want to regard yourself as a "cause", go right ahead. In one sense you are merely one "cause" in a string of many (your parents; their parents; and so on). This does not mean that one cannot say that distinct lives do not exist, nor that such distinctions cannot be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ex_banana-eater,

You wrote: "Life is a continuum, but a potential human does not have the rights of an actual human. A living human is a self-sustaining entity, so a fetus is not a living human, and potentially being one does not mean to treat it as if it were one."

Babies are not "self-sustaining entities"---if they aren't sustained by parents, they will die. Are you saying, then, that babies aren't human?

Also, what do you mean by a "potential" human? Are you suggesting that the fetus has a potential to turn out as a dog, or a fish?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither. I have my own perspective, which is not necessarily the same as those already stated. I would prefer to express my opinion in MY words, not by saying, "please scroll down to post such-and-such for an opinion that mostly matches mine". From the standpoint of time, it is too time-consuming to scroll and quote from other posts when I can be more specific on my own.

I am speaking of posts that counter your argument, not that present your argument.

I have given fair warning at this point. If the next few posts don't bring something new to the table, I'll close the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stephen_speicher,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your measured tone and thoughtfulness.

You wrote: "But the issue is not when life begins, but rather as to when the fetus becomes a human being."

Either the fetus is a person, or not; and either we know what it is, or not. Thus there are four and only four possibilities: (1) that it is not a person and we know that, (2) that it is a person and we know that, (3) that it is a person but we do not know that, and (4) that it is not a person and we do not know that.

In case (1), abortion is perfectly permissible. We do no wrong if we kill what is not a person and we know it is not a person-e.g., if we fry a fish. But no one has ever proved with certainty that a fetus is not a person. If there exists anywhere such a proof, please show it to me and I shall convert to pro-choice on the spot if I cannot refute it.

If we do not have case (1) we have either (2) or (3) or (4). What is abortion in each of these cases? It is either murder, or manslaughter, or criminal negligence.

In case (2), where the fetus is a person and we know that, abortion is murder. For killing an innocent person knowing it is an innocent person is murder.

In case (3), abortion is manslaughter, for it is killing an innocent person not knowing and intending the full, deliberate extent of murder. It is like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street, which may be a drunk or may only be an old coat. It is like shooting at a sudden movement in a bush which may be your hunting companion or may be only a pheasant. It is like fumigating an apartment building with a highly toxic chemical not knowing whether everyone is safely evacuated. If the victim is a person, you have committed manslaughter. And if not?

Even in case (4), even if abortion kills what is not in fact a person, but the killer does not know for sure that it is not a person, we have criminal negligence, as in the above three cases if there happened to be no one in the coat, the bush, or the building, but the driver, the hunter, or the fumigator did not know that, and nevertheless drove, shot or fumigated. Such negligence is instinctively and universally condemned by all reasonable individuals and societies as personally immoral and socially criminal; and cases (2) and (3), murder and manslaughter, are of course condemned even more strongly. We do not argue politely over whether such behavior is right or wrong. We wholeheartedly condemn it, even when we do not know whether there is a person there, because the killer did not know that a person was not there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stephen_speicher,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your measured tone and thoughtfulness.

You wrote: "But the issue is not when life begins, but rather as to when the fetus becomes a human being."

Either the fetus is a person, or not; and either we know what it is, or not. Thus there are four and only four possibilities: ...

I snipped away your four possibilites and your analysis of such. Please do not interpret this as being dismissive of any arguments, but rather as questioning their relevance. I presented the issue to you in terms of "human being," which you have transposed into "person." By "human being" I mean an independent biological entity of the human species. What do you mean by "person?" Afterall, my claim is that a fetus is not a human being, since it is not an independent biological entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...