Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Minors: Rights And Children

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

First I agree with all of hunterrose's statements so far on this subject as they align with my own thoughts on the matter.

Well, if they cause it (particularly in the strictest sense of causing it by making choices that they know will cause it), then how are they not morally responsible for the situation in which this human being now finds itself?

Because they may have chosen to have had sex without ever even giving a single thought that a child may result. I.e., sex for pleasure not procreation. If there was never any intent to have a child how could the parent have "chosen" to enter into a lifelong contract "implicit" or not?

To "give up" a child for adoption one has to first make that choice and then go through the proper procedures. When I use the word abandon I really mean abandon with strict limitations allowing a rights having child to be abandoned in a place where it will be found and cared for versus say abandoning a dog out in a field.

***I just want to state once again that I would think a person that did such a think without extreme circumstances was highly immoral, but I still think this should be legal in a state that respects individual rights just as I think it should be legal for a crack addict to smoke crack while simultaneously thinking he's an immoral idiot.***

Do you really see NO difference between abandoning a THING and abandoning a human child for which you (generically, not you specifically) are responsible for creating?

I purposely used "thing" instead of child here to make the point that we shouldn't resort to altruism just because a child is involved compared to "x". We should be very wary of making legal exeptions for the sake of children, or anyone else because it leads to a VERY slippery slope which end up justifing evils such as public schools and welfare.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 504
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I purposely used "thing" instead of child here to make the point that we shouldn't resort to altruism just because a child is involved compared to "x".

The question remains, do you not see any difference between a "thing" and a human child?

Just because other people use the argument "for the sake of the children", and do it very often, doesn't mean that there aren't some instances where a consideration for life is not legitimate. I'm not trying to make a "for the sake of the children" argument. My argument, as summarized above, is that of choice and responsibility. My argument does not rely on resorting to altruism.

I would add that softwareNerd has done a very good job of laying out his position in very small steps.

VERY slippery slope which end up justifying evils such as public schools and welfare
Slippery slopes go both ways. The opposite direction could lead to an environment where throwing away infants like trash becomes acceptable. And then perhaps, maybe we could raise the age limit of those children we can throw away.

I'm less influenced by what COULD happen as I am by what SHOULD happen. If the slippery slope appears, then we address it when it happens. Slippery slopes do not bolster arguments.

Because they may have chosen to have had sex without ever even giving a single thought that a child may result. I.e., sex for pleasure not procreation. If there was never any intent to have a child how could the parent have "chosen" to enter into a lifelong contract "implicit" or not?

They are engaging in evasion if they are having sex "without ever even giving a single thought that a child might result". Pregnancy is clearly a risk in engaging in sexual intercourse (assuming both parties are actually "fertile" which if they aren't makes the issue moot), regardless of intent. Your suggestion seems to be that they are not responsible for assuming the very real risks associated with their actions and choices in having sex. Again, I'll point out that I'm using the term responsibility as Ayn Rand does in PWNI, not simply in the respect of assuming those consequences which one can't avoid, but scrupulously honoring those responsibilities and accepting the consequences.

If you are trying to imply that 9 MONTHS LATER the baby is accidentally born, I think you are missing some serious evasion on the parents part during that period as well. Aside from that, there are ways of accepting the responsibility of that potential birth, both before and after conception. I would posit that if the person has no intent to care for a child that is accidentally conceived, and they don't abort the potential before the actual exists, this could be stronger evidence of intent to put the child's life at risk. The line of thought would be something like this; I know I'm not going to take care of the child because I don't want it. I know my actions have caused the child to exist, even if accidentally, and when it's born, I will take no action to assist it's life, nor find someone to assists in it's life.

If you drive a car and you negligently but accidentally wreck into someone else's car, do you not think you are responsible for the subsequent damage and/or injury and/or death and perhaps some level of compensation? You never intended to cause the accident and I would assume you know that driving on roadways comes with the risk of accidents. Would you bear any responsibility in making right the situation that your negligence caused?

[Edit: Spelling - RC]

Edited by RationalCop
Link to post
Share on other sites

EC/Hunter, Just to clarify what you're saying about the morality (not the politics and rights), is this:

  1. biological parent's create a child, i.e. cause its creation
  2. this makes them morally responsible for the situation of the child
  3. they may not want to take care of that child for 18 years
  4. so, morally, they can give the child up for adoption
  5. and, morally, they should not abandon that child in a way that has no concern for whether it will be cared for

Is that your position on the morality of the issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunterrose said:

Not totally. This

QUOTE(AisA @ Nov 3 2005, 09:54 AM)

the child has the right to material support from the parents, because they, and only they, chose to have the child.

doesn't seem to mesh with this

QUOTE(AisA @ Nov 2 2005, 01:12 PM)

"Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival." (Lexicon. pg 213) Why, then, is it proper to define those "conditions of existence" for adults, but improper to define them for children? - (emphasis Hunter's)

If rights are conditions of existence, then the infant's rights are dependent solely on his conditions of existence - and not on the mother.

Thank you for emphasizing my question in the quote above. Those who disagree with my position have yet to address that question (As far as I can tell. This is a long thread).

Let’s be clear what we mean by the phrase “conditions of existence” in the context of rights. The “conditions of existence” referred to in the statement, "Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival", are conditions of existence vis-à-vis other men, required for man’s proper survival. Or, to put it another way, they are the conditions of existence between men required for man’s proper survival.

(Rights apply only to relationships between people. It would be nonsensical to declare that an approaching tornado has no right to interfer with your life -- nonsensical and futile.)

Now, what is man’s “proper survival”? Objectivism holds that man’s “proper survival”, in most basic terms, consists of using his mind to produce what his survival requires. What “conditions of existence between men” does this require? It requires non-interference, i.e. it requires freedom from the initiation of force by others.

Now we can see clearly the meaning of the statement, “Rights are conditions of existence required for man’s proper survival”. The most fundamental of these conditions, the most fundamental right, is the right to be free of the initiation of force. This is the right to life.

However, every human being comes into the world helpless. A child cannot survive by “using his mind to produce what his survival requires”. A child’s proper survival demands an additional “condition of existence vis-à-vis other men”. It demands material support by his parents.

Why only his parents? To borrow an eloquent phrase used by someone else in this thread, the parents are causally responsible for the child’s existence. They, and they alone, made the choice to create the being whose nature now demands material support. The fact that man's most fundamental right, the right to life, may be invoked against all humans, does not prove that all rights must be applied the same way. If someone has presented such a proof, I missed it.

Hunterrose also said:

AisA's quote seemed to say why parents must provide support, not why any adult dependent isn't deserving the same rights based on his virtually identical conditions of existence.

If by “adult dependent” you mean an adult incapacitated in some fashion and therefore “as helpless as a child”, then I would make the following distinction: A child’s helplessness is a normal, natural, inevitable part of his nature as a rational being. Man, the rational animal, necessarily and inescapably goes through this helpless stage on his way to adulthood.

The same is not necessarily true of the incapacitated adult. His circumstances are the result (presumably) of an accident or a disease; his incapacitation is not a function of his nature as a rational being. However, note that if the adult’s incapacitation is caused by the actions or negligence of someone else, he would have a right to material support from them.

To deny that children have a right to material support from their parents, is to say that man has the right to life, but he does not have the right to develop into a being that can exercise that right. Surely such a position defeats the purpose of deriving rights in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This would be true if say you left a small child or infant out in the woods, etc., and I would fully agree. But what if you left the child in an area where you knew the child would be found.

I was specifically talking about a context of "left to die." However, just leaving the child for anybody to pick up is almost is bad. If the parent wishes to transfer guardianship of the child to another party, it is his responsibility to make sure the new guardians are capable of caring for the child. If there were a designated unwanted baby drop point, where it was certain that the child would get adequate care until the time it was able to care for itself, then the obligation is fulfilled. But again, why not just put the kid up for adoption?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The false dilemma part is that you say either she chooses to be the caretaker or she intends to murder. Abandoning is far different from murder. You might be able to argue abandonment would be homicidal neglect or something, but even that presupposes the mother has an obligation at birth to provide for the child.

The key thing that makes it murder is the intent to abandon to die, and the knowledge of that beforehand. Homicidal neglect (is that even a real crime?) would be an unintended death. Either way, it's irrelevant which it is.

These first two quotes seem to assume that the mother has an obligation to the child simply from refusing or being unable to have an abortion. Why does being the child's creator obligate the creator?
I've already answered this question, as have others.

True, but these things are respectively based (or should be) on non-interference with others, private property, and a popular social (but far from legal) standard.

They were just meant to illustrate that implicit agreements do exist.

Since we are speaking about what should be legal, the laws of a country are based on not initiating force against another. Obligatory care, OTOH, is based on a requirement to initiate actions on the behalf of another. I don't see how to turn one into the other.
I wasn't speaking specifically about legality, but ethicality. This thread is in the Ethics forum. Although, I do regard child abandonment as a form of force. It is violation of a legal obligation toward another.

The idea of legal action here would be an example of the government entering someone's house qua body. It essentially says "You're pregnant? Then we give you two choices - either find the means to have an invasive abortion, or legally agree to provide to a minimal level for the child." And here the ideal government doesn't give a reason for this unprecedented obligation to care for another if one doesn't get an invasive abortion.

An "invasive" abortion? Well, tough decisions are part of being a grown-up. Remember, there was always the initial choice to have sex without taking the necessary precautions. If I ever heard somebody say they didn't want to care for a child, but didn't want to have an abortion because it was invasive, I'd tell 'em to call a Wambulance.

Morally ok? Emergencies, I suppose. My stance on the moral situation is a bit murkier than the legal question. I'd agree that illegal actions all (should) have an immoral status. All (ideal) illegal things are immoral... but all immoral things aren't illegal. Lying, for instance.
I don't see how you have any stance on the legal question at all, without first having a clear position on the moral question, since all legal questions are derived from an ethical one. It's true that not all immoral actions should be illegal; it depends on the reasons why they are immoral. In this case, it is immoral precisely because of the indirect initiation of force involved.

Because they may have chosen to have had sex without ever even giving a single thought that a child may result. I.e., sex for pleasure not procreation. If there was never any intent to have a child how could the parent have "chosen" to enter into a lifelong contract "implicit" or not?

Not thinking about things (i.e. ignoring context) it's not grounds for escaping responsibility. The choice to have unprotected sex always involves the possibility of pregnancy. In you earlier example, there was the initial choice to get so drunk that later judgment was impaired. An individual is responsible for the consequences of all of his actions, whether he thinks about them or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To deny that children have a right to material support from their parents, is to say that man has the right to life, but he does not have the right to develop into a being that can exercise that right. Surely such a position defeats the purpose of deriving rights in the first place.

This same argument could be used against abortion.

This argument is sloppy thinking. To be clearer, let us focus on what is prohibited by law, i.e. what is legally wrong. If a third person interfered with a parent providing material support to his child, that interference would be wrong. But this is not the same as saying that the parent is wrong, if he fails to provide material support.

Most parents who are able to do so will provide the support that their children need voluntarily. So the survival of humanity is not at risk, if the parents are not compelled.

As for the unfortunate child whose parents want to abandon him, well, there are no guarantees in life.

The proper approach to ethics, the start from a metaphysically clean slate, untainted by any touch of Kantianism, can best be illustrated by the following story. In answer to a man who was telling her that she's GOT TO do something or other, a wise old Negro woman said: "Mister, there's nothing I've GOT TO do except die."

.....

If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice.

I have already shown (in Post #71) that the parent's choice to live could lead to abandoning their child in some unfortunate circumstances.

How would telling the parents that they have GOT TO take care of their child help a third party to maintain his own life? It cannot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have already shown (in Post #71) that the parent's choice to live could lead to abandoning their child in some unfortunate circumstances.
That is not how I would summarize the point you made in that post (#71). I think that what you said could be summarized as follows: "There are some post-birth situations where a parent may realize that parenthood is a net "dis-values" to them"

The issue of parental responsibility was not addressed. If, for instance, one hits a car in a parking lot, then one might say "paying the owner is a net "dis-value" to me", so why don't I just leave. Would be moral or immoral? If it is immoral, then why is that mistake any different from the discovery that you made a mistake about parenthood -- or indeed that "fate" dealt you a bad blow?

Edited to add the following: It is actually easy to think of a specific example where it would be okay to let a loved one die, and even help them die. However, a specific example is too narrow, and needs to be generalized into principles. On the other hand "rational dissatisfaction" is too broad and is also incomplete. It is therefore equally non-actionable.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites
EC/Hunter, Just to clarify ...

Is that your position on the morality of the issue?

Yes.

But again, why not just put the kid up for adoption?

To much time, hastle, and government intervention.

I too have noted that this thread is like an inverted abortion debate. I am simply making the same arguments that my opponents made when I was anti-abortion while my opponents in this thread are making the same arguments I used to make against abortion. Welcome to Crazyworld.

Edited by EC
Link to post
Share on other sites
I too have noted that this thread is like an inverted abortion debate. I am simply making the same arguments that my opponents made when I was anti-abortion while my opponents in this thread are making the same arguments I used to make against abortion. Welcome to Crazyworld.

The same arguments are being used because the same arguments apply. As I understand it, rights attach at the time when a human achieves volitional consciousness. This includes the right not to have force, including lethal force applied to them.

It is arbitrary to suggest that volitional consciousness occurs at the moment of birth. If it occurs before birth, then the Objectivist position on abortion would have to be rethought. If it occurs sometime after birth, then until that time, a parent, at least, would have the right to terminate the life of that child in whatever fashion she chooses.

It is fair to say that, at birth, the child is no longer attached to its mother as the fetus would be. I would doubt, although I would gladly hear this clarified by someone more knowledgeable, that the Objectivist position on the subject would be that this physical connection is all that is relevant regardless of volitional consciousness.

It seems to me that this is the issue that is at the centre of both debates: ie. when does volitional consciousness occur? Answer that and the rest seems to follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(AisA @ Post #127)

To deny that children have a right to material support from their parents, is to say that man has the right to life, but he does not have the right to develop into a being that can exercise that right. Surely such a position defeats the purpose of deriving rights in the first place.

This same argument could be used against abortion.

Only if you totally ignore the NINE OTHER paragraphs that preceded this one in my last post. Only if you ignore the fact that a child is a human being but a fetus is not.

If you ignore the context of its derivation, man's right to life can be used to argue against abortion -- which is precisely what many anti-abortionist do. Should we stop referring to man's right to life merely because anti-abortionists misuse it?

This argument is sloppy thinking. To be clearer, let us focus on what is prohibited by law, i.e. what is legally wrong. If a third person interfered with a parent providing material support to his child, that interference would be wrong. But this is not the same as saying that the parent is wrong, if he fails to provide material support.
My argument may be "sloppy thinking", but at least I am offering an argument. You are not. You are merely repeating the assertion that child abandonment is morally acceptable. Your repeated assertions to that effect do not constitute an argument; they are just unsupported assertions.

Most parents who are able to do so will provide the support that their children need voluntarily. So the survival of humanity is not at risk, if the parents are not compelled.
How is this relevant to the morality of child abandonment? Most people are also not murderers, so this means we do not need a law against murder?

As for the unfortunate child whose parents want to abandon him, well, there are no guarantees in life.
As for the unfortunate victim of a murderer, well, there are no guarantees in life.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The same arguments are being used because the same arguments apply. As I understand it, rights attach at the time when a human achieves volitional consciousness.
Rights attach the moment a rational being is brought into existence. "Rational" means possessing the faculty of reason; it means possessing the capacity for reason, even if one must still learn how to use that capacity. "Being" means an independent biological entity.

It is arbitrary to suggest that volitional consciousness occurs at the moment of birth.
The issue is whether the rational faculty is present from birth. I believe it is. Mr. Swig has an excellant post about this HERE in post 198.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Rights attach the moment a rational being is brought into existence.

Accepting that a rational being is different than a volitional consciousness, how does that change the point of the post? The issue is whether birth changes the nature of the organism sufficiently so that it acquires rights. Your suggestion that a fetus acquires the capacity to reason or a rational faculty at birth is difficult to see as having a basis in reality.

I read Mr. Swig's post and, like you, he makes the unsupported assertion that rational capacity is present at birth. Although he does not say it, it appears to be implied that it is not present before birth.

Not to sound snarky, but what is it about the birthing process that you say has the effect of bringing this rational faculty or capacity to reason into existance?

I am not disagreeing with you, I simply wish to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to sound snarky, but what is it about the birthing process that you say has the effect of bringing this rational faculty or capacity to reason into existance?

He isn't saying that the birthing process bring the rational faculty into existence (at least I hope not, because that's wrong). The rational faculty most likely exists before birth, in the same dormant stage as it does for a time after birth, until the child begins learning to speak. The significant change about being born is that a child then becomes physically independent from the mother.

Check out this link, which Inspector posted on the abortion thread:

http://abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
Accepting that a rational being is different than a volitional consciousness, how does that change the point of the post? The issue is whether birth changes the nature of the organism sufficiently so that it acquires rights.
Rights attach to rational beings. That means there are two requirements to possess rights: "rationality" and "being". Setting aside the question of rationality for a moment, prior to birth the fetus is not a being, i.e. it is not an independent biological organism. Therefore, it cannot possess rights.

Your suggestion that a fetus acquires the capacity to reason or a rational faculty at birth is difficult to see as having a basis in reality.

I read Mr. Swig's post and, like you, he makes the unsupported assertion that rational capacity is present at birth. Although he does not say it, it appears to be implied that it is not present before birth.

Not to sound snarky, but what is it about the birthing process that you say has the effect of bringing this rational faculty or capacity to reason into existance?

I don't think it is snarky; I think it is a good question.

In addition to becoming an independent biological entity, the moment of birth marks the first time this being becomes conscious. The faculty of reason may be present before birth, in the sense that all of the "hardware" is present, but surely the capacity to be conscious must be a prerequisite to a capacity to reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, this is the one issue that I have difficulty with in terms of Objectivism. I can see where the development of language is a significant step cognitively. I think it would be consistent for an Objectivist to argue that rights accrue at that stage.

I do have difficulty with the concept that rights are acquired at birth, on the basis that it becomes a physically separate organism. It seems to me that, without the human consciousness, the rational capacity, the ability to live as a man, the physical connection to the mother would be secondary. After all, most fetuses would be physically capable of survival if they became detached weeks or even months prior to their natural birth.

Aren't Objectivists trying to have it both ways here in the sense that birth has been selected as the time when rights are acquired, but reason would suggest that rights should not be attributed until later?

Edit: the above was posted prior to AisA's last response.

I agree that the capacity to be conscious is a prerequisite to a capacity to reason. The question to me is when that occurs. There is nothing about the fetus as opposed to an infant that necessitates a conciousness in one and not the other.

Edited by colin
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that the capacity to be conscious is a prerequisite to a capacity to reason. The question to me is when that occurs. There is nothing about the fetus as opposed to an infant that necessitates a conciousness in one and not the other.

You're right. There is nothing that separates the brain functions of the later stages of a fetus with that of a newborn. The important difference comes in the act of making the child an independant entity. Again, this does not change the brain functions of the child (apart from flooding it's senses with additional sensory input, which is not essential).

The mother must still take significant action at some point to give birth. This is something that is medically dangerous and physically painful nomatter which method is chosen. No being can claim to have a right to invoke this kind of pain or damage. Until the mother chooses to go through with this and completes that action, the child does not have rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do have difficulty with the concept that rights are acquired at birth, on the basis that it becomes a physically separate organism. It seems to me that, without the human consciousness, the rational capacity, the ability to live as a man, the physical connection to the mother would be secondary. After all, most fetuses would be physically capable of survival if they became detached weeks or even months prior to their natural birth.
Let's not confuse the actual and the potential. Until it is born, a fetus is only a potential human being. A sperm is also a potential human being, but I don't think anyone is suggesting it has rights.

Aren't Objectivists trying to have it both ways here in the sense that birth has been selected as the time when rights are acquired, but reason would suggest that rights should not be attributed until later?

Edit: the above was posted prior to AisA's last response.

I agree that the capacity to be conscious is a prerequisite to a capacity to reason. The question to me is when that occurs. There is nothing about the fetus as opposed to an infant that necessitates a conciousness in one and not the other.

What, in your view, is the purpose of the concept of rights?
Link to post
Share on other sites
What, in your view, is the purpose of the concept of rights?

That is a great question. Unfortunately I am in the middle of a work project and will be away for a couple of days. Sorry, but I would love to continue this discussion. I think that question will lead me to the answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that your position on the morality of the issue?

I would say that intentionally conceiving/bearing/creating a child does not make the mother morally responsible/obligated because none are initiations of force - and because being born is not a disadvantage/harm IMO.

However, every human being comes into the world helpless. A child cannot survive by “using his mind to produce what his survival requires”. A child’s proper survival demands an additional “condition of existence vis-à-vis other men”. It demands material support by his parents.

A child’s helplessness is a normal, natural, inevitable part of his nature as a rational being. Man, the rational animal, necessarily and inescapably goes through this helpless stage on his way to adulthood.

The same is not necessarily true of the incapacitated adult. ...His incapacitation is not a function of his nature as a rational being.

The fact that some men (infants, adult dependents) can't exist by depending on their mind doesn't mean that we should alter what is proper survival (grant extra rights) for that subgroup of man.

The idea that infants differ from adult dependents because their dependence is "natural" seems questionable. Why does it matter that every human was born an infant? If the idea is that none of us would exist had we not been taken care of, that's obviously true, but just because everyone benefitted from support in infancy doesn't mean anyone is obligated to return the favor. Why then is the "natural" dependence of some other humans a valid basis for additional rights, and not an adult dependent's accidental dependence?

Why does being the child's creator obligate the creator?

I've already answered this question, as have others.

Only partially. The only answers I've seen are "choosing to create obligates," or "the infant having no say obligates," or "the infant's needs obligate"... but all of that only begs the question:

Why does choosing to create, without the created's consent, a being that needs material support (but not choosing any obligation) obligate the creator?

All of the "answers" so far appear to only be additions to the question. I've yet to see a reason why any of those factors should obligate a mother.

I am simply making the same arguments that my opponents made when I was anti-abortion while my opponents in this thread are making the same arguments I used to make against abortion.

Rather amusing, isn't it :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The following scenario is fictional, but fully illuminates my point via a thought experiment.

A creative computer genius invents a system that makes true A.I. possible. Being that this artificial intelligence is based on the workings of the human mind it too has a stage where it is essentially in the same state as a human infant for a short time after it is "created". Assume this A.I. needs a constant energy supply during this period that it can not get itself, or else it's system shuts down, erases, and ceases to exist, i.e., it "dies". In every sense of the word this A.I. is an independent, rational being. If this inventor decided to shrug and abandon his "creation" at this early stage so as not to let the world loot his creation would he or would he not be at fault for it's "murder" via lack of support. Why or why not?

Edited by EC
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it matter? What matters is that it is an entity the possesses a volitional consiousness that can cease to exist if it does not obtain energy. Does anyone on this board seriously think such an entity is not going to be created in the relatively near future, say 50 to 1,000 years to make this a realistic idea?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say that intentionally conceiving/bearing/creating a child does not simply make the mother morally responsible/obligated because none are initiations of force - and because being born is not a disadvantage/harm IMO.
Creating a child does not mean creating a living human being. It means, creating a living human being that has no chance of surviving without your help. So, you are creating a living human being knowing fully that that human will die. Are you saying this is an extremely moral action? Should every parent then simply be leaving their kid to die? If not are you saying that there are some contexts where it is moral and in other contexts immoral? When and why?
Link to post
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...