Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Abortion

Rate this topic


semm
 Share

Recommended Posts

He went so far as to postulate that a corpse could even be considered as part of this concept (since its clearly not an animal corpse, its clearly not an inanimate object made by man). He backed this up by reiterating the notion that a concept takes into account the potentialities that could happen to the existents within it -- ie, all men eventually become corpses.
I will have to mull this over; I wish the heck we could actually discuss the point with him. I'm not at the point of accepting that a corpse a man. It could be a human corpse, the corpse of a man (like a picture of a man -- not a man itself, but in the "picture" or "corpse" relation to a man). The fact that a man has the potential to become a corpse or to become a daisy (after becoming a corpse) does not persuade me that such a daisy is a man. I need to listen to the podcast before carrying this any further, since I need to hear his literal argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the question that's bothering me is how we define "human being." David, I asked this in the other thread and you responded by saying, "what makes A an A?" or something along those lines. But it's a crucial question as far as the fetus goes -- especially in the later stages of pregnancy.

To fit into the concept "man," does one have to not be metaphysically dependent on another? .. My problem is differentiating a baby in the womb who is about to be born with a baby that has just been born. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem is differentiating a baby in the womb who is about to be born with a baby that has just been born. . .
The difference is that an actual being is a person, which can therefore have rights. A future being is not a person, and therefore does not have rights.

I must also point out a statement in the Ayn Rand Letter (December 1975): "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months". A woman has the unquestionable right to surgically remove the object from her womb, as would be necessary for a last-minute abortion anyhow. It is not at all clear to me that Rand supported the idea of removing a fetus just before birth and then killing it. I don't know of any argument that, when a fetus has been surgically removed from a woman that it is right to then kill it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A woman has the unquestionable right to surgically remove the object from her womb, as would be necessary for a last-minute abortion anyhow. It is not at all clear to me that Rand supported the idea of removing a fetus just before birth and then killing it. I don't know of any argument that, when a fetus has been surgically removed from a woman that it is right to then kill it.

Right, I can't imagine being able to justify THAT. But even further, at some point, where the fetus becomes viable to live on its own, wouldn't an abortion be immoral?

I'm not at all familiar with the abortion procedure, but if they could get the fetus out without having to kill it, and it could live on its own, how could you justify killing it anyways?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Right, I can't imagine being able to justify THAT. But even further, at some point, where the fetus becomes viable to live on its own, wouldn't an abortion be immoral?

I'm not at all familiar with the abortion procedure, but if they could get the fetus out without having to kill it, and it could live on its own, how could you justify killing it anyways?

I have never been clear on the issue of abortion anyway, as even a baby cannot technically "live" on its own either; its style of life is still parasitic, to some extent. Not only that, a woman chooses the risk of becoming pregnant by having sex, except in the case of rape (and, say, a broken condom, etc.); I don't see why she shouldn't be held responsible for her actions. At this point, I still consider myself pro-abortion (at least in the early stages of pregnancy, which is pretty much the only time it is safe for a mother), but I want clear answers from supporters. I have a hard time seing a fetus as nothing more than a cluster of cells/tissues; as far as I know, a fetus can ONLY become human. It may be in the same league as a cancer, but a cancer cannot develop into a conscious being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never been clear on the issue of abortion anyway, as even a baby cannot technically "live" on its own either; its style of life is still parasitic, to some extent.

Not to the same extent. A baby can breathe. If given food he can eat. He's not hooked up to the mother's blood supply any more. That's one big difference. Another difference is anyone at all can care for a baby. A fetus can draw nourishment and oxygen only from the mother.

Not only that, a woman chooses the risk of becoming pregnant by having sex, except in the case of rape (and, say, a broken condom, etc.); I don't see why she shouldn't be held responsible for her actions.

Why isn't an abortion a way to face such consequences?

as far as I know, a fetus can ONLY become human.

Not quite. It can also become a miscarried fetus. In rare instances involving conjoined twins, it can become body parts, too, or, more often, an incomplete human being incapable of surviving on his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only that, a woman chooses the risk of becoming pregnant by having sex, except in the case of rape (and, say, a broken condom, etc.); I don't see why she shouldn't be held responsible for her actions.

I like this response, it really brings to light the whole idea of "condemning a woman to motherhood"...

Edited by softwareNerd
Fixed quote tags
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this response, it really brings to light the whole idea of "condemning a woman to motherhood"...

I think I should clarify.

While abortions are routine and relatively simple procedures, they're not without risk. If things go wrong, the woman in question may imperil her ability to conceive in the future. And there may be emotional consequences even when thigns go right. There is a new life growing inside her that is not a clump of cells like a cyst, not emotionally it's not.

Therefore facing up to that is being responsible for one's actions.

BTW I think abortion should be used as a last resort only. Men and women are responsible for using contraception beforehand. Women are responsible for seeking remedies after if any are available (like the morning after pill). If all that fails and carrying a child to term is not in the woman's interest, then she can resort to an abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I should clarify.

While abortions are routine and relatively simple procedures, they're not without risk. If things go wrong, the woman in question may imperil her ability to conceive in the future. And there may be emotional consequences even when thigns go right. There is a new life growing inside her that is not a clump of cells like a cyst, not emotionally it's not.

Therefore facing up to that is being responsible for one's actions.

BTW I think abortion should be used as a last resort only. Men and women are responsible for using contraception beforehand. Women are responsible for seeking remedies after if any are available (like the morning after pill). If all that fails and carrying a child to term is not in the woman's interest, then she can resort to an abortion.

Hm there is a difference between "facing consequences" and being "held responsible" for them. I'm asking why abortion is a responsible choice at all (I can only see it as such when a) a woman and man have taken proper preventative measures or :lol: if the woman was raped). It has always been of some comfort to me to acknowledge that abortions ARE serious choices made by women and their doctors (not just last-minute solutions), but just because someone broods over something doesn't necessarily mean their decision is morally right.

If given food he can eat...Another difference is anyone at all can care for a baby. A fetus can draw nourishment and oxygen only from the mother.

A baby's ideal diet is still extremely selective... they can only eat certain foods, served in certain manners... I would venture to say that caring for a born baby requires more attention than caring for a fetus. And, again, I don't really see as only it's mother being able to care for it as a valid point for denying a fetus a chance at life if the mother took the risk of becoming impregnated in the first place. I guess I just don't see how these technicalities are relevant?

Not quite. It can also become a miscarried fetus. In rare instances involving conjoined twins, it can become body parts, too, or, more often, an incomplete human being incapable of surviving on his own.

Hm, in the case of a miscarried fetus, it wouldn't be relevant. Actually, I don't think any of these would be very relevant. These babies would never have the ability to exercise human rights, and would probably die prematurely from other (predictable) complications. And regardless, they are uniquely human fetuses.

My stance has always been yours: "abortion should be used as a last resort only". Abortion is never good for a woman anyway (neither is the morning after pill, although I'll admit, I have used it in emergency). I'm really just trying to reason out what a legitimate reason for a woman to have an abortion is. If giving birth threatens the mother's life, I would DEFINITELY agree that the mother has every right to choose to abort the fetus. I guess I have a hard time admitting that a potential human is so easily disposable as someone being, say, financially unstable or embarrassed, especially when there are people willing to even pay the medical expenses for a baby, and when people who are embarrassed of pregnancy should not be having sex anyway (rape, of course, being the exception).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really just trying to reason out what a legitimate reason for a woman to have an abortion is.

Before I answer I want to state this:

Abortion is a responsible option, but not the only option.

Now, a pregnancy also carries risks of its own. Death due to childbirth is rare, but not unheard of even in developed nations (and with socialized medicine it will become more common, but that's another topic). Aside from death there can be a host of complications during pregnancy. There are also several expenses, even if pre-natal care is completely neglected. From eating additional food, to lost productivity due to "morning" sickness, etc.

At certain stages in life, too, pregnancy can hinder a woman's life. Suppose a bright, promising 20-something college graduate gets careless one day and ends up pregnant. The pregnancy alone, even without complications, might hinder her job performance at a time when it's important for her career to do a good job. Pregnancy might even keep ger from getting a job to begin with.

I guess I have a hard time admitting that a potential human is so easily disposable as someone being, say, financially unstable or embarrassed, especially when there are people willing to even pay the medical expenses for a baby, and when people who are embarrassed of pregnancy should not be having sex anyway (rape, of course, being the exception).

It's not, morally, easily disposable. That's why I say it's a last resort. I do think a woman who can casually dispose of her fetus shows some general disregard for human life, but only some.

Still, think about what kind of people wind up accidentally pregnant. A small percentage are those whose precautions fail. A lrger one are those who take inadequate precautions (using old barrier prodcuts, not taking the pill every day, etc). The larger group consists of those who take no precautions at all. the altter group includes, to be sure, some women who are raped. But also, and in larger measure, women who are too irresponsible to take propper precautions.

So I ask, how responsible would such women be regarding a rpegnancy, let alone having and raising a kid? For them abortion is likely the most responsible option available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and when people who are embarrassed of pregnancy should not be having sex anyway (rape, of course, being the exception).

Can you explain this statement a little more please? Why is embarrassment over pregnancy relevant to whether or not someone should or should not be having sex? Maturity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you explain this statement a little more please? Why is embarrassment over pregnancy relevant to whether or not someone should or should not be having sex? Maturity?

Sorry, perhaps I should've explained, but maturity is exactly right. I realize that these beliefs are mostly associated with religion, but regardless, I think if someone is mature enough to have sex, they're mature enough to think for themselves.

So I ask, how responsible would such women be regarding a rpegnancy, let alone having and raising a kid? For them abortion is likely the most responsible option available.

While I understand your point, we've already established that the original mother doesn't have to raise the child. I don't really see this as relevant to whether or not abortion is a violation of human rights, because mothers who actually GIVE birth may still not be equipped to take care of their child, and killing their child would not be morally responsible.

It's not, morally, easily disposable. That's why I say it's a last resort. I do think a woman who can casually dispose of her fetus shows some general disregard for human life, but only some.

So it seems that we both agree on this point, but it's still lacking specifics. When would it be okay, and when would it be immoral, for a woman to have an abortion (and why?). If a fetus were not a specifically human life, wouldn't this be a moot point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And when (if ever) does it cross the line from merely immoral to being a rights violation, i.e., objectively criminal? (You can expand this to cover the entire timeline, from the creation of the sperm and egg, through conception, embryo and fetus development, birth, childhood, adulthood.... since I believe that the Objectivist answer would be that it's never a rights violation before birth).

Those two questions (mine and Catherine's) are what define the issue in Objectivst terms. Whatever the answers, the political aspect of it follows from them: Up until the point it is a rights violation, there should be no law. Before that, but after the last point at which it is "okay", the most you can do is sanction someone if it's in the "no longer okay but not yet criminal" realm.

I have no absolutely certain answer for when it becomes immoral but Ayn Rand hinted it was dangerous to abort after the first trimester, which means that in most contexts it would be immoral after that point because it's a foolish risk of ones' life. (Clearly if it's a case of choosing the 7 month fetus vs. the mother, it is not immoral to abort. I have heard of cases where the mother was in a situation like this and went ahead and had the baby. Altruism or "merely" paying the ultimate price for a value?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it seems that we both agree on this point, but it's still lacking specifics. When would it be okay, and when would it be immoral, for a woman to have an abortion (and why?). If a fetus were not a specifically human life, wouldn't this be a moot point?

Well, naturally when precautins are taken and pregnancy still happens. In cases of rape for obvious resons. When there's risk to the life or health of the mother. When the pregnancy (not the birth or the child to come out of it) would set back one's goals. When the pregnancy carries financial costs one cannot afford. And I'm sure many others I haven't thought of.

The point is that abortion is morally justified most times because the fetus is not an actual person, but rather a potential one. Even in the case of an irrational woman who takes all kinds of chances and winds up pregnant, why compound all that with additional physiological, psychological and financial burdens?

I am disgusted when an irresponsible woman resorts to abortion as if it meant nothing more than lancing a boil. But she is well within her rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

*** Mod's note: Merged with earlier thread on the same topic. - sN ***

GIANT WARNING THING! This is not an emotion filled post. This is an honest attempt at a reasoned conversation about this topic as concerns Objectivism. This is not a flame, this is not an attempt at a fight. Please keep any posts free of emotion. I have set out the position I think Objectivism should take considering its precepts, and given the relevant quotes below (those I can find that is). The official version disagrees. Rather than appeal to authority (or any other fallacy), I've tried to lay it out as clearly and as logically as I can. Please feel free to comment. But, again, please keep comments on topic and free of emotion, instead let us use reason.

Here goes...

I was just reading over on this thread about the use of force. The statement that caught my eye was...

Objectivism holds that a man has one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life. In "The Virtue of Selfishness" Rand writes, "Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life."

I followed the link and immediately went for abortion, because after reading the above quote, I knew Objectivism would be anti-abortion. Wow, was I wrong...

Abortion

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

The manner of justification is what troubles me. The article goes through the trouble of stating the same thing essentially, in four ways, just to be sure. Yet, some of these have negative consequences from an Objectivist point-of-view.

"An embryo has no rights." Until the moment of birth, a child is considered an embryo. So the mother could abort 5 minutes before birth, if she so chose. Also, as the embryo has no rights, there would be no crime in a third party killing an unborn child, other than assault.

"Rights do not pertain to potential, only actual beings." Well, other than the giant problems this gives corporations (which are considered people by the Supreme Court) it's irrelevant to us "actual beings."

"A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born." This is a restatement of the preceding, and a clarification. But, if the mother dies in childbirth, before the infant is born, there is no moral obligation to save the child.

"The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)." This one threw me. I take precedence over any of my (and your descendants). If we destroy the ecosystem, it's OK, because we've no moral obligation to leave them anything, moreover, we have no obligation to have descendants. Sure, I can handle that last part.

"Abortion is a moral right." According to Rand, through the above quoted poster's filter, "Objectivism holds that a man has one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life." These are in obvious conflict. We must assume that either: a) the poster is incorrect, or; b ) the poster is correct. If a, then there is no issue. If b, then whoever wrote the Lexicon article contradicts Rand. Further, if a, then we must also assume that it is only when one is born that one becomes a man, thus gaining that singular moral right to life.

From Rand

The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.

The crux of the statement rests on the definition of 'others'.

The philosophy definition of the Other is : that which is distinct from, different from, or opposite something or oneself.

To be an "other" the embryo must be "distinct from" or "different from" the mother. I take it this is what the Lexicon means by "A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born." Sure, it acquires no rights until it is Other, until it is "distinct from" or "different from" the mother. But, that also means that until the baby is born it is part of the mother. It is indistinct from the mother, it is part of the mother, it is the mother in some sense.

Again, from Rand

Obviously, in order to act, one has to be moved by some personal motive; one has to "want," in some sense, to perform the action.

As the baby is indistinct from its mother, it is part of her, and is the mother in some sense, according to Rand, this would amount to the intent, or the " "want," in some sense" to harm herself.

From Rand

The standard of mental health—of biologically appropriate mental functioning—is the same as that of physical health: man's survival and well-being.

To be mentally healthy you must pursue your survival and well-being. To harm one's self intentionally is contrary to one's well-being. Therefore, to intentionally harm one's self is a sign of mental illness. As the baby is indistinct from the mother until birth, causing harm to it is a sign of mental illness in the mother.

I like my sig, I also like the necessary conclusion that is drawn from it: "That which is anti-life, is anti-mind."

Note: all the complex side issues that arise, such as if "the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action" then children as old as 3–5 would not have the right to live as they are neither "self-sustaining" nor "self-generating", are ignored to stay on topic.

Edited by softwareNerd
Added topic-merged notice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a problem. Fetuses are not persons and only persons have rights.

A gravid female is sufficiently developed to be a person. As a person she has the right to control and dispose of anything of her body or (NB) -in- her body. The only constraint is that this disposal does not harm or threaten to harm other persons.

The rest follows logically.

So what is the problem? What is the question?

ruveyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not an emotion filled post. This is an honest attempt at a reasoned conversation about this topic as concerns Objectivism. This is not a flame, this is not an attempt at a fight. Please keep any posts free of emotion. I have set out the position I think Objectivism should take considering its precepts, and given the relevant quotes below (those I can find that is). The official version disagrees. Rather than appeal to authority (or any other fallacy), I've tried to lay it out as clearly and as logically as I can. Please feel free to comment. But, again, please keep comments on topic and free of emotion, instead let us use reason.

First rational emotional responses follow from rational thoughts and premises. So there is nothing wrong with an emotional response to rational thoughts and ideas in a man. And I have one to this post. It irks me. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. What she says is Objectivism is Objectivism. She's it creator and A is A. This is NOT an "appeal to authority", but a statement of fact. That said, if you follow the arguments presented by her and Peikoff in various essay's you will find that they are correct when it comes to abortion if you are carefull in your reading, and objective. When I first "discovered" Objectivism I too, was anti-abotion in ALL cases including rape with what I thought were logical arguments (definitely NOT religous). I was wrong. Now I am as "pro" abortion as any other Objectivist, however, I NEVER would have argued that Objectivism should include my (incorrect) views--I just didn't consider myself a "full" Objectivist at the time.

So argue your views and study the O'ist response till you come to a firm conviction in regard to abortion either way. Just don't claim that your opinions should be what Objectivism--the philosophy of Ayn Rand--should consist of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As the baby is indistinct from its mother, it is part of her, and is the mother in some sense, according to Rand, this would amount to the intent, or the " "want," in some sense" to harm herself."

"To be mentally healthy you must pursue your survival and well-being. To harm one's self intentionally is contrary to one's well-being. Therefore, to intentionally harm one's self is a sign of mental illness. As the baby is indistinct from the mother until birth, causing harm to it is a sign of mental illness in the mother."

Please forgive me if this sounds simplistic as I am very new to all of this. Please feel free to tell me I am completely on the wrong path.

To my understanding the fetus is as distinct from the mother as an organ is. If a person has a disease that affects a kidney it wouldn't be considered "insane" to remove it. It would actually be rational for the well being of the individual. The same could be said for someone who donates a healthy kidney to help save a life. This, to me, follows logically to a fetus. If the mother decides it is in her best interest to abort the fetus she is not necessarily harming herself and therefore not a sign of mental illness. Am I making sense here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A clear distinction must be made between moral judgement and legal judgement.

Paraphrasing Dr. Peikoff during his radio days, he made the important point that, if a women aborts in a late stage, it might be morally equivalent to killing a cat, depending on circumstances. The woman might be able to be condemned MORALLY in the right context. (This assumes that there was no good medical reason for her to abort, for instance.) [by the way, about 2% of all abortions occur in late stages.]

So she's been condemned morally, perhaps shunned by her friends and family -- should she also be punished legally? Did she commit murder? Did her doctor commit murder? Should she be locked up, and for how long? Does she deserve the death penalty? Is she a danger to others? From what I understand, that's a "no" to all of these questions. She, as a person who possesses inalienable individual rights, should not have any legal charges against her. She either has a right to do whatever she wants with her body, or she doesn't. Even though the fetus was in its late stages, it was still a PART OF HER BODY.

To illustrate -- putting aside what the potential might turn into later (after birth), and the context of "cute babyness," if someone has a parasite growing in him, over many weeks, feeding off the nutrition he consumes, making him sick many mornings, growing and giving him abdominal pains -- a thing so connected to his body that it may even put his life in danger -- he, in effect, OWNS this part of himself, as he does his elbows, liver and knees. It does not own itself -- it depends 100% on him.

And if, for example, that part of him endangers the function of his organs, of course he has every right to surgically remove it. There are many dangers that can happen in pregnancy, and many, many other rational circumstances (besides medical) that would call for abortion.

Now should it be the government's business to analyze the medical, psychological, existential, social and financial circumstances of each abortion? No. It should be left up to the woman to decide what she should do. And she has every legal right. (And so would HE, if male pregnancy were ever possible.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first question is 'Should abortion be allowed?' and the second is 'Should I [assuming you are a woman] have an abortion in circumstance X?' As KindredArmy said, they can be opposing answers. A great many individuals will try to combine these two questions into one and then find a single answer, which is a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a problem. Fetuses are not persons and only persons have rights.

A gravid female is sufficiently developed to be a person. As a person she has the right to control and dispose of anything of her body or (NB) -in- her body. The only constraint is that this disposal does not harm or threaten to harm other persons.

I think your question is sufficiently similar to the last quoted post here, so I'll attempt to answer you below.

Let us say at some point during the pregnancy, the fetus is conscious ( It certainly is at some point to my knowledge )...By what right does it still act as a parasite on the mother, without her consent?

I know of no right, only the natural biological necessity.

From Rand

The virtue of Rationality means... a commitment to the reality of one's own existence... that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one's perception of reality.

The biological function of pregnancy is reality.

Except in the case of rape (which includes incest) the mother's consent was given to the act of conception.

Please forgive me if this sounds simplistic as I am very new to all of this. Please feel free to tell me I am completely on the wrong path.

To my understanding the fetus is as distinct from the mother as an organ is. If a person has a disease that affects a kidney it wouldn't be considered "insane" to remove it. It would actually be rational for the well being of the individual. The same could be said for someone who donates a healthy kidney to help save a life. This, to me, follows logically to a fetus. If the mother decides it is in her best interest to abort the fetus she is not necessarily harming herself and therefore not a sign of mental illness. Am I making sense here?

No, this is not simplistic. It is a good point in need of discussion. In the case of a kidney infection / disease, the person's continued well-being is jeopardized by the infection, thus treating the infection is in pursuit of well-being, thus is a moral act. So this doesn't apply.

The question of a healthy, donated kidney is closer, but it offers some benefit to the well-being of another, so it to is not the same.

Abortion would be more like deciding to have an organ removed (for whatever reason) and the organ is then discarded (i.e. it offers no benefit to anyone).

That is where my confusion comes in. Considering the actual harm that is caused to the mother (enduring the procedure) and the risks of complication, the procedure is detrimental to the mother's well-being. Life is value. Saving the life of the mother is necessary. However, an abortion for anything short of that (aborting to avoid financial hardship, etc) is unnecessary, i.e. it doesn't positively affect the survival or well-being of the mother, and therefore, according to Rand, that abortion is a whim. And also according to Rand, one should not trade a value for a lesser value. To me that includes things like extreme sports (the temporary thrill traded for the risk of ending life), and an unnecessary abortion (the trading of a whim for the harm to the mother).

Rand argues for the primacy of Reason as the guiding principle of life. Rationality is antithesis to emotionalism. Reason is antithesis to emotion. Hence the request for logical thought, critical reasoning, and the avoidance of emotion.

I would appreciate comments directly tied to the quotes of Rand's work, and my process of thought. I have taken the time to find appropriate quotes from Rand's philosophy (not the Lexicon) to support my argument, and reasoned through to the logical end. Please do the same in return, providing your process of thought and supporting quotes from Rand's works rather than an unsupported conclusion.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...