|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How could the Pro-life movement have wider appeal?
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I would consider myself to be a left wing feminist in most regards. The big aberration within my world view is abortion. If I am honest with myself I just can't cope with the view that an nonviable fetus is nothing and has no right to life over that of its mother.
I don't want to deny women healthcare, or contraception or choice over their bodies but I just can't get past my gut reaction that yes this is the murder of a child and I would really like it if it stopped.
So I suppose that makes me pro-life. But I can't feel comfortable with that label because I simply can't identify with the rhetoric and priorities of the anti-abortion movement. I find the 'getting into bed' with the anti-gay marriage lobby distasteful and offensive, I am frustrated by the blatantly religious tone of the propaganda produced and the vitriol directed at people who are sincerely trying to help women in desperate situations. I am mystified by the refusal to advocate for contraception and sex education as a means by which the abortion rates can be decreased. Most of all I find the failure of the pro life movement to actually care about the life of the baby once it's born to be hypocritical in the extreme.
Does anyone share my frustration? Are there movements I could get involved in that don't mean I have to scream at vulnerable women outside clinics? Is there a less violent way for Christians to broaden the pro life movement and and reduce abortion rates in a compassionate and just manner?
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Not that he qualifies as a movement, but Nat Hentoff might be an example of someone sharing your position.
He's a social liberal, supportive of civil-rights and GLBQT equality, against the death penalty, resolutely opposed to all forms of censorship, AND opposed to legal abortion.
(On the other hand, he's gone to the right lately on foreign-policy issues, supporting the Iraq invasion for example, but still against the suspension of civil liberties in the USA.)
His article links to another one about the consistent life ethic, which you might find interesting.
[ 01. May 2015, 11:41: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Those links do look interesting thankyou I've had a cursory look but will do some more digging tomorrow.
It may seem artificial but I do see a real distinction between abortion and euthanasia. I have friends with life limiting conditions which means they will, as it stands, die in pain having lost a significant amount of themselves and their ability to function along the way. I believe that a person should have the right to decide independently that they wish to end their own life provided they can demonstrate they are of sound mind. With an unborn child there is no chance to argue or to consent so I suppose that's the difference for me.
That's probably a whole other discussion though so I'll try to keep focused strictly on abortion on this thread.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
(Not a reply to Macrina's last post)
My own problem with the "consistent life" position is that, if I did indeed believe that abortion was equivalent to murder, than yes, I WOULD think that thousands of abortions taking place every year is a much graver problem than a few murderers being executed on death row, and would not address the latter issue until I had solved the former.
On the other hand, if I thought that abortion was murder, there's no way I would link it with things like same-sex marriage and banning pornography, like the more typical pro-lifers do. Even if I WAS against those other things, abortion would still be a completely different degree of moral urgency.
In fact, were I "pro-life", I PROBABLY would be the kind of person who tries to physically restrain women from entering abortion clinics. Just as I would try to tackle someone I saw taking a child to a bridge in order to throw her off.
But, I am not anti-abortion, so am blissfully lacking of the burden to work these things out.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Those links do look interesting thankyou I've had a cursory look but will do some more digging tomorrow.
It may seem artificial but I do see a real distinction between abortion and euthanasia. I have friends with life limiting conditions which means they will, as it stands, die in pain having lost a significant amount of themselves and their ability to function along the way. I believe that a person should have the right to decide independently that they wish to end their own life provided they can demonstrate they are of sound mind. With an unborn child there is no chance to argue or to consent so I suppose that's the difference for me.
That's probably a whole other discussion though so I'll try to keep focused strictly on abortion on this thread.
Actually, I'm the opposite of you. I favour legalized abortion, but am steadfastly opposed to active euthanasia.
My objections to euthanasia are similar to people who object to capital punishment on the grounds that an innocent person may be wrongfully executed. It's not that they have any objection to killing a murderer, just that they know that having the death-penalty in place increases the risk of making a mistake.
With euthanasia, it wouldn't really bother me if someone gave a sick person a requested dosage of medicine in order to kill him. But legalizing it would pave the way for situations where those who don't really want to die are pressured into it by doctors, family members, etc, or are even subjected to it unwillingly.
With abortion, I don't reagrd the fetus as having any rights, so I don't care how many abortions are performed, or for what reason.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
I would suggest considering whether it is more important to you to make abortion illegal, or to reduce the number of abortions performed. Those are two very different objectives. I expect you will find a lot more support for the latter than for the former.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Things the pro-life movement could do to persuade people that they were pro-life and not anti-women-having-sex:
1) Support more sex education. All the studies show that sex education reduces unwanted pregnancies.
2) For non-Roman Catholics only: make access to contraception easier.
3) Support more generous terms for statutory maternity leave.
3a) And paternity leave, come to that.
4) Support more generous child benefit and childcare policies especially for single mothers who face the choice between looking after children and working.
5) Speak up against rape culture, misogyny on social media, and so on, to make it quite clear that they're not trading on anti-feminist attitudes.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think that the way forward is to stop being afraid to say what we think for fear of being labelled with others we don't associate with. People will label us anyway, they always do.
I too think it wrong for babies to be killed, whether they have been born yet or not. At what point a baby is a baby I don't know, but every day it's in the womb it's more a baby than it was yesterday. I also think it wrong to kill adults because they are old or have health problems.
I think it far better to promote the care of ourselves and our fellow human beings than to promote our destruction. Therefore contraception and education and sensitivity to how we all affect each other is to be encouraged, with physical and psychological and spiritual medicine and therapy used to alleviate pain and discomfort, rather than to dispose of those people who affect or cause them.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Lots of pro-choice women wouldn't have an abortion themselves, and do not consider a foetus to be nothing. Appreciating that might help. There is a huge difference between not agreeing with abortion personally, and thinking that you get to extend that to others. You can't legislate on the basis of religious attitudes to abortion, it is wholly unfeminist and unfair on those who do not share your opinions.
The bottom line is that what other women do with their bodies is just not your business, and that's an inherent part of feminism.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Lots of pro-choice women wouldn't have an abortion themselves, and do not consider a foetus to be nothing. Appreciating that might help. There is a huge difference between not agreeing with abortion personally, and thinking that you get to extend that to others. You can't legislate on the basis of religious attitudes to abortion, it is wholly unfeminist and unfair on those who do not share your opinions.
The bottom line is that what other women do with their bodies is just not your business, and that's an inherent part of feminism.
Yes I do understand that many people who are pro choice wouldn't personally have an abortion. I do wish I could live and let live with a clear conscience on this as I do on so many other issues but I can't get past the fact that this process involves the death of a human who cannot consent. I feel that to ignore it, for me at least, is similar to ignoring murder or child abuse. I can't. I understand others think differently and I have tried to research and find something within the pro choice community that I can use to convince myself otherwise but I think their arguments generally fail.
This doesn't really stem from religious sources for me but from an understanding of biology and conception. I am not comfortable at all with the pro life religious focus.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Stop shaming pregnant single women and making their life a living hell through poor-shaming and cutting public services. A poor single mother with other mouths to feed who gets pregnant may feel she has no other choice than to abort. She will get fired if she takes time off work, and isn't getting anything like the health coverage she needs anyway. And yet the same people who claim to be against abortion are also against extending the social safety net and making health insurance available to the poor and requiring a living minimum wage and providing free or subsidized daycare to poor mothers and mandatory paid maternity leave and job security for pregnant women.
Promoting the current conservative agenda against the poor and saying "well you should have kept your legs crossed" is EXACTLY the same thing as saying, "You should get an abortion."
Work to reduce the number of abortions and not just make them illegal. Too many hypocrites in the anti-choice camp will not lift a finger to reduce the rate of abortions by doing things -- like REAL sex ed and condom availability, etc., etc., etc. -- that would vastly curb the number of abortions. Giving the impression that saving babies isn't what their REAL cause is. Leading people to conclude that their real cause is making life miserable for "sinful" women.
Cool it with the all-or-nothing agenda. If you can get certain curbs in place that allow for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, etc., but forego that because it's not absolute, then again you're showing that saving babies isn't your issue, it's the absolutism of it. Stop making the perfect the enemy of the good. Yes maybe it isn't good enough if you think blastocytes are people too, but sometimes you can't get good enough and have to take what you can get. Rather than throw your toys out of the pram and hold your breath until you can get Roe v. Wade overturned, take what you can get now.
Stop painting women who have abortions and people who provide them as inhuman monsters. Sure it rallies the troops and makes you feel better about yourselves when you have someone to hate and treat as subhuman. But it harms the cause. It's possible the anti-choice forces could actually work with Planned Parenthood to drastically reduce the number of abortions in this country by drastically reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. When actions that might reduce unwanted pregnancies are being made illegal, and the anti-choicers are pushing bullshit like "abstinence only sex education," which has proven to be a colossal failure, again it starts to look like reducing abortions isn't their real issue.
Some thoughts.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
The bottom line is that what other women do with their bodies is just not your business, and that's an inherent part of feminism.
The other side of this argument is that if what the woman is doing with her body is punching someone, for example, then it is very much our business.
"Her body, her choice" is fine if it only involves her body. An abortion necessarily involves the foetus's body as well. Not mentioning the foetus, as you do in your bottom line here, is equivalent to classing the foetus as "nothing".
It's a straight-up fight between the woman's rights and the foetus's, and I think the woman still wins, but I think you need a couple more steps in your bottom line argument.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I find myself completely agreeing with Stetson above.
Re the OP more specifically, I think we must probably stop talking about what others do and focus on ourselves and our own failings. We might also consider beyond post birth abortion of execution, all we kill and have killed on our behalf in all these oil-war adventures.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I like what Mousethief said - I think it expresses a lot of how I feel in more direct terms. I don't want to make it illegal, in the same way I don't want to make prostitution or drug use illegal because even though they have awful effects on people I think criminalizing them causes more harm than not because it discourages seeking help and exploring options for change.
I'd rather work so that abortion is seen as an option you don't have to take because there is comprehensive support for you to raise a child or to have that child supported (by people who feel as I do).
I want to make it very clear I do not demonise women who have abortions. I know very well why they choose to have them and I put the blame far more on the failure of the pro-life movement to actually be pro life than I do on the existence of planned parenthood - who I feel do very good work at actually reducing abortion rates by their very existence.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
There are a fair few people I've seen who, accurately in my view, append "offer expires at birth" to every mention of the pro-life movement. I don't think abortion is right, and late abortions due to Down's or other disabling but non-fatal conditions particularly trouble me, but I don't think anything is gained by making abortion illegal.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I've just heard a piece on the law in El Salvador*, where women who have had natural miscarriages or stillbirths are imprisoned because they have aborted their baby. And, worse, where it is illegal to deal with ectopic pregnancies when there is a heartbeat, so that both the foetus and the woman die. The reporter spoke with the local RC bishop, who was adamant that the foetus' life was the most important in any case, not the woman's, and would not address any of the difficult issues about the law.
To have a wider appeal, people claiming to be pro-life really have to be pro-life.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
* was to say it was probably available on BBC World Service.
I got distracted into doing a much longer piece which fell foul of the editing limit. Probably a good thing.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Work to reduce the number of abortions
This.
It is the reasonable common ground for all positions. It is the position which is the most loving, the most Christlike, the most reasonable.
Education, support for poor and vulnerable women. Love. Not unreasonable steps, not incompatible with any stance that purports to venerate life.
I hate that abortion is as frequent as it is. We could change this. This is why the extreme positions on either side infuriate me. Neither serve to help those who need it most.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
This is why I don't understand, that so many pro-life people are also vehemently opposed to birth control. You would think they would be handing out condoms like confetti. Unless... could it be? That they are totally uninterested in babies, but only in managing women's sex lives?
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ISTM, it is because birth control interferes with "God's Plan".
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is why I don't understand, that so many pro-life people are also vehemently opposed to birth control. ...
Doesn't mean they are connected in any way. The Roman Catholic Church may teach both, but most or all other Christian denominations do not.
There is absolutely no reason why one cannot chose to be pro-life and be ok with birth control.
It is wrong to aggregate a whole smorgasbord of beliefs and call it the pro-life movement, as the OP has done.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
There is absolutely no reason why one cannot chose to be pro-life and be ok with birth control.
A lot of pro-life people get very very concerned about methods of birth control which allow conception but then subsequently prevent implantation.
Condoms are typically judged fine because they prevent the sperm and egg ever meeting. But some methods allow the two to meet and combine and then prevent the embryo from being able to implant itself in the uterus wall and cause it to simply 'die'.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Meike
Shipmate
# 3006
|
Posted
I wish there was a greater awareness in our society that values children and human life in general. Social and political programs alone don't seem to make that much of a difference.
In Germany, where I live, every fifth pregnancy ends in an abortion, in Berlin, every forth and these are just the official numbers. I find that staggeringly high, given that, while everything isn't perfect, we live in a rich country. We have social security, sex education, condoms available in every supermarket.
Bottom line is, I think we do a lot of things right on a political scale but in our culture there's too little respect for weak, disabled or vulnerable people.
--------------------
“A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 250 | From: I like this place | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
There is absolutely no reason why one cannot chose to be pro-life and be ok with birth control.
A lot of pro-life people get very very concerned about methods of birth control which allow conception but then subsequently prevent implantation.
Condoms are typically judged fine because they prevent the sperm and egg ever meeting. But some methods allow the two to meet and combine and then prevent the embryo from being able to implant itself in the uterus wall and cause it to simply 'die'.
The American right wing, which is only minority catholic, is currently shitting bricks about The Pill. There is apparently a bill in Congress to allow employers to fire any woman they find to be taking it. Tell me THAT is about babies. No, it's about controlling women. This kind of tomfoolery has got to stop before anyone outside the right-wing Christian ghetto considers the pro-life movement as anything other than self-deluded (or disingenuous) misogynistic bullshit.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
When I was in Scouts we had a saying, "If your feet are cold, put on a hat." Because your body will draw blood out of the extremities to keep the vital organs, including the brain, warm. If you're losing heat from your head, your feet are not going to get as much attention from central heating. Or, in short, if your feet are cold, put on a hat.
The abortion question is a similar "what does this have to do with that?" paradox. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, eliminate poverty.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, eliminate poverty.
And increase sex-education, and increase the availability of effective and easy contraceptives.
All three of which the religious-right in the US tends to be against. Instead their response is to try to make abortions illegal or hard-to-obtain, which seems to mainly result in large numbers of less-safe illegal abortions being performed, while not dramatically lowering the overall abortion rate. They've got a very strange way of attempting to achieve their stated aims.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There is apparently a bill in Congress to allow employers to fire any woman they find to be taking it. Tell me THAT is about babies. No, it's about controlling women. This kind of tomfoolery has got to stop before anyone outside the right-wing Christian ghetto considers the pro-life movement as anything other than self-deluded (or disingenuous) misogynistic bullshit.
Zooming back into the 19th Century at breakneck speed.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
We're with you Macrina. There's a difference between accepting unquestioningly a woman's complete rights over her own body, and what you can accept when there is the body of someone else involved. To take an extreme example, no-one would accept that a woman could forcibly castrate her partner as a form of birth control. We have no objection to a woman using any form of contraceptive or other birth control method available to her, but look at it differently once conception has occurred.
[ 03. May 2015, 11:17: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've just heard a piece on the law in El Salvador*, where women who have had natural miscarriages or stillbirths are imprisoned because they have aborted their baby. And, worse, where it is illegal to deal with ectopic pregnancies when there is a heartbeat, so that both the foetus and the woman die. The reporter spoke with the local RC bishop, who was adamant that the foetus' life was the most important in any case, not the woman's, and would not address any of the difficult issues about the law.
To have a wider appeal, people claiming to be pro-life really have to be pro-life.
Seems to be a problem in America as well.
Arrested having miscarriage. 7 appalling instances where pregnant women were jailed.[/URL] Arrested for having a miscarriage?
[ 03. May 2015, 11:46: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Exactly, mousethief and Starlight. It is so sensible that the resolute inability to see the plain facts is suspicious in itself. I am forced to conclude that no, they are not interested in life, really. (Otherwise why the failure to support mothers and babies?)
It may be that they actually do not want only to muddle about between our legs. But they consistently -act- (whatever the words say) like that's their main interest. So you cannot wonder that many people regard the movement with suspicion, if not open hostility. If action comported with words, then it would change. But I see no signs of it.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Macrina, what about contraception failure? I did dig all these figures out last time we discussed abortion and in the UK over 90% of abortions occur in the fist 10 weeks of gestation. And a significant proportion of them are due to upset stomachs while taking the contraceptive pill / failed condom or whatever else caused unplanned pregnancy.
Starlight, a really high percentage of fertilised eggs / zygotes are never implanted naturally, unknown to anyone. How is that unnatural? The normal contraceptive pill prevents the egg from being released by mimicking pregnancy, which makes the campaign against that one fairly bizarre.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Macrina, I agree with you in a much more fundamental way.
If A thinks X, Y and Z, on various partially or totally unrelated subjects, and I agree with him or her on X, why should that oblige me to take the whole package and agree on Y and Z? That strikes me as a really bad fallacy.
On dead horse issues, why should it be assumed that if you agree with, say, ordination of women or same sex marriage, that that has any bearing at all on what you think about abortion? That quite a lot of people just choose their package of opinions because it seems to go with a particular group of people they quite like or want to be in with, is no good reason for doing likewise.
If we leave dead horse issues altogether, here's another example. If I think the government should care for the poor, why should I also be expected to think that nationalisation is a good thing? Or if I think there are good arguments for having the railway network run by the common-weal, why should I also be expected to think the same goes for coal mines? Yet until about 20 years ago, there were a lot of people who insisted that you had to think all those things or none of them. There still are a few even now who take the line that if you don't agree with them on nationalisation, then you must want to oppress the needy.
There is no reason whatsoever why you should be obliged to take your opinions from the shallow assumptions of others that any package of opinions automatically has to march together.
If you don't like or agree with abortion, and agree with gay marriage stick up for your own views. You are entitled to form both independently of each other and of other peoples' opinions. There's no reason whatever why you should feel yourself intellectually or emotionally coerced by other people with whom you partially agree or with whom you are in or out of sympathy.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Starlight, a really high percentage of fertilised eggs / zygotes are never implanted naturally, unknown to anyone. How is that unnatural? The normal contraceptive pill prevents the egg from being released by mimicking pregnancy, which makes the campaign against that one fairly bizarre.
Yeah, it's really strange when they start getting selective on the science and opposing things on grounds that are demonstrably false.
That seemed one of the stranger aspects of the recent Supreme Court Hobby-Lobby case in the US. The court ruled that not only was the employer's religious beliefs allowed to override that of all their many employees' with regard to exactly what employer-subsidized healthcare the employee could have, but also apparently ruled that the factual accuracy of the employer's beliefs was irrelevant when it came to things like whether the method of contraception actually scientifically functioned in the way the employers happened to falsely believe it did. All a bit cray-cray.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Curiousity - gut instinct is that choosing to end a pregnancy is choosing to end a pregnancy and that ideally we should not choose to actively do that in any way shape or form unless both lives are at risk by us not doing so. Choosing to prevent conception in whatever form is absolutely okay from where I am standing.
I'm aware though that the actually nitty gritty on the ground is a whole lot more complicated than my gut instinct so I would view that situation with a heck of a lot of compassion before anything else. Bottom line, I want to say it's okay because that seems the logical and sensible thing to say, but as it stands I don't think it is so I can't.
So I have a question arising from that. I know that pre modern science the Church spoke of 'quickening' as the point at which a foetus became human - does anyone have any suggestions for reading around this and what they think of the concept? I almost feel like I'm trying to wriggle out of my own position to allow for situations like the one Curiousity pointed out above but I think if I am going to hold a position I really ought to be able to reason it out clearly.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The modern equivalent might be viability. There is a point where you simply cannot keep the baby alive outside its mother's womb; they've got it down to fantastically low birth weights (a baby can be born weighing one pound and live) but it is not clear they can get it much lower. And the price to be paid is usually disability for the infant.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
That seemed one of the stranger aspects of the recent Supreme Court Hobby-Lobby case in the US.
As I understand it, the owners of Hobby Lobby claimed that the methods of birth control in question constituted abortion. Technically speaking, they do not, since the fertilized egg is not implanted and therefore no pregnancy is aborted. However, if someone regards a morally relevant question as the termination of a distinct human entity, preventing implantation looks morally a lot more like aborting a pregnancy than it is like preventing conception. From that point of view, claiming that it is not technically abortion would be like claiming that were the police to refuse food to a prisoner until the prisoner starved, that would be not technically murder.
Is that the case, or is the ruling that the owners of Hobby Lobby may claim that methods of contraception that prevent conception amount to abortion? That would be scientifically illiterate.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
If you really want to decrease the number of abortions you need to do these things:
1) Provide good sex education starting around age. Make it mandatory in all schools, no matter if public or private. And make it include education about various forms of birth control.
2) Make birth control freely available either free or at reduced cost for anyone that requests it.
3) Stop marginalizing women who get pregnant and stigmatizing them.
4) Provide assistance to single parents, provide free or low cost health care for pregnant women, as well as good food both before and after the birth.
5) Stop trying to judge women who make their own health care choices, even if it should include choosing abortion. Stop trying to legislate against women making their own own health care choices.
6) Stop fighting laws that prevent women from get paid the same as men do.
--------------------
My cooking blog: http://inthekitchenwithdon.blogspot.com/
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Teddybear: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
So I have a question arising from that. I know that pre modern science the Church spoke of 'quickening' as the point at which a foetus became human - does anyone have any suggestions for reading around this and what they think of the concept? I almost feel like I'm trying to wriggle out of my own position to allow for situations like the one Curiousity pointed out above but I think if I am going to hold a position I really ought to be able to reason it out clearly.
Technically, there was a distinction between "animation" and "quickening". "Animation" concerns the theory of Aristotelian origin that the development of the human foetus is driven first by a vegetative (plant-like) soul, then after a few days by a (non-rational) sentient (animal-like) soul, and then finally after a longer period of time by a rational (fully human) soul. This last change would be what is called the "animation". It was said to occur after 40 days for male and after 80 days for female foetuses. The associated timings may have been based on the time when the formation of genitals in miscarried foetuses would have become visible. Genitals form around the sixth week, but look the same - and vaguely male - until the ninth, and with the naked eye so perhaps until the 11-13th week. This developmental theory was more or less accepted through the millennia that followed Aristotle, and fair enough: there really wasn't much in the sense of data that could have challenged it.
Whereas "quickening" means the time when the mother is detecting the first motion of the foetus in her belly. There is considerable experiential variance concerning this, but it occurs between 13 and 25 weeks into the pregnancy - and for first pregnancies, usually late, so more 16 to 25 weeks. That is the basis for canon law distinctions that used to be made, which set a limit of 116 days after which "quickening" had to be assumed for a pregnancy. The "quickening" had legal significance insofar as from that point forward the mother, and through her others, could know that the foetus was literally "alive and kicking". Obviously today we have technology that lets us know much earlier how a pregnancy is progressing, but back then this experience of motion by the mother was a key indicator.
A modern version of the "animation" theory would likely focus on neuralation, and perhaps consider the beginnings of neural tube formation after the 2nd week as the switch from "vegetative" to "animal" state, and the beginnings of the formation of the neocortex after the 6th week as the switch from "animal" to "human" state. Interestingly enough that roughly matches the ancient "40-80 days" number.
However, it should be noted that this is pretty arbitrary. It simply assigns labels to developmental stages with little more reasoning than that the vague notion that the neocortex is pretty important for being human, etc. From a philosophical point of view, it also looks a lot like Aristotelian biology has imposed artefacts on Aristotelian and consequently Christian philosophy and theology. For example, Aquinas very clearly teaches that in humans the rational (fully human) soul contains the "animal" and "vegetative" aspects. It is not like there is some kind of hierarchy of multiple souls in us, rather our rational soul is "backward compatible" and in us also deals with the "animal" and "vegetative" formation. (This is of considerable significance. It means for example, that for an animal and for a human "eating" is not the same activity, even though it is an "animal" function. In humans, such lower functions always stand in the rational context - and concerning "eating" we can see this clearly in the massive culture that has been built up around it.) But if so, then there is really no good reason why it should not be so from the start. That is to say, even if we assume that there is a prior "vegetative state", there is no particular reason why it would have to be driven by a "vegetative soul" that then would be replaced later. Rather, this state could be driven by the same rational soul simply exercising its vegetative aspects.
And indeed, modern biology is in conceptual terms entirely on board with the (philosophical) idea that human development is a single integrated stream of processes that starts off with conception. One and the same genetic "game plan" gets executed form the start in conception to the last breath of the human being. There are no discernible "step changes" in the development: while one can certainly discern many different stages of development, they form a single flow without any sudden switch from "vegetative" to "animal" etc.
Frankly, I think it is mistaken to pin hopes on these ancient distinctions. We can here truly say that both biology and philosophy have moved on, and remain comfortable aligned in now suggesting that conception is the point at which a human being comes into existence. If one wishes to make distinctions that would make killing foetuses licit, then surely it would have to be on grounds of their "functional capability" at some stage of development, not in terms of the developmental process as such. There can be little doubt form modern biology that the unique developmental process of a particular individual human being kicks off with conception. (And no, twins and other special cases do not invalidate this statement. They simply add special cases to be discussed in light of the regular workings.)
It also should be noted that the ancient to medieval Church did not attach any significance to the finer (Aristotelian) points about biological development that it took on largely unquestioned. Abortion has always been universally condemned, irrespective of whether "animation" had occurred or not. In a sense this preempts modern attempts to argue on the grounds of "functional capability". The Church could have made a distinction here as well based on Aristotelian biology, but didn't. The intentional disruption of the developmental process was considered to be gravely immoral no matter what state the foetus was in. Instead distinctions used to be made concerning "quickening", but this concerns more the question what people could know about the viability of a particular foetus.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And indeed, modern biology is in conceptual terms entirely on board with the (philosophical) idea that human development is a single integrated stream of processes that starts off with conception. One and the same genetic "game plan" gets executed form the start in conception to the last breath of the human being. There are no discernible "step changes" in the development: while one can certainly discern many different stages of development, they form a single flow without any sudden switch from "vegetative" to "animal" etc.
Well modern biology makes the issue of implantation extremely relevant, because 'pregnancy' is all but unanimously defined in scientific works to begin with implantation. Cases where conception takes place but the embryo fails to implant are not, scientifically speaking, regarded as pregnancy and hence not as abortion. As has previously been mentioned, implantation failures are known to occur fairly often naturally.
quote:
We can here truly say that both biology and philosophy have moved on, and remain comfortable aligned in now suggesting that conception is the point at which a human being comes into existence.
I am simply not prepared to regard a single cell as a "human being". At the moment of conception the sperm and egg combine into a single-celled embryo which over the course of the pregnancy splits, develops and grows.
A single cell is simply not a human being. That's not a viewpoint I can take seriously.
For me, when I think of "a human being" the primary criteria I generally have in mind is a decent level of cognitive ability.
[ 04. May 2015, 02:48: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
+Peter Carnley, at the time ++ Perth WA and holder of numerous posts, drew a clear distinction between fertilisation and conception. Fertilisation is what happens when a sperm enters an ovum; conception is the act by which that fertilised ovum is taken up (think of the Latin root) by the wall. His suggestion was that more work needed to be given to exploring this difference, and seeking from it new thoughts about termination of a pregnancy. Like others above have pointed out, research shows that most fertilised ova are not taken up and no pregnancy occurs. If the new life commences at conception rather than at fertilisation, taking steps in that 10 to 12 day period would not amount to abortion; a woman can take the morning after pill without concern that she is bringing a life to an end. I'm not aware of any progression of + Peter's suggestion since.
From time to time an obstetrician will be confronted with the dilemma of whose life to save - that of the woman or of the foetus. As I understand the old RC teaching, preference was to be given to the life of the foetus, why automatically so I don't know. ISTM that the guiding principle of the decision should be strictly clinical. If a course will save one but probably cause the death of the other, that course should be followed; and all the variations and gradations in between. Not easy, but it's the sort of decision that emergency workers are faced with frequently.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
For me, when I think of "a human being" the primary criteria I generally have in mind is a decent level of cognitive ability.
So, at what level of cognitive degeneration does an old person become less than human? Or, for that matter, the birth of a cognitively underdeveloped person. One who can survive, but not without major assistance?
I do not say this to be snarky, but it is on the same path of reasoning.
Any point on the path is arbitrary.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
FWIW, the genetics clinic at my local hospital regarded anything that produced a positive pregnancy test as a pregnancy, and encouraged using a home pregnancy test ASAP. Simultaneously, the recurrent miscarriage clinic at the same hospital disregarded "failure to implant" early losses, and suggested that women delay testing, as positive pregnancy tests followed by a "late period" are dispiriting.
(This was 15 years ago, but I don't see any reason why this should have changed.)
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Well modern biology makes the issue of implantation extremely relevant, because 'pregnancy' is all but unanimously defined in scientific works to begin with implantation. Cases where conception takes place but the embryo fails to implant are not, scientifically speaking, regarded as pregnancy and hence not as abortion. As has previously been mentioned, implantation failures are known to occur fairly often naturally.
I can just about imagine a moral position according which someone objects to intentional termination of a pregnancy but thinks intentional prevention of implantation is morally acceptable. It would require a lot of fine moral reasoning to make it work, with a great deal of emphasis on the doctrine of double effect.
It may be defensible, but I haven't seen any criticism of the Hobby Lobby ruling along those lines from anyone who actually thinks the distinction morally important themselves.
For example, if you think that the embryo does not qualify as a human being until a decent level of cognitive ability develops, you don't think implantation makes any moral difference.
The position is far simpler that there is only a negligible moral distinction between intentional termination of pregnancy and intentional prevention of implantation. To such a position, arguing over whether preventing implantation is or isn't abortion is in this context quibbling.
quote:
I am simply not prepared to regard a single cell as a "human being". At the moment of conception the sperm and egg combine into a single-celled embryo which over the course of the pregnancy splits, develops and grows.
A single cell is simply not a human being. That's not a viewpoint I can take seriously.
There is a difference between a human embryo and a chimpanzee embryo; to claim that because something is an embryo it therefore is not also a human being is fallacious.
It exists; it is a being. And it's a member of the biological species homo sapiens, so it's human.
quote:
For me, when I think of "a human being" the primary criteria I generally have in mind is a decent level of cognitive ability.
What qualifies as a decent level?
I have a month old daughter who does not presently exhibit much cognitive ability beyond 'I am or am not hungry / cold / suffering from trapped wind'. Many psychologists suggest that the ability to form a distinction between self and not-self is at that age only developing. I'm not sure how they know, or what faculties and capacities they think go into making that distinction, but as far as I can see it's a widespread opinion.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Well modern biology makes the issue of implantation extremely relevant, because 'pregnancy' is all but unanimously defined in scientific works to begin with implantation. Cases where conception takes place but the embryo fails to implant are not, scientifically speaking, regarded as pregnancy and hence not as abortion. As has previously been mentioned, implantation failures are known to occur fairly often naturally.
All that is true, but largely irrelevant. Moral concerns do not depend on the definitions of words. If for example some drug prevents the implantation of a zygote, then the morality of taking that drug does not depend on whether one calls that result an "abortion" or something else. All such word definitions do is to determine how we shall express our moral concerns. I would suggest that for the moral discussion it is entirely licit to extend the term "abortion" to the active prevention of implantation, even if formally a pregnancy has not occurred prior to implantation - simply because the moral concerns are the same. At least so unless somebody wants to attribute a particular moral significance to implantation itself, at which point it might become useful to associate the distinction with a different word.
And it should be clear that it is basically irrelevant for moral concerns how often something happens "naturally". Morals concern human volitional acts. For example, humans have often starved "naturally". This does not mean that it is morally licit to deprive humans of food and let them starve.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I am simply not prepared to regard a single cell as a "human being". At the moment of conception the sperm and egg combine into a single-celled embryo which over the course of the pregnancy splits, develops and grows. A single cell is simply not a human being. That's not a viewpoint I can take seriously. For me, when I think of "a human being" the primary criteria I generally have in mind is a decent level of cognitive ability.
You are de facto agreeing with what I have said, you are merely disagreeing with what one may call "human being". However, moral discussions should not be reduced to definition wars.
As far as biology is concerned, a new human being indeed comes into existence with conception, for there simply is nothing special about any later time in the development that would require re-labeling. The same "genetic programme" is being executed throughout. But biology does not answer the question where along the developmental trajectory we should assume moral significance, biology merely supplies us with the factual data about that trajectory.
As I pointed out, one can claim that certain "functional capabilities" are key for the "moral relevance" of a developing human being. And you do so here, by claiming that cognitive ability is what "being human at a morally relevant level" is all about. There are grave problems with that claim, but at a moral level, not at a biological level.
My point was quite simply that biologically speaking, a new human being comes into existence with conception. If you feel that for the moral discussion the term "human being" is overloaded, then I am quite happy to introduce a different term instead, say "human entity", or what have you. But biologically speaking, it is a human entity (not for example a snail), and it is a human entity (distinguishable from other entities, including the mother). My own theological and moral analysis is based on this biology, but not identical with it. I certainly do make the claim that all (biological) human entities are (moral / theological) human beings, but that's not a biological claim itself.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, at what level of cognitive degeneration does an old person become less than human? Or, for that matter, the birth of a cognitively underdeveloped person. One who can survive, but not without major assistance?
I do not say this to be snarky, but it is on the same path of reasoning.
Any point on the path is arbitrary.
I'd agree those general sorts of cases are similar and worth equally considering. And for precisely that reason I don't object to doctors turning off life support if the person has become a "vegetable" - as that term itself implies, given sufficient brain damage and loss of higher cognitive function, people lose the essential abilities to perceive, think, reason and remember that make humans what they are. I totally agree that it's a graduated scale though.
I think a useful point of comparison on such a scale is the cognitive ability of animals. After all, we (society) kill animals for meat, pest control, or leisure (hunting) on a regular basis, and mostly think nothing of it. (I'm personally a bit of an animal rights proponent though and would like to see a lot more concern given to animals, especially those that science has shown to be quite intelligent.)
If it's clear that the 'human' has lost / not yet gained cognitive function to such an extent that it's clearly inferior to that of the more developed animals, then I wouldn't really tend to regard it as truly human in a sense of regarding it as Person. The upshot of this is that I have no qualms about abortion, because the cognitive functioning of the developing fetus is generally regarded as being significantly below that of the higher animals.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Like others above have pointed out, research shows that most fertilised ova are not taken up and no pregnancy occurs. If the new life commences at conception rather than at fertilisation, taking steps in that 10 to 12 day period would not amount to abortion; a woman can take the morning after pill without concern that she is bringing a life to an end.
To clarify my own language usage above: for me "conception" is basically a synonym for "fertilisation" here, it is not a term that implies both fertilisation and successful implantation. If "conception" is take to denote the latter, then my point above has been that biologically speaking a new human being comes into existence with fertilisation. And furthermore, I attach full moral / theological human status to that being, though I have not argued that much here. Consequently, the distinction made between an implanted and non-implanted human being would be morally false for me: the "morning after pill" is hence not morally neutral. And the "natural" failure rate of implantation simply means to me that a lot of human beings die very young by natural causes.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
From time to time an obstetrician will be confronted with the dilemma of whose life to save - that of the woman or of the foetus. As I understand the old RC teaching, preference was to be given to the life of the foetus, why automatically so I don't know.
It is mysterious to me how you would come to this obviously false conclusion. I have never ever seen a single RC text that would suggest this, not even remotely.
What "old" (and ever new) RC teaching is saying is that evil may not be done to achieve good. One cannot kill an innocent human being outright (evil) in order to save another human being (good). As far as mother and foetus are concerned, this actually works both ways. One may also not kill the mother (presumed innocent) in order to save the foetus. It is just that practically speaking it is much more common to ask whether one can kill a foetus to save the mother. The answer is however "no" in both cases.
What is morally licit is however a "double effect" killing: a medical intervention that intends to save the mother, but by predictable "collateral damage" results in the death of the foetus, is morally licit in RC teaching. This does not however imply that the mother's life is more valuable than that of the foetus, or vice versa. It simply means that one surviving human being is better than no surviving human being.
A moral dilemma whom to save can of course occur in medicine and elsewhere. I do not think that RC teaching gives explicit guidance on "what human being is more valuable", and it really is an impossible question in general - even though terrible circumstances may force us to answer it in a specific case. In a sense that grants freedom: we can go by our "gut feeling", or even flip a coin, since there is no overarching principle that would determine this. However, it is not usually the case that an obstetrician has to confront this particular dilemma. Usually it is more a question of saving one rather than none.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
In that case IngoB God is pretty immoral allowing all those human beings to be naturally flushed down the loo, wouldn't you think?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And it should be clear that it is basically irrelevant for moral concerns how often something happens "naturally".
For anyone who tries to connect morality to God, the fact that it occurs regularly naturally poses serious issues and potential inconsistencies.
For example, if we observe Creation, and find that something has been biologically set up to work a certain way in all animals (eg the body is programmed to self-abort pregnancies if an abnormality is detected, conceived eggs regularly fail to implant etc), then we might well come to believe that God meant it to work that way, and that therefore he is quite okay with pregnancies being prevented or terminated.
Your assertion that God has any strong objection to this sort of thing happening would seem unlikely at face value when the fact that the entire created order works this way is taken into consideration. If God objects strongly to the termination of pregnancies, then it seems surprising he hasn't taken the time or effort to intervene to prevent them happening so often naturally.
quote:
But biologically speaking, it is a human entity (not for example a snail), and it is a human entity (distinguishable from other entities, including the mother). My own theological and moral analysis is based on this biology, but not identical with it. I certainly do make the claim that all (biological) human entities are (moral / theological) human beings, but that's not a biological claim itself.
Okay, I understand your distinction here. As I have made clear, I consider morally relevant personhood to be associated with higher cognitive functions, such as consciousness, perception, reasoning ability, memory etc. That does not necessarily overlap 100% with biologically belonging to the human species.
It also seems to me that your own definition is in danger of being totally arbitrary: Why is anything that meets a biological definition of 'human' a morally relevant person? Seems arbitrary to me. What about angels? Demons? Do you have a list of finite length that lists morally relevant species? What happens if we encounter many different species of alien life in future? At that point what would you use to decide if any given alien species was classified by your moral code as being morally relevant persons or not?
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
