• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mary Wagner jailed again after entering abortion center

jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. I think that legally you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to no rights. If that were the case, then laws that have increased penalties for assault on women who are pregnant and lose or injure the unborn.. would not be constitutional.
Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 -- Laci and Conner's Law
Click to expand...


The feticide laws and or or the UVVA ( unborn victims of violence act ) recognize abortion is legal.

The law only takes affect if an unborn was killed during a crime against the pregnant woman.
When an unborn is killed during an attack on the woman feticide laws may be used against the attacker.
The attacker is charged with violating the feticide law or the UVVA.

It is important to understand that the UVVA or state feticide laws and Roe vs Wade are not conflicting laws.

Roe v Wade is a SC decision that held that state abortion laws violate the Due process clause in the fourteenth amendment,
which protects individuals against state action that infringes on their privacy.

The UVVA and state feticide laws passed under Roe vs Wade because it explicitly identified "abortion' is an activity that can't be prosecuted when the abortion is obtained with the consent of the pregnant woman or individual authorized to act on her behalf.
~~~~
The feticide laws apply only when a crime against the woman was made.


All state feticide laws have a clause specifing that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.
~~~~
 
jaeger19 said:
Because its always someone else... it " can't happen to me".

Make it personal.. put them in the position of having to make a decision (if you were told that you would never be able to have kids again, or that you would die, or that...) .. and then asking why the government should make that decision for them. Its a little harder to deal with men because they know intuitively that they NEVER have to deal with the risk and responsibility of pregnancy and children. Society lets them bail and they have bailed for thousands of years. "MAYBE".. there is a little lip service to "dead beat dads"... but pretty much.. .legally and medically.. pregnancy and the child is seen by society as the mothers responsibility...

I live in a community that is heavily "pro life".. and have gone before the public and have had to show support for a pro choice stance and why as a conservative.. pro choice is the conservative position. Generally.. I have had what I consider a positive reaction to my argument... usually grudging admission that the government shouldn;t be involved..."but I don't like it".
Click to expand...

And most of them get upset about the govt being in other aspects of their lives! I am conservative and pro choice - I believe the govt should be out of our personal lives as much as possible. This includes dictating what medical procedures we can or cannot have.
 
jaeger19 said:
Because its always someone else... it " can't happen to me".

Make it personal.. put them in the position of having to make a decision (if you were told that you would never be able to have kids again, or that you would die, or that...) .. and then asking why the government should make that decision for them. Its a little harder to deal with men because they know intuitively that they NEVER have to deal with the risk and responsibility of pregnancy and children. Society lets them bail and they have bailed for thousands of years. "MAYBE".. there is a little lip service to "dead beat dads"... but pretty much.. .legally and medically.. pregnancy and the child is seen by society as the mothers responsibility...

I live in a community that is heavily "pro life".. and have gone before the public and have had to show support for a pro choice stance and why as a conservative.. pro choice is the conservative position. Generally.. I have had what I consider a positive reaction to my argument... usually grudging admission that the government shouldn;t be involved..."but I don't like it".
Click to expand...

Good luck trying to make it more personal. They are generally much too self-righteous and judgemental. It "wouldnt happen to them and if it did, they'd never have one or support it."

I showed you that I listed all relatives and friends, I've specified in detail the effects of death and disability would have on them.

Just throwing percentages at them is meaningless to them.

I'm happy to see you in action tho :)
 
minnie616 said:
The feticide laws and or or the UVVA ( unborn victims of violence act ) recognize abortion is legal.

The law only takes affect if an unborn was killed during a crime against the pregnant woman.
When an unborn is killed during an attack on the woman feticide laws may be used against the attacker.
The attacker is charged with violating the feticide law or the UVVA.

It is important to understand that the UVVA or state feticide laws and Roe vs Wade are not conflicting laws.

Roe v Wade is a SC decision that held that state abortion laws violate the Due process clause in the fourteenth amendment,
which protects individuals against state action that infringes on their privacy.

The UVVA and state feticide laws passed under Roe vs Wade because it explicitly identified "abortion' is an activity that can't be prosecuted when the abortion is obtained with the consent of the pregnant woman or individual authorized to act on her behalf.
~~~~
The feticide laws apply only when a crime against the woman was made.


All state feticide laws have a clause specifing that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.
~~~~
Click to expand...

Yep..

BUT.. it again does legally recognize that the unborn has rights. Its hard to argue that the unborn don't have rights, when there are laws that give you a great sentence for committing a crime of hurting or killing the unborn.. if they are non entities, not human. have no rights etc.. then why should a person be punished for hurting them.

that's why I think for those of us that believe in pro choice.. its important to NOT make arguments about viability, or fetal rights, or "is it human or not" or "is it sentient or not".. etc. we

Its going to be a losing argument.. and its going to change as more is known about fetal life. ( In fact. If pro life people knew the actual research that has been done on fetal behavior (animal models) and on humans..:shock:) and those arguments are going to change with technology..

"well what if the embryo can be taken out and raised in an artificial womb"..

I would suggest that the argument should be on WHO is in the best position to decide whats best for that unborn... the mother and parents.. or the government.

Its not a question of "whose rights win".. or "who has rights"... its a question of WHO makes the determination of whats best for the mother and unborn. The mother.. and father if he is in the picture...

Or the government.

That's the good argument for pro choice.

By the way.. that's the argument used in Roe V wade. Not who took precedent.. baby or mother... but whether the mother had to go before a judge.. and tell him her intimate details and he get to decide her fate rather than her have the right to privacy and the right to self determination. .
 
Lursa said:
Good luck trying to make it more personal. They are generally much too self-righteous and judgemental. It "wouldnt happen to them and if it did, they'd never have one or support it."

I showed you that I listed all relatives and friends, I've specified in detail the effects of death and disability would have on them.

Just throwing percentages at them is meaningless to them.

I'm happy to see you in action tho :)
Click to expand...

Well.. I usually have very good success with it.

Yep.. you listed friends and relatives.. and with the hard core.. they don't think it can happen to them... when you PUT THEM in a decision.. "what if"... things change or at least you can seem them hesitate.. especially when you ask if the government should make the decision for them..

When I did stand up (in a much more liberal area than in the one I live now)... I used to tell a joke that if MEN could get pregnant... abortion clinics would be like MCDonalds... "1 billion served"...

(of course more jokes about what men would like if they were pregnant... men turn into babies when they get a cold.. imagine what it would be like being pregnant!).
 
Scrabaholic said:
And most of them get upset about the govt being in other aspects of their lives! I am conservative and pro choice - I believe the govt should be out of our personal lives as much as possible. This includes dictating what medical procedures we can or cannot have.
Click to expand...

Bingo!..

When I pose it that way... it really ties them up in knots. I'll say (which is true).. "my wife has some genetic issues that make her having another child extremely dangerous for her and for the child. The child could suffer some sever health problems that mean that it would never survive and know only pain for a while.. not to mention that she could be sterile or suffer death or paralysis"... "If we accidently got pregnant again at her age.. why do you think the government knows whats best for us rather than let us decide whether we want to try or not?"

Watch them back up on that one.. especially when I say... "I never thought you were for big government "Bob"?
 
jaeger19 said:
Yep..

BUT.. it again does legally recognize that the unborn has rights. Its hard to argue that the unborn don't have rights, when there are laws that give you a great sentence for committing a crime of hurting or killing the unborn.. if they are non entities, not human. have no rights etc.. then why should a person be punished for hurting them.

that's why I think for those of us that believe in pro choice.. its important to NOT make arguments about viability, or fetal rights, or "is it human or not" or "is it sentient or not".. etc. we

Its going to be a losing argument.. and its going to change as more is known about fetal life. ( In fact. If pro life people knew the actual research that has been done on fetal behavior (animal models) and on humans..:shock:) and those arguments are going to change with technology..

"well what if the embryo can be taken out and raised in an artificial womb"..

I would suggest that the argument should be on WHO is in the best position to decide whats best for that unborn... the mother and parents.. or the government.

Its not a question of "whose rights win".. or "who has rights"... its a question of WHO makes the determination of whats best for the mother and unborn. The mother.. and father if he is in the picture...

Or the government.

That's the good argument for pro choice.

By the way.. that's the argument used in Roe V wade. Not who took precedent.. baby or mother... but whether the mother had to go before a judge.. and tell him her intimate details and he get to decide her fate rather than her have the right to privacy and the right to self determination. .
Click to expand...

No, an unborn does not have rights.

Roe decided that an unborn was not a person.

From Part IX of Roe:

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [Footnote 53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [Footnote 54]

[158]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
Click to expand...

States can and will protect non persons.

States often protect animals from cruelty and animals have no rights.
 
Last edited:
jaeger19 said:
Bingo!..

When I pose it that way... it really ties them up in knots. I'll say (which is true).. "my wife has some genetic issues that make her having another child extremely dangerous for her and for the child. The child could suffer some sever health problems that mean that it would never survive and know only pain for a while.. not to mention that she could be sterile or suffer death or paralysis"... "If we accidently got pregnant again at her age.. why do you think the government knows whats best for us rather than let us decide whether we want to try or not?"

Watch them back up on that one.. especially when I say... "I never thought you were for big government "Bob"?
Click to expand...

I understand your argument and it works well for you and I do like you taking part in debate on abortion with us.

So please join us more often, but please let us handle the debates our way and we will let you handle the debates your own way.

I am pretty good at finding stats and legal links ...you are good at making it more personal.

Lursa makes it known while she values the unborn she values the woman more and no one person,one religion , or one government should take the choice away from the pregnant woman.

We regular pro choice people on this forum know how to debate and what works us.

You know what works for you.

Please let us each do our part to help make pro lifers aware of what pro choice is really about ....about letting the pregnant woman decide what she feels is best for her future and her family. ( present and future )
 
jaeger19 said:
Bingo!..

When I pose it that way... it really ties them up in knots. I'll say (which is true).. "my wife has some genetic issues that make her having another child extremely dangerous for her and for the child. The child could suffer some sever health problems that mean that it would never survive and know only pain for a while.. not to mention that she could be sterile or suffer death or paralysis"... "If we accidently got pregnant again at her age.. why do you think the government knows whats best for us rather than let us decide whether we want to try or not?"

Watch them back up on that one.. especially when I say... "I never thought you were for big government "Bob"?
Click to expand...
Are you having in-person conversations or online?

If you've been discussing it here on the forum, do you any links to the threads?

They'll usually shut down abortion discussions pretty fast outside this sub-forum (as is wise) but maybe you discuss it somewhere else?
 
minnie616 said:
I understand your argument and it works well for you and I do like you taking part in debate on abortion with us.

So please join us more often, but please let us handle the debates our way and we will let you handle the debates your own way.


We regular pro choice people on this forum know how to debate and what works us.

You know what works for you.

Please let us each do our part to help make pro lifers aware of what pro choice is really about ....about letting the pregnant woman decide what she feels is best for her future and her family. ( present and future )
Click to expand...

I think you are wise to point out that different arguments work for different people and also resonate for different people in terms of understanding or personal experience, just like people benefit from different learning styles.
 
minnie616 said:
I understand your argument and it works well for you and I do like you taking part in debate on abortion with us.

So please join us more often, but please let us handle the debates our way and we will let you handle the debates your own way.

I am pretty good at finding stats and legal links ...you are good at making it more personal.

Lursa makes it known while she values the unborn she values the woman more and no one person,one religion , or one government should take the choice away from the pregnant woman.

We regular pro choice people on this forum know how to debate and what works us.

You know what works for you.

Please let us each do our part to help make pro lifers aware of what pro choice is really about ....about letting the pregnant woman decide what she feels is best for her future and her family. ( present and future )
Click to expand...

Good points, Minnie...:thumbs:
 
minnie616 said:
No, an unborn does not have rights.

Roe decided that an unborn was not a person.

From Part IX of Roe:



States can and will protect non persons.

States often protect animals from cruelty and animals have no rights.
Click to expand...

Roe decided that the unborn do not fit the description of person in the 14th amendment. That does not mean that they do not have rights..

Why do states protect animals from cruelty if they have no rights?

Can I not treat my property how I would like?

If I want to set fire to my brush pile..which is my property..

Why can I not set fire to my dog.. since he is also my property?

Neither have rights.. so why could I get hit with an animal cruelty charge?

What compelling reason does the state have to protect my dog.. if its my property just like my brush pile?

(see why the argument is not so cut and dried?)
 
minnie616 said:
I understand your argument and it works well for you and I do like you taking part in debate on abortion with us.

So please join us more often, but please let us handle the debates our way and we will let you handle the debates your own way.

I am pretty good at finding stats and legal links ...you are good at making it more personal.

Lursa makes it known while she values the unborn she values the woman more and no one person,one religion , or one government should take the choice away from the pregnant woman.

We regular pro choice people on this forum know how to debate and what works us.

You know what works for you.

Please let us each do our part to help make pro lifers aware of what pro choice is really about ....about letting the pregnant woman decide what she feels is best for her future and her family. ( present and future )
Click to expand...

First off.. nothing I said prevents you.. or hampers you from arguing however you would like.

If you want to have endless arguments on what is a human.. when do your rights begin, or whether dolphins have self awareness... or the definition of a person.. far be it from me to interfere.

I simply wanted to suggest an argument that does not rely on such definitions.. but boils it down to a simple question.. who decides.. the government or the woman.

Especially since it stymies most of the pro choice crowd that tend to think of themselves as "conservative"...

I'll leave it at that... have a good day.
 
Lursa said:
Are you having in-person conversations or online?

If you've been discussing it here on the forum, do you any links to the threads?

They'll usually shut down abortion discussions pretty fast outside this sub-forum (as is wise) but maybe you discuss it somewhere else?
Click to expand...


Sure.. look at this current thread.

You will notice that several of the pro life posters have pointedly avoided responding to my posts when they were confronted with the reality that their position requires big government to make the decision.
 
jaeger19 said:
Sure.. look at this current thread.

You will notice that several of the pro life posters have pointedly avoided responding to my posts when they were confronted with the reality that their position requires big government to make the decision.
Click to expand...

Well that's been my point. They refuse to address several of my points after a certain point as well. That's what I mean.

You cannot get them to confront these things so they remain in denial...mostly dishonestly...but since they wont address it once they can no longer do so without admitting they're wrong or anti-women's rights, etc, you get nowhere.

So I'm not sure why you think it's good that they just run away when they are stuck?

Most recently in this thread were CPWill & FishKing.
 
jaeger19 said:
Roe decided that the unborn do not fit the description of person in the 14th amendment. That does not mean that they do not have rights..

...
Click to expand...

States have rights..An unborn and or animals do not have rights.

In deciding Roe the Supreme Court decided that states have a “important and legitimate interest in potential life.”
therefore , fetuses don’t have any rights—states do.

And in the abortion context, it is the right of the state to protect potential life that is legally significant—not the right of the fetus to survive.

As noted several US states do not have limits on abortions.
 
jaeger19 said:
I would suggest that the argument should be on WHO is in the best position to decide whats best for that unborn... the mother and parents.. or the government.
Its not a question of "whose rights win".. or "who has rights"... its a question of WHO makes the determination of whats best for the mother and unborn. The mother.. and father if he is in the picture...

Or the government.
Click to expand...

They are more than happy to have the govt tell people what to do regarding abortion. Completely. If it were to restrict or forbid it. They would be thrilled beyond measure. They would love to have Uncle Sam back up God.

Including themselves. Because again, 'they would never be in that position.' Doesnt matter that many do end up so. And the long line of conservatives that get caught with pregnant mistresses, including the one outspoken pro-lifer that texted his girlfriend and asked her to have an abortion, which she then made public...is pretty clear evidence.

They write here all the time that they think the govt should interfere with a woman's right to choose. They are its biggest cheerleaders. They are clear: "She opened her legs, now she has to live with the consequences." When you see that kind of total blame, you have to realize that they have no issues with the govt stepping in.

So you cant take viability and rights and subjective value out of the discussion: because the govt has to base the laws on something. And those are criteria they use now.

I personally like pointing out and attempting to just get pro-life supporters to realize that they are lying to themselves if they think they value the unborn and born equally...because they do not. Not if they would see the woman's will overcome in order to make her remain pregnant.
 
jaeger19 said:
Roe decided that the unborn do not fit the description of person in the 14th amendment. That does not mean that they do not have rights..

Why do states protect animals from cruelty if they have no rights?
Click to expand...

From the following article

5 Worst states to be an animal
States that are soft on crimes toward animals often have an agricultural lobby that may see animal protection issues as potentially limiting options for farmers, says Francis Battista, a founder and director of Best Friends Animal Society, a non-profit organization based in Kanab, Utah. When animal issues come up, they tend to be put on the back burner in favor of human issues. Cultural or traditional attitudes can also affect the way people relate to animals and the willingness to adopt animal protection laws, he says. People in southern and western states can have an independent mindset that precludes being told how to treat their property, including animals.
Click to expand...

5 worst states to be an animal: Abuse laws lax - Health - Pet health | NBC News
 
minnie616 said:
States have rights..An unborn and or animals do not have rights.

In deciding Roe the Supreme Court decided that states have a “important and legitimate interest in potential life.”
therefore , fetuses don’t have any rights—states do.

And in the abortion context, it is the right of the state to protect potential life that is legally significant—not the right of the fetus to survive.

As noted several US states do not have limits on abortions.
Click to expand...

Hmmm..

Again.. please explain why the state then can tell me why I can set my brushpile on fire (my property).. and yet cannot set my dog on fire.. since its also my property and has no rights.

WHY.. did the supreme court decide that states have "an important and legitimate interest in potential life".

IF according to you.. they thought a fetus has the same rights as a toaster? ...

Just answer my questions.

I think you are going to find.. its not so simple to say "the unborn have no rights"... because clearly,, they must have some inherent rights, or the supreme court would not say that the state has an important and legitimate interest in potential life".

And the supreme court would not have allowed ANY restriction on abortion.
 
minnie616 said:
From the following article

5 Worst states to be an animal


5 worst states to be an animal: Abuse laws lax - Health - Pet health | NBC News
Click to expand...

Yep... so why would anyone care?.. animals are property just like my brush pile..they have no rights according to you and the supreme court.

Therefore.. you need to explain why states are allowed to have any animal protections laws at all.

Let me ask you... do you Minnie.. think its okay that I set my brushpile on fire... and okay that I set my dog on fire?

If not.. why not if my dog has the same rights as my brushpile... I.e zero.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yep... so why would anyone care?.. animals are property just like my brush pile..they have no rights according to you and the supreme court.

Therefore.. you need to explain why states are allowed to have any animal protections laws at all.

Let me ask you... do you Minnie.. think its okay that I set my brushpile on fire... and okay that I set my dog on fire?

If not.. why not if my dog has the same rights as my brushpile... I.e zero.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse RIGHTS with Welfare and Regulation Laws.

Examples of evolving laws can be found at the following site:

https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/animal-welfare-act

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/AC_BlueBook_AWA_FINAL_2017_508comp.pdf
 
Lursa said:
They are more than happy to have the govt tell people what to do regarding abortion. Completely. If it were to restrict or forbid it. They would be thrilled beyond measure. They would love to have Uncle Sam back up God.

Including themselves. Because again, 'they would never be in that position.' Doesnt matter that many do end up so. And the long line of conservatives that get caught with pregnant mistresses, including the one outspoken pro-lifer that texted his girlfriend and asked her to have an abortion, which she then made public...is pretty clear evidence.

They write here all the time that they think the govt should interfere with a woman's right to choose. They are its biggest cheerleaders. They are clear: "She opened her legs, now she has to live with the consequences." When you see that kind of total blame, you have to realize that they have no issues with the govt stepping in.

So you cant take viability and rights and subjective value out of the discussion: because the govt has to base the laws on something. And those are criteria they use now.

I personally like pointing out and attempting to just get pro-life supporters to realize that they are lying to themselves if they think they value the unborn and born equally...because they do not. Not if they would see the woman's will overcome in order to make her remain pregnant.
Click to expand...

Well just to point out Lursa... you basically are just pointing out their main point... that the woman is not innocent.. she spread her legs.. yada yada.. and the "unborn" is innocent.

I don't think you are going to get many pro lifers to accept that even if they don't like it, abortion should be legal based on arguing what they already believe.

that's just my opinion. It seems to me that they respond better when I point out.. "why do they want the government to decide whats best for my wife, or their wife.. and not themselves". that makes them uncomfortable. Even most of the hardcore.

Like I said.. most pro lifers... will make exceptions for the mothers health, or in the case of rape. And so then I ask them.. " so how does it work then?".. Do you want me to have to call a judge and get an okay and potentially let your daughter die.. because he didn't agree with my professional opinion... or because the law was 80% chance of death and it was a 70% chance of death? that's what happens when the government makes the decision.
 
Removable Mind said:
Don't confuse RIGHTS with Welfare and Regulation Laws.

Examples of evolving laws can be found at the following site:

https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/animal-welfare-act

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/AC_BlueBook_AWA_FINAL_2017_508comp.pdf
Click to expand...

Again.. WHY should we care? If an animal is property like a toasted i.e has no right... if I want to set fire to my toaster.. its within the law... why is it not within the law to set my dog on fire?

again.. please explain why there should be any difference between how I treat my toaster, and how I treat my dog.
 
jaeger19 said:
Well just to point out Lursa... you basically are just pointing out their main point... that the woman is not innocent.. she spread her legs.. yada yada.. and the "unborn" is innocent.

I don't think you are going to get many pro lifers to accept that even if they don't like it, abortion should be legal based on arguing what they already believe.

that's just my opinion. It seems to me that they respond better when I point out.. "why do they want the government to decide whats best for my wife, or their wife.. and not themselves". that makes them uncomfortable. Even most of the hardcore.

Like I said.. most pro lifers... will make exceptions for the mothers health, or in the case of rape. And so then I ask them.. " so how does it work then?".. Do you want me to have to call a judge and get an okay and potentially let your daughter die.. because he didn't agree with my professional opinion... or because the law was 80% chance of death and it was a 70% chance of death? that's what happens when the government makes the decision.
Click to expand...

It would be great if people would be a living example of their beliefs (or faith, if you will) as long as they don't infringe on the rights of their fellow citizens the right to do the same.

If, for example, a woman's religious tenets instill the belief that abortion is against the will of the god of her faith, then she can live by that belief. By adhering to her beliefs, she's lived up to the teachings of her religion and she's not infringed on her fellow citizens by adhering to such beliefs.
 
jaeger19 said:
Again.. WHY should we care? If an animal is property like a toasted i.e has no right... if I want to set fire to my toaster.. its within the law... why is it not within the law to set my dog on fire?

again.. please explain why there should be any difference between how I treat my toaster, and how I treat my dog.
Click to expand...

Because animals are a living species (like homo sapiens), which, unlike toasters has the ability to significantly feel suffering and pain at the hands of an abuser.

So would you like to see "Welfare laws" enacted for your toaster?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom