• 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!

Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

Hatuey said:
If a fetus is found to be causing harm to its mother, will it be tried as an adult or a minor? If it is tried as a minor and found guilty, will it be sent to a juvenile detention center? If it is tried as an adult, is execution on the table if the transgression is severe enough? Will it exercise its right to choose counsel? I'm just asking - considering a fetus is a person and all. I'd like to know just how a fetus, being a person and all, is supposed to be punished if it is found to be harming its mother.
Click to expand...

It's thrown into a biological waste bucket. Automatic death sentence.
 
I started a thread some time ago over the topic of doctors who secretly are police investigators and interrogators of their patients:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...ors-required-give-miranda-pregnant-women.html

Most people don't realize that when they are talking to a doctor, psychologist or any other healthcare professional they ARE talking to the police too. There is no privilege protection between a doctor and patient in regards to the police and courts.

However, increasing numbers of such professionals see the government as their enemy and the enemy of their patients. The "underground" of healthcare and mental healthcare continues to grow. The general practice doctor my wife goes to and takes the children to has a sign in his office that he does not accept any insurance, will not fill out any insurance forms, will not talk to lawyers, will not talk to investigators and will not testify in any court. He is a doctor 100%. He refuses to be anything else.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
This woman was arrested and is now imprisoned at basically a mental institution without any legal representation, which the court denied her. The sicko judge said the woman may hire her own attorney for the next hearing - knowing she can't afford one and after-the-fact of her imprisonment anyway.

Basically, the view is that ONLY women who are pregnant can be summarily imprisoned with no attorney and then after sentencing and imprisonment may have a hearing without any attorney for that same judge to decide if the judge was wrong in summarily imprisoning the woman. There are no other criminal cases where sentencing comes before the trial or where a person does not get an attorney prior to being sentenced and imprisoned.
Click to expand...

There are lots of incidences of people being imprisoned and sentenced before a trial. America made itself infamous for doing just that. The slippery slope of disregard for international norms in law is coming home to roost.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law - U.S. News

This is the logical conclusion of the misguided belief that fetuses have rights. It is impossible to give rights to a being growing inside a person's body without violating that person's rights.
Click to expand...

Rights have to balanced against one another. One person cannot use his or her right to violate the rights of another.

There is nothing misguided about the notion of fetal rights. Fetuses turn into real humans and, when pumped full of drugs in utero, develop static encephalopathy and all sorts of other problems, including social problems when the brain damaged FASD kid grows up. Substance abuse while pregnant is abusive and permanently damaging and should be a crime in all states. Put another way, the right to abuse drugs should not trump the rights of kids to not be permanently brain damaged by their mothers when in the womb.

Quick question: why would the woman in the story refuse physician-supervised Suboxone treatment, and insist on continuing to feed her addiction from the streets?

The article could not possibly have put a more naive and fluffy spin on what drug addiction looks like.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
This woman was arrested and is now imprisoned at basically a mental institution without any legal representation, which the court denied her. The sicko judge said the woman may hire her own attorney for the next hearing - knowing she can't afford one and after-the-fact of her imprisonment anyway.

Basically, the view is that ONLY women who are pregnant can be summarily imprisoned with no attorney and then after sentencing and imprisonment may have a hearing without any attorney for that same judge to decide if the judge was wrong in summarily imprisoning the woman. There are no other criminal cases where sentencing comes before the trial or where a person does not get an attorney prior to being sentenced and imprisoned.
Click to expand...

"Imprisoned" in a mental institution? I think we call those involuntary commitments, actually, and we do it all the time to people at imminent risk of harm to self or others. So no, this does not ONLY apply to pregnant women.
 
In normal first world societies the woman's rights are important and people look with disdain and disgust at those who presume they have a right to interfere. But in America the rabid extreme right want to take the woman's right away.

There's no legitimate replacement for socially responsible government. Certainly not extremism based on religious fantasies and fairy tales.
 
"For Beltran, the consequences of her case have hit hard. Her family struggled to visit her regularly during her stint at Casa Clare Women’s Facility in Appleton, Wis., a two-hour drive from her home. After being away from work for an extended period, Beltran lost her job in the food service industry, according to her lawyers. She was released earlier this month, but with the case still open, she is still at risk of being taken into custody or ordered into further treatment, Paltrow said."

Well there is a shortage of people on food stamps and welfare. We need to create more! If people won't do it voluntarily, we must force them!
 
Zyphlin said:
Looking over this, I have a much larger issue with the gross over reach by the state in regard to their interpritations of the law rather than the intent of the law itself.

In regards to the law itself, an argument for it can actually piggy back off at typical liberal argument against abortion and for health care. IF the woman is going to abort, then abort. However, if the women is current functionally under an intent to keep the child but is habitually undertaking actions that have a high probability of leaving the child handicapped...and thus a burden on society and on tax payers...then it's reasonable for the state to step in. A common liberal argument thrown towards the pro-life crowd is that if they make abortions illegal, than it is the governments responsability to deal with a child potentially brought into a low income situation where assistance is going to be needed and that such a thing would be a burden and a drain and thus it's better to allow such things to be dealt with prior to that point. A child with something like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is also a burden upon society.

The general notion of the state monitoring the pregnancy of a woman whose indicated no intent to abort and who has shown wanton and habitural abuse of alcohol or drugs so as to help assure the child is born with the best chance to be healthy isn't something that, off hand (never really thought of it much before now), doesn't bother me too much. If while being monitored she decides she just wants to abort, and that's legal in the state, then she should be able to. But if she's intent on having it then I don't think it's out of line for the state to take action if she's significantly and continually endangering the health of the child.

However this situation, in no way shape or form, looks like that. I can see critics complaints with the lack of medical terminology in the law, and perhaps that'd help it from being abused in the future. But this looks more like an issue of an abuse of a law as opposed to the just and faithful execution of it.
Click to expand...

Pro-life legislatures passing laws demanding women decide between risking being imprisoned or aborting. Yeah, that's "pro-life." :roll:
 
Excon said:
Come on.

"would not be provided for her at that time"​

This was just the beginning of the process.





As the law is written, it can clearly be seen that it intends to stop a mother from destroying the child's life with her drug use.
To do so is not sick, depraved or spiteful, but a compassionate, noble and honorable act. Nor is it punishing a woman for having sex as you absurdly and ridiculously assert.

The Law.
48.133  Jurisdiction over unborn children in need of protection or services and the expectant mothers of those unborn children. The court has exclusive original jurisdiction over an unborn child alleged to be in need of protection or services which can be ordered by the court whose expectant mother habitually lacks self-control in the use of alcohol beverages, controlled substances or controlled substance analogs, exhibited to a severe degree, to the extent that there is a substantial risk that the physical health of the unborn child, and of the child when born, will be seriously affected or endangered unless the expectant mother receives prompt and adequate treatment for that habitual lack of self-control. The court also has exclusive original jurisdiction over the expectant mother of an unborn child described in this section.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/48/III/133​

What is wrong here is that it does not appear that the mother's actions meet the underlined criteria.
There is nothing indicating she habitually lacks self control, especially not exhibited to a severe degree, as required. The opposite appears to be what is true.

So it seems it is more a misapplication of the law, or deliberate overreach.


Which does not allow you to speak for those states in which you have no experience.




This case may be struck down, but not the law.



The law is a good law with good intent, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be defended or the state if the state properly applies it.
It's application in this case is what I question.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand you want people to have an attorney and trial AFTER than have been sentenced and served their time. :doh
 
joko104 said:
The covert purpose of these laws is to pressure women to have abortions if they are poor or involved in substances.
Click to expand...

Wow, I think you definitely figured it out. This is both an obscene horrible catastrophic stereotypical bigoted pro-lifer law AND one that is clealry aimed at forcing women to have abortions.....because pro-lifers are like, totaly....for....abo-....


Sigh. Just, REALLY?
 
JayDubya said:
It's a good law.

I don't agree with the particulars of this case as it is reported.

If you deliberately consume a teratogen while pregnant then you are assaulting another human being, no different and no better than if you were to abuse a born child.

A Category C is not a known teratogen, but that doesn't make it safe either. When you're dealing with a Category C a doctor needs to be carefully weighing the risks vs. rewards - it was stupid and irresponsible, but there are degrees, of course, of stupidity and irresponsibility.



It is not misguided to know the fact that all human beings have rights.



It is impossible to give rights. If you had stopped the sentence there, you would have been correct.

It is not impossible for a human parent and a human offspring to have rights.

It is not impossible for the state to protect the rights of the offspring against aggression.

Punishing aggression against human offspring by human parents protects the rights of the offspring and does not violate the rights of the parents. Parents don't have a right to aggressively harm their own kids.
Click to expand...


In this, your stance is that pregnant women should either be put on trial and possibly sent to prison OR pursue the safe legal route of aborting. Blackmailing women to force them to abort means your focus isn't about "aggressive homicide" against "human offspring." It is about controlling the behavior of women.
 
joko104 said:
Pro-life legislatures passing laws demanding women decide between risking being imprisoned or aborting. Yeah, that's "pro-life." :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, thank you for the amazingly propogandized and stereotypical hyper emotional blathering response, but spare me if I think it's one giant load of crap born from the mirror image of the typical fanatical pro-life side. I'd personally suggest it's more like a law suggesting that if a woman is planning on carrying the child to birth, to not habiturally intake substances that have a significant chance of causing dabilitating abnormalities to occur causing the child's life to be substantially negatively impacted and potentially placing an additional burden upon the public. one that, in this particular instance, was horribly and erroniously applied to an individual who had CEASED taking drugs and showed now sign of habitural use and thus continued potential harm.

The reality is that an unborn child can neither be treated fully like a born child NOR can it be simply treated as some kind of inanimate object. It is a unique and distinct situation that needs to be dealt with in an honest and realitic measure. This is seen in other laws, such as those that allow a person who kills a pregnant woman to potentially also be found liable for the death of the unborn child. I disagree with a notion that a woman should be charged with murder, or something of the such, for having an abortion because I do think the situaiton is unique and can't be compared to a woman doing something like stabbing a newborn. On the flip side, I also don't necessarily disagere with a notion that a woman showing no intent other than to carry a child to term and bring it into this word CAN be subject to state action if they are acting in a way that is extremely reckless and gravely endangers the health of the prospective child. The issue is that in this particular case, based on the admittedly one sided information we have at the moment, there is little...if any...way one could make a case that it would fall into such a category.
 
joko104 said:
In this, your stance is that pregnant women should either be put on trial and possibly sent to prison OR pursue the safe legal route of aborting. Blackmailing women to force them to abort means your focus isn't about "aggressive homicide" against "human offspring." It is about controlling the behavior of women.
Click to expand...

So just out of curiosity, since you seem to be speaking in generaliaties about the law since you keep going after people who are saying that this particular case was a poor application of the law...

If a woman is pregnant, and plans to carry to term, and proceeds to go out killing bottles of Jack Daniels every few nights for the full 9 months, you believe that the state should take no action?

If the child comes out with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, should the state then have a responsability to help the mother if she ends up needing government assistsance with health care? What if she can't work as much because she's having to care for the child whose disability she directly cause; shall society foot the bill if she has to start applying for food stamps and welfare? Is it "fair" to the child to be brought into a world handicapped and damaged because his mother chose to knowingly and wantonly endanger his health?

What would your solution be in such a situation? Pro-Lifers are often asked this type of hypothetical when suggesting abortion be outlawed.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Well, thank you for the amazingly propogandized and stereotypical hyper emotional blathering response, but spare me if I think it's one giant load of crap born from the mirror image of the typical fanatical pro-life side. I'd personally suggest it's more like a law suggesting that if a woman is planning on carrying the child to birth, to not habiturally intake substances that have a significant chance of causing dabilitating abnormalities to occur causing the child's life to be substantially negatively impacted and potentially placing an additional burden upon the public. one that, in this particular instance, was horribly and erroniously applied to an individual who had CEASED taking drugs and showed now sign of habitural use and thus continued potential harm.

The reality is that an unborn child can neither be treated fully like a born child NOR can it be simply treated as some kind of inanimate object. It is a unique and distinct situation that needs to be dealt with in an honest and realitic measure. This is seen in other laws, such as those that allow a person who kills a pregnant woman to potentially also be found liable for the death of the unborn child. I disagree with a notion that a woman should be charged with murder, or something of the such, for having an abortion because I do think the situaiton is unique and can't be compared to a woman doing something like stabbing a newborn. On the flip side, I also don't necessarily disagere with a notion that a woman showing no intent other than to carry a child to term and bring it into this word CAN be subject to state action if they are acting in a way that is extremely reckless and gravely endangers the health of the prospective child. The issue is that in this particular case, based on the admittedly one sided information we have at the moment, there is little...if any...way one could make a case that it would fall into such a category.
Click to expand...

Your words do not change the fact that such laws give women the choice between abortion or possible imprisonment.

The adoption industry is the money behind pro-life. Their profits do not come from children being adopted. It comes from the huge fees people pay to be approved to be put on the eligibility list. The inducement is to advertise an upcoming birth of a desirable newborn - which is of course determined by the nature of the mother and the likelihood of the perfect baby - not just health but race, eye color, hair color etc.

A birth defected baby is only an expense to such crisis-pregnancy centers. They pay the cost of pre-natal care and birthing - only to have an unmarketable product. Thus, they either want a health baby from a pregnancy or no pregnancy at all. We are personally very familiar with the HUGE amounts of money at stake even just for one pregnancy.

It is money that defines the 2 sides. For-profit adoption companies and organizations on the "pro-life" side, and facilities that do abortions on the "pro-choice" side. The "pro-life" money side does not want birth defected babies to be born. They want abortions to avoid them, though have to frame it any possible way as "pro-life." "Get an abortion or go to prison because your fetus might be birth defected by your actions" is NOT "pro-life." It is not "pro-choice." It is "pro-abortion."

You can post all the hyperbole and moralizing slogans you wish, and categorize me however you wish. But the obvious reality is such laws give women who do engage in substance abuse a very clear choice 1.) have an abortion or 2.) go to prison. No words or diversions change that obvious fact of such laws. It is not pro-choice passing laws that make having an abortion a get-out-of-jail card, it is so-called pro-life.

Declaring women should have thought of that before getting pregnant is worthless, isn't it? Since most abortions are for unwanted and unplanned pregnancies that excuse for laws pressuring women to abort doesn't work as a pro-life position.
 
Zyphlin said:
So just out of curiosity, since you seem to be speaking in generaliaties about the law since you keep going after people who are saying that this particular case was a poor application of the law...

If a woman is pregnant, and plans to carry to term, and proceeds to go out killing bottles of Jack Daniels every few nights for the full 9 months, you believe that the state should take no action?

If the child comes out with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, should the state then have a responsability to help the mother if she ends up needing government assistsance with health care? What if she can't work as much because she's having to care for the child whose disability she directly cause; shall society foot the bill if she has to start applying for food stamps and welfare? Is it "fair" to the child to be brought into a world handicapped and damaged because his mother chose to knowingly and wantonly endanger his health?

What would your solution be in such a situation? Pro-Lifers are often asked this type of hypothetical when suggesting abortion be outlawed.
Click to expand...

I'll give you my most honest answer. I do have a real problem with anyone taking actions that harm a fetus if the intention is bringing it to full term, whether the birth mother or otherwise. So I am actually unsure what I think should be "law" in such regards. That is my honest answer.

BUT it also is "truthful" that such laws are NOT pro-life. Having a law that gives a woman the choice between having an abortion or maybe going to prison (even possibly for life) is not pro-life. It is not pro-choice. It is pro-abortion.

Despite how these debates are framed as 2 diametric sides of absolute positions, personally I don't think it is, just like little in life is not a question of endless absolute yes-no decisions. Most of life and issues are about shades of gray.

Maybe laws should encourage women who are substance addicts in ways that harm to the fetus - both due to potential severe birth defects and the inability of the mother to care for it either way. If I have made ANYTHING clear on these topics is my opposition to ANY bio-parent being legally able to just dump children on "the system" and "we the people."

What I will NOT do is do anything but recognize such laws are NEITHER 'pro-life" nor "pro-choice." They are pro-abortion by giving the ultimate incentives to abort - ie stay out of prison. In severe cases I might actually agree with that, but sure wouldn't call it pro-life or pro-choice.
 
joko104 said:
You can post all the hyperbole and moralizing slogans you wish, and categorize me however you wish. But the obvious reality is such laws give women who do engage in substance abuse a very clear choice 1.) have an abortion or 2.) go to prison. No words or diversions change that obvious fact of such laws. It is not pro-choice passing laws that make having an abortion a get-out-of-jail card, it is so-called pro-life.
Click to expand...

Funny how not abusing substances or not getting pregnant weren't available choices.
 
joko104 said:
Your words do not change the fact that such laws give women the choice between abortion or possible imprisonment.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, it does not give "women" that.

It gives women who wish to routinely habitually take illegal drugs or drink excessive amounts of alcohol while pregnent the choice between abortion or possible imprisonment.

Women who don't wish to habiturally take illegal drugs or drink significant quantities of alcohol while pregnant aren't faced with that choice at all.

So phrasing it that it's giving "women" that choice is dishonest and a misrepresentation. The law does not affect the vast majority of pregnant women in the state, unless you're suggesting women...in general...routinely take illegal drugs or drink excessively while pregnant?


But the obvious reality is such laws give women who do engage in substance abuse a very clear choice 1.) have an abortion or 2.) go to prison.
Click to expand...

See, had to wade through all of your tin-foil hat cabal of evil shady adoption masterminds garbagge....but at least you finally get closer to an accurate portrayal of what the law does.

Yes, you're right. Itgives women who do engage in substance abuse a very clear choice...abortion or incarceration (did I read that wrong that she was in a rehab facility, not a prison?)

No words or iversions change that obvious fact of such laws. It is not pro-choice passing laws that make having an abortion a get-out-of-jail card, it is so-called pro-life.
Click to expand...

No, it's you proclaiming it's a "get out of jail free card". The "get out of jail free card" to pro-choicers would likely be don't abuse substances likely to cause significant health defects in the child. The veyr nature of "pro-life" would seem to indicate that having an abortoin wouldn't be getting out of jail "free".
 
Both Zyphellin and joko's problem is that neither of them have the slightest idea of what being proactive and socially responsible means. Rather, they like typical americans will clutter up the conversation that could yield an understanding of what's facing people in their irrational and dysfunctional society.

Punishing the woman and throwing her in jail is the norm. Being proactive and addressing the problem before the problem becomes impossible to deal with would never enter either of their minds.

Here's an example of how one can ignore addressing the problem and insult another while saying inside the rules of this forum:

Well, thank you for the amazingly propogandized and stereotypical hyper emotional blathering response, but spare me if I think it's one giant load of crap born from the mirror image of the typical fanatical pro-life side.
Click to expand...

Or then the issue becomes on of money while completely ignoring the fact that the US jail system is overflowing with people who are examples of the lack of social responsibility in government:

It is money that defines the 2 sides. For-profit adoption companies and organizations on the "pro-life" side, and facilities that do abortions on the "pro-choice" side. The "pro-life" money side does not want birth defected babies to be born.
Click to expand...

Keep it up boys, you're sure to find some common ground one of these days!
 
Michael66 said:
In normal first world societies the woman's rights are important and people look with disdain and disgust at those who presume they have a right to interfere. But in America the rabid extreme right want to take the woman's right away.
Click to expand...

The ethical dilemma is yours. The woman's right to abuse drugs should not supersede a dependent's right not to be given static encephalopathy by the abusive addict. We're talking about the lesser infringement here. In this case, infringing on an addict's drug consumption liberty is less infringing than permanent brain damage on the part of the fetus.

Advocating absolute liberty for the woman and absolute zero legal protection for the fetus is the rabid extremist position, in this case.
 
Samhain said:
Funny how not abusing substances or not getting pregnant weren't available choices.
Click to expand...

That has exactly nothing to do with the issue. They are plenty of other threads were you can moralize down at women.

This topic, like all abortion topics, will degrade almost immediately to the typical might-as-well-cut-and-paste two absolute opposite sides and all their slogans. Since the girl/woman is already pregnant and the question "now what?", your message is just derailment.
 
Neomalthusian said:
The ethical dilemma is yours. The woman's right to abuse drugs should not supersede a dependent's right not to be given static encephalopathy by the abusive addict. We're talking about the lesser infringement here. In this case, infringing on an addict's drug consumption liberty is less infringing than permanent brain damage on the part of the fetus.

Advocating absolute liberty for the woman and absolute zero legal protection for the fetus is the rabid extremist position, in this case.
Click to expand...

And how stupid does a person have to be to not be able to understand that what I was talking about was being proactive and socially responsible before the fact? Nothing of which was understood by you as evidenced by your insults toward me which were completely off the topic I addressed.

It's evidence that the average libertarian is not interested in the least with the maintaining or furthering of people's rights, only that they have signed on lock, stock, and barrel to the teabagger ideology of obscuring the real issue.
 
Michael66 said:
Both Zyphellin and joko's problem is that neither of them have the slightest idea of what being proactive and socially responsible means. Rather, they like typical americans will clutter up the conversation that could yield an understanding of what's facing people in their irrational and dysfunctional society.

Punishing the woman and throwing her in jail is the norm. Being proactive and addressing the problem before the problem becomes impossible to deal with would never enter either of their minds.
Click to expand...

You are wrong about both of us. The topic of avoiding unwanted pregnancies and substance abuse are not the topic of this thread. You can start threads on those topics if you wish. NEITHER Zyphellin nor I favor unwanted pregnancies or are indifferent to them. It is possible he and I would mostly agreed on ways to avoid unwanted pregnancies and - possibly - how to address substance abuse issues.

But that is not the topic here. This topic concerns hard issues after a girl/woman is pregnant.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law - U.S. News

This is the logical conclusion of the misguided belief that fetuses have rights. It is impossible to give rights to a being growing inside a person's body without violating that person's rights.
Click to expand...

Yep many people like to ignore this fact but its a fact none the less. It can even be honestly argued against with any type of logic.

If the details of the story are accurate and true thats absolutely insane.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
You are wrong about both of us. The topic of avoiding unwanted pregnancies and substance abuse are not the topic of this thread. You can start threads on those topics if you wish. NEITHER Zyphellin nor I favor unwanted pregnancies or are indifferent to them. It is possible he and I would mostly agreed on ways to avoid unwanted pregnancies and - possibly - how to address substance abuse issues.

But that is not the topic here. This topic concerns hard issues after a girl/woman is pregnant.
Click to expand...

Yet neither of you are addressing the real issue. And you even go so far as to say it's not the issue. I think the proof is in the pudding judging solely from your track record. It's certainly the problem with your government and your country! Your prison incarceration echoes your priorities loud and clear as you try to backtrack and find excuses for your behaviour.

And then all Zyphellin has done is give expert lessons on how to insult others and stay within the bounds of the rules. Yes, that does show a proactive approach to the problems facing women in your hateful society!
 
Zyphlin said:
Wow, I think you definitely figured it out. This is both an obscene horrible catastrophic stereotypical bigoted pro-lifer law AND one that is clealry aimed at forcing women to have abortions.....because pro-lifers are like, totaly....for....abo-....


Sigh. Just, REALLY?
Click to expand...

I hope you are not posting extreme flaming and then claiming those were my words. If you can link to any message where I called you "bigoted" then do so.

I read your message as urgently wanting to close down the topic as I present my side of it and shift it to male pro-life raging at women for getting pregnant in the first place in pro-lifers now wishing to derail the thread to fury against women who become pregnant, al of which has exactly nothing to do with this topic.

Under most such laws in most states, even if the woman stops using any substances upon learning she is pregnant, she is still liable to criminal prosecution akin to murder or manslaughter if it determined substance abuse even may have caused a birth defect. Maybe all threads on the abortion board topic titles should just be changed to debating "How evil are women who have sex?" That is how virtually every thread devolves quickly, other than also how abortion is murder.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom