Jump to content
Jotari

Death Penalty and Abortion, the overlap (or lack thereof) of opinions

I...  

102 members have voted

  1. 1. I...

    • Support both the Death Penalty and Abortion.
      21
    • Support the Death Penalty but not Abortion.
      17
    • Support Abortion but not the Death Penalty.
      48
    • Support neither the Death Penalty nor Abortion.
      16


Recommended Posts

I request that abortion and other methods of birth control be as open as possible. It's been demonstrated some individuals are more productive and less feckless than others. Since abstincence has repeatedly failed, open birth control is the route to pursue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-05-02 at 5:08 PM, Emperor Petitt said:

I was saying it for governments in general, not excluding one type or the other, in the US that is why I brought up the minimal punishment was jail, it can range. I would like to stress I do not agree with those conservatives, as killing someone for not paying taxes is a grand break of the non aggression principle or NAP. I not going to continue such a topic here as it is quite clear the end result would just be anger in one or both parties involved. (Though for reference I hate that source just as much as the government funded BBC for similar reasons)

 

If you wish to avoid paying taxes, you pretty easily can. All you need to do is check out of all the things taxes pay for, such as infrastructure (roads, electricity, etc.), clean water, and the protections of your property, transactions, and person afforded by police, the justice system, and the monetary system, among many others.

In other words, go live in the wilderness and survive off what you grow yourself, and what you can barter for. Though, I suspect you'll find your life gets significantly less pleasant, and NOT because the government will try to track you down and throw you in jail. (Most governments generally don't bother trying to take tax from people who don't make or spend money.)

Treating taxes as extortion is ridiculous. You have monumentally benefited your entire life from the taxes you and others have paid. I consider myself relatively libertarian but your rhetoric is making me facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

 

If you wish to avoid paying taxes, you pretty easily can. All you need to do is check out of all the things taxes pay for, such as infrastructure (roads, electricity, etc.), clean water, and the protections of your property, transactions, and person afforded by police, the justice system, and the monetary system, among many others.

In other words, go live in the wilderness and survive off what you grow yourself, and what you can barter for. Though, I suspect you'll find your life gets significantly less pleasant, and NOT because the government will try to track you down and throw you in jail. (Most governments generally don't bother trying to take tax from people who don't make or spend money.)

Treating taxes as extortion is ridiculous. You have monumentally benefited your entire life from the taxes you and others have paid. I consider myself relatively libertarian but your rhetoric is making me facepalm.

This line of conversation has long since ended to prevent fights. I ignored your comment and am just going to inform you of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your own last post on the subject was a mere 3 posts previous to mine (and no indication had been made by you or anyone else that the line of conversation had ended), so don't try to paint me as the bad guy by invoking "long since".

That said I do agree this thread probably isn't the place for such a conversation so I'm fine with dropping it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the death penalty because there is no chance for a criminal to atone if (s)he is dead. I feel punishment should be aiming to reform criminals into productive citizens, rather than blatant revenge.

As for abortion, I feel it is immoral but should not be made illegal. Although ending the potential for a life is cruel, it can be even more cruel for an innocent woman to suffer for 9 months if she were raped or contraception failed. Also, keeping abortion legal should make stem cell research (which a whole-heartedly agree with) less controversial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally support the death penalty and abortion. But don’t think its necessarily self-contradicting to support one and oppose the other; the issues turn on independent sets of arguments and justifications.

The idea behind the death penalty is that it is proper for The State—in the scope of its public duty—to end the life of one who has been found guilty of a reprehensible crime (either as punishment for the crime itself or as a deterrent to prospective criminals, or some combination thereof). One may accept or reject this idea without forming an opinion on whether or not the self-autonomy of a pregnant woman outweighs the interest of an unborn child in being born.

The idea behind abortion is that the self-autonomy of a pregnant woman outweighs the interest of an unborn child in being born. One can accept or reject this idea without forming an opinion on the the propriety of The State ending the lives of those who have been found guilty of reprehensible crimes.

Now where I think you DO run into self-contradiction, and what I regard as just the worst kind of hypocrisy, is when you’re dealing with people who oppose abortion. But also oppose birth control, public healthcare, and/or welfare for needy families. 


 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm leaning on the support side of the fence when it comes to the death penalty, and I'm personally pro-life.

Edited by larverto365

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2017 at 4:19 PM, IEatLasers said:

I think both are societal evils that we will be better off morally when we abolish them~ 

This is Serious Discussion, not Serious Soapbox, so. . .why do you think this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, eclipse said:

This is Serious Discussion, not Serious Soapbox, so. . .why do you think this?

I’m not sure what a soapbox is in that context...

 

but i I think this because

death penalty is kind of just feeding an aggressive mindset deep in lots of people. We don’t need to kill any of them, we have prisons. But instead we lock them in single rooms for years, then just let them die one day. Even having doctors break their own oaths just to make the Medicine that puts people to sleep...

 

well~ it turns out it ain’t even a deterrent. Death penalty doesn’t lower crime rates at all. So how do people justify it? They say “they deserve it” but how do we decide that sort of stuff? Besides some people in death row turn out  to be innocent AND we get people like Casey Anthony who definitely killed her own baby 

but jury didn’t want to be responsible for executing her. But trial was for death penalty. She got to walk totally free for it. 

 

As for abortion...(I’m not arguing rape right now)

 

we dont actually know when consciousness starts but survival instinct starts just days later. If you didn’t take the morning after pill, you’re already sharing body with someone who is fighting to live with you! 

And I know pregnancy is a scary thing, but it’s a natural risk that we know can happen now. And we have many countermeasures (even morning after pill!) 

but once it’s been growing and hearing your voice, and it is building up so much potential, it’s immoral to erase them~ 

And it isn’t a parasite when it’s a result of your own decisions and actions and it is of the same species, it isn’t your body it’s another body you’re hosting, and the state of your vajay isn’t more important than the life of another! 

It can’t support itself? There are adults with mental disabilities who can’t  

it doesn’t function as humans yet? Neither do comatose people.  

It will be poor? You can’t say one persons state of living will dictate their whole life  maybe he will be born poor but make amazing friends, have great memories, love, smile, etc. but you take all that away because you think “having a kid be born poor is evil!” (Umm  so what do you do with poor people btw?)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IEatLasers said:

 

 

As for abortion...(I’m not arguing rape right now)

 

 

 

…as long as we’re on the topic of intellectual consistency, this is something that genuinely confuses me about the internal logic of the “pro-life” position. The rape exception.

If you truly believe: (a) that abortion is murder; (b) that a pregnancy is a person with all the rights and protections of a born child; and (c) that the harm of killing a child in the womb is greater than and cannot be justified by the emotional and economic hardship of being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Then what difference does it make whether the pregnancy is the result of a rape or consensual sex??? Because following the key points of the pro-life premise it really shouldn’t matter.

-there’s an unwanted pregnancy

-the pregnancy is a person with all the rights and protections of a born child

-ending the pregnancy is murder

-the superseding harm of murder cannot be justified by the lesser harms of economic and emotional hardship

If one who would otherwise identify as pro-life takes the position that abortion is permissible in the case of rape, then that is a tacit admission that the termination of a pregnancy CAN be justified by purely emotional and economic hardship; moreover, that such hardships can be properly regarded as greater harms then loss of life from termination of the pregnancy.

Well then that raises the obvious question: Why is that the exception rather than the rule? If termination of a pregnancy can be so justified by unwanted hardship, on what grounds can you claim abortion is wrong to begin with?  

It’s a simple enough inconsistency to resolve from a pro-choice perspective: there is no inconsistency, because a pregnancy has no vested right to be carried to term and abortion of an unwanted pregnancy should be allowed regardless.


But from a pro-life perspective?

How do you work that out?

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

 

…as long as we’re on the topic of intellectual consistency, this is something that genuinely confuses me about the internal logic of the “pro-life” position. The rape exception.

If you truly believe: (a) that abortion is murder; (b) that a pregnancy is a person with all the rights and protections of a born child; and (c) that the harm of killing a child in the womb is greater than and cannot be justified by the emotional and economic hardship of being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Then what difference does it make whether the pregnancy is the result of a rape or consensual sex??? Because following the key points of the pro-life premise it really shouldn’t matter.

-there’s an unwanted pregnancy

-the pregnancy is a person with all the rights and protections of a born child

-ending the pregnancy is murder

-the superseding harm of murder cannot be justified by the lesser harms of economic and emotional hardship

If one who would otherwise identify as pro-life takes the position that abortion is permissible in the case of rape, then that is a tacit admission that the termination of a pregnancy CAN be justified by purely emotional and economic hardship; moreover, that such hardships can be properly regarded as greater harms then loss of life from termination of the pregnancy.

Well then that raises the obvious question: Why is that the exception rather than the rule? If termination of a pregnancy can be so justified by unwanted hardship, on what grounds can you claim abortion is wrong to begin with?  

It’s a simple enough inconsistency to resolve from a pro-choice perspective: there is no inconsistency, because a pregnancy has no vested right to be carried to term and abortion of an unwanted pregnancy should be allowed regardless to prevent social harms.


But from a pro-life perspective?

How do you work that out?

You seem to discount that rape is not just a violation of a woman's physicality. It's a violation of a whole lot more than that, and that bearing something conceived by a literal monster would be even more traumatic for a woman. I can accept abortion for what it is and move on, but I feel it would be personally acceptable for a woman in my life to abort a rape child in order for her to not have to go through pain. Pain is the main reason why I don't see a problem with it. Why should they punish themselves with a child they never wanted from an encounter they (and I'm way understating this) didn't enjoy? Worse still, the alternatives are giving away that child to a system that, while better than it used to be, is very flawed, or to raise that child, having to tell them the reason they don't have a father in their life is because he is criminal scum of the highest order, possibly making that child feel unloved due to the nature of their conception. Do they deserve a chance at life? Maybe so, but it's not a stretch to consider the fact that a life of a person conceived in that way would seldom be a happy one. Abortion is a mercy in those cases, and it allows a woman the possibility of putting something like that behind her, instead of having a constant reminder of it, either for 9 months, or the rest of her life. I honestly hope that most pro-lifers agree with me, because the fetus isn't the only thing harmed here, it's someone who is in the midst of living their life being derailed by it due to no fault of her own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

 

…as long as we’re on the topic of intellectual consistency, this is something that genuinely confuses me about the internal logic of the “pro-life” position. The rape exception.

If you truly believe: (a) that abortion is murder; (b) that a pregnancy is a person with all the rights and protections of a born child; and (c) that the harm of killing a child in the womb is greater than and cannot be justified by the emotional and economic hardship of being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Then what difference does it make whether the pregnancy is the result of a rape or consensual sex??? Because following the key points of the pro-life premise it really shouldn’t matter.

-there’s an unwanted pregnancy

-the pregnancy is a person with all the rights and protections of a born child

-ending the pregnancy is murder

-the superseding harm of murder cannot be justified by the lesser harms of economic and emotional hardship

If one who would otherwise identify as pro-life takes the position that abortion is permissible in the case of rape, then that is a tacit admission that the termination of a pregnancy CAN be justified by purely emotional and economic hardship; moreover, that such hardships can be properly regarded as greater harms then loss of life from termination of the pregnancy.

Well then that raises the obvious question: Why is that the exception rather than the rule? If termination of a pregnancy can be so justified by unwanted hardship, on what grounds can you claim abortion is wrong to begin with?  

It’s a simple enough inconsistency to resolve from a pro-choice perspective: there is no inconsistency, because a pregnancy has no vested right to be carried to term and abortion of an unwanted pregnancy should be allowed regardless.


But from a pro-life perspective?

How do you work that out?

I don’t think people should abort for any reason. However rape is something that women really are scared of a lot. It’s hard to walk to McDonald’s without someone bigger and more imposing than you hollering and flirting around. 

If it happens a lot of people are physically scarred, and people also often have emotional and psychological trauma for years or even for life  

So when  it actually happens, I don’t have any sort of moral high ground to really discuss it. What can I say? Really at that point I can only be there for them. 

 

So if they do that, I can’t reallt condemn them, because at that point they were put into a low they likely never felt before (in their own mind, the fear and pain sticks) and you can’t really expect them to always be the best and most moral people when they’re at such lows. And I ain’t going to be there making it worse when people look to me for comfort so much. 

 

 

And the the reason I discounted that from the beginning is for one I just don’t like talkin about it and two, people want to jump to the absolute worse cases and don’t want to talk rationally about the majority of cases (rich white women getting abortions for their physical appearance and lifestyle presence)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support abortion but not the death penalty.

I'm okay with abortion because I view the fetus as a parasite during the stages of pregnancy that women usually have abortions.  I myself would not be able to have one, but I would never judge another woman for doing it. (I'm the type of person who would go crazy over the "what ifs".)  I don't view it as murder, but as eliminating a potential human.  I don't think anyone really likes the idea of abortion, but it is a necessary evil.  Sometimes it's a better choice for a woman to not go through with her pregnancy, and making it illegal would just force those women to resort to less safe methods to eliminate their pregnancy.  

As for the death penalty... I find it a little difficult to put the reasons why I oppose it into words.  It just makes me really uncomfortable to think about.  Sentencing someone to die just seems really... I don't know, barbaric?  Just my feelings... A more logical reason I oppose it is that innocent people can and have been wrongfully convicted and killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IEatLasers said:

And the the reason I discounted that from the beginning is for one I just don’t like talkin about it and two, people want to jump to the absolute worse cases and don’t want to talk rationally about the majority of cases (rich white women getting abortions for their physical appearance and lifestyle presence)

Exactly what study are you using to support your thesis that the majority of abortions are for lifestyle reasons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My views on both these subjects have quite recently flipped.

 

Abortion,
I do not believe in abortion.  My belief against abortion isn't necessarily because I think the baby is a life early on in the womb.  I don't know.  I have no idea.  I'm not a doctor or a scientist and I have done very little research on this subject.  I think anyone that kills their baby after it develops a conscious is a murderer, I don't know before that.

That being said, I think most of the points the left makes about abortion is seriously flawed.  The main point is that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body.  By this definition, we are excluding cases of sexual assault as the woman does not have this freedom here.  In the absence of sexual assault, a woman does have a right to do as she wishes with her body - its called not having sex.  It's called protection.  Hell there are certain...methods... where you can't get pregnant.  It's called acknowledging that no matter what you do with protection there is a chance you could still get pregnant.  If woman have a right to do what they want with their bodies they have a right to not have sex or have sex with their partners without the risk of pregnancy.  The same goes for men.  If you don't want to get a woman pregnant either don't have sex or learn how to do it without getting them pregnant.  If anyone has a debunk to what I've just said, I'd be very interested to hear it because I never hear anyone talk about how woman can choose to not have sex and get pregnant.  

Because I'm on the fence of when a baby becomes a life and I have not seen a liberal argument on abortion I can get behind, I am against abortion.


Death Penalty
This is where I recently changed my opinions.  Personally, I just don't see the point now.  Why would we spend more money to murder someone rather than just let them live out the last of their days in peace?  Even if there is no hope for them to return to society, even one of them learning how to remorse for what they did would be worth it.  I don't think people deserve to die with no remorse for evil - that means they don't see any good.  To understand my belief, you have to at least acknowledge my belief that people who commit mass murder are not only the perpetrators but have, in all cases, been mentally disabled, completely insane, manipulated, misinformed, or have been physiologically/mentally abused.  Some of them are perfectly sane, but that doesn't mean their view of the world is sane.  

As for the "closure" argument, I think that is a flaw on the victim's family's part.  Yes, whatever happened was a tragedy and the one who did it is, at that moment, a terrible human being and probably always will be.  But if you need to have them dead, whether justified or not, that is a flaw on your behalf.  I don't think anyone can tell me that their morals say its ok to kill someone because you don't like them so why should we kill for families with bias?  And considering none of us can ask the victims what they would want, why is it appropriate to victimize the victims by turning them into the cause for further death. 

If it were less expensive to give someone a lethal injection than jail them, I would have to think about this issue further before knowing where I stand.  But as expensive as it is, I just don't see any rational reasoning for the death penalty.  

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

 

…as long as we’re on the topic of intellectual consistency, this is something that genuinely confuses me about the internal logic of the “pro-life” position. The rape exception.

If you truly believe: (a) that abortion is murder; (b) that a pregnancy is a person with all the rights and protections of a born child; and (c) that the harm of killing a child in the womb is greater than and cannot be justified by the emotional and economic hardship of being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Then what difference does it make whether the pregnancy is the result of a rape or consensual sex??? Because following the key points of the pro-life premise it really shouldn’t matter.

-there’s an unwanted pregnancy

-the pregnancy is a person with all the rights and protections of a born child

-ending the pregnancy is murder

-the superseding harm of murder cannot be justified by the lesser harms of economic and emotional hardship

If one who would otherwise identify as pro-life takes the position that abortion is permissible in the case of rape, then that is a tacit admission that the termination of a pregnancy CAN be justified by purely emotional and economic hardship; moreover, that such hardships can be properly regarded as greater harms then loss of life from termination of the pregnancy.

Well then that raises the obvious question: Why is that the exception rather than the rule? If termination of a pregnancy can be so justified by unwanted hardship, on what grounds can you claim abortion is wrong to begin with?  

It’s a simple enough inconsistency to resolve from a pro-choice perspective: there is no inconsistency, because a pregnancy has no vested right to be carried to term and abortion of an unwanted pregnancy should be allowed regardless.


But from a pro-life perspective?

How do you work that out?

Well it would stem from the fact that abortion is permissible if the mother's life is in danger medically speaking. Like carrying the baby to term would literally kill them. That's an exception that I think almost everyone would agree is rationale. It's weighing the value of one life against another and deciding on the one that's established and probably has a higher likelihood of survival. From there the logic is that carrying a baby as a result to rape can be devastating to the psychology of a woman as in a way they continue to be raped throughout. Not exactly the same as someone literally dying as a result of pregnancy but comparable (especially if suicide rates are high for such circumstances). Of course the really messy thing there is that rape is such a nebulous and hard to prove concept. If a woman wanted an abortion and it was legal for rape victims then many would just claim rape for the sake of the abortion. So how do you stop that? Top quality investigation into rape cases (which well obviously should happen anyway) but then those take time and a woman can't really wait around six months for the results to come in when they have a baby growing inside them.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jotari said:

Well it would stem from the fact that abortion is permissible if the mother's life is in danger medically speaking. Like carrying the baby to term would literally kill them. That's an exception that I think almost everyone would agree is rationale. It's weighing the value of one life against another and deciding on the one that's established and probably has a higher likelihood of survival. From there the logic is that carrying a baby as a result to rape can be devastating to the psychology of a woman as in a way they continue to be raped throughout. Not exactly the same as someone literally dying as a result of pregnancy but comparable (especially if suicide rates are high for such circumstances). Of course the really messy thing there is that rape is such a nebulous and hard to prove concept. If a woman wanted an abortion and it was legal for rape victims then many would just claim rape for the sake of the abortion. So how do you stop that? Top quality investigation into rape cases (which well obviously should happen anyway) but then those take time and a woman can't really wait around six months for the results to come in when they have a baby growing inside them.

The life-of-the-mother exception makes perfect sense. And I have never seen or heard a single person argue against it.

...but on the matter of rape...

For all the reasons set forth by respondent posters since I yesterday made my inquiry as to why this exception should exist and be observed by otherwise pro-life persons.

We would not allow a rape victim to drown her 1 year old child-conceived-in-rape in a bathtub or say that we do not condemn such actions. We would not allow a rape victim to shoot her 1 year old child-conceived-in-rape in the head with a handgun. And so on and so forth; we would call such acts "murder" and the the mother a murderer. 

The premise of the pro-life position is that abortion is morally equivalent to the aforementioned acts; it is the murder of a small child. That is why its a moral evil and people should not get abortions.

If that is what one believes. But if it is said that you can abort a child-concieved-in-rape.

Then what is really being said is that abortion is NOT morally the same as killing a child. One is permissible in circumstances where the other is not.

And that again just seems to beg the question well then why feel the way you feel about abortion to begin with? Like--you know its morally unconscionable to make a woman carry to term a pregnancy she never wanted and never intended to have. You've worked through that much.

It just seems like such a glaring we know intuitively this doesn't hold up, and we see how problematic this gets if we take it to its logical extreme. But abortion is murder. That's our position and we're sticking to it--don't call us out on this.

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

It just seems like such a glaring we know intuitively this doesn't hold up, and we see how problematic this gets if we take it to its logical extreme. But abortion is murder. That's our position and we're sticking to it--don't call us out on this.

It isn't. I believe that abortion is a sin, not that it is murder. It is a conscious choice to do wrong, and something is dying, but it is not murder. Murder involves hate, and even though you listed some things that are despicable, those, at least to me, are worse than abortion. You chose to give something life, but then took it away from them, as if you were God. If you didn't want to suffer, you shouldn't have had the baby in the first place. But there is one thing I consider that most Christians and pro-lifers don't: the equality of sin in the eyes of God. Having an abortion is no better or worse than staying home from church on a Sunday, and that's just the way it is. The way the human psyche views it is vastly different, but God isn't human, nor does he really have a psyche to begin with. Also, the burden of actually taking the life isn't on the mother in situations where abortion is legal: it's on the doctors. Just as one person argued doctor's shouldn't have to perform lethal injections, so to do I believe they shouldn't have to take the life of something that hasn't had a chance. I pride myself on seeking to not be seen as hypocritical, and I will justify my beliefs rather than shouting down my detractors like other people who share my beliefs. It holds up because I know there is a false equivalency in there, but at the same time, even though it's not technically equal, it's still a taken life for usually unnecessary reasons. It's not murder, but unjustified killing is still wrong.

Edited by Hylian Air Force
fixed something ill said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IEatLasers said:

Looks right.

But those numbers show the majority of abortions are performed on single women in their 20s.
The numbers further show that the two most common reasons given for why termination of pregnancy is sought are [not ready] and [can't afford it].
The numbers further show that  Medicaid recipients (i.e. poor people) are three times as likely to have abortions as non-Medicaid recipients.

So I'm still not quite sure how you're looking at that and getting "rich white women getting abortions for their physical appearance and lifestyle presence" as your typical case. The typical case is where a young woman's primary form of birth control has failed.

...Maybe the condom tore.
...Maybe she miscalculated her safe days.
...Maybe the guy who promised he was going to pull out at the end was a lying sack of shit.

Now she's pregnant. Career just went out the window. Education just went out the window. The ordinary life pursuits of a single 20-something year old just went out the window. She's barely covering regular monthly expenses to begin with. If she keeps the baby, she's looking at an additional $800 a month in daycare expenses just to maintain full-time employment, premium hikes for child healthcare coverage on an insurance policy that's already costing her $250 a month in take home-pay. Additional expenses for baby clothes. Baby food. Baby furniture. Baby toys. Etc., Etc. Etc.,

On a $30,000 a year retail job??? 

...That's whats filling the abortion clinics. Not uptown socialites trying to keep their figure.

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already mentioned why aborting based on money is selfish 

but yes most abortions are metropolitan not really Urban. 

So its people who can afford a baby but they don’t like the lifestyle change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, IEatLasers said:

I already mentioned why aborting based on money is selfish

I would think in that scenario, bringing a child into the world that you have no ability to support or intention of supporting--expecting someone else to bare the cost--is the height of selfishness. The selfless act would be to put aside your moral scruples and do something that makes you feel personally uncomfortable. But w/e. To each his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...