So....another abortion thread.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

More specifically, why is abortion such a hot topic issue?

I admit that I am pro-choice but that's not what I'm talking about here. It just seems I'm the only person I know who's never gotten seriously impassioned on the issue. Pro-choice is just one of maybe 100 issues that I have some political leaning at all on.

So, without turning this into a flame war and attempting to be as civil as possible (and I'm serious about this, this is a legitimate question and there must be a dozen other threads here for you to argue and flame about your thoughts on abortion), can anyone give me some thoughts about why abortion is so hot-button? It's always just been a little confusing to me; to me it feels like it ought to be just a minor talking point in regards to sexual or gender issues in politics but I know quite a number of people who have voted first and foremost on whether the name on the ballot was pro choice or pro life.

My guesses;

1) It's a gender issue. The implications pro/anti-abortion laws have on female reproductive rights and the role of women as mothers, is a thorny issue.

2) It's a religious issue. In some religious interpretations abortion is forbidden, in other interpretations it falls under the heading of "thou shalt not kill".

3) It's an ethical issue, because it taps into the issue of when a foetus becomes a person, whether the unborn have rights, what constitutes murder, etc.

4) Won't somebody think of the children!?

Batou667:
My guesses;

1) It's a gender issue. The implications pro/anti-abortion laws have on female reproductive rights and the role of women as mothers, is a thorny issue.

2) It's a religious issue. In some religious interpretations abortion is forbidden, in other interpretations it falls under the heading of "thou shalt not kill".

3) It's an ethical issue, because it taps into the issue of when a foetus becomes a person, whether the unborn have rights, what constitutes murder, etc.

4) Won't somebody think of the children!?

Pretty much this. Also, it would be a mistake to assume these don't heavily overlap with each other either.

I'd also add, at least in the US, a legal issue, as personal autonomy rights regarding medical decisions is a massive part of US civil rights and tort law, and overturning the constitutional protections of the procedure effectively blows a massive hole into that body of law and has some really nasty legal implications (such as court-ordered sterilization, which was never outright banned by the US Supreme Court, or the right to refuse treatment outside mental disorders).

Because it isn't like most social and fiscal policy where there's a scale of options. You can be more or less fically conservative, more or less ok with drugs, etc. With abortion, it's the very question of definitions, so either a fetus is a human being and we're slaughtering millions (something to get really upset about), or a fetus isn't a human being, and millions of people are working really hard to needlessly shame and inconvenience women (also something to get upset about). There aren't many who go "it isn't a person, but killing it is wrong" or "it is a person, but who cares."

It's a gender issue. The people who tend to be able to use the right to an abortion are overwhelming women. The people who tend to be able to pass laws on the subject are generally overwhelmingly men.

If the unborn are not human beings, then abortion is fine. Since no human beings are killed, no rights are violated - so basically there is no problem.

However, if the unborn are human beings - then the reality is that every year genocide is committed against the most vulnerable members of society. Every year millions are slaughtered - not for ideology, not for religion, not even out of sheer hatred. They are overwhelmingly killed simply because their existence is inconvenient to certain people.

This overall moral numbness to the question simply demonstrates the decadence, indifference and amorality of the western man.

thaluikhain:
It's a gender issue. The people who tend to be able to use the right to an abortion are overwhelming women. The people who tend to be able to pass laws on the subject are generally overwhelmingly men.

Are you trying to infer that a man is more likely to be anti-abortion than a woman is? I mean, most people who tend to be able to pass laws are straight, but we're not using that fact to doubt whether or not they have to competence to decide upon legislation regarding gay marriage and all and making it a "straight vs gay issue".

I don't see a strong causal connection between one's stance on abortion and what they have between their legs. The way Batou framed it as "gender issue" seems to make more sense to me.

I also agree with that post, assuming 4) was ironic, of course.

thaluikhain:
It's a gender issue. The people who tend to be able to use the right to an abortion are overwhelming women. The people who tend to be able to pass laws on the subject are generally overwhelmingly men.

In my view, it is perhaps only tangentially a gender issue. At core it is a woman's issue, because men don't get pregnant.

The fundamental basis of abortion is the right of any person, man or woman, to decide what happens to their own body. If I wish to have a vasectomy, facelift, or donate a kidney, that choice is mine and mine alone. That principle extends to pregnancy for women. The only fundamental argument against a person's right to do as they choose with themselves is the potential right to life of a foetus. Men - including the putative fathers of the unborn - don't enter into this equation at all and nor should they, because any rights they may claim are utterly insignificant in comparison to those two issues.

It then becomes a matter of gender in terms of supporting the child. The fundamental principle here is the welfare of children. The two people responsible for creating a child have a duty to look after it, even if one or both didn't want it. No, it is not acceptable to punish a child in order to punish a mother for not aborting just for relatively trivial and highly spurious notions of gender equality. This can change on the day the state and society as a whole agrees to pick up the tab to ensure generous, comprehensive child support.

The male-female gender debate is a fucking ton of crap when it boils down to it, because in any situation regarding abortion there are far more intrinsic, important values that should dictate policy.

Plainly: A lot of people don't like the idea of killing babies and don't consider institutionalized child killing as a 'minor talking point'.

For those against abortion, near to a one, they'll tell you the same thing: that fetus is a person. This is why the 'my body: my choice' argument does not resonate with them; this isn't a matter of a piercing, tattoo, or cosmetic surgery --what we're talking about (from the perspective of those against) is very much *someone else's* body that's at risk.

al4674:
Then the reality is that every year genocide is committed against the most vulnerable members of society. Every year millions are slaughtered - not for ideology, not for religion, not even out of sheer hatred. They are overwhelmingly killed simply because their existence is inconvenient to certain people.

This overall moral numbness to the question simply demonstrates the decadence, indifference and amorality of the western man.

But enough about gun violence in the US... *cue flame war in 3... 2... 1...*

Vegosiux:

thaluikhain:
It's a gender issue. The people who tend to be able to use the right to an abortion are overwhelming women. The people who tend to be able to pass laws on the subject are generally overwhelmingly men.

Are you trying to infer that a man is more likely to be anti-abortion than a woman is?

Well... statistically, US women are more likely to identify pro-choice by about 3 points. Pretty much statiscially insignificant (party preference and geography are far more reliable indicators), but a difference nonetheless.

Or, more likely, its how the recent rash of anti-abortion laws in the US seems to correlate with large Republican majorities and how idiotic statements by cosigners of said legislation tend to be men (not all, of course, but enough to demonstrate a pattern).

Vegosiux:

Are you trying to infer that a man is more likely to be anti-abortion than a woman is?

Well, that is statistically true. Gallup has it that - as of 2012 - women tend to be split between the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice camps at a 46/44 margin, respectively[1], whereas men are split between the camps at a 38/53 margin, respectively[2]. It's not an extreme difference, but it is a noticeable one. Drawing a causal relation would be unsafe, however due to how the numbers tend to fluctuate (Most recent numbers on the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice split by that chart are 46/47 for women and 50/42 for men, respectively)

senordesol:
Plainly: A lot of people don't like the idea of killing babies and don't consider institutionalized child killing as a 'minor talking point'.

For those against abortion, near to a one, they'll tell you the same thing: that fetus is a person. This is why the 'my body: my choice' argument does not resonate with them; this isn't a matter of a piercing, tattoo, or cosmetic surgery --what we're talking about (from the perspective of those against) is very much *someone else's* body that's at risk.

Doesn't necessarily matter. At the risk of overly simplify Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous analogy[3], if you were suffering kidney failure and - for some odd reason - needed to use me as a living dialysis machine to keep from dying, your right to life is a moot point. You may very well have that right, but that does not mean that you have the right to use my body to enforce it. If you want to use my body, you have to have my consent.

Similarly, that people are dying because they need a liver transplant does not mean that anyone - not even the government - is legally permitted to break into my house to chop off a part of my liver for someone else to use. Their right to life does not trump my control over my own body.

[1] Those aged 50+ are split 55/37 in favor of Pro-Life, those aged 18-49 are split 39/50 in favor of Pro-Choice
[2] Those aged 50+ are split 51/43 in favor of Pro-Life, those aged 18-49 are split 36/59 in favor of Pro-Life
[3]

al4674:
If the unborn are not human beings, then abortion is fine. Since no human beings are killed, no rights are violated - so basically there is no problem.

However, if the unborn are human beings - then the reality is that every year genocide is committed against the most vulnerable members of society. Every year millions are slaughtered - not for ideology, not for religion, not even out of sheer hatred. They are overwhelmingly killed simply because their existence is inconvenient to certain people.

This overall moral numbness to the question simply demonstrates the decadence, indifference and amorality of the western man.

I'm curious why you're speaking of moral numbness to the question as if we haven't given it serious thought. What makes you think moral numbness comes into it? I'm pro-choice but I didn't come to that position randomly; I took a look at fetal development and saw that brain development begins after about four weeks. Since consciousness is impossible without a brain, it is safe to say that the fetus up to that point has been a necessary but incomplete step to development of a human being, like a bundle of stem cells, a fertilized egg, or an unfertilized egg. I don't know if we can say for sure at what point in brain development a fetus can experience pain or desires, but the appearance of the brain seems to be the most reasonable point at which to make the distinction. This is actually consistent with many of the laws regarding when a fetus can and cannot be aborted, so I'm content with the way things currently are.

al4674:
This overall moral numbness to the question simply demonstrates the decadence, indifference and amorality of the western man.

Western? Have you seen the staggering amount of abortions performed in China and the USSR compared to the "decadent" Western Europe?
China recently reported 330 million abortions since implementation of it as part of their one-child policy in 1957 and that's only what the central committee will actually admit to. And Russia actually became the first country in the world to legalize abortion in all circumstances in 1920, then Stalin made it illegal in '36 and after his death it came back in '55.

Asita:

senordesol:
Plainly: A lot of people don't like the idea of killing babies and don't consider institutionalized child killing as a 'minor talking point'.

For those against abortion, near to a one, they'll tell you the same thing: that fetus is a person. This is why the 'my body: my choice' argument does not resonate with them; this isn't a matter of a piercing, tattoo, or cosmetic surgery --what we're talking about (from the perspective of those against) is very much *someone else's* body that's at risk.

Doesn't necessarily matter. At the risk of overly simplify Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous analogy[1], if you were suffering kidney failure and - for some odd reason - needed to use me as a living dialysis machine to keep from dying, your right to life is a moot point. You may very well have that right, but that does not mean that you have the right to use my body to enforce it. If you want to use my body, you have to have my consent.

Similarly, that people are dying because they need a liver transplant does not mean that anyone - not even the government - is legally permitted to break into my house to chop off a part of my liver for someone else to use. Their right to life does not trump my control over my own body.

The issue I see with that is the 'living' dialysis machine didn't create the body that requires its life saving care; whereas the mother is (at least partly) responsible for the life growing within her now.

[1]

senordesol:

The issue I see with that is the 'living' dialysis machine didn't create the body that requires its life saving care; whereas the mother is (at least partly) responsible for the life growing within her now.

Then you miss the point of the analogy and my thrust: "My body, my choice" doesn't require inconsequential results to be valid, nor is it invalidated when the consequences of that choice are lethal for someone else. People simply do not have the right to use your body against your will. The same principle applies across the board.

Asita:

senordesol:

The issue I see with that is the 'living' dialysis machine didn't create the body that requires its life saving care; whereas the mother is (at least partly) responsible for the life growing within her now.

Then you miss the point of the analogy and my thrust: "My body, my choice" doesn't require inconsequential results to be valid, nor is it invalidated when the consequences of that choice are lethal for someone else. People simply do not have the right to use your body against your will. The same principle applies across the board.

Is not that anyone misses the point -the argument occurs over what is considered 'use'. Some would argue 'use' implies an independent decision on behalf of the fetus to 'latch on' as it were, where -instead- the mother created that fetus (or, more accurately, consciously allowed the biological processes necessary for that fetus to be created to happen [this, of course, barring circumstances where the mother didn't have a say]). So, arguably, it can be said that the mother *did* consent or, rather, accepted the risk.

For clarity (just so you're aware what stance you're arguing with) I, myself, am on the fence with this issue. For one, I do believe that once that little heart starts beating; you've got a person growing in there. For another, making abortion *illegal* per se, doesn't sit well with me. Ideally, I'd rather it be unnecessary than illegal; but when the issue is forced -I have to ask myself 'say the kid is born as some insist it should, since we've made it our business as society to see it brought into the world; do we also make it our business to see it brought up as well?' To that, I don't have to have much of an imagination to see our resources quickly dwindle in that case.

senordesol:

Is not that anyone misses the point -the argument occurs over what is considered 'use'. Some would argue 'use' implies an independent decision on behalf of the fetus to 'latch on' as it were, where -instead- the mother created that fetus (or, more accurately, consciously allowed the biological processes necessary for that fetus to be created to happen [this, of course, barring circumstances where the mother didn't have a say]). So, arguably, it can be said that the mother *did* consent or, rather, accepted the risk.

And I'm simply arguing that "[It's] *someone else's* body that's at risk" doesn't necessarily matter with regards to the concept of bodily autonomy, which is undoubtedly where a good portion of the disconnect between the two camps lies (namely, the way they prioritize right to life and right to bodily autonomy)

Asita:

senordesol:

The issue I see with that is the 'living' dialysis machine didn't create the body that requires its life saving care; whereas the mother is (at least partly) responsible for the life growing within her now.

Then you miss the point of the analogy and my thrust: "My body, my choice" doesn't require inconsequential results to be valid, nor is it invalidated when the consequences of that choice are lethal for someone else. People simply do not have the right to use your body against your will. The same principle applies across the board.

But if you say "my body, my choices", shouldn't that also apply to other aspects of the life of the parents ("my life, my choice"), so that parents should have the right to completely abandon all personal, financial, legal,... responsibilities they have?

If we take your analogy and apply it to a men who has to pay child support:

"One morning you are summoned to a court, where you are informed that a famous unconscious violinist has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has decided by chance that you have to pay for his treatment. They have therefore summoned you, and last night the first rate has automatically been deducted, so that the treatment could start. ... Not paying would mean a miserable life for him and prosecution for you. But never mind, it's only for 18 years. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and you won't have to pay for his treatment anymore."

OT:

I think the basic problem is that people who discuss this kind of stuff tend to have extreme positions on this question, at least in the usa, as it always seems to end up with "every abortion is murder" vs. "my rights trump anything else". And when you have one of this absolute opinions it's of course impossible to come to an agreement with the other side.

I think other than small, but loud minorities on both sides seem to suggest the topic is (even in the usa) less controversial then it seem. After all, there is in general support for first term abortions and much less support for second and third term abortions, which more or less corresponds to the time limit of the (constitutional?) right to abortion. All tries by conservatives to limit it have been blocked by courts so far, and i don't see that changing anytime soon.

McMullen:
I'm curious why you're speaking of moral numbness to the question as if we haven't given it serious thought. What makes you think moral numbness comes into it? I'm pro-choice but I didn't come to that position randomly; I took a look at fetal development and saw that brain development begins after about four weeks. Since consciousness is impossible without a brain, it is safe to say that the fetus up to that point has been a necessary but incomplete step to development of a human being, like a bundle of stem cells, a fertilized egg, or an unfertilized egg. I don't know if we can say for sure at what point in brain development a fetus can experience pain or desires, but the appearance of the brain seems to be the most reasonable point at which to make the distinction. This is actually consistent with many of the laws regarding when a fetus can and cannot be aborted, so I'm content with the way things currently are.

I'm not talking about you specifically, because clearly you have clarified the issue and deduced certain conclusions about the issue. I'm personally pro-life myself and I came to this position after closer examination of my own views and ethical concerns - I don't for example think that consciousness is what ultimately gives us value, but this is another debate.

I was mostly adressing people who treat the question very brazenly, as if it's not something important at all - like choosing your favorite football team.

Double post, sry

broca:

Asita:

senordesol:

The issue I see with that is the 'living' dialysis machine didn't create the body that requires its life saving care; whereas the mother is (at least partly) responsible for the life growing within her now.

Then you miss the point of the analogy and my thrust: "My body, my choice" doesn't require inconsequential results to be valid, nor is it invalidated when the consequences of that choice are lethal for someone else. People simply do not have the right to use your body against your will. The same principle applies across the board.

But if you say "my body, my choices", shouldn't that also apply to other aspects of the life of the parents ("my life, my choice"), so that parents should have the right to completely abandon all personal, financial, legal,... responsibilities they have?

No, I am not going to humor you perverting the analogy by forcing an application beyond its intended scope and creatively interpreting the phrasing outside of its contextual meaning. Good day to you.

Asita:

broca:

Asita:

Then you miss the point of the analogy and my thrust: "My body, my choice" doesn't require inconsequential results to be valid, nor is it invalidated when the consequences of that choice are lethal for someone else. People simply do not have the right to use your body against your will. The same principle applies across the board.

But if you say "my body, my choices", shouldn't that also apply to other aspects of the life of the parents ("my life, my choice"), so that parents should have the right to completely abandon all personal, financial, legal,... responsibilities they have?

No, I am not going to humor you perverting the analogy by forcing an application beyond its intended scope and creatively interpreting the phrasing outside of its contextual meaning. Good day to you.

So basically you're not willing to discuss my argument because you don't like it? Yeah, better to stop the conversation right here. Good day to you.

broca:

Asita:

broca:

But if you say "my body, my choices", shouldn't that also apply to other aspects of the life of the parents ("my life, my choice"), so that parents should have the right to completely abandon all personal, financial, legal,... responsibilities they have?

No, I am not going to humor you perverting the analogy by forcing an application beyond its intended scope and creatively interpreting the phrasing outside of its contextual meaning. Good day to you.

So basically you're not willing to discuss my argument because you don't like it? Yeah, better to stop the conversation right here. Good day to you.

Effectively merely claiming your phrase and his are the same doesn't make an argument. Its merely an implied claim.

broca:
[
But if you say "my body, my choices", shouldn't that also apply to other aspects of the life of the parents ("my life, my choice"), so that parents should have the right to completely abandon all personal, financial, legal,... responsibilities they have?

If we take your analogy and apply it to a men who has to pay child support:

Okay, no. One, we're no longer talking about rights to your body. Two, Once you've allowed that child to be born you've accepted responsibility for it(so far as at least getting it into an adoption thing). Child support is just a whole other issue entirely.

broca:

Asita:

broca:

But if you say "my body, my choices", shouldn't that also apply to other aspects of the life of the parents ("my life, my choice"), so that parents should have the right to completely abandon all personal, financial, legal,... responsibilities they have?

No, I am not going to humor you perverting the analogy by forcing an application beyond its intended scope and creatively interpreting the phrasing outside of its contextual meaning. Good day to you.

So basically you're not willing to discuss my argument because you don't like it? Yeah, better to stop the conversation right here. Good day to you.

Well, considering you took the right to bodily autonomy and illogically expanded it to being the right to do whatever the fuck you want without punishment, I wouldn't be willing to discuss your argument either. Seriously, "my body, my choice" is not the equivalent of "my life, my choice" and I really don't get how you came to the conclusion that the former should lead to the latter.

broca:

So basically you're not willing to discuss my argument because you don't like it? Yeah, better to stop the conversation right here. Good day to you.

...You really haven't seen me post around here, have you? That I don't like an argument is never an issue (Simply put: I'm fairly argumentative and am more likely to respond to statements I don't like rather than statements I do like). I simply have little patience for people who warp arguments to falsely represent them. Contextually, my posts in this thread have related to the relation between right to life and bodily autonomy. That you even tried to change the scenario to everything outside of those criteria...well suffice to say I see no reason to humor a characterization of an argument I never made.

Dijkstra:

Effectively merely claiming your phrase and his are the same doesn't make an argument. Its merely an implied claim.

According to merriam-webster one possible definition of "argument" is "an idea or opinion that is put forth in a discussion or debate", so i don't really see your point.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/argument

Look, when I said "No flaming" I wasn't kidding. Could some of you guys dial it back a bit please? Thanks.

Shadowstar38:

broca:

But if you say "my body, my choices", shouldn't that also apply to other aspects of the life of the parents ("my life, my choice"), so that parents should have the right to completely abandon all personal, financial, legal,... responsibilities they have?

If we take your analogy and apply it to a men who has to pay child support:

Okay, no. One, we're no longer talking about rights to your body.

Yes, which i made clear by saying "shouldn't that also apply to other aspects of the life of the parents"

Shadowstar38:

Two, Once you've allowed that child to be born you've accepted responsibility for it(so far as at least getting it into an adoption thing). Child support is just a whole other issue entirely.

But what if you have no possibility to decide whether the child is born and therefore never accepted responsibility for it? My argument is that the analogy that Asita gave can also be used to make a point about related problems. I admittedly should have made more clear that i was making in argument in relation to this specific analogy.

OP:
Sorry, saw your post only after posting myself.

broca:

But what if you have no possibility to decide whether the child is born and therefore never accepted responsibility for it? My argument is that the analogy that Asita gave can also be used to make a point about related problems. I admittedly should have made more clear that i was making in argument in relation to this specific analogy.

I wouldn't mind of that argument was made because the reasoning remains sound. Asita may not have wanted to get into it because it muddies the issue.

renegade7:
More specifically, why is abortion such a hot topic issue?

Because it IS an extreme issue: On one hand - some see it as straight out murdering babies "for the sake of convenience".

On the other hand - some see it as an issue of someones right to have ownership and control over their own body. Possibly the most fundamental of all rights.

So you basically have GENOCIDE OF BABIES vs. THE RIGHT OF SELF-OWNERSHIP / SELF DETERMINATION

I'm in the "pro-choice" camp, but it's not like i don't *get* why there is a heated debate.

broca:

But what if you have no possibility to decide whether the child is born and therefore never accepted responsibility for it?

Responsibility starts at the point you decided to have sex. If you had sex without thinking about the potential for creating children including knowing accidents occur, then you're grossly negligent and that's no defence either.

In much the same way if you fire a live missile and hit someone, you don't get to walk away blameless by arguing someone else should have stopped the missile en route. The argument you had no choice whether the missile hit is absurd: you chose to fire it. Of course you have responsibility for what comes of it.

broca:

But if you say "my body, my choices", shouldn't that also apply to other aspects of the life of the parents ("my life, my choice"), so that parents should have the right to completely abandon all personal, financial, legal,... responsibilities they have?

Obviously not, for much the same reasons above. You are and should be held accountable for the effects you caused.

Unlike your hypothetical violinist, a child is its parents creation. It is dependent on material, emotional and intellectual support until it is an adult. Parents, as creators with cause and effect and all, are the people primarily responsible for providing that.

The day parent(s) get to not be primarily responsible is only when some other entity or entities is capable of providing good quality, comprehensive childcare needs. That's the day the child gets turned over to new legal guardians, or wider society and the state decides to stump up the requisite funds from the public purse.

Agema:

broca:

But what if you have no possibility to decide whether the child is born and therefore never accepted responsibility for it?

Responsibility starts at the point you decided to have sex. If you had sex without thinking about the potential for creating children including knowing accidents occur, then you're grossly negligent and that's no defence either.

In much the same way if you fire a live missile and hit someone, you don't get to walk away blameless by arguing someone else should have stopped the missile en route. The argument you had no choice whether the missile hit is absurd: you chose to fire it. Of course you have responsibility for what comes of it.

broca:

But if you say "my body, my choices", shouldn't that also apply to other aspects of the life of the parents ("my life, my choice"), so that parents should have the right to completely abandon all personal, financial, legal,... responsibilities they have?

Obviously not, for much the same reasons above. You are and should be held accountable for the effects you caused.

Though this does not say anything about why we should care about aborting a child or not. We might be responsible for creating it, but this only means that we should be held accountable for paying (directly or indirectly) for having it removed, not that we shouldn't remove it.

Realitycrash:

Though this does not say anything about why we should care about aborting a child or not. We might be responsible for creating it, but this only means that we should be held accountable for paying (directly or indirectly) for having it removed, not that we shouldn't remove it.

Please re-write this in a more comprehensible form. It's too vague and unclear, and I can't be bothered trying to guess what you're getting at and how it relates to anything I've said.

Agema:

Realitycrash:

Though this does not say anything about why we should care about aborting a child or not. We might be responsible for creating it, but this only means that we should be held accountable for paying (directly or indirectly) for having it removed, not that we shouldn't remove it.

Please re-write this in a more comprehensible form. It's too vague and unclear, and I can't be bothered trying to guess what you're getting at and how it relates to anything I've said.

Whether or not one is responsible for creating a life has nothing to do with whether or not one should have the right to end said life before birth.
Is the causal reaction of a life being created resting upon me and my partners actions? Yes.
Does this mean that abortion is morally wrong? Not necessarily.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked