The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:47 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:36 pm 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
READ THIS FIRST!!!

OK, this is a unique experiment in the halls of the Zoo, something that I don't think has been tried before with any success...

The point of this thread is NOT to argue your own personal point of view.

The point of this thread is to try and get to the bottom of the whole abortion argument, and figure out if there's any meeting point somewhere that both sides would be okay with (or at least equally unhappy with).

Any attempt at flaming any participants, or trying to argue that your own point of view is the right one and the ONLY right one, will result in your post being severely mangled by an angry ogre.

You have been warned.

/***********************************************************/




There's much argument about abortion, but I don't see any actual discussion going on.

Here's how I see the problem.

The "pro-life" crowd, or the people against abortion, see abortion as murder, pure and simple. They believe that by aborting a fetus, you are terminating the life of a human being.

The "pro-choice" or people for the legalization of abortion (note: not necessarily for abortion, just for the legal availability of it) do not believe that abortion is murder, and therefore should be the woman's choice, as the fetus is a part of her body until it is born.

OK, I think I have the base arguments in place, please correct me if I'm wrong.



Now, from the pro-life side of things, I can definitely see where they're coming from. They believe that abortion is murder, and therefore, legalizing abortion would be much the same thing as legalizing homicide. I can buy into this argument, personally. There are some things that tolerance just doesn't cover, and I think offing your fellow man falls under that scope.

The pro-choicers believe that the fetus isn't properly a human until it's born (or whatever, time of becoming human vary depending on pro-choicer), that it's an organ of a woman's body. And because we own our bodies, we should be able to do what we wish with them, including removal of organs we no longer want. (or something to this effect, anyway)


Now... The pro-choicers will argue that the fetus is only a /potential/ human, and that killing it is therefore not murder. The pro-lifers will come right back and say it's a human in possibility from the moment of conception, and any attempt to alter that is murder.

This argument from the pro-lifers, I don't understand. By that same argument, we should imprison EVERYONE for at least 10 years, because everyone is a potential criminal. This is patently absurd.

So, I fail to understand this argument by the pro-lifers.



Now, the pro-choicers will often argue to the effect that a fetus is nothing but a blob of tissue, and it doesn't mean anything to have it excised as one would a skin tag in your armpit.

I don't buy this argument either. From the moment of conception (or at least the moment of discovery of pregnancy), there is an emotional attachment, whether positive or negative. You just don't get that kind of emotional attachment to the skin tags in your armpit. (At least, I hope you don't.)

Having an abortion presents both parents with a difficult time, something that they will need to deal with mentally. It is not something to be undertaken lightly. The pro-choicers tend to totally dismiss this part of the thing.


/*********************************************************/


Remember, we're not trying to argue our own personal views here, we're trying to understand the viewpoints of both sides in order to try and find a solution that works out for both sides (if possible). A consensus.

Anyway, continue on with this. I've provided enough starter material, I hope, to get the discussion flowing.

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:55 pm 
Offline
Energizer Bunny
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 12:24 am
Posts: 1634
On the contrary, many pro-choicers point out that abortion is a heart-wrenching experience for the parents... pro-lifers seem to assume that the pro-choicers are heartless bastards who think that an abortion is nothing to be worried about. This miffs me.

I've heard some women describe fetuses as parasites. I can, sorta, see where they're coming from, in a certain sense, but I also find it to be a rather brash and incomplete characterization of the relationship there.

Jay Maynard once wrote in his blog that while he supports a woman's right to have an abortion, he is concerned that abortion as it is under far fewer restrictions than normal medical procedures: it's easier, bureaucracy-wise, for a minor to have an abortion than it is to get a broken bone splinted.

Vorn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:59 pm 
One argument pro-life I've heard is about souls. The difference between a human being and a mere animal is that humans have souls, animals don't.

And killing something is murder when that something has a soul.

So the question is, when does the foetus receive its soul? I've heard two answers:
- at conception. Any abortion is murder.
- we don't know, but it's better to play it safe.


Oh, and about that skin tag thing. I'm not sure if emotional attachment is all that relevant. We can get attached to dolls, but destroying them isn't murder. For that matter, do we really get attached to the tissue growing in the womb itself? Or just to the dream of having a child?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:25 pm 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
I should point out that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are just convenient labels, no more. Everyone is pro-life AND pro-choice, it's abortion they're for or against.

And it's not even that clear either. There are some pro-choicers who are against abortion itself, but feel that it should be up to the individual to choose, therefore it should not be illegal.


Anh, your question about the soul opens up another can of worms entirely... I understand it, but it relies on the individual's belief system including the concept of a soul. There are atheists who believe that death is it, there is no afterlife, there is no ongoing "me", so the soul thing would be a non-issue for them.

Also, in many religions/belief systems, dying as a baby is not really as big a deal as people think it is. As a couple examples, in Buddhism, the baby would just reincarnate, and in Christianity (Protestant at least), the baby would go to God's side in Heaven.


If we use the capability for sapience as the guide, then the baby cannot be a full-fledged human before its brain has developed enough to support sapience. Say, the third trimester or a little earlier.



Vorn, good point there. It does seem to be the pro-lifers who play the "heartless bastard" card, and it is a rather objectionable tactic.

I can also see your point about abortion being under fewer restrictions than other medical procedures. Would it be a good idea, if abortion were to be legal, to have it subject to the same set of restrictions as other types of medical care? As far as I know, minors must have a parent/guardian's permission to have a broken bone set, or to have just about any other surgery or moderate to major medical procedure.

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:45 pm 
Ogredude wrote:
Anh, your question about the soul opens up another can of worms entirely... I understand it, but it relies on the individual's belief system including the concept of a soul. There are atheists who believe that death is it, there is no afterlife, there is no ongoing "me", so the soul thing would be a non-issue for them.

I know. I'm one.

What I don't understand, by the way, is how some of those same people believing in souls say murdering the foetus is alright in the case of, say, rape.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:06 am 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Agreed. If it's to be considered wrong, then it's to be considered wrong period.

Except maybe when the mother's life is in danger from carrying the pregnancy to term. Then I can understand making an exception.

But if a person wants to argue that abortion is wrong, and then qualify that with "except for rape and incest", that seems rather nonsensical to me. Seems to me that if they think it's wrong, they should argue for the mother carrying the baby to term and giving it up for adoption.



And actually, the soul card may play heavier in the case of an atheist... Like, you only have the one shot on this earth, so don't deprive the potential kid of his. I donno, though. What's your take, Anh?

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:17 am 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Ogredude wrote:
Like, you only have the one shot on this earth, so don't deprive the potential kid of his.


That's more or less the same basic reason why the Catholic Church doesn't like condoms either.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:37 am 
In general, Og and Ahn, I agree that if abortion is just plain wrong then an exclusion for rape and.or incest is kind of odd.

For me, I'm ok with having that exception becuase otherwise you could be forcing the mother to live with that consequence of someone else's actions for 9 months or so. Making a woman carry her rapist's baby for 9 months makes me worry a bit. But so does the idea of depriving the baby of life.

So I'm ok with having it as an option in those cases, but also think it should be a very carefully made decision whether to abort or adopt that baby. (I'm assuming that most people aren't going to want to raise the child begotten in that manner.)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:10 am 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
A clarification to my last post... By "just plain wrong" in that post (and that post only, mind you), I meant "murder".

So yeah, if abortion is murder, then it shouldn't matter if the kid is a result of rape or incest, it'd still be murder. Now, if the mother's life was in danger, it could be considered justifiable homicide, on the self-defense level.

If abortion is just "wrong" in a moral sense, as in "the wrong choice to make", then I can accept an exception to the cases of rape and incest.

What I was puzzled about is these people who go off about abortion being MURDER, and then turn around and say "But if it's rape or incest, that's okay"

Game on.

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:15 am 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Jeremiah Smith wrote:
Ogredude wrote:
Like, you only have the one shot on this earth, so don't deprive the potential kid of his.


That's more or less the same basic reason why the Catholic Church doesn't like condoms either.


So let me get this clear, the Catholics believe that the soul inhabits the gametes? Not just the fertilized cells, from zygote to embryo to fetus?

Or what, is there a half-soul in every gamete, just as there's half the chromosomes needed to make a human in each?

So if that's the case, what happens to all the male gametes that don't get to fertilize the egg? And what happens to the eggs when the woman does not get fertilized?

Or am I just wrong, and the Catholic church denying their members contraception is just a way of maintaining control and keeping their membership numbers high.

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:31 am 
Ogredude wrote:

Or am I just wrong, and the Catholic church denying their members contraception is just a way of maintaining control and keeping their membership numbers high.


Hey! You're the one telling us not to be inflammitory.
Your questions are germane and I'd like to see answers to them, but that last comment looks to be intentionally offensive.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:04 pm 
Ogredude wrote:
And actually, the soul card may play heavier in the case of an atheist... Like, you only have the one shot on this earth, so don't deprive the potential kid of his. I donno, though. What's your take, Anh?

Hm. There we go into the realm of personal opinion. Personally, I don't care. An embryo hasn't anything, and, indeed, isn't anything that can have something, so it doesn't have a "shot on this earth" we can take away.


About souls and gametes - maybe it was when people believed that sperm was very little men who'd grow in the woman's womb. Very little men, presumably, had souls. Or maybe it was only the one that God, in his infinite wisdom, knew would grow?

Nowadays, I just don't know.

And about contraception - meh. I'm always leery of secret agendas. I'm naive enough to believe they're forbidding it because it's written God wants people to reproduce, and, well, they can forbid it without looking totally ridiculous, at least in third world countries. (As opposed to forbidding shrimps to people in rich countries)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:04 pm 
Here's my point of view on it. I am what most people would call "pro choice", because I believe abortion should be legally available, though I would, in most cases, counsel people against if the fetus was going to be healthy and whole, and not pose a danger to the mother to bear it to term. Adoption is a better option, IMO, than abortion in the case of a child who will not have any major disabilities and will not damage the mother in birthing it.

The reason I want abortion to be legally available, however, is because there are a rather large number of people in the world I don't really care about. They aren't people I know, or have any dealings with. If they want to abort their fetus, they're perfectly welcome to, so long as its done on their own dime. I want them to have legal access to abortion so, if someone I do care for needs an abortion for medical reasons (be those physical or psychological, which I believe is the main reason in the case of most abortions stemming from rape), then there are doctors who are skilled in giving abortions available. If someone is going to be messing with my loved ones internal organs, especially something as delicate as the reproductive system, I want them to have experience.

Selfish? Yes. But, I think, it is a reasonable point of view to take in this day and age.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:08 pm 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Pronto wrote:
Ogredude wrote:

Or am I just wrong, and the Catholic church denying their members contraception is just a way of maintaining control and keeping their membership numbers high.


Hey! You're the one telling us not to be inflammitory.
Your questions are germane and I'd like to see answers to them, but that last comment looks to be intentionally offensive.


Not meant to be offensive, I'm seriously wondering about the reasoning behind their policies. There's often a public and a private reason for certain policies, and the two are not necessarily identical. I'm wondering if their public reason is the same as the private reason or not.

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:11 pm 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
MrNexx wrote:
Here's my point of view on it. I am what most people would call "pro choice", because I believe abortion should be legally available, though I would, in most cases, counsel people against if the fetus was going to be healthy and whole, and not pose a danger to the mother to bear it to term. Adoption is a better option, IMO, than abortion in the case of a child who will not have any major disabilities and will not damage the mother in birthing it.

The reason I want abortion to be legally available, however, is because there are a rather large number of people in the world I don't really care about. They aren't people I know, or have any dealings with. If they want to abort their fetus, they're perfectly welcome to, so long as its done on their own dime. I want them to have legal access to abortion so, if someone I do care for needs an abortion for medical reasons (be those physical or psychological, which I believe is the main reason in the case of most abortions stemming from rape), then there are doctors who are skilled in giving abortions available. If someone is going to be messing with my loved ones internal organs, especially something as delicate as the reproductive system, I want them to have experience.

Selfish? Yes. But, I think, it is a reasonable point of view to take in this day and age.



There's a good argument right there on the pro-choice side of things. A person doesn't necessarily believe that abortion is the right thing to do, may in fact think it's a wrong choice, but not exactly murder. Therefore, since people will have abortions whether or not they're legal, it's best to allow them to be legal so at least they can be done competently.

Am I understanding you right, MrNexx?

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:26 pm 
Ogredude wrote:
There's a good argument right there on the pro-choice side of things. A person doesn't necessarily believe that abortion is the right thing to do, may in fact think it's a wrong choice, but not exactly murder. Therefore, since people will have abortions whether or not they're legal, it's best to allow them to be legal so at least they can be done competently.

Am I understanding you right, MrNexx?


Pretty much, yeah. There will always be a call for abortions; abortifacents are part of nearly every cultures' traditional pharmocapaedia, and techniques for abortion go back thousands of years.

If they're legal, they can be regulated, and when they're medically necessary (as even most anti-abortion people will agree they sometimes are) then you have a pool of people who are trained and experienced in performing them. If they're illegal, then they will still be performed... but in back-alley clinics with dirty-knives and coat-hangers.

My mom was in college before abortion was legal. She knew of girls who made themselves sterile trying to get rid of babies they didn't want, and couldn't get rid of legally or safely. She's mentioned before (in telling me why she didn't vote for Reagan in '84) about girls giving themselves lye enemas and things... far better, in my opinion, to make it legal, and far safer.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:44 am 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
OK, this brings up another question...

The pro-choice crowd goes on about back-alley clinics with dirty knives and coat hangers...

How much actual truth is there to this? I mean, when I hear that, I imagine a gurney set up in a greasy trash-filled alley, and a guy that looks like Steve Buscemi with three days' worth of beard swigging out of a bottle in a paper bag, picking up a big chef's knife out of a pile of trash, wiping it on his sleeve, pouring some of the contents of his bottle over it, and going to work on the wide-eyed young girl laying on the gurney.

But really, realistically... What's the truth of the matter there?



Coat hangers? Come on. Even a quack medico would at least use a sterile piece of wire.


Unless we're seriously talking about the Do-It-Yourself Pregnancy Termination Kit, sold in the same aisle as the pregnancy tests...




I think it's rather unfair to be completely unrealistic in your arguments for the sole purpose of tugging on heart strings. If your argument is valid enough, it should stand on its own logic.

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:12 am 
Ogredude wrote:
I think it's rather unfair to be completely unrealistic in your arguments for the sole purpose of tugging on heart strings. If your argument is valid enough, it should stand on its own logic.


I think the back-alley abortion picture you paint is a bit of a straw man, true... nobody wants that, and so its an easy image for the pro-death* cause to rally people around (much like the pro-tyrrany* folks will use images of aborted fetuses and hands reaching out wombs to rally people around their cause).

However, some things I am willing to believe. I can see women doing some rather dangerous things to prevent/abort unwanted pregnancies if safe abortions are made illegal. The stereotypical back-alley abortion is just part of that... the lye enema, which my mother told me of, and drinking abortifacents, which my wife and other female friends have told me of (some of which can be really dangerous in large doses)... those are real, and fairly easy to get over the counter and it yourself.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:23 am 
Offline
Energizer Bunny
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 12:24 am
Posts: 1634
Something like 1 in 30 women in ethiopia die from botched illegal abortions.

Vorn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:51 pm 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
MrNexx wrote:
The stereotypical back-alley abortion is just part of that... the lye enema, which my mother told me of, and drinking abortifacents, which my wife and other female friends have told me of (some of which can be really dangerous in large doses)... those are real, and fairly easy to get over the counter and it yourself.


Not to mention asking your boyfriend to whale on your stomach with a baseball bat, which has been done.

And let's not forget Mr. Coat Hanger.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:52 pm 
Jeremiah Smith wrote:
And let's not forget Mr. Coat Hanger.

Always an excellent gift for birthdays, baby showers and mother's day.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:31 am 
Y'know, posting in this forum could be a new art form. Toss a post out, see it shredded, and display the remains.

...I blame the cold syrup. Anyway.

Back alley abortions: Not so much abortions in an actual alley (public restrooms and motels are more popular for wire hangers and stomach punching) as abortions done by unlicensed and quite probably untrained 'doctors'. Which, interestingly, now have a parallel in sex reassignment surgery. Can't afford/pass the psycological testing for US hospitals? Can't afford to go overseas for a good hospital? Try your luck at black market surgeon roulette.




Abortion is not really an issue that lends itself well to compromise.

To argue from the viewpoint that the fetus is a part of the mother's body and therefore not a person is seen (rightly) as being very arbitrary, when the only thing that changes _for the fetus/infant_ over the course of an hour or so is that the (now Baby) breathes on its own rather than through the placenta. If the mother's rights are not all-encompassing five minutes after birth, why would they be five minutes before?

To argue from the viewpoint of life (life in the sense of personhood) beginning at conception, all abortions, be they third trimester or third week would be equally evil, and that a zygote can be considered equal to, well, you or I. Another 'wait just a minute there' argument. Ismiscarriage at two weeks REALLY the same as having your eighteen year old son die of a heart defect? Is abortion at that stage REALLY the same as a robber killing said son?

Thing about abortion, like euthanasia, is that, no matter how morally impossible it is, people have to deal with it. Even assuming that, say, you personally are sterile or are indifferent to your own manner of death, you are still surrounded by people who are effected by these things. So you have compromises, like no third trimester abortions except in case of medical emergency, etc.

People trying to find a less arbitrary way of coping. Not the _right_ answer, but maybe the best that today's society can end up with, the one that causes the least damage. And maybe it will be different ten years from now, or twenty.

RoevsWade, for all the (deserved) flak it has taken from a legal and moral standpoint, could also be seen as the supremes trying to step out of a lose-lose situation.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group