Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Abortion
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread: Abortion Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Jun 26th, 2003 11:12 AM
AChimp Raven, are you ascribing feelings to things again?
Jun 26th, 2003 06:36 AM
Dole 'Slippery slope' ?? Eh ? what?

'I don't see the mother experience what it feels like to be scraped out of a uteras.'

-are you a bloke by any chance? yes? then SHUT UP.
Jun 25th, 2003 01:21 PM
Raven "How the fuck is making abortion illegal going to help anyone? Women will still have abortions, but will have to go for 'backstreet' ones which is a far worse state of affairs to be in."

Slippery slope.

"No, those clueless male wankers who think they have any say over an incredibly difficult set of circumstances that they themselves will never have to experience.
Why is it these supposedly happy christian pro-lifers who are supposed to celebrate the joy of all existence are generally the most right wing, intolerant, bigoted joyless ghouls to ever walk the planet?"

I don't see the mother experience what it feels like to be scraped out of a uteras.
Jun 25th, 2003 09:41 AM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dole
Why is it these supposedly happy christian pro-lifers who are supposed to celebrate the joy of all existence are generally the most right wing, intolerant, bigoted joyless ghouls to ever walk the planet?
And Burbank thought he had the lock on defining Vinth.
Jun 25th, 2003 09:10 AM
Dole No, those clueless male wankers who think they have any say over an incredibly difficult set of circumstances that they themselves will never have to experience.
Why is it these supposedly happy christian pro-lifers who are supposed to celebrate the joy of all existence are generally the most right wing, intolerant, bigoted joyless ghouls to ever walk the planet?
Jun 25th, 2003 08:53 AM
VinceZeb Yeah, Dole, those nasty pro-lifers that believe that innocent life is sacred... man, those bastards!
Jun 25th, 2003 07:52 AM
Dole How the fuck is making abortion illegal going to help anyone? Women will still have abortions, but will have to go for 'backstreet' ones which is a far worse state of affairs to be in.
Pro-lifers make me fucking
Especially male ones
Jun 25th, 2003 06:03 AM
FS I always thought the three-month line was there because the mother's life could be endangered by an abortion after that.
Jun 25th, 2003 12:51 AM
Sethomas Although my first post was made on the topic of abortion years ago, this is a stupid fucking thread.

You can believe that life begins at birth, or you can believe it begins at conception. To pick an arbitrary point in-between is asinine. The rules stand at three months simply because the people who made the rules recognize that people get more sentimental over a thumb-sized embryo than a pinhead-sized zygote. To introduce metabolic processes into the debate is moot; self-guided meiosis begins at conception.

My principle belief is that abortion should be illegal for the same reason murder is: one human does not have the right to kill another. Murder is a crime in all societies as a result of our uncertainty and fear of death. We want to die in a way suited to the way we live our lives, not by the intrusions of someone else's actions.

The argument of whether life begins at birth or conception scientifically one of semantics, but for practical argument it's a theological querry. By arbitrarily putting the line at three months, the government involuntarily assumes the position of the church. The obvious argument against this is that if the government intervenes on a woman's choice on the grounds of a theological oppinion, THAT is a violation of separation of church and state. But that's only on behalf of the woman, but the unborn child gets no say in the matter. Argh, this is kind of muddy trying to express this the right way, but I'm saying that the unborn child deserves the benefit of the doubt. Because it is not the right of the government to decide whether an abortion sends a soul into the afterlife or not, abortion should be equated with homicide judicially.
Jun 24th, 2003 04:31 PM
AChimp The laws change depending on the country, but I believe in most cases it is up to immediate family members to make that decision, except in cases where there is a living will that specifies "If I'm brain dead, kill me." Even then, family members can contest the living will, though IMO, they're not doing the brain dead person any favours.

Then again, they're not really doing any harm aside from insisting on occupying valuable hospital space.

When there's no family, I believe that it's up the the doctor.
Jun 24th, 2003 04:12 PM
Raven
Quote:
Originally Posted by AChimp
The doctor has EVERY right to pull the plug if there is no hope of the brain dead person coming out of it. I believe that it is not LIFE, per-se, that we should protect, but the QUALITY of life. If a person is in horrible pain, or not even aware of thier own existence as a person any more, and there is NO HOPE of recovery, just let them die in peace.
I'm not completely up docter-patient law in cases of "brain death" as such I won't comment on it. But I do know when something is begging the question. As such I have seen it so many times in this thread its tragic. Thus I'm not going to allow it anymore.

What is awareness? When does awareness begin?
Jun 24th, 2003 03:46 PM
Immortal Goat The doctor has EVERY right to pull the plug if there is no hope of the brain dead person coming out of it. I believe that it is not LIFE, per-se, that we should protect, but the QUALITY of life. If a person is in horrible pain, or not even aware of thier own existence as a person any more, and there is NO HOPE of recovery, just let them die in peace.
Jun 22nd, 2003 08:04 PM
Raven Well, my lack or proper articulation has created a slight uphill battle. But your arrogance isn't benefitting you very well. I would suggest dropping it if you actually do hope to win this.

"You still haven't explained how you went from talking about fetuses to babies."

The baby is a separate organism from the mother. The fetus/embryo is a separate organism from the mother.

"Right, so you haven't explained how the immune reaction ISN'T the mother's, since it's the mother's blood that nurturing the fetus's cells."

I never said it wasn't, I said it was used by the embryo/fetus.

"Oh, and the embryo does have full abilities to maintain life? If we took it out of the mother it would do completely fine on its own from that point on? No, huh? Didn't think so. The fetus needs the mother to survive as much as the clone needs the machines.

Tell me how the embryo has anymore potential to reproduce than the clone? Neither are in any condition to be getting it on, by themselves at least. It's simple enough to extract sex cells from from the clone and mix them around in a petridish."

I'm rather tired of redundantly explaining how the brain works. What we can do with machines is not enough to keep a person alive without a brain. They would die. In fact they would probably go into a diabetic shock in die. If not by some other method. That was what I meant by the statement.

Look up potential and you'll understand why. If the clone never had a brain, as you describe it. Than the clone never had the potential to reproduce. I will grant you that I was in fact false in my assumption that the clone would not have a metabolism, or be able to react. It would in fact have a metabolism as the cells would be generating the metabolism, even if its digestion would not be breaking down the glucose. Although it having solely being granted glucose would be a dangerous endeavor, as their would be no insulin to moniter the blood-glucose level. I'm really just bantering on in terms of science, solely because this has become to redudant to really care. I repeat my argument, than you repeat yours, than I repeat mine. And so on into ad infinitum.

"Show me the science and logic that shows that bacteria cells have brains and that that individual cells have awareness (albeit in a lesser form than our own ) that is more than reflex reactions. There's no evidence for it, so you can't use it to prove your theories!

You seem to be ignoring a lot of your own creed by filling your ramblings with philosophical nuggets of fun."

Read a biology book. That may help you understand some of what you speak of. Instead of making mistakes like the "independence" of the autonomic nervous system. I couldn't even help but notice that the one person who had the creditials to argue it against me, didn't even respond to my statement back to them. I also have one last question for since when did awareness matter? And since when did it ever exist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FS
On the subject, does anyone know if a person who's braindead (say, after an accident), but kept alive by artificial means, still has rights? And do doctors have to go through legal procedures before turning off the machinery?
You weren't assine so I'll try to not appear like a dick. When someone constitutes braindead they still have portions of their brain function. They merely do not have enough of the brain functioning. The heart still beats, which does require the brain for it to increase, as is evident when someone begins flat lining. And the autonomic nervous system is usually still active. Problem is a brain dead person has lost a lot of their ability to use things that are voluntary. Among this is breathing, as breathing is only involuntary when the amount of carbon dioxide in the blood is too high. As such the person is still alive.
Jun 22nd, 2003 10:48 AM
AChimp You still haven't explained how you went from talking about fetuses to babies.

Quote:
I don't really feel like explaining the entire immune system, it is far to complex to do so in such a small amount of time. blah blah blah
Right, so you haven't explained how the immune reaction ISN'T the mother's, since it's the mother's blood that nurturing the fetus's cells.

Quote:
But as the cloned human would not have full abilities to maintain life, it would die. And I simple explained this for no reason. Let me ask you a question. Tell me how the clone would have the potential to reproduce?
Oh, and the embryo does have full abilities to maintain life? If we took it out of the mother it would do completely fine on its own from that point on? No, huh? Didn't think so. The fetus needs the mother to survive as much as the clone needs the machines.

Tell me how the embryo has anymore potential to reproduce than the clone? Neither are in any condition to be getting it on, by themselves at least. It's simple enough to extract sex cells from from the clone and mix them around in a petridish.

Quote:
Making it a separate living human being.
Tsk tsk, Raven. You said that something would have to have a brain to react with environmental stimuli for it to count as a "living being." As I've already shown, there is no brain in a first trimester embryo.

Quote:
I am arguing this from the whole of humanity. Something I suggest you do. As what is determined to be law for the whole of humanity can not be based off mere belief. It has to be based off logic and science. For you can not enforce the beliefs of some upon the whole.
Show me the science and logic that shows that bacteria cells have brains and that that individual cells have awareness (albeit in a lesser form than our own ) that is more than reflex reactions. There's no evidence for it, so you can't use it to prove your theories!

You seem to be ignoring a lot of your own creed by filling your ramblings with philosophical nuggets of fun.
Jun 22nd, 2003 06:10 AM
FS On the subject, does anyone know if a person who's braindead (say, after an accident), but kept alive by artificial means, still has rights? And do doctors have to go through legal procedures before turning off the machinery?
Jun 22nd, 2003 01:44 AM
Raven
Quote:
Originally Posted by AChimp
Remember, a lot of organs are controlled by the autonomic nervous system, too, and that all operates independent of the brain (Want proof? Command your kidneys to stop working... can't do it, huh?)
Wrong. As I have already stated, the autonomic nervous system controls INVOLUNTARY functions within the body, not independent. The brain still forces the involuntary systems to work. Endocrine system is one of these. The Endocrine system is controlled by the hypothalumus. The Endocrine system includes metabolism;i.e. digestion, ect. This is how metabolism works in adults. As such we can not control digestion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AChimp
Then you bring up the point of "injecting a virus" to provoke a reactions. Well, you've admitted it yourself, that the embryo relies on the mother for immunities, so any immune system that would be fighting off the virus would belong to the mother, since it's the mother's blood and antibodies flowing through the embryo at this stage. In fact, during the entire time a baby is in the womb, it's hooked up to the mother's circulator system! Your "embryo reaction" isn't really the embryo's reaction afterall; it is the mother's. The embryo is renting those blood cells, dude. (Here's a good link for some more detailed information: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus).
I don't really feel like explaining the entire immune system, it is far to complex to do so in such a small amount of time. As such here are the basics. Virus infects cell, infected cell has pieces of discared viral DNA within its body. Cell presents discarded pieces on a receptor. It is than picked up by a Cytotoxic T-Cell. Upon which the cell lysed. That's a single process starting from infection of a single cell. There are far more. But my question is do you see the initial reaction? And I will concede that there would be a minor amount of reaction in the cloned human for a certain period of time, until death. But as the cloned human would not have full abilities to maintain life, it would die. And I simple explained this for no reason. Let me ask you a question. Tell me how the clone would have the potential to reproduce?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AChimp
Now we have arrived at the rights issue. If the clone were alive, then you said it would have rights... but you say that it's unlikely the clone itself counts as alive, so therefore there are no rights. There's no brain for thought to occur in, and therefore, no caring (which you define as "nothing more than chemical signals sent from one portion of the brain to the other, causing a reaction") so we can harvest the organs for our own uses all we want and no one will accuse us of murdering anyone because the clone was never truly alive to be violated to begin with.
I have neither stated, nor given a shit, that either would care. As caring is something based solely off of personal belief. Now to to address the skin statement below, so I don't have to utilize quotes and make a long post even longer. The skin has the same DNA as the rest of that specific human. As such it is merely a part of a greater whole of that human. It does not act separatly, which is what I meant by independence. The embryo on the other hand is the whole. It is the whole culmination of that specific code of DNA. The probability of which for it to come around within the near future, is astronomical. A code separate to that of its mother. Making it a separate living human being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AChimp
Well, Raven, that's an interesting theory and I encourage you to conduct research in that area of science, but since there is no scientific evidence to corroborate your theory, it remains unproven and you must rely purely on philosophy and abstractions to explain it.
Like I said I never really gave a shit about caring. I don't even give a shit about personal belief. I am arguing this from the whole of humanity. Something I suggest you do. As what is determined to be law for the whole of humanity can not be based off mere belief. It has to be based off logic and science. For you can not enforce the beliefs of some upon the whole.
Jun 21st, 2003 10:15 AM
Raven
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_voice_of_reason
Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


metabolism

\Me*tab"o*lism\, n. (Physiol.) The act or process, by which living tissues or cells take up and convert into their own proper substance the nutritive material brought to them by the blood, or by which they transform their cell protoplasm into simpler substances, which are fitted either for excretion or for some special purpose, as in the manufacture of the digestive ferments. Hence, metabolism may be either constructive (anabolism), or destructive (katabolism).


Since the fetus needs the mother to bring it the nutrients it doesn't have and independent metabolism. Just because it can utilize nutrients doesn't mean it has an independent metabolism.
The embryo/fetus absorbs the nutrients into its cells. It than utilizes anabolic and metabolic methods in creating ATP and in producing stored energy. Albeit the energy isn't stored very long. Thus it has an independent metabolism. This is even by your own definition.
Jun 21st, 2003 01:50 AM
The_voice_of_reason Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


metabolism

\Me*tab"o*lism\, n. (Physiol.) The act or process, by which living tissues or cells take up and convert into their own proper substance the nutritive material brought to them by the blood, or by which they transform their cell protoplasm into simpler substances, which are fitted either for excretion or for some special purpose, as in the manufacture of the digestive ferments. Hence, metabolism may be either constructive (anabolism), or destructive (katabolism).


Since the fetus needs the mother to bring it the nutrients it doesn't have and independent metabolism. Just because it can utilize nutrients doesn't mean it has an independent metabolism.
Jun 21st, 2003 01:04 AM
AChimp You still haven't explained why you switched from fetuses to babies.

Anyways, since you asked for it, I'll requote your response to my no-brain clone analogy:

Quote:
If it was living than it is deserves the same rights you and I have. But it is completely unlikely that it would be alive. Or even if it was "living" it would be unlikely that you could count it as a living being. As it would require a brain to react to stimuli within one's environment.
I will even make it easy for you and break it down.

1) The cells of the clone are living, and will remain so as long as the conditions of a fully functioning human body can be upkept. That means food, oxygen, etc., and all of these things can be recreated easily using machines (heart-lung, IV, and so forth) and ARE recreated quite regularly in surgical operations... or did you just expect the clone to start breathing on it's own?

These cells will go on dividing and growing and dying just like they would anywhere else. Except in this case, there is NO BRAIN.

2.) This is the same condition that an embryo in the first trimester is in. The cells of the embryo are living, and will remain so as long as the proper conditions are met (nourishment, oxygen, etc), all of which are provided by the mother, another living being that just happens to be all of our machines wrapped up into one package.

... Except THERE IS NO BRAIN. The brain doesn't start to develop until late in the embryonic stage, and only begins to resemble a human brain when the first trimester is already complete.

I would like to remind you at this point that my recommended cut-off point for abortions is the end of the first trimester.

3.) You said that, while the clone might be "alive," it wouldn't count as a living being because it would have to have a brain so it could "react to stimuli." Well, what kind of reaction are we talking about? Do you mean that you'd expect the clone to defend itself if I started attacking it with a stick? No, it won't because that kind of reaction would require a brain to coordinate things. An embryo certainly won't fight back if I hit it with a stick.

Then you bring up the point of "injecting a virus" to provoke a reactions. Well, you've admitted it yourself, that the embryo relies on the mother for immunities, so any immune system that would be fighting off the virus would belong to the mother, since it's the mother's blood and antibodies flowing through the embryo at this stage. In fact, during the entire time a baby is in the womb, it's hooked up to the mother's circulator system! Your "embryo reaction" isn't really the embryo's reaction afterall; it is the mother's. The embryo is renting those blood cells, dude. (Here's a good link for some more detailed information: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus).

Anyways, the embryo will fight the virus using the mother's borrowed immune system, and since the clone is hooked up to all the shizzy, it's blood is pumping fine and it's getting all the energy and nourishment it needs, so its immune system is working. Remember, a lot of organs are controlled by the autonomic nervous system, too, and that all operates independent of the brain (Want proof? Command your kidneys to stop working... can't do it, huh?)

So, where does that leave us... we have two clumps of cells with NO BRAINS relying on something else to keep them alive. They can react to internal events, but there's nothing that happens externally.

4.) Now we have arrived at the rights issue. If the clone were alive, then you said it would have rights... but you say that it's unlikely the clone itself counts as alive, so therefore there are no rights. There's no brain for thought to occur in, and therefore, no caring (which you define as "nothing more than chemical signals sent from one portion of the brain to the other, causing a reaction") so we can harvest the organs for our own uses all we want and no one will accuse us of murdering anyone because the clone was never truly alive to be violated to begin with.

Now how is this any different from an embryo in the first trimester? It is just a smaller clump of cells with human DNA, and there's no brain for thoughts or caring.

"Oh! But the individual cells have brains and those brains might care!"
Well, Raven, that's an interesting theory and I encourage you to conduct research in that area of science, but since there is no scientific evidence to corroborate your theory, it remains unproven and you must rely purely on philosophy and abstractions to explain it.

Quote:
Fact: The embryo is performing cellular actions independant of the mother. Thus the embryo is independant. Fact: The embryo must receive certain basic needs from the mother. Thus the embryo is reliant. As such the embryo is an independant being separate from the mother, but still reliant on the mother.
FACT: Where I come from, if you remove one element (mommy) from a system and that causes some other element (cell growth) to stop, those elements are hardly independent. It is a symbiotic relationship.

And even then, assuming your argument is correct for a moment, do you consider you skin to be an independent part of you? It's really growing independently (you can't tell your skin to grow or not grow) and its just getting nourishment from you.

Besides, you fail to explain how a fetus's reliance on the mother makes it more alive than the clone with no brain.
Jun 20th, 2003 11:48 PM
Raven
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_voice_of_reason
A fetus wouldn't qualify as being alive under these criteria. It doesn't have an indipendent metabolism, it depends on the mother to produce energy. Sure it could, given the right conditions, develop into a being with a metabolism, but so could cells taken from my skin.
I'm sorry to say this in such a manner that is appears rude and is improperly blunt. But it is the only manner I can think of how to say it. You are wrong. The fetus gains the nutriants from the mother, this is true. But the criteria of metabolism doesn't dictate how a living being gains the nutriants. Merely in whether they utilize them in a method of metabolism. Living cells do such a thing. As they utilize cellular respiration to use the nutriants. And cellular respiration is nothing more than metabolism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AChimp
How do you justify talking about fetuses in one post and changing it to babies in another?

You're grasping at straws now that you've already proved me right by your own words, and are trying to squirm out of your position on technicalities.
Now under the burden of proof method, which I am forced to enact as this has become redundant, I am going to have to ask you, to prove that I proved you right. Now with that said the analogy was only flawed in that it is comparing a being that requires and utilizes the mother's blood to survive. Verses a being that has a closed circulatory system. And even this isn't a major flaw, as it was examining the dependance of independant beings not the body structure. Fact: The embryo is performing cellular actions independant of the mother. Thus the embryo is independant. Fact: The embryo must receive certain basic needs from the mother. Thus the embryo is reliant. As such the embryo is an independant being separate from the mother, but still reliant on the mother.
Jun 20th, 2003 05:07 PM
AChimp
Quote:
Easy remove the mother and guardians from the equation of a 6 month old baby. Is the baby not essentially independant? Does it not also rely on those taking care of it?
How do you justify talking about fetuses in one post and changing it to babies in another?

You're grasping at straws now that you've already proved me right by your own words, and are trying to squirm out of your position on technicalities.
Jun 20th, 2003 01:15 PM
The_voice_of_reason
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven
I was wrong. There aren't 7 criteria for life. Only 4. Here they are.

1.) Metabolism.
2.) Growth.
3.) Reaction to Stimuli.
4.) Reproduction of the species.

A fetus wouldn't qualify as being alive under these criteria. It doesn't have an indipendent metabolism, it depends on the mother to produce energy. Sure it could, given the right conditions, develop into a being with a metabolism, but so could cells taken from my skin.
Jun 20th, 2003 02:31 AM
Raven I was wrong. There aren't 7 criteria for life. Only 4. Here they are.

1.) Metabolism.
2.) Growth.
3.) Reaction to Stimuli.
4.) Reproduction of the species.
Jun 20th, 2003 01:48 AM
Raven
Quote:
Originally Posted by AChimp
Your brain does not tell your white blood cells to fight infection. They do it themselves when the baddies are detected by a whole system of other things. Infect the embryo and infect the clone, you will get a reaction in both, regardless. You see, the mother is what is keeping the fetus alive (pumping blood, providing oxygen, etc), and we would have to run the clone with machines to simulate that, since there's NO BRAIN in my example.
It would actually depend how the cloned body would react. Are you keeping it alive by electrical impulses? Or is it merely lying there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AChimp
Whoops! We've still forgotten about the NO BRAIN clause. Regardless, I'm sure you're aware of the autonomic nervous system which operates without any input from the brain at all. That's why your heart beats on it's own, you know. The human body CAN function without a brain under the right conditions.
The autonomic nervous system is involuntary. It is controlled by the thalumus and the hypothalumus. The heart has a pacemaker. Its own form of nervous system. That is why the heart beats for sometime after death. It is the only system in the entire body that is not dependant on the brain to function.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AChimp
Right, so it is developing independently from, yet relying on, the mother? Maybe I'm still flabbergasted at your "bacteria have brains" comment, but can you explain to me how something can be independent from and reliant on the same thing, especially when, if you were to remove the mother from this equation and not replace it with anything, the fetus would die?
Easy remove the mother and guardians from the equation of a 6 month old baby. Is the baby not essentially independant? Does it not also rely on those taking care of it?
Jun 20th, 2003 01:31 AM
AChimp
Quote:
Ah but it can react. Infect an embryo with a virus and you will get a reaction. Infect a cloned human without a brain with a virus and you won't. Not unless you force the same reaction.
Your brain does not tell your white blood cells to fight infection. They do it themselves when the baddies are detected by a whole system of other things. Infect the embryo and infect the clone, you will get a reaction in both, regardless. You see, the mother is what is keeping the fetus alive (pumping blood, providing oxygen, etc), and we would have to run the clone with machines to simulate that, since there's NO BRAIN in my example.

Quote:
You see the problem was your analogy was flawed from the very beginning. You were comparing a fully adult, fully developed human vs embryotic cells that were developing. Now tell me how is it possible to essentially compare something that already has setup the brain as its center of control. Verses something that has yet to do so?
As I restated above, NO BRAIN. Please, read the analogies before you start claiming they are flawed, because it makes you look like an ass. Should I say it again? I proposed that THE CLONE HAS NO BRAIN.

Quote:
The very existance of your cloned human would have been based solely upon the existance of the brain. While the very existance of the embryonic fetus is not. It doesn't even need the brain to do what it is doing.
Whoops! We've still forgotten about the NO BRAIN clause. Regardless, I'm sure you're aware of the autonomic nervous system which operates without any input from the brain at all. That's why your heart beats on it's own, you know. The human body CAN function without a brain under the right conditions.

Quote:
In fact it is dividing independantly of the mother. Reacting independantly of the mother. The only thing it requires is immunities and nurishment. And if you wish to use nurishment against me, don't bother. It is still gaining its food for energy. The requirement doesn't actually demand that the being hunt its own food.
Right, so it is developing independently from, yet relying on, the mother? Maybe I'm still flabbergasted at your "bacteria have brains" comment, but can you explain to me how something can be independent from and reliant on the same thing, especially when, if you were to remove the mother from this equation and not replace it with anything, the fetus would die?
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:55 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.