Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)
Options
Comments
-
Well.. I'm not sure where you got to 'agree with' from respect, but if you recall, my suggestion was actually that we inculcate a moral distaste for performing acts that are illegal in Ireland in other countries.
Sure, and equally it may simply indicate that those other country's laws may not be objectively moral or correct. Either way, inculcating a moral distaste for performing acts that are illegal in Ireland in other countries, whilst they respect the laws of whatever country they are in, without taking advantage of the disparity between the laws of both certainly seems like a jolly good idea. There we go.
But why should we inculcate a moral distaste for performing acts that are illegal in Ireland in other countries? If the person travelling to these other countries does not agree with an Irish law, or does not believe that it is morally correct, why should they abide by it outside of Irish jurisdiction?
When a young person is told by their parents that they can't do X, Y and Z while living under their roof, they are not expected to abide by these rules in someone else's house where X, Y and Z are considered fine. They can choose to continue to abide by their parents' rules, but they can also choose not to. And giving them this choice does not mean encouraging them to break the rules.0 -
It was a suggestion for addressing the potential issue you raised of 3,500 people bypassing our legal measures annually with a bit of extra cash and a passport, remember? I thought it might be as successful as MrPs idea of extending our jurisdiction.But why should we inculcate a moral distaste for performing acts that are illegal in Ireland in other countries? If the person travelling to these other countries does not agree with an Irish law, or does not believe that it is morally correct, why should they abide by it outside of Irish jurisdiction?
Sure. And when a young person leaves their parents house, it is often the hope of those parents that their children will live up to the moral ideals they have tried to instil in them, which often includes not behaving poorly in someone else's house just because their parents don't disapprove.When a young person is told by their parents that they can't do X, Y and Z while living under their roof, they are not expected to abide by these rules in someone else's house where X, Y and Z are considered fine. They can choose to continue to abide by their parents' rules, but they can also choose not to. And giving them this choice does not mean encouraging them to break the rules.0 -
What exactly is wrong about it though? It's obvious you (and I) would (or could) consider it morally right to do what we can to save someone else's life, most particularly, I'd say, when we are the only one in a position to do so, and even more so when it's only our own actions that would actually cause that persons death. No doubt having to continue that effort over an extended period of time is onerous, but for myself I think changing my mind based purely on how long I'd have to spend on it smacks of laziness rather than an alternate moral view.
Our legal system is essentially a codification on/ expansion of the prevailing ethical position in our society; and our ethical position is the aggregation of our moral views. So in a society where individual life has greater value than individual freedom (such as ours, or we would not imprison murderers), I would say it is right to legally compel someone to remain connected for the 9 months, or at very least to legally sanction them for choosing not to remain connected for nine months. And in all honesty, I think if such a bizarre circumstance did come about and a person chose to disconnect themselves, it's likely they would face some legal charge for causing the death of the other person. Don't you think so?
I think it's wrong because I don't think it's right to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their wishes.
I don't think it's likely the person would face legal charges as it was the disease that killed the sick person. The person shouldn't face legal charges for opting out of being reduced to a piece of machinery for 9 months.
What happens if after 9 months the doctors detect the process is taking longer than usual due to an anomaly in the sick patient and it will now take 15 months? Is the person to be forced to remain connected even though they never agreed to 15 months at any point?If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
That's the question the thought experiment was putting to people.lazybones32 wrote: »Will think about it...
Was it so hard to ask a simple question?Have you any other info to add? Giving a blanket statement to govern all situations would be unjust: I could be condemning a child to death by neglect as soon as it is born (seeing as 9 months is the only parameter given) or I could be justifying a person to be kidnapped and having their organs harvested and forcible blood-transfusions for 8 months and 3 weeks.
But given the bones of your Q: no, a person shouldn't be legally required to provide life support for any amount of time.
How do you resolve your answer with your anti-abortion position?If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
But you've already been forced to undergo the medical procedure; that's part of the premise, isn't it? That you're already hooked up, you're only determining whether you should remain so?I think it's wrong because I don't think it's right to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their wishes.
Well, the thought experiment specifically states that "If you disconnect they will die". That's not the disease killing them; that's you disconnecting killing them. The premise says so.I don't think it's likely the person would face legal charges as it was the disease that killed the sick person. The person shouldn't face legal charges for opting out of being reduced to a piece of machinery for 9 months.
I think I gave my answer to that when I said "I think changing my mind based purely on how long I'd have to spend on it smacks of laziness rather than an alternate moral view", but it seems to me that if you change the parameters then you're not engaging with the thought experiment; something you rebuked lazybones32 for doing when they altered the parameters.What happens if after 9 months the doctors detect the process is taking longer than usual due to an anomaly in the sick patient and it will now take 15 months? Is the person to be forced to remain connected even though they never agreed to 15 months at any point?0 -
Advertisement
-
Absolam, so if I become sick and the only way for me to survive is to have someone hooked up to me for 9 months, will you step forward to save my life?
Please note that I live in London but we know people travelling is not an issue for you so, would you be so kind as to offer your body for the next nine months to save my life.
And after you have saved my life please note that for the foreseeable future (several years) I am going to need a lot of care as I will need to be fed daily, I will be <snip> myself several times a day so will need cleaning too. On top of that you will be bearing the costs of looking after me for many years too.
Will you step up and help me?
If you say yes then thanks for the help.
If you say no then can you tell me why you would not help me?0 -
The thought experiment was presented as...But you've already been forced to undergo the medical procedure; that's part of the premise, isn't it? That you're already hooked up, you're only determining whether you should remain so?
so, no, prior to waking up consent (albeit drunken consent) was given. The person then is presented with the option to continue. The notion of force was with regard to my asking pro-life posters if their pro-life stance would require them to stop the person from disconnecting at cost of life for the second person? Also asked if it should be legally prohibited.Julian Baggini had an interesting thought experiment in one of his books, I can't remember which. I have posted it before, but as far as I recall none of the anti-choice posters would give actually engage with the thought experiment. it goes something like this:
You have had a bit of a celebration, and are a little bit drunk and heading home. You wake up the next mornign and find yourself in a white room, on a bed. There is lots of medical equipment around you and there are various tubes and pipe inserted into various parts of your body. These tubes and pipe all go to a machine. On the other side of the machine is another bed. There is someone in that bed, and they are hooked up to the machine similarly to you.
A doctor comes over to you and explains what happened. The person in the other bed has a disease which means they will die without certain bodily functions being taken care of. At this moment those bodily functions are being carried out by you. Last night, admittedly when you were a little drunk, you agreed to be hooked up to the machine to save this person's life and you will remain hooked up to them for 9 months. If you disconnect they will die. What would you do? Is it right for you to be forced to remain in this condition.
I probably have not done it justice, it has been a few years since I read it, but you get the idea.
MrP
I answered the thought experiment, and I also answered a modified version of it presented by Nick (which was somewhat similar to that presented by LB). The rebuke was for an unwillingness to answer the initial question. Which to be fair, LB did answer earlier today.Well, the thought experiment specifically states that "If you disconnect they will die". That's not the disease killing them; that's you disconnecting killing them. The premise says so.
I think I gave my answer to that when I said "I think changing my mind based purely on how long I'd have to spend on it smacks of laziness rather than an alternate moral view", but it seems to me that if you change the parameters then you're not engaging with the thought experiment; something you rebuked lazybones32 for doing when they altered the parameters.
LB answered the question and I expanded the question, as discussions are want to do from time to time. If posters don't want to engage with the modified question I've asked, I'm okay with that. I'm merely trying to examine their pro-life stance. It is an abortion discussion thread after all.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
No I won't; if you recall the premise of the thought experiment isn't that someone would volunteer to be the life support of another person, but that they would have been, at least reputedly, inveigled into doing so whilst of diminished capacity. Nevertheless, you may rest assured that should I find myself in the unlikely circumstance of being solely responsible for maintaining your life, I will probably do my best to do so unless you give me cause not to.Absolam, so if I become sick and the only way for me to survive is to have someone hooked up to me for 9 months, will you step forward to save my life?
I would have thought it was obvious; I have no obligation to you, and your misfortune has nothing to do with me. I've no reason to think someone else's assistance couldn't serve equally as well as mine, in fact probably better if, as you say, you live so far away, and they actually have some reason to like you and feel kindly disposed towards you. But don't worry; just because I don't feel that I ought to help you, it doesn't mean I shall try to kill you instead.If you say no then can you tell me why you would not help me?0 -
No I won't; if you recall the premise of the thought experiment isn't that someone would volunteer to be the life support of another person, but that they would have been, at least reputedly, inveigled into doing so whilst of diminished capacity. Nevertheless, you may rest assured that should I find myself in the unlikely circumstance of being solely responsible for maintaining your life, I will probably do my best to do so unless you give me cause not to.
I would have thought it was obvious; I have no obligation to you, and your misfortune has nothing to do with me. I've no reason to think someone else's assistance couldn't serve equally as well as mine, in fact probably better if, as you say, you live so far away, and they actually have some reason to like you and feel kindly disposed towards you. But don't worry; just because I don't feel that I ought to help you, it doesn't mean I shall try to kill you instead.
Then why do you think you have an obligation to a fetus then? Are we not all equal?0 -
But the experiment doesn't offer the option of giving consent, does it? Consent is assumed to have happened along with the medical procedure; the drunken part presumably to mimic drunken consent to sex, which is generally considered to not be consent at all. No, you're being asked whether it is right to 'remain in this condition', not whether it's right to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their wishes. So, in fact you're being asked do you think it is wrong for you to kill someone else in order to obtain your freedom, knowing the person you kill is innocent of responsibility for your captivity.The thought experiment was presented as...
so, no, prior to waking up consent (albeit drunken consent) was given. The person then is presented with the option to continue. The notion of force was with regard to my asking pro-life posters if their pro-life stance would require them to stop the person from disconnecting at cost of life for the second person? Also asked if it should be legally prohibited.
I notice you're skipping over the you vs the disease causing the death part, but anyways... No, you didn't answer it. You told us what you think the point of the experiment is, what you presumed the pro life perspective would be, what the pro life stance would say and what the pro choice stance would allow, and then you rebuked lazybones32 for altering the question. All else followed after...I answered the thought experiment, and I also answered a modified version of it presented by Nick (which was somewhat similar to that presented by LB). The rebuke was for an unwillingness to answer the initial question. Which to be fair, LB did answer earlier today.
But that's not the question asked in the thought experiment. I have a sneaking suspicion that once the experiment is sufficiently modified, it will only serve as a means to paint pro choice posters into a corner they wouldn't choose for themselves, but as you say, nobody has to engage with it I suppose. And I'm sure no one would consider portraying not engaging as indicative of a weakness in someones position, eh?LB answered the question and I expanded the question, as discussions are want to do from time to time. If posters don't want to engage with the modified question I've asked, I'm okay with that. I'm merely trying to examine their pro-life stance. It is an abortion discussion thread after all.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I took the experiment to be a question of what is the responsibility of the person to remain attached to allow the sick person to overcome the illness.But the experiment doesn't offer the option of giving consent, does it? Consent is assumed to have happened along with the medical procedure; the drunken part presumably to mimic drunken consent to sex, which is generally considered to not be consent at all. No, you're being asked whether it is right to 'remain in this condition', not whether it's right to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their wishes. So, in fact you're being asked do you think it is wrong for you to kill someone else in order to obtain your freedom, knowing the person you kill is innocent of responsibility for your captivity.
I skipped the 'you vs the disease causing death part' because I can see little benefit in continuing that tangent with you as I don't see us agreeing with the others perspective on the phrasing of the scenario. So I'm saving myself (and you) the wasted time.I notice you're skipping over the you vs the disease causing the death part, but anyways... No, you didn't answer it. You told us what you think the point of the experiment is, what you presumed the pro life perspective would be, what the pro life stance would say and what the pro choice stance would allow, and then you rebuked lazybones32 for altering the question. All else followed after...
But that's not the question asked in the thought experiment. I have a sneaking suspicion that once the experiment is sufficiently modified, it will only serve as a means to paint pro choice posters into a corner they wouldn't choose for themselves, but as you say, nobody has to engage with it I suppose. And I'm sure no one would consider portraying not engaging as indicative of a weakness in someones position, eh?
I disagree with your summation of my input to the thread and others can review the posts to make up their own mind. No interest in thrasing it out with you.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
So did I (ish), not to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their wishes, as you said earlier, but you're leaving out the bit where not remaining attached causes the death of the sick person (who is not responsible for placing you in this position); it seems to me that's a (in fact the)significant element of the experiment. So the proposition is; is it right to hold someone legally liable for the death of an innocent caused by them freeing themselves from a situation they don't want to be in. You've said you think it would be wrong to do so, because you don't think it's right to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their wishes; are you saying having undergone a medical procedure creates some entitlement to kill the other person, or are you saying that being attached to another person is an unwished for medical procedure, which makes it right for them to take the life of the other party?I took the experiment to be a question of what is the responsibility of the person to remain attached to allow the sick person to overcome the illness.
I can't agree it's a tangent to be honest; whether or not you are prepared to take the life is obviously what makes the thought experiment supposedly analogous with abortion.I skipped the 'you vs the disease causing death part' because I can see little benefit in continuing that tangent with you as I don't see us agreeing with the others perspective on the phrasing of the scenario. So I'm saving myself (and you) the wasted time.0 -
What does being equal have to do with obligations to foetuses? And I haven't said I think I have an obligation to a foetus, have I?
So do you know you have an obligation to a fetus then?
If you have no obligation then why do you stick your nose into other peoples business, if they want an abortion why is it anything to do with you?
Why do you feel obliged to to stick your nose in where it is not wanted?0 -
I don't believe I said that either...So do you know you have an obligation to a fetus then?
Are you claiming that no one may voice an opinion without some sort of obligation? I'm not sure where you get the idea that I stick my nose into other peoples business... but I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to voice an opinion without having some sort of obligation.If you have no obligation then why do you stick your nose into other peoples business, if they want an abortion why is it anything to do with you?
I'm pretty sure I never said I do feel obliged.Why do you feel obliged to to stick your nose in where it is not wanted?
Or that I stick my nose in, where it's wanted or otherwise.
I'm rather getting the impression that you're just making stuff up; you keep telling me I'm doing things without anything at all from me. Why do you think you do that? Do you have difficulty dealing with what people actually say rather than what you want them to say?0 -
I don't agree with people being forced to endure a medical procedure against their wishes.So did I (ish), not to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their wishes, as you said earlier, but you're leaving out the bit where not remaining attached causes the death of the sick person (who is not responsible for placing you in this position); it seems to me that's a (in fact the)significant element of the experiment. So the proposition is; is it right to hold someone legally liable for the death of an innocent caused by them freeing themselves from a situation they don't want to be in. You've said you think it would be wrong to do so, because you don't think it's right to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their wishes; are you saying having undergone a medical procedure creates some entitlement to kill the other person, or are you saying that being attached to another person is an unwished for medical procedure, which makes it right for them to take the life of the other party?
I accept that the person receiving the treatment will die if the connection is severed. I don't think the person who ended the treatment should be imprisioned for being unwilling to go through with the treatment.
Why is it the resonsibility of the person to remain attached to sick person?If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Sure, I got that, but I think we've established that being forced to endure a medical procedure against their wishes is what happens before we're presented with the 'what would you do' of the thought experiment. And whilst I would also say I don't agree with people being forced to endure a medical procedure against their wishes, I certainly wouldn't say I think having it happen to them in some way then entitles them to kill someone else. Still, not the subject of the experiment, so, with the medical procedure as a given, the question is is it right to choose not to endure the consequences, thereby ending an innocent person's life? And if so, why?I don't agree with people being forced to endure a medical procedure against their wishes.
Sure, but should they be legally (or are they morally) responsible for their act of ending the connection so that they don't go through with the 'treatment', an action which kills another person?I accept that the person receiving the treatment will die if the connection is severed. I don't think the person who ended the treatment should be imprisioned for being unwilling to go through with the treatment.
They are the sole reason the sick person continues to live; if they're the only means by which that person is alive, how are they not responsible for their life? If they choose not to continue as they are, they kill the sick person, so their participation (willing or not) makes them wholly responsible for the life of the sick person. Does it not?Why is it the resonsibility of the person to remain attached to sick person?0 -
I
Why is it the resonsibility of the person to remain attached to sick person?
As I've already pointed out, this is one of the things that makes the thought experiment useless when misapplied to the abortion debate.
In the vast majority of cases, the unborn child is not sick.
Here's another thought experiment.
You wake up after the drunken night, and you find you have slipped down a long shaft into an underground chamber while carrying your infant child in your arms. Rescuers tell you that it will take them 9 months to tunnel down and release you. They can send you all kind of food, drink, books & even an iPad down the shaft (which opens out into a recess six feet above the floor of the chamber).
However, there is a means of escape open to you. A ladder in the floor of the chamber leads out eventually to the world outside. There's just one problem. You would have to descend that ladder on your own - it is too narrow to take your child with you, and your child is unable to descend it on their own.
Your problem is compounded by the realisation that if you descend the ladder and return to your normal life outside, then your child will die as they are unable to reach the recess where the food and drink arrive.
If you descend the ladder, you can return to your employment and live your life as normal like before. But your child will die. If you remain in the chamber for nine months your life is restricted, but your child will live.
What is the ethical course of action to take here? If a parent chooses to escape and let their child die, would you shrug your shoulders and say, "Ah well, that's their choice and no-one else can tell them what to do"?
(Note that I have not specified the gender of the parent. This is to prevent the rather silly accusation that if anyone disagrees with the parent abandoning the child then they are biased against an entire gender).
The thought experiment gets more interesting when we consider whether you are more justified in abandoning the child if you would really prefer a child of a different gender anyway, or if the child has a condition such as Down Syndrome.0 -
Oh Nick, you're not following up the Youth Defence "life equality amendment" nonsense with its obsession with Down Syndrome are you?0
-
I think he was actually suggesting that there may be those who feel it is more justifiable to kill (or abandon to a certain death) a child with down syndrome, or of the 'wrong' gender.Oh Nick, you're not following up the Youth Defence "life equality amendment" nonsense with its obsession with Down Syndrome are you?0 -
Advertisement
-
I think he was actually suggesting that there may be those who feel it is more justifiable to kill (or abandon to a certain death) a child with down syndrome, or of the 'wrong' gender.
No, he's quite clearly trying to imply, as Youth Defence regularly does, that women and girls can't be trusted to remain pregnant once abortion is available, so all choice must be denied to them. Unless they can go abroad in which case the unborn don't really matter any more.
Nearly as muddled as his use of "life equality amendment' which was never used until the marriage equality referendum passed. People see right through this though, he's fooling no one.0 -
As I've already pointed out, this is one of the things that makes the thought experiment useless when misapplied to the abortion debate.
In the vast majority of cases, the unborn child is not sick.
Here's another thought experiment.
You wake up after the drunken night, and you find you have slipped down a long shaft into an underground chamber while carrying your infant child in your arms. Rescuers tell you that it will take them 9 months to tunnel down and release you. They can send you all kind of food, drink, books & even an iPad down the shaft (which opens out into a recess six feet above the floor of the chamber).
However, there is a means of escape open to you. A ladder in the floor of the chamber leads out eventually to the world outside. There's just one problem. You would have to descend that ladder on your own - it is too narrow to take your child with you, and your child is unable to descend it on their own.
Your problem is compounded by the realisation that if you descend the ladder and return to your normal life outside, then your child will die as they are unable to reach the recess where the food and drink arrive.
If you descend the ladder, you can return to your employment and live your life as normal like before. But your child will die. If you remain in the chamber for nine months your life is restricted, but your child will live.
What is the ethical course of action to take here? If a parent chooses to escape and let their child die, would you shrug your shoulders and say, "Ah well, that's their choice and no-one else can tell them what to do"?
(Note that I have not specified the gender of the parent. This is to prevent the rather silly accusation that if anyone disagrees with the parent abandoning the child then they are biased against an entire gender).
The thought experiment gets more interesting when we consider whether you are more justified in abandoning the child if you would really prefer a child of a different gender anyway, or if the child has a condition such as Down Syndrome.
Your analogy doesn't compute because I don't think any parent would leave a fully grown infant child behind to die just to save themself
Try not another way, all of the above but instead of having a fully grown live infant let's say the person is a woman who is 20 weeks pregnant, the only way she can go down the ladder is to swallow a pill and abort her fetus,
Should she stay in the cave for the duration of her pregnancy before rescue or should she terminate it?0 -
I've already stated my position, I'm not sure if I can add anything more to it to answer this question.Sure, I got that, but I think we've established that being forced to endure a medical procedure against their wishes is what happens before we're presented with the 'what would you do' of the thought experiment. And whilst I would also say I don't agree with people being forced to endure a medical procedure against their wishes, I certainly wouldn't say I think having it happen to them in some way then entitles them to kill someone else. Still, not the subject of the experiment, so, with the medical procedure as a given, the question is is it right to choose not to endure the consequences, thereby ending an innocent person's life? And if so, why?
Nope. For reasons already given.Sure, but should they be legally (or are they morally) responsible for their act of ending the connection so that they don't go through with the 'treatment', an action which kills another person?
If the person doesn't consent to the procedure, then no, they're not. As already stated, I can't support non-consensual medical procedures being enforced by the state.They are the sole reason the sick person continues to live; if they're the only means by which that person is alive, how are they not responsible for their life? If they choose not to continue as they are, they kill the sick person, so their participation (willing or not) makes them wholly responsible for the life of the sick person. Does it not?
I'm not sure what else to add as we seem to be going in circles at this stage.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Really? Because 'clearly trying to imply' suggests a certain degree of inference on your part... whereas what I said marries exactly with the words used and the thought experiment being put forward. Maybe it's only clear to you what he's trying to imply because that's what you want him to be implying?No, he's quite clearly trying to imply, as Youth Defence regularly does, that women and girls can't be trusted to remain pregnant once abortion is available, so all choice must be denied to them. Unless they can go abroad in which case the unborn don't really matter any more.
Nearly as muddled as his use of "life equality amendment' which was never used until the marriage equality referendum passed. People see right through this though, he's fooling no one.0 -
Really? Because 'clearly trying to imply' suggests a certain degree of inference on your part... whereas what I said marries exactly with the words used and the thought experiment being put forward. Maybe it's only clear to you what he's trying to imply because that's what you want him to be implying?
Why don't we let Nick explain when he began using the term "life equality amendment" and why he picked Down Syndrome out of the myriad disabilities he could have chosen?0 -
In fairness, you stated your position on an alternate scenario; I was asking about your position on this one. I think I probably infer it from your answer below though.I've already stated my position, I'm not sure if I can add anything more to it to answer this question.
You didn't give a reason though; you avoided the question and said they shouldn't be imprisoned for doing something else.Nope. For reasons already given.
You're not being asked whether you support non-consensual medical procedures being enforced by the state though. You're being asked whether someone should be held responsible for killing someone else, and your answer seems to be no, not if they've been put in a situation they don't like?If the person doesn't consent to the procedure, then no, they're not. As already stated, I can't support non-consensual medical procedures being enforced by the state. I'm not sure what else to add as we seem to be going in circles at this stage.0 -
Pretty sure he didn't use the term "life equality amendment" in the particular post you extrapolated an implication for him from, so...Why don't we let Nick explain when he began using the term "life equality amendment" and why he picked Down Syndrome out of the myriad disabilities he could have chosen?
How about we just let him decide whether your psychic abilities are on point and that he was trying to imply that women and girls can't be trusted to remain pregnant once abortion is available so all choice must be denied to them, or that he was actually suggesting that there may be those who feel it is more justifiable to kill (or abandon to a certain death) a child with down syndrome, or of the 'wrong' gender?0 -
How about you stop acting as his spokesperson and let him reply in his own time?Pretty sure he didn't use the term "life equality amendment" in the particular post you extrapolated an implication for him from, so...
How about we just let him decide whether your psychic abilities are on point and that he was trying to imply that women and girls can't be trusted to remain pregnant once abortion is available so all choice must be denied to them, or that he was actually suggesting that there may be those who feel it is more justifiable to kill (or abandon to a certain death) a child with down syndrome, or of the 'wrong' gender?
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement