theophiles.org - Abortion Doctor Shot to Death in Kansas Church

Abortion Doctor Shot to Death in Kansas Church

Written by SteveGus

Monday, 01 June 2009 13:53

From the New York Times:

Dr. George Tiller, a physician who was one of a few who performed late-term abortions in this country, was shot to death here Sunday in the foyer of his longtime church as he handed out the church bulletin.
His church, Reformation Lutheran (ELCA) in Wichita, Kansas, has issued a media statement.

Comments

laika - Perfect Storm, or, National Nutfest!

|2009-06-02 19:25:55

yeah, i'm thinking that the reality of a Negro president sinking in coupled with the collapse of the national pyramid scheme will have the Angry White Man* demographic thinking that it's their time to shine. i mean, somebody's gotta stand up on their hind legs and do something about this baby-eating, queer-loving, Afro-Socialist mess we're in, right?

interesting times ahead.

*disregard these ravings if the shooter is not a white dude.

metallurge

|2009-06-02 19:27:51

Hard to decide which is worse--if the nutjobs are in power... or out of power.

SteveGus

|2009-06-03 00:12:57

It looks like the suspected killer had ties to Freemen, Sovereign Citizen, militia, and similar groups. The usual suspects, in other words.

holmegm - re: Perfect Storm, or, National Nutfest!

|2009-06-03 13:06:38

laika wrote:

You know, I just knew somebody would try to tie this murderous nut to all who disagree with Lord Obama. I wish it weren't so predictable.

laika

|2009-06-03 15:35:48

holmegm wrote:

I wish it weren't so predictable.

ah, but it is so predictable. look how accurate i was without bothering to check the facts. sure enough, an Angry White Man with ties to militias did the dark deed. not that i'm particularly prescient, mind you; it don't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

i stand by my prediction: interesting times ahead. they'll be coming out of the woodwork if the economy doesn't come around.

metallurge

|2009-06-03 20:46:29

What may be less than fully apparent, holmegm, is that the lunatic pseudo-"Christian" militia fringe is semi-mainstream in parts of the rural south.

I have heard people talking about like laika pantomimed in the original post. This is not some political smear job on laika's part, this is an accurate representation of reality, at least in some parts of these United States.

I personally view the right wing hatemongers on TV and radio as at least partially responsible for murders like this one. I also likewise view right wing politicians who stoke up the flames of divisiveness as at least partially responsible. There has been an intentional agenda among the right to split off the rural south into their own political camp, really since the civil rights era at least, and then again since the Reagan era. If you are really really good at making people mad, you might just bear some of the blame when some of them act out on the anger you have stoked.

laika

|2009-06-03 23:51:30

metallurge wrote:

I have heard people talking about like laika pantomimed in the original post. This is not some political smear job on laika's part, this is an accurate representation of reality, at least in some parts of these United States.

wow, somebody gets me! thanks, metal!

yeah, for instance, coupla blocks over a guy has a sign on his picket fence that reads "Colored Excrement Rules the World."

emperorbma

|2009-06-02 19:36:10

All I can say is that this entire thing is just plain rotten in 3 dimensions, at least...

holmegm - Gravely Wicked

|2009-06-03 13:09:13

Gravely Wicked

Robert P. George wrote:

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller's life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our "weapons" in the fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.

emperorbma

|2009-06-03 13:27:03

He spoke my mind, here... and that's two of those "dimensions" that I was talking about. Number three is the fact that the murder was committed in God's House, which makes it all the more an offense since those against abortion are presuming to act for God's Will.

SteveGus

|2009-06-03 15:00:43

Quote:

lives of abortion's tiny victims

No, not everyone who "disagrees with Lord Obama" is tied to this murder. But those who repeat this kind of maudlin rhetoric probably do share part of the blame.

Entity

|2009-06-03 15:15:37

By your logic, all the people who wanted same sex marriage to be legal are responsible for the assaults on Prop 8 proponents and their churches. And most Muslims are responsible for the death of the soldier at the recruiting center on Monday.

A philosophy that preaches that all life is sacred from the moment of conception to natural death is not to blame for someone whose views are at odds to that.

SteveGus - re:

|2009-06-04 15:03:08

metallurge wrote:

I personally view the right wing hatemongers on TV and radio as at least partially responsible for murders like this one.

"Right wing hatemongers" may not be the problem generally. The problem is specific to the anti-abortion cult itself.

They're the ones that go around claiming that their neighbors are "murderers" for holding a different political opinion, yammering about a second Holocaust, and comparing physicians who perform abortions to Nazis, and weeping over their lost darlings. This kind of carrying on is specifically supportive of terrorist murders like this one.

There is absolutely nothing conservative about this cause, folks. Leaving aside the problem of the influence of a foreign dictator, it's a particularly shrill and extreme example of an activist movement crystallized around a deified and unanswerable abstraction. Like all such movements, they don't care about collateral damage in the name of the cause; all that matters is the sacred fetus.

Everything about them screams that it would be a political disaster of the highest order if those people ever got their way.

emperorbma

|2009-06-04 15:18:18

Quote:

They're the ones that go around claiming that their neighbors are "murderers" for holding a different political opinion

I disagree that it is merely a difference of political opinion. Unborn human beings are still human beings, are they not? If the unborn were merely 9 months older, less in some cases, we would call this a case of infanticide and prosecute it in a court of law. What magical change occurs that warrants a difference of legal treatment? Furthermore, how, in light of that fact, can abortion be construed as anything other than a case of age-related homicide regardless of what political stance one takes?

Something that is merely a political opinion or cause doesn't involve the legalized termination of human lives as far as I am concerned. Well, usually not... there's always the odd whacko exception or two. As far as I, and those who agree with this perspective, are concerned, it is a moral cause not a political one...

Unfortunately, the nutjobs like this murderer who killed the abortionist end up making those of us who consider it a moral cause look bad by turning it into a political one.

SteveGus

|2009-06-04 15:10:11

There is no such thing as an "unborn human being". That rather begs the question, doesn't it?

emperorbma

|2009-06-04 17:01:04

No, because birth is not the "genesis" (or conception, as it were) of a human being. There is a period of 9 months in which a human exists before being born.

Moreover, it isn't a dead existence, as any medical doctor will attest. All the processes of life, right down to a heartbeat (starting at 3 weeks) and the growth of fingernails and hair (starting at 2 weeks) occur in an unborn person. Their cells grow and divide and they are, for all medical intents and purposes, alive and 100% genetically human.

The real question is: what makes a human being 2 seconds before being born any different than a human being 2 seconds after? They are both the same living creature. Yet, by a fluke of law, the unborn may be terminated simply by virtue of the fact that they are a relatively minute period (ranging from around 23 million seconds right down to zero) prior to birth.

SteveGus

|2009-06-05 00:53:56

Let me put it this way. The rhetoric and behavior of anti-abortion activists means that I will never be able to take the claim of the humanity of the fetus seriously.

Politically, if not morally, they will not save every fetus from abortion. All they can do in the political realm is make abortion a crime.

The shrill zealotry of the anti-abortion cult suggests that if they ever succeed in making abortion a crime, the result will be a series of persecutions and pogroms that will make the anti-drug pogrom seem temperate by comparison. If you believe that your neighbor murdered her children, or that the doctor down the street is another Mengele, you probably aren't going to allow "technicalities" like the ex post facto clause get in the way of rough justice.

In practical terms, that kind of carrying on means that I will never take their claim of moral equality of the fetus seriously. All I know is that these are the kind of people who must never be allowed to wield political power to do the things that their militant language suggests they want to do.

So I just don't care when life begins. I can't afford to care. The more emotionally overwrought political fetus talk becomes, the more I hear about how the actual murder victim had "blood on his hands" and a "fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims", the more convinced I become that letting these people win will unleash a horrific firestorm of persecution that will be even worse than the alleged horrors of abortion. They must not be allowed to do that. And so long as they talk that way, moral arguments about the equality of the fetus just aren't something I can ever be persuaded to care about.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-06-05 08:25:01

Quote:

Let me put it this way. The rhetoric and behavior of anti-abortion activists means that I will never be able to take the claim of the humanity of the fetus seriously.

so if your physics teacher was a jerk you wouldn't be able to take gravity seriously?
It's one thing for that line of reasoning to be a subconscious influence, it's pretty ridiculous however if it becomes an acknowledged and embraced way of thought when it is so explicitly irrational.

If you can't believe any ideology or perspective or theory that has nut-jobs advocating it, you can't believe anything. At which point you basically just need to sit in a box and gather dust. As it is it seems you should think long and hard about the merits of the claims involved, and not the merits of those making the claims.

It is possible to believe that a fetus is a human life, and still be compassionate toward those who in not understanding this, and often as a result of serious hardship and suffering, choose to end that life. It's not Us v.Them

SteveGus - re:

|2009-06-05 10:06:59

Gravity is not a political opinion. No one lobbies for or against it.

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

It is possible to believe that a fetus is a human life, and still be compassionate toward those who in not understanding this, and often as a result of serious hardship and suffering, choose to end that life. It's not Us v.Them

The problem is, nothing about the demeanor of the anti-abortion cultists makes it appear that they are capable of "compassion" to the same people whom they call "murderers" out of the other side of their mouths. And ultimately, in the public sphere, the only issue is whether abortion should be a crime or not. It is fairly obviously ridiculous to claim that any group that wants to label hundreds of thousands of people as criminals is moved by "compassion".

Entity

|2009-06-05 11:08:58

Yeah, because the abolitionists who labeled slave owners as murderers and criminals and were just out to criminalize slavery were wrong about whether it is OK to own slaves and their lack of compassion towards slave owners proves it! Heck they killed hundreds of thousands of people just defending slave owners!

SteveGus

|2009-06-05 12:04:48

If you think a second civil war is justified in order to punish women who had abortions and the doctors who performed them, I think you just made my point for me.

CoffeeZombie

|2009-06-05 12:18:30

You know, honestly, I don't know which is scarier: the nutjobs who think killing abortion doctors is justified, or those who would spread the blame for said murders to, well, from the sounds of it, just about anyone who holds strong convictions regarding abortion.

Actually...nevermind, I think the latter group scares me more...

Entity - re:

|2009-06-05 12:48:25

SteveGus wrote:

If you think a second civil war is justified in order to punish women who had abortions and the doctors who performed them, I think you just made my point for me.

I hope to God that it never comes to that. Unfortunately, most other egregious violations of human rights have not ended without war. Abolitionist protests did not end slavery. The religious people who protested Jews being interned did not, through words, stop their deaths. Deposing dictators is usually done by blood, not protests.

But who do we fight? The women getting abortions? That would go against protecting lives. The abortionists? They have a right to life too and it would not make abortion illegal. The government? Our fight must be there, but not a fight of bloodshed. It must be a fight of science and philosophy. A fight that proves that this is human life. A philosophy that says that, like blacks, the unborn are human beings too that deserve the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, endowed by their Creator from the moment of their creation.

I don't advocate bloodshed. That is contrary to what I believe. I don't believe in the death penalty and I certainly don't believe it should be applied without rule of law.

laika

|2009-06-05 13:17:51

SteveGus wrote:

If you think a second civil war is justified...

yesterday at lunch, three guys behind me were talking angrily about the "SOB" president and how it was time for another revolution. secession talk ("If at first you don't secede, try, try again." actually kind of clever - i'll give them that) and such came up. they were very clean-cut young adults, no doubt active in their churches and all that good stuff.

to be sure, the crazy talk and misplaced anger is out there.

Entity

|2009-06-05 13:26:18

I know there was a smattering of talk about a Texas secession, but it would never happen. They would end up with an overcrowding problem.

grizzly - re:

|2009-06-05 15:07:58

Entity wrote:

I know there was a smattering of talk about a Texas secession, but it would never happen. They would end up with an overcrowding problem.

I like the alternative that was proposed: split Texas into 5 states, giving 8 more Texans in the Senate (the House seats would just be split up).

CoffeeZombie

|2009-06-05 15:19:20

Just a note...without secession, we wouldn't have a United States of America.

And I fully support the right of any State to secede for whatever reason. And it has nothing to do with Obama...I was pro-secession even when Bush was Pres.

Entity

|2009-06-05 14:36:12

Barack Obama wrote:

Buchenwald "teaches us that we must be ever-vigilant about the spread of evil in our own time, that we must reject the false comfort that others' suffering is not our problem, and commit ourselves to resisting those who would subjugate others to serve their own interests,"

Even Obama says that I must work to end abortion.

SteveGus - re:

|2009-06-05 18:56:45

Entity wrote:

end abortion.

End abortion? You have a grand idea of your power, and of the power of the State.

No, the anti-abortion cult cannot end abortion. All they can achieve is to bring us a world where the police investigate every miscarriage. Where pregnant women who refuse to comply with any medical directive that puts a sacred fetus at risk will be imprisoned until their pregnancies are over one way or another. Where police spies will pretend to be cunning-people able to induce abortions or women seeking them, in order to accuse those who seek them out with attempted murder.

Induced abortion will go on, perhaps not as openly or as frequently, and natural abortions will be investigated as potential crimes. All that will be achieved is that some handful of your neighbors' lives will be ruined, chosen by lot, for the sake of the sacred Fetus and its right to life.

emperorbma

|2009-06-05 19:13:39

Somehow, I think you are taking this to an extreme that Entity wasn't actually advocating, though...

At least as far as I would note, I am opposed to a police state also. Furthermore, I think those who reject abortion are usually sane enough to recognize natural abortions do happen and do not intend to persecute an already traumatized person for losing her child through no intentional act on her part.

The complaint is about the wholesale buying and selling of the termination of human life for nothing more than sheer personal convenience and expedience. The, as you call it "sacred Fetus," (and as I would call it... fetal human being) should only be considered with the same respect that any other human being is treated with. I think that's all he's advocating, pretty much, and I know that's all I'm advocating.

SteveGus - re:

|2009-06-05 20:15:51

emperorbma wrote:

At least as far as I would note, I am opposed to a police state also. Furthermore, I think those who reject abortion are usually sane enough to recognize natural abortions do happen and do not intend to persecute an already traumatized person for losing her child through no intentional act on her part.

As early as 1992 there have already been 167 mothers charged with crimes due to their behavior while pregnant, usually involving drinking or recreational drug use, on the grounds that they were committing child abuse by harming a fetus. Some were charged with dealing drugs to the fetus; I have no idea how it might have paid. I don't know how many more such charges have been brought since then.

I know too well the human cost of crimes that can only be prosecuted by police spies and provocateurs. Making abortion a crime will only add one such crime more to the list, and that is a step in the wrong direction. I simply don't trust the law; and given the "abortion is murder" rhetoric I trust the activists to exercise restraint even less.

emperorbma

|2009-06-06 16:20:03

(Speaking for myself only, now...)
As I have stated, I do not advocate the police state. The contortion of logic in claiming that a mother is "dealing drugs" to her infant is already asinine in and of itself.

I do believe that a woman who knows she is pregnant should do things which are beneficial to her child, including refraining from self-destructive behaviors, but it shouldn't be legally imposed. I am just as opposed to that as I am opposed to forcing school children to "eat healthy" by banning soft drinks and junk food. In this case, the mother is not actively aborting her child and, while she should be criticized on a personal level, I do not believe it is a legal case.

I do believe the case that the termination of the unborn is murder is intrinsically self-evident, nevertheless. The following is my rationale:
According to the legal definition, murder is defined as the "unlawful termination of human life with malice or intent." Now, I can clearly admit that the law of the land permits the abortion of the unborn. Therefore, in a civil sense, it may not actually be considered a legal murder. Nevertheless, I believe that God's Law is a higher authority. While God's Law permits to the state the authority to punish evildoers, even as far as execution, as a part of His Judgment, (Romans 13) He does not grant the state the arbitrary authority to determine what is and is not justified killing according to His Scripture.

Execution of a man who murdered several people and was tried by the justly established authority of the state is a justified killing. The same killing done by a mob of dissidents is not. In fact, an execution is as much a failure of the state as it is a failure of the criminal, because the true intent is that the state should never have to use its "power of the sword." Now, a convicted murderer is something different entirely from an unborn child whose only crime is inheriting the sinful nature of Adam. The state does not have the authority to grant a mother the ability to arbitrarily circumvent God's Law against murder. If it is even unjust for the state to do such a thing, why should the state overlook the injustice of actively permitting a mother to do it?

As a result of all that I have admitted, however, if I say abortion is murder, I use the word murder in its Scriptural, not its civil legal, sense. It may suffice, then, in noting that by this wording I am meaning to say that I consider it a sin even if it is not a civil offense. The reason I believe that the state should consider abortion murder, however, is that I am convinced that in failing to do so the state is violating its principal purpose. It exists, according to Scripture, to ensure that we may "live peaceable and Godly lives, glorifying to God in every way." (1 Timothy 2:2) Being a Libertarian, I believe this duty to ensure that we may live "peaceable and Godly lives" effectively results in the same things which the Enlightenment enshrined in the three principles of "life, liberty and personal goods." Now, if we protect the lives of those who have been born, by what logic do we fail to protect those who haven't been born?

The state is a night watchman who exists merely to ensure society doesn't destroy itself with wickedness and that people can go about their lives in a faithful and Godly manner if they so choose. Can it be effective, however, if it violates its own basic principles? In that, I believe it is the duty of the state to prevent abortion whenever possible by encouraging other alternatives and providing disincentives on the "convenient" ones. Not through active persecution, mind you, and imprisonment should only be a last resort. Actually, while we are on this topic, the present prison structure itself is actually backwards... the purpose of punishment of crime is never to destroy but to reform. I can clearly notice, however, that it has been corrupted over the centuries. The fact is, if we criminalized abortion, I would still maintain only that we should be focusing on the reformation of this behavior, not the jailing of those who commit it. (as you seem to believe that I am advocating)

My position is intentionally more nuanced than just a simple "abortion is murder." Although I certainly maintain that is a valid assessment of that aspect of my perspective it is also a bit of a "sound byte." I think, in reality, that there is an overall problem with abortion as one manifestation of it. The problem, ultimately, is sin and we are not doing things in a manner which seeks to minimize sin in all places. Rather, we pass the blame and try to forcibly impose those few things we've managed to master in ourselves upon others. In doing so, we create only more rebellion and dissent. Let it be clear, then, that in advocating the illegalization of abortion, I am not merely ignoring that we might make it into a police state which perverts the virtue into a draconian terror. I think, however, that a stand needs to be taken against the sin of abortion that works by reform not by social control.

SteveGus - re:

|2009-06-06 20:29:14

emperorbma wrote:

Let it be clear, then, that in advocating the illegalization of abortion, I am not merely ignoring that we might make it into a police state which perverts the virtue into a draconian terror. I think, however, that a stand needs to be taken against the sin of abortion that works by reform not by social control.

Since all people are wicked, the State, composed of people, cannot help but amplify their wickedness. The anti-abortion movement is a particularly fearful thing to me - an activist movement for social reform, desiring to impose conformity on the unwilling.

All such movements ought to be resisted, more or less on principle, precisely because they remove the ability to live peaceable lives in an effort to compel your ungodly neighbors to act as if they were not quite so ungodly after all. All such movements therefore divert the efforts of the State into divisive and unprofitable channels. All such movements do evil in the name of doing good. And the vehement language of this one suggests that there's no reasoning with those people, and that they will do more harm than most if given the power to do so.

emperorbma

|2009-06-06 22:01:37

Well, I think we've established that you oppose the anti-abortion ideology because you believe it leads to a police state. But you really haven't said anything about the basic statement in and of itself. As I've been trying to point out, some of us do believe that abortion is murder but would also reject any police-state impositions that might come from trying to turn it into a social control tool.

The question I'm trying to lead up to, here, is whether you make a distinction between those who believe the statement that "abortion is murder" to be accurate are any different than those who advocate forcible control of others. In essence: Am I, simply by my belief that abortion is murder, also a subject of your critique or is it nuanced enough to consider that those of us who believe it to be accurate but don't think the state should become a tyrant through it are different from those who do?

SteveGus - re:

|2009-06-07 01:04:11

emperorbma wrote:

The question I'm trying to lead up to, here, is whether you make a distinction between those who believe the statement that "abortion is murder" to be accurate are any different than those who advocate forcible control of others. In essence: Am I, simply by my belief that abortion is murder, also a subject of your critique or is it nuanced enough to consider that those of us who believe it to be accurate but don't think the state should become a tyrant through it are different from those who do?

If you think that abortion should be a crime, then you advocate forcible control of others.

If someone says that abortion is murder, this tends to give me the impression that they think that abortion should be a crime. This may be incorrect, but I hope you can see why I get that impression.

emperorbma

|2009-06-07 02:25:02

Quote:

If someone says that abortion is murder, this tends to give me the impression that they think that abortion should be a crime. This may be incorrect, but I hope you can see why I get that impression.

Well, your impression is not incorrect. Making it a crime would tend to make something that requires some sort of legal response. As I noted, I use the word "murder" in its religious sense. It's pretty clear that any sort of legal repercussion will, rather unfortunately, result in abortion probably becoming an underground practice done by back-street dealers since the women will hide their sin through deception instead of practicing it in relative safety if there is no way to hide it. Such a thing is clearly not a viable alternative in my perspective.

Unfortunately, this is not as simple as with DWI. A DWI can be investigated through some obvious cues. An elective abortion tends to leave very few cues and none which distinguish it from a medically-necessary one to an outside observer without private medical knowledge on the person being investigated. Therefore, it is improbable that it could be investigated in a non-intrusive manner. Any action, in this case, would only serve to make the practice black market and undermine any ability to intervene positively.

As such, I think the only viable legal effect of considering abortion murder would have to be one which requires a woman seeking an abortion to be fully informed of non-abortion alternatives and the moral ramifications of choosing abortion before making her decision. If she wants it so badly, she could sit through the "sermon" and still get it reliably and safely. It isn't like people don't do that for other things they want despite all good sense. I honestly don't know if we could legally do anything to punish those who made the decision to abort anyway, but as far as the law is concerned it may need to consider it a "crime outside of its jurisdiction."

If it does nothing to make clear that it considers the act immoral, it is like giving a hand wave to those who think nothing of human life. Such a statement is morally inconsistent with a state that is predicated on the protection of "life, liberty and personal goods." What moral credence does it have to convict those who murder others, then, if it cannot protect the unborn? Now, if it admits that its hands are tied and does what little it can to provide a woman with an alternative to the act through education, it is already doing more than idly ignoring it like the government presently is doing. While it isn't solving the problem, it has ceased to be a part of the problem.

SteveGus - re:

|2009-06-07 17:31:09

emperorbma wrote:

I honestly don't know if we could legally do anything to punish those who made the decision to abort anyway, but as far as the law is concerned it may need to consider it a "crime outside of its jurisdiction."

I fear that many within the anti-abortion movement would not think that goes far enough. Anti-abortion protesters have been screaming at women that they're murdering their baby for thirty-odd years now. Their manner and methods have likely tended to undermine whatever message they might have.

Entity

|2009-06-07 19:17:09

What were the consequences under the law before Roe v. Wade?

If we say abortion is murder, it should be prosecuted as murder. To prosecute it as anything else is to deny the humanity of the fetus. It would be akin to having one punishment for murdering a white person and one for murdering a black person.

It is much more difficult to know what to do regarding non-medical abortions. Should a pregnant woman who drinks herself into a stupor every night and causes an abortion be charged? We prosecute drunk driving.

How is prosecuting abortion any more of a 'police state' than prosecuting other crimes?

emperorbma

|2009-06-08 00:29:56

Quote:

What were the consequences under the law before Roe v. Wade?

Before Roe v. Wade, the state laws on this matter were largely a developing situation. A very few states had legalized it outright. Most states had various legal exceptions. (e.g. rape, the health of the mother or the viability of the fetus) A significant number of other states had no legal exceptions at all.

The oldest laws on the matter tended to limit the restriction only to "post-quickening" based on the English common law, but the "quickening" limitations had mostly disappeared just before Roe v. Wade. In effect, the actual span in which abortion was considered illegal had been increasing from a legal perspective, making the situation all the more volatile.

Quote:

If we say abortion is murder, it should be prosecuted as murder. To prosecute it as anything else is to deny the humanity of the fetus. It would be akin to having one punishment for murdering a white person and one for murdering a black person.

[...]

How is prosecuting abortion any more of a 'police state' than prosecuting other crimes?

I understand the problem of considering one set of persons different from another and, if it were feasibly possible to do so in a manner which is not destructive to any positive intervention that could be taken, I think I wouldn't have a position of admitting the state's hands are largely tied in this matter.

My basic question on this matter is this:
How we can prosecute it without an undue amount of government interference in personal medical records? With drunk driving, it is fairly easy to trace because the drunk driver has some obvious signs of being drunk and there are easy sobriety tests that can confirm this without undue interference in a person's life. Before such tests can even be administered, however, there must be a 'reasonable cause' for an officer to stop someone.

Consider, however, with abortions. How could an officer discern a normal medical visit from an abortion? They can't without prying into private medical records. How, would an officer know that the person's abortion was not medically necessary without delving into private medical records? There is no legal way to investigate this without a violation of the statutes against unlawful search and seizure.

An alternative hypothesis might be that we could force doctors to record who sought an abortion which was not medically necessary. However, this would also be shooting ourselves in the foot. When it became clear that the doctor has to record whether an abortion is elective or not, women who wanted an abortion would simply return to using underground abortionists as they had in the past. In doing so, we will knowingly be placing the lives of such women at unnecessary risk and the resultant cover-up behaviors will make this behavior all but impossible to trace without some sort of KGB tactics. The "war on drugs," for example, has not stopped the flow of drugs and it has resulted in the devastation of more lives than it had originally sought to rehabilitate. The imprisonment of drug addicts does not cure them, but it indoctrinates them into a life of institutionalization and criminal behaviors from which they are unable to escape in most circumstances.

From a moral perspective, I concur that abortion is murder, but the death of two people is more wrong than just one murder. If it is a choice between the survival of one sinner who aborted her child or the death of both the mother and child in a botched procedure, it is more ethical to have one survive despite the wrong she had done. We are not going to force people not to sin by making it illegal to do so, they will only become more reckless in their attempts to sin placing themselves and others at greater risk. In the case where the state provides her alternatives but admits that it's hands are legally tied in prosecution, she can at least be given the opportunity to avoid sinning, the hope of repentance if she does sin. In the other case, there is a good chance that she's simply going to be dead along with her child and completely ignorant that she had other alternatives which would not have ended her child's life.

Quote:

It is much more difficult to know what to do regarding non-medical abortions. Should a pregnant woman who drinks herself into a stupor every night and causes an abortion be charged? We prosecute drunk driving.

Likewise, making laws against behaviors that put a fetus at risk would be very hard to prosecute without police-state tactics. We cannot legally force people to act in a manner that supports their own health. In this case, the woman basically becomes an unfortunate slave to her unborn child's needs. I am not saying a woman shouldn't do this out of prudence, but I find it positively disgusting that the state should be permitted to dictate to someone who has committed no crime whatsoever what she may or may not eat and drink. It is as wicked and cruel as the schools which force children not to be allowed to drink soft drinks or eat junk food. Such things are personal decisions which should not be abridged if no crime has been committed that warrants such abridgment. One can make a case, also, that it would be a "cruel and unusual punishment." I'm not sure how anyone could actually justify this from the standpoint of personal liberty which is a legally defined right for all human beings under the Constitution.

I do not think that human life should be cheapened in any way, including those of the unborn. The problem is, the only reasonable ways that it could be prosecuted would either result in undesirable consequences which undermined the entire goal of the law or something that results in an unreasonable and unfair imposition on a class of human beings who have not committed any crimes that warrant the restrictions. Hence, my conclusion that it is "outside the jurisdiction" of the government and something which should be handled (properly) through religious and family structures.

I don't see a problem with a state admitting that it cannot enforce a law, but having it a law nonetheless, as many states even now have blasphemy laws that they do not enforce.

SteveGus - re:

|2009-06-08 01:04:43

Entity wrote:

What were the consequences under the law before Roe v. Wade?

While abortions were illegal, as far as I know no state at any time treated abortion with anywhere near the severity that it treated murder. No laws making abortion a crime, anywhere in the USA, were predicated on the notion of the moral equality of the fetus. The law invalidated in Roe v. Wade prescribed a penalty of 2 to 5 years - and this was Texas, where they execute people for overdue library books. Laws forbidding abortion were not founded on a right to fetal life. They were part of the general animus of the time that the sexually immoral should be shamed, and punished behaviors seeking to avoid that shame.

The discovery of the fetus's "right to life" was mostly made after the fact. Very little in that vein was argued to the Supreme Court, which is why the decision reads like it does. Vague "traditions" like the Hippocratic Oath were invoked instead.

The anti-abortion movement needed something to be for rather than simply being against freedom. Then what happened with propaganda too often happened here; the rhetoric began to be taken at face value.

SteveGus - re:

|2009-06-08 01:04:49

Entity wrote:

What were the consequences under the law before Roe v. Wade?

Entity - re:

|2009-06-08 13:37:34

emperorbma wrote:

Consider, however, with abortions. How could an officer discern a normal medical visit from an abortion? They can't without prying into private medical records. How, would an officer know that the person's abortion was not medically necessary without delving into private medical records? There is no legal way to investigate this without a violation of the statutes against unlawful search and seizure.

My suggestion would be to have selected state doctors as the only ones who can perform abortions. Any other physician who performs an abortion for any reason would be charged.

And while medical records are private, doctors can be charged for not reporting child abuse. Abortion seems worse than child abuse.

emperorbma wrote:

women who wanted an abortion would simply return to using underground abortionists as they had in the past. In doing so, we will knowingly be placing the lives of such women at unnecessary risk and the resultant cover-up behaviors will make this behavior all but impossible to trace without some sort of KGB tactics.

Before Roe v. Wade, illegal abortions were estimated at about 100,000 per year. That is 1/15 of the current rate. As for deaths of women from illegal abortion, the year before Roe v. Wade, it was 39. The number of women dying from legal abortion each year is probably higher than that. (Oh, and no one can document a single coat-hanger abortion. Not one.)

emperorbma wrote:

The imprisonment of drug addicts does not cure them, but it indoctrinates them into a life of institutionalization and criminal behaviors from which they are unable to escape in most circumstances.

I know that many women have multiple abortions, but abortion addicts? Women sinking into a life of crime to finance their abortion habit? I somehow doubt it.

emperorbma wrote:

If it is a choice between the survival of one sinner who aborted her child or the death of both the mother and child in a botched procedure, it is more ethical to have one survive despite the wrong she had done.

Poland outlawed abortion in 1990. From 1990-94, there was not a single death known from an illegal abortion. And abortions went down from 59,417 to 782. It was not making abortion legal that saved women. It was penicillin.

emperorbma wrote:

Likewise, making laws against behaviors that put a fetus at risk would be very hard to prosecute without police-state tactics.

Yes, that would be much harder to enforce. Sometimes there are cases that are more obvious than others, like when a Michigan teen girl had her boyfriend beat her stomach with a baseball bat to induce abortion. He got community service. She could not be charged.

Unfortunately, while a child can be removed from the house for child endangerment, including a chronically drunk or drug-using mother, that is not an option before birth.

Entity

|2009-06-08 14:03:15

Quote:

No laws making abortion a crime, anywhere in the USA, were predicated on the notion of the moral equality of the fetus. The law invalidated in Roe v. Wade prescribed a penalty of 2 to 5 years - and this was Texas, where they execute people for overdue library books.

I wonder how much of this had to due with moral equivalency and how much had to do with political maneuvering to get a law passed.

Quote:

The anti-abortion movement needed something to be for rather than simply being against freedom.

What is MADD for? What is the Brady Campaign for? What is Americans United for Separation of Church and State for? What are atheist groups for? What is the DC Anti-War Group for? What is the Anti-Defamation League for? It seems there are many groups that are against things and want to restrict 'freedom'. Is restriction of 'freedom' necessarily bad?

emperorbma

|2009-06-08 14:10:20

Quote:

My suggestion would be to have selected state doctors as the only ones who can perform abortions.

I certainly don't disagree with that, although I'm hesitant to provide even more power to the ponderous bureaucracy of government. First of all, it is already illegal to practice medicine without a license, so your idea is not unprecedented. The only difference would be an additional licensing process for abortion specialists.

Quote:

And while medical records are private, doctors can be charged for not reporting child abuse. Abortion seems worse than child abuse.

No doubt that it is as bad, if not worse, than child abuse. The problem is that in reporting this, there is the tendency to drive women to the underground equivalents... but your other points delve into that and provide some rather interesting rebuttals to the common arguments against illegalization.

Quote:

Interesting.

Quote:

I know that many women have multiple abortions, but abortion addicts? Women sinking into a life of crime to finance their abortion habit? I somehow doubt it.

Actually, I wasn't suggesting that it was the abortion that they are addicted to. That's merely a side-effect of their real addiction. By criminalizing it, however, and not providing the proper education for women to learn about how to avoid risky sexual behaviors, they will continue to place themselves into the situations that prompted them to seek the abortion in the first place. Incarceration can only exacerbate this sort of problem, I would think.

That is why I, personally, believe that a counseling approach done before and after abortions would be more beneficial and run less risk of giving a black market of abortions the chance to flourish. There should be a significant amount of counseling and education about the alternatives to abortion as well as information about the moral drawbacks of abortion provided beforehand to any prospective patients.

Quote:

Further interesting facts... it should serve as a good case study with which to rebut abortion activism.

Quote:

Another area of law that needs to be rectified, the legal status of the unborn is rather unsettlingly incomplete.

SteveGus

|2009-06-08 15:17:16

Entity wrote:

What is MADD for? What is the Brady Campaign for?

Besides the anti-abortion cult, the mostly male mothers of "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" also make the top five of groups I despise. (The Center for Science in the Public Interest, the animal-rights cranks, and anti-smoking agitators probably round out the top five.) I long for the day when common sense prevailed, and police finding a tipsy driver behind the wheel had the option of driving them home. The punishment before conviction nonsense of mandatory license suspensions, MADD's great achievement, is also a grave mistake in my eye.

For the gun-control activists, the only reason they don't make my top five is a "plague on both your houses" sentiment. The gun culture is disturbing, and seems full of Freudian issues. When people imagine that they need guns to defend themselves, that's the first degree of crazy talk. When they claim that they need guns to defend against government tyranny, they probably need supervised medication.

But if people want to play with guns, I'm fine with that so long as they stay on their side of the railroad tracks. It's a civic and a Christian duty not to moralize about amusements that you personally don't enjoy. (No different from firecrackers, whose ban and regulation is also a symptom of what's wrong with the world as well. Every boy needs explosives to play with.)

Coming from these basic values, the anti-abortion case probably never will be convincing to me. I'm always going to see the harm before the good in whatever they propose.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-06-05 21:16:34

something having political implications does not make it a political opinion. The question about legality of abortion largely flows from the questio of whether or not a fetus constitutes a human life. that's not a political opinion, it's point of reality one way or the other. It is or it isn't. Quite frankly, if you believe, as I do, that a fetus is a human life, then it seems downright uncompassionate to speak of this as exclusively a matter of political opinion.

The reality is that one can, and on a Christian level ought to/must have compassion on murderers. We recognize that we all through ignorance or hardness of heart can do downright wicked things and it's absolute folly to demonize those who do wrong, and cast a blind eye on our own failures and arrogant delusions. You also, however, have to call a spade a spade. If I believe a fetus is human life than how can I not say the wreckless termination of that life is wrong? (granted I also think the legal side of this is a lot trickier on a level of implementation, and we'd be better off as a society targetting and eliminating the situations. hardships and sufferings that lead people to think they must abort, and thereby eliminate abortion through compassion rather than prosecution).
I won't for a second deny that there are opponents of abortion who are leaps and bounds from compassionate or christian in how they approach the issue, I don't think anybody here would, but I think you're characterizations are pretty frightful generalizations that in no way describe the better part of people opposed to abortion in this country.

metallurge

|2009-06-09 02:21:25

Well, in all fairness, I don't know that "human life" really is the standard. A tissue culture is, in some sense, human life. It is not clear that destroying a tissue culture is morally equivalent to murder.

I think the fairer term is "person". At what point does personhood accrue? Relatedly, when does personhood depart toward the end of life?

From an historic perspective, it would be interesting to examine the variety of ways that the ancients answered this question. Some cultures did not see personhood accruing until several years of age. You could probably tell this from the archaeological evidence by looking at what age is sufficient for burial customs to take place. Of course, the very ontological concept of individual personhood is a relatively late philosophical development. We are probably skewed by our modern perspective of this.

In any case, yeah, sure, err on the side of caution in defining personhood. Nonetheless, it is still possible for people of good conscience to disagree about, for example, Terry Schiavo. Or, at the other end, about a fertilized egg.

I would observe that biological considerations are necessary but not sufficient in any definition of personhood.

Lastly, I think that to some degree the modern abortion debate is shaped greatly by the radical individualism of our culture plus the illusion of being in control. Back when childbearing was routinely deadly, miscarriages were ordinary, and children routinely died, there was there was perhaps a little less argument about issues of personhood. Was this hardness of heart or a better practical knowledge of how things are?

CoffeeZombie

|2009-06-09 09:59:01

I would note that it seems that traditional Christianity never considered person-hood to depart. Which is part of why we care for the dead and bury them (rather than burn them up), and which is part of why it's considered wrong to desecrate a grave site. Also, this is part of why relics are so valued, and so on.

I remember discussing similar questions with our catechist at church once; his response was, "Always err on the side of life."

Finally, I have known some people (Orthodox) who have had miscarriages. As I recall, there was a burial service, etc., at a nearby monastery.

Also, your last paragraph was right on. :-)

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-06-09 16:36:32

mostly typed "a human life" and meant it in that context. I also mean it spiritually and not necessarily biologically. There aren't really any that I can think of that delayed "personhood" until a few years after being alive (if they had a concept of personhood at all), they may have had ranks and classes of personhood, but post birth the reality of whether or not the child was a human being was pretty hard to deny. There was a fair amount of debate pre-birth, the greeks had settled at i think 90days or so picking the time when miscarried fetus' first demonstrated sex characteristics as the time that the fetus had a soul. Though all that aside, abortion, even prior to that was pretty widely condemned (part of why the early church didn't really need heavy polemics against it.) (what's curious is how averse to abortion greco-roman culture was while still be fine with exposure of newborns.)

holmegm - re: re:

|2009-06-08 11:26:04

SteveGus wrote:

Gravity is not a political opinion. No one lobbies for or against it.

Interestingly, considering which side of this debate likes to think of itself as the rational, scientific one, "science" is entirely on the pro-life side.

There isn't any scientific question as to when life begins. A new, individual human being comes into being at conception. And the normal course of any pregnancy that people normally know about is to end in birth (and it's tragic when any pregnancy that people normally know about doesn't end in birth). It's as natural and scientific as ... gravity.

It takes an emotional, philosophical, anti-scientific "cultism" (a la SteveGus) to arrive at something so unnatural as the pro-abortion position.

holmegm - re:

|2009-06-08 11:17:33

SteveGus wrote:

There is no such thing as an "unborn human being". That rather begs the question, doesn't it?

Really?

OK, someone attacks a pregnant woman, cuts her open, removes and kills the fetus. The woman lives.

Morally, was this "merely" an assault, or was it a murder?

laika

|2009-06-04 19:52:20

SteveGus wrote:

Everything about them screams that it would be a political disaster of the highest order if those people ever got their way.

leaving aside the question of abortion, i pray God they never gain the majority.

SteveGus wrote:

This kind of carrying on is specifically supportive of terrorist murders like this one.

does anyone actually believe that this terrorist malcontent is deeply concerned about the life of the unborn?

SteveGus wrote:

There is absolutely nothing conservative about this cause, folks. Leaving aside the problem of the influence of a foreign dictator, it's a particularly shrill and extreme example of an activist movement crystallized around a deified and unanswerable abstraction. Like all such movements, they don't care about collateral damage in the name of the cause; all that matters is the sacred fetus.

it stands for something else. observe the men typically drawn to the cause. the "sacred fetus" ain't the thing.

SteveGus - re:

|2009-06-05 15:05:14

Entity wrote:

I know there was a smattering of talk about a Texas secession, but it would never happen. They would end up with an overcrowding problem.

We could just give them back to Mexico.

laika - re:

|2009-06-05 20:53:56

emperorbma wrote:

ah, but look at the Drug War. some of the same kind of self-righteousness surrounds it and it's become a massive industry unto itself. there's your peek into how a police state might flower. what SteveGus is imagining for outlawed abortion isn't really so far-fetched at all , is it?

emperorbma

|2009-06-06 16:29:55

Quote:

Without a doubt, self righteousness can lead to many a fall. Even the purest of virtues can be twisted into a draconian law that ignores the purpose that it was put in place for. Thus, instead of "Thou shalt not steal," it becomes "Thou shalt not steal, or thou wilt have thy hand cut off" with all the accouterments that entails. A fairly good case study, ironically, is Ultima V, where the virtues of the Avatar which are intended to be quite good are corrupted into a set of draconian laws enforced by a terroristic regime.

metallurge

|2009-06-09 02:30:20

The language of the debate, to my mind, is telling.

"Abortion is murder" reminds me of the sort of semantic games being played with phrases like "intellectual property" or "copyright infringement is theft". I do not like linguistic imprecision, and I like intentional linguistic imprecision with an agenda even less.

holmegm - re:

|2009-06-11 12:17:16

SteveGus wrote:

When people imagine that they need guns to defend themselves, that's the first degree of crazy talk.

Except, of course, that people do use guns to defend themselves, all the time. Usually without even needing to fire them.

I'm under the impression that's why police officers also carry guns ... their mere aura of governmental wonderfulness not being sufficient to gain compliance. Oops - apparently guns are useful!

SteveGus wrote:

When they claim that they need guns to defend against government tyranny, they probably need supervised medication.

Because government tyranny doesn't or can't exist? Because there was never anything like resistance movements in occupied countries?

laika - re:

|2009-06-11 21:43:58

SteveGus wrote:

But if people want to play with guns, I'm fine with that so long as they stay on their side of the railroad tracks. It's a civic and a Christian duty not to moralize about amusements that you personally don't enjoy. (No different from firecrackers, whose ban and regulation is also a symptom of what's wrong with the world as well. Every boy needs explosives to play with.)

the trouble with guns is that everybody else has one. it's not an armed government that makes me feel like i need one too.

just as an odd aside, i can't buy pellets for my air gun in the city limits, but i could buy all manner of heavy artillery at any number of outlets close by.

lately, my preferred weapon is a slingshot, which on special occasions i sometimes combine with firecrackers. guess i'll never get over the joys of firecrackers.

emperorbma

|2009-06-12 09:12:57

Quote:

the trouble with guns is that everybody else has one. it's not an armed government that makes me feel like i need one too.

Actually, it's a good historical case study on word evolution. The original meaning of the Amendment is not the same as either modern interpretation.

To demonstrate this, the original context of the Second Amendment was actually established in the text thereof: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The wording says two things:
1. The purpose of the amendment was to permit people to band together to defend themselves in case of threats, such as having a enemy army suddenly appear next to your house and the US Army is God knows where.
2. The right to keep the arms and to bear arms serves to let people engage in reasonable self-defense.

I do not think the original meaning included the concept of a fractured individualist society where people shoot each other. Nevertheless, the word context is also important for another reason. The word "regulated." In the context of the original document, means "regularized" or "made regular," not controlled and micromanaged like it has been interpreted today. As such, while the meaning is not individualistic as the "gun lobby" would suggest, neither is it one of government micromanagement as the "gun control" side would propose.

As a side note, the same word context applies to the word "regulated" in the interstate commerce clause. This was one of the more highly abused clauses in the Constitution, which, in context, is actually saying "Congress shall ensure that there is the opportunity for free trade between the states, and shall not infringe on the ability of the people to engage in it." This original meaning would drastically decry the present-day interpretations that allow the government to meddle in every commercial affair just because it could conceivably be interpreted as "inter-state." Coupled with the elastic ("necessary and proper") clause, the Second Amendment and the "commerce clause" have been two of the most devastating for civil liberties as the original meaning of the Constitution defined them.

CoffeeZombie

|2009-06-12 09:22:17

emperorbma wrote:

This was one of the more highly abused clauses in the Constitution...

was? Make that is.

emperorbma

|2009-06-12 19:33:38

"is" presumes they are actually trying not to abuse it. I'm not convinced that they are even trying anymore.

I think, actually, the abuse is past tense and what we have now is largely the results of the abuse and the ever-worsening aftermath. There are precious few places that haven't yet become marred by the collapse and they are becoming rarer as we speak.

SteveGus

|2009-06-12 11:49:40

In the Federalist Papers, no 46, there's what reads now to be a bizarre argument. In its original context, Madison was arguing that you shouldn't be afraid of a Federal government with expanded powers. State militias were mightier than any military force the federal government could ever muster, and they were ready to defend the states in the case of nascent Federal tyranny.

To a contemporary reader, this seems ridiculous. There was some minor unpleasantness around 150 years ago when a number of states attempted to secede. State militias failed them. The very concept of state militias was a problem. Had Robert E. Lee defended the Mississippi Valley with the same tactical brilliance he used in the campaigning in the Richmond - Washington area, the Confederacy likely would have won, and Central America would begin along the banks of the Ohio. But Lee didn't fight for the Confederacy; he fought for Virginia.

There are many lessons to be drawn from this, including lessons about the danger of overheated and vehement activist rhetoric. But state militias, whatever their original purpose, seem today not to constitute a valuable political freedom. Then, military service was a valuable right. Bearing arms made you a person of "honor", willing to defend personal slights with violence, somebody who couldn't be pushed around. Now, military service is something people must be rounded up for in a draft, a sort of slavery. In the absence of press-gangs and conscription, the "volunteer" military is the ultimate Job from Hell, the employer of last resort: you get shot at for your bread.

emperorbma

|2009-06-12 19:27:13

It's certainly true that a militia has some significant weaknesses in terms of overall campaign management, but that was never its point. The point of militia was always local defense. Indeed, while the militia has fallen into disuse in the modern American political structure, I believe the reason it is a "job from Hell" is because it carries none of the honor that it once had. The reason for this is that the Federal government has basically taken complete control of the militia. The modern militia is basically lite-version of the Army, not the people acting to protect themselves from threats.

While I acknowledge that an individualist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not really historical, there is certainly an important value to the civil militias that is not being carried into modern society which the modern day gun freedom activism is serving to protect. While I don't really take much of an interest in firearms, myself, I believe that the disarming of the populace represents an unmistakable step toward totalitarianism. The real threat here is the fact that the Federal government is slowly whittling away at the peoples' ability to respond to tyranny. As the people lose the ability to fight back, the government becomes more and more brazen in its attempts to to micromanage their lives. The net result is that the people are basically powerless to avoid becoming slaves to tyranny.

The main reason for the concern behind gun rights in modern society, then, is the basic principle that the people are one of the primary lines in the defense of civil liberties. It stipulates in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." However, the Federal government has wasted no time trampling these rights through abuse and through overzealous reinterpretation of the "commerce clause" and the "elastic clause." As the trend continues, we will end up a society with a new aristocracy... a government, not "of the people, by the people, and for the people," but, rather, a government "of the ruling elite, by the ruling elite, and for the ruling elite... with the full powers of Big Brother to watch everything you and I do in our own homes."

1984 is a scary prospect and it looms as an ever-present warning that if we do not act in our own interests, it is certain that someone will eventually act against them in a manner that we cannot respond to. At that point, we are no better than slaves...

laika

|2009-06-12 20:30:09

emperorbma wrote:

Actually, it's a good historical case study on word evolution.

and maybe "militia" is now closest in meaning to "gang."

but seriously, do you ever consider the technological evolution of personal weaponry since the time of the Second Amendment? if the intent of the Second Amendment is to be taken so literally, mayhap we should restrict weapons available to citizens to what was available at the time of its writing? to my thinking, that would cover all the bases.

emperorbma

|2009-06-12 23:46:07

Well, a musket wouldn't exactly help anyone defend themselves though...

Only registered users can write comments!

Last Updated on Tuesday, 02 June 2009 16:38

Our valuable member SteveGus has been with us since Monday, 07 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

Closed on Sunday: a screed. (29 July 2012)
Why goodness is evil (17 November 2011)
I am a Christ killer. (24 April 2011)
How Ayn Rand ruined my childhood (12 April 2011)
Blue pencilling the Apostles' Creed (22 February 2011)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

Latest News

Latest Journals

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online