ABORTION

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[John T Mainer]

Actually beyond wondering what we will do in a no win situation, I am less patient with judging what others do in no win situations.  Many of the people I have helped procure abortions for were in them.

What to some people are comfortable "what if" games, to me have faces and names, and stories that will haunt me until I die.  I am thus less willing to judge.  I am less comfortable using hind sight and unfounded assumptions about other courses of action and resources that you think ought to have been available to judge another.

Oddly enough, unarmed facing a gun (six actually the last time) is not a hypothetical for me. Hearing the hypotheticals discussed by people who freeze when I speak sternly to them is just plain funny. I really can't take cadets seriously, having had to deal with my share of shave-tail larvae in my time.  They may eventually withdraw their head from their but enough to become a functional serving officer, but many of them never bother.

[Acumen]

All said:

When you get down to it, this issue is based on the difference of killing, and murder (or killing without cause).  Abortion is killing but is it the killing without cause that some might have you believe?  Only the people who are put in that situation can decide for themselves.

I'm not sure I understand this.  Why do you accept certain laws as promulgated and applied to residents by local governments, but toss up your hands anarchistically saying this matter is up to the individual effected? 

In our country, people don't have the right to decide amongst themselves if murder is appropriate, so why are you willing to grant them this right when it concerns abortion? 

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

All said:

When you get down to it, this issue is based on the difference of killing, and murder (or killing without cause).  Abortion is killing but is it the killing without cause that some might have you believe?  Only the people who are put in that situation can decide for themselves.

I'm not sure I understand this.  Why do you accept certain laws as promulgated and applied to residents by local governments, but toss up your hands anarchistically saying this matter is up to the individual effected? 

In our country, people don't have the right to decide amongst themselves if murder is appropriate, so why are you willing to grant them this right when it concerns abortion? 

In our country people don't have the right to decide if murder is justified, simply because if something is called murder, it is by definition, unjustified.  It is killing without cause.  People can decide whether a killing is with cause or not, but not a murder. 

For example, if someone breaks into your home bent on raping your wife, and killing you, no jury in our country is going to convict you of murder if you kill them. 

If someone were to threaten to take away your future, take you out of education, force you into a life of toil and drudgery against you will, you would be justified to defend yourself. 

So no, not murder, killing yes, but not murder. 

As a secondary matter, I have a problem anarchistically with the application of laws.  This I have regardless of my agreement with the law in question.   It is philosophical objection to the concept of applying laws. 

all

[Acumen]

All said:

When you get down to it, this issue is based on the difference of killing, and murder (or killing without cause).  Abortion is killing but is it the killing without cause that some might have you believe?  Only the people who are put in that situation can decide for themselves.

I'm not sure I understand this.  Why do you accept certain laws as promulgated and applied to residents by local governments, but toss up your hands anarchistically saying this matter is up to the individual effected?

In our country, people don't have the right to decide amongst themselves if murder is appropriate, so why are you willing to grant them this right when it concerns abortion? 

In our country people don't have the right to decide if murder is justified, simply because if something is called murder, it is by definition, unjustified.  It is killing without cause.  People can decide whether a killing is with cause or not, but not a murder. 

For example, if someone breaks into your home bent on raping your wife, and killing you, no jury in our country is going to convict you of murder if you kill them. 

If someone were to threaten to take away your future, take you out of education, force you into a life of toil and drudgery against you will, you would be justified to defend yourself. 

So no, not murder, killing yes, but not murder. 

But you said that "Only the people who are put in that situation can decide for themselves", which means abortion or "killing with justification" is a private matter not to be decided by or infringed upon by our government.  Is that not the gist of what you were saying, that government should be involving itself with things like abortion? 

And yet even justifiable killing is a matter of law and order, and it is rightfully taken up by our judicial system.  It is not deemed a matter of absolute privacy being relative only to the person effected.   

As a secondary matter, I have a problem anarchistically with the application of laws.  This I have regardless of my agreement with the law in question.   It is philosophical objection to the concept of applying laws. 

You may have to explain this one a little more.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

But you said that "Only the people who are put in that situation can decide for themselves", which means abortion or "killing with justification" is a private matter not to be decided by or infringed upon by our government.  Is that not the gist of what you were saying, that government should be involving itself with things like abortion? 

We all can think of something that we have more knowledge of because we have experienced it than someone who does not have firsthand knowledge of it, right?  All I am saying is that there is a difference between knowing that people feel trapped in a certain situation, and feeling trapped in a situation. 

Likewise, there is a difference in sitting down and saying that 'X' is the conclusion you would come to if you ever were in said situation and actually being in the situation.  Because of this we shouldn't try to enforce the decisions that we come to. 

And yet even justifiable killing is a matter of law and order, and it is rightfully taken up by our judicial system.  It is not deemed a matter of absolute privacy being relative only to the person effected.   

I do not believe that it is "rightfully taken up by our judicial system".  I believe that it is a matter relative to the people effected, and that they should be the ones to solve it, if it needs solving. 

As a secondary matter, I have a problem anarchistically with the application of laws.  This I have regardless of my agreement with the law in question.   It is philosophical objection to the concept of applying laws. 

You may have to explain this one a little more.

What is to explain?  I believe that the person is the best person to make decisions regarding that person.  Not the state, not some supposedly neutral party that is not involved, but the person.  In everything.  A person not only takes the responsibilities of these decisions on, but the repercussions as well. 

A code of conduct either comes from within, or from without.  If it comes from within, an individual just operates.  If the code of conduct comes from without, the person will look for things that they can get away with and "push the limits".

all

[Acumen]

What is to explain?

A lot.  What you seem to be proposing in anarchy - where every individual fends for themselves.

I believe that the person is the best person to make decisions regarding that person.

 

Why?

A code of conduct either comes from within, or from without.

In principle, yes.  In practice, no.  The personal standards of some often go from ideal and noble to convenient and self-serving.

If it comes from within, an individual just operates.  If the code of conduct comes from without, the person will look for things that they can get away with and "push the limits".

At least there are limits to push.  Take away those limits, laws, and order, and we get families and clans warring with other families and clans, which hasn't worked so well in world history.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

A lot.  What you seem to be proposing in anarchy - where every individual fends for themselves.

News flash, everyone fends for themselves now.  The state doesn't actually protect us.  As individuals, we are all fending for ourselves.  The only thing the state can do is punish after the fact, when the damage is already done.   

Why?

Because the person is the best person to make decisions regarding their own life. 

In principle, yes.  In practice, no.  The personal standards of some often go from ideal and noble to convenient and self-serving.

And the difference between then and now is?

At least there are limits to push.  Take away those limits, laws, and order, and we get families and clans warring with other families and clans, which hasn't worked so well in world history.

Yes, because we have stopped this now . 

Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

[Acumen]

A lot.  What you seem to be proposing in anarchy - where every individual fends for themselves.

News flash, everyone fends for themselves now.  The state doesn't actually protect us.  As individuals, we are all fending for ourselves.  The only thing the state can do is punish after the fact, when the damage is already done.   

Wrong.  The state DOES protect us.  I'm in a field that protects people every day from both fire and trauma.  Our patients most emphatically would disagree with you. 

And I would also add that our police do a good job protecting its citizens from harm by implementing proactive policies that lower crime rates in municipalities.

As an aside, I'm surprised that you're assuming this argument.  It doesn't seem to be very winnable.

Why?

Because the person is the best person to make decisions regarding their own life.

 

Okay, but why? 

At least there are limits to push.  Take away those limits, laws, and order, and we get families and clans warring with other families and clans, which hasn't worked so well in world history.

Yes, because we have stopped this now . 

Of course not, but surely you could agree that the level of barbarism is on the decline in more enlightened and educated societies.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Wrong.  The state DOES protect us.  I'm in a field that protects people every day from both fire and trauma.  Our patients most emphatically would disagree with you. 

And I would also add that our police do a good job protecting its citizens from harm by implementing proactive policies that lower crime rates in municipalities.

As an aside, I'm surprised that you're assuming this argument.  It doesn't seem to be very winnable.

I wonder if the reason you are fighting this is because we live in different areas.  It might be 45 minutes before a LEO is even hear if you call them, and my community, as well as every community in the county, is reliant upon volunteer rescue squad and fire departments. 

Things might be different where you are.  There might be no muggings and robberies.  No violent crime to speak of.  Maybe nobody there has to wait in ER to be seen.  Maybe no one has to wait after they called 911. 

But the reality of my world is different.  I live in a world where a good response time of 5 minutes might just be 4 minutes and 55 seconds to long.  I live in a world where people have to wait for EMS.  I live in a world where it might take a person an hour on a busy weekend just to see someone at the ER. 

I don't disparage the people who work those occupations, but 5 minutes might as well be an eternity.  In those times do you depend on people to save you, or do you do it yourself?

 

Okay, but why? 

Only you would ask me to justify why a person is fit to make decisions regarding their own life. 

Because that is freedom.  Real freedom, not the kind that exists in your world. 

Of course not, but surely you could agree that the level of barbarism is on the decline in more enlightened and educated societies.

Speaking in specific instances and trying to apply it to the general situation again?  I don't think that the level of barbarism is down because of education and enlightenment.  I think that where barbarism is down, it is down because there is enough food to eat.  We are "civilized" because we are fairly comfortable.  That barbarism is hiding though, beneath the surface.  Get rid of something that makes us comfortable and you will see how civilized we really are. 

all

[Acumen]

Wrong.  The state DOES protect us.  I'm in a field that protects people every day from both fire and trauma.  Our patients most emphatically would disagree with you. 

And I would also add that our police do a good job protecting its citizens from harm by implementing proactive policies that lower crime rates in municipalities.

As an aside, I'm surprised that you're assuming this argument.  It doesn't seem to be very winnable.

I wonder if the reason you are fighting this is because we live in different areas.  It might be 45 minutes before a LEO is even hear if you call them, and my community, as well as every community in the county, is reliant upon volunteer rescue squad and fire departments. 

Things might be different where you are.  There might be no muggings and robberies.  No violent crime to speak of.  Maybe nobody there has to wait in ER to be seen.  Maybe no one has to wait after they called 911. 

But the reality of my world is different.  I live in a world where a good response time of 5 minutes might just be 4 minutes and 55 seconds to long.  I live in a world where people have to wait for EMS.  I live in a world where it might take a person an hour on a busy weekend just to see someone at the ER. 

I don't disparage the people who work those occupations, but 5 minutes might as well be an eternity.  In those times do you depend on people to save you, or do you do it yourself?

In Racine, Wisconsin, our response times are typically 2-5 minutes.  Sometimes we arrive during an incident, but most times we arrive after an emergency has occurred.  Either way, we serve and protect those who pay for our services. 

There is also quite a bit of crime in Racine - comparable to Milwaukee on a per capita basis.  We cannot protect everyone, but we protect some.  Not all people fend for themselves.  We protect in two different ways.  We do it directly through immediate emergency services, and we do it indirectly through a perception of law and order.  How many crimes do you think are deterred because people don't want to pay fines, have a criminal record, or be imprisoned?  Indirectly, through the knowledge of our laws and punishments, we protect those so they don't have to fend for themselves.

Okay, but why? 

Only you would ask me to justify why a person is fit to make decisions regarding their own life. 

Because that is freedom.  Real freedom, not the kind that exists in your world. 

First, I ask because I want you do give me details.  You may argue that man is best able to make decisions that affect him, but other may argue that man cannot be the best person to make decisions that affect him because of bias, anger, or passion.  If someone killed my brother, I would not be in my right mind to make the most rational or moral decisions.  I might be of mind to punish the assailant with my own form of justice - a justice that is executed without respect to else gets harmed in the process.

Second, there is less freedom in a world without government than in a world with it.  Law and order provides us the freedom to live our lives without fear of intentional harm, fraud, or theft.  Who do you think lives better and freer lives: the natives that run around in jungles obeying tribal law or the civilized that live in societies governed by the state?

Of course not, but surely you could agree that the level of barbarism is on the decline in more enlightened and educated societies.

Speaking in specific instances and trying to apply it to the general situation again?  I don't think that the level of barbarism is down because of education and enlightenment.  I think that where barbarism is down, it is down because there is enough food to eat.  We are "civilized" because we are fairly comfortable.  That barbarism is hiding though, beneath the surface.  Get rid of something that makes us comfortable and you will see how civilized we really are. 

I disagree, but assuming that you are correct, how do you explain that we live more comfortable lives?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

In Racine, Wisconsin, our response times are typically 2-5 minutes.  Sometimes we arrive during an incident, but most times we arrive after an emergency has occurred.  Either way, we serve and protect those who pay for our services. 

What about those who can't pay?

In any case, 2-5 minutes is a long time for something to happen.  Especially if you are waiting for help. 

There is also quite a bit of crime in Racine - comparable to Milwaukee on a per capita basis.  We cannot protect everyone, but we protect some.  Not all people fend for themselves.

So you protect some and not others?  How do you make that distinction? 

  We protect in two different ways.  We do it directly through immediate emergency services, and we do it indirectly through a perception of law and order.  How many crimes do you think are deterred because people don't want to pay fines, have a criminal record, or be imprisoned? 

None. 

I say this because criminals by and large do not think that they will get caught.  They don't care whether or not they are going to be charged a fine that they won't pay, or have a criminal record, or go to jail.  They don't care because the decisions that they made to arrive at the choices that gets them that way were done so without even considering it in the first place. 

They aren't thinking about what if they get caught, just as the rest of us don't think about car accidents when we go on a trip. 

First, I ask because I want you do give me details.  You may argue that man is best able to make decisions that affect him, but other may argue that man cannot be the best person to make decisions that affect him because of bias, anger, or passion.  If someone killed my brother, I would not be in my right mind to make the most rational or moral decisions.  I might be of mind to punish the assailant with my own form of justice - a justice that is executed without respect to else gets harmed in the process.

And you think justice would be served by him serving 3 years of a ten year sentence?

Second, there is less freedom in a world without government than in a world with it.  Law and order provides us the freedom to live our lives without fear of intentional harm, fraud, or theft.  Who do you think lives better and freer lives: the natives that run around in jungles obeying tribal law or the civilized that live in societies governed by the state?

1.  No there isn't.  There is the illusion of freedom, but not freedom itself. 

2.  Two choices of governed peoples do not make a choice of a governed people and an ungoverned people Acumen. 

3.  If government gave freedom from intentional harm, fraud, or theft, why do we still have intentional harm, fraud, and theft? 

I disagree, but assuming that you are correct, how do you explain that we live more comfortable lives?

Because we have had more resources to exploit. 

all

[Acumen]

In Racine, Wisconsin, our response times are typically 2-5 minutes.  Sometimes we arrive during an incident, but most times we arrive after an emergency has occurred.  Either way, we serve and protect those who pay for our services.  

What about those who can't pay?

In any case, 2-5 minutes is a long time for something to happen.  Especially if you are waiting for help.  

Per the first question: they receive the emergency services regardless if they're taxpayers.
Per the second question: I'm not arguing that EMS or Police Services can produce a state of complete harmony and order.  I'm saying we protect the city, and the city is more safe with us than without us.  So clearly, not everyone is on their own as you have suggested.

There is also quite a bit of crime in Racine - comparable to Milwaukee on a per capita basis.  We cannot protect everyone, but we protect some.  Not all people fend for themselves.

So you protect some and not others?  How do you make that distinction?  

Not sure I understand the question.  If I arrive on scene and find the person dead, then I did not protect them - I never had the opportunity.  However, if they die while we're there, chances are we can bring them back to life with our expertise.  Therefore, we protected them.  The same goes with the police.

 We protect in two different ways.  We do it directly through immediate emergency services, and we do it indirectly through a perception of law and order.  How many crimes do you think are deterred because people don't want to pay fines, have a criminal record, or be imprisoned?

None.  

Really?  Do you think that high speed police chases would be as frequent in counties where they cut of your feet as a punishment as they are in this country where they slap you with a small fine?  Do you think that law and punishment aren't deterrents?  

First, I ask because I want you do give me details.  You may argue that man is best able to make decisions that affect him, but other may argue that man cannot be the best person to make decisions that affect him because of bias, anger, or passion.  If someone killed my brother, I would not be in my right mind to make the most rational or moral decisions.  I might be of mind to punish the assailant with my own form of justice - a justice that is executed without respect to else gets harmed in the process.

And you think justice would be served by him serving 3 years of a ten year sentence?

What I think about it is immaterial.  The point is that when you get angry, you are more likely to make rash and irrational decisions - decisions that you come to regret later.  Surely, you've said things to your wife, in the heat of an argument, that you wished you had not said.  And if not, I'm sure there has been some time in your life where this has happened to someone else.  

I'm not saying that people are not the most capable of making judgments on events that affect them "every time" since they are ensnared in their own passions.  Rather, I'm saying that it happens some time, and therefore your general and broad-brushed conclusion that people are best at deciding for themselves concerning incidents that affect them is not entirely accurate.

Second, there is less freedom in a world without government than in a world with it.  Law and order provides us the freedom to live our lives without fear of intentional harm, fraud, or theft.  Who do you think lives better and freer lives: the natives that run around in jungles obeying tribal law or the civilized that live in societies governed by the state?

1.  No there isn't.  There is the illusion of freedom, but not freedom itself.  

2.  Two choices of governed peoples do not make a choice of a governed people and an ungoverned people Acumen.  

3.  If government gave freedom from intentional harm, fraud, or theft, why do we still have intentional harm, fraud, and theft?  

Because we have faith in law and order - a faith that is based upon probabilities.  The chance of dying in a plane crash is 1 in 66,000.  Such low probabilities provide people cover or faith in the safety of air travel.  We know that crime happens every day in every city, but we also know that crime happening to us are possible, but not likely.  This is a faith that is established and validated by our system of law and order.  Without such laws and punishments, I would not feel safe.  

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Per the first question: they receive the emergency services regardless if they're taxpayers.

Ok, you just said "Either way, we serve and protect those who pay for our services. " so I had to ask the question. 

Per the second question: I'm not arguing that EMS or Police Services can produce a state of complete harmony and order.  I'm saying we protect the city, and the city is more safe with us than without us.  So clearly, not everyone is on their own as you have suggested.

The state promises to protect us from those things that go bump in the night.  That it can't is pretty telling.  You have said that you protect people, but even the courts have said that police have now responsibility towards individual people. 


So here is what I am getting.  "We protect you because we do, so see, your protected". 

Not sure I understand the question.  If I arrive on scene and find the person dead, then I did not protect them - I never had the opportunity.  However, if they die while we're there, chances are we can bring them back to life with our expertise.  Therefore, we protected them.  The same goes with the police.

Is there crime?  If there is, then the victims were not protected.  It is that simple.  The police did not protect them. 

Really?  Do you think that high speed police chases would be as frequent in counties where they cut of your feet as a punishment as they are in this country where they slap you with a small fine?    

No, they don't have cars. 

Do you think that law and punishment aren't deterrents?

Yes.  Once again, no one does it thinking they will be caught. 

What I think about it is immaterial.  The point is that when you get angry, you are more likely to make rash and irrational decisions - decisions that you come to regret later.  Surely, you've said things to your wife, in the heat of an argument, that you wished you had not said.  And if not, I'm sure there has been some time in your life where this has happened to someone else.  

That is where responsibility comes in. 

I'm not saying that people are not the most capable of making judgments on events that affect them "every time" since they are ensnared in their own passions.  Rather, I'm saying that it happens some time, and therefore your general and broad-brushed conclusion that people are best at deciding for themselves concerning incidents that affect them is not entirely accurate.

So your solution is to give someone else the decision making ability.  Your feelings on this matter are very material, Acumen.  You don't want to see the person in your example get a slap on the wrist anymore than I do, and wouldn't be any more satisfied than I would be, but you have relinquished your control of the situation.  You very well may have regretted a decision that you might have made, if you made the decision yourself, but I know you will regret relinquishing control. 

I think that people are the best at deciding on their own, even when I disagree with the decisions that they make.  You don't have to agree with them to think that it was their job to make the decision in the first place. 

Because we have faith in law and order - a faith that is based upon probabilities.

No, not probabilities.  Faith in the system is there because people that we have trusted have told us to have faith in the system.  What if they were wrong? 

The system only works as long as everyone agrees to follow the rules of it.  If they do not agree, it falls apart. 

 We know that crime happens every day in every city, but we also know that crime happening to us are possible, but not likely.  This is a faith that is established and validated by our system of law and order.  Without such laws and punishments, I would not feel safe.

Do you ever make decisions regarding your own life, or that of someone else where you do not have all of the information?  I bet you do, I know I do. 

Do you feel safe because you are safe, or because you are oblivious to the threat?  Whose job is it to protect you from the threat? 

all

[kwd111]

Even if you agree with abortion... I am sure that this story will warm your heart...

March 9, 2010 (40DaysforLife) - I know you're familiar with the old saying, "God works in mysterious ways." Please sit down and read this whole story. Our God of mystery has outdone Himself this time!

A young woman in Indianapolis, Indiana - we'll call her Erin - woke up, saw her kids off to school, dropped her preschoolers at a friend's house, and noticed that she was late for an appointment ... at Planned Parenthood ... for an abortion.

So Erin picked up her phone and called to see if she could still come in. She thought she was calling Planned Parenthood. In her haste, she dialled a wrong number.

Instead of Planned Parenthood, she got Joseph, who was answering the cell phone that's being used by ...

... get ready for this ...

... 40 Days for Life in Indianapolis!

Joseph took a deep breath and tried to be as calm as possible. He took Erin's name and number and simply said that a counselor would call her back.

So Elizabeth, the counselor, called Erin. Elizabeth begged her not to hang up, and then explained that she had not reached Planned Parenthood. Asked if she was a Christian, Erin said "yes." So Elizabeth told her God's grace was at work in this "wrong number" situation.

So what had led Erin to the abortion center? Simply put - desperation.

She has four children, their father is in jail, she had lost her job, her electricity is about to be shut off, and she doesn't have enough money to pay the rent.

Later, Erin arrived at Planned Parenthood with her aunt. The aunt told counselors she opposed the abortion, but Erin's mother and sister insist it's the best answer. They say Erin just can't handle another child.

In the meantime, Elizabeth had spread the word about Erin's situation. A volunteer offered to pay her electric bill. Ten others pooled their cash to pay her rent.

Eileen in Indianapolis says a local group is now working with Erin to help her find a job. "She has a lot of potential," Eileen said, "but needs support since her mother and sister are still encouraging her to abort the baby."

Erin has reacted with both joy and disbelief that strangers were helping her. She has called Planned Parenthood to cancel her appointment and request a refund.

Please keep Erin and her family - and all those helping her - in your prayers.

So, you see? God does work in mysterious ways. There are no coincidences ... and in this case, no wrong numbers!

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

While I don't agree with the implication that your god is the only one, or that he had a hand in this, I can't argue with how it played out. 

They changed the mind of that person.  That is how you do it, not be making another law to limit behavior.

all

• Children's Prayer.... unc... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 11:08:14 PM]
• Riot against Messianic Je... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:43:30 PM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:25:51 PM]
• The Kids Are All Right. by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:08:19 PM]
• Honduras... here we come!... by SquirleyWurley [July 30, 2010, 06:23:50 PM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [July 29, 2010, 03:56:49 PM]
• 77'7" Kerrville Cross Rai... by SteveC [July 28, 2010, 01:54:13 PM]
• That Darling of Creationi... by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 05:51:56 PM]
• Segmentation & Evolution by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 10:56:42 AM]
• I must have overslept on ... by SteveC [July 26, 2010, 11:12:09 PM]
• 'Little Brown Balls' Tie ... by charliejohn [July 25, 2010, 07:34:39 PM]
• Whales Descended From Tin... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:23:50 PM]
• South Pacific Plant May B... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:05:31 PM]
• Transitional Species Exis... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 05:09:41 PM]
• Fundamentalist's Peppered... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 02:32:03 PM]
• Haeckel and his Embryos by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 10:36:39 AM]
• Flagellum,"poster child" ... by SteveC [July 24, 2010, 11:10:12 PM]
• Evo's Fundamentalist Posi... by Ed.W [July 22, 2010, 10:44:19 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 558
• Latest: Messedumbessy

Stats

• Total Posts: 86510
• Total Topics: 2615
• Online Today: 21
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 1
Guests: 20
Total: 21

SteveC