Why Abortion is Ok

Why Abortion is Ok

Many people think abortion is murder, that a fetus killed is the same as an adult killed. But is it really? This author really digs into the hypocrisy and lack of logic behind these claims and addressing important issues. I’ve pasted the text below for your convenience, here is the source link: http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=402

I hope you find this informative. I know I did!



An anonymous person posted a comment asking, “What are your reasons for abortion to be kept legal?” It’s such an important question that I’ve decided to dedicate an entire post to answering it. But before I begin I want to address one of his claims that:

“Science has unambiguously determined when a new life begins, and that is at conception… I hope your argument isn’t based only on that weak and unscientific argument of ‘a fetus isn’t a human’.”

Well, my argument isn’t solely based on that so much as it is on the idea that some human lives are worth less than others. Still, I feel obligated to point out the other side of this coin. Science doesn’t unambiguously know much about life. Physics is another story entirely, gravity is pretty unambiguous for example, but as far as biology and life goes science doesn’t even know what life is let alone when it begins.

What is the definition of life? One classic definition is that life is anything that grows, consumes food, and produces offspring. But what about fire, you might ask? Fire isn’t alive even though it fits that definition. Fine, life is anything that grows, consumes food, produces offspring, and thinks. What about plants? They don’t think and they are alive. Pretty quickly you discover that the only definition of life we have so far is, “I know it when I see it.” SETI, the search for extraterrestrial life, is really the search for extraterrestrial life like ours. Who knows what kind of life there could be out there that we could never understand or even recognize?

Since we don’t even know what life is, it’s very difficult to unambiguously declare that life begins at conception. I would argue that life begins at birth. Why? Because before then you only have one living being, not two. In the words of Dr. House, a fetus is a parasite that cannot live on its own. Saying a fetus is a distinct living being is like saying my arm is a distinct living being. My arm is alive, yes, but you can’t murder my arm.

Anyway, my argument doesn’t have much to do with that, I’m perfectly willing to grant that a fetus is alive, I just wanted to point out that things aren’t that simple. For example, cutting off a finger and murdering a person are totally different, as is killing a fetus versus killing a baby.

The crux of my argument in favor of abortion is that killing is basically okay. Human beings kill everything. We kill cows because they taste good, trees because we like furniture, germs because they make us feel bad, deer because we love hunting, cockroaches because they are disgusting, and thousands of other species because we just hate those rain forests so much… Pretty much every species on Earth has been killed by humans at some point for some reason.

“Wait a minute,” I hear you cry. “That may all be true but we draw the line at killing other humans!” No, we don’t. We kill old people (euthanasia, and insurance companies will even pay for it), we kill criminals (capital punishment), we kill ourselves (suicide), we kill each other (war), we kill in self-defense, we kill when we are temporarily insane, and we pull the plug on people who are in comas. I haven’t even started listing all the indirect ways we kill people: drug companies pushing dangerous drugs, insurance companies not paying for lifesaving procedures, people starving in Africa because our fat asses can’t be bothered to share some food, athletes playing dangerous sports, smoking, alcohol, and McDonald’s.

99.99% of the time it’s perfectly okay and legal to kill any living thing you want. The only exception is that you can’t kill another human being for no apparent reason. That’s murder. That’s where the line is drawn.

Why is this? Because we understand that fundamentally some lives are worth more than others. The lives of cows and trees are basically worthless. Besides, what would we do without our hamburgers and chairs? Killing those insignificant beings dramatically increases our quality of life, so we do it.

It’s not just a “human versus everything else” thing, either. Some human lives are worth more than others. Women are worth more than men, and children are worth more than women. If a man kills another man, he’s a dick. If a man kills a woman or a child he’s evil. “How could anybody do such a thing?!” everybody gasps. We also recognize this in abortion: pro-lifers are often in favor of allowing abortions if the mother would otherwise die because the mother’s life is more valuable than the fetus. As for killing in general, we all want to kill terrorists and assassinate dictators (and blow up abortion clinics) and in such a manner ironically spread peace throughout the world.

Although the anonymous commentator didn’t bring this up, lots of people like to mouth off about the sanctity of life and that all life is sacred. No, no it isn’t. All non-human life is basically canon fodder, and as for human life, a large portion is up for grabs as well. The simple fact is that killing, including killing other humans, is necessary and unavoidable in order to make our lives easier.

Have you ever slapped a mosquito? Did you feel bad? No! You hate mosquitoes and they deserve to die! After five weeks, a human fetus is one quarter of an inch long which is smaller than the smallest mosquito in Florida. Given that a mosquito doubles in size when it feeds, it could probably eat the fetus. How has an act as casual as slapping away a mosquito suddenly become murder simply because it’s a fetus? It’s because the fetus is human and a mosquito is not. We should ask ourselves, though, does that matter?

Calling a fetus “human” is very misleading. “Goo” is a more accurate term. A fetus is nothing more than a gooey pile of cells (at least for the first few months). In fact, at this stage in the game a mosquito is far more alive than a fetus. The mosquito can fend for itself, feed itself, procreate, and a fetus can’t do a damned thing. Why then are we so concerned about the well-being of the fetus? It’s because the fetus has the POTENTIAL to grow up into a human being.

In my post Women Commit Murder If They Don’t Have Sex I talk about the treacherously gray area of worrying about the potentials of things. Every time a woman doesn’t have sex a potential life is lost. We don’t care about that. Every time a man uses a condom a potential life is lost. We don’t worry about that (well, some people do). I mean, just think about it: do we throw people in jail for having knives in the kitchen because they could potentially kill someone?

Calling a fetus a “human being” is like calling me “dead”. Of course I’m not dead, but I’m on my way there. Of course a fetus isn’t a human being, but it might be in the future. You cannot ascribe a potential future property (being human) to the fetus right now. Right now, the fetus is a pile of goo. Right now, a mosquito is biologically more alive than the fetus. In every way that matters, killing a mosquito is worse than killing a fetus. If you want to quote me on something, quote me on this:

Killing a fetus is no worse than killing a mosquito, and neither are crimes.

Speaking of potential, think how much potential mosquitoes have. One billion years from now they could evolve into hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional cosmic beings that rule the universe. Right at this moment we could be slaughtering the greatest race that could ever live. Doesn’t anybody feel bad about that? No, because it’s just potential! It’s not real!

Here is an interesting thought experiment: what if one day science figures out how to grow a human being from a finger, are we now going to declare that all broken fingers are murder because that finger could have grown into a human being? Ah, the danger of potential.

This is very closely related to the classic philosophical question of whether or not you would sacrifice lives now in order to save lives later. If you were a genius scientist and knew that you could cure cancer at the small expense of performing horrible genetic experiments on 1000 unwitting folks, would you do it? Surely the 1000 lives lost today are nothing compared to the millions of lives that would be saved. Still, I hope you wouldn’t do those experiments. I think it’s morally reprehensible to sacrifice people’s lives, real people living in the here and now, to potentially maybe perhaps save other people in the future who don’t exist yet.

Volunteers are a whole different story. If 1000 people want to volunteer for the genetic experiments, go for it. Remember that abortion is a volunteer procedure. Nobody is going to force anyone to ever get an abortion. If a mother wants an abortion, fine. If she doesn’t, also fine.

How is this for a Catch-22: lots of women get an abortion and then later on in life have a child. If they hadn’t gotten an abortion that child would never have been born (because it would’ve been the aborted child instead). No matter which way you slice it, you are always going to lose a potential life. If you talk to the mother, I think you’ll have a hell of a time trying to convince her that she is raising the “wrong” child.

By now you should have a pretty good grasp of my basic argument. A fetus is barely alive and we don’t think twice about slapping a mosquito, so what’s the big deal about abortion? “The big deal,” I hear you say, “is that even if a fetus is a pile of goo after five weeks, it’s a human being after five months.” I don’t remember what the cutoff stage for abortion is, but you are right and I purposefully chose five weeks for my example. The longer a fetus grows the more human it becomes. It won’t take much to convince me that aborting a child five minutes before it’s born is much closer to the murder side of the line than the slapping-a-mosquito side of the line. If I grant you that aborting a child five minutes before it’s born is murder, will you grant me that aborting a fetus five minutes after conception is fine?

That’s the million dollar question. If I’ve convinced you that aborting a two-celled organism is fine (by the way, you lose approximately 60,000,000 skin cells per day) then we are no longer arguing about whether or not abortion is okay and instead we are arguing about when it’s okay. This is a much more useful question. It means we are finding middle ground. It means we are cooperating. It means we are coming to an understanding. The exact cutoff date isn’t important. What’s important is that we understand there are gray areas and extenuating circumstances.

Philosophically, I’m done; I’ve made my case. However, I’m also going to take a few moments to point out some of the other reasons why abortion is okay (and in fact good for society). What is the alternative to abortion? Babies in dumpsters, babies abandoned, and just the other day a woman stuffed her child into a Wonder Bread bag and tried to flush it down the toilet. Surely these babies would have been better off being aborted months ago.

Letting them live isn’t necessarily a good alternative, either. Is it really “humane” to let the child grow up with a 13-year-old single mother that can’t care for him, can’t feed him, can’t provide for him, is addicted to heroin, and whatever else? In some situations, not having a kid is a good thing. Kids are not always blessings. Is it any wonder that abortion reduces crime? The states with the highest abortion rates also have the highest drops in crime. If we didn’t force or encourage poor families to have kids they can’t afford, their kids wouldn’t grow up to be criminals.

Let me emphasize that I’m not encouraging abortion. Condoms are obviously a much better way to avoid having unwanted kids. The morning-after pill is obviously preferred to getting an abortion. Raising the kid is obviously preferred if you can, if you are happily married and have the means. Unfortunately, sometimes people make mistakes, and shouldn’t we allow them abortions in those situations? It’s cliché, but what about the case where the woman is raped? Let’s also not forget that humans are basically the worst thing that has ever happened to this planet and the last thing the Earth needs right now is more people.

I find it curious that women are overwhelmingly in favor of abortion (perhaps somebody can tell me why?). Women, the most sensitive and caring people on the planet who ooh and aah whenever they see a baby, are totally for killing fetuses. If there’s any group of people in the world against abortion, it should be women. But they aren’t. That should tell you something. Don’t you think it’s a little bit arrogant for us men to be telling women what they can and can’t do with their own bodies, and what is and is not alive inside them?

We also have to ask ourselves what the punishment should be if abortions are made illegal. There is a hilarious YouTube video where a guy goes to a pro-life rally and asks people what should happen to women if they get abortions, and nobody can provide an answer. I can:

  1. Murderers go to prison
  2. Abortion is murder
  3. Women who get abortions should be sent to prison

The logic is beautifully simple. If you are going to take the stance that abortion is murder, you also have to take the stance that we should lock up the 1.6 million women who commit murder every year (there are roughly 1.6 million abortions per year). It’s funny how when you mention that people suddenly say, “Oh, well, I didn’t mean they should be punished for it.” What, are we suddenly going to let murderers roam free now?

The logic is even more beautiful. If you don’t believe women should go to jail then you simply cannot be against abortion. Watch:

  1. Women who get abortions don’t go to prison
  2. Murderers go to prison
  3. Abortion is not murder

QED. I’m sorry, but you cannot argue with logic.

The anonymous poster seemed concerned with spending taxpayer money on abortions. I don’t really care if the government pays for abortions or not seeing as they are very cheap operations, but beyond that abortions save lots of money. Getting an abortion is hundreds of thousands of dollars cheaper than actually raising the child, and it saves the state thousands upon thousands of dollars it would otherwise have needed to spend educating the child, providing health care for the child, and providing welfare to the mother. Even if abortion is a morally gray subject, it is black and white as far as money is concerned: abortion is good for the economy. Abortions save billions of dollars every year (1.6 million abortions times $1000 per abortion equals billions of dollars, and that’s assuming a child only costs $1000).

In the end, we have to ask ourselves what’s more important: the good of society, the welfare of the mother, and women’s rights, or the rights of an unborn, barely alive pile of goo? Remember that this pile of goo is far less alive than a mosquito and we don’t mind killing them to make our lives more comfortable. A fetus can’t think, it doesn’t feel pain or regret that it was never born, and it’s not going to get mad at you. We pull the plug on people who are in comas, why can’t we pull the plug on fetuses?


12 thoughts on “Why Abortion is Ok

  1. I think the basic problem with the fundies grasping our point is that they are hung up on “souls”. They have convinced themselves that conception is the magic moment when a human gets their “soul”, even though there’s no biblical backing for that point of view. If humans do acquire souls before birth, it could just as easily be at quickening, or viability, there’s no way to for anybody to tell. But fundies usually insist on easy black-and-white answers, so they’ve latched onto conception as the one and only possible correct answer.

    And it’s necessary for them to believe in souls, because if the soul doesn’t exist, then their whole belief structure comes crashing down, and they could not stand for that. They will fight tooth and nail against anything that undermines their comfortable worldview.

    My question for the anti-abortion crowd is this: Most fertilized eggs never develop into babies. I’ve seen research indicating that as many as 3 in 4 simply fail to implant. And about a third of the ones that do implant are naturally lost to miscarriage. If a fertilized egg has a soul, what happens to the souls of all these dead zygotes and embyros? Do they go to hell? (Their god would have to be a real asshole to do that.) Do they get reused somehow? (In which case why wouldn’t aborted souls get the same opportunity?) Do they vanish? (In which event the soul isn’t really immortal.)

    Or do they go to heaven? And if miscarried souls go to heaven, then aborted souls also ought to go to heaven also. According to True Believers™, most of the people that are actually born are destined for hell. So if the souls of aborted babies go to heaven, by that logic the kindest thing to do would be to abort them ALL, wouldn’t it?

    I need to have this discussion sometime with a protester outside a clinic, to see what their response is.

    • I have often thought the same thing, about aborted souls going straight to Heaven. Since most of them would otherwise burn in hell according to most fundamentalist beliefs, it would seem more logical for them to support abortion as an “instant pass to heaven”.

  2. The author seems to jump all over the place. First she argues a fetus might not be a life. But it pretty clearly is.

    So she says its like a parasite because they need others to survive. I’m not sure of the point here. Newborns need others to survive as well can we kill them? You posted a picture where you said God shouldn’t commit infanticide what if the infants need others to survive?

    She says fetuses are small like a mosquito? So the bigger you are the more rights you should get?

    She says we don’t know what laws should be passed. Obviously the laws should fit the crimes. Women who have abortions who do not think for whatever reason think they are killing a human being are not committing murder. And anyway sadly not all murderers go to prison.

    why does she think a fetus is less alive than a mosquito?. You are either alive or you are not. Are old people less alive than young people? Can we just start killing old people?

    This sort of reasoning is bad and dangerous.

    • I posted the article because I think it gives an interesting perspective. I like things that make me think, see things from a different point of view.

      A baby that has been born is not a parasite: “an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host’s expense.” A baby that has been born may be helpless, but it is not a parasite- neither is a disabled person. A fetus is basically a type of parasite according to the dictionary definition.

      An organism’s size does not determine their “aliveness”; but there are different levels of consciousness that most humans generally recognize. For example, I’m sure you don’t attribute the same level of life to a mosquito as you would to a child because it doesn’t have the same consciousness- neither does a fetus at a few weeks old. Why are dolphins treated differently than coackroaches, or your dog protected by law but fruit flies are not? There IS a difference; do you really think it’s morally wrong to squash a mosquito? That was her point, I believe. It’s also a good visual comparison, because many pro-life people picture a fully-formed baby being aborted in most cases, whereas it’s actually very tiny when most abortions take place.

      A disabled person or an infant is still a human being with conscious thought, even if it is limited by age or disability. Do you consider it murder to unplug someone who is brain dead if there is no hope of returning consciousness to them? Isn’t it their consciousness that makes them alive? Without it, they are just a fleshy shell. That’s what a fetus is- a fleshy shell that doesn’t yet have what makes it a complete human being. It’s a computer without the hard drive. It takes time for a fetus’ brain to become fully functional- a few “sparks” doesn’t mean it’s all there yet.

      Now late term abortions are different, I think once the baby is capable of surviving outside of the womb the area becomes much more grey. In those cases I think it’s much harder to decide where to draw the line- but a mother’s life and health should never be jeopardized regardless of how far along she is.

  3. With respect to “parasites” viability is the path they took in Roe v Wade. Justice O’Connor later acknowledged that science meant that would be a collision course with the ruling since science kept moving up the the time period that a fetus could live outside the womb earlier and earlier.

    I don’t think some things are more alive than others. You are either alive or your not. A mosquito is alive just as much as I am until I smash it. Its ok that I smash it, because unlike human life its life is not sacred. Another point where the person you quote is quite weak. I view suicide and Euthanasia as horrible. If that is her proof that human life isn’t sacred it didn’t work for me.

    Can you pull the plug? Yes. We do not really respect the sanctity of life by keeping people alive as long as scientifically possible. But we have to acknowledge that human life is sacred. There are gray areas and letting someone die naturally can be a very hard decision to make but its not one that is culpable.

    I don’t think their consciousness makes them alive. When I am asleep I am alive even though I am unconscious.

    Its not the level of consciousness that determines the value. A monkey or dolphin may be more conscious than a newborn human but the newborn human’s life is sacred. The monkeys and the dolphin’s is not.

    When you drop God you drop the idea of anything being sacred. Its not just one belief that you lose. It’s several and it makes a difference to how you view yourself and others.

    Why are dolphins treated differently than cockroaches? The fact is it is because people have an emotional reaction to how dolphins are treated that they don’t have when cockroaches are treated the same. When we leave the idea that God wrote his law on our heart out of the equation, we a left with emotional attachments to cute animals etc. Consiousness smonshessness. Kill the dolphins when they are sleeping is that ok? Same with the bum on the street who no other human will miss. That’s what we get when we ignore the sanctity of human life.

    • Herein lies a difference in our beliefs: I do not think life is sacred. I think it is precious for all living creatures, but life and death are simply parts of life and neither is inherently sacred or evil. We came from the earth and we’ll go back to it- it’s just another part of life. It’s very sad when someone dies, and we certainly try to prevent death and violence, but it’s also normal for death to occur. Does that mean I think murder or violence is ok? Certainly not. But if someone wants to take their own life and they are of sound mind, it’s their decision.
      I don’t think human life is any more special than animal life- it’s ALL important. Humans don’t get some special mystical privilege just because we’re at the top of the food chain and we’re the most intelligent; religion tells us that we’re somehow special, which is why most Christians I know don’t care much for environmental issues and even become defensive when it’s suggested that we should respect other life than just human life (they cite the verse that says we have dominion over nature). We’re all animals- it’s just as wrong to torture a sentient animal as it is to torture a human. I’m slowly working on becoming a vegetarian because I believe mistreating animals is wrong. I believe a creature’s sentience and level of consciousness makes a big difference in how our culture treats different animals, and that’s just how it is right now. We haven’t yet learned how to completely co-exist with nature without harming other creatures- it’ll be a long process. However, I hope that someday all creatures, regardless of size, will be able to coexist together peacefully.
      Consciousness in this context has nothing to do with sleeping, it has to do with the ability to think and feel. Some animals have it, and in varying levels, others don’t appear to. Dolphins and Orcas are the closest to humans in regards to how they think and their complex emotions, which is why some countries have banned keeping them in pens for sport and Seaworld is under scrutiny right now for their mistreatment of their whales. They call them “non-human sentient beings” I believe. Insects are entirely instinctual and do not feel that we know of.
      Do you consider an egg a chicken? Would you consider a nut a tree? I don’t think a fetus is any different than these- it’s not a baby yet, it’s not sentient yet- at least not early in development when there’s not even a fully functioning brain. It can’t feel, it can’t think, it can’t remember anything when it’s just a clump of cells that hasn’t finished forming into a functional human yet. A few weeks before birth, yes I would say that’s a much harder issue.

  4. As I said your beliefs affect other people just as much as Christian’s beliefs affect other people. So if an 18 year old is of sound mind and he or she want to commit suicide then it’s fine? Will you go ahead and donate the bullet out of the goodness of your heart? Maybe you will be sad? I’m sorry I think these sorts of views are evil. Rejecting God is not done in a vacuum.

    Complexity of consciousness means zip. I know people with very complex minds whose life I would not value as highly as my pet fish’s life, if it weren’t for the sacredness of human life.

    The more complex your consciousness = more rights? Sorry I don’t buy it, and in fact I oppose it.
    What you are espousing is Peter Singer moral make believe. You always ask me for proof of God. What proof do you have that more complex minds deserve more rights than less complex minds? Where is your scientific “proof”?

    But yes you are right. You can teach about how suicide is fine, if you are of sound mind, and that complexity of your mind increases your rights. I will keep preaching that all human life is sacred regardless of the complexity of their minds. Our beliefs will both effect others.

    • If a healthy 18 yr old wanted to commit suicide, I would strongly doubt that he would be of sound mind, and I’m sure most doctors would agree. But would you force an elderly person, who is stricken with a debilitating disease that has no cure and causes him immense pain every single day, to live when he would rather end his suffering in dignity? Would you force someone who just found out that they have early Alzheimers and will soon not be able to recognize their own spouse to live through that, when they would rather go peacefully while they can still think as themselves? Most of the cases are like these- most teens contemplating suicide are not of sound mind and should be referred to a psychologist first. There was a gentleman in Europe I believe who was completely paralyzed, was in immense pain, and could communicate only via electronic means. His quality of life was about as bad as you could imagine- his body was a useless shell. He could not physically end his own life, but he did not wish to live any longer in his condition. His family could not grant his wish without fear of legal repercussions. You may be ok with living like that- but not everyone is. THOSE are the people who I think deserve the option of assisted suicide.

      I would rather have a teen attempt to get suicide assistance and have the doctor get him the help he needs because he can see the teen is not of sound mind, than to have that same teen jump off of a bridge. If assisted suicide is made legal, I would strongly support sending the individual to counseling first.

      In the end, people have the right to choose their own path. I may be sad to see someone choose to die, but who I am to tell them they can’t or shouldn’t if they are of sound mind? I would certainly encourage them to work through their problems as much as possible, and I would offer my help and counsel to that effect, but forcing someone to choose life against their will is also cruel.

      A fetus in an early stage doesn’t even have a brain. “Complexity” in this case means that the fetus actually doesn’t possess a brain to think with yet.

      We’ll have to agree to disagree. Since we’ve established that we do not agree on sanctity of life issues and the conversation doesn’t appear to be much more than us reiterating our own views, perhaps it’s time to end this particular conversation.

  5. Belief in the sacredness of human life would not necessarily require one course of action or another in the end of life scenarios you offer – except for the one where a healthy 18 year old wants to commit suicide.

    In another one of your blogs you demand “undeniable, concrete proof” that God exists. Here I ask you why you think our rights should correspond to how complex our minds are. You offered me no reason at all. Are you being consistent in your standards of what beliefs you will accept/reject and why?

    • A being that has no brain is not the same as a being that does have a brain, hence different rights. Why? Because you need a brain to be a human. Without it, you’re just a clump of cells that has the potential to grow INTO a human. A fetus in the early stages of development does not have a mind yet. The only controversy I can see is when a fetus is developed enough to survive outside of the womb.

      We’re not going to agree on this because we will never agree on whether life is sacred, so let’s agree to disagree.

      • Your right we won’t agree on this entirely, since we may not ever agree on human life being sacred. But I do really like to discuss morals and what the foundations for peoples moral beliefs are.

        You seemed to indicate “it’s just as wrong to torture a sentient animal as it is to torture a human.” You seem to draw no lines between humans and animals. That seems like a natural way to go if you reject any sort of sacredness of human life. Lots of animals are sentient in that they perceive pain. Is it wrong for us to treat all these sentient animals different than humans?

      • I think people are not ready to treat animals as they do humans yet. It’s an unfortunate part of the world we live in that some creatures are mistreated while others are treasured. But yes, I think it’s just as wrong to torture a sentient animal as it is to torture a human. It’s a living being- our distant brothers and sisters. Sometimes death is necessary, but torture and needless pain is never justified. If you must kill an animal for food or out of some other necessity, do it humanely so at least they do not suffer. I have a hard time with the food industry for this reason, most animals are mistreated before their deaths.

        Although I don’t believe in the Native American spirits, I have always respected the practice some of them use or used in times past. When they killed an animal, they would do it quickly, and they would thank the animal’s spirit for giving them what they needed. They didn’t kill just for the sake of killing, they did so out of need. I appreciate the idea that animals are to be respected and not abused, even if you do need them for food. I detest hunting for sport, personally. Unless you need the food or they’re causing harm, why kill them?

No trolling, please! Genuine dialogue for the purpose of mutual understanding is appreciated; debates are not. General comments are welcome.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s