The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Embryonic stem cell research: a sob story? > Comments

Embryonic stem cell research: a sob story? : Comments

By Erik Leipoldt, published 14/9/2005

Erik Leipoldt argues ethically highly controversial stem cell research is not necessary.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Cool! Abortion, stem cell research and religion! This should be a nice friendly discussion, which will no doubt end in a peaceful consensus.

Ok, let’s dig in.

‘I would not want to avail myself of a cure for quadriplegia if this came at the expense of potential human embryos’
Avoiding an avenue for potentially great medical research simply because an embryo might have become a baby…that’s a bit warped. It’s not like they’re created for that purpose. If they’re aborted anyway, it seems like…well, a bit of a waste of an abortion doesn’t it? I mean, it’s not like the stem cells are going to be used for anything else!

‘Of course I do not oppose ethical means to finding cures.’
Cool, then don’t oppose this one! It’s only a piece of flesh, it’s not like it’s a human being.

Sorry, wait, don’t get me wrong guys, don’t misunderstand me. I know some of you THINK it’s unethical. I’m just telling you that it’s not. :D

I think I’ve discovered a great way to become popular! Mocking peoples opinions about highly controversial topics. Yay for me!

‘There is an alternative to ESC and that is adult stem cell research. Some scientists claim this line of research to be more promising in therapeutic purposes than ESC.’
I think any reasonable person would agree that every available option should be explored when trying to research cures and treatments for medical conditions.

‘So is finding a cure just a PR sob story to pull in support for broad activities?’
Nup. Primary use is for medical treatment. Everything else is secondary.

My tactlessness is intentional by the way, I'm just looking forward to seeing how wound up people get...
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 2:01:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My potential conflict of interest is to some degree less dramatic - I will require hip replacement surgery every twenty or so years for the rest of my life and stem cell research has been indicated as potentially radically reducing risk and improving results for these.

My main issue with your argument about stem cell research being unethical (and woe is the poor human embryos that are massacred to benefit the rest of us) is that it is absurd. I purge an egg (or two) every month that is no further along than these stem cells except for the fact of the 'magic moment' of fertilization. Thanks to chemical contraception the egg (whether fertilized or not) cannot lodge in my uterus. So I am purging a cluster of stem cells every month and I do not think that this warrants societies grievance.

The stem cells at fertility clinics get piffed after a number of years in any case. Mr Dubya Bush's argument is not agains piffing them so that they cannot be used, it is just against using them. Go figure.

Let us then revisit your 'floodgates' argument about the dubious ethics of researchers. All medical research has some vested interests. All medical research (much of which involves genetic engineering and messing with hormones) has some potential for misuse like the island of dr moreau. That is why we have regulations. They are never perfect but then neither is the world.

I agree with you that disability need not lead to poor quality of life. Different people have different needs. For some people the loss of mobility is completely devastating. For others, their ability to take pleasure in a range of activities and maximise the freedom that they do have is a real option (which seems to be the case for you). Most occupy middle ground. The availability of choice to take advantage of treatment cure is always better than no choice.
Posted by monikasar, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 5:44:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It’s dangerous territory to talk about things that dabble into human value, religion and so on, but here I go.
I’m not against science. I applaud all discoveries and inventions, if only for their ingenuity and design. I am also not a religious man. I am an Atheist, and no amount of argument and such will persuade me otherwise. But I agree with certain elements of religion and what it stands for, such as valuing others, treating others as you would like to be treated, “Judge not lest ye be judged”, but I am convinced there is no ‘God’, but nor do I think that religion is the dragon that guards the door to a golden age. I offer my full support for research that could improve human life, even if it’s at the cost of a few aborted cells. But it is not right for a baby, a human life, to be aborted solely for that purpose. I agree that if these cells can be put to such a good use- the advancement of knowledge- then so be it, better than letting them go to waste. Of course, some may argue that these remains deserve a proper burial. That’s heading into the argument of when a foetus is classed as ‘human’, so I’ll just sidestep that minefield and say that I would rather be used to help people than rot in the ground, which is why I support the donating of blood and organs. If I can enhance the life of but one man, I would have done a great thing. If I could help all of mankind, I would, willingly, even if I did not have a say in the matter, as the unborn child would not.
An attempt at curing a disease can lead to another great discovery. Many things have been invented while the inventor was attempting something vastly different to the outcome.
In conclusion, I would have to say: No. The bigger issue here is for cures, the benefit of every man, woman and child on this Earth.
Posted by Cloud Strife, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:02:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A piece of flesh you say! At what point does it become a human being? A basic understanding of embryology provides for a very clear defining point.
If you do not have this defining point correct then you might as well donate your dominant arm, in fact if it is all a piece of flesh, then the whole body too, surely it would be more valuable to science.
We must be very clear, adult stem cell research, has and continues to provide, answers and cures. This area of science has exponentially greater chance of maintaining your swinging hips, than that promised by embryonic stem cell research. Thay have promised outcomes for years, and will continue to do so, too many investments at stake.
Society should be grieved by the 100 million women who expose themselves to the combined contraceptive pill, recently classified as a Category One carcinogen by the WHO.
How about that definition of life?
Posted by Dr Mac, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:29:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Mac. There have always been qualifiers on the notion that all human life is sacred. Some people support capital punhishment. Others support superflous wars and call civilian killings collateral damage. I for one would like to see less debate about the well being of cells that are already fated to be thrown away and more about why we engage in mass killings on false pretenses. In any case right to life has always been judged, weighed, and qualified.

In my opinion, we protect human life out of

a) utilitarian self interest
b) out of compassion for something that thinks, can feel and is worse off as a result of a loss of an anticipated future
c) out of regard for the other thinking feeling beings that will experience this loss.

Couples wanting to conceive through IVF don't really care about the fate of the embryos. Society is not served by protecting them, the cluster of cells has no thought, feeling or anticipation of a future and hence no loss. In my opinion there is no harm in the loss of these organic bits and pieces.

Women purge fertilized embryos as a result of natural causes ALL THE TIME and no one would seriously argue we need to allocate more research dollars to finding out why and less on curing cancer.

In my opinion the loss of an embryo (that was never intended to become a life) is a lot less serious than the death of any one of the adult mammals (cows, sheep, apes) killed for eating or science every day. They have thoughts, feel pain, live in kinship units that experience loss but no one gives a stuff about the ethics of life there.

Do you have any rational reason for getting up in defence of a cluster of cells beyond fear of reproductive control and straight dogma?

Think of all the human life, pain, illness and suffering that could be alleviated if people like you actually stopped and thought about why.
Posted by monikasar, Thursday, 15 September 2005 9:14:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's easy Erik when a cure is found you can just say no to it.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 15 September 2005 9:23:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Go, Kenny, excellent post.
And agree with every word, Monika.
The trouble with the argument that living with a disability is not a bad thing, is that the rest of us fear being a quadriplegic or having motor neurone disease or going deaf or blind.
We would grieve terribly if any such things happened to our children.
Now, we might get over it, and come to terms with it, eventually. We might even, one day, realise we have gained much and that our disability has been a gift, in many ways. But it would always be a gift gained through terrible pain. None of us would ever wish it to happen to us. So, the motivation to do what we can to avoid it isn't going away any time soon.
And I simply don't buy the idea that embryonic stem cells from embryos that already exist and will be discarded otherwise, should be wasted. I hear a lot of emotion from people who seem to think women (yeah the 100 million who'd rather run the (remote) risk of cancer than an unwanted pregnancy) don't live with lost embryos and cells quite commonly, but no logic.
Posted by enaj, Thursday, 15 September 2005 3:35:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think about why, much of the time,
WHY is adult stem cell research being ignored, when human life, pain, illness and suffering is being alleviated by these methods already, and shows much greater promise;
WHY people are reluctant (or unable) to define when a life becomes a human being;
WHY most IVF couples do care for the fate of their embryos, especially those implanted that fail to grow;
WHY rising infertility rates and increasing recurrent miscarriages, albeit 'natural' are occuring;
WHY research has shown that these recurrent 'embryo shedding events' can be reduced by 80%, again by natural means, but some feel that research is not warranted;
WHY the incidence of breast (1 in 8 lifetime risk)and cervical cancer is not insignificant, and rising, along with the demographic of the OCP, yet the threat of an unwanted pregnancy clouds the facts
Posted by Dr Mac, Thursday, 15 September 2005 11:53:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lord Winston, the guy on telly with that wonderful moustache, the leading researcher in IVF etc has expressed his concern about the factors that have commodified human life and the big $$$ industry it has spawned. He has said that he did his research to help YOUNG naturally infertile couples, not people who have spent years using contraceptives / developing careers etc etc and now want a scientific/medical solution to their social/consumer mentality.

No wonder these people are vulnerable - such a harrowing experience with so little real results (15%, less than a Scratchies prize chance!), yet alone any cost/benefit economic analysis of this turmoil/suffering. Sure 1 million IVF babies cf "X" million abortions?

All the pro-embryo research comments above miss the point that when IVF was introduced all the 'nutters' like Dr Mac foresaw the ethical and utilitarian mess that was inevitable.

By moving the 'what is a life' bar to non-suffering, western (1st world) illuminati, is it no wonder that organ 'donor' children are swept off 3rd world streets (with parental consent!)for a 'better ends.'

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

Unfortunately, so many men will be economically disadvantaged - no eggs, therefore, no use to science and the economy and what would a women want one for when science has the answer to pro-creation and medical longevity. The task of asking non-senscient 'matter' to speak and the responsibility for interpreting its reply is that of ethics, not science.

Do no harm. A pretty simple maxim. As Ronald Regan use to say, "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
Posted by Reality Check, Friday, 16 September 2005 10:29:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Western society has accepted as unquestionable a technological imperative that is quite as arbitrary as the most primitive taboo: not merely the duty to foster invention and constantly to create technological novelties, but equally the duty to surrender to these novelties unconditionally, just because they are offered, without respect to their human consequences. ~Lewis Mumford

The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom. ~Isaac Asimov

This is perhaps the most beautiful time in human history; it is really pregnant with all kinds of creative possibilities made possible by science and technology which now constitute the slave of man - if man is not enslaved by it. ~Jonas Salk

We've arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. ~Carl Sagan

Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking of them. ~Alfred North Whitehead

Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men. ~Jean Rostand

I am compelled to fear that science will be used to promote the power of dominant groups rather than to make men happy. ~Bertrand Russell, Icarus, or the Future of Science, 1925

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. ~Mark Twain

Scientists, therefore, are responsible for their research, not only intellectually but also morally... They may lead us - to put it in extreme terms - to the Buddha or to the Bomb, and it is up to each of us to decide which path to take. ~Fritjof Capra
Posted by Reality Check, Friday, 16 September 2005 10:29:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reality check,

Do you have any orginal thoughts of your own or do you just like downloading thematic quotes from web pages?

Once again, we are not talking about absolute propositions. Science has always been subject to safeguards that evolve along with it. We live in a democracy, public scrutiny (provided the public is sufficiently informed by a vigilant media) provides a check on the legislature which can then impose limits.

Everything (except maybe your quote fetish) has a context. We are talking about people's quality of life here. We are talking about incremental changes in the way we treat illnesses. Changes are considered.

If we were to impose the philosophy embodied in your quotations point bland there would be no science at all. We would still be cabe men.
Posted by monikasar, Friday, 16 September 2005 10:41:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As usual, the pro-life (a brilliant bit of marketing, that title, with its logical corollary that opponents are pro-death) are claiming this requires a definition of when a foetus becomes a human being. No, it doesn't. A human foetus, zygote, conceptus, whatever, is an unborn human being – no dispute there. The definitional question is when this cluster of human cells becomes a person. You can't murder a non-person.

One definition which may be plausible to most is that personhood is possible only after the possibility of twinning has passed. How can you say "This is a person" if it may yet become two people?

Oh, and it's entirely untrue that adult stem cell research is being ignored – there's research going on with embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, and cord blood stem cells.
Posted by anomie, Friday, 16 September 2005 11:15:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article Erik. It seems that scientists (who have a lot to gain from embryonic stem cell research) have been doing a lot of speaking on behalf of people living with disease and disability in our community. Nice to hear you speaking out for yourself.

The vast majority of research using embryos all over the world, and now in Australia, has been done testing and training for new IVF techniques. As was expected, cures and therapies have taken and will continue to take a back seat. They're just not that realistic (with an almost complete lack of preliminary research using animals) and also not that profitable. Shamefully, the public was misled in the debate on this a couple of years ago.
Posted by ruby, Friday, 16 September 2005 12:23:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I purge an egg (or two) every month that is no further along than these stem cells except for the fact of the 'magic moment' of fertilization."

You’re quite mistaken. Contrary to popular thought, once an egg has been fertilized it actually becomes a separate being from the parent, dividing using its own genome. It isn’t part of the mother’s body; in fact strictly speaking it is a parasite. It implants itself into the mother’s uterine wall and uses her for food, warmth etc.

When you think about it, this is no different to a 2 year old baby. He still hasn’t achieved independence, and is reliant on his mother for food (bottled milk, or maybe still breast milk), shelter and all the rest. My mother probably sometimes still thinks of me as a parasite :).

Trying to classify the value of a human life by the stage of development it is at in life is fraught with danger. The only thing we know for sure is that the genome inside that blastocyst will eventually turn into a unique human being, just like the 2 year old.

I am totally for zealous research to find cures for delibitating diseases, but not at the expense of other lives. I would like to think that in this day and age our research carries greater ethical standards.
Posted by justin86, Friday, 16 September 2005 7:41:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just want to say that, as a mother of a child with a disablity, it's terrible trying to raise a child to adulthood when that child is never normal. Life is hell for the whole family much of the time. All the rhetoric about how "wonderful it is to have a child like that", how "God has chosen one to raise this child because He knows one can cope", how "this child is special" makes me feel so angry. Where are the other parents like me who are brave enough to tell the truth? If only I could have prevented my family from having to go through it, if I could have prevented my son from leading this life of never belonging, always needing support, never being able to say what he wants. If only. I've had 25 years to think about all the issues, I've been down all the paths, I am at a stage now where I believe these people are better off not living. I know it's unfashionable to say that these days and I would never harm my son, but I wish he never was. I hope research brings an end to the suffering of the babies born with disablities and the families that have to raise them. I know Pastor Niemoeller's words by heart - yet still I believe we must do something to stop the birth of people who can't look after themselves.
Posted by nubee, Monday, 19 September 2005 10:56:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You’re quite mistaken. Contrary to popular thought, once an egg has been fertilized it actually becomes a separate being from the parent, dividing using its own genome." Actually that's not correct either, 86! The human genome activates around the 6-8 cell stage, 2 to 3 days post-fertilisation. Before then it relies on the egg's cytoplasm. Of those that make it, and very few do in vivo(80% plus attrition rate, so the vast majority do NOT eventually make it), their genome is certainly unique. But this shouldn't reduce individualism, and 'when life begins', to mere genetic reductionism. Our personhood should not be reduced to any one thing...when we begin, while fascinating, is not really answerable and perhaps shouldn't be. Why draw arbitary lines? The egg is alive as are those sperm. Perhaps a better way of looking at life (not persons) would be a circular perspective, with no definitive start or end point (annoying:)
Posted by mountebank, Monday, 19 September 2005 12:42:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Monika Sarder,

"Do you have any orginal thoughts of your own or do you just like downloading thematic quotes from web pages?"

I presume you missed my first post and lept to this conclusion...

"Science has always been subject to safeguards that evolve along with it. We live in a democracy, public scrutiny (provided the public is sufficiently informed by a vigilant media) provides a check on the legislature which can then impose limits."

Your confidence in your fellow man is idealistic and about as fundamentalist as those you are painting as "cabe (cave) men."

"Everything (except maybe your quote fetish) has a context."

My 'quote fetish' was merely an illustration that greater minds than yours (and perhaps mine - hubris is a wonderful thing) have not seen science as pure as your seem to. Quite in context...

As for 'quality of life' being a criteria, can we wipe out the third world, after all it is only doing them a favour, indeed, they probably shouldn't have been allowed to have been born anyway...keep shifting that first world, individualistic, utilitarian philosophy...

Dear anomie,

you line "As usual, the pro-life (a brilliant bit of marketing, that title, with its logical corollary that opponents are pro-death)..."

So what does the term 'pro-choice' indicate? That mother's have no choice? That father's have no-choice? That the infant en route has no choice? That society has no choice in protecting the weak & vulnerable? etc etc. Nice try at reverse incrimination...
Posted by Reality Check, Monday, 19 September 2005 5:18:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mountebank
Yeah?? I didn't know that hey (about the genome kicking in 3 days post), but I'll be sure to look into it. Thanks for your response.

The main issue I was trying to raise was that there is a definite change that occurs during fertilization which makes the cell a seperate being from the host mother. The reason I focused on the genome was so I could introduce just one concept as an analogy for simplicity sake.

As for your comment, "Perhaps a better way of looking at life (not persons) would be a circular perspective, with no definitive start or end point". I struggle with accepting that reasoning, purely because as I said some definite changes have occurred post fertilization that are hard to ignore. For example, the reality is if we could create an artificial womb, we could extract that egg and it would grow entirely of its own accord into an individual being. In fact, what would kill it if it went outside of the womb is familiar foes such as lack of shelter or nutrients. It is clearly longer a cell of the mother's body.

It really scares me when we choose to not discuss those realities and resort to cynicism (i.e. Monika's quote) in avoidance. We must be sure to make clear logically thought out ethical boundaries. Most importantly, our determination on when life begins cannot be prejudiced by whether we desire stem cell research and abortion.

ps. forgive me for the dodgy grammar, its quite late
Posted by justin86, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 12:06:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Justin,
I agree with you--we are better off not being cynical about such matters. It is important to discuss but I doubt we'll find clear answers acceptable to most. And while clear ethical guidelines are undeniably desirable, they are surely just as elusive. The problem, as I see it, is that ethics, and the concept of 'person', is an entirely human construct. Take the case of when life begins. While no-one seriously questions that a sperm or viable egg aren't alive, there is much controversy about when a person (very problematic I believe) or even new life begins. Is it when a sperm first begins to enter an egg (and cell fusion hasn't been completed?). Is it when their plasma membranes fuse, or perhaps when the nuclei become one? Even Catholic doctrine states that a person begins at the COMPLETION of fertilisation, so the product of fertilisation (now recognised as foreign by the mother)has no moral status until this time. And simply through this one event it automatically attains special ethical status? Why? Does any embryo, or fetus? Singer argues even new born babies have not gained personhood. The problem is that WE give something special status because we value ourselves and hopefully other persons, except perhaps for Redneck and his ilk. (cont'd)
Posted by mountebank, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 2:35:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Even so, this is an arbitrary value, not something empirically verified or inherent to the embryo. The embryo is a ball of cells but it can also be much more. Once we have laws stipulating the destruction of IVF embryos (after some years...and varies from state to state), then the argument against ES cell research ONLY using these embryos becomes thin. How can we be bound by legislation to ethically destroy these embryos because they are not required for one purpose (reproduction) and yet not be able to use them for another? If people are against the destruction of embryos then they must, if consistent, also be against IVF and the industry. Personally I like what I've seen of the Jewish faith in this matter; they believe personhood develops throughout gestation in a gradual process. While the conceptus is biologically reliant on the mother (umbilicus etc) it does not have full ethical status. Old, simple, but clear and in some ways intuitive. And finally, we have a preponderance to think linearly which might be why we struggle with these issues; think Buddhist with a twist:) But now I'm rambling so I'll leave with it.
Posted by mountebank, Tuesday, 20 September 2005 2:36:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is not unethical for stem cell research, considering the benifits to humanity as a whole. What is overlooked is the fact that science fails to try and bridge the gap between church and themselves. This results in the church taking an opposing stance because science fails to recognize the implications to the very fabric of what we are as a culture. Unfortunately this results in opposition to a benifit to humanity.
Posted by TK13, Monday, 10 October 2005 5:11:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nubee ".... a mother of a child with a disablity, it's terrible trying to raise a child to adulthood when that child is never normal.. I believe these people are better off not living...." ( Is it really 'these people' or people with nubee's attitude towards disability?)

This reminds me of a story about a rich man free and happy in every way except for an illness. while dying from his illness he prayed, if I'm born again I want to be happy strong, and have a healthy body free from illness and that he'll not care whether he is rich or not.

This wish was granted, but he was born into a poor family, his parents died early, he became poverty stricken and did not have money to satisfy his body...prayed again

In this next life he was born wealthy, strong and with everything to be happy but he did not have anyone to share ...so you guessed it..

This time he had wife, but she was jealous and nagging; this drove him to his death...so once again at time of death he prayed.

Next he was healthy, rich and had a good wife but she died young and he eventually died of a broken heart..so again

This time he was rich, healthy and had a long lived wife but he became unfaithful, divorced and married a younger wife who in turn amassed all his fortune and left him for younger man...

Should I go on?

Disability is a part of the human condition. nubee will be contended in having a normal child through genetic screening, but this child could be involved in a car accident and become a quadriplegic. Is nubee prepared to trade one human conditions to a another, I'd prefer the devil I know or the cards fate has dealt me..
Posted by samc, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 12:00:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy