Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Framing the UK Abortion Debate

by Ephemera Thu Mar 20th, 2008 at 09:43:18 PM EST

The continuing passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has been exploited by pro-life MPs to reignite the debate surrounding the UK's current abortion laws. Despite the bill being only tangentially concerned with abortion, there is a general belief that an amendment to the bill will be introduced to reduce the legal time limit from 24 to 20 weeks.


(There has already been a defeated amendment which sought to restrict the acceptable grounds for late termination, but the amendment was not expected to be successful and isn't particularly pertinent to the future.)

There is a great deal that could be said regarding this possible change in the law, especially around the fact that the science behind the debate to lower the time limit is a little shaky. Regardless, this focus on the time limit is just an obsession borne of the political realities. The ProLife Alliance would like to see an end to all abortion, but winning a restriction on the time limit is an easier victory, and turns the entire debate in their favour. They quite rightly discount the arguments of pro-choice campaigners using the example of rape as an essential need for abortion, but this is no different. Both are marginal cases intended to serve as a just point of principle (a reduction to the extremes) and are unworthy as a bases on which to formulate law. The majority of abortions are neither in the second trimester, nor through the necessity of rape.

The reason for bringing this up now is the appearance of yet another salvo in what is the long build-up by pro-life campaigners for the introduction of the amendment itself. It was reported, in both The  Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail, the 'shocking' figures about repeat abortions, which were given in answer to a question by Mark Pritchard MP. The figures aren't important, whatever they may be, rather the way they have been played here matters.

The initial problem I have with the reporting is that in both cases the story gives the impression that these figures are newly released. This is spurious, as the figures come from 2006, and the Department of Health website clearly shows they have been in the public arena since 19 June 2007. The intention is to create, or rather reaffirm, the belief that the state is withholding information from the debate, and only through persistent questioning will the truth be discovered.

The Telegraph goes further in creating essential images for the debate, by focussing solely on the use of abortion services by teenagers. The singling out of this group of people, whom they refer to as 'girls', is to reinforce the idea that the need for abortion stems from the irresponsibility of the woman. 'Teenagers' are not a true group within this debate, in the sense that the label contains a vast range of experiences of fertility and sexuality, from the pre-menarcheal female, to the mother of multiple children. But the readily constructed ideal of such evils as adolescent sexuality, social naivete, moral irresponsibility, and, worst of all, uneducated single mothers, presents too great a temptation to resist. 'Teenager' becomes the proximal association to abortion, desirably spreading its contagious connotations.

It could be countered that 92% of all under-18s who seek an abortion have never had one before; they are abortion 'virgins', if you will forgive the pun. Or that more and better sex education and contraceptives are essential to creating a generation of women which is both interested and empowered concerning its own fertility. But I doubt such proposals would be welcomed, and I don't really want to offer them.

The truth is, the number of abortions is unimportant, along with time limits and the acceptable criteria, as they only really seek to the 'how' and not the 'why'. Even the Family Planning Association doesn't answer this question properly, and only manages to give secondary reasons. The primary reason is simple: it's my fertility, and you can't frame that in reference to the state, religion, teenage mothers, or anything external to the individual, not even the 'sacredness of life'. The only term of reference is me, and I look forward to the day 646 MPs debate that.

Display:
Ah, it's a cliched rant, I know, but I feel better for having made it.

I suppose I should give a full disclosure. I'm a little wary of doing so, though it would be helpful to understand my position: I was recently forced to switch from pills to patches by my doctor, even though I did not request it, do not want it, and will try my best to switch back as soon as I can. The doctor simply refused to write any other prescription than the one she wanted to write. It's all too easy to lose control of your own body, so it seems.

Member of the Anti-Fabulousness League since 1987.

by Ephemera on Thu Mar 20th, 2008 at 09:51:11 PM EST
Well if you want to change back have a list of side effects, pick one and give your doctor earache about it ;-)

Contraceptive patch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In three large clinical trials involving a total of 3,330 women using the Ortho Evra / Evra patch for up to one year, 12% of users discontinued the patch because of adverse events. The most frequent adverse events leading to patch discontinuation were: nausea and/or vomiting (2.4%), application site reaction (1.9%), breast discomfort, engorgement or pain (1.9%), headache (1.1%), and emotional lability (1.0%).[4]

The most frequent adverse events reported while using the Ortho Evra / Evra patch were: breast discomfort, engorgement or pain (22%), headache (21%), application site reaction (17%), nausea (17%), upper respiratory tract infection (10%), menstrual cramps (10%), and abdominal pain (9%).[4]



Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Mar 20th, 2008 at 10:10:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks. I'm beginning to think it's something wrong with me, because in the past month I've managed to completely fail getting access to what I want, in two different areas.

Ack, but enough about problems, I only need to hold out til autumn before I get a new GP.

Member of the Anti-Fabulousness League since 1987.

by Ephemera on Thu Mar 20th, 2008 at 10:25:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Moving? or Murder? ;-)

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Mar 20th, 2008 at 10:36:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A point is made on the tangentially related debate about single payer vs single provider healthcare...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 06:45:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What's your GP justification? Medical grounds? Difference in costs for the NHS?
by Francois in Paris on Thu Mar 20th, 2008 at 10:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They can do that?!!  What was her explanation for it?  As I understand it, the hormones are the same as they are in pills, just delivered differently...

Also, in the US, you can get pills from Planned Parenthood and some clinics.  Is there something like that where you are?  

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 02:15:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The primary reason is simple: it's my fertility, and you can't frame that in reference to the state, religion, teenage mothers, or anything external to the individual, not even the 'sacredness of life'. The only term of reference is me.

Spot on.

There is no debate. The "debate" is totally illegitimate. The "pro-life" side has no standing in that matter. None. It's not about abortion. It's about control on others. It's about negating individual autonomy. It's about authoritarianism.

This abortion "debate" is really where liberal democracies fail when they pretend to be value-neutral. Sigh.

by Francois in Paris on Thu Mar 20th, 2008 at 10:29:25 PM EST
I totally agree.

I object to the removal of freedom to choose what happens with respect to your own body but also to the moral values and judgements imposed upon women by the pro-life side.

The constructions of the groups involved in this debate such as young mothers, are not helpful and fail to look at the underlying causes.

The same moral judgements that condemn pregnant teenagers are largely responsible for the environments in which they become pregnant in the first place.  Preaching abstinence and throwing their brand of morality down then fails to give access to the process of learning about and understanding sexuality, relationships and sex.  

Conservative distaste for open and frank discussion on sex and contraception, and the imposition of linking sex at a young age to poor moral character simply creates a situation where young people are not informed or confident and do not respect themselves.  I'd say for the UK at the moment with the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe, this is a significant issue.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 04:29:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes but women and reproductive rights organizations must take stock of this situation and adjust their strategy accordingly.

The "abortion" debate cannot be won on its own terms. It's not a debate with inquiring participants trying to figure out the facts and agree on a solution. It's not a debate at all. Fundamental rights like individual autonomy are not negotiable, not debatable. They are a given in a liberal democracy, one of the foundations of democracy itself, and trying to sap them is an attack on democracy as a whole.

The anti-choice side has nothing to lose in this "debate". Abortion is not the issue. It's just a pretext to rally the authoritarian plebe and weaken progressives. They win by the very fact that there is a "debate" at all on an issue which is not open to discussion. It's the debate itself that allow them to exist. They don't need to ever win anything. They don't suffer anything from failure as it's not about gaining or defending anything for themselves. It's just about hurting others.

They can come back over and over and over with new objections every morning : life is sacred, teenagers are irresponsible, aborted blastocysts are icky, it's expensive for the NHS, what about the parents?, etc. It's exactly the same strategy as oil corporations on global warming. Make noise, stall action, force the other side to spend inordinate efforts on the defensive to refute their bullshit arguments, rinse and repeat.

And even if they don't gain anything substantial they win as long the issue remains open so they can keep the troops fired up in righteous indignation. Actually winning in real terms can be a disaster as the religious right is starting to realize in the US after 7 years of Bush.

The anti-choice camp is not a legitimate partner in a democratic debate. It's an authoritarian enemy that has no specific right to exist in a liberal democracy. They can be tolerated if they are not a nuisance but they have no role in a democracy and democracy has no requirement to respect and be fair to them.

So the pro-choice side must adapt to this reality and get out of this rear-guard action trap. The pro-choice side must go after the anti-choice side itself to undermine, weaken and finally push it outside of the public sphere. It must go after select individuals and after the structures that support them - churches, publications, right-wing financiers, conservative organizations, etc. It must use harassment strategies - legal, fiscal, demos, etc. - to make the anti-choice existence very uncomfortable.

The "debate" as it exists inflicts no cost on the anti-choice side. It's free. It's all benefits. The pro-choice side must change the terms of that equation. It must make the anti-choicers pay a price for their actions.

by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 05:28:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Excellent comment, very important points there.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 05:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Francois in Paris:
It's the debate itself that allow them to exist.

Brilliant insight, FaP.

From the Rhetoric springs the Dialectic.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 12:59:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Shouldn't you be calling them "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice" MPs, not "pro-life" MPs?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 04:39:29 AM EST
Pro-life is the traditional term really and widely used.  Although your suggestions are a more accurate description.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 04:57:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Making "pro-choice" a traditional term was a great framing success of the patriarchal reactionary side  of the US debate...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 06:28:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Doh, I was meaning to say pro-life, not pro-choice.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 03:39:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't accept their framing of it: call them what they are, not what they pretend to be. Especially since a good proportion of "pro-lifers" (though not all, by any means) are pro-life until birth and your-own-your-own-unless-we-execute you thereafter.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 08:30:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, Anne Widdecombe was in my mind when I read your comment. I agree.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 08:38:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I did consider which term to use to describe them, but thought it simply better to use the self-appellation. I think that whichever term is used arguments need to be put, and calling them 'misogynistic bastards' might be fun, it would be nothing more than a rhetorical point if left unproven.

Execution is another interesting topic, and certainly the irony of some people being both anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment is astounding. I personally think they come from very different causes, with advocates of capital punishment unable or unwilling to analyse their own society and therefore the nature of criminality. But that's for another time.

Member of the Anti-Fabulousness League since 1987.

by Ephemera on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 10:42:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"pro-life" is just an assertion as well.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 10:45:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"pro-life" is just an assertion as well.

And it's inaccurate and dishonest because it implies, subliminally, that any opponent is "pro-death".

I'm not even completely comfortable with allowing them the framing "anti-abortionists", because it implies I am "for" abortion, which is a sly distortion of the truth that I am in favour of the right to choose.

We shouldn't give such easy ground by letting others manipulate the language of the debate.

For what it's worth, in my opinion, "Anti-choice" has the benefit of being entirely accurate and frames the debate around the central issue.

by Sassafras on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 08:18:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
At a demonstration I was at recently (diaried as Pro-choice In Wales) we were accused as being pro-abortion, of it being a pro-abortion demo.

The organisers used the speeches to keep reiterating that it was pro-choice, it was about choice and the right to decide what should happen to our own bodies.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 03:51:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps we should refer to the other side as "Pro-control"

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 05:18:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Control" is too nebulous.

In that context, and used by a friend, it makes perfect sense.

However, it carries the baggage that "control" can also be regarded as a good and necessary thing applied to prevent harm.

(Think street violence and carbon emissions.)

It would be unwise to gift them that particular subliminal association.

by Sassafras on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 06:07:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that touches on one of the fundamental left:right framing issues.

We try terribly, terribly hard to be fair, and think that rational argument will prevail.

The right goes straight for the emotional jugular, even if they have to distort the facts to do so.

"Pro-life" is emotional.  "Pro-choice" is adult and rational, even though passionately felt.  I suspect it's the right's success in framing their side of the debate in emotional terms that is the only reason this debate isn't properly over.

Perhaps what we need is a snappy label that frames what they're pro as backstreet abortions and control over women's bodies.  

Any ideas?

by Sassafras on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 05:24:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've been thinking on that - the rationality aspect.

I remember growing up in Tory heartlands and having my Mother spit with fury whenever Neil Kinnock appeared on the tv.  She was totally irrational in her hatred of him and couldn't come back with any reasonable argument to justify it. It was just fact that he was a vile, evil man. No questions.

But my early introductions to 'the left' gave me the impression that they too were over emotive and irrational in defending their causes.  Demonstrations and marches just for the hell of it, to be disruptive, to have an excuse to shout and rant.  Trade unions striking and bins burning. No room for being reasonable. That's all the left were capable of in my Mother's view and it is a perception that the right still use to vilify the left with.

Certainly with trade unions that perception prevails and it is a big factor in declining membership, especially for younger workers. Perhaps with a 'left wing' Government, these perceptions have been eroded somewhat. Now we are in a better position to have our arguments heard and there is less need to rant and shout and wave placards around because we aren't currently in opposition here.  It seems like we can't win either way.  We mobilise and we are too emotive, we argue coherently and we aren't emotive enough.

And the right continue to be two faced.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 06:35:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Again, that can be seen as a framing issue.  The right are usually far better than us at framing the debate in their terms.

What was the term applied to all those placard-waving, Russki-loving, Trade-union-bootlicking hysterics? The Loony Left.

Can you think of an equivalently derogatory and repeated phrase for the right wing of that period?  You can't.  It was a masterpiece of framing by the right wing press.

But there was more than that.  Look again at my last-but-one paragraph.  Placard-waving.  Is your first thought "Countryside Alliance"? Every phrase in that sentence is loaded with anti-left associations via frequently repeated references to the Cold War and Winter of Discontent.

That's not to say that the left has always been saintly and victimised.  But there is no equivalent phraseology for the dismantling of our society and infrastructure that took place under Thatcher.  We have failed to create and propagate our own frames.

And the right is still better at this than us.  Could any left-wing demonstration display the spittle-flecked hysteria of the anti-choice brigade without making the national news in a really unhelpful way?

We might not want to play the manipulative frame game.  But we do need to be aware of it so that we can deal with it.  "Pro-choice" was one good counter-step.  

by Sassafras on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 07:19:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Great points and very true.  Thanks.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 07:47:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree that 'pro-life' and its use does allow them to frame the debate in their terms, but also that 'pro-choice' allows us to do the same thing. I'm sure they would counter that the 'baby' (they love using that word for an embryo) gets no choice, as much as we would say that their beliefs don't consider the woman's rights.

I don't really have any solution to the terminology problem here, hence why I decided to use 'pro-life', as they would consider everything but their self-appellation loaded. I suppose I would expect them to use 'pro-choice' for describing me, if we were having a civilised debate on the matter.

Maybe a good way of showing not only that this is about the woman's right to choose, but also that the opponents of abortion are often misogynist/patriarchal in character, is to use the word 'pro-woman'. Although that would potentially set females and child-bearing as    opposing each other, which is not strictly true.

Member of the Anti-Fabulousness League since 1987.

by Ephemera on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 12:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do they use pro-choice? I'm reasonably sure that it's common for the anti-abortion side to use other terms.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 12:58:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not always: The Alive and Kicking Campaign - Abortion Petition. (Though the petition itself seems a little bizarre in its notions.)

Besides, even if they were to use a term such as 'pro-abortion' or 'baby-killer' for me, I would still expect them to pose an argument or reason for their stance against abortion. The same rules go for the pro-choice side, that the name used against them is unimportant, it's the arguments which matter.

Had I not used 'pro-life' to describe them, I can still imagine having this debate. There doesn't seem an acceptable way around naming your political opponents (could make a good diary that).

Member of the Anti-Fabulousness League since 1987.

by Ephemera on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 01:17:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
At least "pro-choice" was a pretty good way to stall the framing slippery slope, once "pro-life" was established. The frame is that of a fight between two positive values, for once, not a 'real' value against self-centered or loony extremists.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 06:55:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thoughtful diary, Ephemera.

A question, I've discussed with Izzy a number of times without reaching much of a conclusion is: are the "culture warriors" (for whom "anti-choice" is just part of a wider crusade) are on the rise in the UK?

I suppose this action shows that they are increasingly active against abortion, but do you think it's the beginning of a rise across a number of issues? Or is it just an unfortunate "perfect storm" of a set of spineless politicians at the top of the major parties who want to pander on abortion in particular?

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 08:06:21 AM EST
Really interesting question.  I think we are seeing backlash against what is perceived to be a left-wing domination and decline in moral values in society as a result.  

A lot has been said about equality, rights, integration, inclusion and immigration with defence and promotion of these values from the 'left'.

The right are reacting to that because of course it is all nonsense, the very fabric of our society is being torn apart by us putting foreigners before the welfare of our own citizens. These very foreigners who come into our country and take our jobs and scrounge off the state.  They are the scapegoats for a right wing who cannot see that many of the social problems that born and bred Brits face now are due to the attack on society and collective values under Thatcher. Not due to the current discourse of a society that is approached through a human rights and equality framework.

I guess the pro-lifers will always react to anything of this type when abortion is part of the debate, but I think it does form part of a wider realisation on the part of the right that they need to step up the drive to bring society back to being decent and moral again.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 08:36:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The right are reacting to that because of course it is all nonsense, the very fabric of our society is being torn apart by us putting foreigners before the welfare of our own citizens. These very foreigners who come into our country and take our jobs and scrounge off the state.

Did you mean that the way it sounds?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 08:38:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was being sarcastic but I'll use this opportunity to say that is not my opinion but how I perceive the right wingers to view the issue.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 02:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The way it was phrased it wasn't exactly clear ...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 02:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You know, I don't know. From my perspective it's always been like this, with a reasonably and fairly liberal set of laws on certain cultural issues being attacked by those who seemingly would like to wind the clock back. I would like to have been around in the 60s when there was a real culture war going on, and the laws on homosexuality, abortion, suicide, and probably others were changed.

As it is, I can't (politically) remember much before Tony Blair became PM, and the situation may be different if and when the Conservatives are elected, as they will probably behave differently in power, probably. It may be that the current situation is just an artefact of the Conservatives raising and maintaining their support among a certain slice of the population by these actions.

Member of the Anti-Fabulousness League since 1987.

by Ephemera on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 10:54:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ephemera:
As it is, I can't (politically) remember much before Tony Blair became PM,

Think yourself lucky ;-) Although you missed the anti poll tax campaigns, etc. etc.  which were bad times, but good times.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 02:50:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've always been pretty cynical about this debate. It comes around every 3 years or so, a bunch of religionist MPs have a photo-call and say how utterly awful it is. then one of them makes a mistake and gets a senior catholic/druid/absolute out-there loonie to endorse their position and it reminds all the voters what drives this.

then MPs start getting told, very firmly, that supporting this is career suicide, ie the voters will kick an MP out if this goes through and they voted for it. And it all dies in committee.

the is a government changing issue in Britain. nobody minds voodoo-worshipping nutters like Widdecombe or Alton so long as they don't inflict it on anybody else. The moment they do, a government will fall. We know it, they know it. There is absolutely no tolerance in the country for this crap. It's one of the few things I remain confident about in the UK.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 03:47:02 PM EST
It's Folk memory of The last time we let them do what they wanted.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 03:54:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think we can disconnect natalism (the ideology underneath anti-abortion, anti-contraceptive campaigns) from the Big Isms:  it's about controlling women and punishing willing (or even unwilling) female heterosexuality, and that means it's about Sexism, bigtime;  it's about keeping up a baby-machine production rate to replenish fallen soldiers, it's very much an Imperialism/Nationalism obsession;  and it's very often a thinly disguised attempt to get white people to breed more kids so as not to be "overrun" by those pesky darker Furriners, so it can be a stalking horse for Racist obsessions.

In other words, it's not a sideshow imho, nor is it a "mere" culture war.  It ties in fundamentally, so to speak, with larger social trends/patterns such as militarism, racist and patriarchal backlash against progress (perceived as "damage to the social fabric") for female/minority/gay emancipation, etc.  I would expect a renascent (sts) anti-abortion movement in the wake of the neocon historical moment, Blairism, UK following US into war, etc... and I also expect it as an ongoing stalking horse and testing strategy for the persistent army of Angry [read: Terrified] White Men.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 06:00:00 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries