Law of Charity and Theory of Choice

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by RussellCrawford, Jan 5, 2014.

  1. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    First let me thank you for your effort and warn you that you will most likely not understand all the tenets of these laws for a long time. I will try and fill you in and straighten out your misconceptions as I encounter them. Please keep in mind that I have been dealing with this in online peer review for over 2 years. I have read some of what you say, you are clearly capable of understanding if that is what you want to do. If you have an agenda of any kind and are here to "shut this down", you will fail with the arguments you have below. I have already dealt with them before.

    Like any laws or theories, these will fail if there is an error. So lets discuss what you have revealed.

    Neither you nor I can define what a law is, however these laws do meet the principles shown here:

    (scientific law)

    "(1) An established principle thought to be universal and invariable.

    (2) A scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior."

    A law could emerge that does not meet those principles and still be a law, as shown by differing definition found elsewhere.

    The "Law of Charity" states: There are more people dying than can be saved.

    There is nothing controvertible there.

    The "Theory of Choice states: A person must choose to either save a zygote/embryo/fetus or born person.

    There is nothing controvertible in the theory.

    Neither the law nor theory are influenced by a change in population.

    No, either could be disproved by proving that life can live indefinitely with respect to time.

    The Law is always true and the theory is true within its limits.


    An intervention by another that saves or extends life.

    The word every is misleading, if they are being saved, yes. If they are dying because of their meds, no.

    If the listed item above saves their life, in any way, then yes.

    No, it is not. You are taking it out of context. In context it is part of the theory.



    No one said that a person is being denied because "one person is being saved". This is really very easy if you will just apply yourself. Your "assumption" that one being saved causes another to die is incorrect. Both are dying, and you have a choice to save one or the other. You may save a born person or you can let what you call an unborn person die. Or you can save a fetus and let the baby die. Why, because if you attempt to save the baby, the fetus dies and if you save the baby, the fetus die. Why, because both are dying and you have a choice of which to save. You can't save both because there are more dying than can be saved.

    As an example, lets say that there is a room packed full of babies and zygotes/embryos/fetuses in containers the size of the babies (so that all things are equal) and that the room is on fire. You see the room and immediately run in only to find that the conditions are dire. You see that you will only be able to make a single trip (just as you have a single life span) to save life. You must choose which you will save, the fetuses or the babies. Which will you save? They are all equal to you. To me the born babies are more valuable because the zygotes have a 30 percent chance of life, the embryos have an 85 percent chance of life and a fetus has a 99 percent chance of living even if I save them they will die short term at their natural rate. So the choice is simple to me. I will save the babies. What will you save?

    As demonstrated above, you don't understand the concepts yet. Perhaps once you understand what is being said you will come up with a valid point.
    The Theory and Law are fully supportable and the term "saved" includes all methods and concepts that save life.

    Every born person is dying. All life is dying, even zyogtes.

    There is no connection to population explosion. The law/theory simply indicates that one may choose to save either a fetus or a born baby.

    By "choice" I mean that there are at least two options and one option is selected over the other.
    For example one may choose to save a born baby or a fetus. They can choose to save both, but if they do a born person will needlessly die. Why, because there are more people to save than can be saved. If a person chooses to save a fetus, then they have not chosen to save a baby and the baby dies. I understand that this is a difficult concept for some people to understand.

    One occurs as a result of the other. Both the "lot" of fetuses and the "lot" of babies are dying and will die unless saved. The pro life movement chooses to save fetuses because they presumably value the fetus more than the baby.

    That is an irrelevant calculation and has nothing to do with the issue. The population of humans and fetuses will increase and decrease and it has no effect on the choice. Saying "what will happen to the Law if there are no humans" is like asking "what will happen to gravity if there is no mass in the universe."

    The birth rate has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is related only to the choice of whom to save.

    I am not clear as to your intent here.

    I believe I had a little probability in a statistics class at UT. But it doesn't matter I have explained these are laws and not propositions that have mutually exclusive premises. You do not understand the principles involved yet. You need to ask more specific questions rather than make unsupported accusations.

    No one has ever said that someone dies because a fetus lives. A person may just die. Or a person may die because pro lifers make the intentional choice to let them die. Their option is to let fetuses die. One or the other will die because there are more of both dying and both cannot be saved.

    If a person chooses not to save a dying person, then the person dies. That is really a very simple concept. Your statement above really does not address that issue within the context of the Law and Theory.

    It is very clear when taken in context. Both the fetus and the baby are dying. If you do not save one or the other, both die. If you save the fetus and not the baby, the baby dies. If you save the baby and not the fetus, the fetus dies.

    No, if you will think back to the "babies in a fire" explanation I posted earlier this will be easier to understand. Any choice to save a zygote/embryo/fetus from the fire, by gathering up all you can save, will mean that you did not save the babies. The babies died. And if you choose only one zygote and the remainder were babies you choose to save, then that zygote could have been replaced by a born baby and that baby dies. This is all about choice. The one you choose lives, the one you do not choose, dies.

    Choice is all that matters. If you choose one, the other dies.

    A choice to abort is the woman's right based upon her value system. An attempt to force her to give birth will result in the death of 1.8 born babies, children or adults each second you spend attempting to force birth.

    The rate of fertilizations has no effect on the choice.

    I haven't made any sweeping generalizations. You just do not understand what is being proposed. If you work at learning what is revealed, you will be able to understand. It is not a problem of you not being smart enough. It is a simply a difficult proposition for some people to understand.

    The fact that death is opportunistic has no impact.

    None of your listed items have any effect on the choice.

    No one has said that your life being saved caused the death of another person. The law is really very clear. Other people die unless they are saved, not because you were saved. However someone may have had a choice to save you or another person and may have chosen to save you.

    No, that has nothing to do with the choice. However a person could choose to save her baby (depending on its risk of dying short or long term) or let it die and instead save a fetus.

    They both cannot be saved. Read again the "babies in a fire" post above.

    The number of babies born or dying has no impact on the choice.

    No one ever said there is an infinite set of humans. You need to fully read what is stated and not scan.

    You just need to learn more about the laws and theories. There is no connection to killing babies after they are born.

    Pro lifers do it every time a pro lifer chooses to save a fetus rather than save a baby. Pro lifers kill by "omission". That is how it is done. You might look up "murder by omission." No person has a duty to save life unless they establish a duty to save life. For example you have no obligations to save life unless you claim to save life. Pro lifers claim to save life and are therefore obligated to save life even though they don't, they kill one life to save another. People that do not claim to save babies are not obligated to save babies. For example some choose to save no other people and that is moral because they are in effect saving themselves. Others choose to buy a new TV instead of saving life. And that is moral because they have no duty to save life. Some choose to save dogs and that is moral because they have no duty to save babies.

    That is because you don't understand what is being said.

    Your 5 minutes of help is not of value unless you understand what is being said. And you don't.

    In the period of time before the two year peer review I took into consideration the points you make above. They were taken into consideration.

    Your comments are based upon the false assumption that you understand what is being said.

    That has nothing to do with the Laws or Theories.

    A decision of which life to save leads one to make a choice to let another die. Read the "babies in a fire" again.

    The rate of protected sex has nothing to do with the laws.
    Precautions have no impact.
    Forgetting the pill has no impact.
    Nothing here impacts the fact that a pro lifer has a choice to save either a baby or fetus.

    You just don't understand yet. Once you understand you will feel differently.

    You have not made any valid assumptions about the law yet. You need to address the points that the law actually impact and not a false impression of what is said.

    Once you understand the laws, then ask again. I think though that the reason will become obvious once you apply yourself and learn what is being said.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    Those who cannot contribute to the discussion, contribute to the ad hominem remarks.

    If you have anything valid to say you really ought to say it.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    I assume that you are upset because your remarks yesterday were invalid. There is no reason to attack me just because you don't understand what is being said. Work on learning about the subject and then your comments may have some value.

    This is not about me or you. That is where your ideas fail. If you have a valid remark then you should make it.

    I am not seeking anything from you. You are here for your own purposes.

    I have not asked you to listen to anything.

    I evidently am worth paying attention to. You choose to read and "not understand a single word I wrote."

    Evidently you are unable to understand what is said and therefore falsely assume that there was no lucidity. That is your flaw, not mine.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    The delusion is strong with this one.

    Nothing controvertible? Are you serious? Your theory (which of course is not a theory) is absurd on every level. It makes no rational sense. I find it a little disconcerting that you could think that it does make sense.
  8. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    The fact is that if you thought there were something controvertible in the theory you would have posted it to prove your point. You didn't instead you posted an ad hominem attack that has no value at all.

    If you have something to say, say it.
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2014
  9. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    That last statement is unclear, but it's immaterial.

    If this is the whole purpose of the thread you could have simply said so in the opening post. I don't understand the litany of argumentative statements you made to get me to this point. Nor do I think this scenario is necessary. A fetus in a jar isn't alive. It's just preposterous.

    If I were you I would strip away all the circumlocution and just keep keep it simple and direct. It's pretty obvious that you simply want to elaborate on the definition of life as set forth in Roe v Wade. So go ahead. Rail away. Most of the folks here will tell you they support it.

    Do I support that decision? Yes. Is is a crime to kill a fetus? As I'm sure you know, yes it is, if the child is viable. Do I support the interests of the state in that regard? No. I have little faith in the power of the people of any state being represented in the agents that represent them in such cases, esp. since these tend to be judicial officers infected by the Right Wing, bent on usurping, occupying and owning the privately held values of average people, esp. as they concern totally unrelated matters, like whether Christian Bible has a legitimate place in matters of public policy. And no, I adamantly say it is an insult to the intelligence of the vast numbers of people who share no such religious ideology to keep waving this in our faces, whether it comes up in abortion, the teaching of evolution, stem cell research, climate science, deregulation, gay rights, immigration issues, health care, the economy, foreign policy or just about anything else.

    Back to the late term baby. While I said I do not support the position of the State, I certainly support that child's right to life once it has developed to a state of viability. This is the law of the land, and as far as I'm concerned the Tea Baggers and fundies can kick and scream until they are blue in the face -- we are never going back to the nightmares of the Bush era. Nor are we going back to the pathos of back alley mutilations and slaughter.

    So what's really going on? Why bait folks who agree with you into arguing such a bizarre and contrived set of statements? Does it really matter if I'm critical of your awkward and imprecise logical constructions? I could help you correct your logical and rhetorical faux pas but to what end? You're not here to listen to me. You came here to lay down your claims, anticipating some bickering over rather frivolous issues superfluous to the definition of life. It's a question of viability, right? Why not just be at peace with that simple level of discussion?

    I would have found it interesting to follow you on your excursion into forensics if it were not laced with all those landmines.
  10. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    OK I will say it.

    You said this, "The "Theory of Choice states: A person must choose to either save a zygote/embryo/fetus or born person."

    That means I MUST choose to save one OR the other, I cannot save them both. That is a false choice. Lets say I save a fetus, you state that since I picked a fetus, a born person will die. Why is that true? How does one act influence another life?
  11. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    First thank you so much for asking intelligent and probing questions.
    Such questions advance the knowledge of science and benefit mankind by shining a light of caution on the claims of people like me. You are the valuable link that could in fact disprove some aspect of what I am saying. I appreciate your questions and wish there were more scientist like you.

    I have also said that the "Theory of Choice" is dependent of the "Law of Charity". So if either is false, the theory fails. I hope you will use your best skills to attempt to disprove what I am saying. That is how advancements in science occur.

    That is a precise statement of the effect of the "Theory of Choice" and it involves a reasonable conclusion absent the impact of the "Law of Charity."

    The "Law of Charity" states that there are more people dying than can be saved. So if you have an idea that would disprove that statement, your idea would disprove the law. In such a case both the "Law of Charity" (LC) and the "Theory of Choice" (TC) would be invalid.
    The LC is based upon the fact that there are 7 billion people on earth and those people live under certain precepts. For example all people on earth will die and are in fact dying. All people on earth therefore are candidates to be saved. By saved I mean that their life can be extended by improvements in their health, food, or other circumstances that are too numerous to mention. The people currently on earth are dying at about the rate of 1.8 per second.

    The basic idea of the LC is that 7 billion people are dying and that all could have their life extended for some period of time but that some are going to die regardless of what we do. So some people have very little risk and therefore need no instant help and others have so much risk that they cannot be saved regardless of what is done to save them. Therefore the LC indicates that one must have a method of choosing which life to save, that method is world wide triage. In triage the most life is saved when resources are limited.

    We have established at this point that there are more people dying than can be saved and that to save the most life one must use triage. And we know that all life cannot be saved for an indefinite period of time even if there were unlimited resources, because everyone dies.

    Because there are more people dying than can be saved a choice not to save a person is a choice to let that person die.

    There is no obligation for any person to save another. However if a person adopts an obligation via religion or is legally required to save life or if they simply want to save a limited number of lives then they should actually save life and not allow one person to die in an effort to save another. A person is not immoral because they do not save human life because all people are in fact full time pursuers of saving their own lives. People are also not immoral because they choose to buy a new TV or to raise pets simply because all those things enhance their ability to save their own lives.

    We are now at the point where it becomes obvious that triage should be used to save life, and that a person may choose to save life or not save life and both are equally moral choices.

    The result is that because more people are dying than can be saved, and if a person chooses to save life, they will in fact, while using triage, choose to save either a born person or a fetus. Why is the choice limited, because there are only born and unborn people available to choose from should people choose to save human life.

    Using triage, one must consider all the facts before they can save the most life possible. Because a zygote has only a 30 percent chance of life and an embryo has only a 85 percent chance of life and a fetus has 99 percent chance of life, all three have less chance of life than a born baby that is 100 percent alive. Therefore, in triage, while there are some times when a fetus would be the choice to save, most of the time a choice to save the fetus will actually lead to the choice of not saving a born person that has a higher chance of life.

    So in the final examination of facts, one must choose which life to save because all life is dying. If a person chooses to save a born person, then they must choose which born person they will save. If they save a born person, then there is always a fetus that they could have chosen to save as well and the fetus will die. The same is true if the fetus is saved, a born baby will die. So a choice to save a born person lets other born people die and also lets a fetus die. A choice to save a fetus results in the choice not to save a born person. Either way a person or fetus dies.

    I hope this information will help you understand the "Law of Charity and the Theory of Choice."

    It is true because there are more people dying than can be saved.

    The act to choose to save a fetus is an act to not choose to save a baby and the baby, child or adult will die.
  12. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

  13. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    What do you mean by the statement "there are more people dying than can be saved"?
  14. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Good luck. The way I understand it is he's trying to say that resources are limited and you can either put your "efforts" into saving a child that is already born or forcing a woman to carry to term. Where it get's murky is at the beginning it starts with a "choice". Have fun...
  15. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    It means that there are 7 billion people on earth and they are all dying and will all die.

    It is scientifically impossible to save all humans, because we all die. We don't die because of a lack of resources, we die because that is what happens to all human life. Because we all die we cannot be saved, indefinitely.
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    For all of that you simply could have said "Humans are not immortal". So what? How does it remotely relate to the central theme of abortion, which is, that life is defined for the fetus which has reached viability? You seem to know that this is the nuance which breaks the back of your bizarre use of logic, so maybe you think it's better to avoid the question rather than to admit defeat.
  17. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    Thank you so much for your well reasoned comments. It is because of people like you that I have been able to clarify the issue for others.

    Everyone understands that people are not immortal. But that is not the point. The point is that people are not immortal "because they cannot be saved." So your suggestion is appreciated but off point.

    Viability has no impact and the reason why will be explained later.

    Because life is not immortal, neither unborn nor born life can be saved. All that can occur is that "life" can be extended for some period of time.

    You need to understand that it is better to save the life of a baby/child/adult that is not about to abort naturally than it is to attempt to save a z/e/f that will die via natural abortion.

    Another point inherent in the LC and TC is that by focusing on saving life, not necessarily the life of the fetus, but all life, several lives can be extended for a period of time which is better than saving a fetus for the short time period of time too birth. Using triage it is possible to save several lives with the resources used to force the birth of a single fetus.

    I think you have missed the point of the "Law of Charity" and "Theory of Choice." They are not based upon "life at viability."

    Let me explain the main point of the laws. There are simply more people born than we can save, because of the high population of the earth and the fact that everyone dies. Therefore if one wants to save life, they must choose which life they will save. There is no instant where there are only fetuses to save so there is always a choice between saving one of 7 billion born people or a fetus. The ability to save life has nothing to do with viability, because the born people are in fact viable and the fetus is --- Never viable--- until it is proved to be viable. So viability is not an issue except for the fraudulent claim that viability can be known before the fetus is born.

    I do appreciate your interest in this issue. Your help is vital. Please feel free to continue to comment as you see fit.
  18. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Your logic is nonexistent. You do not have to save a fetus - just continue the pregnancy and if it spontaneously aborts that is sad, but it has no affect on a living child one way or the other.

    You appear to have some really, really, really bizarre notions. I find it astounding that you have convinced youself that what you are saying makes the slightest bit of sense. The more you write the dumber your idea sounds - and it didn't start out too hot!
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2014
  19. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Russell, I see that you're still at it. I have politely asked you three times to provide supporting evidence for your assertion that saving a fetus will almost surely result in the death of an already-born human. This is an extraordinary assertion which invokes the Rule of Laplace and requires extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat it with respect. Nonetheless I'll be considerably mollified if you can present any evidence at all.

    This assertion flies in the face of both reason and statistics. Especially since the "universe of discourse" is the United States, whose laws are being discussed, in which the birth rate of native-born citizens has dropped below replacement level and the only thing that's propping up our Social Security Ponzi scheme is immigration. It's astounding to suggest that saving a fetus would do anything to this country except provide one more worker whose taxes will keep the government from going bankrupt for about one more millisecond.

    I am going to report you to the Moderator of this subforum and let him decide how to deal with you. If you don't want to have that discussion with him, I strongly suggest that you clean up your act and provide the requested evidence before he gets here--or, more likely, admit that your argument is nothing more than an opinion and you actually have no evidence to support it.

    Fraggle Rocker
    Arts & Culture
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Zero-Sum Error

    Could you provide some literary background on this Law of Charity. To the one, it sounds a bit as if you're taking something self-evident, e.g., that all people die, and transforming it into a philosophical Law.

    That there are more people dying than can be saved is self-evident, as well, but is not necessarily a fixed presupposition that will stand for all time.

    There is a problem in the translation between abstract principle—a thought exercise limited by a zero-sum presupposition—and living application. Work around the zero-sum.

    Consider the Christian call to charity. If any one Christian independently follows through on that, he or she becomes one in need; nobody can save everyone. But if every Christian does their part, the task becomes very nearly conceivable. Extend that to the whole of humanity, and the task likely becomes manageable. I say "likely", because we have no idea what things look like from that vantage; I could easily be wrong, and seemingly extraneous human suffering might well be a mystical requirement of the Universe, but lex parsimonae, at least, would suggest otherwise.

    Zero-sum cannot be fixed as an eternally true presupposition. And, furthermore, in the question of abortion politics, it really isn't applicable. My personal opinion is that you should have run with the underlying joke, that the "saved" "child" in utero isn't going to live forever. And it's true that many of these "saved" organisms that emerge from the womb alive will suffer greatly during their time on Earth, but I hold with Wilde: The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible.

    That will take care of a lot. And then we will see your Law of Charity and Theory of Choice in effect when humans must defend themselves against nature. Earthquake and tsunami, storms, wildfires, and even the someday-expected comet or asteroid.

    We are the human species. We are rather quite capable, all things considered. We tend, however, to invest those faculties in distractions, amusements, and aggravations of the problem.


    Wilde, Oscar. The Soul of Man Under Socialism. 1891. January 10, 2014.
  21. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    You have not even figured out what I am saying, as proved by your point below. Therefore, you cannot know if there is logic.

    I do not claim that a spontaneously aborted fetus has any affect on a living child one way or the other. I can't even believe you would think such a thing. Until you know what the issues are I suggest you not offer an opinion.

    You don't know what my notions are. Please read the about page before you comment again.

    What you are saying makes no sense, what I have said makes perfect sense. You need to read the Laws before commenting again.
    Right now you have no clue as to what I am talking about.
  22. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    It is good to see that --you took my advice-- and changed the wording of your question. It is still an invalid question, but at least it makes enough sense that I can understand what you are saying. Your other questions made no sense whatsoever.

    I have never made an assertion that "saving a fetus will almost surely result in the death of an already-born human."
    Those are your words and they are a misrepresentation of what I say.
    And your previous statement was an even greater misrepresentation .
    I have do duty to answer any of your misrepresentations.

    You said: "--your assertion-- that saving a fetus will almost surely result in the death of an already-born human."
    Which is a lie. I have never made that remark. My assertion is that a person may choose to save a baby or let the baby die and save a fetus instead. My reasoning is posted several times on the page and makes perfect sense. Do you need me to explain the difference in the two statements?

    It is nothing more than an intentional misrepresentation, for what reason, I cannot venture to guess what answer would be appropriate.

    I have never made any assertion that flies in the face of both reason and statistics. You are being untruthful.

    You are trying to change the subject here, please stay on point.

    Your ideas don't save life and increase the number of workers, they lower the number of lives and cause a decrease in the number of workers.

    If you truly believe that you have asked a valid question, then by all means contact the Moderator.

    You asked a nonsensical question the first two times you posted. I answered the part of those questions that made sense, just as I have answered this current question. The invalid portions were not answered because they make no sense whatsoever.

    If you would like to pose a real question or make a statement about what I have said, please feel free to do so. I personally invite you to make a comment or ask a question about any issue that is related to this post. But if you falsely claim that I say something or if you falsely paraphrase what I say, don't expect an answer.
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2014
  23. RussellCrawford Banned Banned

    I suggest you read the information on my site and You could also read my book "The Living Book on Abortion" but it was written some time ago.

    The law states "There are more people dying than can be saved" and is self-evident with regard to proof, but not with regard to application. As you can see, the concepts of the law are clearly not self-evident. The Law is based upon the fact that all people die. ----It is not a philosophical law.---- It is a scientific law.

    The Law is based on empirical data that indicates that all human life has always died and projects that all life will always die. To say that at some point some life will live eternally would be like saying that at some time in the future the acceleration of gravity would change. It is possible, but not likely.

    There is no zero sum involved. One is not killed because the other is saved. Both are dying and one must choose which to save.

    There is no relationship to "need" or lack of need. The "Law of Charity" (LC) and "Theory of Choice" (TC) are only based on the choice that a person makes. Resources or lack of resources do not influence the law in any way.

    There is no influence capable by Christians attempting to use resources to impact the outcome of the law. Resources have no impact on the laws.

    The whole of humanity cannot influence the outcome. This is based entirely on choice. If one forces the birth of a fetus instead of saving a child, the choice is to let the child die and to save the fetus. If resources have an impact, it is after the choice is made. The whole of society cannot impact the law simply because all 7 billion born people are dying as are all fetuses.

    Because this is a scientific law, the results of the law are universal and repeatable. Because there are more people dying than can be saved, any choice to save a baby/child/adult will result in a choice not to save a fetus and/or other babies,children and adults. Likewise a choice to save a fetus will end in the death of born life.

    There is no zero-sum fallacy involved. The fetus and the born life are already dying, the concept is that one may choose which to save. And the length of time any unborn/born life can be saved depends on where its likelihood of living falls in the process of triage.

    It does not depend on politics. If politics do not recognize the laws then there will be needless deaths.

    I haven't chosen to "run with" the laws, they are in fact scientific laws and I am simply describing what any observer can see if they look.

    The Law are not impacted by natural phenomena.

    We are the human species, and nothing we can do will impact the Laws. They exist and control the issue of abortion. If a person ignores the laws they continue to operate. It would be to the advantage of all people that care about human life to understand the laws.
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2014

Share This Page