Eugenics: Science or Fascism?

The place to go for debate on politics, religion, sex, and other tasty topics!
Post Reply
Saint Kurt
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2151
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:43 am
Title: Derelict Landlord
Location: Watch out for that cow pie!

Eugenics: Science or Fascism?

Post by Saint Kurt »

I just did a bunch of research on Eugenics for the role playing game. I wrote it up for the game, but I thought it was interesting enough for just general discussion. I was pretty shocked by how much the U.S. was involved in laws and actions that I would normally associate with Nazi Germany!

So, here's a copy of what I put together for the game. It's cross posted from the game schedule thread.

I hope you guys find it as interesting as I did and that it sparks good discussion. As a forum dedicated to an X-Men character, it seems that discussion of how we feel about genetics is fairly relevant. I'm pretty sure if some of those old laws were still in place, along with our current scientific understanding of the genome and genetic screening, we wouldn't have any X-Men. (If the X-Men were real I mean.) :)

So here you go. Have at it:


Here is a definition of Eugenics from Wikipedia:
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier, stronger and/or more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.
Past eugenics programs have involved:
selective breeding
state-sponsored discrimination based on race, religion, etc...
forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective
killing of institutionalized populations

Modern eugenics programs currently in place focus on:
prenatal testing and screening
genetic counseling
birth control
in vitro fertilization
genetic engineering


Some interesting historical examples of Eugenics in the United States before World War II (From Wikipedia and other sources):

- In 1881 Alexander Graham Bell (inventor of the telephone) concluded that deafness was hereditary in nature and, through noting that congenitally deaf parents were more likely to produce deaf children, suggested that couples where both were deaf should not marry. Bell proposed controlling immigration for the purpose of eugenics, and warned that boarding schools for the deaf could possibly be considered as breeding places of a deaf human race.

- Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying. Other state laws were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s to prohibit marriage and force sterilization of the mentally ill in order to prevent the "passing on" of mental illness to the next generation. These laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927 and were not abolished until the mid-20th century.

- In 1932, Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood of America) found eugenics a useful tool to urge the legalization of contraception. She saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life - that the unchecked multiplication of the "unfit" to be "the greatest present menace to civilization". She suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a "Parliament of Population"; one of the main objectives of the "Population Congress" would be "to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population." (It should be noted that at the time, eugenics was seen by many as scientific and progressive, the natural application of knowledge about breeding to the arena of improvement of human life and that Planned Parenthood's past and current philosophy advocates safe effective women's health care.)

- The US has operated the "Eugenics Record Office" which has tracked both desirable and undesirable genetic traits from 1910 until 1991. Between 1907 and 1963, over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States!

- During the early 20th century, the United States and Canada began to receive far higher numbers of Southern and Eastern European immigrants. Influential eugenicists like Lothrop Stoddard and Harry Laughlin presented arguments they would pollute the national gene pool if their numbers went unrestricted. Their testimony lead to the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, both Canada and the United States into passed laws creating a hierarchy of nationalities, rating them from the most desirable Anglo-Saxon and Nordic peoples to the Chinese and Japanese immigrants, who were almost completely banned from entering the country.

- Eugenic considerations also lays behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws (laws banning interracial marriages).


Eugenics legislation after World War II (1945 - 1980s)

- The U.S. Supreme Court declared the anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in 1967.

- Oregon repealed its forced sterilization law in 1983, with the last known forced sterilization having been done in 1978.

- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, developed in response to abuses during the Second World War, was adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and affirmed, "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. Later, the 1978 UNESCO declaration on race and racial prejudice states that the fundamental equality of all human beings is the ideal toward which ethics and science should converge.

- A few nations, notably, Canada and Sweden, maintained large-scale eugenics programs, including forced sterilization of mentally handicapped individuals, as well as other practices, until the 1970s.


Modern "Eugenics" (1980 - present):

-Endeavors such as the Human Genome Project made the effective modification of the human species seem possible again. At the same time, James D. Watson, the first director of the Human Genome Project, initiated the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program (ELSI) which has funded a number of studies into the implications of human genetic engineering

- Implementation of the "genius sperm bank" (1980–99) created by Robert Klark Graham, from which nearly 230 children were conceived (the best known donors were Nobel Prize winners William Shockley and J.D.Watson).

-Harris polls in 1986 and 1992 recorded majority public support for limited forms of germ-line intervention, especially to prevent "children inheriting usually fatal genetic disease".

- In Israel, Dor Yeshorim, is a genetic screening program which seeks to reduce the incidence of Tay-Sachs disease, Cystic Fibrosis, Canavan disease, Fanconi anemia, Familial Dysautonomia, Glycogen storage disease, Bloom's Syndrome, Gaucher Disease, Niemann-Pick Disease, and Mucolipidosis IV among Ashkenazi Jewish communities.

- "Reprogenetics" or conception of "designer babies". It has been argued that this non-coercive form of biological improvement will be predominantly motivated by individual competitiveness and the desire to create the best opportunities for children, rather than an urge to improve the species as a whole. Scientists have questioned whether such activities are eugenics or something else altogether.

Hopefully this isn't too long, but it was so fascinating that I wanted to include the best and most interesting of what I found.

thanks
-e
Image
The Drastic Spastic
Swashbuckler
Swashbuckler
Posts: 1846
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 3:01 am
Location: ROK

Eugenics: Science or Fascism?

Post by The Drastic Spastic »

Originally posted by Saint Kurt
- Implementation of the "genius sperm bank" (1980–99) created by Robert Klark Graham, from which nearly 230 children were conceived (the best known donors were Nobel Prize winners William Shockley and J.D.Watson).
Damn, looks like I missed the boat on that one.

Mentally disabled people are still sterilized. I read a research report on how their parents talk them into signing the consent forms. Considering how the parents would be the ones taking care of any children their children have, disabled or not, I just don't see how it's wrong. The person who would be held responsible for anything that happened is taking responsibility, even if they have to work around the law. The report I read presented it as evil, a problem that needed to be solved.
It has been argued that this non-coercive form of biological improvement will be predominantly motivated by individual competitiveness and the desire to create the best opportunities for children, rather than an urge to improve the species as a whole. Scientists have questioned whether such activities are eugenics or something else altogether.
I'm 100% behind this, whatever it actually is. Genetic screening, prenatal testing, I would do it all.
Und die Sonne spricht zu mir
Saint Kurt
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2151
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:43 am
Title: Derelict Landlord
Location: Watch out for that cow pie!

Eugenics: Science or Fascism?

Post by Saint Kurt »

Originally posted by The Drastic Spastic
I'm 100% behind this, whatever it actually is. Genetic screening, prenatal testing, I would do it all.
Throwing it out there out of general interest:

Would you advocate it as an individual's choice or something that should be put into law for everyone to follow?

-e
Image
User avatar
Elfdame
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 1230
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:26 pm
Location: working full-time or sleeping
Contact:

Eugenics: Science or Fascism?

Post by Elfdame »

Originally posted by Saint Kurt
Originally posted by The Drastic Spastic
I'm 100% behind this, whatever it actually is. Genetic screening, prenatal testing, I would do it all.
Throwing it out there out of general interest:

Would you advocate it as an individual's choice or something that should be put into law for everyone to follow?

-e
Speaking as one born with a humongous birth defect (which took several surgeries and countless hours in the doc's office to mostly but never completely correct):
NOT legally mandatory. My mama would've gone on the lam to keep me alive, I'm sure, but still ... there's room in the world for imperfect people. I wouldn't want "Them" (ie anyone controlled mostly by financial and perfection-oriented mores) to decide if I were good enough to be conceived, much less allowed to be born.
"Humanity is a parade of fools, and I am at the front of it, twirling a baton." From Chapter 9 of _Brother Odd_ by Dean Koontz / from Chapter 10: "Life you can evade; death you cannot."

Image
Angelique
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 2882
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:27 am
Location: sailing under the Jolly Wagner

Eugenics: Science or Fascism?

Post by Angelique »

My husband, my mother, and I have all worked with special needs kids, and while parents and sometimes society as a whole face often thorny challenges specifically relating to them, I think we would be a much less compassionate society if we just contracepted or aborted those children out of existence.
Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6 ... &ref=share

www.heroesfallenstudiosinc.webs.com

http://hubpages.com/hub/characterdriven
Scumfish
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:47 pm
Title: SCP-3068
Nightscrawlearth Character: :selene :mayhem :icarus :warren :sabretooth
Location: SCP Foundation

Eugenics: Science or Fascism?

Post by Scumfish »

Speaking as someone with a list of problems - ADHD, epilepsy and Chairi to name the physical and bi-polar, PTSD and borderline for the mental - I gotta admit, the idea of screening and aborting kids with those sort of issues is....uncomfortable.

And as for the kids in unfortunate circumstances....same. Again, I can raise my hands to that.

Problem is I can see the logic behind eugenics, and the idea scares me, frankly, shitless. There's a line between humanity and science that eugenics frequently crosses, and it does so with no consciounce, apparently. I can get the screening unborns for signs of the really nasty genetic diseases, but here's a question for you. Going back to the list I gave at the beginning of my post, would you say I need to be sterilized to stop the 'undesirable' traits of my physical and mental difficulties, or that I should have been aborted simply for my circumstances at birth?

The problem I think with eugenics is that it's a good idea in principle. It looks good on paper. But when you apply it to an actual living, breathing, thinking human being....then it's inhumane.
Those who know, don't say; those who don't, say too much.

Aodhfionn 'Fianna' MacDuibh's Character Blog (for Nightscrawler's RPG)

My (NSFW) Art/General Blog || My Trans Blog || My (SFW-ish) Art
Saint Kurt
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2151
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:43 am
Title: Derelict Landlord
Location: Watch out for that cow pie!

Eugenics: Science or Fascism?

Post by Saint Kurt »

In the spirit of continuing to ask questions to spark discussion...

I was born with no visible or detectable birth defects and adopted by my current parents. I was a good student, a musician, an artist and an athlete. At 36 I have had almost 12 years of higher education and have no serious health issues. My IQ was tested to be around 170. (I don't personally put much stock in numbers, however eugenics is all about numbers and this number says that I'm supposed to be a genius. The fact that I beg to differ doesn't even enter into the equation. There are many many people I've met who are much smarter than me.)

By definition, I am what eugenics seeks - healthy, smart, creative - a person with all their potential opportunities for growth and enlightenment not just intact, but at their peak.

So, does this mean I've had a better life than someone who is defined as "genetically disadvantaged"?

I think not. My life has been just as good and bad as anyones life. In fact who's to even say that the lot that was cast when I was born is even genetically devised? What if, now that we have the ability to map our genes, my genetic code is discovered to be entirely ordinary, even deficient by some set of arbitrary standards for perfection? What if I happen to carry the dominant allele for Huntington's disease which still won't manifest for another 4 - 5 years? Does the fact that I will die a horrible death inherited from my birth parents mean the life I've lived so far is any less valuable?

I think that eugenics places way too much emphasis on genotype - the code itself - and not nearly enough on phenotype - the physical manifestation of that code within our environment. After all, my genes don't say that I would be adopted by alcoholic crazy people or that I would lose the use of my left leg at 35.

The thing that has always bothered me about acting on eugenics principles is that genes don't mean anything. The best genetics can do is predict possibilities. It is only in the most limited case (such as an amniocentesis to detect the extra chromosome in Down's Syndrome) that genetic screening gives anything but a vague picture of what may be to come. In fact, from a medical perspective, I'm fairly against the idea of screening to pick and choose whether or not a fetus is genetically "valid".

Mutation is the "spice of life" from a genetic perspective and without it, evolution would halt. As the world changes, to impair our ability to adapt by the selective culling of certain genetic distributions without regard to the whole picture would mean certain death to the species as a whole.

It is nice to want the best for our children and ourselves, but what if it is at the cost of an entire species' right to survive and evolve?

-e
Image
The Drastic Spastic
Swashbuckler
Swashbuckler
Posts: 1846
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 3:01 am
Location: ROK

Eugenics: Science or Fascism?

Post by The Drastic Spastic »

Scum, I'm pretty sure the only one out of those that would show up in prenatal testing is the Chiari, and it's relatively minor. When I think of prenatal testing I'm thinking Down's syndrome at the least. I think having a kid with Down's would be a wretched tragedy but I know other people consider it a minor defect. I'll choose it as my theoretical cut-off point for this thread.
Originally posted by Saint Kurt
Originally posted by The Drastic Spastic
I'm 100% behind this, whatever it actually is. Genetic screening, prenatal testing, I would do it all.
Throwing it out there out of general interest:

Would you advocate it as an individual's choice or something that should be put into law for everyone to follow?

-e
I meant that I personally would do it if I were pregnant (which is what I said) but really - people are going to choose it, if the choice is there. It should definitely NOT be made a law that everyone has to follow. Making it a law provides a target for protesters who are against it and makes it into a Big Fat Deal. I like the practice how it is now - hugely widespread and common, but private.

I would advocate public funding for people who can't afford the test.

I'm not really into the perfection approach to eugenics like choosing genes for eye colour and artistic tendencies or whatever. I can't be bothered with all that. I'm going for health, but I consider mental defects worse than physical ones.
Und die Sonne spricht zu mir
Scumfish
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:47 pm
Title: SCP-3068
Nightscrawlearth Character: :selene :mayhem :icarus :warren :sabretooth
Location: SCP Foundation

Eugenics: Science or Fascism?

Post by Scumfish »

Originally posted by The Drastic Spastic
When I think of prenatal testing I'm thinking Down's syndrome at the least. I think having a kid with Down's would be a wretched tragedy but I know other people consider it a minor defect.
Okay, I can't really reply to that. My little sister has Down's and she is the most adorable girl who's now been adopted by a family who already have an Asperger's kid. Sooo....if I reply to that, it's probably going to be messy :D It is only a minor defect - in fact, I don't consider it a defect at all.

And Chairi isn't relatively minor, believe it or not. Try living with it :) It can result in anything from spina bifida to paralys from the neck down due to the fun and games of the spinal fluid not draining properly, and anyone with my form of it gets to look forward to a lifetime of major spinal surgery every six-twelve months or so. That couple of centimetres/couple of inches of extra grey matter may look cool on a piece of paper but actually living with the effects? What sort of quality of life has a kid got when they're born with it? And that's before you get into the symptoms side of it.

(Just to thingy that point - I'm an incredibly rare case. Most people with the form of chairi I have are diagnosed as infants/unborns or develop it well into their 40s. So I'm weird :D)

So yes, Chairi will probably be up there with Down's one day.

And I agree with Em totally on the mutation thing, seeing as that's what everything I have is - imbalances of chemicals etc. from the Chairi right down to the ADHD. Maybe one day we will need that extra bit of brain that's causing me all this hassle, and maybe Down's is just the species trying out an evolutionary tree and it's trying to get the kinks out of the system.

My view is is no matter what the physical/mental "defect" (I hate that word, same with 'malformation') a human is still a damn human, with all the emotions, thoughts, squishy bits and capabilities of a human. Circumstances may not be perfect for a birth - I've been given a probable IQ of 195 (english system) despite being born to a pair of heroin addicts and being on most illegal drugs my entire life, which just goes to show that genius can turn up anywhere.

And quality of life is not dependant on what we can/cannot do for ourselves. It's dependant on what we can/cannot do for the people with these 'defects'. Drain on society? They might be, but in my view the best of the human race shows up in the worst of places, and some people - like the ones who've adopted my beautiful little sister - prove it. I don't think they're a drain, I think they show just how good people can be.

(I may have gone a little off-topic, if I have I apologise :) but to sum up - eugenics suck and I don't care what 'defects' I may be passing onto any future children from my activities, I'll love them just the same.)

[Edited on 5-10-2008 by Scumfish]

[Edited on 5-10-2008 by Scumfish]
Those who know, don't say; those who don't, say too much.

Aodhfionn 'Fianna' MacDuibh's Character Blog (for Nightscrawler's RPG)

My (NSFW) Art/General Blog || My Trans Blog || My (SFW-ish) Art
User avatar
Elfdame
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 1230
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:26 pm
Location: working full-time or sleeping
Contact:

Eugenics: Science or Fascism?

Post by Elfdame »

Go, Scumfish!

YOU ROCK!!!


[Edited on 15/10/08 by Elfdame]
"Humanity is a parade of fools, and I am at the front of it, twirling a baton." From Chapter 9 of _Brother Odd_ by Dean Koontz / from Chapter 10: "Life you can evade; death you cannot."

Image
The Drastic Spastic
Swashbuckler
Swashbuckler
Posts: 1846
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 3:01 am
Location: ROK

Eugenics: Science or Fascism?

Post by The Drastic Spastic »

Originally posted by Scumfish
What sort of quality of life has a kid got when they're born with it? And that's before you get into the symptoms side of it.

*cut*

I don't care what 'defects' I may be passing onto any future children from my activities, I'll love them just the same.)
First it's horrible and lowers the quality of life, then the possibility of passing it on to your kids isn't something to stress about at all. I don't get that.
My view is is no matter what the physical/mental "defect" (I hate that word, same with 'malformation') a human is still a damn human, with all the emotions, thoughts, squishy bits and capabilities of a human.
Not sure what you mean by "capabilities" because that's sort of the point. Prenatal testing is looking for things that make people less capable of the usual things that people can do. A friend of a friend had a baby with Down's and at two years old, she was still lacking the basic human capability of supporting her own head. (And obviously more than that.) That's an extreme case of Down's, but it is horrifying to me. Her parents loved her, of course, but what kind of life was that? I'm sure if you ask her parents they would say it was worth it. I don't know if they "chose" it or not. I would not choose it, if I knew. I guess it comes down to a "what's worse?" choice. The thought of being in that situation (on either end, parent or child) is much worse than being all judge-y and morally grey for me.
Und die Sonne spricht zu mir
Angelique
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 2882
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:27 am
Location: sailing under the Jolly Wagner

Eugenics: Science or Fascism?

Post by Angelique »

And speaking of judging, wouldn't aborting a child with Down Syndrome essentially be the ultimate in pronouncing judgment on the child's life, presuming to know that the child's life will not be one worth living?

It's not as if this isn't an issue I've had to consider. On both sides of my family and one side of my husband's, we've had relatives die of complications due to severe spina bifida. When expecting my kids, I took my folic acid, and I had them both checked as soon as possible for spina bifida- not so I could abort, but so we could plan the surgeries needed to correct or minimize the problem and prepare to welcome a child who might or might not ever be able to walk and will likely need some extra care.

I found it very strange when I read one web cite report a decline in spina bifida rates, attributed to the fact that most babies with spina bifida are aborted! That sounds to me much more like the spina bifida rates have not changed at all- just the fates of those who have it. They made it sound like they were closing in on a cure. By that logic, we can cure everything by just eliminating the people in need of a cure.

At any rate, no good parent is going to love a child any less for not being as smart, or as healthy, or as otherwise "normal" as the others. And as far as improving anyone's quality of life, I always figured letting them live is a decent start.

I also have to add my agreement on one point Elfdame brought up. Scummy rocks!

[Edited on 15/10/2008 by Angelique]
Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6 ... &ref=share

www.heroesfallenstudiosinc.webs.com

http://hubpages.com/hub/characterdriven
User avatar
Elfdame
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 1230
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:26 pm
Location: working full-time or sleeping
Contact:

Eugenics: Science or Fascism?

Post by Elfdame »

Originally posted by The Drastic Spastic
Originally posted by Scumfish
What sort of quality of life has a kid got when they're born with it? And that's before you get into the symptoms side of it.

*cut*

I don't care what 'defects' I may be passing onto any future children from my activities, I'll love them just the same.

*cut*

My view is is no matter what the physical/mental "defect" (I hate that word, same with 'malformation') a human is still a damn human, with all the emotions, thoughts, squishy bits and capabilities of a human.
First it's horrible and lowers the quality of life, then the possibility of passing it on to your kids isn't something to stress about at all. I don't get that.
I think what he's saying (and please forgive me, Scummy, if I misrepresent you) is that his life is hard, but worth living, and also as I often tell my stepdaughter, we are all handicapped. Really. She herself has Coke-bottle eyeglasses, curvature of the spine, and hearing loss severe enough to need hearing aids. But she's used to it and doesn' t even think about it.

Originally posted by The Drastic Spastic
Prenatal testing is looking for things that make people less capable of the usual things that people can do.

A friend of a friend had a baby with Down's and at two years old, she was still lacking the basic human capability of supporting her own head. (And obviously more than that.) That's an extreme case of Down's, but it is horrifying to me.
Yes, it's horrifying to me, too. If I ever find myself in the situation of being totally helpless, I will NOT be one of those saints who takes it with good grace and humour. That said, life is what you get dealt. Nobody's gonna have a perfect one! It's horrifying to me that my granddaughter can't tell me what she wants and can't eat birthday cake and can't hold her head up and can't go places that aren't wheelchair accessible. But she is well-loved and smiles A LOT.

As for "less capable" {takes deep breath, fighting "personal issues" that are never far from her surface}, I would hate to have lived back in the days of ancient Sparta, when deformed babies were left on the hills to die. That would have been me! Thanks to surgery and countless hours at the doc's I pass for a normal person now, but I still have trouble driving and going down stairs and lots of other vision-related things. I almost died from pneumonia because I was always sick with lung-related things. My parents went through a lot, and I've often wondered if they regret having that last little crumb-snatcher. But Dad assures me he's happy they had me.
Originally posted by The Drastic Spastic
The thought of being in that situation (on either end, parent or child) is much worse than being all judge-y and morally grey for me.
Yes, I agree with your emotions, but my brain tells me that progress in human benevolence will not be made unless some people (and I'd be a crappy example of it b/c I'm so chickensh*t) take the plunge. Like all the people a couple generations ago who had what were called "mixed-race" babies (Black/White, White/Asian, Black/Asian, etc) and knew those kids would face a tough row to hoe. But now most of my grandkids are "mixed-race" and it's no big deal (except to the school system, which makes you choose one race to be, but that's a rant for another time, ) . Same with physical challenges; it's a rough job but somebody's got to do it.

I'm so glad Scummy's mum didn't know (or didn't care?) about his condition before she had him. He's a bright spot on the planet.

Sorry to rant, but this issue cuts straight to my feelings about myself taking up space on earth along with all the capable people who actually contribute to society. I would NEVER want to wish my granddaughter not alive, despite the agonisingly difficult life she will live. She's got a sweet spirit and a lovely smile. She teaches other people to be tolerant of those who are different.
"Humanity is a parade of fools, and I am at the front of it, twirling a baton." From Chapter 9 of _Brother Odd_ by Dean Koontz / from Chapter 10: "Life you can evade; death you cannot."

Image
Kastor
Lubber
Lubber
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 1:24 pm

Eugenics: Science or Fascism?

Post by Kastor »

Simply put, it makes me uncomfortable :/
Why do it? If something's supposed to be, it's supposed to be.
Post Reply