March 01, 2006

Vote YES to motion 3

Where do I start? Yep that heading should suffice.

Honestly all this ranting on both Ben's blog and Mat's blog is very strange.

I think it (and maybe last term's referendum decision) is down to a basic misunderstanding of what exactly 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are.

'Pro-choice' is NOT about silencing the people among us who think abortion is wrong. It is about giving the woman the CHOICE to make her own mind up - the key word here is choice. Each option is viewed with no bias and will be presented neutrally. Women will in no way be pushed in either direction, they will be given guidance on BOTH.

Compare this if you will to 'pro-life', in this ideology abortion is inherantly 'wrong' and should NOT be up to the woman.

Now make your choice. Should the union be 'neutral' and have no view as to which is of these ideologies are better? Or should it take a stance?

I think overwhelmingly it should take a stance and that stance is clearly 'pro-choice'. It is not about restriciting people's free speech (a ridiculous argument to appeal to on this issue) it is simply about setting in stone the belief held by the majority of the student body – that women should have the right to choose and not be forced to keep a baby.

I'm willing to bet that if another vote was taken and the labels 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' dropped and in their place the actual facts presented – it would come out that the union should uphold the right of women to make individual decisions. (ie 'pro-choice').

Edit: As I have said in the comments of the above blogs, I dont believe this motion is intended to bring it through the backdoor as it were, but simply show via contradiction why we can't keep the union with a 'no stance' outlook.


- 43 comments by 2 or more people Not publicly viewable

[Skip to the latest comment]
  1. To anybody reading this, might I suggest reading the comments on Mat's blog .

    Also, on this entry:
    "'Pro-choice' is NOT about silencing the people among us who think abortion is wrong."

    Wrong. That's exactly what the Union did when the Pro-Choice policy was last implemented, and it's what will happen if it's implemented again. As I've said time and time again, I'm not Pro-Life and I believe it SHOULD be up to the woman – but I fundamentally disagree with Pro-Life members of the Union being silenced by a policy which, as was shown in the last referendum, is supported by a minority.

    "Should the union be 'neutral' and have no view as to which is of these ideologies are better?"

    Yes. Why does it even need to have a view in the first place? Why not just give advice as and when it's needed, and let people make up their own minds?

    "It is not about restriciting people's free speech (a ridiculous argument to appeal to on this issue)"

    So banning any information, leaflets or any expression of opinion by Pro-Life supporters isn't restricting their free speech? What exactly WOULD you describe it as?
    It's not a ridiculous argument at all – it's a very serious one.

    01 Mar 2006, 14:57

  2. I don't think it was anti-abortioners (who I refuse to call "pro-lifers" as they are latently not) being silenced I think it was more about a ban on the sort of material they can use sometimes, like the graphic pictures of aborted foetuses and the, usually unrepresentative, horror stories of abortions going wrong as all medical procedures do occasionally. This sort of material may be biologically accurate but many would find it offensive and offputting as most of us aren't struggling with a decision about whether to have an abortion or not and don't really need to have graphic material shoved down our throats. I'm not exaggerating,

    I've seen these people at work in several cities around the world and they can be aggressive and insulting, so it might seem like restricting freedom of speech but only to the extent that we limit the voices of the BNP, extremist Islamic groups or homophobic groupings. They add nothing constructive and their actions are distasteful and harmful to women who are in a precarious state.

    Why does it even need to have a view in the first place? Why not just give advice as and when it's needed, and let people make up their own minds?

    I might be wrong but I was under the impression that by having a No Stance policy the Union cannot advertise that it can give advice and may even give the impression that it can't give advice, one way or the other. People need to be made aware of what the Union can offer. This might even include counselling which leads to a woman keeping a baby so really the anti-abortion lobby shouldn't be so keen on the No Stance either. They'd do better under a pro-choice platform.

    Ultimately this is about protecting women and whilst people might wish to laugh this off as a feminist issue I say why not call it a feminist issue? It's about helping women, argue about the politics all you like but remember at the end of the day a lot of young and scared women out there could do with some help and advice.

    01 Mar 2006, 15:15

  3. Being pro-choice does not have to indicate a specific opinion regarding abortion, it's just usually implied.

    01 Mar 2006, 15:29

  4. I have to say I don't understand why people seem to be so angry about this proposal; it's a perfectly reasonable approach to what is at the end of the day a serious welfare issue which has to be dealt with whatever is the policy du jour. This being the case, a moderate pro-choice policy seems to me to be the most sensible. There's really only one question posed by this referendum motion: do you believe that the Union should be able to support its members if they become pregnant, whether they opt to keep the baby or not? If the answer is yes, what are you worried about?

    01 Mar 2006, 15:30

  5. Ben- The reason why the old policy didn’t allow pro-life material wasn’t because it was pro-choice; it was because it specifically said so in the resolves of the policy. This one doesn’t, so as a result it wont ban pro-life stuff. A common misconception is pro-choice and pro-life are polar opposites, and their not. Pro-life says abortion is wrong. Pro-choice is effectively a no-stance, but with added bits on. It doesn’t force or promote anyone to have abortions; it just presents it as an option, and leaves it upto the individual to decide.

    The new policy, if passed, won’t do anything in terms of free speech or campaigns that’s not in the existing one. It simply offers more support for anyone who finds herself in the difficult situation of being pregnant whilst a University.

    01 Mar 2006, 15:35

  6. Is there a pro-abortion stance? Compulsory termination of all pregnancies.

    01 Mar 2006, 15:59

  7. Childfree, Paul?

    01 Mar 2006, 16:19

  8. I believe in the union having a pro-choice stance, strongly! I also agree with Holly that some 'tools' that pro-life groups use can be offensive, disturbing and emotionally charged. Rather than 'advising' the pregnant two people of all the issues they could risk being railroaded. However, I cannot vote for this motion due to the emphasis on financial support for pregnant people. If the two sections were split I would be able to voice my views of each section of the motion effectively.

    01 Mar 2006, 16:48

  9. "Do you believe that the Union should be able to support its members if they become pregnant, whether they opt to keep the baby or not? If the answer is yes, what are you worried about?"

    I do, but not financially. The whole smoking ban debacle bought about how tight on cash and how carefully balenced the union's accounts are, and while it would be nice to support union members that became pregnant accidently, and was there a vast surplus of money I'd be happy for us to, there are far more worthwhile concerns. There are plenty of widely available contraceptive options for people to use – in other than extremely exceptional circumstances (rape, contraceptive failure), someone that gets pregnant has bought it on themselves through neglect or carelessness. I have great sympathy for them and feel we should support them as much as we can, but when you consider all the other welfare issues, many of which are bought about through no fault of 'victims' own, they're surely more deserving?

    01 Mar 2006, 17:34

  10. Leigh Robinson

    This being the case, a moderate pro-choice policy seems to me to be the most sensible. There's really only one question posed by this referendum motion: do you believe that the Union should be able to support its members if they become pregnant, whether they opt to keep the baby or not? If the answer is yes, what are you worried about?

    EXACTLY

    Dean, the union itself is not going to be 'giving money' as far as I see it, rather it will create the fund and then help fundraise for it.

    01 Mar 2006, 18:00

  11. As the person who wrote the motion, although not the person that came up with the idea (unlike me a woman), I'll clarify on a few things:

    • The motion doesn't tell the Union iteself to give money (well it implies it has to give something but that could be a token 1p) to the proposed Pregnant Students Funds and doesn't tell it not to. It would be a decision during budgetting whether or not to and I imagine that, under the Union's current financial circumstances it wouldn't give very much.
    • It's intended that the Union act like any other charity and fundraise to provide additional money for the fund.
    • The motion does restrict the distribution of material about abortion in the Union to that which is unbiased (something not explicitly in the current policy), but also says that Union societies can support any view they choose – the intention isn't to restrict freedom of speech but to ensure that people don't assume biased advice is comming from the Union.

    01 Mar 2006, 18:22

  12. Is there an "I don't give a shit" vote?

    01 Mar 2006, 18:43

  13. Is there an "I don't give a shit" vote?

    Yeah, 'abstain.'

    01 Mar 2006, 18:58

  14. "Pro choice is not about silencing the people among us who think abortion is wrong." Oh please – we're not idiots. As Benjamin Keates writes this is precisely what is being attempted – incrementally. Politics always moves in vectors and from the centre and this is the thin end of the wedge.

    Douglas Kelley – "a common misconception is that pro-choice and pro-life are polar opposites." Oh yes they are, because the real issue is liberalism v proscriptivism. You can't get more liberal then pro-choice, because as Paul Taverner pointed out sardonically in comment no.6 you cannot force expectant mothers to have abortions! What the pro-choice lobby is trying to do is to shift the goalposts (and they may very well succeed this time since they are emotionally blackmailing students by conjoining the motion to adopt a pro-choice stance with providing extra financial support and counselling for pregnant students – you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be far fewer students against BOTH these proposals). Students who believe strongly in pro-life see the preservation of the human life potential of the foetus as something too fundamentally crucial to be left to the moral relativism of individual prospective mothers where neither their health nor their life is at stake. Anyone who retains inalienable objective moral standards when it comes to preserving life should vote AGAINST the motion!

    01 Mar 2006, 19:28

  15. Pro-choice and pro-life are NOT polar opposites.

    You're right, being against the pro-choice argument does mean that you believe the issue is too important for the individual to decide, BUT, being in favour of the pro-choice argument does NOT have to mean you believe abortion is acceptable.

    Not pro-choice tends to imply pro-life (unless you want everyone to just die out), but being pro-life doesn't have to imply that you're not pro-choice.

    They are different arguments but with an overlap.

    01 Mar 2006, 20:25

  16. If pro-choice really means that abortion is purely a personal decision then why is the union so keen to have a policy on the issue. Nobody is fooled.

    01 Mar 2006, 20:58

  17. David Metcalfe asks:

    If pro-choice really means that abortion is purely a personal decision then why is the union so keen to have a policy on the issue.

    We (and we aren't the Union we are some members of the Union – I happen to be a Union Officer but the person who formally proposed the policy isn't) want to have a policy on the issue of giving support to those students who get pregnant and need help most. As such support could include assistance with obtaining an abortion, we believe that to give such support the Union logically needs to be in favour of a woman's right to choose; hence the inclusion of the topic within our policy. I'm not denying that most of us would separately like the idea of the Union taking a pro-choice view – but we would have included the relevant line even if the Union already held this stance.

    01 Mar 2006, 21:06

  18. Andrew – "being pro-life doesn't have to imply that you're not pro-choice." This is a non sequitur – the two positions are diametrically opposed. Either the woman has the right to choose or she does not.

    Nicholas – in order to give a pregnant student support the Union logically needs to be in favour of telling the student what her options are UNDER THE LAW. Having studied medical law and written an assessment on abortion I am perfectly aware that de facto the UK allows abortions on demand, much though I would like abortion laws to be tighter. There is no need for the Union to adopt a pro-choice policy.

    01 Mar 2006, 21:50

  19. No Alexander. I can personally be against abortion but equally (if not more) be against the notion that I should force my views on other people. Therefore being Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.

    01 Mar 2006, 21:56

  20. I'm sorry Andrew, but while you may be personally against abortion and pro-life and concurrently against forcing your views on other people, the object of Pro-life (perhaps it would disambiguate matters if I capitalised the initial letter of Pro-life) is to campaign to make abortion, within reasonable limits illegal – and as you know the law cannot be picked and chosen it applies to everyone bar none. This is exactly the point I was clarifying earlier, precisely because many students, seeing liberalism as ubiquitously optimal, will find it hard to acknowledge. The law says murder is wrong - ergo it is wrong and anyone who commits murder is sanctioned penally by the state.

    01 Mar 2006, 22:22

  21. "# The motion doesn't tell the Union iteself to give money (well it implies it has to give something but that could be a token 1p) to the proposed Pregnant Students Funds and doesn't tell it not to. It would be a decision during budgetting whether or not to and I imagine that, under the Union's current financial circumstances it wouldn't give very much.

    1. It's intended that the Union act like any other charity and fundraise to provide additional money for the fund."

    Okay, hold my hands up and admit I didn't read the motion properly and didn't realise this, so the whole thing becomes a little more paletable. Infact I'd really like to vote for the motion now as I feel it would benefit our members – the problem I still have with it is the insertion of that line that adds in the union taking what is purely a political stance on the issue, which makes no difference to how we treat our members.

    "we believe that to give such support the Union logically needs to be in favour of a woman's right to choose"
    And I believe that's bollocks. Looking at the union welfare pages I see that the union will support it's members in cases of self-harm, eating disorders, and mental health issues, yet as far as I'm aware no-one has found it necessary to create a policy claiming the union is anti-self-harm, anti-anorexia, and pro-psychological help. Yet they're still able to provide help in these areas to those who need it. Obviously there's not many people that would take an opposing view of those subjects, so you'd likely argue that having a policy saying it was utterly uncessarary. And you'd be absolutely right. But just because abortion is a hot poltical topic also does not mean we need a policy.

    ""being pro-life doesn't have to imply that you're not pro-choice." This is a non sequitur"
    Not true – just because someone personally believes that abortion is wrong doesn't mean they're not in favour of other people making thier own minds up. I'm not a fan of Radiohead but I'm happy for everyone else to listen to them and decide themselves.

    "Not pro-choice tends to imply pro-life (unless you want everyone to just die out)"
    Damn, you figured out my ulterior motive: link

    01 Mar 2006, 23:12

  22. Leigh Robinson

    in order to give a pregnant student support the Union logically needs to be in favour of telling the student what her options are UNDER THE LAW. Having studied medical law and written an assessment on abortion I am perfectly aware that de facto the UK allows abortions on demand, much though I would like abortion laws to be tighter. There is no need for the Union to adopt a pro-choice policy.

    If this is the case, I ask you what exactly is a 'pro-choice' union? How would a 'pro-choice' union act differently?

    01 Mar 2006, 23:23

  23. Dean Love – being a fan of Radiohead is not a life or death situation. I don't force anyone to listen to the music I enjoy unless they want to either. Like Andrew Ingram you are interpreting pro-life more broadly than the more specific meaning I am attributing to it. Pro-life is about protecting of the foetus and the repeal of the 1967 Abortion Act. Pro-choice is about allowing individual women to kill the unborn children they are carrying if they choose to – see link

    01 Mar 2006, 23:37

  24. Leigh – where do I use the phrase 'pro-choice' union?

    01 Mar 2006, 23:46

  25. Dean said:

    the problem I still have with it is the insertion of that line that adds in the union taking what is purely a political stance on the issue, which makes no difference to how we treat our members.

    We don't feel it is a purely political stance and do feel it makes a difference to our members for reasons I've given. I realise that not everyone is going to be convinced, but we wouldn't have taken the chance that an otherwise pretty uncontraversial motion which actually has an effect on students here would fail to pass simply in order to take a political stance which didn't effect the Union's members.

    01 Mar 2006, 23:57

  26. Leigh Robinson

    There is no need for the Union to adopt a pro-choice policy.

    Sheesh, come on. Your statement implies that you consider the adoption harmful in some way, please state what this harm actually is.
    How would a 'pro-choice' union be different from our current union?

    02 Mar 2006, 00:01

  27. Leigh Robinson

    Dean Love – being a fan of Radiohead is not a life or death situation. I don't force anyone to listen to the music I enjoy unless they want to either. Like Andrew Ingram you are interpreting pro-life more broadly than the more specific meaning I am attributing to it. Pro-life is about protecting of the foetus and the repeal of the 1967 Abortion Act. Pro-choice is about allowing individual women to kill the unborn children they are carrying if they choose to

    We are not interpreting it any differently at all.
    Seriously without being silly where do you draw the line with regard to what is murder? I mean if we are applying it as arbitrarily as you seem to then surely contraception 'murders' cells in one way or another. Tell me why this is taking it too far but applying it to a foetus is not?
    (like I said this is somewhat silly, but if we are going to redefine what 'murder' is lets put it on a solid foundation)

    02 Mar 2006, 00:13

  28. Leigh – yeah, of course I consider the adoption of the policy harmful – to life.

    Nicolas says 'we don't feel it is a purely political stance' – so presumably its a partial political stance? Women, legally at least, don't at the moment have a right to abortion – two doctors must agree that the situation of the pregnant woman falls within one of four criteria ennumerated in the Abortion Act – though as I've already said the doctors will invariably consent to the abortion. To give women the right to abort the law would have to be changed – so adopting a pro-choice policy would inevitably politicise the Union on this issue.

    02 Mar 2006, 00:16

  29. I was not applying the term 'murder' arbitrarily. There is a very important distinction between 'killing' and murder in law. I kill when I spray Mr Muscle kitchen cleaner on the worksurface in the kitchen – I commit germicide (sorry, but I've been waiting all day for an opportunity to use that word) Anyway – we have degrees of killing – murder, manslaughter, like the Americans have degrees of murder. In comment no. 20 I was using murder as an example to back up my argument that there are certain actions that are illegal – that everyone will be guilty of if they meet the legal test. I could have just as easily cited sexual assault or a traffic offence.

    A foetus is a living, human organism – it is not a reproductive cell – sperm or ova, but a human life form which has an interest in being born.

    02 Mar 2006, 00:29

  30. Leigh Robinson

    Leigh – yeah, of course I consider the adoption of the policy harmful – to life.

    Right, so am I correct in thinking that you dont want a 'neutral' stance you; you would like the union to tell women that they must keep the baby and not give them any information on how to obtain an abortion if they expressed that desire?

    02 Mar 2006, 00:38

  31. Leigh Robinson

    A foetus is a living, human organism – it is not a reproductive cell – sperm or ova, but a human life form which has an interest in being born.

    Well your simply wrong. It has no interests at all, and many would believe it can't even be conscious – to me I see nothing more 'human' or 'alive' in a foetus (obviously not one about to come to term, this is why there are explicit dates in the abortion act) than I do in any other cell of my body.

    Furthermore I am well aware of the place of murder within British law, though I am not at all certain of its relevance in this discussion.

    02 Mar 2006, 00:42

  32. Leigh Robinson

    Sorry if my comments above are too aggressive or controversial – they are merely there to provoke debate around the issues Alexander is raising. Namely if you are to hide behind definitions for a pro-life basis then lets make sure they are scientifically and logically sound. Nothing more.

    02 Mar 2006, 00:48

  33. I realise you feel very strongly on this issue, just as I do. I do indeed believe that where women are pregnant not as a result of rape, where their lives are not endangered by the pregnancy and where their health would not be gravely affected by the pregnancy they should 'keep the baby'. I stand by my beliefs. I don't claim to be a scientist but I'm sure you'll find plenty of scientific arguments on the Pro-Alliance website I provided a link to earlier, as indeed anywhere else. Nowhere did I say that women should not be provided with information about pregnancy and childbirth.

    As for the definition of murder – you were the one who accused me of applying the term to foetal termination – so you perhaps are better placed to explain the relevance of it in this discussion.

    02 Mar 2006, 01:08

  34. Alexander, I assume you are talking about physical endangerment, whats your view on mental health of the pregnant woman? For example if someone was seriously depressed and fell pregnant, and the continuation of that preganacy to its logical conclusion would propogate a spiral into suicidal or more severe depressive thoughts, actions and behaviour. I'm just wondering.

    02 Mar 2006, 01:24

  35. Leigh Robinson

    I realise you feel very strongly on this issue, just as I do. I do indeed believe that where women are pregnant not as a result of rape, where their lives are not endangered by the pregnancy and where their health would not be gravely affected by the pregnancy they should 'keep the baby'. I stand by my beliefs. I don't claim to be a scientist but I'm sure you'll find plenty of scientific arguments on the Pro-Alliance website I provided a link to earlier, as indeed anywhere else. Nowhere did I say that women should not be provided with information about pregnancy and childbirth.

    I commend your strength of opinion, I do. As scientific evidence goes i'm not sure looking on that website will yield the unbiased studies I would be looking for – though I will certainly have a look. Ok, then regarding your last sentence my main point is this: Surely a union that gives all the possible options and supports these options in an unboased way is by definition a 'pro-choice' organisation?

    As for the definition of murder – you were the one who accused me of applying the term to foetal termination – so you perhaps are better placed to explain the relevance of it in this discussion.

    Oh, I apologise; having re-read your comments (20) where you introduced your analogy to murder I see what you mean. You were trying to show the universal application of the law.

    02 Mar 2006, 01:29

  36. Eleanor – just to clarify, when I spoke of serious endangerment to health I did mean pyschological as well – I understand what it feels like when you're suicidal since I've been there myself. If abortion is not permitted on demand, I concede that a line has to be drawn, which may be tricky. Before you start bombarding me with loads of questions can I just say I don't think the current law provides enough protection for the foetus – lets not forget that we were all foetuses; embryos once. For example, I don't think that in today's society a ground for abortion should be foetal 'deformity' i.e. where the foetus is not developing 'normally' physically. Anyway – goodnight people.

    02 Mar 2006, 02:08

  37. Okay, I wa just wondering! A lot of people forget/underestimate the psychological aspect of pregnancy.

    02 Mar 2006, 02:32

  38. Leigh Robinson

    I am leaving the discussion in your hands. My position is well known by now.

    My final word on the matter (unless I see some new points raised) is:

    If you believe in the pro-life ideology, would you have a problem with the union helping women to get an abortion if they requested help? Can't you see the implications of answering yes and answering no to the above question…

    Youre politically damned if you do and damned if you dont.

    Besides, all this defining and logic gymnastics is taking focus from the 'meat' of the motion. If you believe that the union should do all it can to help women deal with pregnancy (wanted or not) then you can't object to the motion on the basis it 'labels' the union.

    02 Mar 2006, 09:31

  39. Leigh – as I already pointed out Pro-Choice is a political stance, just as Pro-Life. Both camps wish to see the law changed. However, I believe in the rule of law and abiding by it even though I may disagree with what it says. This is besides the point anyway – since the motion is for pregnant students to be provided with info and financial support, not for the Union to carry out pregnancies itself! As Holly wrote in comment no.2 'people need to be made aware of what the Union can offer. This might even include counselling which leads to a woman keeping a baby.' I will reiterate, however, that the motion is extremely devious through its emotional blackmail. There is no need for the Union to take a pro-choice stance as Dean Love pointed out in comment no 21: 'looking at the union welfare pages I see that the union will support it's members in cases of self-harm, eating disorders, and mental health issues, yet as far as I'm aware no-one has found it necessary to create a policy claiming the union is anti-self-harm, anti-anorexia, and pro-psychological help.' And from Nicolas's comment, no. 25 we know that the motion is politically motivated.

    02 Mar 2006, 11:13

  40. Alexander said:

    Nicolas's comment, no. 25 we know that the motion is politically motivated.

    No you don't, I contradicting a statement that the motion was "purely politically motivated" by saying it wasn't. I haven't denied that most of those campaigning in favour of the motion have a political stance on abortion, but that doesn't mean that the idea behind the motion was itself political; it wasn't, the motion is intended to help students at Warwick.

    02 Mar 2006, 12:06

  41. Nicholas – you said in comment no.25: 'we don't feel it is a purely political stance.' Anyway as I already said pro-choice is about giving the pregant woman the right to choose abortion which would entail changing the law. I have no doubt that if a White Paper to change the law were drafted this would become a political issue. If the motion were purely intended to help students at Warwick I again have to ask the question, why not just have a motion to provide counselling, financial support through a Union charitable trust fund for pregnant students and unbiased information leaflets etc. – why is it necessary to state that you propose changing the policy to 'pro-choice' – this term was not picked from the air; it is charged with political meaning??

    02 Mar 2006, 13:42

  42. I'm not saying there is nothing political to the motion, anything that changes the Union's policies is by its nature political. I am saying that the more political aspect regarding pro-choice wasn't the point of submitting it.

    We didn't actually submit a motion mentioning "pro-choice", we wanted the Union to believe that a woman "women have the right to determine what happens to their own bodies and that this includes the right to an abortion." This is a pro-choice stance but we spelt out what we meant rather than using a term taken by different people to mean different things. The reference to a pro-choice stance was (fairly) placed in the description written by Composite Committee.

    We felt that taking this stance was necessary to go along with the rest of the motion for a number of reasons including:

    • because if the Union is going to be prepared to give financial support to those seeking abortions it should believe that this course of action is acceptable,
    • because we feel that when the Union gives advice on this and related issues it should do so from a stance of believing all options are acceptable.

    02 Mar 2006, 14:03

  43. Leigh Robinson

    Please read what Nicholas is saying above. The change is so that union policy is not contradictory…

    02 Mar 2006, 16:55


Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

March 2006

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Feb |  Today  | Apr
      1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31      

Search this blog

Tags

Galleries

Most recent comments

  • Try the otenet.gr (greek isp) I downloaded a version there that worked perfect on Vista. The origina… by terry on this entry
  • If you are a tiscali customer they have an updated "installation disc" which uyou download and burn … by pothead on this entry
  • Hi all, Anyone still reading this should take note of my "Final Final Edit" paragraph. It seems the … by Leigh Robinson on this entry
  • IT'S NOT THAT ATHIESTS DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD,IT'S JUST THAT CHRISTIANS DON'T BELIEVE IN ATHIEST.YES.I… by JD on this entry
  • Hi all, could someone be so kind and send me a link or directly the driver 2.2.10.20 for my sagem 80… by markus on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXIX