An interesting thought experiment on abortion

First of all, I’d like to make it clear that I am pro-choice. However, I also understand that there are plenty of logical, legitimate reasons why one would be pro-life. Personally, morality for me is a subjective thing, a psychological tool that human beings use. All of that being said, my brother sent me an interesting thought experiment designed to be presented to the pro-life camp. It goes a little something like this:

In one hand I hold an infant.

In the other hand I hold a Petri dish containing a fertilized egg.

In one minute, I’m going to drop one of them. However, you get to decide which one.

So which one do you save?

Take a moment to think about and answer that question.

I find this an interesting thought experiment because it directly addresses one of the main arguments that pro-life people use: life begins at conception; that little cluster of cells is alive, and it’s a human being. If one truly believes that life begins at conception, then that fertilized egg should hold as much value as the fully formed infant. Yet the designers of the experiment are willing to postulate that most people–regardless of their stance on abortion–will pick the fully formed child over the Petri dish. Interesting to think about.


16 thoughts on “An interesting thought experiment on abortion

  1. I get the point you’re trying to make, but I don’t think it works. Of course both the infant and the fertilized egg are equally alive and human. But let’s look at it another way- say you can only save your girlfriend (or any other loved one) from falling into the abyss, or an 86 year old politician. Who would you choose to save? If you choose your girlfriend, does that mean the 86 year old politician is any less human and doesn’t deserve to live? Or does it have anything to do with when life begins? Of course not.

    So then, is the thought experiment making a statement that since most people would choose to save the infant, this proves that life does not begin at conception, and that the pro-lifers are wrong? Or does it demonstrate that we have to make hard choices? And if we have to make hard choices, is the argument that we have to abort the baby in order to spare the mother’s life? In these very rare circumstances, it may be necessary to abort the baby in order to spare the mother’s life. But that’s not even the argument. Even in such circumstances, many mothers would choose to spare the baby and would sacrifice their own life out of love. But even if we want to examine the most extreme circumstances, this thought experiment fails to make the case that life doesn’t begin at conception.

    I’m guessing the real motive behind the thought experiment is meant to cheapen the sanctity of life. Are they trying to make the case that the fertilized egg has so little worth that it’s okay to have an abortion for any reason at all? The experiment almost seems to be a way to justify abortion by an appeal to our sensibilities, while not really addressing the real issues. The experiment fails to make the case that life doesn’t begin at conception or that a fertilized egg has too little value to be concerned about.

    But in most situations, neither the mother nor the baby needs to die; they can both live. Why does one have to die? Why can’t there be a happy ending?

  2. Well technically it isn’t my point…I’m usually pretty neutral on issues concerning morality because I think the idea of right/wrong is fairly subjective. I just think that this particular thought experiment is interesting to consider. Even though I happen to personally fall into the pro-choice category, I definitely understand the pro-life argument. Heck, I don’t disagree with a lot the pro-life arguments; I just find the pro-choice argument more compelling. And that’s why I can fully agree with your last statement. I think all pro-choice people would agree that neither mother or baby has to die. I’d rather see adoption than abortion, and I definitely don’t think that abortion should be used as a form of birth control.

    That being said, there are medical emergencies wherein abortion might be necessary to save a life. Personally, I would understand abortion in the case of rape or incest. As medical technology and screening improves, I can also understand abortion in cases where allowing the baby to go full term and be born would result in a substantially decreased quality of life. Severe physical and/or cognitive deformities or deficits have the potential to make life extremely miserable and painful for not only the child, but the entire family, and I wouldn’t begrudge someone who didn’t want to have a child that would only know a life of pain or suffering.

    And while I do like the idea of adoption more than the idea of abortion, it is incredibly difficult to adopt. It’s very time consuming and very costly. For all of the anti-abortion rhetoric in this country, there’s a surprisingly absent argument for adoption. I think this falls into the very area I referred to in a previous blog post about asking what people believe instead of what they want. Too often the discourse in the abortion debate focuses exclusively on what people believe is right or wrong and almost never on the fact that the people on both sides want to see LESS abortion and more adoption.

    One thing that I do find particularly frustrating about a lot of people who fall into the pro-choice camp are that they are more often than not also anti-contraception, which seems like a very hard stance to have. These people hate abortion, yet they don’t want to prevent pregnancy? Well, they do want to prevent it, but the only acceptable method of prevention is just avoiding sex altogether. Which, frankly, is impossible (as statistics bear out). You can’t fight genetics and you can’t fight your natural urges. Sexual repression has extremely dangerous consequences, psychologically and physically (“abstinent” people are more likely to experiment with other forms of sex, which carry their own unique risks of STIs). One bright spot in the contraception argument is that it would seem to me that Pope Francis would be pretty relaxed about the subject.

    An interesting question I would pose to you is what does it mean to you to be “alive” and “human” in this case? Is a cluster of cells without a brain or a heart a human being?

    1. What is the pro-choice argument that is so compelling? The basic argument, as I understand it, is that a woman has a right to decide what to do with her body. Is that about right? If so, I find this to be a very weak and inconsistent argument. A woman, in many other situations, does not have a right to do with her body whatever she wants. Many states have laws against suicide; if a woman tries unsuccessfully to commit suicide, she could potentially face jail time, fines, or be forced into psychiatric treatment. If a woman doesn’t wear a seatbelt, she could be fined. If a woman take drugs into her body (or even possesses drugs), she could be jailed. If a woman drinks alcohol and drives under the influence, she can be jailed. Therefore the argument that a woman has a right to do with her body whatever she wants is a false argument. Where are all the protests and outrage over these laws telling a woman what to do with her body? Why isn’t anyone calling for an end to the war on women? Why is it that this argument only works at the expense of another life? Even atheists believe that we can do whatever we want as long as we don’t harm anyone else, but in this case we’re bringing not just harm, but death.

      One pro-life argument is the “suggestion” that murder is wrong. And since the woman is carrying another human being, abortion is effectively murder (baby sentenced to death without a trial). I think the pro-life argument is much more compelling and consistent.

      I would also argue that there are plenty in the pro-choice crowd who want as many abortions to take place as possible- for eugenics, population control, racism, money, or political agendas.

      I think we both agree that there are possible exceptions, such as medical emergencies, but these are rare, and they’re not the reason why we legalized abortion. Sadly, most abortions are done out of convenience, without any consideration of rape, incest, or medical emergency. Even granted these rare cases, there are compelling reasons why it would be more healthy for the woman to give birth in most situations.

      I’ll admit that severe defects are a serious dilemma. However, even these people are human and deserve a chance at life. It’s sad that we value our convenience so much as a society that we cannot or will not care for the least among us, lest it be a burden. Having said this, neither do I begrudge someone who wouldn’t want that child to live a life of pain or suffering. Life is full of hard decisions, and this is no exception.

      You’re right that it’s incredibly difficult to adopt. But I disagree that the argument for adoption is absent from the pro-life movement. Adoption has always been at the forefront; in fact it was this year’s March for Life theme. I’ve always wondered why women aren’t more willing to give their child up for adoption. I think it has more to do with the societal pressures thrust upon them than with true choice. In fact I know women who’ve told me that they felt as if they DIDN’T have a choice but to have an abortion. Sad.

      I think you meant that you’re frustrated at the pro-life camp (not pro-choice camp) that they’re anti-contraception. I’m not entirely sure why the Catholic church takes this stance, but I don’t begrudge them. I do know that some birth control pills actually do cause an abortion rather than prevent pregnancy, but I have no problem using birth control that prevents pregnancy. Birth control pills that cause an abortion, however, produce the same result as a surgical procedure ending the baby’s life.

      I think there are plenty of statistics demonstrating that advocating abstinence leads to fewer pregnancies, and that’s what the pro-life camp wants. Advocating the use of contraception only encourages sexual behavior, and those in the pro-life crowd believe that sex should only be practiced within marriage, where all sex is safe sex. Promoting sexual promiscuity, even while publicly advocating the use of contraception, has the opposite effect and produces more unwanted pregnancies because people are being encouraged to have sex- particularly outside of marriage.

      I like your last question about what it means to be alive or human. Yes, a cluster of cells can be human if it has the same genetic information that makes you and me human. One needn’t have eyes, ears, hands, arms, or even a brain to be fully human. People like this are walking around us all the time, and they’re just as human as you or I.

      1. I’ve never really seen research that suggests abstinence leads to fewer pregnancies. In fact everything I’ve ever read in the literature points to the exact opposite. I’m also pretty hesitant about equating law with morality and ethics. Yes, suicide is illegal. But does that mean it’s inherently wrong? Obviously I would prefer it if people didn’t kill themselves, but it’s their body and their life, and they should have the option to end it for whatever reason they see fit. So, ultimately, I see that suicide law as well intentioned but severely flawed.

        I’d also be hesitant to suggest the idea that most abortions are done “out of convenience.” To me, there’s a difference between not wanting a baby and not being able to take care of one. And to answer your first question, I find the pro choice argument more compelling because I don’t believe that “the sanctity of life” is a real thing. Quite frankly I don’t think that a cluster of cells with no brain or heart is a human being. Before a certain point, there’s not enough differentiation to warrant considering the fetus or embryo a “person.” Beyond that point, however, is a completely different story. Every cell in my body has the exact same genetic material, it’s just expressed differently. Does that mean that a cluster of cells biopsies at the hospital is a person? It has all the same genetic information that I do. Science can even turn it into an organ or another person via cloning. Why isn’t donating sperm or egg considered trafficking human beings? Etc etc.

        I think there’s a lot of sentimentality surrounding procreation, and I personally feel that it’s a survival mechanism. That’s why I don’t begrudge anyone for being against abortion.

      2. Some of the studies I’ve seen suggest that sex education vs. abstinence is difficult to quantify. The only negative results I’ve seen is when there’s no sexual instruction at all.

        But if you’ve never really seen any research suggesting abstinence leads to fewer pregnancies, please take a look at this article from the Heritage Foundation. It’s a bit lengthy, but fairly comprehensive.

        I’ve worked with pro-life organizations who council and treat women with unwanted pregnancies, and it’s not that the women aren’t able to take care of the baby (although that is true to some extent), it’s that they don’t want the baby; they may be too young, or it’s a burden, or they want to go to college and have a career, they feel they don’t have a choice, they’re confused, their parents or boyfriend want them to have an abortion, etc.

        If you don’t believe that the “sanctity of life” is a real thing, then how can you be opposed to genocide, murder, war, or other atrocities? I think such a stance would signify that a human life is no more valuable than a worm, even if we understand human suffering. It’s sad that people suffer, but that’s life, and we shouldn’t be troubled over such suffering if we aren’t troubled by the death of a fly. If, however, we are troubled by human death and suffering, then we know and understand that there’s something special about humanity, and that would include a fetus. I just don’t think one can simply reject the sanctity of life if we have a problem with human suffering.

        If a fertilized egg isn’t human, then what is it? It has all the genetic information that makes you and I human. It’s not a duck or a polar bear… it’s human. The differentiation between a fetus and a person is superficial, not actual.

        You’re right that our cells have the same genetic material, but the difference between ordinary cells and a fetus is that a fetus is designed to develop into one of us, while our cells have other functions to preserve our life. If we use the cell for cloning, then at that point I believe the cell becomes human, and we shouldn’t terminate the life. I guess donating eggs and sperm could be considered human trafficking if we passed a law declaring it as such, but eggs and sperm don’t contain the genetic blueprint to make either human on their own.

        I agree that there’s a lot of sentimentality surrounding procreation, but that’s because we, as humans, value human life. We know that murder and intentionally causing harm and suffering is wrong, and that we should protect the weakest among us. We do have a survival mechanism, but we also are willing and able to sacrifice ourselves for others.

      3. Tonight I was at a pro-life banquet for the Capital Area Pregnancy Center, and it had me thinking about this post. This was the third or fourth time I’ve been to such an event, and they’re always very powerful, and tonight was no exception. There were three women who spoke: one woman opted not to have the abortion after being encouraged by a volunteer. She was about 20 years old at the time, had just broken up the relationship with her boyfriend and was about to start her life over again when she found out she was pregnant. She looked up abortions in the phone book and found an ad for abortion alternatives. She called, and ended up finding hope through the volunteers at CAPC and found hope in Christ. As a result she decided not to have the abortion. Now she has three beautiful children, and is married to the man who was her boyfriend. The second woman had an abortion because she felt that was her only option. That woman was haunted by her abortion, but she ended up becoming hardened. She would go on to have a second abortion, but that one was emotionless. It was about 20 years later that she found herself suicidal and tormented, and she finally went to CAPC for help. After years of counseling, she found the hope she was seeking, and has now devoted her time to helping women save their babies so that they don’t have to endure the emotional trauma she faced for decades. The last woman was raped, and she was going to have an abortion because she wouldn’t be able to love the child, couldn’t afford to have another child, and she used every excuse she could think of to justify the abortion. But in the end she turned to CAPC for help, and they helped her through the pregnancy, and now she loves her daughter and is helping other women who’ve gone through similar situations so that they can find the hope and freedom that she found.

        In every case there were compassionate women who volunteered out of love, and they were able to change the lives of women who had no hope and nowhere to run. I’ve heard their stories countless times, but there’s hope for those who are willing to take that leap of faith and dare to do the right thing.

        One of the themes I’ve heard over and over throughout the years is that women who’ve had abortions have tremendous emotional scars, and those in the pro-choice camp are responsible for those scars. These women tell us that there’s not a day that goes by that they don’t think about the baby they killed. Abortion is very ugly, but there is hope in life.

      4. I have absolutely no doubt that abortion is a very difficult experience that stays with a woman for life. And despite what some people claim, I don’t believe it’s ever a decision made lightly or in flippancy. But doesn’t adoption carry its own trauma? I’m sure women regret that decision too. And I’m sure that abandonment and growing up in a foster system or orphanage traumatizes children.

        To me, these stories just reinforce a need for access to family planning services and contraception. Even pro choice people would like to see less or ideally no abortion, and I could even live in a world where abortion was only allowed in medical emergencies or cases of rape or incest. The problem that I see is that more often than not places that want to completely and totally ban all abortions are also the places that want to eliminate sex ed and promote abstinence only programs.

        When has ignorance ever led to positive outcomes? “Cross your legs, stay away from boys, and we’ll talk about sex when you’re married,” isn’t a plan. “Oh you got knocked up? Well you can either live a life of poverty or give the baby up for adoption,” isn’t exactly a stellar choice either. If nothing else, unintended pregnancies result in more women relying on welfare, food stamps, and WIC.

        I get that sex makes some people uncomfortable, or that some parents think that they’re better equipped to talk to their kids than a health teacher. But that isn’t all parents. Some parents aren’t comfortable discussing the subject with their children. And despite what most think, they probably aren’t better equipped to talk about it than an educator.

        As a healthcare professional, it’s not my job to advocate for abortion, adoption, abstinence, or contraception. My job is to answer questions and provide information on ALL options, and then support whatever decision a woman arrives to and respect her right to autonomy. I think that could go a long way in a compromise with this debate. I think people should have access to all information–even about adoption and abstinence. But that also includes abortion and contraception.

      5. I don’t think adoption carries trauma so much. I think it provides relief and freedom for women, although it could also cause some doubts and regrets later in life. But I think overall it’s seen as positive and beneficial. I do agree that some of the children will have some psychological scars, such as abandonment, but for those who find a home where there wanted and valued, they are glad that they were not aborted. Even those who are not adopted can lead happy, productive lives if given the right chance. I know plenty of people who were adopted, and even Jack Nicholson has made some remarkable comments about his being adopted.

        Jack Nicolson: “I’m very contra my constituency in terms of abortion because I’m positively against it. I don’t have the right to any other view. My only emotion is gratitude, literally, for my life.”

        I disagree with the problem as you’ve described it. I think abortion should be banned, except for a few, limited exceptions. But those of us who are pro-life want to promote healthy choices that will lead to fewer pregnancies outside of marriage. This is not calling for ignorance. I think that’s a mischaracterization of what being pro-life means. That’s how the pro-choice crowd has framed the argument, but that’s incorrect as I’ve previously pointed out. Pro-life advocates encourage education and healthy choices that will keep people out of poverty, off welfare and food stamps.

        The problem I have with the compromise you offer is that, if the woman decides to abort a perfectly healthy baby, the baby will die. It sounds like you believe that the mother’s rights are greater than the baby’s rights, but I think a healthy pro-life campaign will put this woman on the right track and save the life of the baby. I’ve seen it time and time again.

      6. Well, my position on rights is very…nebulous, for lack of a better word. I’m of the opinion that rights are completely arbitrary and essentially made up privileges we humans grant ourselves. In that sense, technically people do indeed have greater rights than others (or perhaps none of us really have any rights). In particular I see the “right to life” as nothing more than a byproduct of self-preservation, a survival instinct. But, in this specific context, I would say that as we define what constitutes a human being differently, we naturally define who does and who doesn’t have rights differently.

        To me, a right is something that can never be taken away, reduced, or limited in any sort of way. Thus, if the “right to life” were a real thing, it would apply to everyone, in every situation, in an equal way. But we’ve already established that it doesn’t. We’ve already established that murder and killing can be justifiable. So what does that live with us? Well, it doesn’t leave us with any sort of right. What it leaves us with is a “privilege to live.” Essentially, your life is granted by the people around you for various reasons. But those reasons are ultimately self-serving. I know we’ve talked about the death penalty before. There’s really no reason for the death penalty. It doesn’t serve as a deterrent, or I’d assume we would no longer have murderers in our society. We can isolate and remove someone from society without killing them. The death penalty doesn’t bring the victim back to life. So why do we have it? My guess, if I had to guess, would be “an eye for an eye.” Or at least that would be a large component to it.

        And on a final note, I suppose I did paint the pro-life camp with a rather broad brush. It’s entirely possible that someone can be pro-life and pro-sex education and contraception. But as far as the argument has ever been framed in terms of policy and law, I’ve always seen total bans go hand-in-hand. Ideally, this wouldn’t be the case, but in the political arena it seems like the extremes are the only people who ever make it to office.

  3. That is an interesting experiment. I am assuming from the way it is written that there is no particular attachment to either through genetics. In other words the infant and the fertilized egg are both not related in anyway to the person making the choice? As I mentioned in a post I made soon after we had our first child about love, it is clear that much of the love we place on newborns and fetus in-utero is based on what the person will be rather than what they are now. In another one of those strange paradoxes will people will show such great love for a fertilized embryo based on essentially nothing, but have less regard for the poor, the homeless, muslims, etc. That fetus that many say they are fighting for their rights could be the very same people that they say will burn in hell once they turn out to be gay, or atheist, or whatever. So I completely agree that a cluster of cells does not a human make. (that seems yoda-like). I also agree that suicide, while illegal, I don’t think is wrong. I don’t want people committing suicide, but once again making it a crime doesn’t really act as a deterrent to suicide, so why is it legal. I think there are better alternatives to ending one’s own existence, but it is our body and should be our right. Now those people who commit suicide by running into traffic or something and traumatizing something else, that seems to me to be wrong, but only because your choice is now severely impacting others and possibly causing great harm to others.

    1. The idea of how the fetus and child are related to the people involved in the experiment is an interesting question. I assumed that they were not related to the person asked to chose which one lives. You also bring up some interesting points. I suppose another interesting thought experiment would be:

      You have the ability to see into the future.
      This ability is accurate and credible.
      You determine that the fetus inside of a woman is the next Hitler.
      Allowing this person to be born will 100% lead to the death of 20 million people.
      Do you abort the baby or let it be born?

      It would seem to me that if you believe in “the sanctity of life” then you have to let it be born and you have to let those 20 million people die in the future. The reason I dislike the “sanctity of life” statement is because it’s an all or nothing statement, but it isn’t practiced that way. If life is sacred, it’s ALL sacred. There aren’t certain lives that are more or less sacred than others. If you use the sanctity of life argument to defend an anti-abortion stance, then logically you must also inherently be anti-capital punishment, anti-war, and essentially anti-killing under any circumstance.

      Clearly, though, that is not the case. There are plenty of religious people who are willing to kill. And they’re willing to do so for a variety of reason. The religious soldier kills to protect his country. But in doing so, he’s essentially making the statement that the lives of his countrymen are inherently more valuable than the lives of his enemies. The bottom lines is that you can talk about the “sanctity of life” until you’re blue in the face, but if that is followed by, “…but certain lives are more sacred or valuable than others,” I really don’t think you’ve met any sort of moral or ethical standard or obligation. Quite the opposite, in fact.

      1. Ryan, you make some great points, but I think you’re missing some distinctions in the “sanctity of life” issue. In this new thought experiment with the fetus being Hitler, I’d suggest we have a trial and condemn Hitler to death. I think that’s the solution. The problem with abortion is that the baby is innocent and is being put to death without a trial. The baby is being found guilty without being defended. If, on the other hand, the baby is brought to trial and found guilty, and the crime is worthy of the death penalty, then we can go ahead with the abortion.

        The reason why Christians can support the death penalty is because we believe that murder is wrong, and when someone takes the life of another person without just cause, then that person should receive the ultimate penalty, and the only penalty that is capable of serving justice- and that’s a death penalty. I believe that person should receive a fair trial, and if they’re found guilty of an intentional, unjust murder, then they should be put to death; they should be put to death BECAUSE we value life, and because we believe in justice.

        Soldiers going to war and killing isn’t necessarily murder because we accept that there’s a just cause for the killing. We assume that we’re doing it to protect ourselves. There are war atrocities, and if any of those atrocities are not just, then we can certainly put those soldiers on trial for murder, but when soldiers are ordered to fight in battle, there’s nothing unjust about the use of force to kill the enemy.

        The difference between abortion and murder, therefore, is justice. There’s nothing inconsistent about this. All human life is sacred because we’re all created in the image of God, but God is also a God of justice, and he calls us to be just.

      2. If the value of a life is based upon the actions that a person takes, how does one determine the value of a fetus then, since it can take no actions? Do fetuses inherently have more value than fully formed people precisely because they can take no actions, and therefore aren’t capable of doing anything “wrong?”

      3. Where the “just cause” issue gets murky for me is that what is considered to be just is entirely subjective. In a war, don’t both sides see their side as just? So which side is more just? Who gets to determine that? The old expression, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is a little trite, but I think that there’s a least a small kernel of truth there. We only have the benefit of determining who was more just because we have history on our side, with an ability to look backward. But in the moment, who knows what impact one’s actions will have.

        Take the following scenario: a natural disaster has completely decimated a town, cutting it off from the outside world for who knows how long and leaving people without food or water. In a bid to save his family, one man decides to loot another man’s house. Both men are willing to kill, and both are doing it to protect their families. So if one man killed the other–which doesn’t seem impossible during this scenario–is the murder justified? Does it matter which man commits the murder? And if so, why?

      4. “The bottom lines is that you can talk about the “sanctity of life” until you’re blue in the face, but if that is followed by, “…but certain lives are more sacred or valuable than others,” I really don’t think you’ve met any sort of moral or ethical standard or obligation. Quite the opposite, in fact.”

        You stated that quite beautifully.

        And your hypothetical question is a good one, because I think most people would say kill Hitler, although many would also say well, you’d make sure you brought him up so he wouldn’t be Hitler. It’s interesting how when the future is unwritten people choose the more optimistic path, when in fact there is no guarantee. Maybe in some ways you can at least say it is positive that we want to be optimistic.

        But what if an abortion did kill a Hitler, or a future rapist, or someone who was going to live a miserable life, in abject poverty, or be addicted to drugs? The religious are fond of saying something is all part of God’s plan. Why might not an abortion be part of that plan?

        Ultimately abortion is a natural human tendency. Anthropological evidence demonstrates that we have abandoned our young when resources were desperate and the group could not afford to feed another because it was costly to survival. I am not saying it’s a good thing, but from a genetic standpoint we are wired to put the person at reproductive maturity first because they can always have another offspring if they survive, where as extra mouths to feed put the survival of the group in jeopardy and we are a social animal. Thus it is not surprising that the lowest abortion rates are found in countries who provide adequate sex education, birth control, and health care for single mothers. In addition it helps to be in more secular societies where religious dogma does not make those women outcast for having an unwanted pregnancy outside of wedlock. When women feel like they can survive well and be included in society over being excluded they are simply less likely to abort their babies.

  4. Pro choice. Full Stop. The only person that knows how well a child can be raised is the woman carrying it. Pro Lifers are all about saving the life, but have no answers as what to with that life once it becomes a burden to the mother, and society in general.

    You want fewer abortions, support sex education. Support low income families. Support children that have been born into a world with little hope of being a productive member of society. “Oh no, we can’t have any of that!” (the typical voice of the right wing republican fundies) Pro lifers are all for the life, and after that fuck em. Hypocrites, but we knew that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s