The Return of Eugenics to the US

 

Recently, the Wall Street Journal had an essay in the Review section on new advancements in gene editing entitled: “Scientists Confront the Ghost of Eugenics: As new gene editing tools raise the prospect of engineering desired human traits, researchers are determined to educate the public.” About halfway through, one of the researchers revealed a telling anecdote:

Jennifer Doudna, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is one of the inventors of the Crispr tool. She has recounted a nightmare she had about the technology. In the dream, a colleague told her that somebody wanted to talk to her about gene editing. When she entered the room, the person waiting to meet her was Adolf Hitler. Dr. Doudna and her colleagues hoped Crispr might ultimately save lives, she wrote. But the nightmare was a reminder of “all of the ways in which our hard work might be perverted.”

As we enter this new “CRISPR” era, where gene editing becomes easier and cheaper, it’s not a question of if Dr. Doudna’s work might get perverted, it’s only a question of when.

CRISPR is a relatively new technological advancement in the field of editing the genome of humans and animals. For those who are curious, CRISPR stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats.

Researchers have been developing CRISPR for a while, but a significant breakthrough came in 2015 when the first human genome editing took place in China on nonviable human embryos. Other developments made showed that CRISPR could be used to eliminate genes that cause far-reaching genetic diseases.

On the positive side, the benefits of technology in the vein of CRISPR should be reasonably obvious. As we learn more about ourselves and specifically the genetic anomalies in human DNA, we’re learning of more diseases that are either entirely or partially driven by specific genes.

The hope of something like CRISPR is eliminating or severely curtailing the genetic diseases and other medical defects. If you could wipe out some of these genetic diseases, it would be a boon towards improving lifespans and lowering healthcare costs.

The cons, as Dr. Doudna alluded to above, are also apparent.

Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park lunch debate 

If the science is hard to follow, think back to the movie Jurassic Park. There’s the great scene, just after the first encounter with the Velociraptor pen, and everyone sits down to lunch. John Hammond is trying to get the input from the scientists he brings along.

In effect, we’re just now starting to have that lunch table debate. Except our topic isn’t dinosaurs, it’s human beings. We’re discussing the consequences, known and unknown, of altering the genetic code.

Everyone focuses on Malcomb’s exchanges with Hammond; I’d focus more on the lines of Alan Grant

The world has just changed so radically, and we’re all running to catch up. I don’t want to jump to any conclusions, but look… Dinosaurs and man, two species separated by 65 million years of evolution have just been suddenly thrown back into the mix together. How can we possibly have the slightest idea what to expect?

His broad point here works if you’re an atheist or a believer in an all-knowing God. For the atheist, humanity is now editing a human genome that’s undergone dramatic evolutionary changes over the course of millions of years. And now in the span of practically two centuries, we’ve learned we have DNA and its within our power to edit it.

The problem is we don’t know how our edits will interact with a genetic structure that’s undergone millions of years of environmental impact. Nor do we know what will happen to those changes over time. And we’re only just uncovering how epigenetics interplay with our DNA, that’s the study of how environment and life choices can change how various genes express themselves, and then get passed down multiple generations. (For instance, we recently learned that Holocaust survivors passed down genes that had changed due to extreme environmental stress.)

For those with religious beliefs, the issue is even more significant; humans are stepping into the role of an all-designing god to alter the genetic code that makes us human. And in this situation, Malcomb’s words ring especially true, “Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet’s ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that’s found his dad’s gun.”

In this case, humans are wielding the Creator’s gun.

The ghost of eugenics is real 

I just briefly mentioned the Holocaust affecting genes and gene expression, but we shouldn’t ignore the cause of something like the Holocaust, and why Dr. Doudna brings up the specter of Adolph Hitler.

The very core of both the eugenics movement and Hitler’s Nazism was the belief that humanity was severely flawed and the only way to fix it was through the sheer brute force of science. Hitler didn’t hold a monopoly on the evil use of eugenics research in the early 20th century, American progressives strongly supported it.

Most infamously, the US Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell ruled that the state had the power to forcibly sterilize people deemed “imbeciles,” to use Justice Holmes phrase. His full reasoning was:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

He then declared, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Holmes’s reasoning in Buck vs. Bell got cited as a defense during the Nuremberg Trials, and the Nazi’s modeled some of their programs after American eugenics laws.

Buck v. Bell has never been expressly overturned.

And here’s the reality, nothing has changed since the end of WWII to convince me we aren’t headed right back towards this conflict.

It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where a socialist healthcare program, in some European country, starts mandating people use CRISPR technology to eliminate genetic “defects” from their line before they procreate. Taking proactive action reduces healthcare costs.

We’ve seen versions of this line of thinking in places like Iceland, where they’ve “eliminated” anyone with Down’s Syndrome through aborting anyone with a positive genetic test. Or more broadly speaking, the gendercide happening in places like India and China where a baby with the misfortune of being born a female is more likely to get killed.

And then there’s the clear Nazi reasoning behind eugenics: building a superior master race.

If you have the power of genetic manipulation, you could, in theory, create a race of people you deem perfect. It’s the sort of thing where all of humanity is inferior, except your genetically superior race of humans.

The groundwork for this to be a mainstream view has already gotten laid by modern medical ethicists like Peter Singer, who wrote in 1983 that merely being a human was not enough to be granted life:

Once the religious mumbo-jumbo surrounding the term “human” has been stripped away, we may continue, to see normal members of our species as possessing greater capacities of rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and so on, than members of any other species; but we will not regard as sacrosanct the life of each and every member of our species, no matter how limited its capacity for intelligent or even conscious life may be. If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant. Only the fact that the defective infant is a member of the species Homo sapiens leads it to be treated differently from the dog or pig. Species membership alone, however, is not morally relevant.

He doubled down on this in 2005, saying that merely being alive isn’t enough:

When the traditional ethic of the sanctity of human life is proven indefensible at both the beginning and end of life, a new ethic will replace it. It will recognize that the concept of a person is distinct from that of a member of the species Homo sapiens, and that it is personhood, not species membership, that is most significant in determining when it is wrong to end a life. We will understand that even if the life of a human organism begins at conception, the life of a person—that is, at a minimum, a being with some level of self-awareness—does not begin so early. And we will respect the right of autonomous, competent people to choose when to live and when to die.

Singer focuses on people who are “defective.” Like Holmes loose use of the word “imbecile” in Buck v. Bell, Singer’s ethical framework can be used to eliminate anyone who doesn’t reach the status of personhood deemed by the government.

I’ve gone a little long here, but I want to be clear here in what I’m saying. It’s not that CRISPR is some evil technology we need to ban. CRISPR itself is neither good nor bad. It’s human nature that we’re dealing with here, and it is wholly incapable of not abusing this new technological power at some point.

Even if we, as Americans, change our laws to protect all life and prevented the abuse of CRISPR technology, that doesn’t stop the rest of the world from doing so. We will have to answer that challenge.

To borrow a line from Malcolm Reynolds in the movie Serenity,

‘Cause as sure as I know anything I know this: They will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground, swept clean. A year from now, ten, they’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people … better. And I do not hold to that.

We know this will happen because progressivism or something like it always returns to the same point: they alone can make people better. And that’s not possible.

Abortion is only one facet of the sanctity of life issue. And as the ethical challenges behind CRISPR grow, it could soon eclipse abortion as the most pressing issue of our time. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. And unfortunately for scientists, it’s not an education issue.

Published in Technology
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 46 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Of course there are Unintended Consequences with new technology – there always are.

    But I, for one, find nothing holy in “nature” by definition. Reducing suffering by healing genetic illnesses is a no-brainer from where I am sitting. Besides, the soul is not the same as the body, so if we can heal the body, we should do so without fear that we are somehow depriving someone of their humanity.

    This is not eugenics.

    • #31
  2. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Mendel (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    These covalent modifications are in fact heritable

    Which still blows my mind 10 years or so after learning about it.

    How the heck is the seemingly endless catalog of histone post-translational modifications inherited in a sequence-specific manner? Especially when the darned things are stripped off DNA when it’s replicated?

    I know crazy isn’t it? It gets even more amazing because for sperm histones are removed entierly for packaging purposes, and once the sperm DNA enters the egg it is further demethylated yet parental methylation states are still preserved. Only in the gametes is parental imprinting reset. 

    There is a lot of evidence emerging that histone modification proteins are targeted to regions of the genome by micro RNAs so I guess if you have a stock surviving replication they can reestablish tthe original pattern. And maybe you just don’t loose all of the original histones and they split between the daughter strands intermixing with new ones. Thus you save a sketch of the original state and then everything is filled back in. 

     

    • #32
  3. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Daniel Vaughan: . (For instance, we recently learned that Holocaust survivors passed down genes that had changed due to extreme environmental stress.)

    I don’t see anything in that article showing that the offspring’s DNA had been changed. Lamarck is not right; this is a phenotypic change, not a genomic alteration.

    The accuracy of Lamarck’s views is contingent upon what we decide a gene is. In the most basic sense of the word a gene is just the coding sequence for a protein. But in a larger sense the gene can also include the various heritable regulatory sequences that guide its expression…

    True, and fascinating, but the article in question suggests mechanisms of inheritance such as this:

    Most recently, a new study looked at the descendants of the Holocaust survivors. Like their parents, many have low levels of cortisol, particularly if their mothers had PTSD. Yet unlike their parents, they have higher than normal levels of the cortisol-busting enzyme. Yehuda and her colleagues theorize that this adaptation happened in utero. The enzyme is usually present in high levels in the placenta to protect the fetus from the mother’s circulating cortisol. If pregnant survivors had low levels of the enzyme in the placenta, a greater amount of cortisol could make its way to the fetus, which would then develop high levels of the enzyme to protect itself.

    Epigenetic changes often serve to biologically prepare offspring for an environment similar to that of the parents, Yehuda explains. In this case, however, the needs of the fetus seem to have trumped that goal.

    Even an expansive definition of “gene” wouldn’t include uterine environment, right?

    • #33
  4. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    You don’t have to look to history to see the legacy of eugenics, Planned Parenthood is alive and well and probably in a town near you.  What percent of people would speak out against embryo selection based on genetic qualities?   20%?  50%??  This will be the new in thing for rich and famous.  Like red-shirting a 1st grader was a decade ago.

    • #34
  5. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I think this is a wonderful and promising technology. But it could also be very tempting to people who see human life as a commodity. We need to fully appreciate the potential for dehumanizing uses of it, just as we recognize the potential for immoral uses and practices that could be associated with organ transplant and baby adoption programs.

    I look at human trafficking and child pornography as proof that evil people are among the rest of us. We have to keep ahead of them.  

    • #35
  6. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):
    Even an expansive definition of “gene” wouldn’t include uterine environment, right?

    Well the environment affect expression of the genes through epigenetic change. Normally the fetus would not experience high levels of cortisol because of the placenta, but stress in the mother lowered anti-cortisol enzymes in her placenta. The fetus experiences the higher levels this triggers a a feedback that ups innate anti enzyme production. This production is fixed in place by epigenetic changes guaranteeing higher levels of cortisol busting enzymes later in life. 

    At least that is what they seem to be saying. The anti cortisol enzymes are encoded for by genes and their expression is regulated in part by the epigenetic state of those genes, probably in the pituitary gland I would imagine since that is the organ that deals with cortisol if I recall correctly. 

    • #36
  7. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    iWe (View Comment):

    Of course there are Unintended Consequences with new technology – there always are.

    But I, for one, find nothing holy in “nature” by definition. Reducing suffering by healing genetic illnesses is a no-brainer from where I am sitting. Besides, the soul is not the same as the body, so if we can heal the body, we should do so without fear that we are somehow depriving someone of their humanity.

    This is not eugenics.

    As I understand this is not healing the afflicted, it’s building a new model. It’s molding humanity albeit more efficiently and with greater knowledge and precision than breeders and progressives of the early twentieth century. Presumably no broken eggs are required for this omelette.

    Building a new improved model is different from healing the afflicted. This is eugenics.

    • #37
  8. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):
    Even an expansive definition of “gene” wouldn’t include uterine environment, right?

    Well the environment affect expression of the genes through epigenetic change. Normally the fetus would not experience high levels of cortisol because of the placenta, but stress in the mother lowered anti-cortisol enzymes in her placenta. The fetus experiences the higher levels this triggers a a feedback that ups innate anti enzyme production. This production is fixed in place by epigenetic changes guaranteeing higher levels of cortisol busting enzymes later in life.

    At least that is what they seem to be saying. The anti cortisol enzymes are encoded for by genes and their expression is regulated in part by the epigenetic state of those genes, probably in the pituitary gland I would imagine since that is the organ that deals with cortisol if I recall correctly.

    Also the adrenals.  The pituitary gives us ACTH to stimulate those bad boys.

    This whole matter of epigenetics is just beginning to blossom, it is where DNA sequencing was when I started in reproductive medicine 30 years ago.  One fascinating observation, which ties into Valiuth’s post a page back, is that children of obese women die young from coronary artery disease.

    We have a Brave New World ahead of us.  Given the history of the human race, I have little doubt that these new techniques will be turned to ill rather than to good. CRSPR scares the hell out of me.  I’ve already had a deaf couple ask me if there is a way to select embryos to create a deaf baby (no, I did not steal that from Children of a Lesser God).  With CRSPR, we can.

    Wait until we can select for height, musculature, IQ, personality, perfect pitch (which one of my daughters possesses, although she is not especially musical), long bone strength, etc.  It will be designer babies for the rich.  In an authoritarian society, the potential for misuse is 105%.

     

    • #38
  9. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    Of course there are Unintended Consequences with new technology – there always are.

    But I, for one, find nothing holy in “nature” by definition. Reducing suffering by healing genetic illnesses is a no-brainer from where I am sitting. Besides, the soul is not the same as the body, so if we can heal the body, we should do so without fear that we are somehow depriving someone of their humanity.

    This is not eugenics.

    As I understand this is not healing the afflicted, it’s building a new model. It’s molding humanity albeit more efficiently and with greater knowledge and precision than breeders and progressives of the early twentieth century. Presumably no broken eggs are required for this onelette.

    Building a new improved model is different from healing the afflicted. This is eugenics.

    It’s both.   And more.     This a kind of multi-purpose technology.     Think of a car.    It can rush you to the Emergency Room.   It can speed away from the scene of the crime.  It can mow down pedestrians on the sidewalk.   Depends on who’s driving.   

    • #39
  10. Go Ahead Redact My Day Inactive
    Go Ahead Redact My Day
    @Pseudodionysius

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):
    Even an expansive definition of “gene” wouldn’t include uterine environment, right?

    Well the environment affect expression of the genes through epigenetic change. Normally the fetus would not experience high levels of cortisol because of the placenta, but stress in the mother lowered anti-cortisol enzymes in her placenta. The fetus experiences the higher levels this triggers a a feedback that ups innate anti enzyme production. This production is fixed in place by epigenetic changes guaranteeing higher levels of cortisol busting enzymes later in life.

    At least that is what they seem to be saying. The anti cortisol enzymes are encoded for by genes and their expression is regulated in part by the epigenetic state of those genes, probably in the pituitary gland I would imagine since that is the organ that deals with cortisol if I recall correctly.

    Also the adrenals. The pituitary gives us ACTH to stimulate those bad boys.

    This whole matter of epigenetics is just beginning to blossom, it is where DNA sequencing was when I started in reproductive medicine 30 years ago. One fascinating observation, which ties into Valiuth’s post a page back, is that children of obese women die young from coronary artery disease.

    We have a Brave New World ahead of us. Given the history of the human race, I have little doubt that these new techniques will be turned to ill rather than to good. CRSPR scares the hell out of me. I’ve already had a deaf couple ask me if there is a way to select embryos to create a deaf baby (no, I did not steal that from Children of a Lesser God). With CRSPR, we can.

    Wait until we can select for height, musculature, IQ, personality, perfect pitch (which one of my daughters possesses, although she is not especially musical), long bone strength, etc. It will be designer babies for the rich. In an authoritarian society, the potential for misuse is 105%.

    Very well said.

    • #40
  11. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):
    Wait until we can select for height, musculature, IQ, personality, perfect pitch (which one of my daughters possesses, although she is not especially musical), long bone strength, etc. It will be designer babies for the rich. In an authoritarian society, the potential for misuse is 105%.

    Frankly I’m somewhat skeptical about our ability to do this. In theory this all seems possible and so does regnerative medicine through stem cells. But, I think in practice it won’t really be practical. It takes a lot of work to alter one gene (assuming you know what you want to do to begin with). But then to alter the numerous genes that play a role in all of those traits, not to mention figuring out how they cross interact, and validating the changes. I’m not sure you can really do it and maintain the viability of the egg. All of these things take time. The zygote isn’t just going to stand around there not differentiating. You have a brief window to manipulate it, split of some test cells and freeze it down for later implantation. Once you run the tests to make sure the procedure worked I don’t think you have time to repeat it again to alter a second gene. 

    I guess if we are being all supper sci-fi you can over time just build some sort of artificial chromosome that can compensate or enhance desired traits and just put that in to every IVF baby. But gene expression would have to be tailored to every individual if one actually wanted consistent results and I don’t think we could do that, because gene regulation is so darn complex and changes over time and tissue you’ll never get it right. At best you will see no result at worst you create some unintended malady. 

    • #41
  12. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    GLDIII (View Comment):

    Many maladies that we carry in our DNA that do not kill us outright, had an evolutionary edge. Perhaps not so much now, (I am thinking specifically of something like Sickle Cell Anemia) that did not kill, yet got us past the point of breeding and passing on that edge. So my Burkean/Chesterton antenna are being raised as to “why was that fence was erected” and do we really know, and not show hubris with our DNA editing, that we can just “tear down the gate”. Additionally how do we catalog many of the silent bits of code that reside in the genome? Ask some of the guys in the coder’s PIT sometime about when they inherit some code, eliminate stuff that they think is obsolete/junk, then some unexpected problems arise from the “cleaning” process.

    You and Mendel are far more up to date than my college education in Biology 35 years ago, however could a lot of what we consider “junk DNA” might in fact have purposes/functionality that have not yet been teased out and are just waiting to bite us in the rear when we start editing with out a clear understanding of the “DNA Novel of Man” that we are revising?

    Well what previously was called junk DNA is turning out to have functionality. The regulation of gene expression is dependent upon a whole host of various DNA binding proteins and the sequences that guide these proteins to regulate specific genes have been found to be scattered throughout this “junk DNA” though I don’t think as a percent they make up that much of it. Also we are discovering all sorts of micro RNAs that get expressed and have all sorts of functions. There is also the idea that the junk DNA may serve a structural role. DNA inside your nucleous isn’t just floating around it is structured and organized. Having the junk DNA may allow important three dimensional Chromatin structures to form and these structures are needed for proper gene regulation. Also there is something to be said about having a lot of empty space when one reality of life is viral infection which can lead to random insertion of viral genomes into our own. By having a lot of mostly empty space you minimize the chances the viral insertion disrupts something critical.   

    • #42
  13. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Also there is something to be said about having a lot of empty space when one reality of life is viral infection which can lead to random insertion of viral genomes into our own. By having a lot of mostly empty space you minimize the chances the viral insertion disrupts something critical.

    I don’t get this, probably because I don’t understand much of what you’re saying about structures. But if you don’t have empty space, where is the viral insertion going to insert itself?   

    • #43
  14. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):
    Wait until we can select for height, musculature, IQ, personality, perfect pitch (which one of my daughters possesses, although she is not especially musical), long bone strength, etc. It will be designer babies for the rich. In an authoritarian society, the potential for misuse is 105%.

    We already partly select for these things in our choice of spouse. Pregnant women in Belmont are also expected to behave a certain way to make their children’s in-utero environment as congenial as possible for their children, which may be a form of epigenetic selection, as @valiuth pointed out.

    I am a gloomy person from a long line of gloomy people, one of the things making us gloomy possibly a connective-tissue disorder. I married a man who has an astonishingly cheerful disposition on purpose. The heritability of the connective-tissue disorder is up in the air. It was assumed it was autosomal dominant with incomplete penetrance, but not all genes are known for it, and recessivity isn’t ruled out. In either case, inheriting my husband’s built would probably mitigate against it in our children. While I did not know about the connective-tissue disorder when I married, I did consider it a positive that I was marrying a man who didn’t seem to get easily injured, and who, when he did, seemed to recover quickly and fully, unlike me. Yes, I was marrying a whole person along with these hopefully ameliorating heritable traits, but I was marrying these heritable traits, too.

    • #44
  15. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Also there is something to be said about having a lot of empty space when one reality of life is viral infection which can lead to random insertion of viral genomes into our own. By having a lot of mostly empty space you minimize the chances the viral insertion disrupts something critical.

    I don’t get this, probably because I don’t understand much of what you’re saying about structures. But if you don’t have empty space, where is the viral insertion going to insert itself?

    Apologies if I was being unclear. Many viruses can insert their genomes into our own, and become latent. Our genome is made up of long strands of DNA of which only a small portion coded for actual proteins. The viral DNA can insert anywhere in our own DNA strands. The location is basically random. If most of our DNA doesn’t code for genes and is thus “empty” this means the odds of viral insertion into a gene is very small. A virus inserting into a gene can disrupt its function which could be very bad for the cell, and subsequently the organism. 

    • #45
  16. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Also there is something to be said about having a lot of empty space when one reality of life is viral infection which can lead to random insertion of viral genomes into our own. By having a lot of mostly empty space you minimize the chances the viral insertion disrupts something critical.

    I don’t get this, probably because I don’t understand much of what you’re saying about structures. But if you don’t have empty space, where is the viral insertion going to insert itself?

    Apologies if I was being unclear. Many viruses can insert their genomes into our own, and become latent. Our genome is made up of long strands of DNA of which only a small portion coded for actual proteins. The viral DNA can insert anywhere in our own DNA strands. The location is basically random. If most of our DNA doesn’t code for genes and is thus “empty” this means the odds of viral insertion into a gene is very small. A virus inserting into a gene can disrupt its function which could be very bad for the cell, and subsequently the organism.

    Thanks. Now I see what you mean by empty space.   

    • #46
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.