Valid Use of Birth Control?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rawb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is not as simple as that. Some spermicides are abortifacient; others are not. And a ‘medication to delay ovulation’ might also be abortifacient, unless it can be determined that the woman has not conceived, and has not recently ovulated. Only an intervention that is clearly not abortifacient would be morally permissible in cases of rape.
I didn’t say it was simple. I gave the example that contraceptives were neutral because they could be licitly used. A woman who has had sex with her husband and then is subsequently raped can use a (non-abortive) contraceptive even if it means that her own husband’s sperm is killed in the process.

That means that contraceptives themselves are neither good nor bad. They have their place: to help rape victims.

This is again where the Church has remained consistent where secular society has not. The Church has always stayed in union with the natural design. That is why the principle of double effect does still apply to theraputic use of hormonal contraceptives. While I disagree with the medical community that The Pill is actually medicine, I agree fully with the Church that a temporary (medically induced) sterility falls under the same principle as a permanent (medically induced) sterility.
 
‘Laughable’ isn’t the word I’d choose, frankly.
Ridiculous? Ludicrous? I just don’t think she’s sinning and to claim that she is, is crazy IMOHO.

Vatican acts over Bosnian rapes: Birth control ban eased for women at risk
independent.co.uk/news/uk/vatican-acts-overbosnian-rapes-birth-control-ban-eased-for-women-at-risk-1485928.html

*THE VATICAN has responded to mass rapes in Bosnia by reviving a decision that women in danger of rape may use contraceptives, even though its ban on contraception in normal circumstances remains.

The ban on abortion remains absolute, although the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales have decided that the so-called morning-after pill may also be used by rape victims in certain circumstances.

An article in the Jesuit magazine Civillta Catolica, which is approved before publication by the Vatican, argues that contraception is a legitimate form of self-defence for a rape victim. The author, Fr Giacomo Perico, says that rape is an act of violence, to which the rules applying to an act within marriage cannot apply.

‘In this particular situation, it is legitimate to use contraception to avoid a possible pregnancy. It is not then a refusal of a gift of love, but a form of legitimate self-defence.’

The ban on artificial contraception within marriage restated by Pope Paul VI 25 years ago in the encyclical Humanae Vitae has been widely ignored in the West.

The article in Civillta Catolica makes it plain that nuns in the Belgian Congo had been allowed to use contraceptives in the early Sixties when they were in danger of rape. The author argues that such concessions cannot be extended solely to nuns.

Luke Gormalley, the director of a Roman Catholic research centre in medical ethics in London, says that the Vatican’s teaching is perfectly consistent. 'The teaching about the wrongness of contraceptive intercourse is about a chosen sexual activity. It is not a mechanistic prohibition of certain substances.

‘But when you’re talking about rape, you’re not talking about chosen sexual activity at all. If she takes contraceptives, the woman is then defending herself against an extension of male violation.’

Mr Gormalley said that if a woman believes that she may ovulate after a rape, then she can take a ‘morning after’ pill to inhibit ovulation but not as a form of very early abortion.
*

Though the article didn’t mention anything about testing for pregnancy and/or ovulation before giving Plan B to these nuns. In addition, that I know of, nothing from the Vatican replied in contest or contradicted the article in Civillta Catolica. But then again, the issues are approved by the Vatican before publication, so that should speak volumes about the Vatican’s stance in this situation. Therefore there are valid reasons to use birth control, including their usage in treatment of medical conditions, which do not require one to abstain from the marital embrace.

Of course guys, when in doubt, always ask your priest.

And keep in mind, does not change the Church’s teachings regarding birth control in “normal” situations like within marriage, for those not married and sexually active, etc.
 
An article in a magazine does not constitute a teaching of the Magisterium.

The teaching of the Magisterium is that the use of contraception (more specifically, an act which deprives sexual relations of its procreative meaning) is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

Subsequent to rape, a non-abortifacient ‘contraceptive’ (medical intervention) can be used to prevent conception because morally it is a direct interruption of the rape; sexual intercourse is naturally directed at conception, therefore, interrupting this progression towards conception is an interruption of the rape and is moral.

However, having a group of nuns on contraceptives in advance of rape is not moral for several reasons:
  1. because it is a directly willed act of impeding procreation. No act of rape has occurred, and yet the women are on contraceptives. Contraception is intrinsically evil.
  2. because it is the sin of scandal; if nuns are using contraception, this will have the effect of leading many Catholics into the sin of using contraception.
  3. because, if they are in great danger of rape, their religious order should remove them from that danger; failing to do so is a sin of omission. If you know that someone is in danger of being raped, and you are able to prevent the crime, you cannot substitute contraception for rape prevention. The whole idea is absurd.
  4. because the contraceptives in question are abortifacient. Abortion is not rape prevention. Abortion is not an interruption of rape.
  5. because of the scandal of nuns using abortifacients.
 
It would matter if she was sexually active because of the possible abortifacient factor. And again , HV says ‘cure’ . It doesn’t say mask symptoms. Go and listen to the archives this month of Catholic Answers. They have a show with an NFP doctor who says (and he is not alone) that there are no medical reasons that require the pill. He and the others have sucessfully treated all the usual diseases without it. Doctors over use it because they do not have the time, don’t want to spend the insurance company money or can’t be bothered to try and figure out what is really wrong.
In my opinion, you should look and find (I’ll see if I can get it) the opinion (actually he backs it up) -of Fr. Serpa on here. I have to use the pill - have been using it since I was 13 - and it is for similar reasons - but also, I loose too much blood often if I’m not on it. I am married and I continue to use this- with the backing of the Church. Yes, even though there is a slight possibility that it might be an abortifacient, it is still allowed (I have yet to see a study that concludes that for 100% sure abortions occur while using the pill - my ob/gyn also mentioned to me that some levels of hormones with certain pills do not carry this possibility (of abortifacient). Fr. Serpa has also said on this forum that even though it might be an abortifacient, that the use is allowed, since that is not the intention of using the pill. I’ve had many doctors look at my situation and the pill is the best thing for me, ritght now. Good luck to your friend. It’s good that she’s concerned but for medical reasons, the Church does give the o.k. to use the pill- as long as the primary intention is not to use the pill as contraception.
God Bless
Rye
 
In my opinion, you should look and find (I’ll see if I can get it) the opinion (actually he backs it up) -of Fr. Serpa on here. I have to use the pill - have been using it since I was 13 - and it is for similar reasons - but also, I loose too much blood often if I’m not on it. I am married and I continue to use this- with the backing of the Church. Yes, even though there is a slight possibility that it might be an abortifacient, it is still allowed (I have yet to see a study that concludes that for 100% sure abortions occur while using the pill - my ob/gyn also mentioned to me that some levels of hormones with certain pills do not carry this possibility (of abortifacient). Fr. Serpa has also said on this forum that even though it might be an abortifacient, that the use is allowed, since that is not the intention of using the pill. I’ve had many doctors look at my situation and the pill is the best thing for me, ritght now. Good luck to your friend. It’s good that she’s concerned but for medical reasons, the Church does give the o.k. to use the pill- as long as the primary intention is not to use the pill as contraception.
The Magisterium has never issued any document or statement permitting the use of contraception by married (sexually active) women (or by anyone else) for a good intention or good purpose. The Magisterium teaches that the use of contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, and that good intentions and dire consequences do not justify intrinsically evil acts.

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

Pope John Paul II: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” (CCC, n. 1756.)

The Catechism on contraception: “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil. (CCC, 2370; inner quote from Humanae Vitae).

Chemical contraceptives are known to be abortifacients. A woman who is sexually active and on the birth control pill for many years has probably had one or more early abortions. Abortion is also intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Good intentions and dire circumstances can never justify intrinsically evil acts, such as abortion and contraception.
 
My articles on: the Most Holy Trinity, the Virgin Mary
Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, and Sexual Ethics.
My translation of the Bible: CPDV
Readers please note:

These web pages are **not **recommended sources for Catholic sexual ethics…other areas too are of private opinion or are problematic or incorrect from a theological or canonical view.

Instead seek out sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and articles and books for sale from Catholic Answers.

or if you have medical ethical questions…(including contraception questions) this too is a great source

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=183
 
However, when the contraceptive pill is used by a woman who is sexually active, the pill deprives the sexual acts of the procreative meaning, and so its use is intrinsically evil and always immoral.
may need to be squared with:
Pope Pius XII:
Is it licit to impede ovulation by pills used to remedy undue reaction of the uterus and the organism, when this medicine, while impeding ovulation, also renders fecundation impossible?** Is its use permitted to married women who, in spite of this temporary sterility, desire to have relations with their husbands? ** The answer depends on the intention of the person. If a woman takes such medicine, not to prevent conception, but only on the advice of a doctor as a necessary remedy because of the condition of the uterus or the organism, she produces * indirect * sterilization, which is permitted according to the general principles governing acts with a double effect.
(Pope Pius XII, address to the 7th International Hematological Conference, Rome)

Anyone interested in reconciling the two? Yes, this address was before Humani Vitae and Veritatis splendor, but is that an explanation for Pope Pius XII’s statement? Also, it seems this question prescinds from the issue of the pill being abortifacient, as does the first quote from the forum member.

Thanks for your help.
VC
 
The paragraph continues discussing different medical and ethical situations, and the remainder of the paragraph rejects all direct sterilization, even that which is temporary (i.e. by prevention of ovulation).

“Some moralists claim that it is permissible to take medications for this purpose, but it is a mistaken view. It is also necessary to reject the opinion of many doctors and ethicists that allow their use, when a medical indication makes conception very close undesirable, or in other similar cases, it is not possible to mention here. In these cases, the use of medications intended to prevent conception by preventing ovulation, then it is direct sterilization.” [Google translation of the Spanish]
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/speeches/1958/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19580912_ematologia_sp.html

I should point out also, that this speech is not an act of the Magisterium, and so the clear and definitive teachings of Humanae Vitae that contraception is intrinsically evil, and the clear and definitive teaching of Veritatis Splendor that intrinsically evil acts are never justified by intention or circumstances, supercedes this one remark in a speech years before those documents. At the point in time that Pope Pius XII spoke, the teachings of HV and VS had not yet been issued. This is rather like the case of Pope John XXII (22, not 23), who stated an erroneous personal opinion in a few sermons, an opinion later definitively rejected by an act of the Magisterium (Benedict 12).

Also, the current view of moralists is that the principle of double effect cannot justify an act that is intrinsically evil. For example:
ascensionhealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81:principle-of-double-effect&Itemid=171
 
Do legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses justify the use of contraception?
 
may need to be squared with:

Originally Posted by Pope Pius XII
Is it licit to impede ovulation by pills used to remedy undue reaction of the uterus and the organism, when this medicine, while impeding ovulation, also renders fecundation impossible? Is its use permitted to married women who, in spite of this temporary sterility, desire to have relations with their husbands? The answer depends on the intention of the person. If a woman takes such medicine, not to prevent conception, but only on the advice of a doctor as a necessary remedy because of the condition of the uterus or the organism, she produces indirect sterilization, which is permitted according to the general principles governing acts with a double effect.


(Pope Pius XII, address to the 7th International Hematological Conference, Rome)

Anyone interested in reconciling the two? Yes, this address was before Humani Vitae and Veritatis splendor, but is that an explanation for Pope Pius XII’s statement? Also, it seems this question prescinds from the issue of the pill being abortifacient, as does the first quote from the forum member.

Thanks for your help.
VC
That’s what some of us have been saying. Verbum, that’s all I needed 🙂
 
this speech is not an act of the Magisterium, and so the clear and definitive teachings of Humanae Vitae that contraception is intrinsically evil, and the clear and definitive teaching of Veritatis Splendor that intrinsically evil acts are never justified by intention or circumstances, supercedes this one remark in a speech years before those documents. At the point in time that Pope Pius XII spoke, the teachings of HV and VS had not yet been issued.
This preceding point is why I mentioned that this speech was given before Humane vitae. But, as I also mentioned, I am wondering if that is an explanation for Pope Pius XII remarks.

Pope Pius XII’s remarks seem similar to Humane vitae 15:
. . .the Chruch does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means nevessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a forseeable impediment to procreation should result therefrom – provided such impediment is not directly intended. . .
Can anyone help me out? Are they similar, or is there a crucial difference? Does this portion of HV not apply to situations as described by Pope Paul XII?

VC
 
“Some moralists claim that it is permissible to take medications for this purpose, but it is a mistaken view. It is also necessary to reject the opinion of many doctors and ethicists that allow their use, when a** medical indication makes conception very close undesirable**, or in other similar cases, it is not possible to mention here. In these cases, the use of medications intended to prevent conception by preventing ovulation, then it is direct sterilization.”
[Bolded by me]

Again, you are still confusing intention. It is very clear in your own quote that it has to do with* intending to prevent conception*. The person who is indirectly sterile is not *intending *to prevent conception. They are treating a medical condition that has the unintended side-effect of sterility. In fact, most are trying to preserve their fertility.

This quote is addressing those cases that the doctor says, “you will die if you conceive, so you are the exception.” There are NO exceptions. That is very clear in Church teaching. If the problem is don’t conceive, then the answer is abstinence. Period.

More importantly, when some of those documents were issued, there was still the false information floating around that The Pill was 100% effective. The Church saw through that early on. If conception is the result in a situation like that, then abortion is considered.

This is about treating a medical problem that has the *indirect *result of infertility. Your quote is about conception *being *the problem.
 
Humanae Vitae teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil.

Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae teach that intrinsically evil acts are never justified by intention or circumstances.

The CCC teaches both of the above truths.

The CCC also states: “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (CCC, n. 2399).

Therefore, we cannot interpret HV n. 15 as approving of contraception based on a certain good intention or good purpose.

That quote from Pope Pius XII is:
  1. taken out of context
  2. not an act of even the ordinary Magisterium
  3. spoken prior to HV, EV, VS, and the CCC
It would be an absurd theological position to claim that contraception is justified by intention on the basis of that out of quote.

Also, we must distinguish between an intended end (purpose), which is the first font of morality, and the intentionally chosen act with its moral object, which is the second font. I’ve noticed many persons confusing these two uses of the word intention. Sometimes the word intention is used, not to indicate the intention of the subject, but the inherent ordering of the intentionally chosen act toward its moral object. So the phrase “medications intended to prevent conception” refers not to the intention of the person, but to the intentional choosing of an act inherently directed toward preventing conception. The intentional choosing of the act necessarily includes the moral object, even if the person sincerely intends to achieve a good end by means of that act.

Basically, what is happening with this question is what repeatedly occurs whenever any intrinsically evil act is discussed. Someone proposes an intention or circumstance by which the intrinsically evil act is said to be no longer intrinsically evil. Numerous quotes and explanations are offered by various persons to support this claim. But the effect is always the same: to nullify the definitive and irreformable teaching of the Magisterium that certain kinds of acts are intrinsically evil, and that those acts are never justified by intention or circumstances.
 
we cannot interpret HV n. 15 as approving of contraception based on a certain good intention or good purpose.
When looking at HV 15 does one interpret it as approving of contraception based on a good intention, as is objected to in the above quote, or can one rather read it as allowing the taking a pill that has a contraceptive side-effect based on the lack of a certain bad intention (namely, a contraceptive intention)?

Wouldn’t this latter interpretation correspond to Pope Pius XII’s address? Can Pope Pius XII’s address and HV 15 be read in such a way that there is no question about either approving of contraception but rather read to allow the taking of a pill when it is not contraception?

In other words can both be read as allowing a contraceptive pill to be used by a woman who is sexually active, so long as “the intent is not to prevent conception”? Or would this be contrary to the intending meaning of HV 15? (I assume it not contrary to the intended meaning of Pope Pius XII in his address).

VC
 
It would be an absurd theological position to claim that contraception is justified by intention on the basis of that out of quote.

Also, we must distinguish between an intended end (purpose), which is the first font of morality, and the intentionally chosen act with its moral object, which is the second font. I’ve noticed many persons confusing these two uses of the word intention. Sometimes the word intention is used, not to indicate the intention of the subject, but the inherent ordering of the intentionally chosen act toward its moral object. So the phrase “medications intended to prevent conception” refers not to the intention of the person, but to the intentional choosing of an act inherently directed toward preventing conception. The intentional choosing of the act necessarily includes the moral object, even if the person sincerely intends to achieve a good end by means of that act.

Basically, what is happening with this question is what repeatedly occurs whenever any intrinsically evil act is discussed. Someone proposes an intention or circumstance by which the intrinsically evil act is said to be no longer intrinsically evil. Numerous quotes and explanations are offered by various persons to support this claim. But the effect is always the same: to nullify the definitive and irreformable teaching of the Magisterium that certain kinds of acts are intrinsically evil, and that those acts are never justified by intention or circumstances.
And yet again, an “intended end” is not a term the Church uses on her own. It is used only when addressing a secular perspective.

The Church uses the terms intent, means, and ends. A couple who begins coitus and is interrupted by a screaming child has not committed coitus interruptus. The person who does not *intend *to contracept cannot contracept. Contraception is first an act of the will. It is the converse to the couple who tried to contracept and the contraception failed. Even though it resulted in reproduction, the couple was still guilty of contraception. Your arguments aren’t reasonable because the converse is not true.

I will be honest that the reason I am trying to set you straight is that your posts are very hurtful to the naturally infertile. You have people believing that if they *know *they cannot conceive, they have no business having sex. The person who is taking a medication making them infertile is in enough pain without someone adding incorrect teaching to the situation.

It is the same with abortion. All embryonic deaths are technically called “abortions.” What the Church is against is *procured *abortion. There are couples who are no longer having sex because they believe they are sinning due to repeated miscarriages. They AREN’T.

The commission that reviewed The Pill in the '60s was ordered to discover if medically induced sterility was the same as natural infertility so could The Pill be considered a licit form of conception regulation. Most people on the commission decided it was the same because the *ends *were the same as being naturally infertile. The pope said it wasn’t because of intent. It was further noted that The Pill caused an extended infertility, just like menopause. Again, since the *ends *were the same, they argued that The Pill was licit. The Pope rejected it as a licit form of conception regulation based on *intent and means, *not ends. (Thank you wise Holy Father.)

This “intended ends” term you are using is taking the beginning and the end and making them one. They aren’t. You are using the same argument that those who fight NFP use. They say, “Since the intended ends is no baby, then NFP is not licit.”

It is not sinful to be infertile. It is a natural part of the design at times, (a good thing.) And other times it is a painful, heart-wrenching tragedy. Medically induced infertility is not contraception unless the *purpose *is contraception. Intent matters here.
 
And yet again, an “intended end” is not a term the Church uses on her own. It is used only when addressing a secular perspective.
There are three fonts of morality. The first font is described variously as:

the end in view or the intention
or
the intention of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for which the subject performs the act
or
the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act)

Terminology is not doctrine. The same truth on faith or morals can be described in various terms.
 
When looking at HV 15 does one interpret it as approving of contraception based on a good intention, as is objected to in the above quote, or can one rather read it as allowing the taking a pill that has a contraceptive side-effect based on the lack of a certain bad intention (namely, a contraceptive intention)?
The deprivation of the procreative meaning from sexual acts is what makes contraception intrinsically evil. Therefore, when an act deprives sexual acts of the procreative meaning, it is not a “side effect”, but the moral object of the act. Neither good intentions, nor the lack of a bad intention, can change the moral object.
 
Let us use the language of the Catechism when discussing the three sources:

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
  • the object chosen;
  • the end in view or the intention;
  • the circumstances of the action.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
 
when an act deprives sexual acts of the procreative meaning, it is not a “side effect”, but the moral object of the act.
Regarding the above, how do we incorporate this statement into the behavior in question? Which is the act that deprives the sexual act of procreative meaning in the scenario discussed by Pope Pius XII: the taking of the pill or the engaging in intercourse? If taking the pill is the deprivation then would this mean that the taking of the pill wouldn’t be allowed regardless of whether or not one has intercourse? This doesn’t seem to be the case, because so far there hasn’t been a question about just taking the pill, only about engaging in intercourse after having taken the pill.

Is it the case that a later act (intercourse) makes a prior act (taking a pill for therapeutic reasons) to become morally bad? Or is it the case that an act (intercourse) is morally bad when sterile?

And how does HV 15 fit into this? Is HV 15 saying the same thing as Pope Pius XII is saying in his address? Can anyone shed some light on that?

Thank you for the help.
VC
 
And how does HV 15 fit into this? Is HV 15 saying the same thing as Pope Pius XII is saying in his address? Can anyone shed some light on that?
Yes, they are saying the same thing. AND Pope Pius XII clarified that there is not a medical means that would be available to the celibate woman that wouldn’t be available to the married woman. As usual, consistent teaching across the board. Apostolic Succession is giants resting on the shoulders of giants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top