Youth Protecting Youth

Defending the Dignity of All Human Life

The Writing on the Wall


On Tuesday October 12, students arrived on campus to find that YPY had started advertising an event we are hosting this fall: Jojo Ruba of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform (CCBR) is coming to give a presentation called “Echoes of the Holocaust”, which compares abortion to genocide.  On Wednesday October 13, we arrived on campus to find that the outdoor chalking advertising the event had been surrounded with phrases including “anti-choice”, “false information”, and “hate speech”. I’d like to address the accusations made by these chalkers, and once again encourage anyone who disagrees with or questions the views of YPY and/or CCBR to come out to the presentation and bring their questions for the question period at the end. I feel like I’m once again responding to the same old ad hominem attacks that miss the point of the abortion issue almost entirely, and I’d like to put things back into perspective. We don’t need to talk about what kind of people pro-lifers are; we need to talk about whether the unborn are people.


Some of the chalk surrounding our event announcement

Original chalk announcement: "YPY Presents "Echoes of the Holocaust" w/ Jojo Ruba. Oct. 26, 5:30, SCI B150"


I’ll quote the chalk comments one by one and respond to them. If I miss any, feel free to add them in the comments.

“This presentation compares abortion to genocide.”/ “This presentation compares abortion to the Holocaust.”

This is true. The presentation compares abortion to genocide, and specifically to the Holocaust.

For a basic explanation as to why the comparison is made, check out “Is Abortion Genocide?” on CCBR’s website.

For a chart outlining parallels between abortion and other historical atrocities, check out “Is Abortion Comparable to Historical Atrocities?” on CCBR’s website.


Choice to do what? I’m pro-choice when it comes to who to vote for, what kind of food to eat, and many, many other things. I’m against some choices, though. I’m anti-choice when it comes to things like assault and murder. We have a lot of choices in life, but when our choices involve killing or harming other human beings, it quickly becomes obvious that some choices are wrong. Killing or harming other human beings is wrong.

I’m against abortion. Why? Because every successful abortion ends the life of a human being. Images of tiny, bloodied hands and feet show us the results of this “choice”. They’re uncomfortable to look at because they show an unpleasant reality: a tiny human being who has been torn apart by a doctor using surgical instruments. In The Case for Life, Scott Klusendorf quotes U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy as he describes common dismemberment abortion techniques: “The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: it bleeds to death as it is torn from limb to limb…. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off…. Dr. [Leroy] Carhart [the abortionist who challenged Nebraska’s partial-birth ban] has observed fetal heartbeat…. with ‘extensive parts of the fetus removed,’…. and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born ‘as a living child with one arm.” …At the conclusion of a D&E abortion… the abortionist is left with ‘a tray full of pieces’.”

So yes, I’m against that “choice”.

For more on “choice” and other assumptions those arguing in favour of abortion may make (while ignoring the question “what are the unborn?”), see “Assumptions Abortion Advocates Make” on CCBR’s website.

“Anti-woman”/ “Compares women who have abortions to Nazis”

YPY believes in judging actions, not judging people. In comparing abortion to genocide, the actions and victims are compared. Rabbi Yehuda Levin, of New York, stated this very well when he said,

“Each form of genocide, whether Holocaust, lynching, or abortion, differs from all the others in the motives and methods of its perpetrators. But each form of genocide is identical to all the others in that it involves the systematic slaughter, as state-sanctioned ‘choice,’ of innocent, defenseless victims—while denying their ‘personhood.’”

For a detailed discussion of how comparing abortion to genocide is not equivalent to calling women Nazis, see this post by a member of YPY.

Or see CCBR’s response in their FAQ.

“Anti-Semitic”/ “Racist”

Merriam-Webster defines anti-Semitism as “hostility towards or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.” Simply put, the presentation is none of those things. In comparing abortion to historical atrocities such as the Holocaust (and noting that the fact that two things are comparable does not mean they are identical – just as a sound and its echo are similar but not identical), pro-life advocates readily recognize that the Holocaust was a terrible tragedy, and that any instance of a group of humans being classified as non-persons and then subjected to horrible treatment or killed is a great injustice that should be recognized as such and stopped.

Again, we return to the fundamental in the abortion debate: “what are the unborn?” If the unborn are not human persons, then comparing them to the victims of past genocide is insensitive. If the unborn are human persons, however, then 42 million people are killed worldwide each year, often by being torn apart with surgical instruments. Comparison to past genocides is completely logical.

For more on this, check out the FAQ on CCBR’s website.

“False information”

I’d be interested to know what information the person who wrote this thinks is false. To my knowledge, the presentation contains no false information whatsoever. If in fact it does contain some, I’m sure it would be appreciated if someone would politely point it out during the question period.

“Hate speech”/ Jojo Ruba being a “hate speaker”

Hate speech is a criminal offense in Canada, so this is a serious allegation. If we look at the Criminal Code however, we see that the allegation is blatantly false. There are two main types of speech defined as hate speech in the Criminal Code: advocating genocide and public incitement of hatred.

A presentation that condemns all forms and instances of genocide obviously does not advocate or promote genocide. Making the case that abortion is comparable to historical instances of genocide is meant to illustrate that abortion is wrong, not that any form of genocide is good.

The presentation does not incite hatred against anyone. As stated above, we believe in judging actions, not judging people, and in recognizing the intrinsic value and dignity of all human beings.

While we’re looking at the Criminal Code, though, I’m pretty sure publicly making false accusations of hate-speech, anti-Semitism, and sexism falls under the definition of “defamatory libel.”

The real problem, though, is that all of these complaints about the presentation miss the point of the abortion debate entirely.

What if I was some horrible, racist, sexist person (I’m not), who knew the truth on a certain matter? Would it matter that I was horribly racist or sexist? The truth is the truth no matter who says it. The truth is what we are trying to find, in all things, especially moral debates. In the abortion debate, the most important question is “what are the unborn?”. As Greg Koukl points out, “If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion is necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate.”

We hope to see you at “Echoes of the Holocaust”.

(The presentation will take place at 5:30 pm on October 26 in the Wright Centre – SCI B150)

23 thoughts on “The Writing on the Wall

  1. Leaving my own personal bias at the door, I’d just like to thank the YPY for hosting these controversial talks. It bothers me that anyone could write hate language in an attempt to prevent the spread of ideas in an academic centre. No matter how controversial a subject may be it is always good to look at it in depth from as many angles as possible. The real “Nazis” are the dictator like person(s) that try to prevent open discussion (the right to free speech) on topics about human rights.
    Keep up the great work YPY!

  2. Cover the campus in controversial chalk graffiti, get a controversial chalk graffiti response. What did you expect would happen?

    I’m starting to think YPY feeds off the negative attention.

    • Controversial or not, it’s a topic that obviously needs talking about, and should be talked about if any progress is to be made. The correct response would be to hold their own debate as a rebuttal, NOT chalk graffiti slandering. That type of response is typical of uncivilized, immature, over-emotional, irrational, unreasonable, hate mongering, or under developed persons who lack a cognitive ability for clear, reasonable, and justified belief.

    • What was controversial about their chalking?

      It stated the title, location, time and speaker of the event. Just the basics of advertising the event.

  3. I am personally glad that someone wrote what these talks are about, as the current title had students confused. Everyone I spoke to was under the impression that it was a historical lecture, or a respectful memorial, not anti-choice propaganda.

    Additionally the adortion process you described is what happens in LATE TERM ABORTIONS which account for LESS THAN 1% of all abortions.

    Finally, the criteria for genocide indicate (by your own admission) that it is a systematic slaughter. This is not the case in abortions. If it were than anyone who is pro-choice would be FORCED to have an abortion. This is not the case. Whereas anti-choice advocates are those trying to FORCE women into one method.

    The bottom line is that what is aborted is not a life. It is a clump of cells. Perhaps you should change your name to “YPCC”. Students Protecting Clumps of Cells.

    • thank god, finally a voice of reason. (oh yes I used the term GOD, how blasphemous!)

      face it people, abortion is legal, and it’s legal for a reason. Stop comparing the the amputation of cells to the tragedy of the Jewish people, not only is it offensive and belittling, frankly it proves how ignorant you all are.

      Cancer is a clump of live cells, are you going to support the pro-life of them next?

      • Curious question, does a clump of cancer cells have its own unique DNA? Does an unborn child have it’s own unique DNA? I hope you can acknowledge that those questions have opposite answers. Thus we come back to the all important question of what the pre-born is. The pre-born is defined in every embryology textbook as a distinct living being, and as such why is it not considered a person?

      • yes actually cancer is unique DNA due to the fact that the cells are a DNA mutation of healthy body cells A.K.A they are different..

        it amuses me that to be having a scientific discussion with a group that will adamantly argue that there is a big guy up in the sky who created the world about 6000 yrs ago.

      • While cancer contains DNA mutations, and thus technically different DNA than the healthy cells of the body, there are still major differences between a cancerous tumour and an embryo or fetus. Biologically, a human embryo or fetus is a separate individual of the human species. A cancerous tumour is a mass of uncontrolled mutant cells, but in no way a separate individual.

        Given time an embryo will continue to develop into a fetus, then an infant, than a toddler, a child, a teenager, and an adult. These are merely names for the stages in the life of a human being. Even given long periods of time, cancer cells will never develop into anything other than a larger tumour.

  4. @ Anonymous: I recognize that the presentation is controversial, and that discussion of the abortion issue in general often sparks controversy. However, advertising events via outdoor chalking is common at UVic. Surrounding someone else’s chalk advertising with negative comments and false accusations is not.

    Further, YPY exists to educate people on life issues (see “About Us”). Drawing attention not to ourselves, but to the fact that about 300 defenseless human beings are killed on an average day in Canada is important.

  5. @ M: I’m a clump of cells. You’re a clump of cells. If we want to be technical about it, every single person is a clump of cells. The thing is, I’m a clump of cells that comprises an entire individual of the human species. So are you. And so is a human embryo or fetus. The only differences between them and us are their size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. All of those things change throughout our lives, as we age. I don’t know what you mean by “not a life.” Look in any embryology textbook: embryos and fetuses are most definitely alive.

    The quote I used refers specifically to a doctor who performed late term abortions, however, methods of abortion that literally tear the fetus apart are common much earlier in pregnancy. Here’s a resource on the statistics regarding abortion methods in Canada:

    I’d like to particularly point out the parts where it says, “Suction aspiration was the method used for approximately 90% of all abortions in Canada in 2004, and is generally used between six and 14 weeks of pregnancy.” In reference to this type of procedure, it later says, “The suction tears the fetus into small parts….”

    In regards to the genocide comparison, abortion is systematic in that abortions are carried out by medical professionals in hospitals and clinics across the country, and are funded through tax dollars. While not all of the unborn are sought out and killed (obviously), there is no legal protection for them whatsoever. There are no legal restrictions on aborion in Canada, so it is legal during all nine months of pregnancy (late term abortions are, as you pointed out, rare). This means that while not all of the unborn are killed, any of them could be.

    I’m not trying to “FORCE [anyone] into one method”. I believe that we have freedom to choose all sorts of things, but that some choices are wrong. In this case, I believe that the unborn are human beings (as discussed above), and so an action that ends their life (abortion) is wrong. We don’t have the right to do what is wrong (ie. we don’t have the right to steal, the right to assault people, or the right to kill, and if abortion kills a human being, which it does, then it’s not something we should be doing). Whenever a woman is pregnant, if she is unable or unwilling to care for her child, I believe that adoption should be a readily available option.

    I know I responded to your post in a jumbled up order, and I hope everything I said makes sense to you. You’re also welcome to come to the “Echoes of the Holocaust” event and make your views known during the question period.

  6. You say that these complaints “miss the point of the abortion debate entirely”, but it seems to me that you miss the point of these chalk “attacks”. People are not (in this case) asserting that fetuses are not human beings; they are merely pointing out the misleading title of the presentation and the fact that what you wrote does nothing to clarify the actual nature of “Echoes of the Holocaust”. I originally thought (as I’m sure many others did) that this was a presentation about the Holocaust and Holocaust survivors (a history lesson, perhaps). The name itself is deceptive and therefore insensitive to women as well as people with connections to the Holocaust.
    You seem to take the fact that someone outed the presentation as ‘anti-choice’ as saying you should be pro-choice; however, perhaps s/he was just pointing out the nature of the event, something you failed to do, which could have been remedied by stating that it was an anti-abortion (or even pro-life, if you prefer) event or by writing your club’s full name rather than ‘YPY’ so people knew immediately who was putting it on.
    As for justifying the presentation as not racist on the basis of a two-line dictionary definition…come on. really? Racism is a complex subject with many different facets and faces. It could hardly be comprehensively understood through a dictionary definition; the same could be said for many other topics, such as sexism, freedom, rape, justice etc.
    Along that vein, it seems strange that you use the Criminal Code of Canada to justify why this event is not hate-speech when the Criminal Code clearly doesn’t recognize a fetus as a human being (section 223.1 I think…) Seems a little hypocritical. Just speaking for myself, I would say that making women who choose abortion to feel as if they are contributing to genocide and that their actions are comparable to those of nazis seems pretty hateful(to which I am sure you will invite me to attend the presentation). I highly suggest you spend a week in a clinic listening to the women who decide to terminate their pregnancies, and why they make the decisions they do.
    Perhaps, the truth does not stop being the truth no matter who speaks it (assuming that there is even one “truth” to begin with. Not to get all philosophical, but what is truth, anyway?), but I would be highly suspicious of anything a “horrible sexist, racist person” said since the fact that s/he is sexist and/or racist show s/he has immense capacity to be wrong.

    • YPY didn’t create the title of the presentation, the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform did.

      You didn’t recognize the name YPY? You’d almost have to have been living under a rock the past few years to not know that YPY is UVic’s Pro-Life club. They have been frequently referred to by their initials in numerous media stories.

      Do we expect NDP club events to have their full name written out?

      You are holding YPY to a higher standard for chalk advertising compared to other clubs. Every other chalk advertised event on campus only gives the basic details of the event. It is hoped that students would then go and do a little research about what events are about.

  7. More like She-Ra: Princess of failure, that show sucked balls compared to He-Man, but did you expect anything else with such a sexy mass of manhood? Seriously, how hard is to look some info up by yourself, took me like less than 673 seconds to find this: Look, no more deceptive tactics that were cleverly premeditated to ensure attendance…I mean, it’s not like people couldn’t leave once the “gig was up”.

  8. In response to She-Ra: Princess of Power: To address your point with regards to the ambiguity of the title posted; that is the title of the presentation. Obviously a description always helps to illuminate the subject of any presentation; however, an all encompassing description simply is not realistic when chalking. Thus we addressed that issue on all of the posters that we have posted. The posters, all of which have been approved by the UVSS, include the title of the event, along with the fact, bolded and coloured in red, that abortion kills 42 million human beings world wide each year. The posters also state that Jojo Ruba is from the Canadian Center of Bioethical Reform and that the presentation is being put on by Youth Protecting Youth. Supposing that somehow this was still not enough information, Youth Protecting Youth’s website was posted on the bottom of the posters for more details. Clearly we are trying to provide the public with adequate information about the event, though regrettably it was not possibly to write all of that with chalk, as I am sure anyone who has done any chalking can attest to.

    In your statement that people would have immediately known who was putting on the event if we had put the full name of our club as opposed to simply YPY, I answer by asking how many people who were familiar with Youth Protecting Youth would not be able to connect the dots to recognize that YPY is an effective acronym used to conserve chalk? Although not all students may be able to make a connection, most people would research a bit about a presentation before attending. If you were to google “YPY Echoes of the Holocaust” you would come to multiple sites, including our blog, that give a more detailed summary. Having had information tables at President’s Day, Clubs Days and having posted many articles in the Martlet, we are making all the effort that we can to expose our mission on campus, and in doing so expose our group and what it is that we do.

    You have also stated that the accusation of racism can not be addressed by simply quoting a dictionary definition. We accept that racism is a multi faceted issue and that it may not seem to be addressed by a simple dictionary definition. I assure you this will be addressed and clarified during the presentation. However, as such, we also accept that accusations that the pre-born child is not a person may not seem to be fully addressed by saying that they are people. Which is the actual purpose of this presentation; to establish the fact that the pre-born babies are human beings, and as such are people, whether at this point in time they are recognized as such under the law or not. This is the whole purpose of the presentation; to illustrate with historical context what has happened when personhood has been divorced from humanity.

    Finally, you say that we should spend a week in a clinic listening to the women who decide to terminate their pregnancies, and why they make the decisions they do. I agree. We do need to know what it is they are going through so that we can give them the support that they need to get past this suffering. But do you know what else we need to do? We need to support those women who may be sitting in those clinics next week, so that they never know this suffering. True our primary goal is to protect the pre-born children from being helplessly slaughtered. Yet by protecting that child, we are also protecting the mother from the pain of what could have been. True we need to support women who have had abortions, but would it not be best if there were no women in this situation? How do we get there? By stopping abortions from happening. In doing this, we save the child from death and we save the mother from the pain that she will be faced with after her abortion. By having a presentation such as Echoes of the Holocaust, we hope that women will see abortion for what it really is, and will realize that it is not the best choice for her and her unborn child

  9. Can abortion be called genocide?

    Here’s a pro-choice view: Abortion is not genocide, “To start, it must be said that to compare abortion to the real genocide of real people is highly insulting to the relatives and descendants of slaves and Holocaust victims.” – Notice the use of the term, “real people” within the above statement.

    “Abortion, by contrast, is an essential, legal medical procedure that women desperately need, not only to give them control over their bodies and lives” – This argument depends entirely on IF the zygote, fetus, baby is considered to be a “person” or a “real people(s)” and IF it is, then it has rights. Does the right to life of one person over ride the right to live because life got hard?

    “But the definition of genocide can only apply to actual people living as part of a human society. It can never refer to unseen fetuses that are not yet legal members of a society, and that don’t have—and can never have—undisputed personhood.”
    – Again the reasoning above depends on how one defines a person. In this case, if it is not a person, and does not become a person until it is born, the argument stands. The above quotes were taken from the following site:

    That was one extreme, black if you will of the spectrum. On the Pro-Life side of the spectrum, the white, there is another extreme present. In that a person is defined as having ethical rights as a person from the moment of conception (zygote). Therefore, ALL of the above arguments from the Pro-Choice side do NOT APPLY. Also, noting the idea that a zygote is a person is rooted in the foundations of many faiths, but one does not require a faith in order to carry this belief.

    Lastly, there is the middle of the sprectrum, the grey and often left out. This side of the argument allows for a little on both, a compromise if you will, and has been defined scientifically and philosophically. Ethically, it is ok to abort prior to 18-20 weeks of development (stated for reasons here: ), however, after this period of development it is defined as a person and it is no longer ethical to have an abortion. (Even from this stance then, abortion can be applied to the term genocide after 20 weeks)

    These debates over if it can or if it can’t, based on the definition of genocide. However, “the definition of genocide is broad enough to encompass fetuses and that unwanted fetuses are a dehumanized group comparable to black slaves, interned Jews, and Cambodian Killing Field victims.” (Again taken from the first link provided)Also, the LAW does not allows align itself with what is determined to be ethically correct or incorrect.

    So let’s face it – people have different definitions – there will be the extremes, and there will be the middle ground…just some food for thought.

  10. Last anonymous poster, I think you did a good job of framing the debate, especially by pointing out that some arguments can be rendered moot if the unborn are accepted as being people.

    The criteria of 18-20 weeks that you described as being acceptable for abortion comes across as a sensible, moderate stance. I think that we Canadians like to think of ourselves as sensible and moderate; the statistics say that most of us believe something in the “grey” area you described.

    But it should be recognized that the only thing distinguishing humans younger than 20 weeks from humans older than 20 weeks is that the former can’t feel pain as acutely as the latter.

    Individuals with congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP) would be disqualified from being persons if this definition were used. I’m not being facetious here. We pro-lifers point out the arbitrary nature of personhood criteria all the time – and in good faith. It’s the simplest definition, and it’s correct: a new human life begins at conception.

    We shouldn’t kill humans, and arguments based on level of development are arbitrary.

  11. “What if I was some horrible, racist, sexist person (I’m not), who knew the truth on a certain matter? Would it matter that I was horribly racist or sexist? The truth is the truth no matter who says it.”

    Really? So then Hitler’s ideals and views about the human race were the “truth”? His truth killed 6 million people but hey, according to your infallible logic, it doesn’t matter how damaging Hitler’s “truth” was, because the “truth is the truth, no matter who says it”. It amazes me that the people who defend this inflammatory club are university students who may consider themselves intellectuals. Let’s put aside how problematic the way you present your views on campus are and look at the basis of your views. As someone who received your email about “praying” this weekend in order to prepare myself for your message (I did a lot of praying in preparation for this presentation. By praying, I mean “tequila”), does it occur to you that not everyone on campus has a basis in christian scripture? So when you’re shaming women out of abortions, that not everyone has the same beliefs as you? Honestly, do you realize that?

    I have no issue with you holding the views you have (lord knows, you won’t question anything you’re told) but what I do have an issue with is the ways you “educate” the larger student body about abortion. You’re hurting a lot of actually born people but that being said, I am going to go ahead and say that you don’t really care.

  12. @Pettigrew Unless I have completely misunderstood what you are trying to say, I think that you have completely misunderstood what this article is saying. You seem to think that we are suggesting that truth is based in personal belief, and that because Hitler believed Jews were not people they were not. That could not be more false. What we are saying is that if some horrible, racist, sexist person said that 2+ 2= 4, it is the truth, regardless of who says it. Thus the views that Hitler held with regards to the Jewish people was clearly not the truth, as Jews were and are and always will be persons just like every other human being. The truth that we are exposing is that the pre-born are persons, just like every other human being. This is the truth, and thus it doesn’t matter who says it because it is the truth. I hope that cleared things up.

  13. On the whole “truth” issue.

    “I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before—the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago—a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.”

    Adolf Hitler – 1922

    This is “god’s truth”, this must be right.

    I hope that cleared things up.

  14. Truth?,
    I’m not certain what you are trying to get at with your quote, but I think that what Cam (above) is saying, is that despite who Hitler was (christian or not) or how he tried to justify his actions (“The Jewish are not persons”), his actions were wrong, even if he was christian.

    • That’s a great way of putting it. Obviously Hitler’s actions were wrong, even if he tried to justify them by referring to scripture (and I think most Christians would see what he said as a horrible misrepresentation of the actual message of Jesus).

      When someone makes a claim, the important question is whether their statement is objectively true. To find this out, we might ask them to explain and see if their explanation is logical. We can examine a variety of sources and find the objective truth on a matter. The personal traits or qualities of a speaker do not change whether things they say are factually true or false.

      As Cam alluded to earlier, if a cruel person who has done horrible things says something that is objectively true, their statement is objectively true regardless of their personal qualities. If they say something false, it’s false.
      Then again, if a kind person who has done many wonderful things says something that is objectively false, their statement is still false. If they say something true, it’s true. Anyone listening to them should believe their claims based on the objective truth of the claim, not the personal qualities of the speaker.

      The point is that the abortion debate should not be about what kind of people pro-lifers (or anyone else expressing their views on the matter) are, it should be about whether or not what we’re saying is true.

  15. Pingback: UVSS Takes Action against YPY « Youth Protecting Youth

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s