If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jezebel)   In their continuing efforts to fix the economy, over the last year, conservative lawmakers have passed a record number of bills regulating banks and out of control financial institutions. Oh, wait, I meant women's access to medical care   (jezebel.com) divider line 307
    More: Sad, financial institutions, Dick Tracy, Central Texas, Mexico, health cares  
•       •       •

1885 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Aug 2012 at 3:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



307 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-17 03:48:42 PM
intelligent comment below, lennavan

Get a room, you two. But remember to use protection.
 
2012-08-17 03:51:21 PM

Jim_Callahan: Guys... the fact that ignite ice is posting to attract flames rather than being serious is right there in his handle. While he's hilarious, is it really necessary to feed him that much?


letrole still gets bites.


/yeah, yeah. Surname
 
2012-08-17 03:51:33 PM

lennavan: You should listen to science then. Fetuses are pretty farking developed.



Citation

lennavan: Can a mother decide whether a two day old baby lives or dies? What about a 39 week old fetus? What is so magical about what happens in between those time points?



What magic? Well the fact it isn't attached and inside her body for starters. That's science, not magic

lennavan: Your non answer demonstrates you clearly have not thought this through well enough. That's fine, snark away, just recognize it and maybe spend some time thinking about it.



Your entire argument is snark, how ironic you project that onto me

lennavan: No, my point was to show you how poorly thought through and stupid your response is. Clearly you think there is something relevant or important about birth because after it I imagine you would give a just born baby full rights to live. I imagine you would be outraged if the mother abused the baby or decided to simply never feed it and it starved to death. I may be wrong, so by all means correct me if so. But prior to birth, she can do whatever she wants. What is so special about before and after birth that makes it that way? Do you even know or are you just super pouty mad stomp your feet sure?



Poorly thought and stupid? That sounds like all this nonsense exactly. Go waste someone elses time because you're just being an angry bitter uninformed child.
 
2012-08-17 03:52:01 PM
The rights of the pregnant woman should take precedence if only for one simple fact:

Her personhood is not in question. Period. No one - liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, pro-choice, or anti-abortion - is saying outright that a pregnant woman is not a person. For that reason alone, her right to decide how her body is used is logically the one that should dictate whether or not she has an abortion.

By comparison, we do not force people with rare blood types to donate blood because it can and will go towards saving the lives of people who need blood transfusions. We do not legally require them to go through the minor inconvenience of taking their blood and having them rest for a couple of moments afterwards. And in those cases, the rights and personhood of both the person with the rare blood type and the person needing the transfusions are not in question. Both are people, with the right to live and the right to choose.

So, I ask seriously, what the f*ck is so special about a fetus that its rights somehow magically trump the rights of the woman carrying it? Why, all of a sudden in that case, does the supposed right of the fetus demand that a woman be forced to carry it inside of her for 40 weeks, with all of the resulting physiological changes that affect her physical and cognitive capabilities, and endure an incredibly painful and life-threatening procedure (giving birth is 14x more dangerous than having an abortion, by the by)?

Logically, if you genuinely believe that a pregnant woman should be legally forced to carry a fetus to term, you should also be voting to require people with rare blood types submit to having a pint of their blood taken every 6 months or so. Because in the latter case, you save more lives and the infringement on the rights of the carrier of that blood is far less severe. If you do not support forcing people to give blood, then SHUT THE EVER-LOVING F*CK UP ABOUT MAKING ABORTIONS ILLEGAL!
 
2012-08-17 03:52:32 PM

lennavan: Can a mother decide whether a two day old baby lives or dies? What about a 39 week old fetus? What is so magical about what happens in between those time points?


What's so magical about 17 years and 364 days and 18 years, when it comes to throwing someone in jail for sex with a minor?

Society and the law sometimes have to draw an arbitrary line to make things simple. The birth of a child (at the time and date shown on the birth certificate) makes things pretty farking simple.
 
2012-08-17 03:52:42 PM
Yeah, because the only way our corporations are going to be able to compete with the Chinese labor costs is if we diminish our own standards and decrease the standard of living for American laborers to that of their Chinese counterparts (sleeping on factory floors, barely fed).

And in order to accomplish that we need a lot of DUMB, unskilled laborers. And forcing poor and young people to have kids they don't want and can't afford to provide opportunities for is really going to help that initiative along.

Way to go GOP! And remember ... it's only class warfare when it's the lesser-borns fighting back. Even so much as expecting more payment or benefits is class warfare, and how dare you question the generous job creators, raking in thousands of times what you do without so much as setting foot in a warehouse or an office. They are SO hard working and brilliant that they can do all this from the hamptons, or their 50k acre fortress in Wyoming. Afterall, they had the good sense to be born rich or get lucky.
 
2012-08-17 03:53:53 PM

doyner: intelligent comment below, lennavan

Get a room, you two. But remember to use protection.


Or don't and hopefully abortion is legal in their states, or they're close to Mexico.
 
2012-08-17 03:54:09 PM

ImpendingCynic: lennavan: Can a mother decide whether a two day old baby lives or dies? What about a 39 week old fetus? What is so magical about what happens in between those time points?

What's so magical about 17 years and 364 days and 18 years, when it comes to throwing someone in jail for sex with a minor?



I see you've been reading Ted Nugent's memoirs.
 
2012-08-17 03:54:59 PM

Kome: girl speak


Excuse me, but the men are talking.  You'll have your turn if there's any time left at the end.
 
2012-08-17 03:55:00 PM

lennavan: Lionel Mandrake: intelligent comment below: Stop calling it a child, it isn't.

What? How can you be so obtuse? Just look at this cutie-pie:

[www.bubtree.com.au image 346x369]

He/she has his/her mother's eyes! Maybe.

That's not a fetus, that is an embryo. Words have meaning.


I wasn't aware that the discussion was limited to certain stages of development. 

"Pro-life" people are OK with terminating pregnancy at certain stages?
 
2012-08-17 03:56:07 PM
I think it's pretty simple as to why abortion is legal and women should have safe access to it. Make it illegal and safe access goes away. The only people who'd perform abortions are those who'd do it under very shady circumstances, and at great risk and cost to the woman.

People f*ck. Sometimes they get pregnant. That time might not be the best time to be pregnant, or worse, the pregnancy can kill the woman or be very high risk. Legal abortion is a road to safe termination of the pregnancy.

Make all the arguments you want, but having it around is better than not having it.
 
2012-08-17 03:56:56 PM

Kome: The rights of the pregnant woman should take precedence if only for one simple fact:

Her personhood is not in question. Period. No one - liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, pro-choice, or anti-abortion - is saying outright that a pregnant woman is not a person. For that reason alone, her right to decide how her body is used is logically the one that should dictate whether or not she has an abortion.

By comparison, we do not force people with rare blood types to donate blood because it can and will go towards saving the lives of people who need blood transfusions. We do not legally require them to go through the minor inconvenience of taking their blood and having them rest for a couple of moments afterwards. And in those cases, the rights and personhood of both the person with the rare blood type and the person needing the transfusions are not in question. Both are people, with the right to live and the right to choose.

So, I ask seriously, what the f*ck is so special about a fetus that its rights somehow magically trump the rights of the woman carrying it? Why, all of a sudden in that case, does the supposed right of the fetus demand that a woman be forced to carry it inside of her for 40 weeks, with all of the resulting physiological changes that affect her physical and cognitive capabilities, and endure an incredibly painful and life-threatening procedure (giving birth is 14x more dangerous than having an abortion, by the by)?

Logically, if you genuinely believe that a pregnant woman should be legally forced to carry a fetus to term, you should also be voting to require people with rare blood types submit to having a pint of their blood taken every 6 months or so. Because in the latter case, you save more lives and the infringement on the rights of the carrier of that blood is far less severe. If you do not support forcing people to give blood, then SHUT THE EVER-LOVING F*CK UP ABOUT MAKING ABORTIONS ILLEGAL!


Killing someone and letting someone die usually aren't considered morally identical.
 
2012-08-17 03:57:30 PM

spiderpaz: ImpendingCynic: lennavan: Can a mother decide whether a two day old baby lives or dies? What about a 39 week old fetus? What is so magical about what happens in between those time points?

What's so magical about 17 years and 364 days and 18 years, when it comes to throwing someone in jail for sex with a minor?

I see you've been reading Ted Nugent's memoirs.


I knew someone would make a "you must like peodophiles" comment. It's the third-rail subject of social discourse.
 
2012-08-17 03:57:43 PM

intelligent comment below: lennavan: You should listen to science then. Fetuses are pretty farking developed.

Citation


You gotta be kidding me. You need a citation for that one? You do know it's called a fetus until it's born. right? No of course you didn't but we'll pretend you did and make fun of you anyway. You didn't pop out of your mom's cooch as a big clump of cells and then instantaneously and miraculously develop into a baby. Inside your mom, you had lungs, feet, arms, a brain, a heart and so on. That is development. These things did not develop after you were born. Shocking I know.

Check it out you can even read what the fetus is developing week by week Link

intelligent comment below: What magic? Well the fact it isn't attached and inside her body for starters. That's science, not magic


Well great, if she no longer wants to carry it we can detach the fetus by c-section then. Problem solved.

intelligent comment below: Your entire argument is snark, how ironic you project that onto me


There's actual substance behind the snark. Shocking!

intelligent comment below: Go waste someone elses time because you're just being an angry bitter uninformed child.


Says the guy who asked for a citation that fetuses are developed?
 
2012-08-17 03:58:17 PM

Kome: Logically


well there's your problem
 
2012-08-17 03:59:11 PM

lennavan: Can a mother decide whether a two day old baby lives or dies? What about a 39 week old fetus? What is so magical about what happens in between those time points?


The 2 day old can live outside their mother the fetus can not, they are a human being at that point. You know this little about the subject?

Don't attack others for your lack of knowledge about the subject.
 
2012-08-17 03:59:53 PM
don't you mean women's access to baby-murder?

after all, we can still buy aspirin, right?
 
2012-08-17 04:00:00 PM
So... let me get this straight.

1- Republicans don't want the "sluts" getting easy access to contraception. Then, when they do get pregnant they want them to carry the fetus to full term.

2- Republicans want to cut social programs that help out the poor and unwed mothers because they're just scavenging off of the system.

Now then, situation 1 leads to the people hurt by situation 2.

Am I to infer from this the Republicans just want something to be pissed about and really enjoy hurting people? Cause I can't resolve those two issues.
 
2012-08-17 04:00:24 PM

Ned Stark: Killing someone and letting someone die usually aren't considered morally identical.


The fundamental issue is not about killing versus letting someone die. It is about forcing someone to do something against his or her will for the benefit of someone else. In other words, it's about the means and not the ends.
 
2012-08-17 04:01:01 PM

lennavan: Well great, if she no longer wants to carry it we can detach the fetus by c-section then. Problem solved.


Really are you this unknowledgeable about the subject? You think pro-life want to ban abortion only when they fetus can live outside the womb? I think you have no clue what you are talking about.
 
2012-08-17 04:01:40 PM

Ned Stark: Killing someone and letting someone die usually aren't considered morally identical.


Is denying access to life saving medical care killing someone or letting them die? How is denying a fetus access to a mother's body any different?
 
2012-08-17 04:02:06 PM
Attention authoritarian pod people: Keep your stinky delusional religions out of my government and laws.

That includes you Christians, Mooslims, Jews, Mormons, the lot of you, including all fringe sects. Your invisible sky god doesn't exist and is an imaginary construct designed to prevent you from feeling hopeless in an indifferent universe.
 
2012-08-17 04:02:15 PM

ImpendingCynic: What's so magical about 17 years and 364 days and 18 years, when it comes to throwing someone in jail for sex with a minor?


Got me, I think that's stupid too.

ImpendingCynic: Society and the law sometimes have to draw an arbitrary line to make things simple. The birth of a child (at the time and date shown on the birth certificate) makes things pretty farking simple.


Fair enough, but then I disagree with the location of the arbitrary line. Similarly, I find it really stupid at age 18 you can own a gun, smoke, vote, sign up for the army and make split second life/death decisions at war but not drink alcohol. Indeed, I propose a non-arbitrary line, the fetus should have a right to life as soon as it is viable.
 
2012-08-17 04:03:07 PM

dinch: So... let me get this straight.

1- Republicans don't want the "sluts" getting easy access to contraception. Then, when they do get pregnant they want them to carry the fetus to full term.

2- Republicans want to cut social programs that help out the poor and unwed mothers because they're just scavenging off of the system.

Now then, situation 1 leads to the people hurt by situation 2.

Am I to infer from this the Republicans just want something to be pissed about and really enjoy hurting people? Cause I can't resolve those two issues.


I believe the standard issue conservative response is, charities and churches will help those women. And family values. And believing in Jesus. "Jesus, take the wheel!" is one of their sayings, after all.
 
2012-08-17 04:03:20 PM

Corvus: lennavan: Can a mother decide whether a two day old baby lives or dies? What about a 39 week old fetus? What is so magical about what happens in between those time points?

The 2 day old can live outside their mother the fetus can not, they are a human being at that point. You know this little about the subject?

Don't attack others for your lack of knowledge about the subject.


The 39 week old fetus absolutely can live outside unless there's something wrong with it. But it ain't legal to abort it either so I don't know what lenn is on about.
 
2012-08-17 04:03:23 PM

buck1138: Ned Stark: Killing someone and letting someone die usually aren't considered morally identical.

Is denying access to life saving medical care killing someone or letting them die? How is denying a fetus access to a mother's body any different?


Because a mother is not a piece of medical equipment?
 
2012-08-17 04:03:46 PM

Corvus: lennavan: Can a mother decide whether a two day old baby lives or dies? What about a 39 week old fetus? What is so magical about what happens in between those time points?

The 2 day old can live outside their mother the fetus can not, they are a human being at that point. You know this little about the subject?

Don't attack others for your lack of knowledge about the subject.


You don't think a 39 week old fetus can survive outside the womb? I'm the one who is lacking knowledge? Wow.
 
2012-08-17 04:04:09 PM

lennavan: Fair enough, but then I disagree with the location of the arbitrary line. Similarly, I find it really stupid at age 18 you can own a gun, smoke, vote, sign up for the army and make split second life/death decisions at war but not drink alcohol. Indeed, I propose a non-arbitrary line, the fetus should have a right to life as soon as it is viable.


How do you determine if THIS fetus is viable at THIS moment? And, I guess more fundamentally, how is that any less arbitrary than birth as the dividing line?
 
2012-08-17 04:04:10 PM

lennavan: Fair enough, but then I disagree with the location of the arbitrary line. Similarly, I find it really stupid at age 18 you can own a gun, smoke, vote, sign up for the army and make split second life/death decisions at war but not drink alcohol. Indeed, I propose a non-arbitrary line, the fetus should have a right to life as soon as it is viable.


So then you support Roe V wade then?


The Court asserted that the government had two competing interests - protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life". Following its earlier logic, the Court stated that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. The State has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother, and may regulate the procedure after viability so long as there is always an exception for preserving maternal health. The Court additionally added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician's right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest - not women's rights in general.[25] The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.[26]
 
2012-08-17 04:05:06 PM

Ned Stark: Corvus: lennavan: Can a mother decide whether a two day old baby lives or dies? What about a 39 week old fetus? What is so magical about what happens in between those time points?

The 2 day old can live outside their mother the fetus can not, they are a human being at that point. You know this little about the subject?

Don't attack others for your lack of knowledge about the subject.

The 39 week old fetus absolutely can live outside unless there's something wrong with it. But it ain't legal to abort it either so I don't know what lenn is on about.


It's the starting point for the conversation. If we can't agree to letting a 39 week old fetus have its right to life then what the fark can we agree on? But as you said, as a society we pretty much already agree on 39 week old fetuses having a right to life, he's just not willing to admit it yet. Once he does we'll have a rational conversation.
 
2012-08-17 04:05:35 PM
Party of Small Government My Ass
 
2012-08-17 04:05:49 PM

lennavan: ImpendingCynic: What's so magical about 17 years and 364 days and 18 years, when it comes to throwing someone in jail for sex with a minor?

Got me, I think that's stupid too.

ImpendingCynic: Society and the law sometimes have to draw an arbitrary line to make things simple. The birth of a child (at the time and date shown on the birth certificate) makes things pretty farking simple.

Fair enough, but then I disagree with the location of the arbitrary line. Similarly, I find it really stupid at age 18 you can own a gun, smoke, vote, sign up for the army and make split second life/death decisions at war but not drink alcohol. Indeed, I propose a non-arbitrary line, the fetus should have a right to life as soon as it is viable.


See, now you have to define when it's viable. As in, able to live outside the womb?
 
2012-08-17 04:06:06 PM

Kome: lennavan: Fair enough, but then I disagree with the location of the arbitrary line. Similarly, I find it really stupid at age 18 you can own a gun, smoke, vote, sign up for the army and make split second life/death decisions at war but not drink alcohol. Indeed, I propose a non-arbitrary line, the fetus should have a right to life as soon as it is viable.

How do you determine if THIS fetus is viable at THIS moment? And, I guess more fundamentally, how is that any less arbitrary than birth as the dividing line?


Experimentally. You c-section it out and if it lives, it lives, if it dies, it was equivalent to an abortion.
 
2012-08-17 04:06:34 PM

Ned Stark: Killing someone and letting someone die usually aren't considered morally identical.


Except the purpose of abortion is not to "kill" anything per se but rather, to maintain one's bodily integrity on one's own terms (in this case, by terminating the condition of pregnancy at a time of one's choosing in a time and manner of one's choosing). That the fetus dies is a consequence, and not a purpose - just like some other death(s) may be a consequence (but not a purpose) of you not giving blood.

In ethical terms, the two do seem to be equivalent.
 
2012-08-17 04:07:20 PM

SisterMaryElephant: don't you mean women's access to baby-murder?

after all, we can still buy aspirin, right?


The local health Dept wanted to give my wife the ol' rape wand when she asked for birth control. She told them where to stick it.
I then asked the lady if she was advocating binge drinking as effective BC.
 
2012-08-17 04:07:40 PM
1 Teach sex ed in school.

2 Make birth control easily accessible.

3 Keep the number of people wanting abortions low due to 1 and 2

4 Invest in the health care infrastructure

5 Increase health care access, especially preventative care

6 See care costs drop due to decreased emergency room visits
 
2012-08-17 04:07:40 PM

Corvus: lennavan: Fair enough, but then I disagree with the location of the arbitrary line. Similarly, I find it really stupid at age 18 you can own a gun, smoke, vote, sign up for the army and make split second life/death decisions at war but not drink alcohol. Indeed, I propose a non-arbitrary line, the fetus should have a right to life as soon as it is viable.

So then you support Roe V wade then?


The Court asserted that the government had two competing interests - protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life". Following its earlier logic, the Court stated that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. The State has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother, and may regulate the procedure after viability so long as there is always an exception for preserving maternal health. The Court additionally added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician's right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest - not women's rights in general.[25] The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.[26]


QFT.
 
2012-08-17 04:07:46 PM

Corvus: The 2 day old can live outside their mother the fetus can not, they are a human being at that point. You know this little about the subject?


A two-day-old baby can live outside its mother because it's two days old.
How can a fetus be two days old?
It cannot, because it's still a fetus and therefore unborn.

Did you attend Liberty University? Your grammar makes it appear as though you did.
 
2012-08-17 04:08:01 PM

Corvus: lennavan: Fair enough, but then I disagree with the location of the arbitrary line. Similarly, I find it really stupid at age 18 you can own a gun, smoke, vote, sign up for the army and make split second life/death decisions at war but not drink alcohol. Indeed, I propose a non-arbitrary line, the fetus should have a right to life as soon as it is viable.

So then you support Roe V wade then?


Of course I do. Do you?
 
2012-08-17 04:08:41 PM
 
2012-08-17 04:08:51 PM

lennavan: Kome: lennavan: Fair enough, but then I disagree with the location of the arbitrary line. Similarly, I find it really stupid at age 18 you can own a gun, smoke, vote, sign up for the army and make split second life/death decisions at war but not drink alcohol. Indeed, I propose a non-arbitrary line, the fetus should have a right to life as soon as it is viable.

How do you determine if THIS fetus is viable at THIS moment? And, I guess more fundamentally, how is that any less arbitrary than birth as the dividing line?

Experimentally. You c-section it out and if it lives, it lives, if it dies, it was equivalent to an abortion.


Putting aside for the moment the incredible barbarity of such an experiment, by what metric are you defining "lives"? With the help of medical devices found in the best NICU unit in the world, or just the technology available in the NICU at THAT hospital? Unaided by any medical intervention? What about women who want to give birth with the help of a midwife and not a team of physicians, outside of the hospital?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-17 04:09:48 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Attention authoritarian pod people: Keep your stinky delusional religions out of my government and laws.

That includes you Christians, Mooslims, Jews, Mormons, the lot of you, including all fringe sects. Your invisible sky god doesn't exist and is an imaginary construct designed to prevent you from feeling hopeless in an indifferent universe

because you are a loser with no self esteem and no one respects you.

FTFY
 
2012-08-17 04:09:59 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Corvus: The 2 day old can live outside their mother the fetus can not, they are a human being at that point. You know this little about the subject?

A two-day-old baby can live outside its mother because it's two days old.
How can a fetus be two days old?
It cannot, because it's still a fetus and therefore unborn.

Did you attend Liberty University? Your grammar makes it appear as though you did.


Where did I say a fetus is two days old?

I am not pro-life. Maybe you should take some deep breaths before going off the deep end and attacking people.
 
2012-08-17 04:10:06 PM
I just want to know why Republicans are so concerned with what goes into or comes out of my vajayjay.
 
2012-08-17 04:10:07 PM

Blue_Blazer: The local health Dept wanted to give my wife the ol' rape wand when she asked for birth control. She told them where to stick it.
I then asked the lady if she was advocating binge drinking as effective BC.


Well I guess you showed them, those dirty abortioning socialist health departmentalists.
And to think, your tax dollars pay them to insult you like that.

2/10
 
2012-08-17 04:10:26 PM
This is weird. I rarely see liberals argue with liberals over something they agree upon. It's like a contest over who is more correct than the other.
 
2012-08-17 04:11:09 PM

QueenMamaBee: I just want to know why Republicans are so concerned with what goes into or comes out of my vajayjay.


Same reason many of them tend to be closeted repressed perverts?
 
2012-08-17 04:11:12 PM

lennavan: Corvus: lennavan: Fair enough, but then I disagree with the location of the arbitrary line. Similarly, I find it really stupid at age 18 you can own a gun, smoke, vote, sign up for the army and make split second life/death decisions at war but not drink alcohol. Indeed, I propose a non-arbitrary line, the fetus should have a right to life as soon as it is viable.

So then you support Roe V wade then?

Of course I do. Do you?


yes. You were the one pretending it's arbitrary and we need to check every fetus if it can live or not.
 
2012-08-17 04:11:30 PM

verbaltoxin: This is weird. I rarely see liberals argue with liberals over something they agree upon. It's like a contest over who is more correct than the other.


I believe they call that "discussion," and it often leads to more thorough understanding. Except on Fark, mostly it leads to namecalling here.

QueenMamaBee: I just want to know why Republicans are so concerned with what goes into or comes out of my vajayjay.


Well it's just so darn fascinating.
 
2012-08-17 04:11:38 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Attention authoritarian pod people: Keep your stinky delusional religions out of my government and laws.

That includes you Christians, Mooslims, Jews, Mormons, the lot of you, including all fringe sects. Your invisible sky god doesn't exist and is an imaginary construct designed to prevent you from feeling hopeless in an indifferent universe.


You wouldn't even have a system of law if it weren't for the advances in religion that have created a moral foundation. You derive your morals from numerous religions but you credit yourself because defiance is apparently the trend. Don't believe in my God if you so choose, but don't tell me he isn't very real to me and very much has a hand in my life, and yours. I would not feel hopeless without my faith. I know that I would lost though. Everyone is lost until they realize that spirituality is actually a core part of the human condition. Once you realize that and stop trying to 'fight the system' you'll see that you can't always run away from truth, because it's built into you.
 
Displayed 50 of 307 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report