·  News ·  Travel ·  Food ·  Arts ·  Science ·  Sports ·  Advice ·  Religion ·  Life ·  Greensboro · 

Abortion S.L.E.D.

by IgnoranceIsBliss | Published on February 3rd, 2008, 2:12 pm | Religion
A Person wrote:Don't worry, you don't do a lot of it.


:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
 
The right choice....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328027,00.html

Many mothers cherish the first kicks they feel from their unborn babies.

But unknown to one U.K. mother, the kicking she felt from the twins growing inside her actually saved her life, according to a report from the Daily Mail.

Michelle Stepney, 35, said her twins Alice and Harriet, now age 13 months, were a lively pair in the womb. At the time, however, she had no idea that constant kicking she felt actually dislodged a tumor that had formed on her cervix and, according to doctors, saved her life.

Shortly after becoming pregnant, Stepney of Cheam in South-West London was taken to the hospital after suffering what was believed to be a miscarriage. Soon doctors realized she was still pregnant, but had developed life-threatening cervical cancer. Stepney declined to have an abortion and doctors at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London agreed to give her reduced chemotherapy in the hope of stopping the cancer spreading during the pregnancy.

But it wasn't the chemo that ultimately saved Stepney.

"I couldn't believe it when the doctors told me that the babies had dislodged the tumor," she said. "I'd felt them kicking, but I didn't realize just how important their kicking would turn out to be. I owe my life to my girls, and that's why I could have never agreed with a termination."
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
February 4th, 2008, 1:05 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
A courageous decision certainly and we can all be glad that her choice had a successful outcome.
All stupid ideas pass through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is ridiculed. Third, it is ridiculed
February 4th, 2008, 1:30 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:No, my opinion is that it can be extended futher back to when the fetus has the beginnings of life - a functioning (if not reasoning) brain and the wherewithal for life - viability.

Viability means that the baby can live on its own outside the womb. (Or live with medical assistance and care).
That part is very important. Before viability, the fetus is an obligate parasite, and therefore incapable of living on its own, that is, not viable.

Intelligent women have long understood that the person who has no control over his/her own body is not a person with any rights. He or she who has control over my body may choose to give me priviledges, but I have no rights. In the world today, a minority of women have the right to determine whether or not some man uses them for sex. It has been very recent in this country that the concept that a man could rape his wife even existed. It was called "marital rights" and men had them and so the woman had no right or ability to decide not to have sex (for any reason, including in order to avoid pregnancy).

This whole argument for outlawing abortions is well understood by intelligent women as a smokescreen for regaining control over women's bodies. Nothing in the bible defines personhood as beginning at fertilization. In fact, history and even some passages in the bible make it clear to anybody who wishes to learn about what the people of that time believed, that they believed life begins when the baby is born and takes its first breath, and at that time God infuses the child's soul into its body. That is the BIBLICAL position.

Jesus didn't change that. He was a grown man, and I assume he knew very well about what went on around Him. He never taught that abortion was wrong. And He sure taught a lot of things. So why, if early abortion is such a terrible sin didn't Jesus Himself say anything about it. History tells us why. A fetus was not considered a person back then. Abortion was not considered a crime; particularly abortion at any time prior to quickening. And people did know about abortion during biblical times.

And BHL / IIB, don't waste your time trying to tell me that I'm proving I'm not a Christian by saying these truths. Please find one single place, anywhere in the Bible that Jesus says anything about abortion, much less that He forbid it. If you can't do that, then just shut up until you have some biblical evidence to produce.
February 6th, 2008, 2:14 pm
Questioner
 
Location: Colorado
Questioner wrote:This whole argument for outlawing abortions is well understood by intelligent women as a smokescreen for regaining control over women's bodies.

I finally realized this only a few years ago, and it made me even more supportive of the right to choose. Whatever I might think of abortion personally, I value the rights of competent women to decide these and all other matters of a personal nature for themselves.
February 6th, 2008, 2:39 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
Viability means that the baby can live on its own outside the womb. (Or live with medical assistance and care). That part is very important. Before viability, the fetus is an obligate parasite, and therefore incapable of living on its own, that is, not viable.


You can visit several nursing homes that have several people that can't get out of bed by themselves or feed themselves. In your words they are "incapable of living on their own, that is, not viable". The only difference in this respect is that one is in the womb and the other is in a nursing home (location). I suppose when you get in that shape then it'll be OK to abort you, right?

Intelligent women have long understood that the person who has no control over his/her own body is not a person with any rights.


Flawed argument. If you suddenly came down with terminal cancer (something you can't control) then are you a person without rights? Nope.

He or she who has control over my body may choose to give me priviledges, but I have no rights.


Do what you will with YOUR body as long as it is no consequence to the OTHER body inside you. I have a right to protect my home too but I can't kill somebody just because they come inside my house.

In the world today, a minority of women have the right to determine whether or not some man uses them for sex.


I thought it took two people to have sex and usually it's consenting, correct. Where is this "using" coming from? Were the women not aware they were having sex? Where is this place you speak of?

It has been very recent in this country that the concept that a man could rape his wife even existed. It was called "marital rights" and men had them and so the woman had no right or ability to decide not to have sex (for any reason, including in order to avoid pregnancy).


That may have been something you were brought up with but not I. It's also not biblical. Biblical speaking than women belongs to the man AND the man belongs to the woman. They are to treat each other likewise.

This whole argument for outlawing abortions is well understood by intelligent women as a smokescreen for regaining control over women's bodies.


So your saying that if a woman disagrees with that statement that they are not intelligent? Many intelligent women disagree with that statement so that would obviously make your statement false.

Nothing in the bible defines personhood as beginning at fertilization.


God knew us before we were in the womb. What's not to understand?

In fact, history and even some passages in the bible make it clear to anybody who wishes to learn about what the people of that time believed, that they believed life begins when the baby is born and takes its first breath, and at that time God infuses the child's soul into its body. That is the BIBLICAL position.


Luke 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Wrong again. The bible doesn't describe John the baptist as a fetus. It described him as a baby.

Jesus didn't change that.


Didn't need to. That's because your previous statement was wrong to begin with.

He was a grown man, and I assume he knew very well about what went on around Him. He never taught that abortion was wrong.


Flawed argument. He never said anything about robbing banks being wrong either. He was not a grown man... he was God in the body of a grown man.

And He sure taught a lot of things. So why, if early abortion is such a terrible sin didn't Jesus Himself say anything about it.


I guess He assumed we'd be smart enough to recognize that MURDER is wrong. I guess only the "intelligent" women understand that, right?

History tells us why. A fetus was not considered a person back then. Abortion was not considered a crime; particularly abortion at any time prior to quickening. And people did know about abortion during biblical times.


Bad argument. Just because abortion "happened" and is recorded in history doesn't justify it.

And BHL / IIB, don't waste your time trying to tell me that I'm proving I'm not a Christian by saying these truths.


Oh you may believe in your version God and you may believe in your version of Jesus and you may believe you are right about abortion but I assure you that you are wrong on every account.

Please find one single place, anywhere in the Bible that Jesus says anything about abortion, much less that He forbid it. If you can't do that, then just shut up until you have some biblical evidence to produce.


Find one place where he says anything against robbing banks. "Intelligent women" ought to be able to find that. Your argument of proof through omission is rediculous.
February 6th, 2008, 2:54 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
Questioner wrote:This whole argument for outlawing abortions is well understood by intelligent women as a smokescreen for regaining control over women's bodies.

I finally realized this only a few years ago, and it made me even more supportive of the right to choose. Whatever I might think of abortion personally, I value the rights of competent women to decide these and all other matters of a personal nature for themselves.


I wonder if you would feel the same way if at one time your wife became pregnant and then decided about 3 months into it that "I just don't feel like a baby right now". If so, I think you should be in the operating room when the doctor crushes the brain of the baby and pulls him out.
February 6th, 2008, 2:57 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
BecauseHeLives wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
Questioner wrote:This whole argument for outlawing abortions is well understood by intelligent women as a smokescreen for regaining control over women's bodies.

I finally realized this only a few years ago, and it made me even more supportive of the right to choose. Whatever I might think of abortion personally, I value the rights of competent women to decide these and all other matters of a personal nature for themselves.


I wonder if you would feel the same way if at one time your wife became pregnant and then decided about 3 months into it that "I just don't feel like a baby right now". If so, I think you should be in the operating room when the doctor crushes the brain of the baby and pulls him out.


Like everything else, I think you deal with situations as you come to them in your personal life. I'm glad people still have the ability to make those personal decisions for themselves without govt control.
"You can't put the civil rights of a minority up for a majority vote."
February 6th, 2008, 3:06 pm
User avatar
Sanjuro
Expert...on everything...
 
BecauseHeLives wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:I finally realized this only a few years ago, and it made me even more supportive of the right to choose. Whatever I might think of abortion personally, I value the rights of competent women to decide these and all other matters of a personal nature for themselves.

I wonder if you would feel the same way if at one time your wife became pregnant and then decided about 3 months into it that "I just don't feel like a baby right now". If so, I think you should be in the operating room when the doctor crushes the brain of the baby and pulls him out.

In a situation when it's a decision between my wife and myself, that would be a decision we would make as partners in life. It should be none of your business, nor of the government's.
February 6th, 2008, 3:17 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
BecauseHeLives wrote:I wonder if you would feel the same way if at one time your wife became pregnant and then decided about 3 months into it that "I just don't feel like a baby right now". If so, I think you should be in the operating room when the doctor crushes the brain of the baby and pulls him out.

At three months there is no brain to crush, just a developing brain stem. But that aside - of course the partner should be with the woman, loving and supporting her. Brandishing a Bible and telling her that she's destined for hell as a murderess is not supportive or respectful of her as an independent and responsible person i.e. wife.
February 6th, 2008, 3:18 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:I finally realized this only a few years ago, and it made me even more supportive of the right to choose. Whatever I might think of abortion personally, I value the rights of competent women to decide these and all other matters of a personal nature for themselves.

I wonder if you would feel the same way if at one time your wife became pregnant and then decided about 3 months into it that "I just don't feel like a baby right now". If so, I think you should be in the operating room when the doctor crushes the brain of the baby and pulls him out.

In a situation when it's a decision between my wife and myself, that would be a decision we would make as partners in life. It should be none of your business, nor of the government's.


According to you its not a decision between you and your wife. You stated it's the woman's decision. Apparently its none of your business what she decides.
February 6th, 2008, 3:48 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
A Person wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:I wonder if you would feel the same way if at one time your wife became pregnant and then decided about 3 months into it that "I just don't feel like a baby right now". If so, I think you should be in the operating room when the doctor crushes the brain of the baby and pulls him out.

At three months there is no brain to crush, just a developing brain stem. But that aside - of course the partner should be with the woman, loving and supporting her. Brandishing a Bible and telling her that she's destined for hell as a murderess is not supportive or respectful of her as an independent and responsible person i.e. wife.


But they do crush the head.

Interesting how you keep bringing religion and religeous sterotypes into this topic.
February 6th, 2008, 3:52 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
as far as the human tissue issue (sorry about the rhyme), an embryo is not the same as tumor tissue. tumor tissue or any other body part removed does not have the same potential that an embryo does. tissue removed from the human body has no potential to develop on its own at any time, it will die unless rigorous and sometimes in spite of rigorous laboratory conditions. On the other hand, an embryo has the potential to grow and become an independent organism, it has the potential to live on its own outside of the body. IMHO, tissue is not that same as viable organism, even if a viable organism is made up of tissue.
February 6th, 2008, 4:13 pm
nobody in particular
 
nobody in particular wrote:as far as the human tissue issue (sorry about the rhyme), an embryo is not the same as tumor tissue. tumor tissue or any other body part removed does not have the same potential that an embryo does. tissue removed from the human body has no potential to develop on its own at any time, it will die unless rigorous and sometimes in spite of rigorous laboratory conditions. On the other hand, an embryo has the potential to grow and become an independent organism, it has the potential to live on its own outside of the body. IMHO, tissue is not that same as viable organism, even if a viable organism is made up of tissue.



Thats always been my philosophy and why I am, in principle, against the idea of abortion. However, I feel that personal belief shouldn't become a mandate for someone else.
February 6th, 2008, 4:21 pm
User avatar
Sanjuro
Expert...on everything...
 
BecauseHeLives wrote:But they do crush the head.
Not at three months. The likely method would be to use vacuum aspiration. A five minute procedure, a tube is inserted into the uterus and suction applied. They don't chase it round the surgery with a hammer trying to crush its head.

BecauseHeLives wrote:Interesting how you keep bringing religion and religeous sterotypes into this topic.
Just using a flashlight.
In a marriage of equals, important decisions are discussed jointly. As an example, the decision have a vasectomy is ultimately the man's choice - it's his scrotum that's going to get opened and if he's opposed to the idea then no one can force him. Of course the woman could say "if you want to ever stick that thing in me again you're going to have to get the knife" but the choice is still the man's.
February 6th, 2008, 5:20 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:But they do crush the head.
Not at three months. The likely method would be to use vacuum aspiration. A five minute procedure, a tube is inserted into the uterus and suction applied. They don't chase it round the surgery with a hammer trying to crush its head.

BecauseHeLives wrote:Interesting how you keep bringing religion and religeous sterotypes into this topic.
Just using a flashlight.
In a marriage of equals, important decisions are discussed jointly. As an example, the decision have a vasectomy is ultimately the man's choice - it's his scrotum that's going to get opened and if he's opposed to the idea then no one can force him. Of course the woman could say "if you want to ever stick that thing in me again you're going to have to get the knife" but the choice is still the man's.


It sounds like you are saying that all people that will be affected should have a say in the matter, correct. You know where I'm going with this...
February 6th, 2008, 5:57 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
BecauseHeLives wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:In a situation when it's a decision between my wife and myself, that would be a decision we would make as partners in life. It should be none of your business, nor of the government's.


According to you its not a decision between you and your wife. You stated it's the woman's decision. Apparently its none of your business what she decides.


I would hope that if we're talking about a marriage, the husband and wife RESPECT each other as equals and would therefore discuss, listen to each other, and decide together. It took both of them. And the decision is strictly between them; their business alone (definitely NOT the government's). The choice to abort should be available and it is THEIR choice to make. Also, assuming that the wife is not incapacitated and therefore able to make a decision about her body, it's ultimately her choice (she's the only one of the couple who would have to be present for the procedure) and consequences to live with.
When it is not in our power to follow what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable. –Rene Descartes

I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. -Douglas Adams
February 6th, 2008, 5:59 pm
User avatar
Serendipitous
This is my world and I am the world leader...pretend.
 
Location: in the now
BecauseHeLives wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:In a situation when it's a decision between my wife and myself, that would be a decision we would make as partners in life. It should be none of your business, nor of the government's.

According to you its not a decision between you and your wife. You stated it's the woman's decision. Apparently its none of your business what she decides.

My wife and I are partners in life. She gives her input on decisions regarding my medical decisions, and I give my input on hers. I respect her decisions about her body. Don't you do the same in your marriage?
February 6th, 2008, 6:00 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:In a situation when it's a decision between my wife and myself, that would be a decision we would make as partners in life. It should be none of your business, nor of the government's.

According to you its not a decision between you and your wife. You stated it's the woman's decision. Apparently its none of your business what she decides.

My wife and I are partners in life. She gives her input on decisions regarding my medical decisions, and I give my input on hers. I respect her decisions about her body. Don't you do the same in your marriage?


I do. I'm simply playing the devil's advocate here. In one post you are saying it's the woman's choice but in another you are saying it's also your choice (both of you). You really can't have it both ways. If she wants to have an abortion and you don't then what? Would you truly "respect" that decision? Keep in mind I'm just using you and your wife as an example here.
February 6th, 2008, 6:06 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
BecauseHeLives wrote:
I do. I'm simply playing the devil's advocate here. In one post you are saying it's the woman's choice but in another you are saying it's also your choice (both of you). You really can't have it both ways. If she wants to have an abortion and you don't then what? Would you truly "respect" that decision? Keep in mind I'm just using you and your wife as an example here.


I figured as much, but your argument is flawed. You are insulating things for argument sake. You can have it both ways. It's the womans choice, and as someone fundamentally opposed to the option, I'm happy the govt allows it. That choice, if in a healthy committed relationship, can and usually does include the potential father. A "woman's choice" doesn't mean "no one can have any input" just as any choice comes from a balance of information.

Your circumstance is so unreasonable that it certainly would be the exception to the rule.
February 6th, 2008, 6:33 pm
User avatar
Sanjuro
Expert...on everything...
 
BecauseHeLives wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:My wife and I are partners in life. She gives her input on decisions regarding my medical decisions, and I give my input on hers. I respect her decisions about her body. Don't you do the same in your marriage?
I do. I'm simply playing the devil's advocate here. In one post you are saying it's the woman's choice but in another you are saying it's also your choice (both of you). You really can't have it both ways. If she wants to have an abortion and you don't then what? Would you truly "respect" that decision?

I'll give you this one tiny glimpse into my personal life, BHL.

My wife has indeed made decisions regarding her body that hurt me and that I disagreed with. The details are none of your business, obviously. But I have indeed respected her decisions and managed to live with those decisions, because I love her.
February 6th, 2008, 6:52 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:My wife and I are partners in life. She gives her input on decisions regarding my medical decisions, and I give my input on hers. I respect her decisions about her body. Don't you do the same in your marriage?
I do. I'm simply playing the devil's advocate here. In one post you are saying it's the woman's choice but in another you are saying it's also your choice (both of you). You really can't have it both ways. If she wants to have an abortion and you don't then what? Would you truly "respect" that decision?

I'll give you this one tiny glimpse into my personal life, BHL.

My wife has indeed made decisions regarding her body that hurt me and that I disagreed with. The details are none of your business, obviously. But I have indeed respected her decisions and managed to live with those decisions, because I love her.


Star Wars-inspired tattoos and all :)
The Rapture already happened. All the good Christians are gone. We're stuck with the rejects.

"Why would anyone pray in private where no one can see you?"- BHL
February 6th, 2008, 7:12 pm
User avatar
C. Alice
 
BecauseHeLives wrote:I do. I'm simply playing the devil's advocate here. In one post you are saying it's the woman's choice but in another you are saying it's also your choice (both of you). You really can't have it both ways.
yes we can. The one thing we will agree on is that it's not your decision or the governments. Let's go back to another example - a vasectomy or tubal ligation. As a couple we can agree that we don't want more children, who undergoes the surgery? We can discuss this and no one really wants surgery, but ultimately one partner cannot force the other.

BecauseHeLives wrote: If she wants to have an abortion and you don't then what? Would you truly "respect" that decision? Keep in mind I'm just using you and your wife as an example here.
Absolutely. I might fundamentally disagree, it might even affect our marriage but it would still be her decision.
February 6th, 2008, 7:46 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
BecauseHeLives wrote:
Viability means that the baby can live on its own outside the womb. (Or live with medical assistance and care). That part is very important. Before viability, the fetus is an obligate parasite, and therefore incapable of living on its own, that is, not viable.


You can visit several nursing homes that have several people that can't get out of bed by themselves or feed themselves. In your words they are "incapable of living on their own, that is, not viable". The only difference in this respect is that one is in the womb and the other is in a nursing home (location). I suppose when you get in that shape then it'll be OK to abort you, right?

Your medical ignorance is indeed breathtaking. A parasite means that you can only survive by directly connecting onto or inside the body of another and taking your nourishment from their bodily fluids. So the old people are not parasites. The fetus is. I give up trying to explain medical terms like viable to you. You distort the definition, misapply the word, and think your argument is meaningful. It isn't. It is utter nonsense.

Later you say: "I wonder if you would feel the same way if at one time your wife became pregnant and then decided about 3 months into it that "I just don't feel like a baby right now". If so, I think you should be in the operating room when the doctor crushes the brain of the baby and pulls him out. " More medical error. You are describing partial birth abortion, which is done only in the 3rd trimester. Since at 3 months, the woman is still in the first trimester, the technique for abortion is either D&C or vacuum extraction. Wrong again.

BHL wrote:
questioner wrote:Intelligent women have long understood that the person who has no control over his/her own body is not a person with any rights.

Flawed argument. If you suddenly came down with terminal cancer (something you can't control) then are you a person without rights? Nope.

A person with terminal cancer can still control his/her own body. Have you ever even SEEN a person dying of cancer??? Much less worked with one? I have. They have all kinds of control over their own bodies--and minds.

BHL wrote:
Questioner wrote:He or she who has control over my body may choose to give me priviledges, but I have no rights.


Do what you will with YOUR body as long as it is no consequence to the OTHER body inside you. I have a right to protect my home too but I can't kill somebody just because they come inside my house.

What you refuse to talk about is that when the welfare of an obligate parasite is in conflict with that of the host, a decision must be made about which side has priority. You obviously come down on the side of the fetus. As of course do all males who want to control women's bodies. Exactly what legal rights do you give a woman? None apparently. Your position is that the "other body" inside the woman should have rights far greater than the woman herself. Women (yes, even a lot of anti-abortion women as the earlier postings about the number of so-called anti-abortion women having abortions when it is their body in question) think they should have control over their own bodies to the same extent as do men. Since men can never be in that situation, I do not accept that you have a right to have any say in the matter anyway.

BHL wrote:I thought it took two people to have sex and usually it's consenting, correct. Where is this "using" coming from? Were the women not aware they were having sex? Where is this place you speak of?

Are you really that ignorant? In all muslim countries, a man has complete rights to his wife's body. That is all of the Middle East, and virtually all of Africa, and goodly chunks of Pakistan, India and much of Asia. It turns out that in China, Japan and the countries in and many parts of Eastern Europe and Central & South America there is no concept that a husband can rape his wife. In other words, almost the only places on Earth that a woman has a legal right to refuse her husband sex is the United States, Canada, and parts of Western Europe. If you check population figures, I think you will see that the majority of women are in the countries where a woman has no right to control of her own body sexually. Now, what about the millions of men in the U.S., Canada and Western Europe who also think that their woman has no right to refuse them sex. Did you ever read the book, "The Burning Bed". The man's expectation that he could take sex whenever he wanted, regadless of his wife's wishes is extremely widespread, even in America.

BHL wrote:That may have been something you were brought up with but not I. It's also not biblical. Biblical speaking than women belongs to the man AND the man belongs to the woman. They are to treat each other likewise.

Fortunately, my Dad was a good man who showed my mother nothing but respect and love. However, you are quite incorrect when you say that is not biblical. Part of the bible teaches what you say, but other parts order women to be "submissive" to their husbands. Exactly what did you think that meant????

BHL wrote:God knew us before we were in the womb. What's not to understand?

What has that got to do with abortion? Nothing in my mind.

The rest of your quotes and arguments have nothing to do with this discussion. I don't agree that they mean what you seem to think they mean. But that is no surprise. You so regularly misinterpret the bible that it is clear that you will never stop.
February 6th, 2008, 8:56 pm
Questioner
 
Location: Colorado
sigh!
February 6th, 2008, 9:00 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 

Return to Religion