Real ‘Jane Roe’ Makes Pro-Life Case in Upcoming Feature Film ‘Doonby’
by HollywoodlandNorma McCorvey, better known as the plaintiff at the heart of the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, wasn’t seeking a big-screen film career.
She simply couldn’t pass up the chance to play a woman who tries convincing a pregnant woman to keep her baby.
McCorvey, who famously had a change of heart regarding abortion following the landmark ruling, has a small but pivotal role in the upcoming feature “Doonby.”
“Doonby” stars John Schneider, Robert Davi, Jennifer O’Neill, Joe Estevez and Ernie Hudson in the tale of a drifter who arrives in a small Texas town and creates a stir when his past is slowly revealed. The film will have several sneak screenings on Feb. 10 and 17 in Texas, Mississippi and Tennessee before opening in late spring/early summer.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
107 Comments
She was interviewed extensively in Tony Kaye's brilliant documentary on abortion, "Lake of Fire". It was obvious that the religious extremists whom she now congregates with got to her.
Lake of Fire was also a great expose on how the anti-abortion, evangelical community are essentially domestic terrorists especially when members are threatening clinicians and workers, shooting doctors, and attempting to blow up clinics.
Thay, another left wing lunatic screeching to kill more babies………..
And what are baby killers?
Who's extremely grateful that their mother didn't believe in abortion…
Aborting a fetus or blastocyte is not "killing a baby". A 3 month old fetus or blastocyte cant live outside the womb.
"killing babies" is what you're ok with when you support illegal wars where real live children are often the casualties.
WRONG. My Mother does believe in a womans right to an abortion but she WANTED children and wasnt forced to have them by the state or a group of religious kooks.
I understand, you're an irrational reactionary who stupidly equates "babies" with a fetus or blastocyte. Then again, coming from the anti-science crowd who wants to teach creationism in schools and believes the world is only 5000 years old Im not surpised in the least.
Orsonsson, a hostile sexist and chauvinist who believes women are second class citizens who shouldnt be allowed rights over their own bodies and reproductive systems.
Really? According to federal law and the laws of 27 states, killing an unborn baby is considered homicide. And that applies to any stage of pregnancy.
"A 3 month old fetus or blastocyte cant live outside the womb."
A fully gestated newborn baby can't "live outside the womb" either without a lot of attention from someone else.
"the religious extremists whom she now congregates with got to her"
To the contrary, it's called a conscience.
To expand on what Buck said:
Newborn babies can't survive without care. Small children can't survive without care. Many of the sick can't survive without care. And many of the aged can't survive without care. There will come a time when you probably can't survive without care and some would consider you, how to put this, "not really worth preserving." So you'll be just like the unborn. Just a bunch of cells serving no purpose.
The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.
– Luke 6:45
A woman is unique. She's not just in charge of her own life. Unlike a man, she is, from conception, in charge of and responsible for the new life inside her. And she's not giving birth to a blastocyte any more than she's giving birth to a toddler, an infant, or a Homo sapien. These are just terms for a person at a certain stage of life. Yes, life.
And that life has a soul. Or as C. S. Lewis said it even better: "You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."
There are many highly successful birth control methods any woman may employ. There is NO EXCUSE for abortion.
A baby is viable from conception otherwise there would be no such thing as invitro fertilization.
A lot of liberals who've already graduated college can't live without constant care from their parents either.
I just want to add that the original commenter "Thay Live" and I have had some long and intense debates on lots of issues ranging from Israel to abortion. I've noticed that 'Thay Live" has some cognitive problems and potentially mental health issues.
The one commonality between all the positions "Thay Live" takes on most issues is a deep resentment of God and a worldviews that are morally gray, slightly dark, and deliberately provocative. Don't let this lost lonely person get you riled up, because he or she is not really looking for an exchange of ideas when they post here. Its more about bothering people and trying to spread his or her own lack of peace to those who stand on solid moral ground.
Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. It takes amoral mental gymnastics on a monumentally self deceived level to come up with the Orwellian newspeak to justify killing babies in their mothers wombs.
Proverbs 8
36 But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul;
All those who hate me love death.
Isn't it amazing that the very pro-aborts that mock, scorn, and deny these words were identified and called out thousands of years before they were born.
Your name-calling and negativity is reflective of the value of your arguments. Using the term "blastocyte" is an emotional manipulation technique to make it easier to dehumanize the person being aborted. You cling to shaky and morally relativistic pseudo-science religiously to support your position. How ironic is that?
Killing a person in the earliest stage of their development is killing a person in the earliest stage. You can rationalize the ugly murderous act, demonize abortion opponents, and act as ugly as you want. It won't change the truth.
I love it when lefties who can't recognize that abortion destroys a developing human being call Conservatives "anti-science". To view abortion as destructive is not anti-science. It's not religious dogma or political pandering – it's understanding basic biology. (and don't get me started on how these "pro-science" leftists think that the "science" of their take on global warming shouldn't be subject to questioning and scrutiny – never mind that that closed mindedness flies in the face of all that science is supposed to represent).
Wrong. According to fedral law abortion is legal in all 50 states. I dont know where you got your info from. And if you try to obstruct that law or threaten people that implement that law you are a terrorist.
that's why I support abortion only at the 87th tri-mester. Parents get to decide if they deserve to pass their 21st birthday. Grounding didn't work? I promise worrying about the big 2-1 will make them focus,
A baby is viable from conception? Really so a 3 week old blastocyte can live outside the womb and is a sentient creature? It isnt. By your standards sperm is viable therefore sex outside of procreation or masturbation should be illegal.
It's called brainwashing.
so u would had no problem if your mother wanted to aborted you as a fetus then.
Something libs understand intimately.
I just want to add that the original commenter "Thay Live" and I have had some long and intense debates on lots of issues ranging from Israel to abortion. I've noticed that 'Thay Live" has some cognitive problems and potentially mental health issues.
The one commonality between all the positions "Thay Live" takes on most issues is a deep resentment of God and a worldviews that are morally gray, slightly dark, and deliberately provocative.
Of course, i dont buy your fundamentalist bs so I have mental health issues. Funny too, but I think the same of you. Second, I dont believe in God so resentment of he/she/it would be near impossible. I actually wish there was a god to resent. Instead there is a nothing.
Im a simple realist in that morality is a subjective affair and does not exist objectively in any sense. Power is the only real law.
The facts are, you would choose to tyrannize a female and saddle her with a child after an unplanned pregnancy against her will. That is the height of cruelty and you know it. And we've had lengthy discussions? About what? Look, I ve been commenting on this site for quite sometime and have come to the conclusion that conservatives cant deal with reality so they invent fictions like God, nation, etc, (morality or order)meanwhile underneath that illusion is a reality you either deny or dont want to face.
Unfortunately when you cant afford to feed or care for that soul and to be saddled with its care and forced to subject it to a life of poverty and misery none of that matters. Its the womans choice if she wants to give birth to a child and no one elses.
Its not yet a person And that's not the issue either. the issue is that the government has no constitutional right to force a woman to carry a child, give birth and raise it. it violates the 13th amendment and is forced servitude.
Now, you know why hardcore libs oppose school choice. Can't have kids dodging the liberal indoctrination centers know as public schools?
Really? ive read enough conservative views to know for a fact you've got that backwards.
There will come a time when you probably can't survive without care and some would consider you, how to put this, "not really worth preserving." So you'll be just like the unborn. Just a bunch of cells serving no purpose.
One, I have no problem with that, its the way of a cold, brutish reality, and two, that is not the issue here. The issue is that the woman who is pregnant should have the final say on whether or not she wants to be a mother
@Thay_Live
You are aware that there are ATHEISTS who realized abortion is murder. There are entire groups made up of such unbelieving pro-lifers as shown below:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/11/28/...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/754583/p...
http://www.gargaro.com/abortion/alt.html
Use your head. I am not talking about abortion. If anyone except the mother kills a pregnant woman they are charged with homicide of an unborn baby as well. In many states it does not matter the age of the baby. A strange twist of morality, isn't it? Try googling the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a federal law passed in 2004.
How did we get to school choice? And if they're are home schooled they'll be indoctrinated with evagelical, fundamentalist bs. They're better off with liberal indoctrination.
You're aware that the Nazis (National Socialists) convinced Germany that it was okay to march Jews into gas chambers by using "Jews are not people" propoganda.
And if you really believed in solid moral ground you wouldnt be worshipping st reagan either.
I am not talking about abortion.
Then your comment is irrelevant to this conversation since that's whta we're talking about.
Should our definition of life change as technology advances and babies can survive outside the womb at earlier and earlier ages?
This is also irrelevant. The only issue is the mother and it's ultimately her choice if she wants to have a child and raise it. The state has no right to force her into this position after an unplanned pregnancy of any kind.
I dont care, Im not one of them.
Snore….apples and bowling balls, And once you pull the Nazi card the conversation is over.
No I wouldnt have.
That would have been her choice and since all life is essentially suffering she would have been doing me a favor.
I pity the mothers that have aborted their babies who will have to face them on Judgement Day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymeSgVOjZH8
well im glad she didn't do it
WOW! I never knew that! It was two crazy weird comment threads that adorned my profile with this "made for Valentines" attire.
This one was the mother of all down-thumbs… http://www.breitbart.tv/paul-claims-victory-for-t...
But first came this one (Which I actually think was one off the deep end mental person) took over a period of eight days. If you look, you'll notice EVERY comment was hit with high -100's, it was an awesome display of obsessive, compulsive Democrat insanity… http://bigpeace.com/smitsotakis/2011/12/31/my-per...
I kind of feel like their my badge of honor now. I'm working to be red for Valentine's day and green by St. Paddies. LOL
Yeah sure they will.
face it you poor sap, there is no God and you know it.
Perhaps Darwin was only half right and slugs like you crawled out of the primordial slime and decent human beings are divine creations.
Thanks for revealing nothing but your own narcissism.
No, just revealing your own misanthropy.
You and baby butcher eugenicist Margaret Sanger would have ben quite an item.
That's nice. I'm not.
You are a great Atheist!!! Thank you for telling us exactly how you feel!
You prove once again Buck's comment on liberal brainwashing.
By the way, some of the staunchest supporters of school choice are Black DEMOCRATS who are fed up with sending their kids to lousy public schools.
True, im a misanthrope. Hard not to be when people like you are walking around.
Hopefully Sanger is a good lay.
The first anger by God, well after the flood, was against the Caananites and others, having a sexual activist culture, aborting children for their god of Choice, and worshiping the earth and just about anything… Thank goodness its just an old fairy tale book that is sooo out dated!
Good, Im a great atheist! Since there is no God, I guess it doesnt really matter, does it? And if there was he wouldnt get my allegiance anyway. Just look at who my peers are! F^&* that!
I dont blame them, but it's usually Republicans that want to cut the education budget, especially for schools in poor communities. The reason for their whole strategy for privatizing education is so the rich stay rich and get all the priviledges while the poor get nothing as usual.
And how does my comment make me brainwashed?
Seriously! And it's a good thing abortion is legal – apparently, SEX can lead to pregnancy! Of all the weird things you hear that turn out to be true, I would not have guessed that one. Someone needs to figure out a way people can have sex but not get the woman preggers. Hope they come up with something soon!
There is rape, incest, and unplanned pregnancies. I agree that abortion should be the last resort and birth control and contraception should be first but things still happen.
It must be great to believe all that unfortunately common sense has robbed me of it.
Unplanned as in, "Oh look, it says these things are only 99% effective… guess I'm the 1%"? Should have read the label. As long as it's not gonna kill her, don't kill the baby.
Rape and incest. I get where you're coming from with that, particularly because the born fetuses that resulted from rape and incest aren't people. Pssh. F*** them.
Rapes, including incest, can be greatly reduced by not only allowing women to carry guns, but also training them to use them. And to fight. How many women know how to put a rapist who's knocked them down into an arm bar? TOO FEW. No, let's teach girls to play games with wiffle balls in gym instead of teaching them to shoot and defend themselves. At least there are lots of options for girls and women to learn these things on their own.
And for those terrible disgusting situations that women can't get out of? Well see, there's time between sex and conception to prevent pregnancy. If it's too late? Well, my view can be summed up as: if a women is to become a murderer after being raped, the only victim should be the man who raped her.
The burden of proof is on those who wish to commit the act. If pro-lifers are wrong sex becomes less meaningful, because its less consequential. More abortion means more unnecessary surgery by doctors who could be, um…saving sick people? On the other hand if you're wrong…that's a lot of life snuffed out. I'm not judging, I just wouldn't take such a firm stance for such an ugly act when the science is still as disputed as it is.
In my experience when a community is divided exactly in half on a clearly moral issue, its because God is involved – because God is real. If you are intellectually honest with yourself, and truly had an understanding of scientific theory then you could not ignore all the data pointing to an intelligently designed and ordered universe. A scientist never ignores inconvenient data.
At Yale or Mcgill they can't tell you when the fundamental consciousness awakes or even when the nervous system begins to register deep pain. The morality of the argument is moot though when you consider that guys like Obama made it illegal for medical personnel to save or at least provide comfort to living breathing, late-term-abortion babies – or 'blastocysts' as you call them – dying in a medical waste bin – He signed a bill that said if a nurse sees a late-term aborted baby gasping for air with a beating heart and brain-activity, that they have to throw it into the garbage. Think about that and think about if there's even a 1% chance that you're wrong – have you ever been wrong? Millions upon millons of innocents dehumanized and treated like a wart or a cancer – and all of this in the safest, warmest most sacred time of their lives.
Don't tell me there's not a devil and that he doesn't like to profane what is Godly. I've debated with you before and I know you've insulated yourself pretty thickly against anything challenging but God can't be ignored. The worst and best moment of your life is when you realize how wrong you've been. I pray you'd come to it sooner rather than later. If not, I pray that you would do minimal damage and that the ideas of the devil would be muted. I pray that you come to realize freedom to do evil is not freedom at all.
No, I'm saying I suspected some issues based on our conversation where you didn't have any way to respond to the points I'd made and so you switched, very suddenly and very oddly, to language and writing that could only be described as some sort of weird sexual harassment. It was weird, to say the least. I didn't mean to offend. I've worked with the mentally ill and I know people with illnesses. It was a clinical but not professional opinion. It wasn't an insult.
Your arguments are so underdeveloped I just about want to give up, but I believe you are an otherwise intelligent and well-meaning person, so…
If you drink water and it makes you urinate, was that 'against your will.'? I think its an established fact that having sex makes babies. Its also an established fact that babies can be given away when they're born. If a woman's life is in danger, then she has a choice to make. If she was raped, I would recommend giving it up for adoption. Look, abortion is profitable. Abortion is about power and money and sex, but not love and not self-sacrifice. Abortion is literally the opposite of self-sacrifice. Abortion makes it easier to live a consequence-free life. That's what this is really about isn't it, deep down? Don't tell me that that isn't about God, deep down. Pro-lifers just understand that nothing in life is consequence-free.
You admit that you 'wish' there was a God. God provided humanity with plenty of evidence of His existence – one book, one person, one nation. The God of the Bible, as predicted, has outlasted the Gods of the Pharoahs and Babylonians. Other religions twist their understanding of Him but Christianity is the only faith that has a God who is human, challenging, accessible, and asks nothing for a loving personal relationship. You can wish all you want – Jesus is not a genie. He doesn't grant wishes. Pray. Its an act of submission and humility – even in silence when you're on the bus or something. Ask Jesus, just once, to let you know if He's real. Just say 'Jesus, help' when you've finally reached rock bottom. He answers. He talks through circumstance, through the Bible, and through kindness. Try opening the Bible with an open mind and heart, ready to hear from Him. You will be suddenly reading about your own life. Or don't. Whatever floats your boat.
You won't win the lottery or anything, but suddenly and indescribably, everything is okay. Its paradoxical because you could still get hit by a bus the next day – but your life is no longer about your life. You get the sense of how temporary and meaningless this world is – and how only one person will outlast this world. That's the only way I can describe it. Suddenly God is all around you. Think about the protection a father should feel for their newborn son. That's how God treats you when you first get saved.
Hey, hey Domore,
I just finished reading four pages in your comment history. I appreciate your honest attempts at keeping the ego in check.
You are faithful to your convictions, and it shows. I greatly admire how you lift up Jesus.
Just a quick note to give back a little of the encouragement you give to others.
A woman who voluntarily becomes pregnant, you do know what actions bring about pregnancy don't you? I'd hate to think I was debating a thoroughly disarmed twit, has ample opportunity to make the choice of whether or not to become pregnant before she becomes pregnant. Having decided to become pregnant she should not be afforded the opportunity to renege on that decision once she has gone forwarded and affirmed the decision to become pregnant. To renege on her right to decide her own fate is morally wrong and she should be held responsible for the destruction of a life with all the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that every other living citizen is promised by Law under the Constitution.
The State didn't force her to become pregnant. That decision was freely made by the woman. The State does not exist to protect you from making bad decisions for yourself or anyone else.
You'll need a much better strawman argument than that pile of steamy (expletive deleted)
What DemsAreMarxists said…me too.
Now that's what I call a come back!
"priviledges?"
You must have attended an inner city public school.
For your information, the Department of Education was begun under President Carter. People managed to become educated before it was created. The Department itself has yet to educate a single person. All it does is divert resources.
actually atheism is the one that has no common sense.
Abiogenesis? the Anthropic Principle? Even the big bang needs a big banger. Atheists are clueless on these matters and are all some of our best reasons to believe in God.
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
Psalm 14:1-3
Ironically, her scraggly, ugly, demonic face would have made an excellent method of birth control.
No one forces a woman to raise it. Sheesh. That baby would be snapped up by a loving couple so fast!!!!!
That is a crazy argument. I say it is a deal. Free sex, just wait nine months to get your hedonistic life back. If that is what you want out of life. Just get off drugs while you're pregnant. Oh. Maybe that would be a problem for a woman so careless as to get pregnant when she doesn't want to.
I actually do think that an exception for real, forcible rape might be needed. There was no chance for choice on the part of the mother, and she is left holding the bag, so to speak, and the horror and trauma. However, depending on her own mind-set, carrying the baby to term and giving him/her up to a loving family may help her feel something positive has come of her pain. I do think choice is an issue. Just real choice–in the bedroom, of preferably before the heat of the moment, not at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Abortion is our culture's form of Honor Killing, and twisted it is.
Yeah I know because unplanned pregnancies never happen by accident, as a consequence of rape, etc. or circumstances never change and then for the state to say, "no, you are now forced to have this child and raise it and if you ask for any assistance in doing so from the state we'll call you a parasite". The only disarmed twit around here is you. And basically is what you're saying is that the living woman has less rights than the non-living fetus? You do realize that's completely idiotic, right? Well, no of course you dont. You also dont realize you're a hostile sexist and a chauvinist.
Although no great fan of Ayn Rand, she is spot on in this respect(its also fun to use one the rights hero's against them):
"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?
Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abortion.html
It is amazing how powerful the mercy of God can be! I really need to see this film!
That's funny. I thought you were going to say the rights of the unborn baby are irrelevant.
"Although no great fan of Ayn Rand, she is spot on in this respect(its also fun to use one the rights hero's against them): "
And what point was there to be made by posting Ayn Rand? Anyone who has studied her works knows her views on the subject. Ayn Rand is incorrect in this case, I find it odd that a woman who rails against the concept of sacrafice for some convoluted notion of the greater good would make a case to sacrifice an unborn life for the sake of convenience or financial hardship; This is why many reject her Objectivist ethics as being poorly though out.
Are you, in fact, trying to paint us into a corner by pointing out that we're at odds with Ayn Rand? When I am looking for a great summation of the dangers of collectivism and the efficiency of the free market I would look to Ayn Rand or Adam Smith. I look elsewhere as far as personal morality is concerned.
So let me see, there are millions of anti-abortion evangelicals out there…one or two kooks blow up an abortion clinic and they're ALL "domestic terrorists". Yet we aren't supposed to make such sweeping generalizations about the religion that flies planes into our buildings, saws peoples' heads off, AND publicly executes rape victims.
Liberals.
No one would accuse you of being brainwashed. That's not even possible.
If only so they can buy their first legal drink.
You do realize there's such a thing as adoption, don't you?
Adoption to the soulless is just an abortion denied.
For people like that (Thay), autonomy is their only religion or belief. Anything, everything is fair game, as long as it suits the person or purpose they will justify it.
So to even try to reason with them on a logical level is fruitless. There is no logic in their "religion".
There is a problem with that. As soon as they overturn Roe vs Wade, they go for the birth control. And don't think they won't. Make. Their. Day.
I thought I advised you to find a new strawman argument?We are not talking solely about rape. The vast majority of pregnancy ended with abortion were entered into voluntarily. You know this and yet insist on arguing for a bad remedy to rape rather than a pre-emptive remedy to rape. You think you can argue a general case for abortion based on the limited case of rape. Bad logic doesn't lead to rational solutions. Most “unplanned” pregnancy was not without an active decision to participate in activity that would inevitably lead to conception. You can lie about it all you want, it doesn't change reality. When a male and a female voluntarily participate in sexual encounters there is a likelyhood of conception and eventual pregnancy. Irresponsible behaviour does not discount a woman's accountability to herself for her own health and well being.
Birth control was practiced for years before Roe v Wade. It is the killing that people object to. Not the same. Not to anyone.
nomname, Tell that to the Pope.
I love your pic! CHANCE!
We've had one Catholic president. All the rest have either been or claimed to be Protestant. I really don't think we have to worry about that.
It's too bad all birth mothers have no choice but to raise their own children. If only they could find other people willing and able to love and care for the children they can't care for.
As a woman, I certainly wouldn't want to give birth to a rapist's baby, BUT, if, after getting myself to the hospital, if it was too late, and the only option was abortion, I don't think I could be that destructive after having been the victim of something so terrible. It would be a victim becoming a victimizer. Aborting the baby would only add to the terrible feelings I'd have to work through.
I just have to wonder if pro-choicers want there to be more abortions or fewer; it seems like Planned Parenthood would like more: http://www.thebody.com/content/art9057.html
The Pope does not run this country. Only the Catholic Church. And Kennedy did nothing to change laws regarding birth control. The Church is not a political entity. The President is bound by the Constitution of the United States. Only your Communist friends have tromped on the Constitution. And I wouldn't call any of them Christian, of any sect or faction. So don't worry . You will still be able to fornicate like rabbits without fear of pregnancy. JUST REMEMBER TO USE IT, if you don't want kids. ABORTION IS NOT BIRTH CONTROL.
Didn't you get your ass handed to you last with your idiotic "blastocyte' argument? Maybe you should finish middle school bio next time.
So you think you have a right to take children from their homes and indoctrinate them as you see fit because you, in your infinite wisdom, are so much better qualified to teach a child than their actually parents?
You are a nazi. That is all.
I'm not sure you can "read" anything. I think you have your taxpayer funded social worker do your internet trolling for you.
Wow, so in addition to being a fascist moron with terrible tae in music you're also in the impostor account racket like the douchebag from Big Journalism. Is there any low to which you can't sink?
No suprise that you cna't tell the difference between admiration and worship. You're not mature enough to understand either concept.
You must be logged in to post a comment.