So are you therefore saying that because I was once a baby, I am always going to be a baby? Because I was once a girl scout I will always be a girlscout? Because I was once 4 years old, I will always be 4 years old? People change. Things change. Just because the Churches once were involved in bloodshed that does not mean that the Church will always relish in bloodshed and that it will always be evil. The Churches changed for the better and now all arguments on the Crusades being proof are null. Void.

They do give something in return... they give the mother the opportunity to feel motherly love which is a love that is uncomparible to any other love. They give the mother joy especially if she has been wanting this baby/fetus.

Now, whether the mother accepts these gifts or not is another question.

Atheism in itself is a form of religion. The religion of not believing in any divine being. What else would you call atheism.

And the question is ARE not WERE (present not past).

I don't have an opionion on this matter but at least I wanted to clarify.

What is DKR? Dark Knight Rises? If that is the case and this is true, then I totally agree with you. It was probably not a coincidence.

I believe that life is always valuable. That everything has it's certain place in the world and that if it wasn't there, the world would fall apart.

That being said, do I avoid killing bugs? No. Do I give voting rights to a cat? No. No one does and it would be illogical to do so. So, life may be valuable but that doesn't mean that I strive to make sure everybody and every living thing is alive and given equal rights.

Did that make any sense?

I like snow. It's very pretty outside and shoveling can actually be fun if you use your imagination!!! Um... well, if you are a writer then you know what I mean. Shoveling is only bad for old ladies and men with back pains.

Why Malcolm? There are plenty of good reasons. Let's look at Lisa first.

What did Lisa do strategically? Nothing. Well, nothing that succeeded at least. She tried to get Malcolm out many times and only actually did it when Denise was on her side. So, I guess you could say that in a Malcolm vs. Denise debate I would go for Denise... maybe. Another thing about Lisa, she was so emotionally unstable that she really just went with the flow. Also, Lisa was very confusing, so confusing that I am sure that she confused even herself. She would go with loyalty and vote with her alleignce and then the next, try to make a big move against her alleignce. She was all over the place!

True, I have to give Lisa some credit, I didn't think she would make it to the finals. However, I believe that the only reason that she made it through is because the other players were voting out the threats and they all knew that they could beat her in a heartbeat. Sure, Lisa outlasted. But did she outplay and outwit? No.

Malcolm. In comes the perfect survivor player minus one little thing... he's not good at endurance challenges. This cost him the finals. I'll admit that he has his flaws but overall, he is the perfect Sole Survivor and Player of the Season. Strategically, throughout the whole game, Malcolm was making moves. Making friends, alleignces, learning who to cut out and when, I'd almost say that at a certain point, he and Denise were practically running the game. He was smart. Obviously, since he went to Dartmouth, which just so happens to be one of the Ivy League. So, I'd say he outwitted many players minus Denise. Outlast, well, he almost made it into the finals and he would have if it wasn't for Denise. Skupin even wanted to bring Malcolm. So, sure, he didn't outlast everybody but he was pretty d* close! Outplay, this argument really fits in with my outwit argument. Just reread it. I know you want to anyway...

So, add up all your facts together and it basically comes down to this.

Malcom: outwitted, outplayed, and almost outlasted...

Lisa: Outlasted... not really anything else

So for all you Lisa supporters, do you really still think that Lisa deserves her title "Player of the Season?"

Wow, nice use of a source! I'll try adding a source next time I want to prove a point!

"Most importantly forcing women to have babies they don't want has never and will never stop abortion. All that mentality does is kill the equal number of fetuses and more mothers along with them. Pro-life = more death. This is a historical fact."

Let's be honest here: since when does pro-life mean that both the fetus and the mother die? I do not get your point.

"It is not human"

I believe that it becomes a human with a soul from conception. If you do not believe the same, fine. But that it what I think. So wearing a condem is not abortion.

We cannot help nature and I believe that God is not responsible for all deaths. But we can help abortion. Your point here is like saying that "God murders people so if you want to make a statement out against murder then you should talk to God about it first..." Do you realize how ridiculous that statement sounds? Do you really want a world where everybody murders other people? It is not our place to decide who gets to live and who gets to die. That is why abortion is wrong.

One last brief point, someone mentioned these three things to me in saying why they were pro-choice. They said

1. What about rape?

-it is not the baby's fault. You can't choose to kill the baby or fetus just because you did not ask for it. I did not ask for my sister but I am stuck with her. Yes, rape sucks but you can't punish the innocent human being because of what someone else did to you

2. Teen pregnancy

-sorry but you shouldn't be having intercourse in the first place. You have no excuse. You brought this onto yourself

3. Give the woman a second chance! Everyone deserves a second chance!

-how is it fair or right that you give the woman a first chance by depriving someone else of ever having a first chance? That is just twisted.

Now, I have said my share. If you still don't agree with me, fine. I can't change your mind but I do believe firmly in what I have said.

I've made this point already!

"It even says so in the Bible. Read it. Duh. Christianity didn't even exist back then so you can't argue that he was Christian. He. Was. A. Jew."