kyburg | *sniff*

Current Mood: contemplative

Entry tags:

sniff

Still sick. But better, and will go back to work tomorrow.

I've said this, I'm sure of it - stop me if you've heard this one before.

I don't think anyone under the age of oh, 21/22 or so? Should try to have a kid by themselves. No, seriously.

I haven't met a 19-year-old yet I thought was prime parent material, me included.

When is a good time? Hmmm. Get all the school you want out of the way, first. Get a good handle on the kind of job you want to have (and if that means parenting children, that's honest) and make sure you can back it up with the kind of education you need (see former, capiche?)...and be in a stable relationship if you're making the kid yourself. Don't waffle or mince on the last statement. You want optimal, there's your mix.

Oh, and if you're not fabulous by 30, don't kill yourself.

I really think it's only fair you get to be a teenager as long as you're allowed. Make all the mistakes you can reasonably account for yourself, and learn from them - FIRST - before you drag someone else along for the ride.

And when girls start menarche at 11 these days, that's a lot of years you have to be aware of your fertility and managing it. At a time when you're least educated about just about everything.

I am a firm supporter of contraception, and believe that nobody gets pregnant with the express intention of having an abortion - so if you tell me you need one, I believe you need one. It's that simple.

We clear on this?

Please. Don't tell me you think you can care for a baby when you're not even old enough to sign contracts as a legal adult. Not in this world. Oh, and you're already living on your own, independent and all that? No? Children get taken care of by their parents. Not their parents being 'taken care of' by their children, if you get my drift. If - my respect means anything. You asked.

If anything in my adoption journey has taught me, it's that there isn't a shortage of children being born - and frankly, the adoption agencies that advertise "PREGNANT? WANNA SELL YOUR KID?" right next to the "ADOPTIVE PARENTS APPLY HERE" banner make me ill, but that appears to be the typical domestic adoption scenario. I can't blame anyone who doesn't think of that first - but think about it seriously, if you're single, unemployed and under 22. Okay? There are more types of adoption situations than the "traditional" kind - believe me, I've done the research. There's no 'giving up' in adoption these days, not unless you want to.

This is someone who waited - with good reason. It can be done, and you'll have a hard time convincing me it was a mistake.

If you want to toss "well, you're jealous because you haven't got any of your own," I will fucking plant you in the cornfield. While reminding you we weren't talking about me in the first place. Or the second. Maybe not even in the third.

I'm old enough - and the daughter of a nurse who retired after over fifty years in hospitals, before and after Roe - to have seen a long string of really young parents with no other visible support than an accidental pregnancy. Lemme tellya. It never went well. Yeah, there are survivors of the process - and they can get on okay - or not - but while you can plan and choose? Please do. And yes, that's asking a lot.

Parenting is a selfless act, by its very nature. If you can't think of anything but what you want here? Come on.

That's not a responsible parent talking.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Where there's life, there's hope. Even a life of grinding poverty and parental abuse is better than getting yourself sucked into sink by a "doctor".

I wanted to argue against your point, but all I could come up with was this question: Are you in favor of or against more informative sex ed programs in schools (or even at home) for young kids? This may or may not include making condoms (or other contraceptives) available to said young people.

Against.

Could you explain why? Do you think there are better ways to help prevent unwanted pregnancies? Or are you in the "abstinence is best" camp?

I'd love to discuss this with you, but I'd really prefer to do so elsewhere. Please feel free to visit my LJ or e-mail me at bchan@cheapdisposable.com.

I don't see a need to move the conversation. If we can't discuss it here, where you posted the original comment, then why did you reply to

kyburg's entry in the first place?

Because after he says his piece "I'm against contraception, abortion and all that jazz" - he hasn't got anything else to offer.

That said, he just had his first kid less than a month ago - and I applaud his planning and execution of the act. Nobody would be at the mercy of "the sink" if they used their heads as well as he did.

(Read a couple of post-mortems on child-abuse related homicide in children under the age of five, and that "sink" hardly appears cruel by comparison.)

Actually, I have plenty more to say. I just prefer not to jam up other people's LJs with pointless argument.

FYI — Not everyone who has children later in life does so voluntarily...

To offer, Bruce. To offer. I'm well aware you have plenty to say.

Past telling people NOT TO, what else have you got in your arsenal?

Even a life of grinding poverty and parental abuse is better than getting yourself sucked into sink by a "doctor".

Really? have you experienced either of these options?

See, that's where I was getting tripped up, too, but I couldn't find the right words. I think I have them now.

How in the world can he actually wish poverty and abuse upon someone?? Yeah, there's a small chance they might rise above it, but statistically that's pretty much a rarity.

I mean, I understand that it would wrong to ask a kid who was in that kind of situation if s/he would rather have never been born (though, in some cases, sadly their answer would probably be yes).

And anyways, I think it's a generally moot point. I think it's pretty safe to say that most women who think about getting an abortion are not living in that kind of situation.

But, still. That remark just really rubbed me the wrong way.

The whole "would you rather not have been born" thing is kind of a weird issue, though, in general. I mean, if my parents hadn't had sex I wouldn't be here. Or if they'd used contraception at that time. But obviously I don't believe contraception or abstinance are Crimes Against Children. similarly, a fetus doesn't know it's alive or have any self-awareness. It does not care what you do with it because it does not have a consciousness to care WITH.

I don't see many people who are children of teen mothers advocating that kind of lifestyle. I can understand shit happening, but trying to have a kid? No thanks.

There's worse things than being sucked down a "doctor's sink". Such as being drowned by mommy in a tub, or beaten to death by daddy, or medicated to death by your parents and psychiatrist. Just sayin'.

I am a child of a teen mother. Of course I was born in 1965, thank God, in an America whre even the most inconvenient babies were still considered human beings instead of disposable Lebensunwerten Lebens as they are today.

It's easy to assert that "there's worse things than being sucked down a 'doctor's' sink when you've already been born.

But I'm not going to change your fabulously open and tolerant-of-all-points-of-view mind here on Kyburg's LJ, so I'll say no more. If you want to discuss it further, feel free to visit me on my own LJ.

You're just itching for a fight, aren't you? My mom was a single, teenage mother too. I've seen what few options some people have, and what people do to their unwanted, neglected children.

Sorry, it's much more dangerous for women in general, especially young mothers, to have abortion be illegal. It's dangerous to have this abstinence only shit being taught, instead of properly educating people on what their bodies do and how to prevent certain things. When you shame people for making choices like getting abortions, you get girls like that one in Canada who strangle their newborn with a pair of panties and throw their corpses over a fence.

I wouldn't wish a "life" like that on anyone.

Bruce loves a good fight, when it's on this topic. For me? It's academic at this point, and what I was taught worked well enough when it could have been an issue.

I was educated about the consequences of having sex. Done properly, it makes more people. End subject. Not ready to come to terms with "do I or do I not," I managed the sex with that in mind. Gee, I never had to ask myself the question of whether or not I'd have an abortion. Funny how that happened.

You come to good decisions when you have lots of options. It sounds like the doors are blown open to every viewpoint on the planet - and most likely, they are - but you get to pick from those, knowing the best and the worst there are to chose from. Knowing the worst. That, I think is key.

My mom had NO idea how any of that stuff worked. She got pregnant the very first time she had sex. She and I were very lucky, but not every kid out there has the same kind of resources we had. I'm lucky I had a mom who was able to turn her life around. Many, many children out there don't.

I don't like abortion, but I like the alternatives even less. I wish every child could be born into a family that loved, anticipated, and prepared for them. Life doesn't always happen that way, I understand.

Forcing ignorance on people never works. I had good sex education--- as the daughter of a single mother, my family made sure of that. It didn't fill me with the need to frot everything in sight-- I understood what the consequences were and had no interest. In contrast, all the sexuall repressed religious kids I grew up with were having sex at 11 and all sorts of terrible, horrible things their parents never knew.

I digress. It's just a personal trigger. I get tired of hearing that every woman that ever has sex is a goddamn whore, too.

It's easy to assert that "there's worse things than being sucked down a 'doctor's' sink when you've already been born.

That's such a bizarre argument to me. If my parents hadn't had sex, I would never have been born. ergo, my parents should have sex constantly, or they are preventing people from being conceived and born - a tragedy.

Obviously a first-tri fetus has no self-awareness. They don't care whether they are born or not. Getting all angsty about it on their behalf seems like agonizing over the fate of a carrot.

It's interesting to see how times have changed over the years. You see, my MIL seems to think that it's over if you haven't reached 30 and had at least one child. That is horrible talk from the 70's showing there. My mom was 24 when I was born, and that was pretty late in our region (Rocky Mtns) for a first child. Her mom was 35 when my mom was born, but grandma had already 2 kids previously (one at 23, one at 25). And again, pretty late for her generation.

T was born when my mil was 20, and that's about average for the times in India. That said, there's still plenty of teenagers (we're talking 16 or so) in India who already have kids. Do I think that's too young? YES. But the system is also different there. Careers for women are non existent once they've been married. It's still very 1950 in India, despite the huge IT boom.

I'm not ready to go to grad school, but I am ready to have a kid. My childhood best friend worries that she's too old to start trying for a kid, and laments that she put her career first. We're both 32, and she's younger than me by just a few weeks. In truth, I have simply given up on trying to figure out when the right time to become a parent is, according to my education/career/etc, and go by feel. I will never (no matter what) be ready to become a parent. But I want to now, and that makes a significant difference.

Sorry, I'm babbling again... did you get the email about teaming up for Sakura Fest?

I've been sick in bed the last couple of days, only surfacing long enough to feed, check LJ and Sim a bit. Email? OH. Will check when I get home tonight.

I'm not sure I disagree with everything you've said. But I'm not sure I agree either.

I wasn't the child of a teenage Mother, but I was the child of a single Mother. Life was hard. Life wasn't fair. Life was painful most days.. but.. despite all of that - I turned out okay. I've also known a teen Mom or two, who were pretty darn good Moms all things considered.

I'm also a Mom myself. I am still in school, because until I had kids - I didn't actually know what I wanted to do with my life. It's not an easy decision for everyone. I don't feel that my going to school hinders my ability to be a good parent.. nor do I feel like my not having every single ducky in a row hinder that either. I'm not perfect. I'll never BE perfect. I yell sometimes, I cry sometimes. I get frustrated and disappointed with my kids. Having had them any later than I did (at 23 and 24), nor having all of my education in place, nor having a stable career would change that. It's human reaction. No parent is perfect, it's not possible and attempting to be so will create way more problems than you can imagine.

Now, all of that said - I refuse to go this whole parenting business alone. My husband and I have a very stable relationship. I love him dearly and vice versa. We make each other stronger as a team, and our weaknesses as a parent are the others strengths. We're a complete package.

I'm number three out of four of a single parent, after my father died of an accidental overdose when I was a month shy of 7 years old.

Let me ask you something. How did having children affect your husband? Did he also "get a clue" after the children arrived?

One of the things that really twigs my sense of fairness is that it's acceptable for a woman to say "I don't know...guess I'll just be a Mom" as if it were some kind of default setting for not getting on in life. Did you ever hear a guy say "I don't know...guess I'll just be a Dad?" You won't.

You want parenting to have any kind of respect, you don't toss it to the lowest common denominator as if it had no value at all, or required anything past a pregnancy. Most important job in the world, you ask me -

Perfect is for pansies - nothing in this world is perfect, it's just proof that we all carry that spark of the divine in us that can conceive of such a notion. Perfection only exists between our ears - it never happens in real life.

I said optimal - and that's what I'm asked. You short-cut any of it, and you're asking for a harder row to hoe, and that's only what you describe, neh?

Having kids brought a lot of things into focus for my husband also. He's a good Dad and he wanted Kaitlyn and Zach very very much. But, Mike was older than me when we had our first child - so I'm not sure that he counts into your cross section here.

I'm the first to admit that life isn't easy. Are there days when I'd like it to be? Yes, yes of course I do. I'd be foolish to say otherwise. But, again, life not being easy doesn't have a baring on whether or not I'm able to be a good parent. I'm a good Mom. Mike is a good Dad. We struggle, but we always make do. We have really happy, blissfully happy children. They're well behaved, they're very smart, they're clean and healthy. They're polite, compassionate and helpful. We're able to achieve that, even though life isn't easy.

So, I don't think I short cut anything at all. I just did it differently than you (And maybe others) think it should get done. That doesn't make anything we did wrong - nor does it invalidate anything you think is important.

That said, you have two truly fantastic kids - easy? Feh. Easy is for television sitcoms. (And what would a million dollars NOT solve?)

Oh - and I saw this and thought of you:

*raises hand quietly*

That's not universal.

*celebrated her 33rd birthday and her daughter's 12th birthday this year*

*laughs* You'd like to think you're typical? You've got one thing going for you - and you already know what that is.

You don't color inside the lines. You draw the lines yourself first. You make clear, deliberate decisions, planned carefully and thought out to the nth detail, even the "crazy" stuff. You don't negate any possibles - but I've rarely seen (thinks, hmm, no) you take off half-cocked until you had something concrete to work from. (We can talk about the POV stuff until the cows come home.)

You got pregnant, you got a plan together. You did a lot of things that said you wanted the job and were willing to do a lot for it. Forever.

Hon, I wish to God your experience was more universal. We'd get rid of a lot of jails and legal system if it was - because we wouldn't need them.

There's also regional differences going on here in some of the comments, some of which I find personally repugnant. There's class and style differences. There's differences in family resources and willingness to share the load of having a kid with you.
Some people, the same night their pregnancy is known, are booted on the street. It happens a pretty fair amount.
Such girls don't have the resources to support themselves long enough to be *pregnant*, certainly not long enough so they can give up a child for adoption. If they're lucky, and maybe they live in a very church-based town, they might find some kind of charity to support their lily-white asses until they do have it, but after that, they're on their own. But if they aren't white, tough luck.
I've mentioned in various places that you cannot make your rent on a minimum wage job in most of the state where I live. If your self-righteous parents are beside themselves with horror that their abstinence parties failed to take (as they so often fail) and kick you out on your own resources, you're homeless.
This is not pretty in a town where the pimps hang out by the bus stations, waiting for you to *want* to be recruited. They don't have to work very hard at recruiting, usually.
And you're not going to be camping out in your van in the street for very long, the way so many spoiled upper-class kids so casually assume you could do (don't doubt that, because I've had them tell me so). This is because the cops will roust you and have your vehicle towed (which means effectively confiscating the vehicle for lack of licensing and insurance) and *not* do you the favor of arresting you so you can be clean and dry and fed in jail.
They may assault you, depending where you are (that luck thing again) but they won't arrest you unless you're a clear danger to others.
LA has 80,000 homeless people, at last approximate count. There's neither resources nor sympathy to help enough of them out. Those surveys also find they're not all coming in from Nebraska, about 80% are entirely home-grown, and many of them actually do have jobs, they just don't get paid enough for the prevailing rents in town. In a lot of towns, you're competing with folks who came over the border and will work 18-hour days for *nothing* just to survive another day. They line up out on the sidewalks as day-labor, they often get paid maybe six to ten bucks a day as long as it's light outside.
We're not talking that you chose, by being careless or unlucky or the victim of abusive parents, to have a harder life. We're not just talking narrowing your options to microscopic-size. We're not just talking about losing touch with your peers who went on to college, and you dropping rapidly in economic class to the bottom of the ladder, boo-hoo.
We're talking about working dnagerous dirty jobs where you get hurt a lot of the time and will never be able to support yourself. We're talking living in dangerous camps by the river where nobody in authority cares how or when you die, and your fellow homeless people have no voice at all in what happens.
I don't know why the abstinence people think it's a piece of cake.

I don't know why the abstinence people think it's a piece of cake.

Some know it's not a piece of cake, but that's not good for their argument, so they ignore it.

Others are just dumb.

Or lazy. *nodsnods*

I know, I know, preaching to the choir here...

I haven't met a 19-year-old yet I thought was prime parent material, me included.

Heh, I think the only thing I had going for myself when I was 19 was being entirely too selfish to want to contemplate having children ever.

If I have anything to add to what you said, it is that 11 years old can be mature enough to manage your fertility if you are given age appropriate, accurate information about what having a period means, and about the consequences of not waiting until you are ready both physically, emotionally and psychologically to have sex. I don't know what planet the abstinence crowd lives in, but most abstinence plus programs (abstinence plus=programs that teach children and teens about sexual activity postponement, but also how to protect yourself if you can't or won't postpone the onset of sexual activity) stress that point, along with the point that said kind of complete readiness may not come until long after one is willing and/or able to get married.

But no, those kinds of parents hear the word "contraception" and are ready to assume the worst about their own kids' ability to use that information responsibly. That kind of mistrust, IMHO, says more about the kinds of shortcomings abstinence only parents have when it comes to parenting than all their outward show of care they might put on for the sake of appearances.

I got "the talk" at age 9 - and by 15, I was convinced I wasn't going to have anything to do with sex until I had an income to support the habit.

FUN? You gotta be nuts.

Oh boy, your last paragraph there, right on the nose. Very, very good point.

If you are old enough to be sexually active, you should be old enough to decide the consequences of your actions should you be part of a pregnancy.

I sure wish people did a better job of educating their children, because it isn't the job of society to do it for you.

Too bad you don't have to take a test to become a parent.

You do if you adopt! BOY.

oh yeah. believe me. i'm starting to do my homework on this one.

definitely in a few years when I have a different occupation for sure. :)

This is just about exactly how I feel, too, and no, it's not jealousy because I can't have my own. My medical reality is that I will die and the kid will die with me, which is probably why my body has shut that part of itself down flat.

You want an open adoption? You want the child to know who his or her birthmother is right from the beginning, and to honor you as his or her parent along with us? Just fine with me. Want to stick close by and have actual time with your kid, not just be a parent in name only? Just fine with me! We'll work it out so that everything is mutually satisfiable, to you and to us. We're pretty flexible. We just want the best for the kid, and that will be what we put first and foremost: what arrangement is best for the child?

We just want the best for the kid, and that will be what we put first and foremost: what arrangement is best for the child?

What if next year you decide it's "best for the child" not to see their birthmother anymore? Or for you to move to another state where she can't follow? That birthmother has no rights after adoption, she can't make adoptive parents honor agreements.

Any birthmother who goes into an open adoption with any reliance on it continuing to be open is deluding herself. She's at the mercy of the adoptive parents.

I guess the birthmother will just have to trust to the contract we create, and my own honesty. Isn't family law about, among other things, how blended families best work together to create the best atmosphere for a child?

If the birthmother were drinking, drugging, abusive, etc., then yes, that would definitely enter into it. Aren't legal agreements enforceable? I thought they were, and that the blended family could create a contract that was.

Sounds like you've had a bad deal somewhere along the line. I'm sorry for your experience, if that's so. I believe I am honest enough to do differently.

I guess the birthmother will just have to trust to the contract we create, and my own honesty
Or, she could just not go with adoption at all. Which is what most do.

Frankly, as a lawyer I have to say she would be very stupid to trust to any unenforceable contract, or your honesty.

If the birthmother were drinking, drugging, abusive, etc., then yes, that would definitely enter into it.
sort of irrelevant to what we're discussing here though.

Aren't legal agreements enforceable? I thought they were, and that the blended family could create a contract that was.
it depends on the state and on the contract. In general, if the birth mother no longer has parental rights, a contract can't give her those rights. At the very least, she'd have to go through a lengthy and expensive court battle to enforce them, and I doubt many would have the wherewithal.

Sounds like you've had a bad deal somewhere along the line.
I haven't had any bad experiences with adoption. I just have read of the experiences of others. Also, it bothers me when people expect others to give up their children, and act like open adoption is this amazing enforceable thing.

Expect others to give up their children? No, I don't. Where are you getting that from? And why do you have this automatic expectation that we will act in bad faith? You want to know about my character? Ask

kyburg. Seriously, do.

We will almost certainly be adopting an older child or children from the foster care system, providing a loving family to those kids who need it the very most.

I am disappointed to learn from you that open adoption isn't enforceable, but if it isn't, maybe it should be. Maybe the law should be changed. I assume you're devoting time to activism in that regard.

Expect others to give up their children? No, I don't. Where are you getting that from?
The entire point of the post, which you said is "just how you feel" as well, is that people under a certain age, and/or who are single, should place their children for adoption. That bothers me, especially when you coupled it with the idea that open adoption is a solution to the problem of missing one's child.

And why do you have this automatic expectation that we will act in bad faith? You want to know about my character? Ask kyburg. Seriously, do.
Regarding you specifically, I don't assume you will act in bad faith. I know you COULD, legally. And that's enough for me to think a birthmother would be foolish to just trust you.

Maybe the law should be changed. I assume you're devoting time to activism in that regard.
Probably about as much as you are. ;)

And that's enough for me to think a birthmother would be foolish to just trust you.

Ergo the need for a contract, one that is legally enforceable, so that those who would act in bad faith cannot do so. It's why I suggest that perhaps the law should be changed.

My activism issue right now is making sure that all of my friends can get married to their chosen spouses, regardless of whether those spouses are the same sex or not. That's taking up a great deal of my activism time, and I don't have enough energy these days to take on another major issue at the same time. I used to, but no more. Damn this kidney disease anyway.

my cause is reproductive rights. though I'm all for gay marriage as well.

Hon, in all honestly, she had a point. The legally enforceable portion would largely entail putting documents and contact information in a place where the child would have access to it. After that, it's all on the parties to get along. If things mesh, all well and good - if things don't, then the parents have to have the well-being of their family as the first priority, not the 'rights' of the biological parents.

But having to say goodbye, never knowing how things went? History.

I used to agree with this, but I don't anymore. Now that I know what it is to desperately want a child, I can't feel it's right to pressure women into giving up their children. Obviously women can cede their rights to parenthood by abusing their children, but just being young doesn't constitute abuse.

There are more types of adoption situations than the "traditional" kind - believe me, I've done the research. There's no 'giving up' in adoption these days, not unless you want to.

In most open adoption situations, the birth mother has no legal rights. While in the negotiation, the adoptive parents may promise all kinds of things, after the papers are signed they can do whatever they want.

birthmothers is a closed community now, but when it was open, I read a lot of heartrending stories.

In my experience, you can just about write the rules yourself - and if you make it a requirement, you make it.

Of course, legally? The last case to truly test the waters was Baby M, who is what, college age now? And that case actually had DNA links to enforce it.

In all honesty, an open adoption is a means by which a biological child has access to a biological parent - no more, no less. How friendly that relationship will be depends on the parties involved - and much like any other kind of non-legal bond - and YUP, that's what it is. Giving up forever? No. Definitely a change in status? Big time.

Take a specific kind of head to get around that one - but I can't imagine a better attempt to take some of the loss out of adoption.

The last case to truly test the waters was Baby M,

not so - there are tons of custody cases taking place all the time, different in every state. We just don't hear about them.

I can't imagine a better attempt to take some of the loss out of adoption.

Really? I can. Giving the birth parent some kind of legal rights. Because even worse than the loss of adoption is thinking you would get some contact with the child you placed, only to be cut off by the adoptive parents after they got what they wanted.

Until we take the whole "children as possessions" out of the law, I doubt anyone is going to make much headway here.

Children have to BELONG to someone, and that usually gets defined as one male and one female, normally biological in nature.

Step away from this, and every attempt is made, from a legal standpoint, to define the relationship as rigidly as possible back to this model, minus the biological part. Only two people can claim 'ownership' of a child - of course, the kids, once grown? Usually have other ideas.

You remember when kids got to be part of the settlement in a divorce? I do. One parent getting 'custody' and all that.

You've got better information - if you can relate some of the recent decisions, I'm your best audience right now.

Sometime I really should read the comments that happen while I'm reading a post. Truly amazing replies. Wow. Not what I'd originally replied to, and as such, what I did reply with needs to be ignored. I've seen parents on both sides of the selflessness. And I totally agree with your conclusions. Yay :) I'm going to leave it at that until I'm a parent and stuff.

~Z

I like your post Donna. It reminded me that I'd forgotten to take my BC when I woke up this morning. (I'm not sexually active anyway so being a few hours off for the dose won't be a catastrophe.)

I'm 22 and even now I have no desire to be a Mom, nor do I think I could responsibly.

I have a friend who got pregnant at age 18 when she was a freshman in college and the father was still in high school. She confided in me years later that she thought she was preventing pregnancy by using the pull out method. *head desk* She went through the same sex ed classes I went through in high school and it scares me that evidently she wasn't listening.

Thankfully, the husband grew up and joined the Marines to support the family. Also thankfully he is stationed on a base in HI in charge of their communications and can not be sent to Iraq until 2009 if he re-enlists. They now have 2 children, the prior mentioned child is 3 and their new baby is 4 months.

While my friend is an amazing Mom, she's all ready wishing she finished college.

It took the father 2 years to start acting like a Dad. Before my friend went to the Marines herself to talk about her husband's pay, he was wasting it on video games rather than helping to take care of the child or his wife.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

*sniff*

No Life = No Quality Of Life

Re: No Life = No Quality Of Life

Re: No Life = No Quality Of Life

Re: No Life = No Quality Of Life

Re: No Life = No Quality Of Life

Re: No Life = No Quality Of Life

Re: No Life = No Quality Of Life

Re: No Life = No Quality Of Life

Re: No Life = No Quality Of Life

Re: No Life = No Quality Of Life

Re: No Life = No Quality Of Life

Re: No Life = No Quality Of Life

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

times have certainly changed.

Re: times have certainly changed.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Word!!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Wow

sniff