Quote Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf
i am a firm believe in nature and letting it take it's course, i do not completely agree with medicine, however, natural treatment, and mind over matter are tolerable. pharmaceuticals, and surgery, in my opinion, are an abomination of nature.
So would you elect, then, not to have surgery or, say, antibiotics if you had a ruptured appendix? Or a surgically curable form or cancer? Or a surgically removable brain tumor that, without surgery, would kill you but with surgery would allow you to live out your natural lifespan? You would object to unnatural abominations and take an untested natural approach over one that could certainly cure you? (Here I'm not saying THCBongman is facing a certain cure in his case, but there are plenty of cases where certain cures are sure things, and he knows his chances are much greater if he does have this surgery.) This sort of logic always astounds me when I read it.
birdgirl73 Reviewed by birdgirl73 on . A rhetorical question Let's say you had a choice. You can live for perhaps 3-5 more years, flame out and most likely die, but at least those 3-5 years you can live normally, mentally and physically pain-free. Or you have surgery, but you end up ejaculating backwards into your bladder, or possibly losing that ability for the rest of your life. Not fathering any children the old fashion way. You have to live with a huge scar that goes up from your pubic area to your upper abdominen, all those times working-out Rating: 5