Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 19 minutes later[^][v]#1,323,607
He has a wife that acts distant to him on stage in public, and comes out in favor of child murder.
A common malfunction in women is to think their tribe isn't their tribe, but their caste is their tribe. It would be as if a specialist in a military concluded their real loyalty was to that profession across militaries, rather than to be loyal to their nation. They see the commonality, their particular role in the armed forces, and miss the larger structure they are apart of (the nation).
Despite her flaws, Harris can keep Doug in line, and that's why I'll vote for her.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,323,608
Democrats aren't immune to losing the unified voice. They're not sure what countries to support in all these conflicts (plus their base tended to lean anti-war at one point and that seems to have changed).
I for one welcome it. Maybe we can down to voting on issues instead of
people.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,323,627
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Their offspring will be male and female, their interests are connected to their nation. Sharing the same genitals as someone from another nation doesn't make you allies, and it doesn't mean your interests are connected.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 1 year ago, 32 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,323,639
@1,323,622 (Dana)
Melania is not running for president, nor is she even eligible to do so if she wanted. So it's probably Donald's opinion they're more focusing on here.
And Trump voters do not all have the same views on abortion. For example, I'm the MAGAest person here and I am pro-abortion and always have been.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 22 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,323,645
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
They feel they do, and they form workers councils.
How does that influence the irreconcilable differences between the two countries? One country is patriarchal, one has gender equality. Both have nonexistent labor rights.
The fed up workers of both societies unite and form a new power structure. Is that good for the patriarchal power structure, or the egalitarian culture? If you think it matters, then would it be better for the downtrodden employees to tolerate their lot in the egalitarian society for the greater good?
Feminists tend to be the most antinationalist in nations that promote gender equality. How could those ideas ever perpetuate if the first action for empowered women is to dismantle the society that gave them that freedom?
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,323,658
@1,323,654 (boof)
Corporations haven't existed for 1% of human history. It isn't accurate to say corporations have been doing this "forever" when they are relatively new.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 52 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,323,673
@1,323,662 (I)
She's openly sabotaging his career, it would be disgraceful if it were any half-decent job, but it's for the most powerful position on the planet. She could stay quiet, no one would expect her to say anything, and instead she's trying to ruin his prospects.
History started in 3500BC with the first invention of writing. That's 5,500 years. Let's go to 6,000 years for a comfortable envelope to account that maybe all writing before was just lost. 1% of that time is 60 years, or 1964.
It's strange then how everyone keeps defaulting to the one example of the woman who died because the doctors wouldn't remove the festering corpse of her murdered baby.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,323,713
@previous (J)
It isn't just one. There have been many women who have had trouble getting medically necessary abortions
And even if it was just one, that's one too many. A woman shouldn't have to be close to death before she can get a necessary medical procedure because religious wacko don't understand how these things work
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,323,723
@1,323,721 (B)
You implied it. You stated that femism ideas destroy civilizations and then asked me what feminist utopia arose from the ashes of said destroyed civilization
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,323,725
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I said feminism was destructive, and asked if you could name any case where they built the society they wanted.
Feminism is inherently self-destructive, so destroying an empire would be an uphill battle. At best feminism can be leveraged by a rival empire to weaken another.
My point was you can't name an example, because feminism has never achieved their goals. They won't because antinatalism (like all degrowth ideologies) is not able to perpetuate itself.
> There have been many women who have had trouble getting medically necessary abortions
Then there should be plenty of examples for people to use, instead of the one whose doctors wouldn't remove the corpse of the baby she had already murdered.
It's simple. The woman had already killed her baby by taking abortion pills in the mail. The baby got it's posthumous revenge by poisoning her to death. Well done, baby!
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,323,754
abortion is def one of my primary departures from republicans... like... how fucking retarded you gotta be to attack the primary system keeping golliwogs at somewhat managable numbers? if you absolutely gotta be an insufferable faggot, at least grit your teeth and hold it until then again this is the party thats infamous for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...
Anonymous K replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,323,771
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC) > are needed to keep the mothers alive or prevent a baby from suffering
outside of the fact that women are very often not fit to raise a houseplant much less a child(and really ought to get spayed instead of aborting),these reasons for abortion are more often fiction than necessity.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,323,786
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Pregnancies where the life of the mother or child is in danger is a small percentage, but antilife activists pretend it's the majority.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 33 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,323,792
@1,323,771 (K)
Also, doctors don't easily give tubal ligations. Many have odd stipulations, such as already having a certain amount of bio children, or asking for a note from your husband
Its far easier to get a vasectomy and it's a far less invasive procedure
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,323,800
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Blanket laws shouldn't be made based on extreme outliers of cases. Abolitionists are fighting to ban the majority of abortions, not the contrived scenarios you are fixated on.