The Question that Makes Cowards out of Leftists

[IBDaMann]

It is impossible to reason with anti-abortion people.

If not impossible...so close to impossible as to be indistinguishable.

Well Frank, it turns out that the problem is on your end. You are totally unreasonable and completely irrational. I now realize that you have no interest in discussing really any political issue nor do you have any desire to learn anything, so this post is more for other readers on the board, although I will extend to you the courtesy of addressing you directly.

You were asked to comment on the question: "Do you advocate for/support the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die."

The bottom line answer is that you fully support the killing of living humans as such for nothing more than someone else's convenience. You dishonestly state that you are against killing, but only as a virtue-signalling opportunity. You quickly then follow up with your "exception" ... that you try like hell to pretend is somehow not killing of living humans.

Frank, have you ever heard of the "special pleading" fallacy? You commit this fallacy often. Below is one example. You are trying to excuse your horrible stance by claiming that it is somehow outside the scope of consideration when it is always within the scope of consideration.

I personally hate the notion of killing anyone or anything ... So I do not like the idea of killing.

An exception I make is an abortion.

But I think a woman should have the right to make a choice about whether to [not kill a living human] in her own body.

Preventing a woman from being able to make such a choice [to kill a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die] has the potential for a MUCH MORE CORRUPTING influence on our society...in my opinion.

... and it is my opinion that a woman should have the right to [kill a living human] if she chooses...

An abortion falls under the category of killing a living human who has not committed any crime and who has not expressed any desire to die, ergo your answer should have been "Yes, I fully support the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die." But you lied instead. By the way, I think it's revealing that you righteously assert that women should have a say in keeping their fetuses alive, i.e. that they shouldn't be forced to kill the living humans they carry! Too funny!

I consistently pointed out this contradiction of yours, as have others, and you have never stopped EVADING by trying to change the original question, using wording that does not appear in the question. At the rate you're going, you'll have tried to work in the entire dictionary before summer arrives. For example:

Lie. You condone the killing of very young living humans for convenience purposes.

C'mon! "Very young?" A fetus is not a person...it is a fetus.

Neither "fetus" nor "person" are within the context of discussion, and you know this. Not only have I specified this on three occasions, but you have read the question more than a dozen times and you know what the wording is.

Are they the "shittiest humans?" I know of many shitty humans who do other things that bother me just as much...and there are people who do things other than killing that I consider shittier than people who kill things.

(ASIDE: Among the shittiest of humans for me are people who change the wording of quotes during Internet discussions.

First, thank you for being so above board and admitting up front that you find people who clearly reveal your contradictions and logical fallacies to be worse than people who actually kill living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.

You have no room to bitch and cry and moan and snivel like you do. I simply add square brackets that show that I am replacing your incoherent and distractionary miswording with what you really mean within the context of discussion. Anyone who needs to know your exact wording can read it with a quick and easy click of the included quote button. The fact that you have to whine like a fucking two-year-old about your illogic being so clearly revealed, to the point that you declare it worse than the killing of living humans, is a clear indication of how people should view your little temper tantrums.

Would you allow yourself to be killed if someone else, say a woman for example, were to assert that your death would make her life more convenient? Would you respect her right to make that choice herself?

No, I would not. So what is your point about what I actually said?

I want to thank you for so aptly revealing your hypocrisy. This is another case of special pleading, but in this case, you are the benefactor of your special pleading. You are against the killing of living humans ... if none of those living humans are you. However, if you are assumed to not be included, then you fully support the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.

I do not do "believing"

You have a JesusAI-level hangup about the word "believe" and thus you insist on redefining it. Sorry. You have your beliefs, and they are your operating assumptions that you do not know. Deal with it.

but if you are asking my opinion about abortion,

I never did. The word "abortion" never appears in the question I asked you. i.e. "Do you advocate for/support the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die."

Your problem is that you tipped your king the moment you began to EVADE. You had backed yourself into a corner, could not answer the questions, so you "declared" the questions to be stupid and insulting, ... and you did not answer them, thinking you were somehow fooling someone. I'd be interested to know who you believe is that stupid that he would be fooled by that little stunt. Did you think I would somehow not see right through it?

Your job in our discussion is to answer the questions posed to you and my job is to answer the questions you pose to me. That's how it works. It is not your job to determine which questions I am to ask you. You just aren't sufficiently forthright to acknowledge your own fuck-ups and you think that if you hide under the covers that the monster can't see you.

I think you have fallen off the edge here, Mann. Your question is an insult.

Unless I am mistaken, we are done on this topic. It appears to be impossible to reason with living-human-killers who think even something so menial as one's convenience is a valid reason to summarily kill another living human, and that it doesn't measure up to altering wording to be classified as "shitty." If this is not the poster child for "impossible" ... it's so close to impossible as to be indistinguishable.

 

[IBDaMann]

Then feel free to fuck off and die, Sybil.

OK, I just did. Now what, Terry? I notice you get this way when you aren't getting the attention you need, Terry. Should I call a male nurse for you and lock the door for the two of you?

 

[Ross Dolan]

Well Frank, it turns out that the problem is on your end. You are totally unreasonable and completely irrational.

C'mon, Mann...I am neither unreasonable nor irrational.

Listen, I'm sorry I upset you so easily. If I had realized you had so little control, I might have gone a bit easier on you. (I might not have, also.)

I now realize that you have no interest in discussing really any political issue nor do you have any desire to learn anything, so this post is more for other readers on the board, although I will extend to you the courtesy of addressing you directly.

I have been discussing these topics for almost 50 years...starting back when it was a lot more difficult to have your thoughts printed for others to read. I doubt I will ever "learn" anything from you...because you have an exceptionally closed mind. But I read what you write...and enjoy hearing from you.

You were asked to comment on the question: "Do you advocate for/support the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die."

And I answered it. But now you are trying to extend that "question" into a diatribe about whether or not a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body if she chooses.

I am not supporting killing innocent people...and you know that. But the anti-choice side has no other choice than to make that silly argument, because all their other arguments are vacuous.

The bottom line answer is that you fully support the killing of living humans as such for nothing more than someone else's convenience. You dishonestly state that you are against killing, but only as a virtue-signalling opportunity. You quickly then follow up with your "exception" ... that you try like hell to pretend is somehow not killing of living humans.

Oh, stop. You are sounding like a child being told to behave while throwing a tantrum.

I am not advocating for killing anyone. I am advocating for a woman's right to end a pregnancy occurring in her own body. I laugh at you people who try to twist that into advocacy for killing innocent people...but I realize (as I said before) that you have to do it, because that is all you have going for you.

Frank, have you ever heard of the "special pleading" fallacy? You commit this fallacy often. Below is one example. You are trying to excuse your horrible stance by claiming that it is somehow outside the scope of consideration when it is always within the scope of consideration.

I have. And I stand by every comment I have made in our discussion.

A woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body...and she should be able to do so with the assistance of doctors and medical facilities...and the anti-choice scum of America should not be allowed to block that access.

An abortion falls under the category of killing a living human who has not committed any crime and who has not expressed any desire to die, ergo your answer should have been "Yes, I fully support the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die." But you lied instead. By the way, I think it's revealing that you righteously assert that women should have a say in keeping their fetuses alive, i.e. that they shouldn't be forced to kill the living humans they carry! Too funny!

No...an abortion does not fall under that category...any more than destroying an acorn is the same as cutting down an oak tree...or eating an omelet is the same as having a chicken dinner.

You should be intelligent enough to see that.

I consistently pointed out this contradiction of yours, as have others, and you have never stopped EVADING by trying to change the original question, using wording that does not appear in the question. At the rate you're going, you'll have tried to work in the entire dictionary before summer arrives. For example:


Neither "fetus" nor "person" are within the context of discussion, and you know this. Not only have I specified this on three occasions, but you have read the question more than a dozen times and you know what the wording is.

Well...I think you are full of shit on that...and I do so knowing full well that the word "shit" is not part of the question either.

Yeah...sometimes things are brought up in responses that are not included in the question.

Why on Earth do you see something wrong with that? Is it perhaps because our responses destroy your arguments so easily?

First, thank you for being so above board and admitting up front that you find people who clearly reveal your contradictions and logical fallacies to be worse than people who actually kill living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.

Nice try...no cigar. I am not advocating for killing...I am advocating for a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body.

You have no room to bitch and cry and moan and snivel like you do. I simply add square brackets that show that I am replacing your incoherent and distractionary miswording with what you really mean within the context of discussion. Anyone who needs to know your exact wording can read it with a quick and easy click of the included quote button. The fact that you have to whine like a fucking two-year-old about your illogic being so clearly revealed, to the point that you declare it worse than the killing of living humans, is a clear indication of how people should view your little temper tantrums.

Temper tantrums?

Any that occur here will be yours...not mine.

I enjoy our discussions...and if I find a bit of humor in your stretching, I hope you do not find that insulting.

I want to thank you for so aptly revealing your hypocrisy. This is another case of special pleading, but in this case, you are the benefactor of your special pleading. You are against the killing of living humans ... if none of those living humans are you. However, if you are assumed to not be included, then you fully support the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.

Another fine attempt...but still no cigar.

You are amusing.

You have a JesusAI-level hangup about the word "believe" and thus you insist on redefining it. Sorry. You have your beliefs, and they are your operating assumptions that you do not know. Deal with it.

A third attempt...and still no cigar.

Gotta get ready for the golf course for now. I'll be back to get to a few more things.

Stay happy. You'll grow up at some point...and not feel so bad that you are being stomped here.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Well Frank.

Showered and dressed...ready to leave. But had a few minutes to write a bit more.

I never did. The word "abortion" never appears in the question I asked you. i.e. "Do you advocate for/support the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die."

Your problem is that you tipped your king the moment you began to EVADE.

I would never “evade” you, Mann…I enjoy our discussions too much to do that.

You asked a question…I responded…FULLY.

I agree…you question did not contain the word “abortion”, but even a stupid person could see the implications of the question…and neither you nor I are stupid.

But, since you are in an unnecessary snit, allow me to answer the question without using abortion.

NO…I DO NOT ADVOCATE FOR/SUPPORT THE KILLING OF LIVING HUMANS WHO HAVE NOT COMMITTED ANY CRIME AND WHO HAVE NOT EXPRESSED ANY DESIRE TO DIE.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Ball in your court.

Unless I am mistaken, we are done on this topic. It appears to be impossible to reason with living-human-killers who think even something so menial as one's convenience is a valid reason to summarily kill another living human, and that it doesn't measure up to altering wording to be classified as "shitty." If this is not the poster child for "impossible" ... it's so close to impossible as to be indistinguishable.

Ummm…well, unless YOU are tipping over your king…I would aver that you are mistaken. There is no reason I see for discussing the topic even though I doubt it is possible to reason with you about what you call killers. I hope we continue, because I am thoroughly enjoying the give and take. Sorry you are not. Perhaps that is because you see yourself as being on the wrong side of this issue.

More to come on that final paragraph after the round.

 

[gfm7175]

A zygote is not a human, Sybil.

Do try to pay attention.

[1] Port Tack said 'fetus', not 'zygote'.

[2] What species is the fetus (or even the zygote for that matter), if not human?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

IMA PSYCHOTIC
LOONEY TOON SOCK PUPPETEER
I NEED LITHIUM

Agreed on all points, Sybil.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Your problem is that you tipped your king the moment you began to EVADE.

I have not evaded anything. But if it helps you to live your life by pretending that I have...be my guest. If you honestly suppose I have evaded anything...ask it again, and I will respond.

You had backed yourself into a corner, could not answer the questions, so you "declared" the questions to be stupid and insulting, ... and you did not answer them, thinking you were somehow fooling someone.

I am not in a corner. I am at my desk...typing responses to you.

That is the second time you have used that "fooling" someone nonsense. What do you suppose I am attempting to fool someone (or you) about?

I'd be interested to know who you believe is that stupid that he would be fooled by that little stunt. Did you think I would somehow not see right through it?

I'd be interested to know what stunt you suppose exists? I am totally baffled by what you are babbling.

Your job in our discussion is to answer the questions posed to you and my job is to answer the questions you pose to me. That's how it works. It is not your job to determine which questions I am to ask you. You just aren't sufficiently forthright to acknowledge your own fuck-ups and you think that if you hide under the covers that the monster can't see you.

Ask whatever questions you want...I will answer them. When you dodge a question, I merely ask it again. If you think I have dodged something...just ask again.

Unless I am mistaken, we are done on this topic.

Jesus fucking H. Christ. Again???

We are done when we are done. Right now...we do not seem to be done. I am discussing matters with you...and you with me.

Wake up.

It appears to be impossible to reason with living-human-killers who think even something so menial as one's convenience is a valid reason to summarily kill another living human, and that it doesn't measure up to altering wording to be classified as "shitty." If this is not the poster child for "impossible" ... it's so close to impossible as to be indistinguishable.

One way to look at it. I thought you were more intelligent that that amateur hour commentary, but I must be wrong.

IF you have something better than calling a debate opponent a killer...bring it out.

Or...all you get is...

 

[gfm7175]

Agreed on all points, Sybil.

Too chicken shit to answer the question, eh?

What species is the fetus (or even the zygote for that matter), if not human?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'M SYCHO SYBIL
LET ME DO MY PSYCHO DANCE
WATCH ME SHAKE IT OUT

How many times a day do you think about harming others or yourself, Sybil?

I'm guessing you're more of a "harming others" guy. Most pschos fall into the "yourself" camp since even psychos know it's wrong to harm others.

Psychos like you, not so much.

 

[IBDaMann]

C'mon, Mann...I am neither unreasonable nor irrational.

Yes, you totally are both, however I have nonetheless found our discussions worthwhile. I am going to propose we name your relatively common affliction after you, i.e. the "Frank Apisa syndrome" defined as a type of delusion disorder in the form of a totally bogus belief or political position that cannot be shaken regardless of the amount of evidence to the contrary and regardless of the amount of logic presented.

At some point you adopted the position that killing living humans was OK, even if those living humans have not committed any crime and have not expressed any desire to die, if the people who do your thinking for you tell you to support/advocate for that position.

You are fine with the definition of "living human", i.e. human DNA and a pulse ... but when presented with the logical conclusion that abortion meets the criteria of killing a living human who has not committed any crime and who has not expressed any desire to die, you will not change your bogus position; you instead create a contradiction, i.e. you insist that the fetus which meets the definition of "living human" is simply not a living human. In your mind, this sufficiently shifts your problem away from your bogus position and onto a mere definition, allowing you to resume supporting your bogus position.

When you are once again faced with the definition of "living human", you shift to a new contradiction, i.e. that a fetus is too young to be "living" just as an oak seed is too young to be considered an oak. You believe that this bogus conflation of "stage of development" with "species" sufficiently eliminates your logical problem and allows you to resume supporting your bogus position.

You have a mental problem. You need to support the killing of living humans even though you do not want to. Your mandatory support for the killing of living humans overrides your shame and repulsion for supporting such, to the point that you run through the following list of contradictions publicly for all to see:

* A living human is not a living human
* A living human with a heartbeat is not alive
* A living human with human DNA is not human
* You are against the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die, but you support the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.
* You would not support anyone killing you for someone else's convenience because you don't support the killing of living humans for someone elkse's convenience, but you support the killing of living humans for someone else's convenience.

To the untrained eye, all of the contradictions above, and more, are simply matters of bogus logic. I know better. All are totally expected when a mind is operating under the Frank Apisa syndrome. Any and all contradictions will be leveraged, and the list repeated ad infinitum, in defense of the advocacy of the mandatory political position which must never change, no matter what the cost ... in this case a woman's right to kill a living human on a whim.

 

[IBDaMann]

I agree…you question did not contain the word “abortion”, but even a stupid person could see the implications of the question.

The entire purpose of my posts was for you to see the logical implications. When you realize that the implications bode ill for your argument, you change your position and make it stronger ... you don't avoid the implications by EVADING the question(s) in order to buy some time to not have to face those implications.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Yes, you totally are both, however I have nonetheless found our discussions worthwhile. I am going to propose we name your relatively common affliction after you, i.e. the "Frank Apisa syndrome" defined as a type of delusion disorder in the form of a totally bogus belief or political position that cannot be shaken regardless of the amount of evidence to the contrary and regardless of the amount of logic presented.

At some point you adopted the position that killing living humans was OK, even if those living humans have not committed any crime and have not expressed any desire to die, if the people who do your thinking for you tell you to support/advocate for that position.

You are fine with the definition of "living human", i.e. human DNA and a pulse ... but when presented with the logical conclusion that abortion meets the criteria of killing a living human who has not committed any crime and who has not expressed any desire to die, you will not change your bogus position; you instead create a contradiction, i.e. you insist that the fetus which meets the definition of "living human" is simply not a living human. In your mind, this sufficiently shifts your problem away from your bogus position and onto a mere definition, allowing you to resume supporting your bogus position.

When you are once again faced with the definition of "living human", you shift to a new contradiction, i.e. that a fetus is too young to be "living" just as an oak seed is too young to be considered an oak. You believe that this bogus conflation of "stage of development" with "species" sufficiently eliminates your logical problem and allows you to resume supporting your bogus position.

You have a mental problem. You need to support the killing of living humans even though you do not want to. Your mandatory support for the killing of living humans overrides your shame and repulsion for supporting such, to the point that you run through the following list of contradictions publicly for all to see:

* A living human is not a living human
* A living human with a heartbeat is not alive
* A living human with human DNA is not human
* You are against the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die, but you support the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.
* You would not support anyone killing you for someone else's convenience because you don't support the killing of living humans for someone elkse's convenience, but you support the killing of living humans for someone else's convenience.

To the untrained eye, all of the contradictions above, and more, are simply matters of bogus logic. I know better. All are totally expected when a mind is operating under the Frank Apisa syndrome. Any and all contradictions will be leveraged, and the list repeated ad infinitum, in defense of the advocacy of the mandatory political position which must never change, no matter what the cost ... in this case a woman's right to kill a living human on a whim.

You are a nut case, Mann...someone who should be seeing a psychiatrist.

Don't get me wrong, though. If it helps you live the life you are living to consider me to be all the things you called me above...fine with me. I do feel pity for you...and having that shit thrown at me is a small price to pay for you feeling a bit better.

Bottom line: On this issue...the right of a woman to have control over her own body is an essential. If the woman wants to continue the pregnancy...she should be able to do so with the assistance of competent, legal medical care.

If, however, the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy...she should be able to do that also with the assistance of competent, legal medical care.

You are never going to get that, because you want to pretend that you care about kids and life...although your political approach shows that to be very, very questionable.

And I am getting a kick out of watching you anti-choice people stepping on your own dicks. So please continue.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The entire purpose of my posts was for you to see the logical implications. When you realize that the implications bode ill for your argument, you change your position and make it stronger ... you don't avoid the implications by EVADING the question(s) in order to buy some time to not have to face those implications.

I do not evade your questions, Mann. I respond to them. And...I am enjoying the frustrations that surround the many questions you ask. If you were not here, I might try to invent you.

 

[IBDaMann]

You are a nut case, Mann...someone who should be seeing a psychiatrist.

... presumably because I do not advocate for the killing of living humans as you do, and presumably because I can support my position using consistent logic and without pivoting.

One of these days you will discover the type of people psychiatrists treat, and the types of delusion disorders they address. There are no psychiatrists, however, treating those who stand against the killing of living humans.

Bottom line: On this issue...the right of a woman to [kill living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die] is an essential.

Yes, I understand your position clearly. It is you who absolutely NEEDS to disguise his position from himself using self delusion that no amount of new information or evidence to the contrary can correct.

If, however, the woman wants to [kill the living human who has not committed any crime and who has not expressed any desire to die] ..she should be able to do that also with the assistance of competent, legal medical care.

... assuming that you are not the living human being killed, otherwise you would be diametrically opposed to the woman being able to choose to kill living humans for her convenience. I get it. We are not discussing anything, Frank. You are going around in circles, desperately trying to delude yourself.

You are never going to get that, because you want to pretend that you care about kids and life...although your political approach shows that to be very, very questionable.

Projection, and very humorous projection at that. I would really like to know how effectively you are fooling yourself. You are the whose position is to kill living humans while my position stands against killing living humans. You are the one pretending to care about children by dehumanizing them, denying they are alive and looking the other way as they are killed for someone else's convenience ... and you are trying desperately to convince yourself that that is somehow my position and not yours.

Are you meeting with success in that regard?

By the way, my position is that living humans, who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die, should not have all of their remaining choices destroyed. You refer to this as being anti-choice for some reason. Could you explain?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

... presumably because I do not advocate for the killing of living humans....

You flush humans down the toilet every day as well as down the drain when you brush your teeth, Sybil.

If you don't beleive me, then please state the species of the cells you are flushing into the sewer.

 

[gfm7175]

You are a nut case, Mann...someone who should be seeing a psychiatrist.

Don't get me wrong, though. If it helps you live the life you are living to consider me to be all the things you called me above...fine with me. I do feel pity for you...and having that shit thrown at me is a small price to pay for you feeling a bit better.

Bottom line: On this issue...the right of a woman to have control over her own body is an essential. If the woman wants to continue the pregnancy...she should be able to do so with the assistance of competent, legal medical care.

If, however, the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy...she should be able to do that also with the assistance of competent, legal medical care.

You are never going to get that, because you want to pretend that you care about kids and life...although your political approach shows that to be very, very questionable.

And I am getting a kick out of watching you anti-choice people stepping on your own dicks. So please continue.

@IBDaMann --- QED of "Frank Apisa syndrome"

 

[IBDaMann]

I've asked you the same two questions over and over again and all you've done is EVADE them... Why should any rational adult believe, if I chose one of those two questions and separately asked it, that you'd suddenly perform a stress test on your brain cell and directly answer it honestly.

[1] What species is the fetus, if not human?
[2] What does a fetal heartbeat signify, if not the presence of life?

[four lines of EVASION deleted]

Frank, I think we both know that you will not be honest with anyone on this point.

You advocate the unconscionable position of killing living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die, even for someone else's convenience. You won't change your position no matter how much evidence and logic to the contrary you are presented.

I don't see anything more to discuss. Do you?

 

[IBDaMann]

The Repubs are pushing for a police state to enforce their anti-choice beliefs.

Leftists are pushing for a police state that legitimizes the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die. Mostly, they seem desperate to kill dark-skinned humans, almost as if they are frenetically rushing to meet an impossible monthly quota.

They are intimidating doctors into not treating women who have pregnancy complications because the cops can charge them and the Reds can take their jobs away. The police have the power to investigate miscarriages and determine if it was a failed abortion.

Fortunately, living humans have hope against a murderous leftist tyranny ... conservatives and Christians. Where leftists want all our children hunted down and killed, conservatives and Christians seek to prevent it. For example, where leftists want all children to compulsorily huddle together in defenselessness zones for the ease and convenience of any active shooter who wanders by, conservatives and Christians want to eliminate all defenselessness zones and require trained, armed adults to be present to defend our children, noting that all mass shootings happen in leftist-created defenselessness zones. Also, today leftists want every woman to be able to kill other living humans if she has informed her doctor that said killing would be convenient and is right for her. Tomorrow, such killings will be opened up to men, and then, God willing, open to teenagers who want an inheritance right now or who would like to get even with a neighbor.

Leftists are vehemently opposed to anyone targeted for death receiving any sort of legal representation or writ of habeas corpus.

You know there will be mistakes and innocent girls will go to jail.

I forgot to mention, leftists want to extend the right to kill living humans for convenience's sake to little girls, and to teach them at a young age that they should never be held "responsible" for anything they do and that they should never go to jail for merely killing a living human.

Innocent doctors will too.

Leftists want doctors to be granted permanent immunity for aiding and abetting in crimes. If needed, leftists can simply have any crimes committed by doctors declared to be "not crimes."

The most private parts of a girl's life will be under scrutiny.

The lives of living humans will be protected, and little girls will learn that they are responsible for their actions. Oh, the horror ... a virtual leftist's nightmare.

[Republicans] will take away a woman's rights to [order the uncontested execution of other living humans] and her own decisions [to impose death sentences with impunity]. They will [defend individual liberties of the minority against the majority]

Yes. Correct.

 

[IBDaMann]

I believe white MAGA women hitch their wagon to the patriarchy of white Christian nationalism because they believe they will benefit socially and economically relative to minorites and other women of color by helping to keep white patriarchical domination at the top of the food chain.

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Cypress For This Post:
christiefan915 (Today), evince (Yesterday), guno (Yesterday), Phantasmal (Today), Taichiliberal (Yesterday)

It is nice to know who the hateful shits are that don't place any value in human life, and who live such miserable existences that they need to demonize those who value human life.

 

[IBDaMann]

Would some American woman explain to me why they would vote for a political party that slowly strips away their individual rights to self determination? I'll wait.

Would some leftist explain to me why he would actively advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?

I'll wait. I've been waiting.