Abandoning kids = Find the woman and beat her
Blackpill The only thing banning abortion would do is make foids pawn off Chad's bastards to the state where they would be raised as taxpayer funded orphans
B
Based. That would be a huge step in the positive direction. If state welfare and child support disappeared overnight, you can bet your life savings that holes wouldn't be as promiscuous. Over a few generations, degeneracy would decrease.
M
You do that and you will just incentivize more abortions/intfanticide instead, which is what the anti-abortion movement is against doing since they are singularly obsessed with forced births, which shows you that it's a cucked movement that wants you to pay for Chad's kids.
Instead of larping why don't you actually look up history? Back when fornication was illegal women would drown bastards or abort and claim it was natural childhood mortality in order to avoid prosecution for fornication. Women don't take responsibility, they're biologically programmed to not do so.
M
Here is what it says in the cucked modern Vatican doctrine proving my point. These are the cucks you are allied with. Pre-19th century Vatican doctrine was more redpilled and was more focused on curtailing out-of-wedlock births on a strict basis instead of enabling them.
B
What larp, dumbass? I know the history. If they "abort" their infants, then they get life in prison or execution, like they should be getting with their abortions, and that will be a greater disincentive.
Last edited:
M
That never happened in history. Foids would just lie and claim the abortion/infanticide was a product of childhood mortality.
Pope Sixtus IV commissioned this fresco of dead infants fished out of the Tiber while building a hospital in their honor in the 1400s.
B
They also didn't have forensic police investigations into deaths deemed suspicious or the death of infants.That never happened in history. Foids would just lie and claim the abortion/infanticide was a product of childhood mortality.
Pope Sixtus IV commissioned this fresco of dead infants fished out of the Tiber while building a hospital in their honor in the 1400s.
You took a six month long break only to come back and argue the shit out of being pro-abortion? What's with these sleeper accounts?
M
People didn't care. They'd rather let Chad's kids die than pay for them as liabilities of the commnunity. That's Conservatism. What you are suggesting is something completely new at a time when women have rights, good luck with that. Either you just have an unlimited number of bastards coupled with fornication or you have abortion/infanticide. Pick One. Also, those bastard orphans will grow up to perpetuate the cycle of degeneracy especially considering they won't have any respect for the authorities as bastard orphans to begin with.
I'm telling people about actual Conservatism and how modern Conservatism and first-wave feminism is a liberal containment ideology (Conservatives who are pro-first wave feminism will rationalize foids getting custody of children by default, which didn't happen before feminism and the early 1900s came about). You are allied with Conservatives who are Liberals and won't actually help you at all. It is a controlled opposition gay-op and you are falling for it.
B
You understand why we have laws as a concept that we use in societies, yes?
Say they change the welfare laws to worsen it for the male taxpayer. What would you suppose will happen at some point later in the future?
M
Laws can't change Nature, Laws can curtail it, but at the end of the day enforcement of the law is subjective.
Nothing will change as long as they commit to the religious delusion of its ok to pay more in the name of faith and that the bastard children of Chad & Stacey are sacred. The anti-abortion movement is used to reinforce that false faith which results in the perpetuation of degeneracy. You are reinforcing that faith by promoting it when you should be shaking that faith by attacking it.
B
Correct.
Incorrect.
Whatever the true motivation behind the reversal of this statute may be, religious or otherwise, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that laws will always be added and changed to curb human nature and maintain order. If there's an epidemic of bastard children and the sky falls like you're concerned about, then it's likely we may have laws that must necessarily challenge liberal progressivism in a post-feminist, post-women's lib world, which would then expose the effects of those philosophies and ideologies as deleterious to a healthy and stable society.
M
Enforcement of the law has always been subjective - there are always nominal laws on the books in any given legal code that are seldom enforced - or they might be enforced in one era and not enforced in another.
It's not liberals/feminists who are making that argument it's the Conservatives. Conservatives are the ones who are saying that Chad's bastard children should be born and subsidized by the state & Conservatives themselves subscribe to first wave feminism, which is why signing on to Conservatism is just dooming you into more feminism in reality. Stop playing 8d chess, Conservatives support feminism which means that by supporting them you'll just get more feminism and as I said they don't care about the cost they think it is a religious duty to support Chad & Stacy's bastard and the anti-abortion movement will keep them committed to their faith in the system as long as they are on board. People will sacrifice their livelihoods in the name of faith, people will die in the name of faith.
B
Oh yeah? Exactly what laws do you think won't be enforced?
But why are you assuming that I'm "signing on to Conservatism." Being anti-abortion is not being pro-Conservative (capital C, as in, politically conservative). There is some overlap in some values, but the reasons and justifications are not 1:1.
Last edited:
Banning abortion would revoke a female right. That has never happened before in American history. If one right that females currently have can be taken away from them, then more can be taken away too. The day females begin losing rights it will be a watershed moment in history and we need to do everything in our power to make that happen.
M
Many legal codes have laws that aren't enforced or seldom enforced. There are many obscure laws on the books that were forced back in the day but not anymore. You are signing onto the anti-abortion movement which is explicitly pro-welfare for chad's kids - which is a part of Conservatism.
M
You're not thinking clearly. On what basis is the right taken away? It's taken away on the basis of Chad's bastard child having a right, the right of Chad's bastard child to be paid for by incel wagecucking.
I've posted about this several times before. It's a fallacy that aborting babies reduces the population. Females were granted the right to abort babies in the 1970's. It allows them to live frivulous promiscuous lives without responsibility. Allowing females to abort babies does not help us. And for most of human history men didn't allow females to abort their children. Men used to force females to get married and remain loyal. That doesn't happen anymore because soy cucked men have been fooled into supporting female rights.
M
No, Sexual Liberation is a product of the destruction of the Anti-Fornication laws (which the anti-abortion movement supported as a means of cutting down on abortion/infanticide).
No, for most of history if women were for instance raped by an invading horde of foreign men - the local men would encourage women to abort/commit infanticide as they didn't want to pay for the expenses of the bastard offspring of the hostile enemy combatants. The same held true for Prostitution, when prostitutes fell pregnant and committed abortion/infanticide society looked the other way.
Women in general didn't travel far by themselves back in the day as there was always the threat they could be raped and forced into marriage.
You don't have political representation. Both First Wave Feminists (Conservatives) and Third Wave Feminists (Leftists) oppose you when it comes to opposing Women's rights. There is no political solution for you, if you believe otherwise it's just cope. Ideally welfare to all of Chad's bastards should be cut off, but as that's not a political option due to Conservatives standing in the way of that and keeping the Liberal paradigm in place. The only actual result will be an even larger percentage of Chad's bastards on the community welfare list.
B
OK, but who cares? Because some obscure law(s) that most people today don't even know exist wasn't enforced "back in the day" doesn't mean that makes law enforcement subjective today.
No, you're just being intellectually lazy and categorically lumping anybody who is anti-abortion into a neat and convenient compartmentalized box that you then label with all of the other shit like "pro-welfare for chad's kids" and making incorrect inferences (based on your flawed assumption) about their philosophies, values, and political stances (if any).
M
Law is still subjective. Prosecutors are selective about what they enforce, especially considering limited state resources to prosecute. There is no unlimited police/prosecution/prison budget. That's basic economics. That's why high crime rates in certain areas are a reality.
You don't have political representation. You are shilling for Conservative Politics that will never give you anti-feminism - you see anti-abortion as an 8d chess move to get what you want but what you fail to understand is that Conservatism was designed as a relief valve to protect Liberalism & Feminism from its demise.
At the end of the day - naive intentions don't matter - what matters is real world results. The real world result is that more of Chad's bastard offspring will be born and incels like you will gleefully wagecuck for them like cucks while claiming it's a win against foids.
I don't even understand what point you're trying to make.
But I'll repeat my point again, it sounds like you support abortion because you think that "Chad's children will be on welfare". But that specifically is the fallacy --- having an abortion does not prevent a female from having another baby in the future.
I don't know why so many incels are so soy and bluepilled they can't understand this very simple concept.
Females can get pregnant, have an abortion, and then get pregnant again, and then give birth to a baby and then go on welfare. Having abortions doesn't mean less babies will be on welfare, it just gives females the right to kill babies until they choose to keep one of them. That right should never have been given to them, and it needs to be taken away.
M
It does actually. Welfare is capped after 1-2 kids and it goes down dramatically after that. You take that welfare away and foids will hand bastards over to the state where the state or church (in societies with stronger religion) will assume full financial responsibility for them. Either way it's community paid for. Foids will still dispose of unwanted kids - they will just give them to the state where you'll pay for them as orphans.
B
OK, and how does this relate to your overall point?
Let's get something straight here. I don't need political representation, least of all on this fucking issue. This is pure KEK fuel for me and I enjoy the seethe from the people supporting such cancers in society i.e., freely available abortions that encourage the promotion of sexual degeneracy, which further decays society.
And also, I am nobody's shill. You seem to have this misconception that I'm fist-pumping and cheering Conservatives, expecting them to fight back against feminism. They're simply useful idiots here who, for the most part, fail to see or understand the greater underlying issues that plague the problems they want to fix, are trying to fix, or think they're fixing.
This is good for reasons that you haven't even bothered to wonder or ask, and instead you've just slapped a very small and closed set of incorrect assumptions on anybody who's been saying they support this in principle. You're looking at this very myopically as just an increase in numbers (higher number of bastards and higher welfare rates), which is yet to be proven or demonstrated, btw, because this is a seismic shift and will take decades for the data to appear for us to compare to the data collected since then after this "right" was granted in 1970. What this ultimately will do is expose to everyone other, less spoken about and acknowledged problems in American society, and by extension, other Western societies at large.
We all get taxed no matter what, and unless you have a bigger army and more resources than the nation under which you're living in, you're going to be subjected to their laws. You act like we've been winning all along, right up this case was overturned and now we're all suddenly losing.
I don't think this 2018 sleeper GrAY understands this.
M
Simply criminalizing something doesn't mean you will magically stop it if there is a high criminal violation rate.
Societies without anti-fornication laws and enforced social stigmas result in sexual degeneracy (Conservatives by design are against those laws and stigmas as they encourage abortion). The abortions just cut down on Chad's bastard offspring.
It's already proven. Look at Latin America. Abortion is banned in plenty of parts of Latin America (I'm not even going to count Africa as Africa is so corrupt African countries don't even have real laws they enforce), yet degeneracy goes on.
Now your last paragraph is the ultimately bluepilled remark, you're saying that foids being inconvenienced for 9 months before they give up the bastard to the state is worth a bastard criminal foid growing up with even less morality than the original foid who will cause you FAR MORE in terms of damages in the LONG-RUN. You are hurting yourself and society at large more in the long-run than you are hurting the foid.
M
I already dealt with @CrackingYs naive and false bluepilled beliefs. He thinks that if you ban abortion it will deny foids the ability to be selective over which of Chad's children they decide to raise. That's not going to happen, and you don't even contest me when I make the argument that the foids will still ultimately decide to raise whichever children they want to raise and for the children they don't want - instead of aborting them - they'll just give them over to the state as orphans.
B
You still think this is going to be an epidemic of bastard children?
Let's entertain that thought for a second and suppose what you're saying is true. Since 1973 there have been approximately 63 million abortions done (or about 74-90% of the estimated casualties in WW2), which comes up to about 1.3 million a year. It's been almost 50 years since then. We're going to assume a lot of constancy for the sake of simplicity and calculations and say that starting in 2022 we're going to have approximately the same number of extra people a year up until 2072.
If the cost of feeding and housing an extra 1.3 children per year is what you're worried about being passed on to the taxpayer, how long do you think that will last before the government decides to change laws again which will restrict women whoring it up and popping out unsustainable resource drains on the state? Just to remind you, you're already fucked as a taxpayer for the trillions the US government owes (they're already sweating the retirement payments that people have in retirement assets). American descendants are going to be paying off that debt for hundreds of years to come. A few million bastard spawns are going to barely cause a dent in your IRS payments the way you think it will.
Cultural forces will influence this far before it reaches the point where government would need to intervene in order to save itself from the increased burden of millions of extra chad/tyrone spawns.
M
You still think this is going to be an epidemic of bastard children?
Let's entertain that thought for a second and suppose what you're saying is true. Since 1973 there have been approximately 63 million abortions done (or about 74-90% of the estimated casualties in WW2), which comes up to about 1.3 million a year. It's been almost 50 years since then. We're going to assume a lot of constancy for the sake of simplicity and calculations and say that starting in 2022 we're going to have approximately the same number of extra people a year up until 2072.
If the cost of feeding and housing an extra 1.3 children per year is what you're worried about being passed on to the taxpayer, how long do you think that will last before the government decides to change laws again which will restrict women whoring it up and popping out unsustainable resource drains on the state? Just to remind you, you're already fucked as a taxpayer for the trillions the US government owes (they're already sweating the retirement payments that people have in retirement assets). American descendants are going to be paying off that debt for hundreds of years to come. A few million bastard spawns are going to barely cause a dent in your IRS payments the way you think it will.
Cultural forces will influence this far before it reaches the point where government would need to intervene in order to save itself from the increased burden of millions of extra chad/tyrone spawns.
Why would they restrict anything when they religiously believe in opposing abortion even at the economic cost?
No, the cultural forces are tellling you to pay for chad's offspring which is totally unnatural. What was natural in ancient times was whores simply killing the fetus or committing infanticide and people looking the other way because their instincts were telling them to not pay for other people's children and be cucks.
They will just keep racking up debts and if government collapses guess what? The mechanism to enforce abortion bans will fail just as much as the welfare state which means the world would return to its natural state of foids killing their bastard kids.
You're obviously just a troll at this point. Supporting abortion and supporting female rights is bluepilled feminism. You are in support of what feminists want. You cant be on the same side as feminists and call other people bluepilled for being anti-abortion because that makes you look like an absolute fucking moron.
M
There are plenty of conservatives who are anti-abortion and who call themselves feminists. Again, you addressed none of my points. You will only temporarily inconvenience women for a few months while propagating their degeneracy in the form of societally damaging orphans who will be even bigger degenerates as they will have less parental discipline and less natural respect for authority. So you are just perpetuating the cycle of degeneracy and making it worse in the long run rather than fixing it.
B
No shit, really? And what does that have to do with selective prosecution due to limited resources, and how does this relate to chad's cum dumpster getting welfare for her chadspawn? You seem to have lost the plot of your own argument here.
So you force the pendulum to swing towards anti-fornication laws and enforced stigmas, which will result in a net reduction in sexual degeneracy.
Latin America didn't have a feminist and women's lib movement, as well as a sexual revolution and a supreme court case granting women the right to kill their babies.
You need to look at data on this before 1970, all throughout 1970 up until now, and then for the next 50 years, before you can say if this will have the kind of impact you're suggesting to the degree to which you're suggesting. Right now, it's speculation.
You're just not seeing beyond this turn of events. This statute being overturned won't have the effects you're suggesting in a vacuum. It will have far-reaching cultural ripples that will affect the sexual culture of the following generations to come. The hook-up and tinder fuck-fest culture of today will gradually shift and move away from the current levels of peak degeneracy. Women aren't the only ones who want abortion. Chad and Tyrone obviously want it too, because neither wants to be on the hook for child support or to have their playboy lifestyles in jeopardy.
This hurts foids by bringing back some responsibility to the female side of the equation and makes them think twice about being selfish hedonists. They will still think selfishly because of their careers and money, but now they're more likely to be careful about their sexual choices. They will be more likely to avoid getting rawdogged and creampied if they can help it. The holes who want to get pregnant to exploit the state for resources or to trap men will continue to do so, which means this doesn't change all that much for them.
Overall this will reduce (sexual) degeneracy in society, which is obviously a net gain.
Because the state is ultimately secular and it will make pragmatic decisions for its own interest.
You seem to have a problem with political Conversatism and its religious baggage. I, on the other hand, don't care about either political Conservatism or its religious baggage. You need to take that problem to them and not take that out on me.
Why are you trying to argue from naturalism? That's retarded. Killing your own offspring as a female of a species happens occasionally in nature, but it's not natural. What's natural is to ensure that the offspring survives and carries on the cycle of passing on their DNA.
Whores killing their babies and people looking the other way isn't natural. Calling it "natural" is a category error. Those were the cultural and societal norms in those days, like India and Arabia when they killed babies that were the socially disadvantageous in their given cultures at the times.
And, as I said earlier, this will expose the philosophies and ideologies that are harmful for society and we'll be rid of them. We're already on the path to collapse, btw, so if we can just get everyone to see how harmful things like feminism and unrestrained liberalism can be for society in general before that happens, it will be worth letting society destroy and cannibalize itself.
I don't think he's a troll. I think he genuinely believes that this turn of events will lead to a massive welfare problem in the US (as if bastard children and welfare moms aren't already a big problem KEK) and a huge spike in bastard children.
Don't ruin my fun.
M
You keep saying that society will collapse due to excess foids on welfare, but if society collapses the mechanism to enforce abortion bans will also collapse.No shit, really? And what does that have to do with selective prosecution due to limited resources, and how does this relate to chad's cum dumpster getting welfare for her chadspawn? You seem to have lost the plot of your own argument here.
So you force the pendulum to swing towards anti-fornication laws and enforced stigmas, which will result in a net reduction in sexual degeneracy.
Latin America didn't have a feminist and women's lib movement, as well as a sexual revolution and a supreme court case granting women the right to kill their babies.
You need to look at data on this before 1970, all throughout 1970 up until now, and then for the next 50 years, before you can say if this will have the kind of impact you're suggesting to the degree to which you're suggesting. Right now, it's speculation.
You're just not seeing beyond this turn of events. This statute being overturned won't have the effects you're suggesting in a vacuum. It will have far-reaching cultural ripples that will affect the sexual culture of the following generations to come. The hook-up and tinder fuck-fest culture of today will gradually shift and move away from the current levels of peak degeneracy. Women aren't the only ones who want abortion. Chad and Tyrone obviously want it too, because neither wants to be on the hook for child support or to have their playboy lifestyles in jeopardy.
This hurts foids by bringing back some responsibility to the female side of the equation and makes them think twice about being selfish hedonists. They will still think selfishly because of their careers and money, but now they're more likely to be careful about their sexual choices. They will be more likely to avoid getting rawdogged and creampied if they can help it. The holes who want to get pregnant to exploit the state for resources or to trap men will continue to do so, which means this doesn't change all that much for them.
Overall this will reduce (sexual) degeneracy in society, which is obviously a net gain.
Because the state is ultimately secular and it will make pragmatic decisions for its own interest.
You seem to have a problem with political Conversatism and its religious baggage. I, on the other hand, don't care about either political Conservatism or its religious baggage. You need to take that problem to them and not take that out on me.
Why are you trying to argue from naturalism? That's retarded. Killing your own offspring as a female of a species happens occasionally in nature, but it's not natural. What's natural is to ensure that the offspring survives and carries on the cycle of passing on their DNA.
Whores killing their babies and people looking the other way isn't natural. Calling it "natural" is a category error. Those were the cultural and societal norms in those days, like India and Arabia when they killed babies that were the socially disadvantageous in their given cultures at the times.
And, as I said earlier, this will expose the philosophies and ideologies that are harmful for society and we'll be rid of them. We're already on the path to collapse, btw, so if we can just get everyone to see how harmful things like feminism and unrestrained liberalism can be for society in general before that happens, it will be worth letting society destroy and cannibalize itself.
I don't think he's a troll. I think he genuinely believes that this turn of events will lead to a massive welfare problem in the US (as if bastard children and welfare moms aren't already a big problem KEK) and a huge spike in bastard children.
Don't ruin my fun.
How is the pendulum going to swing in that direction when you are supporting conservatives who are against doing that in the name of protecting bastard children and are willing to sacrifice themselves economically to achieve that?
Latin America has always had a massive feminist/lgbt movement which is more hostile to biblical morality, the bible explicitly prohibits sodomy, not abortion. The underlying morality is liberal egalitarian morality. Again, Latin America being extremely degenerate proves the point. Tinder, fornication, etc. are all present in Latin America.
Orphan parents aren't on the hook for child support, only if the mother keeps the child is the father on the hook for child support.
They won't think very much at the end of the day because they are foids who lack critical thinking skills. It won't reduce degeneracy at all, again ,see Latin America.
If religious people make laws the state implements and they VOTE TO DOOM THE STATE on the basis of their religious beliefs then all that means is the state will be doomed into bankruptcy. It's not complicated.
No killing bastard children is very natural otherwise it becomes a liability for the foid's local community to raise the bastard instead of the man paying for it, which was why when your village was sieged by a foreign army and women in the village were raped in the aftermath the men of the local community had an anti-cuck attitude unlike you with your pro-cuck attitude and told the foids to kill their bastards. Traditionally women had no rights and when women were married off they became a liability of the tribe of the man they married into, if a man didn't marry the woman and just fooled around with her the local community of the woman wanted nothing to do with paying for her bastard.
Again you are being naive and bluepilled, Conservatives will die on the hill of their religious beliefs. If that means a society collapses then it will just collapse which will again also end the ability to enforce abortion bans, which tells you that your ideology is not sustainable.
M
@CrackingYs @based_meme If you put Conservatives in charge of the state they will just implement their pro-bastard/pro-fornication religion as the state religion. Conservatives won't adjust their ideology because it's a religion, they will just pray even harder next time, or the Left will just rise again and undercut Conservatives anyway. Conservatives believe in the power of prayer not reality - Conservatism has always been about praying to God for salvation through him by obeying his word whatever they believe his word to be no matter the cost.
Did Christianity collapse during the Dark Ages? No, it was actually the opposite, Christianity grew during the Dark Ages. Like I said since you don't have a framework to address reality the system will either just collapse and Conservatives will keep praying for hope after the collapse even if their anti-abortion enforcement mechanism collapses or the Left will simply take power.
Did Christianity collapse during the Dark Ages? No, it was actually the opposite, Christianity grew during the Dark Ages. Like I said since you don't have a framework to address reality the system will either just collapse and Conservatives will keep praying for hope after the collapse even if their anti-abortion enforcement mechanism collapses or the Left will simply take power.
B
So?
You keep saying this and I keep telling you that you're wrong. You are either trolling, like @CrackingYs said, or you're stupid. Supporting anti-abortion != supporting US political Conservatives and their ideology.
Stop fucking lumping the two together. JFL
Then, like everything else, there will be other laws that will be enacted if it reaches a point where it starts noticeably effecting the state negatively, this time to control sexual behavior.
And I'm supposed to care about this, why exactly?
Your idea of what's natural and my idea of what's natural are not the same.
What ideology, motherfucker? I'm apolitical. Holy fuck, you're just literally incapable of separating the issue of anti-abortion from US Conservatism.
I'll say it one last time, I don't give a shit about political Conservatives or their religion.
D
I'd rather not have some low IQ slutty bitch bring an unwanted kid into this world.
M
So?
You keep saying this and I keep telling you that you're wrong. You are either trolling, like @CrackingYs said, or you're stupid. Supporting anti-abortion != supporting US political Conservatives and their ideology.
Stop fucking lumping the two together. JFL
Then, like everything else, there will be other laws that will be enacted if it reaches a point where it starts noticeably effecting the state negatively, this time to control sexual behavior.
And I'm supposed to care about this, why exactly?
Your idea of what's natural and my idea of what's natural are not the same.
What ideology, motherfucker? I'm apolitical. Holy fuck, you're just literally incapable of separating the issue of anti-abortion from US Conservatism.
I'll say it one last time, I don't give a shit about political Conservatives or their religion.
Those new laws won't ever be enacted as Conservatives have a blindspot and they would rather just continually see the bankruptcy of society before changing their ideology. If the dominant ideology changes in any way it will be to the benefit of Liberalism again. You don't have any realistic solution, you don't even offer an ideology you're literally just saying 8d chess will magically convince everyone to come out against fornication. That's not how it works. If in bankruptcy the anti-abortion enforcement mechanism can't persist then that would result in abortion being de facto decriminalized again.
What's natural is what happens in nature not what happens in the sense of your arbitrary morality. Again, as I said for thousands of years, whenever a village was sieged/pillaged by an invading force and the women were raped the default mode of conduct was to kill the bastard born of the rape, not promote them and give them social/economic support.
How does an abortion prevent a foid from bringing an unwanted child into the world in the future?
M
By killing them obviously. You seem to be misplaced in your belief that foids won't be able to pick and choose which of Chads' bastards they want to keep without abortion. No, they will still pick and choose - they will just dump the ones they don't want over to the state orphanage causing more unwanted children.
Abortion just kills the baby thats currently in the womb. It doesn't prevent pregnancy in the future. Most females who abort their baby DO end up having another baby. Abortion doesnt reduce the total number of babies born. It gives foids the RIGHT to kill babies and be promiscuous. Giving foids rights is always a bad idea. If a foids wants a right to do something it always boils down to her wanting to use that right to gain more access to Chad or for betabux money, every fucking time. There's no scenario where allowing foids to be whores with rights will help stop inceldom. The only solution is to revoke all their rights and take away their bodily autonomy.
M
Yes and in history, Fathers/Brothers would not let their Women have random children by strangers, they would have those Women kill those bastards as they refused to pay for them and welfare didn't exist.
@based_meme The Anti-Abortion movement is quasi-religious in nature and not natural. In Rome it was legally mandatory to kill handicapped children.
Similar threads
Discussion
The main reason male sexlessness has risen to 63% in the US is because of the overturn of Roe v Wade
- Grim_Reaper
- Inceldom Discussion
Electus
Users who are viewing this thread
