Avatar
JT
16822ed1ef483ef6ec1369d5297e1a835d9a1c92fbcf3cee58ccbe1d26995947
Tax Cattle card-carrying club member. I will speak in riddles now and again. Will happily send some zaps here and there for interesting content. Fucking Banger-Ass Content gets massive zaps. Show me the unique. I don't need your zaps, thanks. Maybe later. I love The Internet.

That's 100% not what the phrase means.

He cowered into a bunker over something he caused. 😂

You believe in Trump.

That's enough of an exercise for most people.

You should totally work that muscle then, it's flabby today.

You'll be shot first. Is that what you want?

Your troll game is very weak.

Try again.

I'll only ever dock with the best man at my wedding, and vice versa. You aren't cute enough. 😘

Yeah, thought so.

Continue to hold your dick in your hand. 🖕

I comprehend just fine, friendo.

Do I needs to explain weekend-warrior's 20/20 hindsight to you, again?

Positive you're running around flopping your dick out about this too, which again, you shouldn't ever be doing. You do not get to have input on what a woman does with her body, ever. Legislators should not have such power, ever.

Replying to Avatar Brunswick

You are wrong about men having no say. We have no say about women's bodies in regard to their health decisions, and women have no say about whether we should go to war to defend their bodies. Men's purpose is to protect the innocent, and there are events where the innocense of the mother transitions to less than the innocense of the infant. Where life begins, and when an emerging human life's rights are recognised are central to this discussion, and it takes both men and women to decide together where that is. The Bible is NOT clear on this, contrary to many so-called christian zealots. One interepretation of the bible is that life begins with the baby's first breath because that is when you recieve the spirit of God. I'm sure you would love that interepretation of what you call an ancient text from a bygone era, but your opinion has no credibility when you reject aeons of mankind's strugle to distill the truth. The nature of man has not changed over the past 200 years, and science has only revealed the necessity moreso than from times of ignorance that we must resolve the conflict between our definitions of murder and human life.

On another note, and to reiterate my criticism; the more common instances of doctors and hospitals claiming they can not perform abortions under any condition whatsoever because of "archaic laws from the 1800s" are intentionally misrepresenting the facts. This in conjunction with attorney generals, most totally corrupt, systemically strike fear in health providers by introducing uncertainty where there should be none. In the case of Wisconsin, the 1800s law was clearly reformed under Governor walker and Wisconsin's highly qualified legislature to account for life threatening and medically necessary produres to preserve the life of the mother over the child. This law, though codified for more than a decade in preparation for an overturning of RvW, is systematically ignored. Rather than doctors with this knowledge standing on this firm legal ground, and rebutting the media and murderous socialist feminist power in government, they cower and leave women to die.

Thankfully, it's not up to you, nor this entire spat of drivel you've managed to eek out.