Women Are Not Capable Of Objectively Arguing Their Support For Abortion

It has been sometimes said that men should not have a say concerning the issue of abortion given that they are not directly affected by it. Indeed, since men cannot suffer the direct consequences of pregnancy, many feminists have claimed that men should thus keep their mouths shut about the whole abortion issue. And you just have to Google this general theme to find several articles from feminists which argue for this point-of-view.

However, in opposition to this idea, what I wish to argue is that far from men needing to be silent about assessing the morality and legality of abortion, it is, in fact, women who should butt out of the abortion debate. And while such an idea, given the times that we live in, might seem radical, there is actually a very good reason for it.

Does this chick look like she could give you a coherent argument for abortion? I don’t think so.

So, to understand why women should stay out of the debate about the moral and/or legal permissibility of abortion, consider the issue of jury selection during a criminal or civil trial. First, note the fact that a jury’s goal and purpose is to seek the truth and follow the evidence presented to it in the most objective manner possible. Now, with this in mind, imagine that we have a criminal trial where a male defendant has been accused of raping a woman.

In such a situation—and given that, as mentioned, the goal of a jury is to seek the truth as objectively as possible—we all understand that it would be unsound and unjust to allow a woman on the jury for that trial if the woman in question had also previously been raped by a man in the same way that is alleged to have happened in the trial presently under consideration. And why do we all know that this would be a bad and irrational idea? Because the potential female juror who had been previously raped, due to her past history, would obviously not be as objective and impartial as would be required to properly serve on such a jury.

Indeed, we all understand that the woman’s emotional and psychological proximity to the type of trial under consideration would cloud her objectivity and render her a partial, rather than an impartial jury member. Furthermore, we all understand why such a woman would not be as objective as was needed for jury duty: namely, because an emotionally and psychologically clouded mind is a mind that is more susceptible to motivated reasoning and cognitive biases. And so that is why such a woman could not be trusted to fairly assess such a rape case.

But even more examples can be given. For instance, we all also understand that a jury member would not be allowed to be a family member of an accused individual given that no one would expect or could sufficiently guarantee that a family member would be objective in their assessment of the evidence against their relative. In fact, even the trial judge would have to recuse himself if he had a conflict of interest with the case under consideration due to the potential biases and motivated reasoning that trying such a case might raise.

And so we can see, via all these examples, how a person’s emotional and psychological proximity to a certain situation actually renders them less objective about the arguments that they are considering; furthermore, such close proximity actually gives us a solid reason to be more leery of such a person’s assessment concerning a certain issue rather than being more trusting of their assessment.

Note as well that social science also supports the above illustrations. For example, in his book The Righteous Mind, and specifically in his chapter “Vote for Me (Here’s Why)”, popular social psychologist Johnathan Haidt notes that when self-interest and/or reputational concerns are in play, people are very good at finding evidence which supports a position that they already hold, most likely for intuitive reasons. What this means is that when self-interest is involved, as well as when discussing emotionally charged topics, people are very good at confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.

Now, with the above points in mind, the connection with the abortion issue should be clear. In the debate over abortion, we are seeking to objectively and fairly assess the status of the unborn human being, both in a moral and a legal sense. We are also seeking to assess, as objectively as possible, whether abortion is murder, thus establishing whether it is permissible or not. We are even assessing whether abortion is a social good or not. So these are damn serious issues—just as serious as weighing the evidence during a murder trial.

Consequently, we should all wish that the individuals assessing these topics concerning abortion be as objective as possible. But, in all these debates, a woman is like a compromised juror who would be rejected as a jury member precisely because she could not be counted on to be as objective as possible about the evidence under consideration; indeed, for it is the woman’s very emotional, psychological, and self-interested proximity to these abortion issues which makes her assessment of them less trustworthy rather than more trustworthy. And this is because there would be a very good chance that a woman would be suffering from serious cognitive biases in her assessment of the evidence concerning abortion and the status of the unborn.

After all, women themselves admit that they are the ones who are directly influenced by the emotional, psychological, and physical effects of pregnancy and abortion. And so, whether knowingly or not, they themselves are the ones who are tacitly acknowledging that they would have an increased susceptibility to cognitive bias and motivated reasoning concerning the topic of abortion.

By contrast to women, men are not directly affected by the issue of abortion. Men are also less emotionally, psychologically, and personally invested in it, as many women themselves admit; after all, that is often why women argue that men should have no say about abortion to begin with. But because of all this, a very strong case can be made that men are actually more objective evidence assessors concerning the issue of abortion and its potential immorality than women are. Indeed, men, given their ability to remain more detached about the issue of abortion, can actually be more trusted to give an impartial assessment of the evidence concerning the humanity of the unborn. And thus men can give a fairer assessment of whether abortion is murder or not.

Exactly…which means that men are less biased and less prone to motivated reasoning about the abortion issue.

And so, the long and short of it is this:  although men are sometimes told that their views about abortion should not count because they are not directly affected by pregnancy and abortion, it is actually a woman’s very emotional and psychological proximity to the issue of abortion which makes her cognitive-bias-prone opinion about abortion less objective and less trustworthy than that of a man. And so, if anyone should be ignored concerning the matter of abortion, it is women. But if women should be listened to about the abortion issue—and, in the end, they actually should be—then no one should dare say that the abortion arguments from men should not be listened to as well.

Read More:  Are Women Careless With Contraception Because They Love The Attention From Getting An Abortion?

429 thoughts on “Women Are Not Capable Of Objectively Arguing Their Support For Abortion”

  1. I could see myself being totally pro-abortion in the future. For example, if we one day developed the technology to determine that a fetus might eventually grow up to be a leftist or a feminist…well…bust out the coat hangers and have at it.

    1. Beat me to it! Top quality shit post right there. I’ve always felt that children should be allowed to be aborted up until the age of 18 years. For example if they come out missing limbs, or with terminal diseases. Or if they are discovered to have brutal tendencies like arsonist, serial killer, or serial rapist. Or worse, a Democrat.

      1. I think there’s a lot of this type of thinking going around – refreshing.

      2. You say that, but if this technology was available and the practice was in place now, the powers that be would be aborting us

    2. Eugenics, my friend, eugenics.
      There is nothing wrong about abortion when there are history of mental illness, chronic hereditary diseases (both mental and psychical), criminal tendencies, etc, etc.
      Also, there are nothing wrong with unlimited free abortion in certain regions like Africa, most of central and south America, India, China, etc.
      We need to cull the herd.

        1. Technically speaking, what we know as Socialism is just a soft version of Marxism, and Marx was a Jew, like most of the people today bringing us decadence and perversion.
          I didn’t mention that people because this is not the place, but in my personal opinion they don’t need free abortion, they just need to be removed from the picture, once and for all.

        2. Sure Marx is well known for Socialism. Not sure that Marxism is any “harder” than Socialism in general but Socialism is not a uniquely Jewish philosophy. Stalin was not a Jew, for example.

        3. It means that there is a really disproportionate number of jews involved in Communism. Yes, not all Jews are communists but the % is amazing taking into account that jews are less that 1% of the world population.
          For example, in my country, where there is no more than 4.000 jews (less than 1% of the population) we have jewish communist as well. Coincidence?

        4. That’s an extremely shitty analysis. Prove that a large percentage of all jews is communist, not that they are overrepresented in leadership. A large percentage of jews being communist in countries where they are wealthy may justify deportation or seggregation (certainly not if they were poor – and most jews were poor af in eastern europe back then, so really, they can’t be blamed for that). The only thing jewish leadership in harmful movements justify is incarceration for those leaders.

        5. We all know (((who))) you are, how’s the weather there in Tel Aviv??
          Incidentally, how many holocaust survivors you have in your family?

        6. Thanks for proving my point. After using logic against your analysis all you have left is ((())). I’m not in Israel – what interest would an Israeli have in debunking your idiocy?

        7. Yeah but there’s also a disproportionate number of Jews in banking (my industry). I would think that banking and socialism are diametrically opposed, wouldn’t you agree?

        8. Yes and no. Who financed the Bolchevist Revolution? jewish bankers. You can check it out even in Wikipedia.
          Organized Jewry works in a number of fronts, some of them in apparent opposition to the other. The point is not the fronts in which they are working, but the goal they want to reach.

        9. Non-whites cannot understand it. jahoos are the cancer of the human world, along with any of their ideologies and schemes.
          One of stalin’s wife was jewish, therefore he is at least a crypto-jew.

        10. Also a disproportionate amount of Jews were fascists as well. Does that mean fascism is Jewish?

        11. There are rumors about Stalin being a Jew, but no definite evidence; even if he wasn’t he had, as you correctly said, a Jewish handler. That’s a very common practice that even has a name: Hadassah.

        12. I think the term “socialism” has become a confusing term.
          Socialism in Iceland for instance seems to work out pretty well. They have ample resources, a small manageable population, controlled borders (easy when you’re a Scandinavian island), and a homogenous people.
          All that the citizens contribute to the state gets spent towards the benefit of people of the same race and culture. Icelanders are effectively National Socialists, even though they’d never admit it.
          The “socialism” that we are seeing, is multi-culti open-borders cultural Marxism that has no connection whatsoever to the traditional conception of the state.

        13. I would not say that Icelanders are NS’s, or at least they are not in the real sense of the term. Real NS has two fundamental pillars: 1) the race question and 2) common interest before particular interest. The first implies the importance of the biological race, the importance of its purity, the JQ, etc. The second implies basically social well being for all the race (health care, nurseries, etc) mixed with a sort moderate capitalism at the service of the race, not at the service of particular interests.
          What they have in Iceland is basically a form of socialism which is racial not because they want it to be, but because there are not yet other races there; the moment they start to bring non whites en masse (they already accepted 5000 Somalis or something like that) it will happens the same that happened to Sweden.

        14. Exactly right.
          They don’t realize how precious is their little home away from the rest of the world, which is getting more tense and fucked up every single day.

        15. No, it means Jews do whatever they need to be in a position of power.

        16. In his Book “Stalin: Court of the Red Star”, Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.

        17. I’ve stated on numerous other articles that socialism can only work if the tribe or society consists of people who share common ancestry and whose society has not been infected with outside influences. Never thought about Iceland but good example. I always had native Indians in mind for my theory. When it comes to either a society of mixed culture and race with one man levying his ideology on the masses in a one size fits all approach, only disaster and death can follow.
          Glad I’m not the only one who sees it like that.

        18. Lots of people finance lots of things. I’m sure that some Jews favoured Socialism and some don’t, just like some non-Jews favour Socialism and some don’t. What about the non-Jewish financiers of Socialism in Germany during the 30s? I think you’re falling short of proving some kind of unified Jewish conspiracy to convert the world to a Socialist hell. Who’s behind the EU for example? Bunch of dodgy Christians.

        19. I didn’t say it was only Jews or talked about an exclusive Jewish conspiracy to turn the world into a Socialist hell. In fact, Socialism/Communism as form of government is dead.
          My point is: the Elites (which are mostly but not exclusively Jewish) have an specific agenda and work towards an specific end using whatever means necessary. If the mean is Socialist/Communism they support and finance it, if the mean is capitalism the same.
          Of course there are some non Jews here and there, but take this into account: 1) always the key elements are Jews, and 2) The % of Jews involved in Finance, Cultural Marxism, Communism, decadence, etc, etc, is really high having in mind that the Jews are less than 1% of the total global population. As you are in banking, take for example the FED. Of the 15 Chairman since its foundation at least 5 are Jews: Yellen, Bernanke, Greenspan, Burns, and Meyer. Another example? Who are the heads of Investment Banks like Goldmann Sachs?

        20. I know that you didn’t say that but it is implicit in what you are saying. I agree that Jews are over-represented in banking but this doesn’t mean that they have a unified agenda. Black people are over-represented in certain sports but nobody thinks that there is an agenda there.
          I agree that there is an elite agenda but the current strength of Jews is incidental in my view. They were persona non grata in Europe for centuries and I don’t think that they are the key movers in the creation of the Socialist EU Superstate, which fortunately seems to be falling apart, nor were they key is creating the US Dictatorship that has weakened just slightly with the triumph of Trump.
          One thing I could say about bankers, Jewish or not, is that they are all involved in financing unethical bankers and transferring wealth from you to the State. This is not a Jewish thing but an Elite thing.

        21. Iceland is an irrelevant place, full of conformist people by the way who have never contributed anything to the prosperity of the West if we are gonna look it in depth. And socialism seems to work there because they are few and they are not taking it to its logical conclusions, implementation is far from complete.

        22. Sorry but it didn’t even work in East Germany and over 90% of the people there were from the same Ethnic background. Socialism means, if it’s to work, small society and stagnation. Maybe comfortable living at best and that’s it. I’d rather have national libertarianism or outright mercantilism.

        23. There is a saying in spanish: no hay peor ciego que aquel que no quiere ver (There is no worse blind than he who does not want to see).

        24. I hate to break it to you but that phrase won’t get you laid in Spain. ;P

        25. I figured as much. Just kidding of course! 😉
          I think its easier to get laid in Spain when you don’t speak good Spanish. The chicas think that you’re exotic!
          Good chatting with you hermano.

        1. Of course it is good. How the biological betterment of a race, how increasing a race’s IQ, and how culling the bad lines is bad?

        2. Because it’s bunk pseudo-science that’s been used to justify atrocities? Remember that the Holocaust was eugenics taken to the logical extreme.

        3. lol
          You are new here, don’t you? FYI I’m the local Nationalsocialist here. That being said, I don’t give a flying fuck about the (fake) Holocaust.
          Are you friends with SeaJoe? there is some kind of Israeli convention in this comments section or what?

        4. I’m against socialism whether it be the Nazi or Communist brand. Sorry.

        5. From your page: The idea of a modern project of improving the human population through a statistical understanding of heredity used to encourage good breeding was originally developed by Francis Galton and, initially, was closely linked to Darwinism and his theory of natural selection.[15] Galton had read his half-cousin Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which sought to explain the development of plant and animal species, and desired to apply it to humans.
          His picture is even to the right of “Origin and Development.”

        6. I know that, but the Nazis took it and ran with it basically.

        7. The California branch of the American Eugenics Society were still forcibly sterilizing the ‘unfit’ in the 1970s.

        1. Hey, that’s my idea. If you want an abortion, you are free to have it but you should submit to sterilization as well.

  2. Every crazy feminist mother is enough reason to be pro-abortion. Just like last week, the woman who called her 2 years old son a transgender, because she “feels it”.

    1. The unwed mother problem won’t be mitigated until we stop paying for bastards.

      1. Totally! Remove all mothers allowance and bingo we’d have almost no single mothers.
        They’d have to rely on their pussies to get what they need from men only, not the state..

    2. Think there was an article on here a long time ago talking about how single mothers were the “ultimate consumer.” It definitely fits.

    3. I would argue the opposite. Abortion on demand is a free ticket to sluttiness in their mind. Then, women change their mind when they realize that it is a living human being in them, so they back out. How many single mothers was there prior to the 1960’s legalization of abortion, compared to today?

      1. I agree with you. Both are also a consequence of the same strain of feminist philosophy. The no-questions-asked abortion on demand, and a woman doesn’t need a man / can do anything a man can do.

        1. I normally kid around on these articles, but abortion is one that I am dead serious against. Not only is it killing, it is creating a generation of mentally ill women due to the fact that they are killing.

    4. We can reduce single motherhood by encouraging adoption. We should incentivize these women by offering them money if they put their baby up for adoption. This is much cheaper than allowing the single mother to raise the child herself which costs money to the taxpayer. Very few single mothers actually are independent of government assistance.

  3. Any woman who gets an abortion is fundamentally damaged. She has subverted one of her most essential biological directives. Biologically, it is only one step removed from suicide. A woman who has the mental/emotional capacity to override one of her most fundamental biological urges like this is seriously screwed up. If she can justify killing her own child in her womb, she can justify literally anything.

    1. Exactly. It is right to question how good of a mother she would be if she thinks that murdering her own child is an acceptable choice.

      1. The morality of abortion is a whole different issue. My comment was purely about the psychological state a women has to capable of to destroy the life in her own womb, when reproduction is one of our essential, most basic biological drives down to a cellular level.

        1. Devil’s advocate here… Would it be rational for her to want to destroy a rapist’s offspring?

        2. Talking about it purely from a biological drive point of view: no.

        3. If she has a heart, she will not be able to bring herself to abort it.

        4. That’s more or less what I was getting at. It is rational but not ethical. It’s a tough situation to think about.

        5. Technically, the only reason a woman should need an abortion is if her life is in danger.

        6. A way of putting the numbers in perspective.
          The year my middle child was born, in the US there was one abortion for every three live births. The vast majority of abortions are done for the convenience of the mother, kill her child because they’re inconvenient. Life’s pretty cheap ….

        7. Not particularly.
          By any standard, the child is an innocent party in the whole mess, and in the West, we do not punish children for their parents’ crimes
          So killing the kid is punishing it for its father’s crime, and killing a person that has done no wrong is irrational.

        8. How many women are raped these days?
          (as opposed to those who changed their mind when it was too late). Raped as in, forcibly abducted by a stranger on the street, then beaten until they submitted.
          If she was raped, how come she hasn’t been beaten half to death?

        9. That is Catholic Dogma at it’s finest. As you go deeper down the rabbit hole you realize no abortion is acceptable because the child is always innocent. Even if the mother’s life is in danger it’s better for her to risk death than to murder her child.

        10. It’s always better for the mother to risk death.
          A woman who can’t give birth is worthless.
          The child is always more important than the mother.

        11. Thank you. Ever work around female inmates? I do. Certainly most of these degenerates should be forcibly sterilized. The crack/opiate addicted pregnant ones are pathetic. Breeding the next generation of inmates.

        12. Wrong! What if the woman has children already, these children count on and need a mom to be there. Risking death for what? A blob of cells? Get real. The level of maternity care for high risk pregnancy is some of the best in the world. How often do you really hear of a woman dying because of childbirth in a first world country? Melodrama nonsense.

        13. That’s unfortunate isn’t it? I realize you were raped but you are not “beat half to death” so therefore I doubt you were raped. You are a moron.

        14. Maybe yes, and maybe no.
          I have read part of a statement by Tertullian, who posited that if the child got stuck and would kill the mother if not removed, it would be a regrettable necessity to kill the child, because saving the child and letting the mother die would make the child guilty of matricide, which (in that era at least) would curse the kid for the rest of its life. Edited to add: and which was (apparently) a capital offense by Roman law, anyway.
          So we can be grateful that we live in an era of such advanced medical technology and surgical skill that such a choice is no longer necessary.

        15. ‘Risking death for what’ ………… ‘How often do you hear of a woman dying’ ……
          Seems you want to play both sides here.

        16. A blob of cells?
          You started out okay, but fell well below expectations there at the end.

        17. I know a couple, with all the best intentions, adopt a few crack babies and their lives were turned into a living hell.
          “Breeding the next generation of inmates.”
          And thats exactly where they will end up.

        18. Yeah. These children are damaged in utero and are usually born premature and addicted along with multiple medical problems.

        19. Wrong! Depending how many weeks/months the woman is along, it truly looks like a blob. Been there seen that. Worked as a nurse in the ER and when a women comes in with a miscarriage that exactly what it is. Dead mother, dead baby. Have a nice day!!

        20. The process of a mother’s life should never be interrupted especially when she has children who rely on her, a husband who loves her, a family who needs her. Melodrama crap as I said from the beginning.
          Miscarriage is nature’s way of moving on. Allowing a woman to bleed to death because of a clot is barbaric. We do not live in a third world country.

        21. My $0.02: Babies conceived through rape/incest might be so few and far between as to be statistically irrelevant to the conversation, but not so babies with genetic defects which will result in the baby dying shortly after birth and suffering immense pain for the duration of their short life. At the other end of life, I don’t believe in extending life at all costs and would be more willing than many to pull the plug on a relative. Not because I’m cold-hearted, but because I’d be following the ‘Golden Rule’. I’ll confess that the one aspect in which I lack masculinity is in my pain threshold; its level is best described as ‘coward’ or ‘wuss’. If I were ever facing a life filled with pain, I’d want to be put out of my misery. A mother whose baby faces a short life full of pain might abort not out of convenience but out of a loving desire to save her baby from the pain it will otherwise be destined to suffer. Having said that, I agree with La’darell Luthor: unless the genetic disorder in question was the result of a random fluke mutation (possible, but much less likely than the disorder being inherited from carrier parents), the mother’s future babies are at an unacceptable risk of also suffering from that disorder, thus the mother should be sterilised and encouraged to adopt instead.
          As for Izzal Lirum’s assertion that “The process of life should never be interrupted.” I can think of plenty of scenarios where reasonable people would disagree. Self-defence, Capital punishment of serial murderers, Double-effect of pain relief in patients with terminal illness. If you want to confine the discussion to innocent babies, then how about Re A (conjoined twins)? Would you have left Jodie to die because Mary’s ‘process of life’ must not be interrupted?

        22. Not so much the reason why. It’s because your choices are either both die or one dies, so removing an ectopic pregnancy preserves the most life possible.

        23. So are you doing this for class credit, a bullet on your resume, or for cash?

        24. Tertullian was referring to a child that gets wedged in the birth canal and can’t be removed alive, I believe, But your point on ectopic pregnancies is valid.
          On the other hand, medical researchers have developed an artificial womb that can sustain the life of a fetus until it can breathe on its own.
          They’ve only tested it on lambs so far, but it may be that even an ectopic pregnancy will no longer be a death sentence for mother or child.

        25. Education and Birth Control for young ladies could improve the quality of life for generations.

        26. Don’t twist it. You were just stating that at the begin of the process of human life we look like a blob.
          In the context this clearly means that you think this speaks for abortion as not being murder in atleast some way.
          My answer to this was that to ever disrupt human life is always murder and wrong. It doesn’t matter how that human life looks or at what stage it is.
          You can’t sidestep this by talking about how abortion can save a life as this is a completely different issue.

        27. It is NOT a life if it can not survive outside the womb. Let me make myself abundantly clear. Every time a hood rat or trailer park trash gets an abortion, I hear a cash register ring. Why? because my tax money is NOT going towards feeding another mouth.
          Miscarriage, that is the spontaneous process of expelling an embryo, is nature’s way of basically telling you it’s not going to happen.
          No woman should die because some embryo or fetus which the body is trying to expel is basically making the woman bleed to death.
          I have seen first and second trimester spontaneous miscarriages. While sad, it is just nature’s way.
          Now, move on!!

        28. I don’t ever play both sides. No woman should die because of a bleeding clump of cells insider of her that is no longer viable. Whether it is in embryonic or fetal stage.
          In a first world country dying from childbirth or miscarriage is very rare.

        29. it’s hard to teach irresponsible, female crack heads and whores responsibility.

        30. An early start with a stable, reliable parenting/family environment is a must.

        31. “It is NOT a life if it can not survive outside the womb.”
          “…my tax money is NOT going towards feeding another mouth.”
          Life is worth more than the amount of help it receives or requires. As such it cannot be determined by these things.
          Accidents always happen. However that does not reduce the worth of a human life whatsoever.

        32. There are cases where abortion is necessary (ectopic pregnancies, etc) but they are statistically insignificant. Moreover you don’t distinguish between non-viable pregnancies or viable but risky pregnancies, a sign in itself of intellectual dishonesty…

        33. Ectopic pregnancies are not viable, the very fact that you mention such cases is a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

        34. I addressed the topic of Featherblade’s post. Your lack of reading comprehension does not equate to intellectual dishonesty on my part.

        35. Doesn’t really matter where it gets “wedged in” as the basic dynamics that I describe are present any time a pregnancy sticks outside the womb.

        36. My answer was in response to this:

          Not so much the reason why. It’s because your choices are either
          both die or one dies, so removing an ectopic pregnancy preserves the most life possible.

          It seems you are the one lacking reading comprehension or knowledge. An ectopic pregnancy by its very nature can’t represent a moral dilemma since it’s known from the beginning that such a thing is not viable and abortion is the only option.

        37. Which is exactly what I said. Why exactly are you pissed off?

      1. Abortions make women sterile. I guess you could call it killing two birds with one stone.

    2. I once dated a girl who had had an abortion. She was totally fucked up.

        1. Some feminists will claim it’s guilt induced by a religious upbringing and false morality.
          I tend to agree with Ainigmaris, destroying something that at a fundamental level is part of you destined to carry on your legacy in the world, and that instinctively know you should be nurturing has to have a psychological affect. I think in some ways, it’s similar to guys who walk out on their kids, there’s a guilt there. I know a couple, and they are off in some ways.

        2. I read his as more of being psychologically messed up is a pre-existing condition which led to the abortion, as opposed to the abortion leading to being messed up, as you seem to be suggesting.
          After-the-fact, this may be a distinction without difference. But prior, at least the latter case has a chance of being avoided.

        3. Walked out on their kids, or were driven off my the mother of their kids?
          If you talk to the mother, it was always him walking off.
          If you talk to the kids, it was always him walking off (mom told me).
          If you talk to the man, it becomes restraining orders, stalking complaints, police harassment ……. until he walks off.
          Who can ever really know the truth?

        4. If they’re not married off upon fertility to a stern and stiff dicked patriarch, women are bad to begin with and can then only become badder. Rolling out the eggs, tittie feeding and slurping daddy interim is as good as God intended life to be for his flower of a creation that he commissioned Adam to manage.

        5. My ex moved about 4 miles away. My kids ended up living with me, she visited.
          A lot of women only want the kids as initial leverage in the divorce, then suddenly they want the Dad to have more time. Of course, they phrase it as they’re allowing Dad more time and he’s an asshole if he doesn’t ‘step-up’, but yeah she’s keeping all the child support. More convenient. Trick is to get her to realize that she wants dad to have them more prior to the final signing of the papers. And insisting it reflects Dad having them.
          But, the two guys I was referring to did walk out, they weren’t pushed. One gets drunk and it comes out, talks about what a piece of excrement he is.

        6. I think some women/young girls on the fence get all the feminist garbage pushed at them about how it’s just a bunch of cells, nothing to it etc. If they’re in a tough spot, well they’re human and it can seem like the easy way out at the time. Then they’re left to mull it over for the rest of their lives.

        7. The truth is, men who want to be in their children’s lives make it happen; the bond between parent and child is independent of the bond between lovers.

        8. Separation of fathers from their offspring by family kangaroo courts in the west is enforced ultimately the same way taxes are ultimately collected – at gunpoint.

        9. My recollection is hazy, but IIRC there are chemical/hormonal things that happen after abortion that ravage a woman’s body. It doesn’t happen the same way in a naturally-occurring miscarriage.

        10. My taxes have always come right out of my paycheck…
          The laws are changing defaulting to 50/50 custody, in many states; as it should. A lot has occurred since Kramer vs. Kramer came out in 1979…(you can probably thank those Beta-Pussy-Men(!)Visibly highlighting the increased role of men in their children’s lives, by wearing their infants, in Snugglies, in ever increasing numbers, over the past couple of decades). Something tells me Mr. MCGOO isn’t the type of Dad who is running round town, wearing his baby as an accessory, no matter how much you love them… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e1f423c939ae8e41609d7823d2746d26de794f8fa8db6073685b058d2b442488.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b67370244672835c3cf4e1e5223f60ca43f6e8f861beadea1043118aa67e60a8.jpg
          ” Research shows that children who spend more time with their fathers are more likely to succeed academically and less likely to be delinquent or have substance abuse issues.
          They will also grow up to be healthier mentally and physically, said William Fabricius, an associate professor of developmental psychology at Arizona State University who has been studying fathers and divorce since 2000.
          In a yet to be published 10-year study funded by the National Institutes of Health, he found that children who felt they mattered to their fathers were less likely to later have mental health problems such as depression or anxiety.” http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2016/03/15/more-time-for-dads-states-weigh-changes-to-custody-laws

        11. The whole business of finegling with ‘family laah’ over who gets what and what time is allotted to who gives me a bad taste. I stand back from that and can see the whole network waging a terror campaign on trad culture. Once you see the enemy from afar like that, you don’t go back in their ring.
          Declare personal soverignty from any authority that claims the right to micromanage the family unit. You repulse those around you who covertly want to slow cultivate you into conformity with the family unit being atomized and then micromanaged by the system. When you hold a soverign stance, there’s an element of fear you project too, and two faced traitors never become quasi associates, getting their foot in the door of your company or your home. Sure they know you’re soverign and reject them, but they stand back thinking they’ll see you taken down by a clusterfuck some day – but not now. And that’s the key “NOT NOW”.
          Everything is a dynamic process and soverigns keep as much a spin on the enemy every time they eject one or ten from their company, and the stormfront keeps growing for a return to natural order. “You’re not invited to this party – ‘bounce’” is a powerful wake up call to re-examine one’s alliegiances.
          Just say “No – outta here!” to system advocates, minders and mandated reporting commissars whether they be family associates or roving NGOs.
          The soverign ‘suit’ feels most comfortable upon me. I’ll blast the whole divorce rape/family court/nanny state institution in one sermon and then there is relative peace about my sphere. No system wog wants to deal with a soverign one-on-one. Every so often a bigger storm of shills and wogs will carouse around like a teen gang turning over trash cans, looking for an assembly or patriarchal congregation to upend, but the larger trend in the west is primed to swing towards a tidal wave of patriarchal revival. And the detractors will be washed out, left as beached crusty refuse amongst the seaweed.
          Basically I’m saying that when you hold a soverign stance, you repel the enemy while attracting a core fold of like community. A tribunal by its definition is not out to uphold justice. They invent a problem or infraction or they declare the trad family structure to be a problem that obstructs or hinders their manifesto. A war whoop “HELL NO” slung at them ups the psych game of it all a notch or two and draws clearer dividing lines between the system network and the greater community too.
          I’d never walk into a family courtroom since I have no acknowledgement of it’s legitimacy or authority. The best I’d do is piss at it’s doorstep.

      1. Me too, and yes that girl was a complete fuck-up as well. She also later claimed that she was molested as a child.

        1. Lucky that she didn’t claim you raped her.
          Women that make accusations are dangerous.

        2. The fucked up ones all say that. If she was molested or raped, run.

        3. I married one. Yes I can attest to the stress inducing nightmare I live daily. Red pilled WAAAAYYYYYY too fucking late.

        4. “…men are not directly affected by the issue of abortion. Men are also less emotionally, psychologically, and personally invested in it…Indeed, men, given their ability to remain more detached about the issue of abortion…” -Damian Michael
          What nonsense; the response to this article alone shows how pseudo-invested many men can when it comes to controlling women; and this list of triggered religious nuts who kill medical doctors, in the name of the lord-all men:
          Robert L. Dear Jr.
          Michael F. Griffin
          Paul J. Hill
          Scoot Roeder
          John Salvi
          James Kopp
          Eric Rudolph

        5. Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours & have longer with friends and family! !si284c:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. Follow this link for more information
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs574MarketTrustGetPaid$97/Hour ★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫::::::!si284c:….,……..

        6. There is no connection and this is a false equivalency.
          As women are the most directly affected by abortion they all cannot be objective about it.
          Men on the other hand are not directly affected by it and as such they can be capable of being objective about it.
          However being objective doesn’t mean being inactive and never acting out on an objectively derived conclusion. Those men you named did what they thought would be the objectively good thing to do as abortion is murder.
          A woman however would always be clouded by feelings regarding herself as it directly affects her.

        7. I used to agree with you but have learned the correct natural medical treatment for them and I apply it daily wherever I go. I no longer volunteer the information I just do it. You cannot believe the results.

        8. Read my above quote. This works on all women. They have no defense and don’t even know, as in logically process, what is going on. Fucking amazing.

      2. Abortions fuck with all kinds of hormones. It can take years for a women that has had one to overcome that. Obviously, because abortions are politically protected via PC (like HIV/AIDS) you never hear the real consequences of getting one (or taking a dick in the ass). A woman with a pregnancy is better of taking it full term and then putting that baby up for adoption then they are having an abortion. Abortions are not “free”. They have consequences like everything in life.

        1. The media and medical industry collude to hide the breast cancer link to prior abortions. You sure never hear about it during “Pink Titty Month”.

        2. Guess I hold the sanctity of human life just a little bit of a higher bar then you do.

    3. Nobody can get away with cold blooded murder and not be emotionally damaged. Just look at the picture of the woman with the shaved head. She knows what she’s done.

    4. For me the problem is earlier: in the Western world birth control is cheap, easy and very accaptable and accessible (girls at age 14 can get birth control for “menstrual pains”, for example).
      Getting pregnant today, as an adult, in a situation you “went socializing” or “met someone to sleep with” or “invited someone over” (so, with intent) shows of a very lazy person that hasn’t got anything together in life nor can think further as an hour into the future.
      How can a man invest in such a woman, if she even cannot manage her own body ? Or understand her body enough to plan her sexual activity accordingly ? Or have the cognitive ability to understand horny and no pill = condom. Or “when frequent horny and chasing guys, be prepared there might be semen flying around”. It’s not that difficult. Planning and organizing a job, leadership, household, children, …. is so much more demanding as “not getting pregnant if you don’t want to be”.
      I cannot grasp how such a choatic, lost, being can reproduce in neglectance of themselves and be devoid of any ration thought. To *demand* to be allowed to continue such impulsive irresponsible life and behavior (many years after it’s socially acceptable or tolerated, like teenagers are) all while shouting for being taken serious and heard.
      Such women aren’t functioning adults.

    5. I compare abortion whores suiciding their unborn to men who are spies for some state run by a bitch queen and who would eat a cyanide pill on some stupid mission doing bidding for some bitch ‘kwine’ (queen). They’re all feeding into some flaming scorned bitch from hell’s bloodlust.

    6. Are you saying that women who get abortions are scrapping the bottom of the barrel lol

    7. Education and Birth Control significantly decrease the chances that a young lady will find herself in this sort of dilemma.

    8. Meh, every time a woman takes birth control she is saying “not this child, not this month”. That is overriding her urge as well. Doubt many want to go back to 10-15 kids.

    9. You got that right. The kink of woman that cuts off your dick when you least expect it.
      I did find the book I have been looking for; ‘Women’s Health after Abortion’, The Medical and Psychological Evidence.

  4. I used to flip-flop on this issue. On one hand, it’s a method of population control that’s been around for thousands of years. On the other, it’s disgusting, incentivizes irresponsibility, and delays family formation (especially black families).
    What changed my mind was learning that -three- of my would-be siblings were aborted. Three! I can’t even fathom the carelessness of three accidental children. I am an only child, essentially the last of my family. The next youngest distant relative is 25 years my senior. I do not want children, but now I find myself with the existential crisis of becoming utterly alone and old, or risking it all to shack up with some horrible female and shitting out little white air raid sirens. I wish to God I had those siblings now.

    1. That’s the thing… I can’t say that I could ever justify abortion but if someone simply doesn’t want children then there are many ways to effectively prevent that from happening. Having multiple abortions illustrates even higher levels of magnitude of irresponsibility.

      1. Yeah, one I would at least listen to an explanation but three is bad no matter how you slice it.

    2. Not as much “delaying black family formation” as much as “completely destroying it”. American blacks have an absolute skill for breeding like fucking rats and having low-quality spawn.

    3. Would you have minded if they were birth controlled? Do you wish to god you had those siblings that are not here because your mother had a headache and said “not tonight”? Lots of ways of not being here besides abortion.

  5. Every feminist issue is about eliminating responsibility for women’s actions, nothing more. There is nothing logical or objective about it. Abortion is such a complex issue and women who say “my body, my choice” tell the whole world that they don’t grasp the depth of this issue.
    How late can abortions happen? How will they he administered? How much will it cost? Who pays for it? Who has the power to make the final decision? Can Christian doctors refuse to do them? Should taxpayer money be used? So many questions and you won’t here any of these SJWs address any of them. It proves the fact that men have to make all the really difficult choices on this planet.

    1. The SJWs won’t answer those questions *publicly* but privately we all know the answers: As late as a woman wants. In the quickest and most convenient (for the mother) way. The government, with tax dollars. The mother and only the mother. No. Yes, exclusively.

      1. Heck you now have some of these sick fucks advocating for murdering inconvenient children even after they are born.

        1. Right? Killing a 7 month old baby is really no different than pushing your 4 year old out the car while its moving.

        2. Ahoy maties! I know SEVERAL children in their 20’s and 30’s that I find inconvenient and worth murdering.

        3. Possibly, but I can’t tell either way. My gut said genuine argument. (Could easily be wrong)
          More proof sarcasm is difficult / impossible to read on the internet?

      2. The fact that they want someone else to pay for their sociopathic desires sickens me even more.

    2. If it’s my body and my choice, I should be made to pay for my choice with no contributions from anyone else (unless voluntary contributions).
      I could never get my head round it being my choice, but someone else had to pay.

  6. There’s one good thing about Planned Parenthood; It’s a good place to be if you get locked out of your car.

    1. Consider this:
      If the woman on the left is pro-life and against abortion and birth control, if you get involved with her there is significantly more risk of a pregnancy and hence having to deal with her for at least 18 years. And you do need to consider her as a human being, her qualities, see her as the potential mother to your child.
      If the woman on the right is pro-choice, and willing to abort then it’s just a question of whether you want to hit it or not.
      In reality though, the choice is hers and you can still get stuck. But she presents the illusion of women as just sex objects.

      1. Aaarrrggghh! A little too erudite for me. I likes it simple. Woman for cooking, cleaning, stitching my wounds and a fun fuck doll. Everything else be mans domain.

      2. That, and because the pro-life girl (typically on the right) will be looked at more for her qualities, she will be forced to improve those qualities to get any favorable attention. The pro-death girl (typically on the left) will have nothing expected of her, other than to have a warm hole and to be reasonably attractive.

  7. Always struck me as ironic, hearing some feminist denouncing the objectification of women and seeing them as sex objects and then defending abortion.
    Seems like that’s the whole purpose behind abortion, reduce them to being just sex objects.

  8. Abortion is a woman’s right to slut it up and ride the carousel. You take away that, and you will see a return to a more traditional culture.

    1. This is the core of it. The fight for reproductive rights is a fight for sex without consequences. The idea being men enjoy this freedom, so woman should as well. Equality! In my experience the more a woman subscribes to feminist belief the more she considers pregnancy and child rearing an unjust burden and obstacle to her freedom. These woman avoid motherhood for some of the same reasons young single men do. A healthy woman might consider childbearing a gift and great responsibility given to them.
      I am surprised to see RoK posters, most of whom don’t seem interested in marriage or fatherhood, criticise abortion – if not in theory then at least in practice.

      1. The reason most are not interested in family is the risk is too high. It is not worth it to them to expose themselves to the high likelihood of divorce rape. I went around that by going religious. Even so, I have that fear in the back of my head. Abortion, the feminist movement, and divorce law is the cause of women being like they are. The guys you speak of are just opting out.

        1. No doubt. Marriage was a necessary evil for men, maybe? And women just aren’t giving them an incentive to curb their freedom. Now women are finding the risk benefit ratio not in their favor either. I hear a lot of older women counseling young women to stay single.
          I’m scared, too, tbh. Marriage is a risky endeavor, so I can’t fault anyone for avoiding it. It’s still a sad situation to me though.

  9. Its not “their” body..last time I checked, that body belongs to the not to be child. Easy as that.

  10. 3 billion children aborted since the sixties. My own approximation. How many unborn children do we have yet to kill just to prove a point?

      1. Add that most of this children would’ve degenerate teeny parents or worse, single mothers.

      2. Most of the aborted children would be white.
        Would I want 3B more white people on the planet ….. YES.
        (especially if it means 3B less non white people living in western countries)

        1. Well then let’s get rid of welfare, food stamps, public housing, and medicaid and start thinning the non-caucasian herds.

        2. Nah, they’d be American Blacks. And nobody wants more of those.

      3. No. But it would be a great idea if every nation had a quota on how many children they are allowed to have. Not just the white people

    1. 3 billion long scale or short?
      US = 1000000000
      UK = 1000000000000 (long scale)
      Either way you count a billion is still terrible

      1. Why? Just do the maths. Anyway, if my number is wrong, it’s definitely not wrong by too much. Two abortions more or less won’t make any difference.

  11. Something I personally find reprehensible are the “conservative” assholes on talk radio like Sean Hannity who continually berate the Arabs for not allowing their women to drive, go anywhere unchaperoned or vote. These talking heads just love to spew Utopian socialist rhetoric and then hide it in “Americanism,” as if our forefathers thought equal rights for women was a good idea; they would have thought it insane!

    1. Modern flintstones are well behind what colonial America was like in quite a few ways.

      1. While yer head is up yer ass check ifin you got any brains up there…

    2. While I absolutely support less female involvement in the decision processes of 1st world societies (ie: not voting), I think I would probably want a girl to know how to drive, especially if I needed a quick ride to the emergency room.

      1. Sorry but you would just have to bleed out. Sacrifices MUST be made and letting women have ANY power is NOT an option.

      1. Or take him to get his stomached pumped after that 2nd quart of gin — that’s my biggest fear, BTW…

        1. And, really, if that isn’t a woman’s “proper role”, I don’t know what is.

        2. That’s right!
          Driving your drunken, near to death gentlemen caller to the emergency room is the height of feminine virtue!

    3. Finally! Someone who understands we can’t win this cultural war against Islam by preaching how tolerant the west is of self destructive behaviours
      Namely; whoredom, feminism, leftism, homosexuality etc
      I keep saying this: the west was thriving until it started accepting leftist nihilistic propaganda
      I’ll say it again: we need to return to biblical values if we seriously want any chance of saving the west

      1. Christianity is anathema to a nation of narcissistic, anti-Christ atheists.
        Personally I find the spiritual depth of modern Western Man to be no more deep than the puddles on my driveway after a light rain…

  12. It may be a woman’s right to do what she wants with “her” body. But I guarantee that the baby inside her has different DNA from its mother’s and is therefore not her body.

    1. I think both sides are emotional. I am particularly amused at Roosh who led a PUA lifestyle and frowned upon abortion but took the risk that a woman could get accidentally pregnant with his child. Even if men are not directly involved with abortion and are long gone before they are even aware of an issue, this doesn’t excuse them (or us) from collateral responsibility.
      With technologies such as in-vitro, there are often dozens of fertilized eggs created which won’t be used. In nature, many fertilized eggs are never brought to term. That doesn’t make it “right”, of course, but does put into perspective that life at that stage, while deserving respect, isn’t on the same level as a 2nd trimester term unborn baby.
      The Roe V Wade decision was a mix of some good points mixed with bad judgement. The trimester range itself is arbitrary. Why not quarters? Because it’s easy to divide up a pregnancy term of 9 months by three. Nonetheless, it does address a key biological point about the different stages of growth of human life.
      Perhaps the worst thing of all is the idiocracy factor of the welfare state: Afraid to tell women who shouldn’t have children that they should get abortions or, in the least, mandatory contraception for fear of following a slippery slope, it has undermined the cherished notion of paternal responsibility (and respect) for protecting and providing for his young when children become support mechanisms on their own in the welfare state.
      Indeed, try to bring up these points to many people and they’ll get “triggered” (men and women both) with Godwin’s law and religious sentiment brought out. In the end, if there’s a USSR style collapse due to an inability to address this problem, how much worse will the human suffering be then?
      There was an interesting experiment where a researcher asked someone to decide if they would push a child under a bus if that action could somehow save the lives of the people on the bus (presumably because the subject would see that the bus driver to swerve and avoid hitting the child would crash into a train.) The subjects usually couldn’t push the boy even though that was the logical thing to do. It was just easier to do nothing and avoid responsibility.

    2. Another reason why I never got into a one night stand (aside from prostitutes in clean brothels in Europe) was that I believed that the whole point of sex was this emotional connection with the other person beyond just their “body”. The whole dating/PUA game of clown gaming a woman to get laid when you really didn’t think her jokes was funny was highly distasteful to me. It’s like lying to your grandma claiming you need money for church when you want to go buy a video game. I couldn’t handle the guilt.
      With professional prostitutes, it was mind blowing that I didn’t lie to them, could have respectful albeit cold sex, and then AFTERWARDS have an adult man to woman conversation without any emotional baggage hanging over it such as fears of being in the “friend” zone or her using sex as a tool to “shit test” me. It’s more close to what marriage turned out to be than the usual dating customs we have been taught are about romance. After a few years, there is no hold a woman has with sex over her husband. He doesn’t clown game her. Either that works or it doesn’t.

  13. There’s some buzz that apparently technological advances in sex robots will soon make a lot of these type women even more obsolete and cut out some of their value in the blue pilled market. If it keeps even one of them from getting pregnant, it will be worth it.
    Sadly, as someone pointed out in the comment section of such a story, the engineers are working on speech technology for these robots. That’s definitely a move in the wrong direction.
    Watching society change can be like watching your hair grow. Eventually, these wicked pro-choice women will do themselves in because they kill their offspring. That makes it no less horrible but at least it is their children.

    1. Radical feminism is advocating for sex robots, too. They’re also in support of artificial wombs. They have been for quite a while. The Dialectic of Sex, pregnancy as a biological disadvantage, childbirth is “barbaric”…

      1. “Radical feminism is advocating for sex robots…”
        Sex robots for men? Or women?
        The Japanese seem to have some good ones.

        1. Well, not for “everyone”, Miss Shura.
          I think those things start at 5 or 10K!

        2. Lol that’s a very good point. Maybe sex between humans will become a declasse habit of the proles?

        3. Good, fun movie with Sylvester Stallone.
          You basically described part of it.
          The upper class have “virtual sex” and the sewer dwellers do the real thing.

  14. Three of my girlfriends had abortions against my choice. Two are long dead and the third is emotionally dead after sleeping with hundreds of men. There is always blowback.

    1. What does it say about you that you’ve been attracted to and slept with 3 very fucked up women? I can see one, but not three.

      1. Actually I have been attracted to hundreds but only slept with 100 and my wife of many years could not get pregnant. What does it say about men, and women, in general? As I said, there is always blowback.

      2. If you’ve had sex with 3 women ……. you’ve been with 3 fucked up women. AWALT.

  15. Look at the quality of women before Roe V Wade, and the quality of women after. Coincidence?

  16. If a white woman was raped by a knigger, then I think she should definitely have an abortion.

  17. This all assumes men want children with strange women. Men who are unwilling to use condoms themselves, and take the risk to fuck these people. Abortion benefits me i cant believe this is even debatable. Too many religious people who believe in NOTHING have too much say in what people do with their lives. happily funding child molesters, then talking about abortion as immoral and trying to control others behaviors regarding procreation. Its fucking pathetic.

    1. Yeah, it’s all barebacking men. Thanks white knight “God”.
      Next time, do some research.

  18. Eh, it’s pretty simple. Keep your legs closed if you don’t want to deal with the possibility of a child. You don’t get a free pass to murder just because your sexual appetites are inconvenient.

  19. I had an epiphanous moment last year: If any of my girlfriends got pregnant I would have pushed for an abortion. Once I realized that I realized why I was with none of them again. It wasnt the girl, it was me.

  20. I have absolutely no problem with abortion.
    I also think all rights to child support should be waved if the male offers to pay for an abortion prior to whatever “trimester” is legal in that state.
    And even then, chill.d support should be limited to bare minimum living standards, none of this sliding scale based on the male’s income crap.
    Bill Gate’s child support (if he was in that situation) should be not that much different than Tyrone Jackson’s. Just bare minimum. Maybe with the upper limit capped at $400/mo/kid.

    1. It’s frankly a very slippery slope. On the one hand, your argument re: if he would pay for an abortion he shouldn’t have to pay for child support is logical. On the other hand, it’s not as simple as who pays for dinner. Emotions come into play, for both sides, and people don’t always react the way they expected. Agree with you 100% re capping child support though. It should be based on the cost of raising the child, perhaps adjusted for geographic variations in expenses. It’s ridiculous that it’s based on the father’s income. Not only is it unfairly biased, it amounts to the government making value based judgements on what you as a parent should be spending on your kids. What if you happen to be a really rich, really frugal, married dad? As long as your kids basic needs are met, the State doesn’t demand you lavishly spend more.

      1. Yup.
        Gates can refuse to send his kids to college…now.
        But if divorced…look out!
        BTW, I don’t give one damn about Gates of course. Just using him as an example.

        1. I saw it personally growing up. My parents were married but refused to pay for our educations… which while I hated it at the time I do think teaches children responsibility. My friends with divorced parents all had daddy paying for all or a part of their educations. Court enforced and written right into the settlement. Also, my dad made really good money but also worked a lot of high end contract work. When money was good we vacayed in cool places. In between contracts…. we went camping. When you’re a divorced dad…. it doesn’t matter your own financial ups and downs… the monthly bill is never adjusted. No nuclear family gets to live like this.

        2. My parents were married and never paid for our educations, they believed it taught responsibility and while I hated it at the time, I’m inclined to agree with them. Moreover my dad made very good money but typically worked in high end, professional, contract work. Our nuclear family had to make adjustments based on his income, which could vary quite substantially. If you’re a divorced dad, you don’t get that luxury. You will pay for those ski lessons/school trips to Europe etc… irrespective of your own financial situation at the time. If you can’t afford it you need a court to remove the obligation. Frankly, what married father has to justify cutting costs when necessary?

        3. Me too. Also, what if your kid is being a shit head and you want to cut off the funding to teach him/her a lesson? These agreements neuter a father’s ability to parent as he sees fit…and the little shits know it.

        4. Oh yeah. These kids know it now, and will play the system. Same goes for spanking too.

        5. Kids of divorce have been playing both ends against the middle for decades. And I agree with you re spankng: parents should be source of nurturing, but also slightly feared. Remember when your parents gave you the “look”? They all had their own variation of it but if you didn’t take heed you knew what was coming next….I wasn’t spanked often… just enough to understood the look lol!

        6. I got hit by both.
          My mother (aka the wicked witch of Westchester) used to swing at me all the time.
          With wooden spoons, her shoes, and even a big serving fork. After about 8 or 9 I would usually just block her and laugh in her face. She hated that. Would scream at me “how dare you raise your hands at me”! Like I was some retard and would let her simply wail on me.
          My father was another story. Didn’t happen too often, but when really mad, the belt would come out. No laughing at that. Was a good lesson, in the long run. I can always tell the difference between someone who was hit as a kid and someone who wasn’t. The ones who weren’t come off as privileged little sh*ts.

        7. Remember when your parents gave you the “look”?
          I think that qualifies as a microaggression today and your kids would be taken away and you’d have to attend some sort of class.

        8. Sorry bout your mom… that’s a bit extreme but I take your point. I’ve travelled quite a bit through Europe and their whole attitude, in Italy and France in particular, towards children is different. It takes a village. For example, if your kid is acting up in a public place I won’t judge your parenting skills, I’ll assume you don’t have eyes in the back of your head and admonish (within reason) the kid myself. Conversely though, if you turn around and see me admonishing your kid, assuming I sound reasonable, you’ll assume I’m right and carry on with your day. Kids are far more visible in public adult spaces, and generally better behaved.

        9. Absolutely!
          Back in the 70s, the neighbors would scream at kids if they were acting up. And no calling adults by their first name! That makes me sick even today. I went to Catholic school. Got hit by nuns and lay teachers. Not in high school though, Only the kids who came in from public school got hit there. Us K-8 kids knew better than to act up in class.
          BTW, not meaning to imply I was a “physically abused kid”. My mother was and still is a piece of crap. But I was always way too fast for her.
          She’s evil though. Back then and still now. Her psychological bullying was the real issue.

    2. He should have the she right of choice on whether to become a parent or not. Abortion offers women a choice, men have no choice and are forced against their will. Men should be able to say “I’m not ready to be a parent” and then not be forced to pay for a child She alone decided to have

  21. If a woman gets pregnant and wants the kid, and the male who got her pregnant does not want a kid, he does not get a say in the matter. All he gets is 18+ years of child support. If he does want the kid, and the woman does not, once again he gets no say, and the child, who has half of his DNA is killed.
    The idea that a man is not directly affected by pregnancy is bullshit. In the case of pregnancy, it’s the male who ALWAYS gets fucked.

  22. It actually makes sense for uglier women to be more afraid of rape and more pro abortion. They have all the bottom tier males even below them wanting to have sex with them and acting sexually predatory towards them, yet they don’t have the same protection that more attractive women have from higher quality males. If you have smelly old homeless men without teeth wanting to have sex with you and leering at you, or fat retarded black men who don’t bath aggressively asking you on a date, and a wimpy hipster/liberal boyfriend who cannot protect you, then you are going to be just a little bit pro active.

    1. “It actually makes sense for uglier women to be more afraid of rape and
      more pro abortion. They have all the bottom tier males even below them
      wanting to have sex with them ”
      Not so sure about that…
      I’m about as low ranking as it gets, “omega” before that term existed. If I was a wolf, they would have expelled me from the pack at birth. And I bang 8s/9s/10s….pay through the nose for them, but I do it.

      1. If you didn’t pay them after ……. would that be theft or rape?

        1. Well Miss Kitty, as the owner of the finest cat-house in Dodge, you should know the difference between a decent client and a scoundrel. As a decent client, I always pay the fee, even when not completely satisfied with the “merchandise”. If not happy, I simply do not leave a tip and do not repeat. But I always pay the fee.
          But to answer your question, regarding the behavior of scoundrels. Either way, they would deserve a good beating. And if violence was involved, then a beating with some “permanent repercussions”.

      2. Just because you have high standards, it doesn’t mean that all or even most bottom tier men do.

        1. High standards for looks, yes.
          But as I stated, I PAY for these girls.
          That’s the only way I get them.

    2. Ugly women only get bottom tier males?
      Have you seen the President of France and his wife?

      1. The rather clearly homosexual President of France? That one?

      2. The worst male is worse than the worst possible female. That’s simply how it is because eggs are more valuable than sperm.

      3. And older women don’t even factor into the sexual market. Elderly men are on there but they are right at the bottom. Women are generally not attracted to them and will only have transactional sex with them a majority of the time. The president of France is obviously just a freak, he’s not the norm.

  23. The definition of the word objective is to not be influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
    I simply do not see any facts in this article you have posted. I also see no numbers, no reported evidence, and no valid sources.
    one of the points you have made is that women are emotional on the topic of abortion and therefore cannot be objective. However, stating that without valid evidence contradicts the very meaning of the word objective itself because you stated an opinion. This entire article is built on bias, therefore, it is an invalid means of persuading or informing an intelligent group of people. True objectivity is not possible because of such bias and if one wishes to be as objective as possible, all sides of the story must be accurately represented; otherwise, this type of information is called a “one sided message” which is in other words called propaganda, not an objective argument (Wood et al. 331).
    Wood, Samuel E., Ellen R. Green Wood, and Denise Roberts Boyd. Mastering the World of
    Psychology. Fifth ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2018. 331+. Print.

  24. An observation: The common emotional plea “A woman has a right to do what she thinks best for her body”, completely ignores the logical fact, that a fetus is *not* part of a woman’s body, but a separate being in its’ own right, temporarily inside a woman’s body.

  25. yep…the “appeal to emotion” is probably the most common logical fallacy that is used today. its at the root of every campaign for giving up our freedoms.

      1. most liberal arguments we see today are intended to play on peoples emotions… “its for the children!” “its for your safety!” “muh feelins!”

        1. I grew up in an extremley conservative household and I must break it to you that the arguments made on that side as just as emotional and failure to recognize that is pure ignorance. for example I see the conservative people complaining about the LGBTQ+ people having basic human rights such as marriage or are worried about their children’s exposure to that community. there is no logic in arguments like that either. now I don’t identify myself as either liberal nor conservative solely for the fact that I favor logical arguments about everything and neither side offers 100% that and you too would realize that if you unbiasly were to review all sides of arguments with reasoning.

        2. “I see the conservative people complaining about the LGBTQ+ people having basic human rights such as marriage”
          Conservative people don’t want deviants to have any rights at all, we just want them dead or put in institutions away from the rest of us.

        3. if you were to read the universal declaration of human rights by the United Nations under article 16 you will see that marriage is in fact a basic human right.

        4. Oh, well, the United Nations, why didn’t you say so?! How can we be so daft as to not recognize a giant socialist loving organization of self masturbatory nitwits as authority?

        5. I want you to actual think about what you have said. go present me some logical evidence that anything you just said had any valid point. cite your sources, present me with data. prove to me that people in that community are so different they deserve to be stripped of all rights. you say they should be locked up in institutions and what? given conversion therapy that has been proven with hard facts to not work. I want DATA, LOGIC. not your emotions.

        6. Oh, sweetie, we need not consult some massive centralized bureaucratic group staffed with lifelong politicians to know what a fundamental right is. All we need to do is look inside ourselves.
          But I do recognize your need to fill a void, so, I guess we have nothing further to discuss.

        7. alright can you please tell me what you consider human rights and why. I would ask you to stem away from an emotional response but I can see that is not going to happen.

        8. I am curious about your obvious answers to the fundamental rights we have.

        9. I am curious
          No you’re not. You are completely content in your mire.

        10. The problem is them, LGBTQAH got offended by the guy who don’t want the exposure when in fact conservative have all the right to do whatever the hell they want, and decide whatever stuff their kids are exposed too. It’s called freedom, And gays have their freedom too I think more than us. what we have? We have in your face propaganda and do what they want or else, sued for politely told a gay man in thong to cover his ass in front of you kid. YOU ARE OPPRESSING THEM! What logic do you want? I don’t like it I have freedom of association that’s all. They can do their shit elsewhere or in private. But our kids learn about butt sex in kinder, and they told us there is not a gay agenda, come on. Despise being like 2-3% liberal TV shows are full of them like if there is 30% in the TV fictional worlds. That’s normalizing homosexuality, And they will tell you homosexuality is normal. Well that’s the debate, I don’t care, regardless, it is fact that being homosexual makes your life harder. More likely to alcoholism, more likely to commit suicide, more likely to be in depression, more likely to contract and STD and of course HIV. WHY in the hell would I want that for my kids? I want them to succeed in life and being gay would make their life harder. That’s Why I don’t want them to get the wrong idea. IF you choose that lifestyle you life will be hell kid. I decide how to raise my kids, I, not them, not the government.

        11. Well, I think a fundamental human right for a child is to have a mother and father in their home raising them. Setting an example for male/female relationship dynamics.
          The mother and father do set the archetype for the child defining the opposite sex.
          Children raised by homosexual couples are denied that experience. I expect, that they will have the same issues that children in single parent homes do. The results that were in fact predicted by opponents of no-fault divorce. Greater rates of physical, sexual, emotional abuse. Greater rates of substance abuse and promiscuity, and involvement in violence as both victim and perpetrator.
          We’ve embarked on the grand social experiment with no data to go on, but we’ll sacrifice the children on the altar of our compassion.

        12. “..people complaining about the LGBTQ+ people having basic human rights such as marriage or are worried about their children’s exposure to that community.”
          Oh vey. Sexual deviants who have habit of molesting children, high rate of STDS, substance addictions and a loaded history of mental illnesses is nothing to complain about.

        13. cite your sources please. I am almost positive that the majority of the population is not LGBTQ+ and hold the highest statistics for molesting children, substance abuse, STDs, and mental illnesses.

        14. alright care to tell me the organization with a set human rights standards with credibility?

        15. yes I am curious, now am I easily persuaded? No. But I desperately want to know your standards and where they derive from because I would like to see every position in a debate and considering not a single person has given me any sort of valid information maybe you would like to be the first.

        16. alright would you like to tell me the organization that has a set of human rights that is credible?

        17. Why do you need an organization to tell you your rights? It isn’t innnate?
          To be clear, rights are in their origin, stipulations between individuals and the state, that are not surrendered to the powers that be. What those stipulations are, tend to differ pending culture and historical background.
          Myself, I tend to look to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights as sources, but the UN does hate those particular documents.

        18. Where did I say the majority of the population is homosexual?
          If you are not trolling, you can start reading up at the Centers for Disease Control regarding the health statistics; molestations at the Family Research Institute, but if you want to challenge my statements, please attempt it. It is well known, and substantiated, what I stated is true.

        19. My starting point was that marriage is an innate right. however, that statement was ridiculed so the need of an organization was to cite my source and have some type of evidence as to why I thought something so simple was a natural born right. do you disagree? is marriage not something you should be allowed to do? even with people of the same sex. is it really anyone else business or RIGHT to step in? I do agree that a lot of rights should be common sense but in world where that does not exist a definitive list does help the more simple minded. our culture includes the LGBTQ+ community now a days wether is is liked or not. I know what you stated did not mention the LGBTQ+ or had anything to do with what I said earlier but this is where I had come from in the beginning of my statement. but all and all a human being is entitles to their rights and no one should be able to take that away. that is where I wanted to go with this topic.

        20. Marriage is not an innate right. Then again I, and more than few others, believe the state has no business in recognising marriages at all. It has become a vehicle to control and ruin people (in particular men) and families through the courts. Marriage was tradtionally performed according to particular religious ceremonies and an exchange of vows before G-d, family and friends while making a sacred bond. Belonging to said religion, requires you to attempt to obey and promote a subset of moral rules and standards. And yes, homosexuality is not looked upon kindly in islam or most of orthodox christianity. Despite the depravity in the lifestyle itself, it is actually considerd a sin in those religious domains and not encouraged.
          But no worries SJW. Today as marriage constitutes faggots and wierdos marrying their pets, it is rapidly becoming a completely worthless institution few men will venture into. When a culture promotes depravity, it will get hallowed institutions and a collapsing birth rate— just like we have now in the west.

        21. you’re right you did not say the majority of the population is homosexual. however, my point was compared to the small percentage that is, the odds of meeting a man who was gay and a child molester vs someone straight and a child molester are lower. but anyway I am now faced with the task of challenging your statements.
          here is the article which you can read on an accredited psychology page with research and proof there is no correlation between homosexuals and child molesting.
          in this article it states that a whopping one in 5 adult has a mental illness which a problem you cannot hide anyone from. and the majority of those with mental illness are homeless people.
          I will admit that STD rates are fairly high with gay men and is an issue but considering thats something avoidable and its not much a problem to those not affected. just as it is with the regular population that has an STD.

        22. You’re splitting terms. Men who molest boys are committing homosexuals acts are they not? They are gay. How many gay men admit being molested as child? Quite a few actually.
          Your UC link was amusing. So the homosexual Gregory M. Herekur is your source? No agenda bias there. LOL.
          I reject your premises.

        23. Human rights = individual liberty, private property rights & freedom of association.

        24. “states that a whopping one in 5 adult has a mental illness which a problem”
          i would calculate 50% of the population have a mental illness …… but that 50% is the women.

        25. No country in the western world agrees marriage is a right.
          Just try marrying someone outside that world, and try to take them to your home country if you don’t believe me.

        26. “basic human rights such as marriage”
          You misunderstand what a right is. A right is a claim you have that no other person can deny. You have a right to live your life, a right to think and say what you will. These are things you have that should not be taken from you, due to your very nature of being a human being.
          But you do not have a right to marriage, to health care, to education. These require and demand that others give something to you. If you are one of the last two people alive, would you have a right to marriage? Could you demand that the other person marry you, because its your right? Could you demand the other person educate you or provide you with medical care, because its your right? Rights are not entitlements, they are the inverse; they are that which you have that others should not take away.

        27. Hate to break it to you girl but LGBTQ doesn’t exist. It’s pure made up horseshit and marriage is not a basic right.

        28. last time I checked you can marry a non US citizen and give them a green card in the process in our western country

        29. under what premise have you concluded this? and the reasoning behind why still goes unanswered.

        30. also, I did not mention anything about homosexuals being child molested themselves. the argument here was that the link between being gay and being a child molester is non existent.

        31. I have demostrated that you are not an honest debater and your citing a homosexual activist as a source isn’t convincing.
          Feel free to dig deeper into the topic and do some homework.

        32. Because the needs/feelings of others stops prior to touching my wallet, home or business.

  26. If men were the ones to get pregnant there’d be abortion clinics on every other corner.

    1. Men are supposed to be cold heated, women are supposed to be nurturing.
      Are you suggesting the feminist stereotypes are wrong?

    2. If men were the ones to get pregnant, men would have a different emotional reaction to the baby, and a differing instinct to nurture and nest along with it. In fact, the brains of men would have evolved differently to accommodate bearing children, and the brains of women would have evolved differently, too. In your scenario, ‘men’ would be known as ‘women’, and ‘women’ would be known as ‘men’.
      While I can appreciate a good semantic argument, I also recognize that it’s merely a semantic argument.

    3. That’s funny to imagine but impossible. The pro baby killers I’m sure run with that argument too.

  27. Every debate I’ve ever gotten into with a woman over her “right” to kill kids in her womb always, and I mean always, ends in “My body my right!” screamed at top notch levels. No exceptions. You can beat them with logic and reason but all they do is resort to literally screaming some totem type words until everybody tells *you* to stop.

    1. “…… screaming some totem type words until everybody tells *you* to stop.”
      Or you punch her ……. (like you would a screaming man, equal rights and all)

      1. Just came back from a David Allen Coe concert, I’m bushed.

    2. the argument given in this article has as much reasoning as you say the women you have spoken to have.
      The definition of the word objective is to not be influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
      I simply do not see any facts in this article you have posted. I also see no numbers, no reported evidence, and no valid sources.
      one of the points you have made is that women are emotional on the topic of abortion and therefore cannot be objective. However, stating that without valid evidence contradicts the very meaning of the word objective itself because you stated an opinion. This entire article is built on bias, therefore, it is an invalid means of persuading or informing an intelligent group of people. True objectivity is not possible because of such bias and if one wishes to be as objective as possible, all sides of the story must be accurately represented; otherwise, this type of information is called a “one sided message” which is in other words called propaganda, not an objective argument (Wood et al. 331).
      Wood, Samuel E., Ellen R. Green Wood, and Denise Roberts Boyd. Mastering the World of
      Psychology. Fifth ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2018. 331+. Print.

      1. I didn’t write the article, cupcake.
        Next time, try actual logic and not feelz please.

        1. considering I never credited you with writing the article we are on the same page.

      2. Submit to a patriarch and turn some eggs (shut up and breed) wench. Well:

        1. I really do like that movie.

        2. so since you cannot respond to my well presented argument logically you have resulted to very dull name calling. I am very well impressed with the amount of effort you have put into proving what you believe in. and you will read this get emotional and respond as such whilst you are convinced women are more emotional.

        3. No I’m fishing for the bug in your head from whence your parlay bravada to mouthpiece for the western population reduction agenda comes from. You have piles of books books boooooks I’m sure, but your eggs are rotting while ye stoop and ye tongue wiggles. With one eye keep lookout there’s your wall approaching. It’s such a waste to see so many of you come and go. Poof. Find a peaceful spot in your head tonight and have dreams of sugarplums and patriarchy.

      3. Appeal to authority fallacy. I don’t care about academics who have no practical street psychology. The rest is bullshit.

        1. if you do not agree how about using some sort of logic to counter my proposal I have made here with a level head.

    3. Tell me, when arguing with a woman over something they’re sensitive about does not end with them becoming irrational harpies?

    4. This happened to me when talking to these evil British hags, they went really crazy, and started getting really crazy…put me off ever saying hello to a western woman ever again.

        1. No surprise there…probably degenerate to the point of even looking at a western woman is sexual assault.

      1. Yea, this exact thing happened to me, these ugly British landwhales started making a big drama and getting real nasty…screaming those same words…My body bla bla bla…my argument is yes they can have all of that when they get out of men’s pockets. Atleast they wont be breeding anytime soon…which is probably a good thing.

        1. I noticed the same thing, they go mental. It’s beyond me how could anybody sleep with such hags.

        2. Well they all give me this stupid looks, like the “who the fuck do you think you are” look, and they think they are such hot shit…”Im too good to have sex with you” attitudes…its just fucking horrible no wonder western men are flocking to Asia and marrying those girls, its no coincidence. They think they are gods gift to men…but they are like 2s,3s, and 4s, at best on a global scale.

        3. Indeed. An obvious proof that without patriarchy a woman will destroy her body and her soul.

        4. But you know that look, im sure you have seen it before…the look of “im better than you cause I have a vagina” like looking down at you. So I started doing the same, walking head high and looking down at all white western woman by default.

        5. Well the jokes on them, because alot of men are waking up real fast to this bullshit, there is going to be alot of lonely bitter white cat ladies, and they will blame men of course, and men will continue to ignore their harping, and those cobwebs on their vagina’s will build up and create one big uterus blockage.

        6. Lol….I love the look on those white landwhales faces when they travel to Thailand…they give those white men with their sexy Thai girl friends the most evil looks it’s priceless to watch…seen it soooooo many times, that look when they understand their pussy is worthless, I wish I could capture it on camera one day. And good job, who care’s if they don’t like it, why would men settle for second rate dog shit. They deserve it, I explained on here I had a friend who was going to marry a white western landwhale and they were going to Thailand for the wedding, now the wedding is off, he fall in love with Thai bar girl, shes going home alone…priceless.

    5. “My body” doesn’t include getting pregnant in the first place apparently.
      Also, they claim the debate isn’t about choosing whether or not to become a parent, which is the reason to have abortions most of the time, but they claim it’s body autonomy. So why is it that the body autonomy issues isn’t applied to anything but abortion

  28. This nonsense is not existent in Mexico. Mexico have shitty free health care systems, The feminist here don’t touch the issue because their masters told them not to. Imagine the bankrupt health system paying free abortions, impossible to be sustainable, We need more poor people to maintain the system, we call them “Los Jodidos”. They have like 8 kids so their kids will be poor too and have their own kids and all work for cents, imagine if they stop being uneducated poor bastards, hell no, we need our slave in the plantation, literal a plantation, all they work in the agriculture sector. This BS is indeed a first world problem. Only whites abort. Hell, government will give free moneys for every anchor children born in America. Blacks are not doing it either, Single motherhood is all in hype with them, Muslim are no doing it either they have like 15 kids, Abortion is not popular in any minority group in America So white feminist want the rights to remove the burden of pregnancy so they can ride the cock carousel even more. So the people that should be aborting is not aborting. And they told us that there is not an agenda for a white genocide.

    1. so they can have a “career” and be strong independent women.

  29. The second picture baffled me so much I started rhetorically asking my screen questions. This bald, ugly, tattooed dyke is worried about not getting free abortions? WHO IN THIS GODDAMN WORLD WOULD FUCK HER?!

  30. When a lefty starts screaming about abortion tell them you are happy abortion is legal as it helps reduce how often poor and stupid people reproduce. Then watch their heads explode.

  31. People have different opinions on abortion. Gubment should never pay for it. After that everyone should mind their own fucking business.
    Those old disgusting pigs protesting outside abortion clinics actually make feminists look hot and the feminists who need to go everywhere with a sign and a chant should be shot.
    Keep your morals to yourself. The only legit complaint I can see is when the gub spends your money on it.

  32. Amen. With the caveat that there are few things more attractive than an ardently pro-life woman

  33. Abortion is so 20th century. The 21st killers have new targets.
    Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
    The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

  34. But… most of the pro-abortion feminists would not be able to ever find a man willing to get them pregnant in the first place.
    To be fair, abortion should be allowed under very specific circumstances. This free for all abortions shit is just insane. Would it kill women to learn how to be responsible during sex and demand a fucking condom is used?

    1. I’m sure some of the rabid feminists use a sperm donor to get pregnant. Then have an abortion just to feel empowered.

  35. From a Crowleyian magickal point of view, spilling one’s seed, fucking arses instead of vag, and aborting a fetus, may all have a sacrificial element.
    Now that might or might not be bullshit, but insofar as such factors might feature at an unconscious level in pro-choice calculations (the ‘life of the mother’ is sacrificed for the life of the free woman pursuing her free woman career and ‘changing the world’) there is no way that kind of calculation could find it’s way into a formal rationalisation of the right or decision to have an abortion.
    People have always sacrificed one thing for another thing. That’s how a great deal of magick works. Now look that in the eye ladies

      1. he was a very influential sick bastard. The kinds of views he held are at the root of a great deal

    1. If I were you I would stay far away from Crowley inspired magick. He discovered something which man was never meant to touch and it drove him insane. It will eventually do the same to you.

      1. Did my comment indicate support or approval?
        Crowley should be neither underestimated or taken too seriously. He was a provocateur and a narcissist before he was the devil himself. He was a fairly original thinker but a lot of what he publicised was pre-existing secret society lore that hadn’t previously been made public. In the above case, OTO lodge secrets about sex magick. I fail to see how keeping a lid on these things helps anyone but those who want to control things from behind the scenes.

        1. There are some things in this world which we were never meant to mess with. Crowley magick is one of them. But, hey, if you want to play around with it your choice.

        2. please tell me how writing a comment from a critical point of view is ‘messing about” with something? The comment is about a Crowleyian (type) perspective on abortion etc. as a form of sacrifice / magick

        3. Dude I just said mess around with that stuff at your own risk as a warning. Make your own decisions in life. Just realize that they have potential consequences.

        4. well fair enough, but Crowley spent a fair bit of his time engaged in arse magick with his male friends so I’m not sure I really need to be warned off it. But I appreciate the warning either way
          Incidentally, why do you call yourself a warlock? Are you one

        5. I have dabbled in the ancient arts. The sacrifice for knowledge is your sanity. You referenced a women who has had an abortion before (a sacrifice if you may). Have you ever met a sane woman who has had an abortion? (Ending a natural process artificially is a form of practice of the ancient arts.)
          You can explore the “other side” if you like. There are also firewalls one can construct to shield from repercussions. But once you invoke that which has never been meant to be invoked expect a wild ride.

        6. Thank you for your candid response.
          “Have you ever met a sane woman who has had an abortion? (Ending a natural process artificially is a form of practice of the ancient arts.)”
          So they are sacrificing their baby and their sanity? But while the ordinary woman who aborts her child seeks merely to be free from an encumbrance those who perform that action as though it were itself a sacrament – in addition to any other action of the will – do they necessarily regard the loss in part or whole of their sanity as necessarily a bad thing? There’s a reason perhaps that the moon is feminine. Isn’t there also a tradition of madness as sacred in its own right? What I am saying is that for some such a warning is not reason against but a seduction.
          Out of interest do you still dabble or have you stopped completely? Can one un-know what one has once understood?

        7. I no longer dabble and it is impossible to “un-see” what has been seen.

        8. I would be interested to hear more about your experiences and decision to turn away from the occult some time.

        9. Give me an anonymous email address here. I will monitor for most of the night and let you know when I have it so that way you can delete it after I get it.

        10. I did not get your reply. Retry please. Not in spam either.

        11. just retried this morning. Not sure what went wrong. Let me know if you still don’t get it. Might be the service I am using

        12. Yeah still not getting it. try opening up just a generic gmail address and posting it. Will monitor today and let you know when I have it.

        13. Not sure why you’re not getting it, I can receive yours. I’ll look into it when I get a chance, or use a different email as you suggest – the anonymous ones are admin free which suits me fine. In the meantime feel free to carry on in these forums if you’re minded to

        14. If you have my email feel free to send me email from whatever account. I just didn’t want you getting spam or other crap from someone who pulled your email address while it was publicly available.

    2. Fun fact: pp bans all imagery or affiliation with any religion at their clinics. *BUT* nonetheless, they allowed Wiccan and witches to perform their rites. Crowleyism is just another system of witching. So let that sit for a moment.

      1. Planned parenthood is a very interesting organisation indeed. I’ve heard about the allegations made by one individual. Not sure it’s been corroborated though
        PS it seems there was another person – a nurse who reported on the wiccan worship. That is a little disturbing in the context

        1. I should have added, it was rumored and not proven fact. Would I be surprised if it were true? I think you know the answer.

  36. Meh who cares if feminazis and SJWs abort? Let them vanish from the gene pool.

    1. If you remember when Obama won in ’08 and ’12, the liberal commentators looked at the data and concluded that Conservatives and the Republican party were dying off, the party of old white people. Conservatives had a demographic time bomb. But now, with the ’16 results, the Dems now don’t have a majority anywhere.
      The vast majority of person’s aborted since it was legalized would have been Democrats. They actually have the demographic time bomb.

      1. Which confirms my point that we shouldn’t care about SJWs wanting to abort. Good riddance from the gene pool.

  37. I consider myself pro life. The number of abortions should be decreasing due to condoms, birth control and morning after pills. I would not stop abortions because I know some men just want to spread their seed and let society take care of the children they reproduced. My mom transported foster kids to supervised visual visits and let me say what she says makes it clear she has a negative view of these children’s biological parents ( who are so bad they can not visit their kids alone). I also do not agree with everything this site says. For example I do not agree with the idea that if you only have heterosexual sex you can not get HIV. The player sexual life usually leads down a certain road whether Roosh or other men want to admit that. Politicians only care about their pockets. Do you really want to live in a society were you can not get health care or education at a fair price? You say it is not our right to education or healthcare. I say it is messed up that politicians can be fat cats with their own private healthcare. I agree that people serving in a jury need to be impartial. However, I say in other cases a person would not be incline to do anything to help regular folks if they never experienced what others went through first hand. That is why politicians are messed up now. There was a time that politicians had a understanding what their fellow citizens went through.

    1. I was going to say – as objectively as possible, I don’t believe she’ll ever have a chance for motherhood anyhow. And sperm banks (her probably only option) would most likely reject her.

  38. Abortion debate is really good at showing the selfishness of some. They claim “my body, my choice” but ignore that she chose to get pregnant through reckless behaviour. It’s ignored because it places responsibility on the woman, she has all these forms of birth control available (in the west) and still managed to get an unwanted pregnancy, that is reckless but women shouldn’t be accountable for the repercussions of their actions in modern liberal society so she gets a do-over and can decide not to have a baby through the execution of the inconvenient baby.
    The man however has no such right of choice and has to go along with whatever she decides because equality doesn’t matter for shit when it’s men getting the raw end of the deal

  39. On the subject of Juries:
    In the UK, we don’t have Voir Dire in the same sense as Yanks do. Convicted criminals and certified lunatics won’t be called to serve in the first place. Once you’ve been called up to serve as a juror, unless you personally know someone involved in the case you’ll be considered fit to sit on the jury. A prospective juror in the UK certainly won’t be asked for their views on issues relating to the case. However, we have majority verdicts; 10 jurors can convict even if 2 jurors refuse to find the defendant guilty, so 1 rogue juror can’t throw a spanner in the works.
    I think this is a much better system; it allows those who have experienced situations similar to those involved in the case at hand to bring their experience to the table, but the option to arrive at a majority verdict ensures that that experience can’t translate into undue bias – the experienced juror will have to convince at least 2 other jurors to see things from their point of view if they want to have any effect on the verdict.
    Personal story: Recently, some teenage yobs smashed up the car of a delivery driver who works for the takeaway next door to me. They didn’t do this surreptitiously or anything; it all happened in broad daylight in full view of myself, my CCTV, the driver and anyone else who happened to be in the vicinity at the time.
    The driver used physical force to protect his car from these yobs. He pulled whoever he could away from his car, throwing punches wherever necessary. Unless one believes that he ought to have just let the gang have at it and claim back on his insurance later (I would vehemently disagree with such a view; if nothing else, should such apathy become widespread, everyone’s premiums would go through the roof) the level of force he used would not be considered by any reasonable, right-thinking citizen to be excessive. A tad more than was strictly necessary, perhaps, but those yobs got what was coming to them and not a moment too soon.
    Guess who the police decided to press charges against? The delivery driver for ‘viciously assaulting innocent children’. Under the US system, anyone who has ever had to defend themselves and their property from unjust attacks would be excluded from sitting on his jury. Indeed, the author of this article would have the reader believe that anyone who has ever had to resort to self-defence would be unable to make an unbiased judgement in his case and should thus be excluded from his jury, but I would disagree. Someone who has never been attacked can use the luxuries of hindsight and ample time to say, “The defendant didn’t need to punch yobbo #7 in the mouth; stepping between the yob and the car would have been sufficient.” But someone who has had to defend themselves and their property knows that in the heat of the moment one doesn’t have time to weigh to a nicety exactly how much force will be sufficient to ward off an aggressor. While one could argue that a jury full of citizens who are a little too keen on the idea of an intruder “Make [ing their] day” would be too biased in the defendant’s favour, I believe having one or two on a jury to provide their perspective on what it’s like to be in such a situation is a good idea.

    1. No one has “rights” to another person’s life, liberty or property–and property includes the exclusive ownership and use of his or her own body.

  40. Less objective, yes. Less “trustworthy”, who really knows. If a woman is indeed “untrustworthy”, who then is to be trusted to raise the child? The state? Foster care? Next of kin? Any of these can also fail a child miserably and serve to bring another damaged individual into this world. When your own mother doesn’t want you, the odds are severely against you whether you manage to be born or not, and if you do manage to make it out of the womb intact you are likely to have serious issues without a mother who cares. If you believe in God then you know that God is omnipresent and all powerful, and can stop all of this at any time. Also, abortion cannot be accurately compared to an adult on trial, for the child’s innocence is not being questioned by anyone; rather an abortion can be compared to a human sacrifice. If you are looking to blame women for abortion, you also have to blame the agents driving the degradation of our society where abortion is merely a symptom of an underlying disease. There are agents pushing drugs into society, there are agents pushing degenerate music into society filled with lyrics describing how they want people to act and behave, there are agents squeezing society for every drop of worth, driving inflation and making it harder and harder for people to live within their means. There are agents covertly delivering mind and health altering substances to us with and without our consent. Abortion cannot be something that any woman truly “wants” to do because of the time wasted, the high cost, and the pain involved, rather abortion is something she feels forced to do for as many reasons. And it doesn’t have to be this way, but you can actually blame satanic world government, with their legion of useful leftist idiots and criminal usury and taxation, for the state of this world. This is all by design because “we” are actually smart enough to have never let things get this messed up were someone or a certain set of someone’s not driving this narrative.

  41. I cannot agree with the main point of the article, that men are less biased that women in abortion debate, because a lot of men have a lot to gain with free, easy access, legal abortion for everyone.
    The fact getting pregnant is no longer the tragedy it used to be makes women, the natural gatekeepers of sex, much more open to accept sexual advances. That is why any man with the prospect of casually banging a girl without getting married with her has a lot to gain with free abortion. It just makes women less cautious and more receptive to their advances.
    For example, lets imagine a young girl whose boyfriend is pressuring her to have sex with him. Back in the day, for fear of getting pregnant, she will tell him no. But now, she is much more likely to accept. She knows that if contraceptive method of choice fails (and yes, that can happen and is not as rare as some seem to believe) and she gets pregnant, she still has a last resort to abort and avoid consequences. Of course the boyfriend will be biased on abortion debate and want abortion to be as easy, affordable and stigma-free as possible, so her girlfriend will accept his advances and spread her legs, instead of stubornly wanting to be a virgin until the day she marries.
    The only ones who truly have nothing to gain on this debate are morally righteous people who have no intention at all to ever have sex with anyone but their wife/husband/life long partner. Only these can really analyze the issue rationally without their own interests affecting their judgement.

  42. I mean… after years of politics, I’m kind of okay with abortions. There’s many stupid people out there who don’t need to reproduce. Especially minorities, YIKES!!!

Comments are closed.