2404
Comments (229)
sorted by:
101
User_X 101 points ago +102 / -1

By her assumption, you would also have to own the fetus to abort the fetus... You cant just abort other peoples children. Whos the slave owner now Indian/Jamaican?

44
ParticleCannon 44 points ago +44 / -0

If I get someone pregnant and they abort my child, do I get a month off paid and a $4,000 medical tourism voucher?

6
magagama 6 points ago +6 / -0

Absolutely! You should also be granted a paternity /bereavement leave! Why aren’t men pressing charges for murder against the women who abort their unborn children?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
41
deleted 41 points ago +41 / -0
21
Thelongrun 21 points ago +21 / -0

🎯

12
Magabirdlady2 12 points ago +12 / -0

I wonder how many abortions she had.

18
Bastard 18 points ago +18 / -0

I don't think she was ever visited by the stork. Just the swallow.

3
GhostOfMyFormerSelf 3 points ago +3 / -0

Bingo!

6
Thelongrun 6 points ago +6 / -0

That's a very good, though unpalatable, question.

4
Long_time_lurker 4 points ago +4 / -0

Not to mention how much PP likes selling baby arms for, they really take ownership, y'know?

8
BigIronBigIron 8 points ago +8 / -0

No, her family were slave owners

She's the only one who needs crotch ointment

2
NateBedfordForrest 2 points ago +2 / -0

Highly probable they were indeed slavers.

2
TommyJarvis 2 points ago +3 / -1

You typed “salve owners” and I laughed my balls off so hard I became Sports Illustrated Woman Of The Year.

Don’t edit it. It’s hilarious.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
11
jpower 11 points ago +12 / -1

Slut/Bitch

7
catvideos3 7 points ago +7 / -0

Bitch lasagne

5
ForsakenForeskin 5 points ago +5 / -0

Slut pudding

5
Thelongrun 5 points ago +5 / -0

Putana Pudding, for any Italians out there.

3
A_Little_White_Duck 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yep, grew up hearing that word in the household all the time. The Italian putana sounds better than the Spanish puta.

1
Thelongrun 1 point ago +1 / -0

😊 🇮🇹

1
BigIronBigIron 1 point ago +1 / -0

Whore jello

1
catvideos3 1 point ago +1 / -0

Pls send open bobs and vagene

3
blue5707 3 points ago +4 / -1

Pantsuits/Gummy

4
cnn_can_dox_my_balls 4 points ago +4 / -0

Poojeeta/Nike

1
Shalomtoyou 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hmmm. yeah. What would happen if Plantation Owner Joe went over the Bob's Plantation and killed one of Bob's slaves?

67
Cody_Travers 67 points ago +67 / -0

"Claiming ownership of a human body?" Kind like when a mother claims ownership over the body of a baby and elects to kill it?

34
NextInLine 34 points ago +34 / -0

I was here to say that: This issue DOES have parallels with slavery. Treating a group of people as though they're "less human" in order to justify mistreatment of them for your own convenience.

24
borntacticool 24 points ago +24 / -0

"It's just a clump of cells" ← that's really a dehumanization phrase right there.

You can reduce anything to its essential elements to deny the existence of the Whole. Your car I just wrecked, dad? Oh don't be so upset, it's just a bunch of metal and plastic.

7
ModernKnight 7 points ago +7 / -0

"I have the right to do what I want with my property" - ignoring the human life which is the "property."

"I have the right to do what I want with my body" - ignoring the human life which is "her body."

11
Guruchild 11 points ago +11 / -0

The liberal argument for abortion grows more desperate and ridiculous as they keep exposing themselves. It is an indefensible argument. Your responsibility to prevent “unwanted life” begins before you let some dick squirt dna into your slut cave. That’s first and foremost. Second, you don’t own your child’s body even if it is growing inside you. You don’t get to cry about human rights and simultaneously take them away from another being. These fucking idiots need to be called out ruthlessly for their hypocrisy.

-7
FireannDireach -7 points ago +4 / -11

Until a certain point, it is a clump of cells. By this thinking, jerking off and killing sperm is murder.

The issue is when that clump of cells becomes viable life. It's pretty quick. Me, I've always had a hard stop once the spinal cord fuses. Then it's aware, or capable of it.

6
ModernKnight 6 points ago +6 / -0

Scientifically, human life begins when the egg is fertilized. A sperm cell has 23 chromosomes. An egg cell has 23 chromosomes. Once fertilization happens, that single cell has a unique human genetic code, made up of 46 chromosomes. 23 from the father, 23 from the mother. That single cell meets all biological criteria for being alive. There is no scientific argument for sperm cells being living human beings. Once an egg has been fertilized, though, that is a separate human life.

3
borntacticool 3 points ago +3 / -0

Be careful engaging this one. She clearly wants a monologue and screamed MODS! when I told her this is a site for discussion.

5
20MagnusKonrad20 5 points ago +5 / -0

We're all just clumps of cells.

5
borntacticool 5 points ago +5 / -0

I don't think the viability argument is a good one because in reality no life is viable (where the definition of viability means "able to succeed") until it can survive on its own. A child will have to be cared for for a very long time before it can function more or less independently.

Even that argument is a bit of a contrivance because it requires you to make up your own special pleading definition of "viability" particularly for that issue and your own standards for "success".

Successfully what? Breathe? Consume breastmilk? Just what can an infant do successfully that qualifies? Can't even walk for a couple years.

That's one of the reasons I reject abortion - because all of the same arguments used to support abortion could apply just as well to a child outside of the womb and could apply to many full-grown adults as well. Ex: "It's a parasite". "It would have a shitty life", "can't afford to raise it".

You could say the same thing about any retarded adult on welfare.

Then they get into stupid shit like "the fetus can't feel pain". Oh so we can kill paralyzed people now because they can't feel it?

All of the abortion advocate's arguments are dumb. Really where I fall these days is simple. I don't need to prove why they should let it live, they need to prove why they have the right to kill it... and they've been completely unsuccessful in making a convincing argument.

How's this for an argument: we have no right to kill it because it is innocent of any wrongdoing and we may only deprive people of their rights as punishment for a crime - and only after we have found them, by a jury of their peers, guilty of aforementioned crime.

EDIT BTW this cunt above tried to get me booted because I disagreed with her and she didn't want to be contradicted.

2
1777 2 points ago +3 / -1

Normally such a long typed opinion makes me sus. I skim and move on, but you are very valid. A tl;dr would be unjust.

2
Butt-or-Face 2 points ago +2 / -0

Human plus argument.

-1
FireannDireach -1 points ago +2 / -3

I'm not arguing the point, nor was I inviting it. I decided my own line, decide on your own.

2
borntacticool 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sorry this site is for dialogue, not monologue. If you want to be a reddit moderator, feel free to apply there.

-2
FireannDireach -2 points ago +1 / -3

I don't see that in the rules, and you can take it up with a moderator. And while you're doing that - go fuck yourself.

1
totovader 1 point ago +3 / -2

You do realize that the spinal cord doesn't stop fusing until you're about 30 years old, right?

10
Tejas_Pepe 10 points ago +10 / -0

Like the prisoners she kept locked up in California for free slave labor?

7
Pulchritude2 7 points ago +7 / -0

Personal responsibility is an incomprehensibly foreign concept to these people.

When you are pregnant, you are responsible for your unborn child's life as well as your own.

Leftists (i.e. "liberals") are completely incapable of understanding Loyalty, Authority, or Sanctity (as moral matrix components), so they are incapable of understanding personal responsibility.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
24
YaharaRiver 24 points ago +24 / -0

Doesn't her FAMILY have a history of slave ownership?? Jamaican slaves on the sugar plantation or something? Well covered in 2020, let's not forget about that.

14
Zelenskyscockholster 14 points ago +15 / -1

Or when she kept nonviolent criminals in prison longer so they could be a free labor force.

1
BlacknWhite 1 point ago +1 / -0

Jamaica is still doing a slavery type thing today.

19
Dictator_Bob 19 points ago +20 / -1

When does a human life begin?

They pretend this question is settled. It is 100% because they do not want to address the question. We shouldn't just address the question we must point out to everyone that they are deliberately avoiding it.

Why?

15
War_Hamster 15 points ago +15 / -0

Same reason Planned Parenthood doesn't show women ultrasounds?

Just guessing.....

6
rootGoose 6 points ago +6 / -0

$$$!

3
Magabirdlady2 3 points ago +3 / -0

Just tissue.

12
clottin_eye_joe 12 points ago +12 / -0

If you are declared dead when your heart stops, you should be declared alive when your heart starts.

7
conservativeyuppie 7 points ago +7 / -0

This is the question we constantly need to be drilling into people. Every other angle makes the argument go off the rails. If they try to distract with nonsense about pro life people not caring about the baby after he or she is born, don't take the bait on that. Simply keep digging your heels into the question of when in a human's development does life begin. It's an argument they're doomed to lose.

4
chickeninoven 4 points ago +4 / -0

Some reps were asking a day or two ago, to a couple fanatical baby butchers.

They won't answer.. they respond with something like, " I disagree with the way this question is being framed, I think it's very dangerous and will result in violence toward women and women's health providers"

1
20MagnusKonrad20 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah I hate when they do that, but it's on track with their "this is not up for debate!" mantra.

2
fauxgnaws 2 points ago +2 / -0

Any one abortionist can give you an answer... not until a heartbeat, or until it's viable, or until birth or whatever.

But more than one can't agree on an answer. Any answer will alienate some of their support because it's all personal opinion and arbitrary, thinking it's too early/late. Their strategy will probably be "it's up the the mother to decide. it's a personal decision", but this is way more crazy than even Roe.

2
totovader 2 points ago +4 / -2

Because it's begging the question.

The issue is not whether it's human or it's a life.

The question is where individual rights begin.

3
Tyrone_biggums 3 points ago +4 / -1

The question is where individual rights begin.

I don’t think that inquiry could possibly be more subjective. Debating such a question will only lead to useless philosophical masturbation sessions.

0
totovader 0 points ago +3 / -3

I don’t think that inquiry could possibly be more subjective. Debating such a question will only lead to useless philosophical masturbation sessions.

That's an interesting position to take. It presupposes one of two possibilities:

  1. That there is no such thing as reality.
  2. That there is such a thing as reality, but human beings are incapable of understanding it.

Of course, to arrive at either conclusion is self-defeating and therefore obviously stupid.

That leads me to conclude you just don't want to put forward an answer because you're a pussy.

1
Abovethefray 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hemi level acceleration...

1
Tyrone_biggums 1 point ago +2 / -1

Rights are made up, bucko. Go point at a “right” in nature. I opine that rights are conferred by God and apply to human beings, meaning all human beings, meaning a zygote. But that’s simply my opinion. All someone has to do to refute my position, successfully, is to say “I disagree.” We can’t run experiments to reconcile our different outlooks. That’s where the discussion ends. That’s why it’s useless, and that’s why the best pro-life arguments are from embryology, genetics, and pointing out absurd double standards between how pro-abortion people would treat sick adults and fetuses, not amorphous notions of “rights.”

-1
totovader -1 points ago +1 / -2

Rights are made up, bucko.

Cool theory, bucko.

Go point at a “right” in nature.

Go point at 5. Just because something isn't a concrete doesn't mean it's not a useful concept.

I opine that rights are conferred by God and apply to human beings, meaning all human beings, meaning a zygote.

Opine as you wish, but you just got done saying that rights are made up... so which is it? If we are to believe you, then your theory is nothing more than made up.

Not exactly solid intellectual ground.

All someone has to do to refute my position, successfully, is to say “I disagree.”

I agree. Oh wait! Shit. Did I win or lose?

We can’t run experiments to reconcile our different outlooks. That’s where the discussion ends. That’s why it’s useless, and that’s why the best pro-life arguments are from embryology and genetics, not amorphous notions of “rights.”

Just because you don't have a solid, logical foundation for rights doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Furthermore, pretending that rights come from the God of the Gaps, and therefore only science can tell us what is ethically right is quite the contradictory position for a faith based position.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
-1
totovader -1 points ago +1 / -2

My point is, you’re not going to convince anyone with an IQ below 125 to abandon their belief in the ethical permissivity of abortion by appealing to notions of “rights.”

I think that was my original point: you aren't going to convince anyone of the argument by claiming "life begins at conception, GOTCHA!"

It's debating around the issue - it's picking at the edges of the truth.

You can change their mind by showing them embryology figures, 4D sonograms, and pointing out double standards that often exist between how people reflexively believe we should treat the infirmed and the handicapped, versus how they—often naively, because they have never really considered it—believe we should treat unborn infants.

Quite the contrary - this is where the religious position is entirely untenable and - quite frankly - pretty pathetic. If you feel that you need to borrow from the emotional rhetoric of the left by shoving sonograms in their face... all you're really going to get in return is trench warfare. Listen to how many people are perfectly capable of screaming back at your sonograms with "yeah, I'll kill a baby because I'm lazy!"

If you cannot articulate a position based on individual rights then you are intentionally ceding ground.

When this issue goes before the court again - and it will - the issue will not be sonograms and "where life begins" because those are emotional arguments. The issue will be: where do individual rights begin

And the answer (spoiler alert) will always be: only individuals have rights.

0
akira2501 0 points ago +1 / -1

The only ethical answer is conception. Once the cells have fused and start multiplying, they are a unique organism that left to the course of nature, will ultimately be born and come to exist.

You are instantaneously an individual. If you were removed, we could distinguish every single one of your cells from your mothers. Habeas corpus is easily satisified.

So.. do all "individuals" have rights or all "born individuals?" I don't think you can draw the line anywhere in between with any real merit.

0
totovader 0 points ago +2 / -2

The only ethical answer is conception. Once the cells have fused and start multiplying, they are a unique organism that left to the course of nature, will ultimately be born and come to exist.

Setting aside for a moment that your statement is not factually accurate (fused cells are not unique organisms) it still doesn't follow that this is an ethical answer:

My dog is a unique organism. The gnat is a unique organism. The virus is a unique organism.

Individual rights do not belong to unique organisms.

You are instantaneously an individual. If you were removed, we could distinguish every single one of your cells from your mothers.

An individual at the point of fertilization? By definition that cannot hold true: individuals do not exist inside other individuals.

Think about the term: individual. What is the necessary definition of that concept.

Habeas corpus is easily satisified.

Pretty sure you don't understand what this term means. Historically speaking an unborn child has never been considered for the purposes of Habeas corpus.

Logically speaking it does not hold, for the reasons stated above. A fetus cannot file Habeas corpus and expect to be removed from the mother. No entity can file for Habeas corpus on behalf of the fetus in order to compel the removal of the child.

So.. do all "individuals" have rights or all "born individuals?" I don't think you can draw the line anywhere in between with any real merit.

By what standard do you determine merit? Based on your reasoning above, I question your ability to do so. As human beings, we have to rely on reason in order to survive - so reason is the standard of determining whether something is true (comports to reality, i.e. "merit") or not.

Regardless, only individuals have rights. Not dogs. Not gnats. Not viruses.

1
akira2501 1 point ago +1 / -0

fused cells are not unique organisms

Why not? They have their own DNA.

My dog is a unique organism. The gnat is a unique organism. The virus is a unique organism.

Do they have human DNA?

Think about the term: individual.

The context is when does [human] life begin. I didn't think the pedantry was necessary.

Historically speaking an unborn child has never been considered for the purposes of Habeas corpus.

Cool. I'm giving an ethical answer, not a legal one. Also, it means, literally: "that you have the body." Or sometimes understood "show me the body." I can do that immediately after conception.

By what standard do you determine merit?

A subjective one. Described by the parameters I had earlier laid down.

Based on your reasoning above, I question your ability to do so.

Based on your snarky tone, I'm wondering if you're trying to have an actual argument or just trying to win.

Regardless, only individuals have rights. Not dogs. Not gnats. Not viruses.

You've entirely ignored the actual question to ponder merit and then repeat yourself. I'm literally suggesting there is a logical mechanism to have the legal definition be separate from the ethical one, due to the fact you can attach rights to this entity at any time you wish and more importantly you actually do need to attach those rights at some arbitrary time... a.k.a. "birth."

If you want the legal definition to match the ethical one, then the fetus has rights instantly. Otherwise, you have to decide when it is "born" or "capable of being born" which is an entirely subjective standard and in most instances would require you to definitively know the future.. if you're trying to use this fact to prevent or justify an abortion.

So.. you can understand why I think the ethical definition is more worthy of debate.

EDIT: If you downvote because you can't argue, I just ignore you.

0
totovader 0 points ago +2 / -2

Why not? They have their own DNA.

A thing having it's own DNA does not make it an organism, either. An organism is a living entity - an entity that is an individual capable of self-sustaining it's life functions.

Do they have human DNA?

Nope, but my liver does.

The context is when does [human] life begin. I didn't think the pedantry was necessary.

No, that's not the context. You attempted to steal the concept of a "unique individual" at the same time that you abandoned the individual portion of the concept. I pointed out that unique things don't have rights. Individuals have individual rights.

Cool. I'm giving an ethical answer, not a legal one. Also, it means, literally: "that you have the body." Or sometimes understood "show me the body." I can do that immediately after conception.

You literally cannot. There is no body to show. By definition Habeas corpus does not apply, here. Your attempt to claim it does is desperate and laughable. I was being polite by pointing out there's no historical context, here. I will be less polite, now: no one has ever tried to make this argument because it's fucking retarded. And you are retarded for attempting to make it.

A subjective one. Described by the parameters I had earlier laid down.

If you determine merit by subjective standards, then I dismiss your determination by subjective standards as well.

If you cannot agree that reason and logic are the standard, then there's no point in any further discussion.

Based on your snarky tone, I'm wondering if you're trying to have an actual argument or just trying to win.

Why not both?

You've entirely ignored the actual question to ponder merit.

On the contrary - I laid the groundwork. Then you flipped the table and took a shit on the floor by saying that reality does not matter. Not much I can do with that. If you're going to pretend that you have something better than reason and logic then you're not worth listening to.

I'm literally suggesting there is a logical mechanism to have the legal definition be separate from the ethical one, due to the fact you can attach rights to this entity at any time you wish and more importantly you actually do need to attach those rights at some arbitrary time... a.k.a. "birth."

You are literally doing no such thing - you're asserting that you can separate a legal definition from a logical one by just asserting it... you aren't making a case for it at all. You've simply ignored any counter-argument and repeated yourself.

Like a retard.

Rights are not assigned by you. You are not the arbiter of when rights occur or for whom or when.

Here's the part you really need to try and understand: if rights are universal (and they have to be, in order to be rights), then they must apply equally, at all times, to everyone, all at once. There can be no rights that temporarily apply for some people and not for others. Likewise, there can be no rights that one person has that another does not. Rights cannot exist in contradiction.

You are asserting - without any justification whatsoever, I might add - that rights can just... be placed at a random time... depending on how you feel about it.

Allow me to demonstrate why you're retarded when you claim that:

If you want the legal definition to match the ethical one, then the fetus has rights instantly.

Poof! You claim that a non individual has rights. Based on what? You can't say. How? You can't say. Why? You can't say. And how can these rights exist in contradiction of other rights? You can't say. You're not resolving any contradictions whatsoever, you're just creating new ones.

Otherwise, you have to decide when it is "born" or "capable of being born" which is an entirely subjective standard and in most instances would require you to definitively know the future.. if you're trying to use this fact to prevent or justify an abortion.

No, you do not. Ignoring the fact that there's nothing to decide, here - the question is not about what is capable of being born. It's only about individual rights. The thing that should be painfully obvious about individual rights: only individuals have them.

So.. you can understand why I think the ethical definition is more worthy of debate.

Which is, ironically, why you're avoiding the debate like the plague.

0
totovader 0 points ago +2 / -2

EDIT: If you downvote because you can't argue, I just ignore you.

That's what I thought. Just another emotional retard.

0
akira2501 0 points ago +1 / -1

Naw.. I just have no interest in wasting my time with people who aren't intellectually capable of sustaining an argument without turning to insults.

So.. just what I expected, another person with nothing to say who doesn't have the sense to just keep their mouth shut.

Thanks for stopping by!

0
totovader 0 points ago +2 / -2

Naw.. I just have no interest in wasting my time with people who aren't intellectually capable of sustaining an argument without turning to insults.

Be honest: you don't really think anyone is going to buy that excuse, do you?

Either way - seethe and cope, faggot. You're a fraud and everyone can see it.

10
Overmann 10 points ago +10 / -0

So killing a person isn't claiming ownership over them?

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
10
deleted 10 points ago +18 / -8
2
NateBedfordForrest 2 points ago +2 / -0

Dat's my niggatron!!!!!

8
TheAmbulance 8 points ago +9 / -1

Speach writer gone, the evil runs its mouth again.

6
Beerleague 6 points ago +6 / -0

Or mandating vaccines?

6
dr_gonzo 6 points ago +7 / -1

Yes like a couple minutes ago when you were supporting vax mandates Kamala? Is that what you're referring to? We remember that well.

You know what else our country has a history of? Guaranteeing its citizens their right to not be murdered. Some might even say that there's really no point in even having a government if it doesn't do so.

And equating slavery to your right to murder your own child, might be the most repugnant thing I've ever heard

6
jtt888 6 points ago +6 / -0

Talk about projection. That's basically a pro-life argument for the baby.

5
KINGOJ007 5 points ago +5 / -0

All the left does is project. Everything they said about Trump for the last four years is what we are actually living through now with xiden.

5
overblod 5 points ago +5 / -0

She would know, she enslaved people of color, used slave labor and then boasted about it openly during her tenure as San Francisco DA

5
MAGA_____bitches 5 points ago +6 / -1

The ENTIRE WORLD has a History of Claiming Ownership Over Human Bodies......

you dumb racist cunt

3
War_Hamster 3 points ago +3 / -0

I was just thinking about this. Aren't there a few pockets where slavery never happened?

I know Canada had a few slaves, but what about Australia and NZ? Iceland? Tibet?

2
NateBedfordForrest 2 points ago +2 / -0

Uhm Australia was a prison camp, I'm sure there were slaves there.. Vikings frequented Iceland so there is your answer for that one...

2
War_Hamster 2 points ago +2 / -0

I wasn't considering prisoners slaves, but because of the timing of the colonization of Australia, I was intrigued enough to look it up and found this:

As early as the 1860s, anti-slavery campaigners began to invoke “charges of chattel bondage and slavery” to describe north Australian conditions for Aboriginal labour. In 1891 a “Slave Map of Modern Australia” was printed in the British Anti-Slavery Reporter, a journal that documented slavery around the world and campaigned against it. Reprinted from English journalist Arthur Vogan’s account of frontier relations in Queensland, it showed large areas where… the traffic in Aboriginal labour, both children and adults, had descended into slavery conditions."

I didn't find anything connecting them to the African slave trade.

As for Iceland, I found something that I had never heard before. Very much worth the click:

https://allthatsinteresting.com/iceland-founded-viking-slaves

2
NateBedfordForrest 2 points ago +2 / -0

You never fail to appreciate.

There was a certain tribe that was up to their noses in the African slave trade...but I digress

Good day to you....wh

4
Magasaurus_Rex_1 4 points ago +4 / -0

I see her new speech writer is off to a great start

4
ThirteenPercenter 4 points ago +4 / -0

What about the fetus? Not a human body?

4
TheyLETyougrabit 4 points ago +4 / -0

I mean the pro slavery literally argued it was their property their choice.

3
megapat100 3 points ago +3 / -0

nobody elected you cunt. shut your mouth.

3
Smdlegend 3 points ago +3 / -0

Tragedy. This stupid cunt is absolutely mental. Our children must die instead of being slaves...just fucking go away.

3
mintscape 3 points ago +3 / -0

I thought she was talking about the vaccine.

3
RIP_NWO 3 points ago +3 / -0

She speaks like an enemy of our own nation lol as if our country was the only one with slaves in the past. Not to mention the mental gymnastics she uses to compare slavery to disallowing the killing of babies is insane.

3
jennyfrutex 3 points ago +3 / -0

I wonder who's gonna remind her that her ancestors owned slaves.

3
citydwellertrumpfan 3 points ago +3 / -0

That government ownership of people's bodies was evident during Operation COVID 19.

3
Basedsliceofwinning 3 points ago +3 / -0

Look, how about we just bar pregnant women from most businesses, government buildings, and advocate for them to lose their job if they don't get an abortion.

2
jrgreen73 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sort of like the way mothers who abort their children claim ownership over the bodies and lives of those children.

2
Rommsey 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's a weird way for her to admit trying to control and force people taking a vaccine.

2
beffers 2 points ago +2 / -0

She has no idea what owning your own body is like after decades of being a community bicycle.

2
T-Bear 2 points ago +2 / -0

Great, Kamala.

Now do the Vax....

2
nomoreprinkles 2 points ago +2 / -0

Africa certainly does - they practice it to this day.

2
Kek_The_World 2 points ago +2 / -0

She’s right. Clot shot? Also Biden telling teachers that when students are at school they no longer belong to the parents.

2
thejohnson651 2 points ago +2 / -0

She said it wrong, it should say that the Government has a history of claiming ownership of human bodies,

2
JoeMcCarthyWasRight 2 points ago +2 / -0

Bitch your family was one of the largest slave owners in Jamaica.

1
__I_dindu__nufin_ 1 point ago +1 / -0

She dindu nuffin

2
zooty 2 points ago +2 / -0

It starts with othering people. Like "It's just a clump of cells".

2
someschmuck 2 points ago +2 / -0

Seeing how she used to be a modern slave owner when she was AG of Commi-fornia.I can see why she has that idiotic mindset.

2
catvideos3 2 points ago +2 / -0

Kamala's ancestors were cannibals. How is she going to reconcile that?

2
Texar1991 2 points ago +2 / -0

Abortion will be seen in the future as just as immoral and barbaric as slavery.

2
thenotfakepaul 2 points ago +2 / -0

funny because it's not pro-lifers who are claiming that fetuses aren't people.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
OnlyTrump20 2 points ago +2 / -0

Actually, the pro-abortion people are doing the same thing as the pro-slavery people used to do by claiming that some humans are less than human.

1
__I_dindu__nufin_ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Rob Zombie claims that some humans are more human than human

2
HiroProtagonist 2 points ago +2 / -0

Democrats have a history of dehumanizing underrepresented groups in order to justify committing atrocities against them. Slavery of blacks, internment of Japanese, and abortion of babies all spring to mind.

2
__I_dindu__nufin_ 2 points ago +2 / -0

Encouraging men to cut their genitals off...

Forcing women to compete with men in sports because "they're equal"

2
Xchr0nos 2 points ago +2 / -0

Like how she extended sentences to claim ownership of state-sponsored slavery. Cunt.

2
DeplorableLA 2 points ago +2 / -0

M-Kay. Not even clear that Que Mala has possession of her own mind.

2
MythArcana 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, does Pfizer ring a bell?

2
1776ThereIsaidIt 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nothing indicates the desire to own a human being more than killing them.

STFU you feckless, moronic cunt.

2
airborne3502 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's a stretch.

1
murphda 1 point ago +1 / -0

Kamalass is Actually dumber then dirt...

1
__I_dindu__nufin_ 1 point ago +1 / -0

*than

1
Ironball 1 point ago +1 / -0

So does her slave owning relatives.

1
GhostOfMyFormerSelf 1 point ago +1 / -0

Evil people twist the meaning of words. Stupid people believe the new meanings.

1
Deplorable556 1 point ago +1 / -0

somebody give her new speech writer a raise

1
Shigaru 1 point ago +1 / -0

They are literally claiming ownership of a body...saying they have a right to kill it.

1
Cheesemaker 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Now go get vaccinated because we own your body"

1
Conservativechick 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's Democrats who are claiming that the woman "owns" a separate living human being, and has the right to kill them.