They showed what their priorities are and it’s absolutely disgusting.
“Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Would be what they would say, and is in no way an argument that I would make.
Showed? It’s still going on.
Trump is protecting pedophiles. The same Trump that raped kids.
deleted by creator
Brilyn Hollyhand is supposed to be the replacement Charlie Kirk. The same billionaires are sponsoring him, but he’s just not catching on. Face is too big.
Mf sounds like a character from the hobbit
Charlie who?
A relative of Captain Kirk … maybe.
This Captain Kirk?
“That’s Captain Kirk” – Miles Obrien.
Something cork
Wait, not to be a total asshole about someone’s name but I thought the -lyn suffix was pretty feminine? This man was set up to fail by his parents.
One of the big fads about 20 years ago or so was portmanteaus of parent’s names. So, for instance, Ashley and Richard would give birth to Richley. I have no idea how old this person is but maybe something like that happened here?
Riley
Or Asshard
Riley is an already existing name, the fad was about coming up with a new name. But I could totally see Ashard.
Yeah but what about Asshard
Maybe he’s trans?
Nah, don’t blame that shit on us.
I thought about that response, then remembered that Caitlin Jenner exists. So it is at least possible for a trans person to be a hateful MAGA bigot, even if it’s unlikely.
Trans people can be hateful all on their own, but there is a troubling tendency I’ve noticed to paint all loathsome political figures as secretly queer. By contrast it’s rare to see a queer person’s misbehavior used to insinuate they’re actually cis and straight. I think it’s important to consider the way that attitude steers people towards thinking of queer people as deceptive or more prone to criminal behavior, consciously or not.
there is a troubling tendency I’ve noticed to paint all loathsome political figures as secretly queer. By contrast it’s rare to see a queer person’s misbehavior used to insinuate they’re actually cis and straight.
I think you’re taking this differently than it’s usual intention.
Talking about how hateful conservatives are secretly queer isn’t actually about the queerness at all. It’s about them hiding that fact, often because of religious indoctrination and their specific social circle of hatred to anything non-cis. So they in turn hate themselves and feel the need to hide that and take the hatred out on others because they’re not “allowed” to be themselves, so no one else should either.
The fact that there are so many examples of this just helps reinforce the assumption that these shitty people do have an underlying social pressure causing their behavior. Sort of the exact opposite of what you describe.
At least that’s always been the way I’ve taken those discussions. Because the alternative is just they are a shitty excuse for a human being.
The people seeing queers as something like deceptive are those same pieces of shit that are hiding in the first place, the same projection they use for everything else in their life.
We can only hope he has the same commitment as Kirk and gets “acceptably” raped
The classic discussion
“We’re fighting for the sanctity of life”
“while grilling a piece of animal on the grill”
“Human life”
“Yet people die because of lack of healthcare or malnutrition”
“Children”
“And stil child mortality is rising”
“Unborn life”
“Yet we polute the environment and with that the unborn child”
“It has a heartbeat, okay!”
“So does a Leftist”
If a 12-year-old girl got raped and became pregnant, I’d rather live in a country in which she can contact medical services on her own, receive medical care without cost, and then the medical services contact the authorities, which can then investigate how a child became pregnant. Starting with the parents. Such things are quite often caused by close relatives.
So according to the right wing a 12 y/o should be raped and should carry & raise a baby for the rest of her life just because “AbOrTiOn Is MuRdEr”.
Anti-abortion is a position exclusively for unreasonable or irrational people.
And privileged people.
Its the privilege that makes them unreasonable and irrational.
Same as the other polar extreme dogma.
… Gotta be some remedies for that, so people are alleviated of their unreasonableness and irrationality.
… … Mattias Desmet’s book The Psychology of Totalitarianism springs to mind. Main thrust of remedy is to keep speaking sensible nuance to those in a mass formation/groupthink/totalitarianised-psyche, even though it seems risky as they increasingly see any and all atrocities as necessary virtues, and double-down all the harder the more they’re confronted with the contradictions, the self-inconsistency, … which does seem more than just dangerous, but then you’ve got to compare that risk of danger with the greater escalating harm into worsening atrocities that happens all the faster when they go unchallenged.
Ummm one extreme is doing the right thing and one extreme is doing the wrong thing so I don’t know the point you are trying to make. Yes there are some cases when Abortion can cause harm to the mother than actually giving birth. But those specific cases are for the DOCTORS AND MOTHERS TO DECIDE and not anyone else.
…is that first part supposed to be a serious argument? The other side would say the exact same thing. It’s also an issue that inherently will never be black and white because children don’t develop in discrete stages, you can never point to a specific time and say “until here it’s ok”. Some of the arguments for abortion even still apply post-birth, such as the parents not being capable of caring for the child properly, making everyone including the child miserable. And the child a day before birth isn’t all that different from the child the day after.
I’d choose birth as the arbitrary cutoff point just because the child stops being part of the mother at that time and we have to put a limit somewhere, but I’d probably lose a lot of people with that (and I’d also still say that’s the right thing).
When there exist people unironically making the argument that factory farming is good actually because any life is better than no life, of course there will be a lot more wanting to just defend life for the sake of it even if it just makes everyone involved more miserable.
You only need one argument pro-choice and that is “Her body, her choice”.
And wtf are you talking about post-natal abortion? Literally no sane person is calling for that.
It’s really simple: Nobody has the right to use somebody else’s body without their consent. And that goes doubly if this is about a lump of cells.
You only need one argument pro-choice and that is “Her body, her choice”.
I’ve found that a weak ineffective incendiary argument.
Alarming that you say it’s the only argument needed.
An argument I’ve seen be far more effective many times, is “if you disallow abortions, you let rapsists choose the mothers of their children”.
Or another more broad: “Prohibition does not prevent. Prohibition makes the good things bad and the bad things worse.” For the “handing it over to the black market” coat-hangers argument.
Still even while having these discussions, to whichever extent to a side or to nuance one goes, it’s worth reminding ourselves how this is one of those divisive topics used to distract us, to keep us divided and conquered, while we’re all being [pardon the expression] screwed by the man, with usury and genocide and more happening all around out there, encroaching ever more inescapably. So it’s good to take a step back and see it from the level of control or freedom (which then can reunite desperate perspectives, sharing the same principles, and with that shared awareness, can better proceed through figuring out how to better meet those principles (~ certainly better than being at each others’ throats while we’re [again] getting screwed by the man), freeing up our time, attention, energy, for more important vital concerns.
Yes, women having bodily autonomy being an “incendiary argument” is definitely one of the many problems of the patriarchy.
I feel like you’re not stating your arguement very well because I don’t actually understand the point you’re trying to make. There is the anti-abortion crowd and then that’s it, there is no other side to the arguement.
People who are pro-choice are all about enabling others to make their own determinations, people who are anti-abortion are against people being able to make their own determinations. The difference is the pro-choice crowd aren’t forcing abortions on people who don’t want them, which would be the antithesis viewpoint. You see how the are not equivalent?
This isn’t even a philosophical issue — as much as the Right wants it to be — but a legal one. The basic concept is a pregnant individual must have the right to abort the pregnancy at any moment during. Law shouldn’t say if it is feasible or moral to abort the pregnancy because there is only one legal entity here — the mother. That choice should lay with the one who is pregnant. The feasibility of the pregnancy/abortion should be determined by medical professionals because each individual case is different.
Just want to say I appreciate you having the courage to provide counterpoints in a very biased space.
They’re not providing counter viewpoints They’re just being intransitive. There is no such thing as the force everyone to have abortions viewpoint so they are arguing in bad faith.
A lot of their comments are completely nonsensical as well, e.g.
When there exist people unironically making the argument that factory farming is good actually because any life is better than no life
I mean what the hell has that got to do with anything? We’re supposed to be talking about the morality of abortions and they throw in animal cruelty in there as if that’s some kind of counterpoint. Also I don’t think literally anyone thinks that factory farming is moral because otherwise the animals would never have existed, I’ve never heard of anyone espouse that view. Not that it would matter even if they did, because it’s got literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I think you’re another responder to this who has missed what was meant there, not letting your imagination go far enough.
The opposite of an absolute dogma of no abortions is not some abortions. It’s all abortions. … Which is the political philosophy of some misanthropes (some of whom are very rich and powerful).
That’s still not pro-choice. That is anti-life lol. There are only 2 sides to this debate (which really shouldn’t even be a debate because even third world countries like India have better abortion laws than the US).
Oh boy…
* reads the rules before responding… “Be civil”.*
… This may be challenging to respond to, as I think I’ve run out of ability to calmly and kindly clear up the miscommunication/mistake, as your not-even-wrong double-down still misses the point straight after I had clarified (~ or so I thought I had ~ but that seems completely missed), parodying Jam’s “thick people” scene. And not only making the not-even-wrong fallacy, but also completely missing the broader principle [pro nuance, not falling for the manufactured divisive psyop’d groupthinks, the variety of perspectives, the other extreme, and especially, not falling for (nor being complicit in) the mutual unwitting abuse of cunningham’s law], doubling down even on that, insisting there are only 2 sides… What hope of receiving new information and nuance with that kind of thing going on?
[Perhaps drifting off-topic] When stuff like that goes on, I wonder about chemical lobotomisation via fluoride, mercury, aluminium, aspartame/aminosweet, anti-nutrients, etc, where the fine grain neuro-connections keep getting mowed down before they can facilitate ease of conceiving of new ideas, where the entrenched ideas grow on and on strengthening the pre-existing neuro-connections. Though/And also, again, evokes thoughts of Mattias Desmet’s explorations of the psychology of totalitarianism, in the “There are only” (and even the “which really shouldn’t even be a debate”), as that speaks to the reductive certainty of the one true way. Daunting.
… And just before I posted that… Thinking about how daunting it is, how pro division, how anti-nuance, trolling by playing dumb doing the very thing just called out, etc… And then my concern about my civility (rule 1) turns to my concern about your sapience (or not, as per rule 4 and 5 (no bots, no ai generated content)), and that (as per the old advice “don’t argue with fools as onlookers may not be able to tell you apart”), perhaps I should not have succumbed to xkcd386 here. [LOL. Cue the downvotes! (Over the target when taking fire?)]
There is no polar extreme opposite of the anti abortion argument. It doesn’t exist.
Nobody is happy about getting an abortion. Some people might feel relief, but it’s not something they want to go through.
Also the equivalent extreme to the anti choice side would be “everyone is forced to have abortions” which while something close has been done (namely via population control methods and eugenics) those are widely agreed upon by the pro choice side to be similarly evil to prohibiting all abortions for the same reason (denial of bodily autonomy). In fact, in the modern day the eugenicists typically vote for the same parties as the ones wanting to prohibit abortions.
Thanks for getting it.
From a couple of the other replies here, I was starting to feel gaslight; I was starting to feel ilithiophbia.
In fact, in the modern day the eugenicists typically vote for the same parties as the ones wanting to prohibit abortions.
Yep. Same basic political philosophy of them telling others what to do, what they can do, what they can’t do, who they can be, who’s allowed to be, etc…
There is no polar extreme opposite of the anti abortion argument. It doesn’t exist.
Bold claim. Let me introduce you to some misanthropic extremists who want all babies aborted, and all people killed.
Nobody is happy about getting an abortion.
Bold claim. Let me introduce you to some edge case exceptional ladies.
Some people might feel relief, but it’s not something they want to go through.
Some may indeed, but also, some rare few are going further. … Some of which I suspect an irrational reflexive over-“correction” to a hostile groupthink and the language used, unfortunately creating the counter-groupthink, even unto, as mentioned in my original comment there, mass formation and totalitarianised psyche, where any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues. I don’t think being arrogantly presumptive and ignorant in denial of such socio-psyche problems lends any real world help to create the nice world in your mind where such extremes do not exist, not even in your imagination. We’ve much to mend in this world.
Lol Jesus Christ dude… Talk about nonsense.
If you have a cogent refutation, I’m eager to hear it.
I’m not sure if it is possible to cogently refute meaningless word salad.
Same as the other polar extreme dogma.
My friend, after reading the rest of your comment, I suspect this is just a very unfortunate choice of words. Because you go on to talk about totalitarianism and although totalitarian regimes can force people to get abortions, it’s not a commonly held political view, at least among Westerners.
I suspect you meant to say “other extreme dogma.” But your use of “the” and “polar” would make every native English speaker think you intended to say “same as the extreme polar opposite dogma,” which means you’re talking about pro-choice extremism specifically.
I can’t be sure that you didn’t intend that meaning. If you did intend to mean pro-choice extremism, then you brought the response upon yourself. But if you didn’t, may I suggest you be more careful with wording, especially in your first sentences?
which means you’re talking about pro-choice extremism specifically.
LOL! No. XD
Pro-choice sounds much more like a sane middle ground. Use your imagination, go further than the middle (~ which may or may not be a dogmatically held position), to the other polar extreme than abortions=none, to the misanthropic anthrocidal all.
The 12-year-old would die in childbirth as god intended. These people don’t actually care about the baby they just care about having power over other people.
specially women, specially young women
It’s even worst than that, yes it’s all that AND it doesn’t apply to them, namely they’ll shout that insanity to each other, and the whole World, to see but when it’s “them” then they, rationally of course, find a clinic. Absolutely garbage of human beings who are not coherent. Do as I say, not as I do.
There’s a group that see falling teenage pregnancy and say that’s the reason birth rates are falling In the west. They then equate falling birth rates with the erasure of culture. Therefore, in their head, teenage pregnancy is necessary as is carrying it to term.
A wholly messed up view.
Jesus can you imagine how messed up for the next generation would be if the vast majority of them were raised by parents who were basically kids themselves?
Well of course, the divine providence of their perfect God guided the penis to this holy deed. Man is not the interfere with His will.
That’s cause she probably wanted it, look at how she was dressed.
Its not the conservatives fault, that children are so arousing /s fucking obviously
It has nothing to do with the subject, but fuck You for reminding me about that anyways.
Well, it most definitely should be closer. It’s already emotionally taxing enough for the child to do it on their own and hide it. No point to make it worse by having to travel that far.
Love your username. Hope you’re good. ❤️
They are the best.
You’ve had previous interactions? 🙂
Thank you, even though the username might say otherwise, i am doing rather well or as well as one can these days.
Glad to hear it, buddy!
Republicans when abortion: Noooo every life is sacred!!!111 ;(((((
Republicans when someone gets cancer: “Well should’ve saved 250.000 dollars just in case. Go die peasant, public healthcare is communism!!!”
Now lets spend another trillion for this year’s megadeaths.
“Pro-Life”.
You know what far-right religious nuts DO NOT like to know?
God has aborted more babies than every doctor ever born. He delights in the blood, as I understand it. Can’t get hard without it. And how is Mary going to catch a stray savior load if God can’t get his cross up?
Dude why are some people here so weird? There are legitimate arguments that can be made even in the context of religion that definitely don’t step down to the same level of these right-wing nuts. Imagine you turn your argument pro-right. Don’t sound too dissimilar now huh?
Can you try again, because I have no idea what the hell you’re trying to say?
You know what far-right religious nuts DO NOT like to know?
That Paul was doing law and order.
You know what far-right religious nuts DO NOT like to know?
That Paul was doing law and order.
^ Best answer to that.
I may have gone for “How old Mary [(and Joseph)] was.”
How old?
I hear apocryphal sources confirm 12 and 80.
Or what Kaneh Bosm (in the original language bible’s description of the ingredients of the holy anointing oil that makes one christ) is correctly translated as.
Do you mean when he was Saul?
SVU?
Logic? Coherence? What is all that? /s
I feel really bad for laughing at this.
Well, Steve is a comedian known for his audience participation, so you’re not exactly wrong for laughing.
Single issue voters are the worse.
It seems like genocide is replacing baby killer more and more in their playbook though.
This serves a double purpose.
The first is an attempt to steal and conflate actual genocide with their hideous agendas. By repurposing language they hope to make their efforts seem more important and also water down actual genocide.
The second is to dog whistle abortion to the “white genocide” conspiracy theory crowd.
If they are worried about a white genocide, shouldn’t they be promoting abortion so those ‘poor’ [insert 'other 'group here] don’t outnumber and overrun them?
Probably not, if they did they wouldn’t have a ready group to enslave on down the line. These out groups are also marginalized by the law and turned into de-facto slaves through the penal system. But also…
You see abortion itself is also a dog whistle. They don’t actually care about it, they wanted a new rallying cry after their segregated schools began losing funding.
The whole thing is a smoke screen so they could keep funneling tax dollars to schools that exclude blacks so that their children can’t meet “other” children and potentially realize that they’re being raised as racists.
Their real victories are all about funding private and religious schools that have somehow remained segregated.
That is what the War on Drugs is AKA the minority genocide.
So let me guess, his solution is to register all menstruating women and restrict them from leaving state lines right? Freedom.
I’m waiting for them to legalize sex slavery as punishment for a crime, I never thought it would actually get that bad but at this point…
Not that it changes anything in the women’s right to abortion, but a 14 or even a 12 years old boyfriend can get a 12 years old pregnant.
deleted by creator
Well that’s fucking bleak.
Kinda stands to reason that the vast majority of child pregnancies are the result of inappropriate sexual contact, but it is still alarming to see the numbers pointing out HOW inappropriate.
deleted by creator
I don’t put much stock in this data.
First, it is 32 to 37 years out of date. Social norms have shifted drastically. At the time of these studies, The Cosby Show was the highest rated show on TV.
Second:
70% of babies born to teenage mothers are fathered by adult men; only 30% are fathered by teenagers.
The majority of these 1980s/1990s cases were 19-year-old “teenagers” and their 20-year-old partners. The mean age of motherhood in the 1970s was only 20.2 years. As many girls below that age were becoming mothers as women above that age. (That puts the mean age of conception at 19.5 years, making teenage pregnancy the norm)
Motherhood age rose slightly through the 1990s, and jumped in the early 2000s. It’s currently 27.5 years and rising fast.
Third:
Of the pregnant teenagers had had an unwanted sexual experience,
The “unwanted” criterion might be doing a lot of work here. It might be including only a tiny percentage of all pregnancies. The greater the age difference, the more likely the experience was “unwanted”. This criterion might be capturing 100% of pregnancies with >10 year difference, but only 5% of pregnancies with <2 year difference. The overwhelming majority of the aforementioned 19/20 families aren’t being counted.
It’s reasonable to say that it was bleak. It is not reasonable to say that it is bleak. This historical data does not reflect current trends.
Nothing is stopping you from posting actual data instead of just whining that this is too old.
deleted by creator
Seriously. Dude is literally taking the position that we “solved rape” with zero support just because the last data he saw is old.
You can’t honestly believe that’s what he’s saying. That pointing out the data being posted is very old and thus not inherently indicative of modern society, somehow means the issue is resolved?
That data could still be accurate but with 30+ years of societal changes, including a dramatic shift in the median age of pregnancies, it should be assumed it is no longer accurate. It could be, but you should assume old data like that is no longer accurate, regardless of the specific topic of discussion.
Show me in this data where child rape still exists. Obviously, it does exist, but this data certainly doesn’t show it.
Technically, this data doesn’t even show that child rape ever existed. My point is simple: This data is trash.
What kind of logic is that, of course it does exist - its just that your data has the capacity to be severely incorrect. The only one playing pretend is you, because this whole thing is about your original analysis not playing pretend that it “doesnt” exist.
deleted by creator
You are similarly empowered.
Sure, except that I didn’t think I actually need much data to prove the rape didn’t disappear in the last twenty years.
Of course you don’t need much data to prove that. You need extraordinarily little data to support your point. Everyone knows your point is perfectly valid: rape has not been eliminated. Child rape has not been eliminated. Underage pregnancy has not been eliminated. These are all problems that this data does not quantify.
You seem to think I am arguing that rape no longer exists. That is not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that this data doesn’t actually tell us a damn thing about either rape or teenage pregnancy. From the data presented here, we cannot determine if rape is more common than theft, or rarer than cannibalism.
As presented, this data is meaningless garbage.
deleted by creator
12 year olds still being raped and impregnated is bleak.
Indeed. However, the cited data doesn’t tell us anything about child rape. Sexual activity between two adolescents is not statutory rape. This is the overwhelming majority of cases.
deleted by creator
You can pretend like underage pregnancies are all from consensual underage sex, but I’m not going to close my eyes to truths of the world.
I don’t believe I said anything of the sort. My point was only that the data presented is not representative of the current state. We have every reason to believe that the cited numbers were recorded at or near their peak, and that they have fallen precipitously in the past 30+ years.
I’m having a hard time understanding who are you trying to disprove with this statement:
Also adult men having sex with underage girls IS rape.
I dont think OP even mentioned justifying rape. So what purpose do these straw men serve you?
It’s reasonable to say that it was bleak. It is not reasonable to say that it is bleak. This historical data does not reflect current trends.
Thats the conclusion which should’ve been included within op’s statement. Honestly such an outdated statistic is a poor indication of the status quo - because it isn’t the status quo. OP may imply various repeated statements however it doesn’t magically supplement the facts and statistics which exist today.
Within the research scene, OPs statement would be framed as misinformation due to its age - this factor alone is responsible here, so there is no room in twisting the logic here.
deleted by creator
Just because it has decreased doesn’t mean that rape and sexual assaults don’t happen to teenagers and children anymore.
Yet again, you’re missing the point. This conclusion was already stated by countless of oppositions to your argument.
The main point is the fact that your research is invalid to explain the status quo - its the logic thats the problem not that “rape has somehow evaporated from existence”.
deleted by creator
Note that the first 36% (43% if you include the implied 7% where the father is more than two years younger) includes age pairings like 19/22, and many people would include something like 18/24 as somewhat acceptable. Underage pregnancies should really be tracked separately from teenage pregnancies.
Also, teenage pregnancy and violent crime are both way down from 1989 (crime more than 50% and teenage pregnancy about 75%). I wonder if/how those two factors would affect the numbers in a modern study.
deleted by creator
Teen pregnancy is lower for sure thanks in large part to access to contraception. It’s not because sexual activity and rape went down.
It’s not only because of that, but it seems highly likely that that contributed. Impregnating children is, as you noted, almost always a sex crime, and sex crime is down by half. It’s certainly possible that the entire decrease was in crimes against adults and AMAB children, but that seems unlikely.
I’m still confident based on all the available information that the majority of 12 year olds that find themselves pregnant are victims of men.
Absolutely, but 12-year-olds are not teenagers. The study you cited doesn’t actually include anyone who gives birth at 12. That’s one more reason to track underage pregnancies separately. 18/19-year-olds skew the numbers because they’re above the age of consent, and girls below 13 don’t contribute.
deleted by creator
That’s why I said “thanks in LARGE PART TO”
You’ll note that I quoted a bit more. That was for a reason: the part I took issue with was the “it’s not because of…”
So it would track based off this information that includes 13 year olds that it is similar for 12 year olds.
Perhaps, but it might not be. Those 13-year-olds are mixed in with 19-year-olds, whose circumstances are likely far different.
And I stand by my statement that most pregnant 12 year olds are victims.
You keep restating this as if anyone disagreed with you. I explicitly agreed in the comment to which you’re replying.
I don’t care for this pedantic, know-it-all type of debates on these topics. We’re talking about pregnant 12 year olds.
And you’re citing data as if it were much more applicable than it is. Data for 12-year-olds is likely worse, no one is denying that, but it’s still a weak argument to cite data that doesn’t include the age group in question, does include age groups with far different circumstances, and is from a time when the two phenomena in question (violent sex crimes and teenage pregnancy) were two and four times higher respectively.
I don’t care for this pedantic, know-it-all type of debates on these topics. We’re talking about pregnant 12 year olds.
Then why even attempt to supply evidence to the debate if you’re going to dismiss critiques of it later?
This is the point of research, and the thing is the ‘know-it-all’ type of debate ais all a result from your original statement. This isn’t about 12 year olds but the inherent logic within arguments.
deleted by creator
I do suggest you add a disclaimer that your research may be slightly outdated. This of course, doesn’t invalidate it; however, clarity is important here as this can be on the verge of misinformation.
I do respect that this problem has been addressed, so well done.
deleted by creator
This doesn’t necessarily make it appear as a disclaimer, but rather a reference. The premise doesn’t state that this may or may not be outdated - it gives the impression that it is the truth, despite the year.
deleted by creator
Yep, my ex’s first husband first knocked her up in his 20s when she was 17. You’ll never guess which one decades later supports accessible abortion for teenagers…
Yes, but his consternation is not about a “baby” dying, but that a woman or girl could make a choice behind the back of her husband, father, or boyfriend. That’s why he frames it the way he does.
I agree. OP is greatly over generalizing the situation here. But as the other commenter said (even if the evidence is on the older less reliable side): the majority of cases are of older adults raping 12 year olds.
The composition fallacy doesn’t necessarily make the statement invalid, as considering the aim of the first person, that aim directly corresponds to the conclusion of second person and has a link with the supplied evidence.
Ahh. A true display of the American Right Wing politics.
I mean could less be expected of a follower of Jesus? Considering the fact that he decided to come back as a pedo-rapist.
Yeah, pregnant 12 year olds aren’t really a problem for forced birthers. More like an opportunity. Besides she should have just kept her legs together, according to them
