Topic: Kamala to re-instate the right to health for women - por-choice (Read 419 times)

Again, I am "your highness" or "your majesty".

Machiavelli was far too naïve for what you need to class as psycho nowadays, but not, a psycho does not need to pretend necessarily, you just need to not feel any empathy. You can pretend or not pretend, and you are wrong, they do have social skills.

But your are quite there, a few touches and you will be a fully developed one. For example, saying "women who abort should have their breasts removed" places you in a 7 out of 10 already. Something like BA Decker saying that women should carry the children of their rapists places him in a 7 of 10 too - he does not understand humans, so he replaces it with rules.

Anyway, the good thing is that most people are not psychos, so they understand that women should take their own decisions and the religion should stay out of their uterus - unless invited of course.

I am not naturally psychopathic, but I do realize that there is a lot of virtue in psychopathy, so I would like to learn from a natural psychopath how I should behave. Do you have any recommendations for me? Or maybe I should just learn to be a little bit more machiavellian. Oh f@#$ this. It is too much work being a psychopath. Psychopaths are good at pretending to like people for a short amount of time, and that is just way too much for me. Most people are chlurmcklets, and I cannot be a good psychopath and kiss their @$$es because they are pieces of s@#$.

Anyways, I was just saying that most psychotic liberals and many psychotic conservatives are very effective at convincing everyone around them to adopt the complete opposite political opinions because of how asinine they are. They have absolutely no social skills whatsoever.

Regards,

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

I insist you call me "your majesty" or be banned from the Paxmanian Island for life.

If you are what you say you are, you should know the difference between saying something and proving something. In this case, there are numerous cases of varied political affiliation in the same families. A Rep dad does not make necessarily Rep babies. Go back to Lalaland Uni.

Again, if you intend to think like a psychopath, take lessons from a smart psychopath (I am sure you'll find a few in this section of the forum).

Riiiiight... my body my choice.... now show me your vax papers or you can't leave the house!

Genetics determine political affiliation. You can tell who someone supports just by looking at them most of the time. In fact, we should replace voting with AI bots that will determine who people will vote for just from photos of them (because it is easier that way). Of course, we have the scenario where someone becomes so annoying with their politics that they convince everyone around them to vote for the opposite party, and that explains why conservative but shitty fathers make liberal daughters.

Regards,

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Of, course... no Conservative 16 year old would dream of fuki@g his boyfriend to death an then ask daddy for a paid trip to New York ("just to meet my friend there"). That would never happen   Where did you get your (alleged) phD, in the University of Southern Lalaland?

BTW, I have bad news for you: people are not born either liberal or conservative. If you want to think like a psychopath at least do it properly: abortion would prevent the formation of a human being of unknown ideology.

 - paxmao, Supreme Ilustrated Leader of Paxmania. You may call me "your majesty".


Both. Cheating is part of the preppy ed.

You're talking about the woman conservatives, right?      

But then it will be harder for conservatives to get away with cheating on their wives.

You are not thinking strategically. Abortion gets rid of liberals, and liberals are the only people making sure women have the right to an abortion. We should therefore vote for conservative candidates who want to ban abortion so that we have enough liberals in the future to make sure that women are guaranteed a right to an abortion. To protect a woman's right to choose, we need to vote against abortion.

Regards,

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Does that really seem like a logical argument to you?

We live in a common law country. Depending on the circumstances...

He had the squirrel for 7 years. Nobody complained formally for that long. Such makes the squirrel his property.

Depending on circumstances... if they came onto his residence property uninvited, and took his property without permission, he needs to sue every man/woman involved man-to-man... and their boss who gave the orders.

Start by invoicing each of them to the tune of, say, $100,000 plus expenses and court costs. If they don't pay the invoices, after a few months of re-invoicing with interest on the unpaid balance, sue them for not paying the invoices.

Don't use attorneys. Learn what is in these websites:
- https://www.youtube.com/c/CraigLynch/videos
- https://www.youtube.com/@trustinalllaw8974/videos
- https://www.youtube.com/@manandlaw6525/videos

This depends on circumstances. If he signed paperwork with them, he might have outsmarted himself.

Who is standing up for the squirrels?

You should refrain from calling others stupid. Seriously, you of all people need to avoid that dumBAss. An since we are at it, giving sexual advice seems to be well beyond your abilities based on what you wrote.

As for all that you have written... is in your imagination - it is not a thing, it is not real.

If you want to make that into law, go and do politics and convince others you are right, meanwhile, that is a good as any science fiction book, but less  interesting. Using the Jewish mythology and systems of punishment or citing that kind of crap is as good as ISIS destroying statues of Buda and the Babylonian temples. Go back to the Dark Ages where you belong and keep burning witches there.

Meanwhile have it very clear: women vote, women will not let you and people like you decide about their lives. I cannot think of anyone less qualified honestly.

Contracts exist in many shapes, but one common characteristic is that the parties have to accept entering into such contract - even if verbal. That is everywhere, in every legal system out there. Most woman do not accept those terms explicitly or implicitly, so no contract exists. Honestly, it feels stupid to even discuss.

That's your problem with understanding sexual intercourse. If a person needs to feel aroused and excited, masturbate. Don't get into the position of unwritten contract with the potential person being made by the sex act.

Trust contract:
Man = Grantor
Woman = Trustee
New life = Beneficiary
God = Protector

Thank God that in His protecting He is patient with your stupidity. But stop being stupid and start to learn. From Exodus chapter 21:
Just because an agreement is not written, does not mean it does not exist.

Your argument is that by thinking "we have a contract" I would not kill you with a tea spoon if I wished? You would be alive for two reasons;

1. My moral rectitude and my beliefs do not allow me to kill unless there is no other way of defending those I love.
2. Killing is a crime in Paxmania and the Paxmanian judiciary would make sure I understand that.

There is no contract either in having sex, there is simply an expectation from both sides that does not include having unwanted kids. The rest is mumble jumble.


See, that is something we can discuss - and it has been discussed a million times in many places. When is a human a human. My guess, 2 cells does not pass the bar.

I definitely do not want Harris to win the election but one thing I do think is that abortion is a human right. A woman should be able to have an abortion BUT there should he a time limit of gestation when it is permitted. Maybe up to 20 weeks is acceptable or something. Any time that it is a viable birth then it should be banned. You can not be aborting 32 week unborn infants. Trump should do something similar to what I said.

I'm really glad that you live way over there, and I live way over here. Otherwise we might pass each other on the sidewalk - not even knowing each other - and you just might be in killer-mode today, and I'd be dead.

Kamala won’t be reinstating anything because she’s going to get her ass handed to her at the ballot box. MAGA II is rising & Trump will be back in the Whitehouse. Anything Kamala promises is horse shit because she’s been part of the administration for 4 years & not implemented any of it. I can’t wait for Trump to win so we can get this country back on track again.

I do not have a "contract" with anyone saying they can do sex with / to me without my explicit agreement dumBAss. And I have no contract either with anyone in the street, in my dwelling or anywhere else other that what I sign in written or under verbal agreement where the law (the real law enforced by a judicial system, not your inventions) so allows.

What I trust is a system of incentives that push all the rest of the people to behave out of their own moral rectitude or for fear to pay the consequences not some made up construct that has no legal entity.

Sex is not a contract that forces the woman to do anything she does not want, which is basically what you are proposing. Healthy people make sex for a million reasons and it is not always rational nor well thought and certainly does not carry any "contractual responsibility" other than if you pay a professional such as Stormy Daniels or the like.

You want to prevent abortion, you have to convince the mother. Anything else is just your beliefs in an uterus that does not want them.

BTW terminating pregnancy at the right time is not a crime. Hanging people, electrocuting them and sending them to die by poison or afixiation using the law is - yet you have that all over the US and I do not hear you say anything.

But it is absolutely true. For example...

If you are walking down a crowded New York City sidewalk, and walking with and passing hundreds of other people, you have an unwritten contract/agreement with them. What is that contract? That you will treat them with respect, and that they will treat you with respect.

Are you going to stop and sign a contract with each person wherein the details are explained? Of course not. Everybody automatically knows the general details.

How much more when a woman enters an unwritten contract with a man, and then breaks it by murdering her unborn baby?

You know? You are kinda disgusting that you know better, and then want to fight for murder to happen.

Sorry, but you are changing goalposts. You argued that a women who has sex enters a contract and accepts the consequences. Since that is not true, you have no gone to something else.

You are obviously unable to understand human feelings and have replaced that with a set of rules dictated by a group of people who argue to speak in the name of a superior, yet impossible to prove entity.

Common sense tells normal people that a women pregnant as a result of a rape has her onw right to make a decision. You may think it is not right, but you are not the one who is going to live with a child who has the face of the bastard who raped you. This is obvious for non-psychopathic people, but not to you.

Again, if you think it is not right, do not do it, but you have no right to make that decision for others. And no, a fetus is not a human sentient being until the pregnancy is ell advanced. It does not have a brain, does not have a nervous system, does not even have a heart until a certain date. That is not a human being more than an amoeba in your gut.

Common sense tells us to do unto others what we would have them do unto us. If the fetus is healthy, don't murder it. The fact that something like rape happened to you, doesn't mean you need to become a killer.

Not when it's white women getting them.

What's most important is stopping diversity.  Forcing black and brown women to get abortions and preventing white women from having access to abortions have the same effect.  

Luckily America has grown and the days of being repulsed by the idea of diversity is in the past...

Um. Half of the human population has some genetic information (otherwise known as a Y chromosome) that makes them a lot more likely to end up in prison and/or die young. Crime genes exist.

Regards,

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Interesting you mention that. Because indeed some of the genetics researchers have attempted to identify certain alleles that might lead result in a propensity to violence, or even poor impulse control.

Whether their hypothesis has any merit or not isn't for me to say. But it serves nexus for the eugenics argument, that certain genes must be removed from the gene pool. And the eugenicists love their abortion.

Did these sign a contract dumBAss?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/25/abortion-after-rape-laws-bans


The core problem is that you are imposing your ideology on others. You are no-one to decide what a woman can and cannot do with her body. If you think it is not right, then you will have to convince the woman that it is not right, not to force her to have an unwanted pregnancy. What you are doing is in practice make her choose between a life-long unwanted situation, a back-alley abortion risking her life or a long bus to an estate (or to another country for that matter) that allows her to make her choices.

The result is that people who can pay the ticked can interrupt and poor people will have unwanted children that will have a shitty life and statistically end up in prison (paid with your taxes, because I know that's what you care about) or wonder about why "his mom did not want them" each time they look at their foster parents.

Are you sure babies are not born with crime genes? Because I am pretty sure the 2017 Las Vegas shooter got crime genes from his criminal father.

Please get tested for crime genes.

Regards,

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

Babies aren't born criminals, you know.

Didn't you read the whole thing? It's about the right to contract. Abortion isn't a right. But anybody can do anything that they can do.

The woman made her choice when she decided to put herself in a position where she might get pregnant. She made an agreement at that time. Same as anybody making a contract, they have the ability to break the contract. Abortion isn't a right. The rights stopped when they made the contract to get pregnant.

If they break the contract they made, that's when they become like a shooter in a school... a murderer. Both, the shooter and the woman, can do something that they have the ability, but not the right, to do.

A shooter can get away with it to some extent. But the laws need to be changed allowing teachers and even students to be armed for their own protection. As it is, there are armed police in many schools... there to protect people from shooters. Many schools even have armed teachers.

The sad thing is that nobody seems to know how to take the woman to court for breaking the contract.

Why punish the men?

It is quite messed up you bring the topic of mass shootings in schools to argue on the issue of right for women to abort or not.
Shooters and murderers always had the choice to re-consider their plans and perhaps stop what they are going to do before it is too late, but what about the other students of the school and the staff of the institution?. They obviously sis not have a choice, they were just there minding their own business and doing their job (how they are supposed to) untill some madman walked in and decided all of them must die.
Ironically, each time there is a school shooting and people start to talk about gun laws, the Republican representatives and lawmakers say it is not the moment to talk about politics or those events are not supposed to be politicized by the media.... still, here you are politicizing the death of of innocent students in the United States to try to make a point on a topic which is completely unrelated to it.
Shame on you.

It is too bad that the Kamala voters are so annoying that they are busy trying their hardest to annoy as many people as possible into voting for Trump.

WOMEN WHO HAVE ABORTIONS DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR BREASTS REMOVED!!!

Regards,

-Joseph Van Name Ph.D.

The choice was always there.

Considered school shooters. They go into a school and shoot it up, killing some, wounding others. Much of the time they shoot themselves afterward. Why? Because they know that they have murdered a bunch of people, and they know that they will probably be punished with death, anyway. The point is that they had free choice to do this.

It's similar with everybody who sneakily harms anybody else. The courts show all kinds of fraud that people do against other people by not fulfilling their contractual obligations. They always have choice... first to contract or not to contract, and then to fulfill the terms of the contract they agreed to.

Abortion is a little bit different. The people being aborted don't know how, and don't have the ability, to stand up for their rights. So, those doing the aborting process can much more easily get away with the contract-breaking and the murder that they are doing.

Abortion, except in rare circumstances, is totally wrong, and against American and British principles. But mostly it is against Godly principles. People don't realize Proverbs 28:17:
This is the way that women who abort their children feel, way down deep... and many feel it right out in the open, even at the same time that they are doing it.

Promoting unrighteous activity in life should be met with the same punishment as doing the unrighteous activity.

I still have my doubts whether Donald Trump would actually dare to establish a complete abortion ban nationwide in the United States if he happens to win in two weeks. On one hand, he would not need to worry about the consequences of his actions, as it would be he last term, so he could act in a more unhinged and unleashed way with no electoral punishment from voters, though on the other hand, if he decided to proceed to  push such law through the house and the congress it would mean Republicans could experiment a serious backlash in the next midterm elections and lose much of the control of the house and the senate to democrats, not even mention what could happen in the next presidential election.

So my in my mind, I dont think Donald Trump is specially concerned in making such ideas against abortion into law as a priority, he just has not answered when someone asked him during interviews because he knows there is an importante percentage of voters who want him to do it, and he does not want to spoil the momentum of that part of the republican base until the election day, Let us see..

All the single ladies, all the single ladies... If you are tired of priests, men, lawmakers and religious Taliban telling you what should or should not be in your uterus, you have an option:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/26/harris-and-beyonce-rally-on-abortion-rights-in-texas


Remember, this is not encouraging termination of pregnancy, this is about giving the choice to the people who really have to make such decision. It is not "the States" it is not "the Government" and it is not the local priest. It is you and nobody else.


Anti-abortion laws have been proven to increase criminality and social problems - no wonder, unwanted children are guaranteed a shitty start in life.