228 Comments

Suddenly they are able to identify women?

Expand full comment

Identification parallax: obvious on the abortion table, impossible to discern in the bathroom. Must be the lighting.

Expand full comment

I dunno...apparently men can give birth....

Expand full comment

Birthing person - correct term.

Expand full comment

It's quantum physics. Wow, somehow they have been able to hack the very essence of reality. Take that Uncertainty Principle. Maaan... no wonder some of these people have a God complex.

Expand full comment

You mean paradox.

Expand full comment

Now, if they can be made to understand “human being”, “personhood” as applied to babies…

Expand full comment

Good point.

Expand full comment

That comment was so good I posted it to several people, including one prominent in State politics who is on our side. She’ll get a major kick out of that.

Expand full comment

lol

Expand full comment

"My body, my choice" only applies to infanticide.

Expand full comment

When it's obviously not even my body but somebody else's!

Expand full comment

It shouldn't.

Expand full comment

And that's somebody else's body they want to destroy!

Expand full comment

And whether or not to eat an entire spice cake. At least that is what Amy's credo states. Her body her choice. Unfortunately it makes men in her presence want ravens to peck out their eyes.

Expand full comment

Abortion isn't infanticide, it's a "health care decision".

Expand full comment

Your term here is as dishonest, I think, as those who insist on using "fetus" for a child not yet born.

Expand full comment

Saw a sign at the demonstration today that said "abortion has saved many lives". I can pretty much guarantee it has taken more lives than it has saved.

Expand full comment

I agree.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 4, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I was referring to infanticide.

Expand full comment

Facetious.

Expand full comment

I'll bet they're upset they can't use "bodily autonomy" anymore without the deafening ring of hypocrisy shattering people's eardrums.

Expand full comment

I don’t think they even notice the hypocrisy.

Expand full comment

that's what I'm wondering. Critical thinking skills might be absent.

Expand full comment

“might” is the understatement of the decade.

Expand full comment

Underestimating them continues to come at great cost.

Expand full comment

ha! indeed.

Expand full comment

It's all the mask wearing. Low Oxygen.

Expand full comment

Thinking? I fear not.

Expand full comment

"Thinking skills might be absent" There - fixed it for you.

Expand full comment

Too many boosters… 💉💉💉💉💉💉💉💉💉💉💉💉

Expand full comment

"Bolshevik morality holds that whatever contributes to Bolshevik success is moral, whatever hinders it is immoral."

https://newcriterion.com/issues/2019/10/leninthink

Expand full comment

Yeah, they do. Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame.

Expand full comment

True. That has been their modus operandi for years now.

Expand full comment

They notice everything; it's part of the attempt at neural rewiring.

Expand full comment

Some people do, some people are just that stupid.

Expand full comment

I think their stupidity is in other things, but in this they are quite purposeful.

Expand full comment

It depends on who is they. I think most ordinary people saying these things really don’t think twice about it.

Expand full comment

Mis/Disinformation.

Expand full comment

Likewise, I don't think the other side notices theirs

Expand full comment

Hypocrisy, like theft and deception, is a foundational pillar of all leftism.

"To tell the truth is a petty bourgeois habit, whereas for us to lie is justified by our objectives."

~ Vladimir Lenin

Expand full comment

That assumes a level of self-awareness I've seen no evidence for.

Expand full comment

IDK…since when did hypocracy matter to these morons? We’ve seen plenty in the past 2+ years

Expand full comment

There is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides

Expand full comment

I wish I agreed, but they don't think it's hypocritical. The mandates are about public health; abortion is private. Most of the folks who love the mandates and are pro-choice see no conflict.

I've tried so hard to figure this out. I know lots of interesting smart people who know about regulatory capture; they know about corruption and are skeptical of large corporations; they know how the media can manufacture consent; they're not actually thrilled with Biden; they think that pharma companies have too much influence on medical training. But they never question the vaccines. It's incredible. Mass formation, cult psychology and all that - but it's still hard to square.

I just got a note from the parent of a child who was out of school for Covid: "A mild case. Thank you, vaccines! thank you, science!" I felt like I was reading someone's religious dialogue (God is good! Praise be to god!")

Expand full comment

You nailed it, Jasmine. This is absolutely a religion, and that is why it is so impossible to penetrate the cult programming. There is nothing rational or scientific about their beliefs, so reason/logic are worthless against their all-consuming faith.

Expand full comment

Fear makes you do, and think, things that you would otherwise not consider. This is why I believe that people who use fear to coerce others should be punished most harshly.

Expand full comment

Thank god (and the Founders) that we have a Federal system! Otherwise we might have ended up like Australia or New Zealand, quixotically pursuing an impossible zero Covid policy as a country, regardless of the collateral damage.

Expand full comment

After the past 2 years + decades of shredding the Constitution, you think it couldn’t happen here? I never would’ve believed any of what has happened to us since 2020

Expand full comment

Bonus 'like' for outstanding use of the word "quixotically" :-) .p.s.: an awesomely entertaining and funny book(with the right translation). Well worth the long read. p.p.s.: just looked at your avatar - I bet you've read it!

Expand full comment

It’s the sovereignty of the states - de facto quasi-autonomous Countries, guaranteed in the Constitution that is important. Australia has a federal system

Expand full comment

I think Australia has a federal system. If they didn't, it would be worse if you can believe that.

Expand full comment

As I recall, Victoria had the strictest policies, but Australia as a whole went nuts over Covid.

It is a geographically isolated country with a small population. The US is huge and heterogeneous with large borders with its neighbors.

Perhaps a federal system doesn’t guarantee that some parts of the country, at least, will remain free and somewhat rational, but it permits them to. Without Federalism, there would have been no escape from Faucism.

Thank God for FL, SD, TX, etc…

Expand full comment

Hypocrisy is a means to an end...

Expand full comment

That will certainly not stop them.

Expand full comment

Since when would they care about that?

Expand full comment

She got her language wrong.

Should’ve been “ between a birthing unit and her doctor.”

I truly do not like these people !

Expand full comment

Whoops! You slipped up and said "her" doctor. Should have been "their". Forget grammar, avoiding any vestige of biological reality is paramount.

Expand full comment

how about 'zir' or something similar, seeing that their is actually a meaningful word?

Expand full comment

Haha- so true!

Expand full comment

Yes, I believe the perverse vernacular is "birthing person". Though "unit" sounds humorously robotic and just as foolish.

Expand full comment

“Unit”. That is fascist! Some “units” believe they are two or more.

Expand full comment

Correction: non-aroborial caregiver #1.

Expand full comment

It would be their Dr not her or that is what I understand it to be. I could be wrong I try not to listen to their incoherent babbling.

Expand full comment

I don't know why people are freaking out about this, they can just get another booster and miscarry

/stolen

Expand full comment

Yes... I was thinking that the "vax" is making people and/or their offspring sterile anyway...

Expand full comment

Devil's advocate. What to say when crazed libs like Amy say "your choice to not take a vaccine endangers everyone because a virus spreads, a woman not having a baby doesn't endanger the public". Obviously, I feel it does endanger society to kill babies because society slips into depravity and it spills over into all aspects of life. But barring my opinion on that, what else can we say?

Expand full comment

You can say: my not taking the vax may increase the chance of someone's death, say .01% (I'm being generous here). But an abortion is a sure fatality. The baby's. right?

Expand full comment

Good one

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Depends on the person,but from hour 1 on... Naomi Wolf's volunteer teams are doing incredible work going over both the Pffffizer drops and VAERS reports.

Expand full comment

They seem to think this will make abortion impossible everywhere. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's simply taking it out of federal jurisdiction, where it shouldn't have been in the first place, and handing the decision back to the states, where it belongs. Most of the protesters I am seeing were not even born during Roe v Wade, and they are woefully ignorant of the particulars. Idiots. And Black babies lives matter, btw.

Expand full comment

Once the democrats get that they are allowing their future voters to be culled they might get a lot more, ahem, "moral".

Expand full comment

No worries, they are easily replaced - future voters are pouring in over the borders as we speak. And they won't make a fuss about anything (or so goes the thinking).

Expand full comment

They don't even need the voters, just the ballots.

Expand full comment

They don't even need control of the ballots, just the black boxes that count the votes, and court systems that won't allow an audit. See https://codered2014.com/computerized-election-theft-new-american-century/ for more. prepare to be depressed

Expand full comment

Some people believe this leak was about creating a crisis to distract people away from the doc "2000 Mules". Others think it's about creating severe pushback (i.e. rioting and similar "peaceful protests") to sway the judges to go back on their decision. And some feel certain that this is part of an elaborate and desperate plot to derail a red tidal wave at the midterms. Personally, I believe it's all three. And was not the work of one clerk acting alone (who will of course fall on his sword and disappear with his payoff). Did anyone else notice how quickly those barricades went up around the Court building? This was planned. I'll bet my tinfoil hat on it.

Expand full comment

Couldn't the US Congress pass a law applying to the whole US? The Constitution apprently gives the States the say on Health and Welfare, but I don't see this distinction being followed. At least the Congress could say, for example, "No Medicaid funds for states that don't allow/forbid abortion under these circumstances..."

Expand full comment

Yes, and that is what needs to be done. Now, why hasn't it been? Because too many will be forced show their hand.

Expand full comment

That sounds great actually. Every state should be made to be self-sustaining.

Expand full comment

Moral arguments should be irrelevant up to the point of viability. Some evils are indeed necessary for societies to tolerate because outlawing them is worse.

Expand full comment

Exactly. We don't argue for the legalization of drugs because drugs are good, we argue for the legalization of drugs because banning drugs leads to outcomes many times worse than the drugs themselves. And we know that users won't stop getting high no matter what the politicians say.

Edit: Much more about this here - https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/there-oughta-be-a-law

Expand full comment

If someone is going to mutilate themselves rather than have a baby, that’s their problem. But that doesn’t mean we have to make it easy for them to kill the baby.

Expand full comment

Exactly. They might have to throw themselves down the staircase multiple times to subvert your ban, but you'll feel good about any injuries she incurs because she's a dirty slut anyway, amirite?

Expand full comment

No one is forcing them to throw themselves down a staircase.

Expand full comment

No, you're just forcing a more dangerous decision onto something that isn't your business in the first place. You can't stop her but you want to punish her anyway.

Expand full comment

Agree. I find abortion a very difficult area because I don't think there's any good answer. But I remind myself that many mammals - and women throughout most of history - will turn to infanticide when they don't think they can protect their babies or when the new baby will somehow jeopardize the safety of other children. It's brutal - no question -but life is brutal sometimes.

I know for sure that I can never make that decision for another woman.

Expand full comment

The baby is harmed in an abortion.

Expand full comment

And the father may be emotionally harmed too.

Expand full comment

What do you mean what?

Expand full comment

I was responding to the comment about the harm to the baby. Before I sent it the reply regarding the father was posted. Re-read the comment in that context.

Expand full comment

I still don’t get what you’re trying to say.

Expand full comment

Given the fact that even some of the more brain dead vax zealots of my acquaintance have been forced to admit the vaunted miracle jabs don't stop infection or transmission, relegating it to a personal medical decision, I'd say the response is pretty clear.

Expand full comment

Well since it has been abundantly shown, and the CDC, WHO and the pharmaceutical companies themselves admit, that the jabs do not and never have prevented the spread, you can point out the premise is wrong. That was known from the beginning. Hence the insistence that the jabbed continue to mask up (which of course doesn't work either, but that's another absurdity for another day).

Expand full comment

That could be a point if the vaccines didn't harm anyone that took them (short or long term) and actually stopped the vaccinated individual from getting iinfected and infecting others. But they don't.

Expand full comment

And you could also tell them you are refusing the jab in true altruism, in order to avoid shedding those nasty mRNA nanoparticles on others. https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/vaccine-shedding-finally-proven?r=10ai8&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
May 3, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

No dark winter of death.

Phew. Lol.

Expand full comment

Buh buh buh, "vAcCiNeS" are differenttttttttt!!!

Expand full comment

Only when it's one of the "approved" health care decisions...

Expand full comment

2020: "Wear this mask over your face to protect me! You must do what I tell you to do!"

2020: " You cannot take this medicine which may work to save your life! We are banning it! You have zero access to this Safe, FDA approved drug!"

2021: "You must take this unproven emergency-use-only drug in order to keep your job, or to enter this store. If you do not take this drug you are fired! And we may not allow you a lifesaving medical procedure either unless you take this drug! You cannot cone back to school if you do not take this drug! Inject this into your body and show us proof you've done it!"

2022: My body my choice...Stay out of my healthcare....

Expand full comment

May I use this with credit to you?

Expand full comment

Share away, please! No credit necessary but thanks. My husband's company threatened to fire him back in October (after 25years) but he applied for and was granted a religious exemption. The fact that people are oblivious to the hypocrisy of this situation is amazing.

Expand full comment

I’m going to share as well! Thank you!

Expand full comment

Thankee!

Expand full comment

I'm not surprised. They've been giving us women who refuse gyn exams/pap smears the same crap for years "I don't care about your bodily autonomy, you have to do it and if you won't someone should force you to!"

Expand full comment

How about the right of the baby to a consult with the doctor

Expand full comment

Idiots. Truly, idiots.

Expand full comment

A woman and “their” doctor? Is that woke grammar, or is Amy just functionally illiterate?

Expand full comment

‘their’ IS a standard form; used for centuries in the written word. I used it in the 60’s and 70’s at Stanford

Expand full comment

A woman and HER doctor makes more sense. It’s clearly both singular and gendered. There’s no ambiguity. You can generally say “they” if you mean a man or woman.

Expand full comment

‘Their’ IS singular if used to modify a singular subject: “ a person and their friends “ for ex

Expand full comment

The gender is ambiguous in the case above, so you can get away with “their” there, rather than the cumbersome “his or her,” though I would reword the whole thing. But it’s “a boy and his friends.” Using “their” (without any demands of wokeness) would sound strange. And “people and their friends,” and “a gaggle of geese is flying.”

Expand full comment

My life long, academically approved use of‘their’ goes back to the 1960’s

Expand full comment

Fine with me! What’s acceptable can vary from place to place. I’m a copyeditor who has seen a lot . . .

Expand full comment

A woman and her MD does ring better.

Expand full comment

I've never read or heard 'their' used like that.

Expand full comment

These people have no radar for irony

Expand full comment

I have to wonder what her foot to mouth size ratio is. just me.

Expand full comment

Amy... who?

Expand full comment

After 2 years of this shit, they expect us to buy the opposite

Expand full comment