On 5/3/2022 11:45 AM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <atropos-C9E61C.11291403052022@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <030520221346435754%nope@noway.com>,
>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <76c6eabd-5c34-42c1-81ad-e734b68edd93n@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Democrats know they can't win in the midterm elections on
>>>> inflation, crime, or the border but I believe they think abortion
>>>> could be their lifeline. The "leak" from the Supreme Court, that it
>>>> may vote to repeal Roe vs Wade, was no accident. It came from a
>>>> liberal staffer and the Democrat's midterm battle cry will be that
>>>> Republicans will outlaw all abortions in America
>>>
>>> Which is exactly what they want to do.
>>
>> Even so, I'm not sure what the purpose of the leak is in the mind of
>> whoever did it. The Court's opinion in the case will be officially
>> released before the midterms, so the Dems will have their rally cry
>> regardless. The leak was unnecessary.
>
>
> The leak grabbed the hedlines, but I think it will wind up doing more
> harm than good. For instance, many (most?) people are talking about
> the fact of the leak but not the content of it.
>
Uh no. The forums I'm on are talking about the content. Of coursee
they're mostly women.

On 5/3/2022 2:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <t4rvj6$uob$2@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/2022 11:45 AM, A Friend wrote:
>>> In article <atropos-C9E61C.11291403052022@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <030520221346435754%nope@noway.com>,
>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <76c6eabd-5c34-42c1-81ad-e734b68edd93n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Democrats know they can't win in the midterm elections on
>>>>>> inflation, crime, or the border but I believe they think abortion
>>>>>> could be their lifeline. The "leak" from the Supreme Court, that it
>>>>>> may vote to repeal Roe vs Wade, was no accident. It came from a
>>>>>> liberal staffer and the Democrat's midterm battle cry will be that
>>>>>> Republicans will outlaw all abortions in America
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is exactly what they want to do.
>>>>
>>>> Even so, I'm not sure what the purpose of the leak is in the mind of
>>>> whoever did it. The Court's opinion in the case will be officially
>>>> released before the midterms, so the Dems will have their rally cry
>>>> regardless. The leak was unnecessary.
>>>
>>>
>>> The leak grabbed the hedlines, but I think it will wind up doing more
>>> harm than good. For instance, many (most?) people are talking about
>>> the fact of the leak but not the content of it.
>>>
>> Uh no. The forums I'm on are talking about the content. Of coursee
>> they're mostly women.
>
> I'm seeing a *lot* of variations of "if you're not a woman, you have no
> right to an opinion on this issue".
>
I don't support that position and neither do ordinary women.

On 5/3/2022 5:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <t4rvj6$uob$2@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/2022 11:45 AM, A Friend wrote:
>>> In article <atropos-C9E61C.11291403052022@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <030520221346435754%nope@noway.com>,
>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <76c6eabd-5c34-42c1-81ad-e734b68edd93n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Democrats know they can't win in the midterm elections on
>>>>>> inflation, crime, or the border but I believe they think abortion
>>>>>> could be their lifeline. The "leak" from the Supreme Court, that it
>>>>>> may vote to repeal Roe vs Wade, was no accident. It came from a
>>>>>> liberal staffer and the Democrat's midterm battle cry will be that
>>>>>> Republicans will outlaw all abortions in America
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is exactly what they want to do.
>>>>
>>>> Even so, I'm not sure what the purpose of the leak is in the mind of
>>>> whoever did it. The Court's opinion in the case will be officially
>>>> released before the midterms, so the Dems will have their rally cry
>>>> regardless. The leak was unnecessary.
>>>
>>>
>>> The leak grabbed the hedlines, but I think it will wind up doing more
>>> harm than good. For instance, many (most?) people are talking about
>>> the fact of the leak but not the content of it.
>>>
>> Uh no. The forums I'm on are talking about the content. Of coursee
>> they're mostly women.
>
> I'm seeing a *lot* of variations of "if you're not a woman, you have no
> right to an opinion on this issue".
>
> That's awesome! Do we get to do this for other issues, too? For example:
>
> If you're not a cop, you have no right to an
> opinion on law enforcement issues.
>
> If you've never served in the military, you have
> no right to an opinion on war, defense spending,
> or any other aspect of military service.
>
> Only people who are vagrants get to comment on
> public policy regarding their open-air sewer-slums.
>
> Lots of leftists today are also insisting that this ruling is an attack
> on women but they seem to have forgotten that women don't exist anymore
> and that literally anyone can get pregnant now.
>
> (You can't have it both ways, dummies. Pick one lane of crazy or the
> other.)
>
> When the pink-haired non-binary otherkins want to have babies, we get
> demands to change the language to nonsense like "birthing people", but
> as soon as the right to kill the baby is stripped away it reverts back
> to "women's rights".
>
> RACHEL MADDOW: Make no mistake, if men could have babies, abortions
> would be legal everywhere.
>
> I've been informed-- by YOU, Rachel-- that men *can* have babies.

In a test tube. Meanwhile, do you doubt her hypothetical?

On 5/3/2022 5:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <%1hcK.706875$LN2.45179@fx13.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/2022 5:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <t4rvj6$uob$2@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/3/2022 11:45 AM, A Friend wrote:
>>>>> In article <atropos-C9E61C.11291403052022@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>>>> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <030520221346435754%nope@noway.com>,
>>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <76c6eabd-5c34-42c1-81ad-e734b68edd93n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Democrats know they can't win in the midterm elections on
>>>>>>>> inflation, crime, or the border but I believe they think abortion
>>>>>>>> could be their lifeline. The "leak" from the Supreme Court, that it
>>>>>>>> may vote to repeal Roe vs Wade, was no accident. It came from a
>>>>>>>> liberal staffer and the Democrat's midterm battle cry will be that
>>>>>>>> Republicans will outlaw all abortions in America
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is exactly what they want to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even so, I'm not sure what the purpose of the leak is in the mind of
>>>>>> whoever did it. The Court's opinion in the case will be officially
>>>>>> released before the midterms, so the Dems will have their rally cry
>>>>>> regardless. The leak was unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The leak grabbed the hedlines, but I think it will wind up doing more
>>>>> harm than good. For instance, many (most?) people are talking about
>>>>> the fact of the leak but not the content of it.
>>>>>
>>>> Uh no. The forums I'm on are talking about the content. Of coursee
>>>> they're mostly women.
>>>
>>> I'm seeing a *lot* of variations of "if you're not a woman, you have no
>>> right to an opinion on this issue".
>>>
>>> That's awesome! Do we get to do this for other issues, too? For example:
>>>
>>> If you're not a cop, you have no right to an
>>> opinion on law enforcement issues.
>>>
>>> If you've never served in the military, you have
>>> no right to an opinion on war, defense spending,
>>> or any other aspect of military service.
>>>
>>> Only people who are vagrants get to comment on
>>> public policy regarding their open-air sewer-slums.
>>>
>>> Lots of leftists today are also insisting that this ruling is an attack
>>> on women but they seem to have forgotten that women don't exist anymore
>>> and that literally anyone can get pregnant now.
>>>
>>> (You can't have it both ways, dummies. Pick one lane of crazy or the
>>> other.)
>>>
>>> When the pink-haired non-binary otherkins want to have babies, we get
>>> demands to change the language to nonsense like "birthing people", but
>>> as soon as the right to kill the baby is stripped away it reverts back
>>> to "women's rights".
>>>
>>> RACHEL MADDOW: Make no mistake, if men could have babies, abortions
>>> would be legal everywhere.
>>>
>>> I've been informed-- by YOU, Rachel-- that men *can* have babies.
>>
>> In a test tube.
>
> Nope. She's not talking about in vitro fertilization.
>
>> Meanwhile, do you doubt her hypothetical?
>
> If we take her pontifications on the subject as true, it's not a
> hypothetical anymore and she's wrong.

Is she wrong because it's "not a hypothetical" or because, as she
suggests, men would never deny themselves the abortion option?

On 5/4/2022 9:38 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 5/3/2022 2:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <t4rvj6$uob$2@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/3/2022 11:45 AM, A Friend wrote:
>>>>> In article <atropos-C9E61C.11291403052022@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>>>> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <030520221346435754%nope@noway.com>,
>>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <76c6eabd-5c34-42c1-81ad-e734b68edd93n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> Irish Mike <irishranger317@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Democrats know they can't win in the midterm elections on
>>>>>>>> inflation, crime, or the border but I believe they think abortion
>>>>>>>> could be their lifeline. The "leak" from the Supreme Court, that it
>>>>>>>> may vote to repeal Roe vs Wade, was no accident. It came from a
>>>>>>>> liberal staffer and the Democrat's midterm battle cry will be that
>>>>>>>> Republicans will outlaw all abortions in America
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is exactly what they want to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even so, I'm not sure what the purpose of the leak is in the mind of
>>>>>> whoever did it. The Court's opinion in the case will be officially
>>>>>> released before the midterms, so the Dems will have their rally cry
>>>>>> regardless. The leak was unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The leak grabbed the hedlines, but I think it will wind up doing more
>>>>> harm than good. For instance, many (most?) people are talking about
>>>>> the fact of the leak but not the content of it.
>>>>>
>>>> Uh no. The forums I'm on are talking about the content. Of coursee
>>>> they're mostly women.
>>>
>>> I'm seeing a *lot* of variations of "if you're not a woman, you have no
>>> right to an opinion on this issue".
>>>
>> I don't support that position and neither do ordinary women.
>
> You'll never get on tv, then.
>
I don't plan to.