August 5, 2018
Mommy killed your older brothers and sisters because she still had lots of fucking around to do.
Today, I learned…
A professor of religious studies at Elon University argues in a recent op-ed that opposing abortion “flies in the face of Jesus’ teaching.”
Dr. Rebecca Todd Peters argues that simply not wanting a baby “is an imminently appropriate reason” to have an abortion, insisting that “trusting women to make abortion decisions is a Christian norm.”
What is a worm-man doing teaching religion?
Isn’t that against the Bible or something?
Hard mode: Ask a woman religious studies “professor” about Timothy 2:12
On the one hand, I’m okay with the killing of babies from unfit humanoids. On the other hand, I’m against giving women any right.
Your computer doesn’t need rights. You take care of it because it serves you well.
That’s what women should do: serve you well.
I want to play a game.
It’s called: Take Wormmen Serious K?
The idea is to pretend they’re capable enough of rational thought for you to engage them in an argument.
The goal is to remind you that they’re not.
A religious studies professor in North Carolina claims that “trusting women to make abortion decisions is a Christian norm.”
In an opinion piece published on Elon University’s website Monday, Dr. Rebecca Todd Peters—who is described as a “feminist and christian social ethicist”—denies the validity of the “dominant belief that Christianity and Christians are against abortion” on the grounds that most Christian denominations tolerate abortion under exceptional circumstances.
Good old abortion is not really the issue since you’re okay with abortion in cases where the life of the mother is at serious risk so therefore you should be okay with any abortions otherwise what you’re really against is wii-min making choices you evil misogynistic dog-pig.
You’re not really against killing if you’re okay with killing in self-defense therefore you should be okay with murder! SEE? WOE-MEN CAN dO COMPUTER SY-HENCE tOO aND MATH! aND IT amiRITE!
“There is nothing Christian about requiring women to ‘justify’ their reasons for abortion,” Peters boldly asserts. “And there is certainly nothing Christian about forcing women to continue pregnancies against their will.”
Abortion Debate 101: Extrapolate and Establish Facts.
There is nothing Christian about requiring people to ‘justify’ their reasons for murder.
But Abortion is not murder! Fetuses/babies/zygotes aren’t people/human/alive!
But they are. They’re alive and they are human. Therefore, human rights, by definition, apply.
Abortion Debate 102: They’re Not The Virgin Mary.
Pregnant wormmen got pregnant because of decisions they made, and in cases of rape, do they have anything better to do than to bring that child to the world?
They can hate the rapist all they want, but, that child is theirs too. They can choose to love their part in the life of their child.
Note: Unless the rapist is a nigger, in which case it was a rapist and not a "new rapist."
Abortion Debate 103: Enforce Consistency.
That child inside them is either a living human or it isn’t, and if it is (SPOILER ALERT: «SCIENCE» says it is!) then they can’t kill it. Doesn’t matter how much feefeeing their feefees do.
…if they adhere to the whole “muh human rights” thing.
Why can’t they be consistent with their values?
They usually move goalposts with the whole “okay it’s alive and it’s human but it’s not a person” thing.
Use that against them.
Niggers are alive and human but not persons.
Women are human but not persons.
Show them their inconsistency.
The professor notes that there is “widespread consensus” among Christians that abortion is justifiable for “PRIM” (Prenatal health, Rape, Incest, and health of the Mother) reasons, but contends that this is inadequate, asserting that “it is time for Christians to challenge the inadequacy, intolerance, and misogyny” of the PRIM paradigm.
“By focusing on the acceptability of PRIM abortions, Christians have shaped the dominant public discourse about abortion into a debate about justification,” she asserts, saying that “this framework divides women who have abortions into two categories—the tragic and the damned.”
lol I’ll just buzzword-rain over you, you don’t want to be an intolerant misogynist who’s also inadequate, don’t you?
Dr. Rebecca doesn’t even look human.
“Only 1 percent of abortions are a result of rape and less than 0.5 percent the result of incest. About 12 percent are sought to protect a woman’s health, and 13 percent for prenatal health issues,” Peters explains. “That means that what legal scholar Kate Watson calls ‘ordinary abortions’ make up nearly three-quarters of abortions in the United States.”
Most abortions are performed just because women feel like doing some baby sacrifices.
Congratulations, Dr. Rebecca, you just argued against using anything but the health of the wormman and prenatal health issues as an argument for abortion.
Peters claims that “ordinary abortions stand outside acceptability in the justification paradigm that conservative Christian voices have established for our public conversation about abortion,” adding that, “This justification framework supports a view of abortion that holds that when women get pregnant, we expect them to have babies.”
What else are they supposed to do? They were born a woe-man for the sole reason of making babies, so isn’t pregnancy as good a time as any to start fulfilling their purpose?
Really, if we need any real work done, we can call a man. He’ll do a better job anyways.
Caitlyn Jenner, “Woman” of the Year.
Wormmen should do the one thing we don’t beat them at.
Choosing to have a child, though, is “a profoundly moral act” signifying “a significant moral commitment to that child to raise it or to place it for adoption,’ she points out, noting that “only 1 percent of women place their children for adoption.”
The choice to have a child is in fact a collection of choices, such as not taking the pill, not using condoms, having sex, and all that stuff they do that ends up with a new human growing inside them.
The time to make that choice is before they make that choice.
Saying and thinking that they don’t want to get pregnant, but doing things that result in them getting pregnant, is choosing to get pregnant.
If they’re incapable of preventing themselves from getting pregnant, should we even be hearing what they have to say?
But here they are babbling about how women can’t really decide if they want to get pregnant before getting pregnant. How useless are they if they can’t even manage their own bodily functions?
You’ve probably figured out by now that letting women vote is one of the worst ideas ever. They can’t even vote for their own pregnancy before it just happens.
She even goes so far as to say that only approving of abortions under PRIM circumstances “flies in the face of Jesus’ teaching that he came to bring abundant life.”
“Not killing babies flies in the face of Jesus’ teaching that he came to bring abundant life.” – womyn logic
“A Christian vision of abundant life requires that we recognize and support the development of healthy and robust families,” she contends. “It requires that we respect women and the moral decisions that they make about their families. A Christian approach to supporting healthy families recognizes that only individual women and their partners are able to determine their ability to parent a child.”
That’s right, the Christian way towards healthy and robust families is sacrificing babies to Moloch.
Peters closes by stating that if Christians “truly value women and healthy families,” they must accept that not wanting a baby “is an imminently appropriate reason to end a pregnancy,” adding that “we must trust that pregnant women are the only ones who are capable of making these decisions.”
If you truly loved me you’d…
More basic woe-man manipulation. How are they even fooling anyone with this shit anymore?
Remember when you were a toddler and some other toddler came up and threatened you with a variant of the classic if you don’t do what I want you’re no longer my friend?
Not wanting a baby is not an appropriate reason to end a pregnancy, but an appropriate reason to prevent one. You know, the pill, condoms, not fucking around. That stuff.
“As a Christian ethicist, I believe very strongly that abortion is a moral decision. Just as having a baby is a moral decision,” she said. “Because pregnancy represents the potential for human life—I believe that we ought to take the decision to have a child far more seriously than we do.”
No, “Doctor” Rebecca, pregnancy represents actual human life. Real, «SCIENCE» approved human life.
“Doctor” Rebecca should abort some of that fat she carries.
Once a woman is pregnant, she has another human life inside of her.
“The ethic of reproductive justice that I develop in my book, Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice, offers a much more robust and demanding ethic in support of pregnancy, mothers, and families than the current public discussion of abortion,” she added.