https://youtu.be/DRQm0DzApRk
Howdy bitches, you may have heard, Texas has passed a new 'heartbeat' abortion paw [sic]. It means no abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Tucker is on record saying Texas is like 9th century Islam or something. His opinion of Texas is unclear.
What I realised for the first time is, why are female BBC journalists and those sympathetic to the argument always talking about the importance of abortions in rape and incest cases? I mean normally you'd think: yeah right? Why not get an abortion after rape and incest rape. That's why that argument is used. But why are the media who love to talk about 'the truth', so shy to refer to something polar opposite to it: adultery. I mean you might hear a crime journalist talking about adultery iasmuch as a particular murder case is involved. Or in Australia when some tall poppy smearjob absolutely necessitates the unthinkable: point out adultery as bad, in that rare instance you might hear about it, as with the Ben Roberts Smith case. Normally you would never hear about it in Australia and it's unclear if the media here can even generally define adultery and how it may impact on truth.
In short, why don't abortion rights activists demand an adulterous woman have rights to abortion after banging on with her colleague's husband and falling pregnant. Why must they always insist on moral high ground arguments these worthless ecstasy popping sluts? Can someone please explain, I'm so ignorant.
No comments:
Post a Comment