Tuesday, 16 October 2012

Biologically incorrect feminist says "A foetus doesn't have a life"

https://twitter.com/CathElliott/status/258142477645668352

Feminist and Trade Unionist Cathy Elliott who tweeted "A foetus doesn't have a life"


Obviously, a foetus has a life since it can be either or dead in the woman's womb.

Why is this woman saying that a foetus does not have a life?

http://www.cafepress.co.uk/cp/customize/product2.aspx?from=CustomDesigner&number=755184289


Because she is saying it does not count of course.

But she should use words more accurately then, shouldn't she?   A lot of these feminists are stupid as well as hysterical.  They know that their entire house of cards can be blown away by just the smallest puff of sweet reason.  That is why they are over-reacting to any statement of opinion from any man - even if he is a lefty - that makes them feel threatened or offended.  That is why they are saying men have no right to express a view about abortion.

Do they not though?

What if your wife wants an abortion, or your daughter?

Do women's rights not affect men's rights?  Of course they do.  It is a zero sum game too.  The more rights women have, the fewer rights men have.

Who are the women who need abortions?  They are overwhelmingly sluts, ie women who have been knocked up by men not their husbands.

What would happen if abortion were banned?  There were would be fewer sluts around, for one thing.   Women would choose their partners more carefully and practise better contraception, and sex would become dearer for men as fewer and fewer women would give them cheap slut no-strings sex.  Brothels may have to be legalised.

Since men are the consumers of sex and the women the suppliers of sex, both sexes would be affected.  The cost of sex would rise.

Men also pay for the bad reproductive choices of women and suffer from them.   If you had fathered an unviable disabled and unwanted deformed baby, it would affect you, would it not?  If your taxes were used to pay for the maintenance of the disabled and illegitimate offspring of a whole plague of women with disabled offspring, what do you think would happen to the next generation?

Would paying sluts to have disabled and illegitimate offspring lower the quality of the national gene pool?

You know it would.

Would this not affect you and your children and the future of the nation if this country were mostly peopled by degenerate sluts and bastards?

Should you not care the kind of world you leave behind for your children be they either legitimate or illegitimate?  Or are you too afraid of sluts to challenge or criticise them?

Remember: the definition of a slut is a fornicatress.

Suzanne Moore is a Slut Single Mum.  For the Facebook page dedicated to denouncing Slut Single Mums visit
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stigmatise-SSMs-Slut-Single-Mothers/220271251432495?fref=ts

All her three offspring are illegitimate.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/suzanne-moore-feminist-socialist-and.html

Why are we allowing a woman like that to say what may or may not be said about abortion?

Of course men have their views and should be allowed to express them, if we are still living in a free country.   But are we?

Free speech is not safe under feminism, is it?

Why do men let these immoral stupid ignorant women who are wrong on so many things at so many levels run and ruin their lives and then apologise to them for challenging them?

"A foetus doesn't have a life"?  Puh-lease!

It really really makes me sick how nauseatingly cowardly these men are.

Why do these men submit to these women?  Because they want cheap slut sex from them?

Why do male politicians submit to the demands of these women?  The answer is obvious: because too many of them have the vote.

What can be done about this?  We could propose, like Ian Cowie, that all who vote must pay a minimum of taxes.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010127/a-tax-based-alternative-to-the-alternative-vote/

And then of course abolish child benefit and repeal the Equality Act 2010 and the Equal Pay Act 1970.

Then feminism will come to a grinding halt.

Remember, the Feminist is the Red on your bed.

Feminism is the reason why we cannot return to rationally small government.

Men after all pay for the bad reproductive choices of sluts. He who pays the piper ought to call the tune, shouldn't he?

The morals of women have to be rigorously controlled or you will have half the population turning into verminous parasitical sluts and bastards who will of course multiply and then consume the best of your civilisation.


In the Bhagavad Gita, in a chapter called 'The War Within'', it states:

''Where there is no unity; the women of the family become corrupt; and with the corruption of its women, society is plunged into chaos.''

The Gita continues thus:

"Social chaos is hell for those who have destroyed the family as well. It disrupts the process of spiritual evolution begun by our ancestors.''


Sounds like history repeating itself to me.  

2 comments:

Diane said...

Great post - but you forgot to mention the price many men and women had to pay for pre - marital pregnancies - which was compulsory marriage with no option of divorce. I haven't heard of any men calling for a return to that old arrangement. They're keen to keep their sexual freedom, aren't they?

Claire Khaw said...

I really see nothing wrong in women firmly addressing their minds towards finding a decent husband rather than ruining themselves getting knocked up by men they would never dream of marrying.

All this sexual liberation just makes men and women completely neurotic about their sexual performance.

Sex on the first date, blowjob on the second, anal on the third. I mean, what else is left except threesomes and orgies and even weirder forms of extreme sex?

Is this what women really want?