60
Comments (112)
sorted by:
65
FuckGenderPolitics 65 points ago +67 / -2

Remember that they're perfectly okay with the death of a man's dreams, future, ect when it means a free meal ticket for them via baby trapping. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse at this point but I can't emphasize this enough: They could have had enthusiastic male allies in their fight to preserve abortion had they actually cared about their reproductive rights more than their right to enslave men. Now they're experiencing that thing leftists are so eager to advocate for when they're not the ones being fucked over: Consequences. They'll never learn if they're constantly shielded from the consequences of their shitty behavior.

10
Gizortnik 10 points ago +11 / -1

Men are a problem in this equation too. Men who want to fuck around and tell their girlfriends to get abortions are a major part of this issue, and they are typically the ones getting "baby trapped" because their scheming is biting them in the ass.

13
JustHereForTheSalmon 13 points ago +13 / -0

My advice to men is the same to women. If you don't want a kid, keep it in your pants. Main difference is that the law gave women permission to be murderers if they so choose, and men were to be enslaved regardless.

2
AntonioOfVenice 2 points ago +7 / -5

Now I am curious. How exactly would you stop 'baby trapping'?

26
Xzal 26 points ago +26 / -0

Prevent CPS bias toward mother's. Done.

Baby trapping is only done because the man can be blackmailed for his money if it doesn't work out.

If the money isn't guaranteed, then they'll be solely financially responsible, and thus likely take more self measures to not get babied up.

7
WhitePhoenix 7 points ago +7 / -0

You see, here's the problem.

We've seen multiple instances of CPS fucking people over, I watch some truecrime shit and CPS has always been corrupt and fucked up, no matter WHO is doing it, whether it's a private agency or a government institution - some governments have outsourced it to a private firm and it's still a massive shitshow.

So what's our next solution? CPS has been corrupt ever since I've known of its existence and has never gotten better.

-3
AntonioOfVenice -3 points ago +9 / -12

Baby trapping is only done because the man can be blackmailed for his money if it doesn't work out.

What would prevent a man from impregnating women and then dumping them, leaving her to take care of kids without any financial assistance?

they'll be solely financially responsible, and thus likely take more self measures to not get babied up.

Why would this not work the other way around - in the current situation encouraging men to take more measures to not baby anyone up?

22
ernsithe 22 points ago +22 / -0

There are significantly more options available to women when it comes to preventing pregnancy.

12
FuckGenderPolitics 12 points ago +14 / -2

What would prevent a man from impregnating women and then dumping them, leaving her to take care of kids without any financial assistance?

She would have abortion rights under this scenario, so that plus the myriad of options she has to avoid pregnancy to begin with.

Why would this not work the other way around

It already does to a certain extent. MGTOW is a thing because men aren't interested in paying for women's bad decisions when women can opt out of doing so. What MGTOWs and MRAs object to is the unfairness of it all. She gets all the choice and he gets robbed blind to pay for it. He had the choice not to fuck her (something MGTOW advocates) of course, but she also had the choice not to fuck him. The imbalance is what comes afterwards. Abortion bans at least fix that.

0
blackestknight 0 points ago +2 / -2

She would have abortion rights under this scenario

Killing babies. Good solution /s

5
FuckGenderPolitics 5 points ago +5 / -0

I'm cool with banning it altogether. My original point was that the feminists would have had better luck keeping their abortion privileges if men had something to lose as well. But they valued their free meal tickets over alliance building and they only have themselves to blame for the situation they're in.

1
blackestknight 1 point ago +2 / -1

My original point was that the feminists would have had better luck keeping their abortion privileges if men had something to lose as well.

Nah, even then, 3rd trimester abortions are an impossible sell to the vast majority of people. They'd have a better chance of keeping their abortion rights if they were opened to compromise to 1st trimester, with exceptions if the mother's life is at risk in the case of rape. That's where you get the most support, basically, what they have in Europe in most places.

-11
AntonioOfVenice -11 points ago +3 / -14

She would have abortion rights under this scenario, so that plus the myriad of options she has to avoid pregnancy to begin with.

So basically no one will have kids because women know that a man may abdicate his responsibility at any moment?

She gets all the choice

Well yeah, she's hosting the fetus...

Biology is not unfair. MGTOWs and MRAs, like feminists, are at war with biology.

The imbalance is what comes afterwards. Abortion bans at least fix that.

Seems a rather illogical reason for an abortion ban. Like saying that nature and biology is terribly unfair and that we need to equalize things by means of social engineering.

10
FuckGenderPolitics 10 points ago +10 / -0

The man wouldn't be able to abdicate responsibility at any possible moment?

He would have (ideally) a little less time than the woman would have to abort, that way she could abort if he waits until the last possible moment to sign away his rights/obligations. If he fails to do so by then he's on the hook provided princess can prove he knew about the pregnancy.

Biology is not unfair.

Biology is what it is. It's a set of constraints we have to work under. It's silly to talk about how fair or unfair it is since we can't change it.

MGTOWs and MRAs, like feminists, are at war with biology.

Depending on what you mean by this I may or may not agree with you. If you're talking about denying its basic realities then only the feminists do that. If you mean going against the evolutionary imperative of continuing the species at all costs, then yeah they all do that. The difference is that the MGTOWs and MRAs are doing so as a rational response to the incentives they face. Their behavior will change when and if their incentives change. The feminists do it because they're hateful pieces of shit who are bent on destroying anything that doesn't exclusively cater to them. The only solution to that is to set society up in a way that makes their antisocial behavior impossible.

Seems a rather illogical reason for an abortion ban.

Only if you think that personal responsibility is a burden that only hated classes of people should have to carry like the left does. For some reason people stop giving a shit about her sacred choice when they're the ones who have to suffer all the negative consequences of it. Funny how that works.

saying that nature and biology is terribly unfair and that we need to equalize things by means of social engineering

This is a total straw man of the MGTOW/MRA position. A woman getting a free meal ticket at a man's expense when she pops out a kid against his wishes isn't an immutable result of biology. It's a result of a rotten culture that values her whims over his survival. This has nothing to do with the "my body my choice" bullshit that only applies to favored groups. It's about her getting to offload all the negative consequences of her precious choice onto someone else because the society doesn't value that person. It's the culture they're saying is unfair, not biology.

My ideas are no more social engineering than the current system, or even the prefeminism days. Men evolved to spread their seed as widely as possible, and sticking with the first woman he knocked up would have gotten in the way of that. We also evolved to solve our conflicts violently and engage in a lot of other antisocial behavior because it served us well in nature. Women have a horrible taste in men for the same reason. Our natural state really isn't conducive to civilization, which is why we set up rules and punishments to keep people from acting like animals all the time. You can call that social engineering, civilization, or whatever you want. But it's silly to act like we don't create social structures that encourage behavior we wouldn't otherwise get all the time. The problem with feminism is that it incentives rotten behavior that harms society instead of helping it, often with a justification that denies biological reality. If you want to make the case that financial abortion makes society worse and not better I'll listen with an open mind. But we're really not discussing an attempt to deny biological reality like your social engineering comment suggests. We're just debating the merits of different approaches within the constraints that biology creates.

-2
dekachin -2 points ago +2 / -4

you're being consistent as a social conservative here. This whole MGTOW/MRA stance of "it's totally 100% fine for babies to be born as long as the man can abandon the child at will" seems crazy to me. I've never seen it before until recently.

I made a post on r-4chan prior to my most recent suspension that basically said "abortion should either require the consent of both parents to proceed, or MUST proceed as long as even 1 parent wishes it". So the mother and father have equal rights to either preserve or terminate the life. Which one of those options you pick makes you either pro or anti abortion.

It was pretty upvoted, but I got a bunch of responses like "this ain't it, dawg, the mother can have all the rights, as long as the dad can just sign a paper and not have to pay child support". That's so weird to me, because it's basically guaranteeing a huge class of fucked-over children who get raised by single mothers, and like you said: the dudes who are out there already trying to spread their seed into "baby mommas", will just go into turbo overdrive mode now that they know they can 100% escape any consequences.

-8
blackestknight -8 points ago +1 / -9

This whole MGTOW/MRA stance of "it's totally 100% fine for babies to be born as long as the man can abandon the child at will" seems crazy to me. I've never seen it before until recently.

That's because this place didn't use to be a MGTOW breeding ground, but it got infested with SJW types that just happen to be against feminists. I long for the days when the peeps here we're against any and all collectivism, not SJW collectivist that just want their side to win.

4
norwegianwikin 4 points ago +4 / -0

Give fathers custody and make women pay child support.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
Xzal 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because men have ONE measure. Condoms and those can be sabotaged.

The other is self mutilation for the rest of their reproductive life.

As for your former if pump and dump, I said end CPS bias, not end CPS. Read what is there, not an extreme strawman you've created.

0
AntonioOfVenice 0 points ago +1 / -1

I wasn't talking about CPS at all, but about "not guaranteeing money" (child support). What in that situation would prevent pumping and dumping?

-7
blackestknight -7 points ago +1 / -8

If the money isn't guaranteed, then they'll be solely financially responsible, and thus likely take more self measures to not get babied up.

Welcome to a world with 99% abortion rate.

We want less abortions, not more. Ergo : Make men have to pay child support day 1 of conception instead.

Wrap that dick if you can't get a good gf you want a child with.

3
-Fender- 3 points ago +4 / -1

Make abortions 100% illegal. Lock up that chastity belt and never let them have sex if they can't find a good man to have children with.

(The only difference between my comment and yours, was that what I wrote doesn't represent my actual beliefs, because I'm not a hateful cunt.)

-2
TheImpossible1 -2 points ago +2 / -4

Based.

-2
blackestknight -2 points ago +1 / -3

Abortions should be 100% illegal in the case of elective abortions (economic and/or social reasons). Only caveats should be rape/life of the mother at risk.

You think not wanting dead babies is hateful ? I'd say wanting to kill babies like you do is pretty damn hateful.

Also, the fuck with the chastity belt, wear a damn condom you useless baby killer.

2
BigDaddyDangler3 2 points ago +2 / -0

Rape abortions is less than 1%.

That's just in cases where the polled women gave a reason.

https://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

0
Xzal 0 points ago +1 / -1

You realise baby trapping isn't just a case of not using protection right?

Baby trapping more poking holes in condoms, promising a serious relationship getting pregnant then leaving, it's raping men (that'll rustle a few jimmies).

Also 99% abortion rate? Guess you've not heard about roe. Hah.

0
blackestknight 0 points ago +1 / -1

How is she poking holes in your condoms ?

You fuck girls you don't know well, bring your own condoms, or don't put it in her vagina. It's the same advice we give girls who keep getting pregnant from deadbeat dads.

If you can't practice safe hedonism, reap what you sowed (quite literally) or simply don't engage in hedonism.

0
Xzal 0 points ago +1 / -1

Because poking condoms neeeeever happens in a committed relationship and neeeeever abuses trust.

But ofc you'd only think about fuccboi culture.

0
blackestknight 0 points ago +1 / -1

Most people in committed relationships don't poke condoms no. You're probably, like the abortion crowd, talking about the 0.000001% of cases to try to justify your point, and that's dumb as fuck. Just like discussing abortions because like 0.01% of abortions stem from Rape is dumb. The chances of you, or a woman getting rape is minuscule and it's called a fringe case for a reason.

The vast majority of girls with who you'll get into a good committed relationship, when they start wanting kids, will simply discuss it with you. I know, strange concept, actually talking to your significant other about life choices.

Trying to play it as if every woman out there is a massive cunt and crazy is just reject MGTOW talk. We're not all fucking incels here like you and Imp.

18
Mpetey123 18 points ago +18 / -0

I don't know how you would get there in a practical sense admittedly but family courts have to stop the basic premise that the female parent is more important than the male. And it's not just money, men are often kept frpm seeing their children by not only the court but by their exes. And when the guy tries to remedy the exes changing times or refusing he faces hostility from the court and law enforcement. In most states women don't even need proof of paternity to take money from a man. They don't need his permission to list him on the birth certificate. And in the cases women are caught cheating the system they are almost never brought up on charges or put into arrears.

3
AntonioOfVenice 3 points ago +4 / -1

Everything that you say makes perfect sense as a complaint. Some of the other stuff mentioned by other people, much less so.

9
Mpetey123 9 points ago +9 / -0

Most of it is a culturally thing so I don't know the fix outside of overhauling the culture.

13
DwydeShrude 13 points ago +13 / -0

Simple as "economic" abortion. Dad can just nope the fuck out legally/financially/custodially from the get-go. It's not pretty, but it's more fair than the current situation.

-6
AntonioOfVenice -6 points ago +1 / -7

Might make sense if child poverty rates were exceptionally low and birth rates were astronomically high, but when you're below replacement it seems absolutely batshit to further discourage people from having kids.

12
FuckGenderPolitics 12 points ago +12 / -0

It discourages births to single mothers, which we incentivize right now by forcing the father to provide a no strings attached subsidy. Kids raised by single mothers have awful outcomes, especially boys. We don't need yet another generation of pussies and criminals because mommy wanted to give birth to a living paycheck.

Besides, the current system already discourages people from having kids. It's hard to justify putting a woman in a position to rob you blind and keep you away from your kids if things don't work out. It's impossible to have a healthy relationship with that Sword of Damocles hanging over your head. Of course we could repeal all the "advances" feminism made and purge the family courts. That would solve the vast majority of our problems and render this discussion largely moot.

-1
AntonioOfVenice -1 points ago +3 / -4

It discourages births to single mothers, which we incentivize right now by forcing the father to provide a no strings attached subsidy.

Are you sure? Assume that you are an absolute wretch of a man who does not care about his offspring at all. Right now, you're going to be rather careful, because you're on the hook for 18 years if you impregnate a sentient being with a uterus. On the other hand, as a woman you're already on the hook for 9 months of pregnancy and 18 years of raising a brat, so you're not going to want the kid of some loser.

Now take that away. The wretch will have zero incentive not to get women pregnant. You might as well get as many pregnant as you can - and in fact, that is the evolutionary imperative. I don't think women being more careful will make up for that.

And it will of course lead to massive amounts of child poverty, which will lead to a backlash and more funding for single mothers. It is not sustainable.

Besides, the current system already discourages people from having kids. It's hard to justify putting a woman in a position to rob you blind and keep you away from your kids if things don't work out.

And birth rates are low. So should we make them worse?

Of course we could repeal all the "advances" feminism made and purge the family courts. That would solve the vast majority of our problems and render this discussion largely moot.

A return to Victorianism is something that I will agree with.

1
Hand_Of_Node 1 point ago +2 / -1

And birth rates are low. So should we make them worse?

Yes. Birth rates should be cut to a sustainable level after 80% of earths population is physically removed.

0
TheImpossible1 0 points ago +6 / -6

You don't want people having kids who don't want kids. They come out maladjusted.

4
AntonioOfVenice 4 points ago +4 / -0

Didn't take you for a pro-choicer.

-3
TheImpossible1 -3 points ago +3 / -6

I'm not.

3
AntonioOfVenice 3 points ago +3 / -0

Your previous comment suggested that you are. And quite strongly at that.

-1
blackestknight -1 points ago +2 / -3

Pro choice filth.

-4
TheImpossible1 -4 points ago +2 / -6

You can't co-ordinate your BS with AoV now. Get your own material.

-2
blackestknight -2 points ago +2 / -4

We're not even coordinating, we just both think you're an asshole who ruins this place.

5
FuckGenderPolitics 5 points ago +5 / -0

Paper/financial abortion. If she wants to have the kid she's free to, but she has to do it on her own dime. No more lying about being on the pill then using the corrupt family courts to extort money from him. Since the decision is 100% her choice the consequences should be 100% her responsibility. I'm fine with the father being made to pay if he actually wanted the kid. But otherwise women should be having kids because they want kids instead of having kids because they want a payday.

-2
AntonioOfVenice -2 points ago +2 / -4

No more lying about being on the pill

How often does this happen? And what if birth control fails?

But otherwise women should be having kids because they want kids instead of having kids because they want a payday.

I think you underestimate everything that is involved in kids if you think it is a 'payday'.

3
dekachin 3 points ago +3 / -0

Paper/financial abortion. If she wants to have the kid she's free to, but she has to do it on her own dime.

All this does is create MORE fatherless children, which are already an epidemic. We already have too many people like this in society & they are a menace as well as making the poverty problem much worse.

Instead of a "paper" abortion, which selfishly harms all of society, the father should be given the right to compel an actual abortion. You don't want to care for the child? okay. The man who passes the sentence, should swing the sword.

I think you underestimate everything that is involved in kids if you think it is a 'payday'.

Unfortunately, child support can be disgustingly lucrative against high net worth men. Things would be much better in this regard if child support was capped at a reasonable level sufficient to guarantee the child a middle class lifestyle, such as in the $3-5k a month range.

3
Adamrises 3 points ago +3 / -0

I think you underestimate everything that is involved in kids if you think it is a 'payday'.

I think you overestimate the level of effort many single moms put into their kids if you think it is anything but. Throw in some guilty grandparents, double dipping child support, numerous forms of welfare, forcing the kids to botch their education (get them retard bucks) and you can in fact make way more money than any other job for a fraction of the effort.

Especially if you remember that after kid 1, the amount of work drops considerably because of overlap in activities and then forcing the kids to raise the kids.

3
FuckGenderPolitics 3 points ago +3 / -0

Don't forget that the courts don't care if the money is spent on the kid. It's just free money for mommy while she traps the next sucker and neglects the kid.

4
Adamrises 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yep, as long as you don't get bad enough for CPS to get involved you are pretty clear short of doing something absurdly visible.

And CPS will let you get away with shit until the last possible second, even outright criminal abuse, just because of how apathetic/understaffed they are. Unless you're the dad of course, then they suit up and raid that house within the hour.

3
TheImpossible1 3 points ago +9 / -6

Charge women with rape if the man doesn't consent to a child.

1
blackestknight 1 point ago +6 / -5

You consented when you came in her.

-3
AntonioOfVenice -3 points ago +3 / -6

How do you 'consent to a child'?

4
ImThrowing4U 4 points ago +4 / -0

Bruh I don't know, ask the dumb bitches getting pregnant with them and saying it's a consent issue as if they don't understand biology

4
TheImpossible1 4 points ago +8 / -4

Using the same extremely convoluted and obviously biased system women use for rape, obviously.

So they need written or recorded evidence, but if the victim claims coercion, that has no value and is thrown out.

-4
AntonioOfVenice -4 points ago +3 / -7

Using the same extremely convoluted and obviously biased system women use for rape, obviously.

Hmm... so you don't have a problem with imprisoning innocent people based on a convoluted and biased system, you just want innocent women to go to jail rather than men? How typical.

4
dekachin 4 points ago +4 / -0

Any unjust system creates reactionaries. We currently have an unjust system that is unfairly biased in favor of women, because "feminism" and outdated social norms that haven't been updated because they benefit women.

Unfortunately reactionaries tend to be motivated by revenge, not by a desire for fairness and justice. People are, unfortunately, primarily emotionally-driven creatures. That's why the Left is so successful - it focuses almost entirely on exploiting emotions.

2
Daucus9 2 points ago +3 / -1

The way things are going, having consent to a child is having sex with a woman. He knew the risks and took them anyway.

-1
AntonioOfVenice -1 points ago +4 / -5

Especially with abortion becoming less legal. But I was really itching to hear his batshit responses. He'll probably say that only a notarized statement would suffice.

3
dekachin 3 points ago +3 / -0

I mean, I think a man should have rights when it comes to explicit baby trapping, such as when a woman sucks his dick, spits into a turkey baster, and blasts it up her vagina, which has actually happened in a somewhat famous court case. [the man lost]

In those malicious cases, I think the welfare of the child is of lesser importance than having a public policy that does not reward such malicious behavior. In other words: the principle of not allowing an evil woman to reap rewards, is more important than the child victim of that woman getting some indirect benefit from the "child support" payments his mother would spend almost entirely on herself anyway.

But outside of rare cases where the woman basically steals or misappropriates the dudes cum the man never consented to introducing to her vagina, the child's rights are more important. So, for example, if a woman lies about being on the pill. Too bad. Don't take her word for it. I have had that exact situation happen, and I never trusted the women. I always pulled out. I've had a few women get mad at me over it, too, lol, but idgaf if hoes mad.

2
BigDaddyDangler3 2 points ago +2 / -0

He'll probably say that only a notarized statement would suffice.

Impy doesn't believe in marriage.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
46
OBRIENMUSTSUFFER 46 points ago +46 / -0

Oh no! She might have had to give up her dreams you guys! Her dreams of fucking a bunch of dudes and drinking, and working a shitty useless job as a copy editor, and traveling to Europe to fuck more dudes, there’s no way she could do all of that without abortion!

I’ve heard plenty of stories of women who regret getting abortions but I’ve never heard the opposite. Your shallow, vacuous “dreams” are nothing compared to raising a child in a loving family.

30
current_horror 30 points ago +31 / -1

This attitude towards abortion is only possible thanks to the insane solipsism that our society has nurtured in women. All of the girl power and yas kween messaging, all of the cheap social media validation, all of the institutional support and favoritism, has convinced worker bee girls that they’re really the center of the universe. They’d rather hamster wheel rationalizations for baby murder than give up their “dreams”.

Meanwhile, in reality, plenty of women accomplish their dreams and don’t kill their kids. And the only way to guarantee that you are the center of someone’s world is to create that someone.

10
Gizortnik 10 points ago +10 / -0

Meanwhile, in reality, plenty of women accomplish their dreams and don’t kill their kids.

I wouldn't normally say this to you, but... go further than that. The problem is that we've trained women and girls to think that their real dreams involve being a valuable corporate asset in a white-collar syndicate.

Meanwhile, most little girls play with dolls of babies because when they are 5 and 6, the bludgeon of socialization doesn't have as much of an effect as the biological imperative of care does. They want to raise kids even as kids, simply because of a biological imperative. Our society beats that out of them to maintain a larger pool of corporate labor to drive down wage growth. We teach girls that it's stupid and childish to want kids; followed by teaching them that it's dangerous and ruinous to have kids. Until finally in their late 30's, biological imperative rears it's ugly head and screams at them to have kids, only realizing far too late that socialization can't simply block out biological imperatives.

Women of older generations grew up helping to raise their brothers and sisters. Eventually, they would realize that they could probably do the whole thing on their own and have their own family. Women would dream of being a loving mother, of a large family, at the center of guidance and status within a social community, made up of many of her own kin, or the family of her best friends. That was the dream of women. It's a good dream that we beat out of them.

5
cccpneveragain 5 points ago +5 / -0

If I had to pick out the happiest and most content women I know, it would definitely be the few that live that good dream. Their peers aren't usually all that nice to them about it either, as if they betrayed women by passing on the valuable corporate dream.

Even myself as a guy have put a lot more emphasis on family in the last couple years instead of just ignoring or disliking all but the most immediate family. It's really made me a lot happier. I don't know if there's something to the adage that blood is thicker than water, but some of these family relationships I've built from nothing in such a short time are closer than friends I've had for a decade and I wouldn't trade for anything in the world.

2
Gizortnik 2 points ago +2 / -0

Their peers aren't usually all that nice to them about it either, as if they betrayed women by passing on the valuable corporate dream.

"Women hating other women that succeed." A tale as old as time.

I don't really understand why I don't see much in the annals of history about men protecting women from women. It seems like that should actually be a man's first priority. A man might try to steal your woman, but a woman wants to kill her.

I don't know if there's something to the adage that blood is thicker than water,

There typically isn't. It's certainly not thicker than money, because money stacks. You have to have a very good family for them to not start crawling out of the woodwork when they smell money, and we live in too degenerated of a society to rely on that.

some of these family relationships I've built from nothing in such a short time are closer than friends I've had for a decade and I wouldn't trade for anything in the world.

Yeah, the value of relationships are what gives life meaning. The issue is that most people don't know that living in an atomized society. The thing is, as you say, we'd have to build them from scratch.

1
cccpneveragain 1 point ago +1 / -0

I have some very good family surrounded by dysfunctional mess otherwise. I'm very selective as to which family I've gotten closer with. I'm the same way with friends I don't care to have a bunch of friends just a few good ones is fine. Sure, some have come around looking for money and I've told them no. Trying to play emotional games is the end with me. It's worked well because I can be distant and off putting naturally and there's enough others in the family sick of the backstabbing behind the back games to join me.

1
BigDaddyDangler3 1 point ago +1 / -0

Primates instinctively pick out toys suited for their sex (aka gender - which has always been synonymous with sex despite leftist scrREEching, otherwise you wouldn't have 'IT'S A BOY'/GIRL! and gender reveals, etc.). The tested chimp females played with girls stuff like dolls and stuffies, and kitchen toys. Boys went for the "sTeReOtyPicAL" male toys.

2
Gizortnik 2 points ago +2 / -0

Babies did the same.

16
cccpneveragain 16 points ago +16 / -0

Your shallow, vacuous “dreams”

That is so it. Tons of people my age (near 40) are still like this. If I were to watch them apparently their dreams are working their dead end job to enable them to continue their lives of unfettered sex and alcohol consumption. I'd say let them be, but in my experience they've been the ones most judgmental of me. Because I'm a single guy too, the only lifestyle I'm supposed to want is their party world. I've been told I need to "grow up and start acting like an adult" more than once by these people. All because I'd prefer to spend a Friday night tinkering in the garage, or tag along a supposedly "boring" beach/ski trip or something with friends who have kids, or spend time being gaming buddies with my kid cousin. Yet they are the ones always bitching about their unhappiness, stress, depression, etc. and I'm happy with my life.

29
AntonioOfVenice 29 points ago +29 / -0

Kyle Rittenhouse and Nicholas Sandmann were 17, adults and old enough to know not to challenge the radical left. Then they turn into kids until age 23, at which point they finally are adults again.

23
ArchRespawnsAgain 23 points ago +23 / -0

She is failing horribly at making a pro-choice argument. She is illustrating that her mother didn't need to abort her.

27
ernsithe 27 points ago +27 / -0

But she's also illustrating that maybe her mother should have.

20
trump4045 20 points ago +20 / -0

Women are children and should never have been given rights.

14
cccpneveragain 14 points ago +14 / -0

When I was 22 I was a totally independent adult living in another state with no financial help from my parents. I think at least two of my cousins and my brothers wife were around that age when they had their first kids. 22 is not a kid

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
6
CaptPenguin 6 points ago +6 / -0

Most young adults are pretty stupid. The brain is still developing at that age.

I would agree that they aren't kids at that age. Shouldn't have to coddle them, or treat them as if they're young children. But the majority of them will not have reached adult level maturity by 22, either.

5
cccpneveragain 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yeah, I've got some friends that age. I certainly wouldn't put them in the category of doing smart things. I was a super independent kid just by nature and was raised to take care of myself. I don't think that's all that common anymore. It's probably the helicopter parent syndrome still stuck around, they are worse off because no one ever took the floaties off and let them sink and now they still can't swim at all.

5
WhitePhoenix 5 points ago +5 / -0

It's a double sided sword.

From a LEGAL standpoint they're adults.

But from a maturity standpoint? A lot of modern kids now are still adult children after 18.

22 as an adult back in the 90s is way different to the 22 year old womanchildren of today unfortunately.

5
MassivePecorino 5 points ago +5 / -0

When I was 22, I had been financially supporting my mom for years, was finishing up a degree and was contracting for the government. Totes a kid.

11
theradraccoon 11 points ago +11 / -0

Giving birth only has meaning if you have the freedom to abort? Should we just not have laws, then? Who cares if you’re not out there raping and murdering since there are prohibitions against doing those things?

4
almond_activator 4 points ago +4 / -0

This is just a shallow cunt reiterating my theory on the leftist regime dogma on the value of human life.

Human life only has value if a woman values it. Men are only human if they fit the 'meal ticket' or 'fuck buddy' archetype, while children are only human if their mother desires their existence. Minorities are basically pets that someone else takes care of.

10
Kienan 10 points ago +10 / -0

She was only 22 - a kid.

*raises hand*

Uh, miss, in your opinion...what age should women be having children?

Because, not only is 22 not a kid, it's also a good (if actually historically late) time for a woman to have a child herself.

These people are so dumb it hurts.

3
GimmeFuelGimmeFire 3 points ago +3 / -0

Old: we should lower the age of majority to 12

Bold: we should raise the age of majority to 25

9
superspathi 9 points ago +10 / -1

I wish I had a legal right to murder people for my economic and personal convenience.

5
Hand_Of_Node 5 points ago +6 / -1

Legality is overrated.

6
dekachin 6 points ago +6 / -0

the only reason this vapid bitch was glad, was that she didn't actually get aborted.

5
FuckMcNuggets 5 points ago +5 / -0

If a 22 year old woman doesn't want a kid she has much bigger problems than an unwanted kid

5
RandomFurryDude 5 points ago +5 / -0

That would explain why feminists always complain when men date younger women. They think every woman up to 35 is a child lmao.

5
TomSeeSaw 5 points ago +5 / -0

Looks like it was Grandma that needed the abortion.

4
Decrixxx 4 points ago +4 / -0

kek. these are indeed good pro-abortion ADS.

4
evilplushie 4 points ago +4 / -0

If she wants to be aborted so bad, she can still kill herself

4
BetterNameUnfound 4 points ago +4 / -0

The same people who say "An ephebophile is a pedophile with a thesaurus."

4
Skywise 4 points ago +5 / -1

That used to be middle aged.

Though I’ll agree people shouldn’t have the right to vote until 25…

4
WhitePhoenix 4 points ago +4 / -0

Someone ask this bitch if her mother said she wish she aborted her would she be happy.

4
Gizortnik 4 points ago +4 / -0

What if a woman's hopes and dreams could be raising a loving family, rather than ascending the corporate ladder?

That's what they are saying when they say, "hopes and dreams". It's just: "I got money and Brand said I'm important"

I've started saying out loud, "A mother is the most important thing a woman can ever be" and boy, a lot of people get uncomfortable around that statement.

To bad it's true

-2
TheImpossible1 -2 points ago +2 / -4

I'm sorry, but I don't believe most of them have the human kindness required to even pretend to be in a loving family.

Consider how many of them get that and then shoot it down for cash and prizes. Their true dream must be something very disturbing.

4
Gizortnik 4 points ago +4 / -0

It's your bigotry that veils reality from you, and will always leave you blinded.

Almost every human being alive has the kindness required to be in a loving family. Unfortunately, we live in a deranged society which has taught enabling instead of love. We pass off addiction as contentment. We delude ourselves so much that we assume happiness must have been the propagandistic mass psychosis of every single era of human existence before today.

We can't imagine a world of love, because we have never lived in one, and don't know anyone who has.

It is the crime of our era, but it is not the crime of any one demographic.

3
alucard13mmfmj 3 points ago +3 / -0

Majority of women are kinda like kids..

they like to be teased/surprised. they dont have much responsibility or absolved from the consequences of their actions. they are grouped as "women and children" in emergency situations. they on average get lesser sentences, like children do if they commit a crime. throws tantrums and being difficult because they can. like kids growing up during puberty, they are emotionally unstable. follows what is trendy like kids do.

1
AbleistSL 1 point ago +1 / -0

ShE WAs OnLY 22!

What a dumbass.

1
GeneralBoobs 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Whore beget, Slut, who beget Tramp, who beget Flesh Mattress...."

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1