Jerks Have Come Full Circle Over Abortion

There needs to be a map made of this journey so people can figure out how they got to this place.

Almost reflexively the dogma is repeated: “Abstinence is unrealistic. People are going to have sex. It’s useless to teach abstinence as a form of birth control.” Given this common assumption, perhaps it’s understandable that the “Me Too” Fems have come to think of sex as rape, unless litigated to an impossible degree. After all, one can hardly expect mutual consent to be naturally synchronized if abstinence is impossible to accomplish. Sex is considered to be like pooping, and a protracted period without it might cause a body to explode. This has churned up a tsunami of sex singular.

Maybe some people might see a glimmer of abstinence possibility if the issue is taken one day at a time, in the way that those addicted to drugs or alcohol accomplish a sober lifestyle.

Suddenly there’s been a new awakening. Bette Midler and Alyssa Milano have swung open the passageway to an (old), new world! They’re proposing a sex strike in response to Georgia’s law, restricting abortion to the short developmental period before a human develops a heartbeat.

You read that right. A sex strike! Until the law is repealed. ABSTINENCE. They’re going to abstain from sex because abortion has become restricted! For gurls younger than Bette, that would remove the “need” for abortion. The concept fairly makes the mind reel: Abstinence for Abortion! Additionally we can observe new wave feminists using SEX to get what they want, by telling the men that no more nookie is available until abortion is deregulated again.

In at least three respects, the jerks have come full circle.

  1. Feminist women are using sex to get what they want.
  2. Abstinence is indeed very possible.
  3. So abortion is not ‘necessary’.

Project Veritas Busts Facebook for Deboosting Conservative Sites

This video explains how a Facebook insider saw program language on various conservative sites which served to reduce or eliminate the ability of their content to be liked, commented on, or shared on the social medium. It also reveals a program to eliminate content contrary to the aims or goals of Facebook. Perhaps this large venue, which presents itself as a public square, needs to be thought of, and subject to laws as a publisher, rather than a communications utility.