no no I know we've got scientfical knowledgethat within a womb is a person
advanced and progressed
but explain
maybe I am a novice
I ask is a seed germinated a tree?
without the umbilical can that baby breathe?sounds like at this point mommy is me
who's to say it's wrong or its right when there's no basis for legality?
Thordaddy said ...
Momma can stop the beatin' heartOn lil mo' than emotional whim
But "white supremacy" got these negros locked up
Like tiny lil Tims...
25 comments:
I ________DV_______ promise to only use pictures of nekked women when I want to get my point across in the future. Brothers like looking at naked women. Women like looking at naked women to contrast themselves against the image. There really is no downside.
:-)
DV,
'splain sumptin' to me???
All these nigels delirious
Over "white supremacy..."
But here's a white Supremacist
Witha question, unequivocally,
Gettin' to the heart of the matter
And allan, alda negros go plantation on me!!!
If homeys wanna self-annihilate
Why I gotta sweat being white Supremacy?
Why I gotta let these nigels run jive on TD?
If you can't SAY, "I shouldn't be killed by mommy"
Your silence no different
Than saying, "It's RIGHT to be killed by mommy."
Turned out nigels
Then wax eloquent 'bout "white supremacy..."
How this desire for life, pathological illegitimacy
Now normally,
In normal times, homeys assert their right fo' freedom
That means the right to live frumda beginnin'
But these modern days nigels
Say they doomed frumda start to the endin'
Momma can stop the beatin' heart
On lil mo' than emotional whim
But "white supremacy" got these negros locked up
Like tiny lil Tims...
Thor you are a broken record making less and less sense every time you post.
You are a beautiful enigma homie keep up that loony hustle you got going. I want you to repeat after me "If a little girl gets raped she cannot abort". Tell me it was gods mission for it to happen and that the devil wants her to end the pregnancy. Cus you know that's self annihilation...
Honestly reading your posts I feel is self annihilation. You're like a black rush limbaugh, I have no idea why you can't respect someone's wish to "self annihilate" if they want to.
ITS OK FOR MOMMY TO MURK ME
MOMMY CAN MURK ME IF SHE WANTS TO
I AM OK WITH MOMMY HAVING THE RIGHT TO MURK ME
LIFE IS A "MEME".. ahahaha come on even wanda sykes would say that's gay bro.
SoloInto,
Why u think I seek to confuse u???
Y u abuse U
And think TD's rhymes use u?
Whether u self-annihilate
There is no plan to stop u,
When I can meme u,
I certainly don't mean to
B mean to u,
But I wanna be a Supremacist
And cats like u
Make it so irrationally racist
Cuz u a self-annihilatin' fool!!!
And that's cool
No, not cool with me
But cool in school
Public tools,
Say things like,
Homos rule,
Don't know they're mules
Pullin' deadweight
For the rulers that rule
Inch by inch, these fools
Walk back they life alda way to the womb,
Throw out a red herrin'
Forget 99 percent of da chirren,
And then proffer their doom!!!
Doomed to ruin
They set they sights on those that livin'
It's a given,
They start at the beginnin'
We call it "conception"
A unique one time creation
Sometimes he DIES from lack of volition
But if u down with abortion
Then u down with volitional termination
Of da unique one time creation
Let's call him the Solo
Into the world supposed'b his destination...
It's ugly all around, the process is disturbing no doubt.
I just want to know straight up DV, TD - under no circumstances should a person be able to abort their pregnancy?
Under no circumstances should a mother have a "fundamental right" to kill her child in utero.
That's concise.
Now you can tell us under what circumstances she gains this "fundamental right" to kill the Solo in utero?
Wasn't that Roe v. Wade?
"I just want to know straight up DV, TD - under no circumstances should a person be able to abort their pregnancy?" SoloInto
What up Solohhhhh?
"should a person be able to abort their pregnancy"?
be "able"?
Of course people will always be able to abort their abortions.
Always have.
Always will.
Hell, people are "able" to drown their new born infants if they so choose.
The ability to abort is one thing.
The marketing and promotion of abortion is another.
Terminating a pregnancy is one thing.
Conflating the termination of a child's life in the womb with "a woman's right" is pure bullshit mind fuck, issue-switching, pandering, double-talk, eugenics propaganda, crafted by some evil child-hating dyke feminists... and a whole 'nother thing.
phx
Yeah, it's in the text...
Those old males dead
Ain't got no flex!
Why we got t'cept,
Things that make no sense?
Why we got to sweat,
Things that make us tense?
This your chance
To take a stance...
We in descent
Means death advance,
Get it, magne?
U n uh trance?
Death by mother
Ain't no circumstance!
It's certain plans
By certain clans,
Who spread uh meme
From hand to hand...
Etch the text in our land,
Snatch the sex from the man,
Dyke the lady if we can...
See it, magne?
Mothers killin' their children
Is destruction, magne,
No one denies this,
So they run obstruction, magne,
Cuz they corrupted, magne
Are u corrupted... Can
phx
B'beaten down by sum text
Like he uh broken man?
False words ring true
So u a joker, man?
Momma gotta right to kill phx
Cuz it's n the text?
Is that what u sayin', Stan?
[quote]Under no circumstances should a mother have a "fundamental right" to kill her child in utero.[/quote]
Thordaddy:
I understand you.
I am forced to question you though.
http://withintheblackcommunity.blogspot.com/2011/03/which-of-these-abortion-stories-brought.html
When it comes to these RIGHTS that you speak of - WHAT AUTHORITY WILL ENFORCE THEM? HOW???
From YOUR perspective - what is the limits that you will accept regarding their ENFORCEMENT?
Do you see that this GOVERNMENT FORCE should not to be used as the tool to accomplish this end? In lifting up this "FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" regarding a human body - how many other RIGHTS are they going to molest?
The ONLY practical means of MITIGATING this situation is to focus on the MIND of that female "incubation machine" and her male PARTNER'S consciousness as well.
(Note - As I type this I am hoping to earn a "shout out" from my man DV one day - with a customized picture to boot :-) )
When the government enters the realm of intimate human choices it can only use the tools of taxation and police-state detainment to ultimately achieve its end.
When the PEOPLE themselves respect and manage the "Community Consciousness" that is about them - they work to have all of their thoughts and actions be placed in line in achieving this end that you seek.
The INCULCATION of the child from their cherished relationships into the world of agreements that they have sculpted is a more important priority to them, thus, in pursuing this as their mission they realize that the child must SURVIVE the gestation period as a valued addition to the family AND that this said "world of agreements" must also manage the consciousness in the RELATIONSHIPS between the two adults whom are primarily charged with bringing this progeny into the world but THEN into consciousness about the world around him.
(This is merely a more "operationalized" version of brother DV's:
"Get a Chick/ Marry a Chick Reproduce with a Chick" meme
@Thordaddy: I'm only sayin' that your question should then read "Apart from the Constitution, where do women gain the 'fundamental right' to abortion?"
I'm okay if you don't recognize either the legitimacy of the Constitution or Supreme Court. Knowing that though will help me if you ask questions like "Where do we get a right to abortion?" or "Where does Obama's legitimacy as President come from?" I will at least know that answers such as the Constitution or other US law aren't going to satisfy you.
CF,
I'm not entirely sure that you've clarified your question and so I'm having trouble answering it.
I don't think that this is primarily a legal issue and I'm not at this stage an activist advocating a rejection of self-annihilation amongst the black collective. I don't consider myself a universal pro-lifer.
My main interest is the psychological war going on in the head of your average modern regardless of their race. But the black collective provides an interesting paradox whereas it believes itself to be under genocidal threat while it commits open acts of familicide.
The reality from the perspective of a "white" Supremacist is that these separate phenomena are actually intimately intertwined. When one pulls back far enough he sees that the black collective has never seen an existential crisis that didn't originate WITHIN the black collective. It seems very plausible that the false notion of the black collective being under genocidal threat is mere smokescreen for its self-annihilating ways.
How else to explain a grown black man asserting that their mother had a "fundamental right" to kill them in utero?
How else to explain a grown black man REFUSING to assert that his mother NEVER had the "fundamental right" to kill him in utero.
To say, "My mother HAD NO 'fundamental right' to kill me in utero," is to simply speak the truth.
To say, "A mother DOES NOT HAVE a 'fundamental right' to kill her child in utero," is to simply speak truth.
There is no need of elaboration. There is no nuance. These are self-evident truths and those that deny these truths are self-annihilators. They VOLUNTARILY PUT the power of continued existence of all the black collective in the most dangerous hands, the individual black female. Why?
phx,
Actually, the US Constitution is very explicit in the right to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These rights are also listed in logical order. Each right is preceded by a more fundamental and necessary right.
As far as ROE vs. WADE, most honest individuals will readily admit that the right of a mother to kill her child in utero was "written" into the Constitution. Many think that the Framers' total lack of explicit rejection of abortion meant that abortion could be legitimated at the Founding. But of course, the Framers simply rejected the entirely absurd idea that a mother had a "fundamental right" to kill her child in utero so much so that it never occured to them to need to write such an explicit rejection of a wholly absurd and self-annihilating "right."
It's like saying that eating dog sh?t is a "right" because the Framers never said anything about not having the right to eat dog sh?t.
Thordaddy,
Actually, you will look in vain for the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the Constitution. But even though they aren’t listed in logical (or any other) order, I agree they are implicit in the Constitution.
The SC also found an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution and that’s what they hung their reasoning on in Roe v. Wade. Many, such as yourself apparently, believe that's an example of the SC usurping power and “writing law.” I respect that. But it is also clear the Constitution recognizes no higher authority than the SC to settle Constitutional matters, no matter who or why they disagree.
Unlike eating dog shit, millions of citizens do agree that abortion with limitations is a right, with or without the SC. Most honest individuals will readily admit that gut-wrenching, agonizing issue for everyone, and whatever truth their is is NOT self-evident. Recognizing that much is the first step.
I apologize for my typos. After all these years I'm still a victim of my own haste.
phx,
Yes, you are correct in saying that "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" are not in the actual US Constitution, but rather, the Declaration of Independence. I think though that one can easily see that that these two documents go hand and hand. I think also that one can see that the US Constitution has been perverted in such a way as to render the Declaration void. We no longer have a "right to life" as declared in the Declaration. In fact, what we have is something entirely self-annihilating. We have the "right" of mothers to kill their children in utero.
Why does such a declaration ring true TO YOU when it is so evidently false?
phx,
I think my larger point is being missed.
If a man BELIEVES that his mother had/has a "fundamental right" to kill him and ALL siblings in utero then he is, whether conscious of this or not, a self-annihilator.
If we accept this formulation then the question becomes clearer. Should self-annihilators get to be in positions of power and influence within our civilization?
I think the answer is self-evident and so the task for a "white" Supremacist like myself is one of facilitation or wholesale conversion. The historical legal aspect is secondary.
Thordaddy: While I chew on my response, do you mind telling me why you call yourself a "white" Supremacist? Thnx.
TD - You say the right to abortion is evidently false. It may be false, but people on all sides deceive themselves by saying that their position is self-evident. (When is that not the case?) Reasonable people can disagree – but it’s so gut-wrenching on both sides, they won’t be reasonable.
In my tradition we believe the next anthropological development of humankind will be an increased use of reason, intuition and good will to discuss and solve our problems – we’ll rely less on emotion, hyperbole, ego.
I don't see anything self-evident about abortion, other than competing parties have reasonable but contradictory arguments. Perhaps that makes me a self-annihilator, but I don't feel that way at all.
I don’t believe in “rights” per se, that is I don’t feel I personally have rights that can be denied or granted to me. I only have this life, and I see my task as accepting the full responsibility for it. But I speak only for myself, and I don’t have an interest in taking anyone’s perceived rights away. I’m comfortable leaving those questions to the SC as part of the Social Contract, even when I don’t agree with their logic.
phx,
I call myself a "white" Supremacist because I reject radical autonomy. And in that rejection is the implication that I believe in Supremacy; and therefore, I logically strive towards Supremacy. The "white" in white Supremacist is an impositional aspect of my identity that I fully accept.
phx,
The problem with the liberated modern is that he thinks he understands "abortion" better than the individual who will articulate the thing more clearly.
So the liberated modern will say, "I believe in the "right" to abortion."
But the Supremacist will understand that the liberated modern is ACTUALLY SAYING, "my mother has a "right to kill" me in utero."
You seem to think you can straddle the fence, but you can't because I won't let you. You can talk of "abortion" and I will remind you of WHAT IS ACTUALLY MEANS and then you have no real wiggle room.
It's very simple.
If you BELIEVE in the "right" to abortion THEN you BELIEVE in your mother's "right to kill" you in utero.
If you don't believe this then you don't believe in the "right" to abortion.
I think you are saying "the reality of abortion is so horrible that it is beyond the pall to 'reason' about it. If you could conceive of this happening to YOU, you would never believe women had a right to abortion."
I think what you want to do is throw an aborted fetus on someone and say "THIS is what abortion is."
Whether or not I'm accurately representing you, I understand that argument. I actually find it somewhat persuasive. But I don't think it's the only thing to be said, and it doesn't trumps all other argument. My thinking on this could evolve.
In virtually all arguments I believe in reason first. IF that fails then let's see what else is in the toolbox.
Take the last word here if you'd like brother.
phx,
One can't really "reason" unless one is able to transcend the self and say, "look, here is where I reasoned."
What "reason" is there to grant a female the "right to her body" that doesn't include that "right" from the very beginning, i.e., conception? If that "right" doesn't include ALL the female for ALL of her life then the "right to her own body" is an exaggerated illusion.
Not only does the female NOT HAVE the "right to her own body," but that female body may be destroyed FROM the beginning FOR no reason at all.
That's is the unequivocal reality.
phx,
You can't see abortion from a post-1973 perspective as some detached phenomenon. You have to see it for what it really is. You have to examine the self-refuting justification for its legitimization by a large collective and ask yourself what it means AS WE DESCEND.
Refusing to stand up for your life from the beginning is the very essence of self-annihilation. And to grant your mother de facto power to murder innocence (a power that the sensible and compassionate mother would wholly reject) is to grant her radical autonomy. It is to grant her the power to self-annihilate. If it is her body and she kills part of it then she is killing herself. Literally.
Post a Comment