I get a childish fun out of getting someone to reply repeatedly after they tell me to fuck off twice. It's just funny to me someone tries to play off that they're so above it all but keep responding anyways. Like we're not all mucking around in the mud here.
Learn to read.
I don't ... think anyone has said you shouldn't be taking antipsychotics if you need them?
I can: you're a dippy cunt with your head up your ass and this "I am wahman hear me borrrre" shtick is hilarious.
You're going to discover for yourself that android raptor's relation to the truth is tenuous at times. She'll say things that are considerable exaggerations of what took place.
It's not. Abortion is for when contraception fails or wasn't available. No one is using abortion itself as contraception, that would be one hell of an expensive and obnoxious form of contraception.
Women worked, but they didn't exist as far as the economy was concerned. Women only emerged as part of the consumer class recently in history. I think that's what people are talking about when they say 'women not working'. Rather than poor people doing whatever they could to get by.
I don't know what metrics you're looking at-- at best, you could argue that society as a whole has encountered a zero net change in being better between positive trends (e.g. improving living standards) and negatives (e.g. the acceptance and championing of mentally ill people and children going under the surgeon's knife to mutilate themselves in service of some parody of the opposite sex), but I was referring to specific contexts that are in fact worsening. You may even assert-- without proof-- that things have "always been this way"... except that you're statistically wrong. It's literally untrue, for example that the rates of single motherhood that we have now are anywhere close to the rates we had prior to the sexual revolution and the expansion of the welfare state, and it's untrue that the increases weren't stark.
This entire time, you've been speaking as though you've never been in a relationship.
That sounds like a second-level contraceptive...
When I see that I don't think "She shouldn't have had children because she is evil," I think "She should not have done those evil things, and should have raised her children properly instead."
Andrea Yates literally killed her children because her postpartum psychosis, shitty fundamentalist husband, and her other incredibly severe mental illnesses made her think she wasn't raising them right.
To be even remotely capable of raising her kids properly she should have been taking her meds instead of just popping out babies. Her constant pregnancies and births undeniably made her mental illness worse. And yeah, some women are just evil and shouldn't have kids.
As opposed to children being mutilated to keep them from jerking off/to sing/while being forced to give birth/etc.
All people have free will and bear ultimate responsibility for their actions.
What point are you trying to make? I'm saying that at best the net value of our society is neutral after accounting for all the component vectors. You're talking about what I could only imagine you wanted to place on an axis I alluded to, but that only feeds into my point unless you're arguing that mutilation for X,Y, and Z is better than mutilation for A,B, and C.
It's heavily improbable that stark rises in single motherhood all stemmed from this one reason.
And the sexual revolution suddenly made women more comfortable with fessing to be a single mother, to the point that the rates across all communities with the exception of Asians rose meteorically?
Haha! You're so insecure that you have to believe I'm a dude or a thot! Brilliant. God forbid another woman have different opinion from you!
I'm almost at my mid-30s. The older I get, the more I realize that not only do I not want kids, but having kids would end horrifically. Seeing my friends with kids, especially in covid, only solidified that.
