Hot take from /pol/
(media.communities.win)
Comments (36)
sorted by:
I highly doubt it, the collective reee is too strong with this one. I don't think they wanted this ruling, and the leak was to 1. distract from habbenings 2. pressure the courts not to rule on it that way
Agreed. The writing on the wall says this is the time to ramp up funding, not quelsh it.
As interesting as this hypothesis is, too much backlash from team evil for it to be planned.
They're not taking credit for it.
That and the whole vax = no baby's at all is completely wrong. There's been plenty who have had kids after the vax.
Now, is it safe/effective? Heck no. Does it lead to unwanted abortion/possible infertility in some? Seems that way.
Those were my 1st two thoughts as well... but you've got to admit, this is a really good reason to add a #3 to the motive list.
Did you see the Pfizer data re: pregnancies?! Holy fuck. They've eliminated themselves from the gene pool already. This is Opus level Darwinism.
Distracting and Pressuring are solid MO's, but to also get deniability regarding the vaccine impact on pregnant mothers? Why not. It's a three-fer.
It's assuming white hats have no antidote, and also assuming the vax is as bad as anons think. Idk the answer to either but I can hope and pray!
I dont buy it. All the mainstream news is celebrities saying how important abortion access is.
Meh, that just means they're hungry.
This
The most aborted babies are those of color. Don’t Black Lives Matter?
REEEEE
Only during election cycles.
Scotus didn't ban abortions. They pushed that decision down to the states where it should have been in the first place.
They would have to do that in every country.
Not sure I buy it, but….interesting.
x to doubt
They didn't ban abortion. They gave the power back to the states to make the decision to the people's legislators back to the Constitution. Just if you want an abortion you're going to have to go to a blue state with shitty policies
I don't think this is about banning abortion. In reading the SCOTUS ruling that was leaked, the justices are throwing the issue back to the states for lack of "standing." It seems to be their MO anymore. I think it was Mississippi that brought this case to the court and they were going to rule on it in June anyway, so this is just premature leaking to suit the democraps need to blame it on republicans and make it sound like something it isn't.
This claim does not make any sense. The premise of banning abortions is to increase births. If the clot shot lowers fertility in women, then there are going to be less births while abortions are prohibited. This means that the expected results of banning abortions (more births) will not match with the actual results (less births). This data mismatch will cause people to seek answers as to why women are having less births while they should be giving more births, leading to further awakening about the clot shot. In this light it also makes sense why there's such an uproar about overturning Roe v. Wade, because the deep state does not want people to start digging into the reasons of the diminishing birth rates.
Oh jeez. I sure hope not. What a frightening thought
People are still getting pregnant left and right on my Baby boards and they are all mostly vaxxed. I got banned from a major baby website for speaking out against the jab.
isn't this assuming indirectly that the infertility from the clot shot is accidental?
If not then that implies that the "they" who want pop reduction from clot shot are DIFFERENT from people who want lots of dead babies for whatever reason.
I like this anon's way of thinking, though, VERY good thinking.
Good thinking, but I don't think so.
It's not being banned.
I think its far more likely this is the part that gets built back better. The human part. Not the economy, not politicians, not social welfare. But humans.
Kill all the mouth feeders off with the vax, leave few who can fight, end abortion to repopulate with 100% drones who dont know anything but the DS mantra, One World.
If it was as reported a 9 to 0 vote..... that is a possibility..... along with several others..
WWG1WGA
Dang.
I was thinking a good rebuttal to some liberal bitching about not having abortion access is "just get the covid vaccine, and you'll lose the baby."
However, one would think that without easy access to abortion, birth rates would skyrocket. If that doesn't happen, then how are they going to explain that? Will they say everyone started using condoms? Dunno but sounds like aborted baby parts were big business, so either way they shot themselves in the foot (vax or anti-abortion law, either/or).
We live in an amazing time where anyone, and I mean ANYONE with even a small amount of savvy, could come up with such a very high-iq angle to all of this that no professional pundit ever could. For all we know this could be some 14-year old kid, or a retired postal worker. We'll never know! This really hit the nail on the head. Another part is that there are going to be a lot of women who will miscarry and will need an abortion-like procedure done. This will make the argument even stronger, and we'll probably see some stories about some random Ms. Jane not being able to get access to abort her miscarried fetus.
yes, it is diabolical, to be sure, but it just might work
I was wondering about this before Roe got shot down. I kept thinking, "Because of the vax there will be less and less pregnancies and less and less abortions. How will they spin this? Won't Planned Parenthood start screaming about losing profits?"
And here's the thing, abortion is not outlawed at all. It's just that each state can now ban it without being sued by the federal government. We all know states like CA and NY will never ban it and will probably pay women to have them. Abortion will be almost completely gone in many states, but it will continue on in many others, sadly.
hmmmmmmm.
Logic is flawed in this statement.