Republican bill urges "deadly force" to stop abortions in North Carolina

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-bill-deadly-force-stop-abortions-north-carolina-12005136

From the article:

A bill making its way through the North Carolina Legislature states it would be permissible for a person to use deadly force on a woman they believe is seeking an abortion, something Democrats have branded as "wildly extreme."

The legislation, now only backed by Republican State Representative Keith Kidwell, would classify abortion as first-degree murder and open up the right of another person to defend the life of the unborn baby as they see fit.

"Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person," the bill reads. "The State has an interest and a duty to defend innocent persons from willful destruction of their lives and to punish those who take the lives of persons, born or unborn, who have not committed any crime punishable by death."

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/republican-bill-deadly-force-stop-abortions-north-carolina-12005136

Nothing says being pro-unborn-child like murdering the mother while she's pregnant. That'd really protect the fetus.

Who am I kidding? It's really a cover hoping that someone will storm in and kill the doctors.

505 points · 115 comments · view on lemmy.world

115 Comments

Archangel1313@lemmy.ca · 145 pts · 117d (11 replies)

Ummm. Wouldn't that also kill the baby?

When was the last time someone checked the lead levels in the drinking water in North Carolina?

sudo@lemmy.today · 80 pts · 117d

That would only be relevant if their intent was to protect unborn fetuses.

SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 117d

If you close one eye and then the other, it doesn’t look that bad.

The fact that they have any hope left in their lives is their most admirable quality.

Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 116d

It's never been able the babies. It's about abusing and controlling women.

If they cared about kids, they would be angry about Trump and the other republicans raping them.

zurohki@aussie.zone · 10 pts · 117d

When was the last time someone checked the lead levels in the drinking water in North Carolina?

It's the US. I'm sure it was checked, found to be dangerously high, they determined that work needed to be done immediately and then it just wasn't done.

Fmstrat@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 116d

You're assuming the bill is about mothers. When you realize it's about doctors, things make more sense.

Malyca@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 115d

Doesn't matter they don't care about that, they just want to be able to legally murder women by yelling "I think she's getting an abortion" first

Krusty@quokk.au · -28 pts · 117d (4 replies)

Not necessarily.

By the time any death penalty (execution) would actually occur the birth would have ample time to come to term, if it was viable.

That'd be interesting though. I suppose the mother could continue to attempt to abort the pregnancy while incarcerated.

flandish@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 117d (3 replies)

? the deadly force would be used against the pregnant woman thus killing her and the baby

Krusty@quokk.au · -22 pts · 117d (2 replies)

People aren't necessarily good lethal shots. Modem medicine is amazing. And funny enough. That dimwit just might consider that and shoot below the waist. To incapacitate but not kill. This is an important distinction in many jurisdictions.

The irony being the perpetrator of an attempted murder would enjoy freedom while the victim of an attempted murder would be incarcerated.

Ultimately, the value of life is arbitrary.

athatet@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 116d

You’re just kinda, saying words, huh? Like an ai but somehow worse?

dreamkeeper@literature.cafe · 2 pts · 116d

It's amazing how people think they can just talk around a point and no one will notice what a coward they are.

Broadfern@lemmy.world · 107 pts · 117d (1 reply)

Inb4 this is clearly an excuse for men to murder their pregnant partners and wipe it away as “she was trying to get an abortion” so he can get off scot-free as dead women can’t say anything to defend themselves.

Catma@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 117d

Lol as if they would have to actually be pregnant.

This is just going to lead to any man murdering any woman and claiming its about abortion

rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 56 pts · 117d (1 reply)

Ah yes, defending an unborn child by checks notes murdering the person carrying the child and therefore also the child

kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 21 pts · 117d

They should just give the embryo the gun

wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 48 pts · 117d (3 replies)

Okay, aside from the obvious "that would also kill the fetus," that's also some really dangerous wording...

states it would be permissible for a person to use deadly force on a woman they believe is seeking an abortion,

"permissible" implies there would be no accountability

"a person" implies that anyone would be permitted to do it

"use deadly force" implies that they can literally murder pregnant mothers

"on a woman they believe is seeking an abortion" implies that they don't need any solid evidence; only the mere belief is enough.

Put it all together, and this bill would give any person in the state free license to murder any pregnant woman, or potentially any woman, for any reason, as long as they claim that they believed she was seeking an abortion.

If anyone needs me to explain why that's bad, then they might be suffering from some sort of brain damage or other cognitive impairment.

Only in a fascist hellscape could a bill like this become law.

Triasha@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 116d

This could also extend to killing men that you think are about to murder a woman.

Any man could be about to murder a woman they think is pregnant, and anyone has the right to protect their life or another's.

This is just legalizing murder, full stop.

They wouldn't interpret it that way, but a plain reading of the text supports it.

Fredselfish@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 117d (1 reply)

Tell me this isn't going pass and only sponsor by a fucking nut GOP rep?

wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 117d

Well, seeing as it's the North Carolina state legislature we're talking about, I wouldn't exactly bet on them doing the right thing...

Etterra@discuss.online · 47 pts · 117d (5 replies)

Nothing says that your pro-life like murdering people.

architect@thelemmy.club · 24 pts · 116d (1 reply)

So you could kill your pregnant wife and unborn baby then claim she was seeking an abortion. Cool

DisasterTransport@startrek.website · 11 pts · 116d

ah fuck thats exactly what they want isnt it

Inucune@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 117d (1 reply)

No love like Christian hate.

conartistpanda@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 116d

I think you got it backwards

ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 116d

"Pro-life" is an intentional misnomer.

Lot of antisemites described themselves as "anti-usury" and "anti-predatory loaning" instead of antisemite. Lot of anti-queer people describe themselves as "anti-grooming" and "for the diversity of opinions" instead of anti-queer.

Likewise anti-women's rights people are describing themselves as "pro-life". Sure, some pro-lifers are true believers, otherwise it's the same kind of emotional manipulation militant vegans use when they call people "zoocannibals" instead of using actual arguments (which there are a lot actually).

MagnificentSteiner@lemmy.zip · 42 pts · 116d

'The unborn' are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn." [Methodist Pastor David Barnhart]

anon_8675309@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 117d (1 reply)

Wait wait wait. Let me make sure I understand. In order to save the fetus you would kill the only entity capable of keeping it alive?

StealthLizardDrop@piefed.social · 19 pts · 117d

it was never about the fetus

terraborra@lemmy.nz · 28 pts · 117d (5 replies)

Just waiting for a Jewish legal group to sue for breaching freedom of religion protections. The life of the mother takes precedence.

An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person until it has been born. The fetus is regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it begins to egress from the womb during parturition (childbirth). In fact, until 40 days after conception, the fertilized egg is considered as “mere fluid.” These facts form the basis for the Jewish legal view on abortion.

KnitWit@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 117d (2 replies)

I’m sure the originalists on the supreme court would argue that since it says freedom of religion, and not freedom of religions, that the founders clearly meant only one religion.

terraborra@lemmy.nz · 15 pts · 117d

That’s depressingly prescient.

EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com · 5 pts · 116d

freedom of religion, and not freedom of religions

"It says no HomerS. We're allowed to have one."

Xaphanos@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 117d
7U5K3N@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 117d

Doesn't matter. USA is a Christian nation.

/s

GraniteM@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 116d (4 replies)

Let's do a little transitive property game.

The bill presupposes that there is an absolute moral duty to protect the unborn.

A theoretical woman is considering an abortion, so it must therefore be okay to murder her.

Therefore, it is okay to murder someone to protect an unborn person.

This bill would make it okay to murder women to protect the unborn.

But that would kill the unborn!

So, it must therefore be okay to kill in order to prevent this bill from passing.

So by this bill's own logic, it would be morally correct to kill Keith Kidwell.

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS PURELY AN EXERCISE IN ARGUMENTUM AD ABSURDUM AND NOT AN ACTUAL PROPOSAL. DO NOT DO MURDERS.

Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works · 17 pts · 116d

Wait a second... If someone is going to kill the mother, they are almost certainly killing the fetus. Therefore wouldn't it be totally legal to shoot anyone who is trying to shoot a pregnant woman as your defending the fetus too?

deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 116d (2 replies)

make it legal to murder women for having abortions

effectively makes it legal to murder women who are pregnant

now you may legally murder / assault any woman, under the guise she was pregnant/was going to have an abortion, if the woman is even a little bit pro abortion or just isn’t a pro”life” psycho, it will be proven that “this man believed she had endangered her baby within reasonable doubt”

Not only would this sexist, misogynist, murderous law allow people to murder women with near impunity, but it is just another piece of legislation that is attempting to legalize Republicans killing any democrat, leftist or otherwise. They tried to do it with Rittenhouse, J6, and inch closer and closer with their “legal” jargon like this all the time, now

I firmly believe this is the end goal of American and other oligarch capitalists when it comes to laws like this. I really hope it would be like “fighting words” where it’s not very enforceable in practice, but that doesn’t matter when women are being killed or even dying being denied healthcare.

They don’t care about the “unborn”. They want to force you to have children so your children can become their worker slaves or even worse with what we’ve seen in all this Epstein stuff. God I hate this place

explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 116d (1 reply)

We're a Christian nation after all.

deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 116d

Praise be 🥲😵‍💫🙏🛐

madcaesar@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 116d (6 replies)

How any woman could vote Republican is beyond me.

It's like a black person voting for the KKK

Like wtf is wrong with you?

A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 116d (3 replies)

How any woman could vote Republican is beyond me.

because "The only moral abortion is my abortion"

because " I'm against this because those filthy non-whites use it, but its okay once I need it"

because " I support this because it hurts people that arent me " ( cue inevitable wailing about the unfairness and cruelty of it all when it comes home to hurt them too.)

Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 116d (1 reply)

In one word: hypocrisy

M0oP0o@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 116d

One of people's historical favorite passtimes

abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 116d

"I never thought the leopards would eat my face"

  • Person who voted for the "Leopards Eating Faces Party" after having their face eaten.
MithranArkanere@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 116d

They vote whoever their priests tell them to vote for, because apparently, church-state separation was something made up by woke liberals or something.

UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 116d

Artificially limited options in the voting booth?

hopesdead@startrek.website · 26 pts · 117d

Why not just call yourself anti-abortion instead of pro-life? You aren’t doing anything to prevent a death here.

lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 117d (10 replies)

Shut up you ugly fucks

Zachariah@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 117d (9 replies)

context:

Kirp123@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 117d (3 replies)

Finally someone tells that ugly goblin to shut up.

Zachariah@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 117d (2 replies)

insulting to ugly people though

ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 116d

Nah, only if they look like a human q-tip and have all the inner character of Joseph Goebbels. Then yeah, I'd expect there would be a bit of unwanted self-recognition.

Oh, the horror. Let me just cry some liberal tears over here for the weird-ass no-discernible-conscience Miller/Goebbels-lookalike NPC motherfuckers personally affected by this egregious slur. Okay, done.

Sassinake@mastodon.social · 1 pts · 116d

@Zachariah @Kirp123 beauty is subjective

Mammothmothman@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 117d

Ugly on the inside.

wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 117d (3 replies)

Is that Talarico? I didn't know he was trans. Or is Steven Millhouse just full of shit?

arctanthrope@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 117d (1 reply)

no, the mastermind of the regime is genuinely essentially just saying "ur gay" like a middle schooler in 2003. that's the best he could come up with. and it will work with their voter base

wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 0 pts · 116d

Copy-and-pasting this from another thread:

Republicans must be scared of Talarico. His message seems to resonate with his base. He's a white christian man, so in other words "Just a great guy!" in their view.

Also, he's not afraid to call out the establishment. The republican base likes that kind of stuff, they've just been misled into believing that "the establishment" means jews and diversity hires instead of corporate-financial oligarchs and their political lackeys.

Talarico has been pretty effective at meeting these people where they're at and redirecting their ire towards the oligarchy where it belongs.

That must terrify republican politicians.

QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 116d

He isn't, but calling someone trans is the new calling someone gay.

socsa@piefed.social · 21 pts · 117d (1 reply)

Oh you mean all the things we said would happen weren't just hysteria after all?

Zachariah@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 117d

… hysteria …

superb word choice

Tarambor@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 116d (4 replies)

So to defend the life of an unborn baby they're going to make it legal to kill the mother carrying it? What the actual fuck do they think would happen to the unborn baby in that scenario? Dumb beyond belief doesn't even come close to describing this and is a prime example why religion should be absolutely nowhere near law making.

Zabjam@feddit.org · 14 pts · 116d (2 replies)

Also stochastic terrorism against women health clinics and doctors

jj4211@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 116d (1 reply)

I think this really is the goal. The health professionals are the realistic target.

As everyone notes, the concept of killing the mother to stop an abortion makes zero sense, but open season on any providers...

Sassinake@mastodon.social · 2 pts · 116d

@jj4211 @Zabjam no, but it makes an example

UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 116d

Edit: what Zabjam said

Shanmugha@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 116d (2 replies)
  • a woman is going to have an abortion
  • someone goes after her to kill her
  • someone else goes after the person above to kill them, protecting the woman
  • repeat as many times as you wish

Cherry on top: this gets into court, and judge goes "it's all woman's fault, jail her for life"

Sassinake@mastodon.social · 2 pts · 116d (1 reply)

@Shanmugha @Sunflier jail them all.

Sunflier@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 115d

Under the doctrine of defense of others, the third person has the right to use deadly force to protect another from deadly force.

foxwolf@pawb.social · 17 pts · 117d (5 replies)

It's going to be legal to murder women in North Carolina?

Inucune@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 117d (4 replies)

If they are on birth control and have a fertilized egg that could be killed by said birth control, the bill authourized lethal force.

prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 116d (3 replies)

That's not how birth control medication works

sureshot0@discuss.online · 8 pts · 116d (2 replies)

I think the point is that the people making these laws are extremely ignorant about human biology

prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 116d

Yeah I really don't think that was the point that the person I replied to was trying to make. Go read their comment again.

FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 116d

Extremely ignorant in general

DisasterTransport@startrek.website · 17 pts · 116d

so how long before people start spreading rumors to encourage stochastic violence? "I heard the governor's daughter is going out of state to get an abortion in Maryland."

savvie@lemmy.zip · 16 pts · 117d

GOP policy is a deadly force

Drusas@fedia.io · 15 pts · 117d
frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io · 14 pts · 117d

They sure moved past the whole "we don't want to punish the people seeking abortions" excuse right quick, thanks SCOTUS. You've enabled justifiable homicide for abortion, which not only kills the mother but also the fetus for good measure.

CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 117d

I'm old enough to remember all these assholes gaslighting about how rolling back Roe won't "really" bring about Gilead states.

I had at least one poster trying to get me banned from Denver Post forums for saying it, by the way. Apparently they found the comparison to Gilead to be hurtful and against community guidelines and not sufficiently milquetoast or whatever. Gotta love the Tone Police.

joyjoy@piefed.social · 12 pts · 117d

We did it, Patrick! We saved that unborn child!

Clbull@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 116d (1 reply)

I for one think it's pretty ironic to stop unwanted pregnancies from being terminated by ordering law enforcement to carry out 153rd trimester abortions upon the doctors...

A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 116d

cause they arent pro-life.

they are pro-fetus.

because a fetus is an amazing tool.

They can force any idealism they want on a fetus, and the fetus has no way to say no.

Liking young things that cant say no is kind of a running theme among conservatives.

Pat_Riot@lemmy.today · 9 pts · 116d

Pro-life, amiright?

Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip · 8 pts · 117d (3 replies)

wildly extreme

Uhhh. I mean. They're not wrong per se... 😅

He's advocating murdering pregnant women; wildly extreme doesnt quite seem to cover it

Godort@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 117d

It's "wildly extreme" in the same way that the East India Company "cared about profit"

Archer@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 117d (1 reply)

Per se

Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip · 3 pts · 116d

Interesting, I don't know that I've ever seen it typed before! Thank you! ☺️

Whostosay@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 117d

Is it cool if we stop posting shit from Newsweek?

Yes, the bill is real, but I almost completely disregarded this as ragebait, which it likely still is on OPs part.

Newsweek is not news, it is a notoriously inaccurate tabloid.

EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com · 8 pts · 116d

The only moral abortion is the one that they perform

Prox@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 117d

So "pro life" they'll kill you over it.

DahGangalang@infosec.pub · 7 pts · 117d (5 replies)

Text of the bill:

Subject to approval by a majority of voters during the 2026 general election, adds new Section 39 to Article I of the North Carolina Constitution as follows. Specifies that human life begins at fertilization. Recognizes a new human life as an individual person, entitled to the protection of the laws of this State from the moment of fertilization until the moment of natural death. Holds persons willfully seeking to destroy the life of another, at any stage of life, or who succeeds in doing so, accountable for first-degree murder, or attempted murder. Specifies that any person has the right to defend the life of themselves or another, even by use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person. Specifies that the State has an  interest and a duty to defend innocent persons from willful destruction of their lives and to punish those who take the lives of persons, born or unborn, who have not committed any crime punishable by death. If approved, effective January 1, 2027.

Sunflier@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 117d (1 reply)

Holds persons willfully seeking to destroy the life of another, at any stage of life, or who succeeds in doing so, accountable for first-degree murder, or attempted murder.

That's the part where I see them giving leeway to dumbfucks to just got shoot up abortion clinics. Its not really about killing the women (through they'd let that go by too) its about killing the doctors.

*Edit: its also about killing the mom who takes her raped daughter across state lines to get an abortion elsewhere

DahGangalang@infosec.pub · 3 pts · 116d

Oh, I hadn't considered trying to take out the docs (my initial read was focused on the mothers). That's an especially bad feel.

BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 117d

I think NC Republicans are willfully trying to destroy their own citizens, especially women.

jumjummy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 117d (1 reply)

What idiotic wording. So if I see some asshole shooting a woman who they believe is having an abortion, I guess I can then legally kill him too since “any person has the right to defend the life of themselves or another, even by use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person.”

Oh no, then someone can kill me for the same reason.. and so on.

DahGangalang@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 116d

Well, North Carolina has some beautiful scenes. I wouldn't mind moving in and taking the place over if they daisy chained this law into wiping themselves out completely.

Microtonal_Banana@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 116d

The only psycho backing this bill is Keith Kidwell who represents the tiny coastal district 79.

https://www.ncleg.gov/Members/Biography/H/749

BigMacHole@thelemmy.club · 7 pts · 117d (1 reply)

We're going to MURDER PREGNANT WOMEN to Save Unborn Babies!

-Republicans LITERALLY!

EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com · 3 pts · 116d

Seems like getting surgically sterilized is an actual form of self-defense. I'm sure they'll make up some bullshit excuse to try and stop that too, but point stands.

Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 116d

How about a bill urging deadly force for rapists? Deadly force for congressional insider trading? Deadly force for using deadly force without an act of congress? Deadly force for fraud? Deadly force for accepting "gifts" while in office? Deadly force for ignoring congressional subpoenas? Deadly force for using the justice dept to harass rape victims? Deadly force for using office to make billions? Deadly force for hiring your own kids and placing them in office?

MithranArkanere@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 116d

Let's kill the mothers, that'll save the children.

Makes perfect sense.

SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 117d (3 replies)

How about lethal force to protect women who are seeking out medical services from places such as Planned Parenthood? These anti-choice motherfuckers need to fuck all the way off.

scops@reddthat.com · 8 pts · 117d (2 replies)

If someone attempts to use lethal force against a pregnant woman who is seeking an abortion, then it would stand to reason that that person is threatening the life of the fetus and can thus be stopped by the pregnant woman or a bystander with lethal force

nickiwest@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 117d

That was my thought as well. Arms race with abortion protesters. Hooray!

SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 117d

The enemy must be protected, lest the enemy of that enemy be threatened by the enemy.

lohky@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 116d

I asked the "Ask Conservatives" subreddit if they thought murdering a doctor about yo perform an abortion would be a just killing. I guess I have my answer.

phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 116d

use deady force on a woman to stop an abortion

Do... Eh. Do these people understand how life works, and that ending the mothers life would surely stop the abortion, but also kill the fetus? Like, do I need to explain this?

Talking about throwing out the baby with the bathwater

muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 116d (1 reply)

They do understand killing the mother kills the fetus too right?

Colonel_Panic_@eviltoast.org · 3 pts · 116d

Understanding is too big of a word for MAGA.

HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 116d

You remember how they were looking up taking braindead women and using their bodies as human incubators? Seems kinda related

nickiwest@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 117d

I hope that every moderate politician across the state loudly proclaims this is obvious evidence that the GOP's core value is not protecting life but punishing "promiscuous" women who dare to have sex for any reason other than procreation.

This is the same party that is lamenting the country's birth rate, by the way. They aren't even pretending to care about women any more.

chilldrivenspade@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 116d
[ removed ]
Chainweasel@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 117d

So isn't that also an abortion?

8j1obzlb@piefed.social · 2 pts · 117d

Those democrats and their “branding” JFC

HorikBrun@kbin.earth · 2 pts · 117d

Witnessing literally (what should be) lethal levels of irony.

chilldrivenspade@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 116d
[ removed ]
chilldrivenspade@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 116d
[ removed ]
chilldrivenspade@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 116d
[ removed ]