Roe vs Wade affects only female humans that are pregnant.Vegas » 15 May 2023, 10:48 am » wrote: ↑ the progressives are vague about the definition of a woman, but when Roe Vs Wade was overturned, they knew exactly what a woman was?
Xavier_Onassis » 15 May 2023, 11:38 am » wrote: ↑ Roe vs Wade affects only female humans that are pregnant.
All human females capable of becoming pregnant are clearly female.
Not all human females are capable of be coming pregnant, however.
Progressives are aware of "science".
You do not seem to be.
And no one is vague about the definition of what a woman is, either. Not that is it illegal immoral or even naughty to be vague if one chooses to be.
Are you saying a woman can't have a penis?Xavier_Onassis » 15 May 2023, 11:38 am » wrote: ↑ Roe vs Wade affects only female humans that are pregnant.
All human females capable of becoming pregnant are clearly female.
Not all human females are capable of be coming pregnant, however.
Progressives are aware of "science".
You do not seem to be.
And no one is vague about the definition of what a woman is, either. Not that is it illegal immoral or even naughty to be vague if one chooses to be.
So only a woman has a womb and can become pregnant?Xavier_Onassis » 15 May 2023, 11:38 am » wrote: ↑ Roe vs Wade affects only female humans that are pregnant.
All human females capable of becoming pregnant are clearly female.
Not all human females are capable of be coming pregnant, however.
Progressives are aware of "science".
You do not seem to be.
And no one is vague about the definition of what a woman is, either. Not that is it illegal immoral or even naughty to be vague if one chooses to be.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Xavier_Onassis » 15 May 2023, 11:38 am » wrote: ↑All females are not women, thus, females have wombs and
other ancestral hormones. However, women are not all
ancestral biological science hotdogs, thus becoming.
Pregnant walruses, thus, biological wombs.
I want to defend omh- he knows what a woman is... NOT FAIR!!!! SHUT UP.Sumela » 15 May 2023, 12:29 pm » wrote: ↑ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
XO on Science becomes NostraDumass
sootedupCyndi » 15 May 2023, 1:37 pm » wrote: ↑ I want to defend omh- he knows what a woman is... NOT FAIR!!!! SHUT UP.![]()
![]()
![]()
NO- You can say anything you want- He knows the diff between a woman and a man.
sootedupCyndi » 15 May 2023, 1:47 pm » wrote: ↑ NO- You can say anything you want- He knows the diff between a woman and a man.
Me -I have to check every morning.![]()
![]()
just to be sure! kidding!
No.Xavier_Onassis » 15 May 2023, 11:38 am » wrote: ↑ Roe vs Wade affects only female humans that are pregnant.
All human females capable of becoming pregnant are clearly female.
Not all human females are capable of be coming pregnant, however.
Progressives are aware of "science".
You do not seem to be.
And no one is vague about the definition of what a woman is, either. Not that is it illegal immoral or even naughty to be vague if one chooses to be.
Vegas » 15 May 2023, 10:48 am » wrote: ↑ the progressives are vague about the definition of a woman, but when Roe Vs Wade was overturned, they knew exactly what a woman was?
Xavier_Onassis » 15 May 2023, 11:38 am » wrote: ↑ Roe vs Wade affects only female humans that are pregnant.
All human females capable of becoming pregnant are clearly female.
Not all human females are capable of be coming pregnant, however.
Progressives are aware of "science".
You do not seem to be.
And no one is vague about the definition of what a woman is, either. Not that is it illegal immoral or even naughty to be vague if one chooses to be.
Oh Oh! Cyndi is rebelling!She mite tear the joint up!sootedupCyndi » 15 May 2023, 1:37 pm » wrote: ↑ I want to defend omh- he knows what a woman is... NOT FAIR!!!! SHUT UP.![]()
![]()
![]()

Cannonpointer » 15 May 2023, 2:19 pm » wrote: ↑ No.
Not everyone can define woman. You, for example, cannot - furitcake.
And yes, it IS immoral to be vague, misogynist fruitcake. It is an affront to women. Which is precisely why you engage in that practice.
Liberals can't even figure out which bathroom to use.Xavier_Onassis » 15 May 2023, 11:38 am » wrote: ↑ Roe vs Wade affects only female humans that are pregnant.
All human females capable of becoming pregnant are clearly female.
Not all human females are capable of be coming pregnant, however.
Progressives are aware of "science".
You do not seem to be.
And no one is vague about the definition of what a woman is, either. Not that is it illegal immoral or even naughty to be vague if one chooses to be.
Here you go, you stupid queer. Your left wing media "fact checked" zelensky's tranny dance and other sexual perversions. This is YOUR media, fruitcake - see whether you can suck this much jizz.Taipan » 15 May 2023, 7:17 pm » wrote: ↑
More **** from the fake TNM *** that doesn't even live in Texas.
Let me check for you! Just a little peek? Huh?sootedupCyndi » 15 May 2023, 1:47 pm » wrote: ↑ NO- You can say anything you want- He knows the diff between a woman and a man.
Me -I have to check every morning.![]()
![]()
just to be sure! kidding!
![]()

I drove across the Mojave Desert in the last 2 days.Cannonpointer » 15 May 2023, 9:38 pm » wrote: ↑ Here you go, you stupid queer. Your left wing media "fact checked" zelensky's tranny dance and other sexual perversions. This is YOUR media, fruitcake - see whether you can suck this much jizz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_tryAdonPI
You never answered the question I axed you earlier today! About giving me full use of the forum again! I can't go on this way! C'mon man!Cannonpointer » 15 May 2023, 9:38 pm » wrote: ↑ Here you go, you stupid queer. Your left wing media "fact checked" zelensky's tranny dance and other sexual perversions. This is YOUR media, fruitcake - see whether you can suck this much jizz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_tryAdonPI