Unfortunately, I have no means to know for sure who exactly banned me, because the system was made in a way that mods can cowardly do whatever they want censoring and insulting people anonymously, so I'm just guessing it was you who banned me because you are the mod you replied to part of my post basically saying that I deserved to be banned, but in any case this message goes to anyone who agrees with the decision to ban:
You're insane if you saw any reason to ban me for what I wrote, when I was one of the few in this thread who were defending the lives of babies, instead of making excuses to murder them, as if any relatively unimportant factor, such as economics, should be prioritized over human life, like many uneducated people in this thread were doing, which makes the fact that you banned me even more disgusting, since that means you're not seeing a problem where there blatantly is one, and yet saw as a problem what I was saying precisely against the actual problem, which means there's a very serious problem in your sense of morality, and I highly recommend that you go to a church and pray to God to enlighten your mind. Even if I had written something wrong in one or other line of my text, which could be due to not expressing myself well, that would still be irrelevant considering the clear message of my post as a whole, which is against the murder of babies, and not in favour of it. I was not the one trying to justify the process of ripping out babies limb by limb, crushing their skulls, and discarding them as waste if they seem inconvenient to the parents, and there's hardly anything worse that you can possibly do to a human being, especially if we're talking about a completely innocent defenceless human being.
It makes no sense to use the word "sexism", as if the two different sexes didn't exist; In case you are the one who wrote that as the first excuse to ban me, you didn't know the meaning of the word you used.
Differences between the two sexes do in fact exist, both physically and mentally, and these differences are related to the moral obligations that each one has. A woman does in fact have the moral obligation of protecting the life of her baby.
And the woman is also responsible for the choice she makes to go to a dangerous place at night alone. If she ends up being raped as a result of it, the rapist does not become less blameable for his act, nor does the woman become less of a victim of what happened to her, because the act of the rapist is intrinsically terrible, regardless of the situation, but this doesn't change the fact that the woman is also at fault for not taking enough care of her body.
I never said that the woman is just as much at fault as the rapist for being in the wrong place at the wrong hour. I said that the woman is partially at fault; Not equally. It should be needless to clarify that the woman is still intrinsically the victim regardless of how much she made wrong choices that increased her chances of getting raped, which is why I didn't expressly write it, since I didn't expect that someone would be ill-intentioned enough to try so much to find a negative way to interpret my text, considering the things I was clearly defending in my message as a whole, including the dignity of women, against degeneration.
I was just saying that the woman's decisions that she made in her life influenced one way or another to make her end up in the place in which the unfortunate event occurred without enough means to protect herself, so if she had made different decisions maybe she could have avoided it. And people are responsible for the decisions they make, whereas if the baby is killed it will happen without him having had any chance of avoiding such end, because he never had any opportunity to make a decision.
In comparison to the rapist, the amount of responsibility the mother has on the matter is irrelevant, but in comparison to the baby, the amount of responsibility the mother has on the matter is still relevant.
The point is that girls need to be educated to understand the importance of taking as much care as possible of their body, and it's foolishness to act as if it didn't matter if a woman is making a lot of wrong choices that are increasing the chances of her getting raped, such as dressing up in an immodest way, getting drunk, using drugs, and choosing indecent people as company, for example.
The body of the woman also belongs to God, so by not protecting herself properly she's also doing a disservice to God, which is nothing in comparison to the sin of the rapist, but is still a bad thing if considered by itself, and she's just disgracing herself by far a lot more by killing a defenceless innocent human being, which won't remove the fact she was raped, and will turn her into the murderer of her own child.
There's nothing wrong in what I wrote. If you saw a problem there it's just due to your lack of education to comprehend the importance of what I was saying.
And you clearly deliberately cherry picked the part of my post that was the easiest to be misunderstood, to dishonestly avoid compromising yourself admitting that you were banning me because of the message of my post as a whole, which was against the murder of babies, and not because I supposedly was saying something against women. Considering the things that I wrote in my text, including the importance of girls becoming ladies with self-respect, and boys becoming gentlemen who protect the ladies, I made it absolutely clear that I was defending the dignity of women; I was explaining the importance of doing as much as possible to prevent the terrible event of a woman getting raped, so that the woman doesn't need to be disgraced, and so that pregnancy due to rape doesn't occur to begin with. But you dishonestly chose to ignore the rest of my post because that would be inconvenient to the impression you wanted to transmit.
Afterwards, the excuse for banning me was changed to: "inappropriate comment towards women"
No, I didn't make any inappropriate comment towards women. I just wrote the truth, that you don't like because it's inconvenient to your ideology.
You are the one making an inappropriate comment towards women by accusing mine of being inappropriate. By banning me for what I wrote, you acted in favour of keeping turning women into unhappy feminists, murderers of their own children, and who don't care enough about preserving themselves and avoiding dangerous places and dangerous company.
I was making comments in favour of women and the whole humanity by defending proper education for girls to become ladies and boys to become gentlemen, and by speaking against excuses made to murder more babies, turn more women into murderers of their own children, and decrease the human population.
Just the way how people here are using the word "abortion" to refer to the deliberate act of killing innocent defenceless human beings is already very inappropriate, not to mention how they are actually defending such act, while acting as if those babies weren't even human beings but just things that can be discarded and thrown away as waste according to the convenience of someone else as if a precious human life weren't being lost in the process, but you don't care about their inappropriate comments towards those human beings, due to your lack of moral discernment, and when a sane person appears naming things according to their proper names it seems strange to you.
Rape is certainly one of the worst things that can happen to a woman, but a very obvious thing that feminists fail to understand is that having a psychopath pervert inserting a tube in your vagina to suck your baby out while dismembering and killing him is even worse than getting raped, and I'm not even referring to it being worse to the baby who is getting killed here, but to the woman herself; It's an extremely humiliating and degrading experience, which includes the loss of her child, which is why many women end up killing themselves or becoming emotionally devastated some time after murdering their child, and also why many Chinese women have preferred to die over allowing their third child to be killed in the womb due to birth quota enforcement. People who live in countries in which there's no such law forcing mothers to let their baby be killed should be glad of it, instead of asking for laws that allow the murder of babies in such a terrible way, which has the great risk of ending up becoming compulsory in the future, just like in the case of public "education" and public "healthcare"; First people claimed the right to be granted those things by the government, with the illusion created by propaganda that those were good things, and then they became compulsory in many places.
Even acknowledging that if a woman got pregnant due to rape she's less blameable for making the mistake of choosing to kill her baby in the womb in comparison to how blameable she would be for making the mistake of choosing to kill her baby that she got through consensual sex, that doesn't make the act itself of murdering the baby less of a mistake, because, again, the baby has nothing to do with the circumstances that caused his conception, and the psychopath who realises the procedure of sucking the baby out of the woman's womb is completely blameable regardless of what were the circumstances that caused the conception of the baby, because unlike the woman, he doesn't have the excuse of making such mistake due to having been emotionally damaged because of the experience of being raped. So it makes no sense whatsoever to make an exception for the murder of babies in case of rape, because what occurs in the so called "abortion clinics" is intrinsically evil, and therefore should not be allowed by law, and at the very least the people who are working in such places need to be severely punished (at least life imprisonment) for what they have done. The same goes for the psychopath perverts who gain money to mutilate people while calling it "sex reassignment surgery".
Changing topic now, Al, you're intrinsically wrong for banning someone like that. Even if I had written something really bad, if you had at least the very basic level of education that any 10 years old kid normally already has, instead of using power so easily to silence someone like that, you would have replied to my post with actual arguments against the things you perceived as incorrect. And if you didn't have enough skill to write a proper text with arguments to explain how exactly I was wrong (which seems to be the case, since you didn't even have the ability to write such a short message properly, and I was forced to guess that you meant to write 'than', in order for the terribly written phrase to somehow make some sense), then you could have just ignored me, just like anyone who doesn't like my posts has the option to ignore me. There isn't a single reason that justifies reporting or banning someone because of a disagreement, regardless of who is correct in the discussion, and regardless of how much one may feel offended by what someone else said. And it doesn't matter how many cucks with low testosterone level ( @Go D. Trussop @Iam25 @Cross_Marian @SmokedOut @Pot Goblin
) liked your decision to ban the common enemy whose possibility of keeping posting was threatening to pop their bubble; That kind of support may help to inflate your ego and strengthen your delusion that you're just doing your job as a mod by abusing power in such an unscrupulous manner to reject someone's views on a topic, but that doesn't change how objectively despicable your attitude is.
You're a failure of a person for having no qualms about resorting to power to remove from people the ability to speak and defend themselves against an accusation. But I guess that kind of attitude is to be expected from someone who is in favour of an ideology that includes killing people before they have the ability to speak and have any say in the matter as to whether or not they should be killed, which, of course, is much worse than banning someone from a forum.
If this is your site, and you have more power than Al, do yourselves a favour and stop this incompetent, illiterate, and unscrupulous mod who is banning people for speaking the truth against murder of babies.
You're making a mistake allowing him to be in the moderation team.
Additional comments about this topic, not written to anyone specifically, but to all the leftists who want more babies to be murdered:
I've written all that just to explain how it's wrong to make any exception, but, like others have pointed out, cases of women who choose to kill their baby because his conception was caused by rape constitute a very small minority of cases anyway. In the great majority of cases women just choose to kill their baby without having been raped, were just doing consensual sex (most of the time fornication), and just don't want to take responsibility of giving birth to the baby. But pro-death activists just use the extremely small minority of cases as a dishonest excuse to defend laws to liberate the murder of babies in the womb completely.
The same goes for the common excuse that "the birth may put in risk the life of the mother". Leaving aside what I already wrote in my previous post about this, this is also practically never the reason why murder of babies in the womb occur. Such hypothetical exceptional situation is just often mentioned to divert the attention of people appealing to their emotions by making them consider whether or not the life of the woman hasn't more value than the life that is in her womb, so as to weaken their resolution towards the murder of babies, even though there's no reason to make such comparison to begin with, because occasions in which one is confronted with the real need to make such choice practically never occur in real life.