Se aprovechan de mi nobleza

Ian Mexican He/They

[astrodidact]

[iammyfather]

While charging them $35 when they run out of money.

[left-reminders]

Hey maybe people should actually just get free treatment to begin with? 🤔🤔

[adonischildsupportcase]

[astraldemise]

my attempts at drawing frogs

[astraldemise]

you guys just see something vaguely froglike and hit reblog huh

[phomosexual]

good morning! what a wonderful day to normalize straight girls having crushes on trans guys and straight guys having crushes on trans girls!

terfs don;t even fuckign look at this post thanks

[phomosexual]

AND NORMALIZE CIS LESBIANS HAVING CRUSHES ON TRANS WOMEN AND CIS GAY MEN HAVING CRUSHES ON TRANS MEN

(via @kayas-wife)

[maatangi]

No offense but my female ancestors didn’t go through centuries of oppression for me to feel bad about myself all the time

[pissvortex]

this is what the revolution looks like

[motiya]

*looking at the moon* what highlighter does she use?

[dansoncapaldi-deactivated201910]

TED DANSON BEING TAUGHT HOW TO DO THE FLOSS IS THE GREATEST THING YOU’LL EVER WATCH.

[argumate]

this isn’t behind the scenes footage, just a shot from the show, right

[betterthanabortion]

“My body, my choice” only makes sense when someone else’s life isn’t at stake.

[fandomsandfeminism]

Fun fact: If my younger sister was in a car accident and desperately needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was the only person on Earth who could donate blood to save her, and even though donating blood is a relatively easy, safe, and quick procedure no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown person, it would be ILLEGAL to FORCE me to donate blood if I didn’t want to.

See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this….cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon. 

Like, we can’t even take LIFE SAVING organs from CORPSES unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy. 

To tell people that they MUST sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what YOU view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the VAST majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died. 

You’re asking people who can become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant to dead bodies. 

[albinwonderland]

reblogging for commentary 

[generalmaluga]

But, assuming the mother wasn’t raped, the choice to HAVE a baby and risk sacrificing their “bodily autonomy” is a choice that the mother made. YOu don’t have to have sex with someone. Cases of rape aside, it isn’t ethical to say abortion is justified. The unborn baby has rights, too. 

[fandomsandfeminism]

First point: Bodily autonomy can be preserved, even if another life is dependent on it. See again the example about the blood donation. 

And here’s another point: When you say that “rape is the exception” you betray something FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN about your own argument.

Because a fetus produced from sexual assault is biologically NO DIFFERENT than a fetus produced from consensual sex. No difference at all.

If one is alive, so is the other. If one is a person, so is the other. If one has a soul, then so does the other. If one is a little blessing that happened for a reason and must be protected, then so is the other. 

When you say that “Rape is the exception” what you betray is this: It isn’t about a life. This isn’t about the little soul sitting inside some person’s womb, because if it was you wouldn’t care about HOW it got there, only that it is a little life that needs protecting.

When you say “rape is the exception” what you say is this: You are treating pregnancy as a punishment. You are PUNISHING people who have had CONSENSUAL SEX but don’t want to go through a pregnancy. People who DARED to have consensual sex without the goal of procreation in mind, and this is their “consequence.” 

And that is gross. 

[thekaraokeninja]

^ THIS. This is this this THIS THIS THIS. THIS!!!!!

[updatepls-deactivated20180722]

This is probably the strongest and well worded/supported argument for abortion that I have ever read.

[boymercuryx]

Absolutely. As vile as the “no exception for rape” people are, at least they’re consistent. These other fuckers actually think pregnancy should be an enforced punishment for sex.

Funny how they don’t apply that reasoning to other “choices”. They don’t say Oh yeah you can’t have bypass surgery because you chose to eat fat and not exercise. Or You chose to drive without a seatbelt so you can’t get your smashed body treated after a crash. Fuck, most of medicine is about correcting for people’s choices, but anti choicers believe sex choices are magical because of their trashy gutter religion.

[belf-on-the-shelf]

Also fertility treatments usually destroy loads of embryos, but pro-lifers don’t protest fertility clinics because those women are destroying embryos for a reason they approve of. 

[thisbibliomaniac]

We absolutely do protest those, and there are people who adopt embryos.

[secretariatess]

Blood transfusion and organ donating are optional things that can save lives.

Abortion is actively getting rid of a life.

You aren’t responsible for murder by opting out of the first two- you were not responsible for the accident or disease that would require the need of organs/blood from another person.

But by having an abortion, that is actively removing a life.  You aren’t withholding something you can donate.  You’re getting rid of a life for your own sake.

[fandomsandfeminism]

You’re trapped by the trolley debate. The idea that allowing someone to die through inaction is morally different than actively causing a death.

Which is…shakey. And debatable. And also doesnt address the central point of bodily autonomy.

If I woke up in a hospital with a series of tubes connecting me to the person in the next bed, and those tubes were the only thing keeping that person alive, am I obligated to stay there for the 10 months they need to recover? Even as it makes me really sick, makes me diabetic, permanently alters my body, makes it difficult for me to work or see my friends, even if I have to pay for all of it? Is it ethical to force me to let another person live off my body even if I say I don’t want to, I can’t, please don’t make me. Does it matter so much how those tubes got attached of I’m sitting there, sobbing, in pain, pleading to be let go and not held prisoner here?

[zanthador64]

Yes, you literally should be obligated to stay there because the only way your example is comparable to someone being pregnant is if you chose to engage in a pleasurable activity when you knew it could potentially chain you to that person for the next 10 months with all the potential side effects you listed.

There are multiple ways for you to not have to be forced to look after a baby that don’t include killing it. Human life means so little to you because it’ll inconvenience you for under a year. I sincerely hope no one ever gives you any kind of power over them because you’ve proven you’ll do whatever you want, even kill them, and then cry “But what about how this affects me?!?”

[fandomsandfeminism]

And you think its ok to literally hold pregnant people hostage against their will and deny them agency over their own bodies.

And why? Because they had sex. Gasp.

[zanthador64]

Again, literally not against their will. They exercised their free will deciding to have sex. If a life results from that decision the only moral choice is to allow it a chance to survive. If you don’t want to be a part of your child’s life after their birth that’s your decision to make but the fact remains the vast majority of abortions done in the first world are done for convenience, not medical emergency.

[fandomsandfeminism]

Consent to one act is not consent to all potential outcomes, not does it mean that a person has given up their right to bodily autonomy and medical agency.

If I consent to ride on a motorcycle, you dont get to deny me a blood transfusion if I’m hit by a bus. Agreeing to an act that results in the desire for medical care doesnt negate your right to medical care.

No one is obligated to be an incubator or a broodmare. Our bodies are ours, ours alone, and ours irrevocably. You don’t get to take that away from someone because they got laid.

[zanthador64]

Consent to one act IS consent to all possible outcomes occurring and again you keep using false equivalences. If you become intoxicated and then decide to drive home on your motorcycle you don’t get to claim you didn’t consent to crashing into a telephone pole or another car and thus can’t be held financially responsible for your actions. That’s just for monetary compensation too, which is a far less cost than the human life you want to destroy for your convenience. And even if you want to go with your blood transfusion idea, a consequence may be that the hospital you’re taken to doesn’t have your blood type on hand and you die from blood loss, a consequence of your own actions.

No woman is obligated to be an incubator or broodmare and yes your body is your own. Incubators and broodmares have the sole function of sustaining and bringing life into the world respectively, something no woman in the first world is expected or even encouraged to do in mainstream society today. But the fetus developing inside of it’s mother is wholly separate from their body, even if dependent upon it.

You mentioned the trolley debate earlier in the thread and I’d say that choosing to kill one is better than allowing five to die because it’s the least amount of life lost in a shitty choice. You say that in the shitty choice of an unexpected pregnancy that the mother should be able to abort for no reason other than convenience. However, faithfully applying the trolley debate’s lesson would mean it’s better for a person to endure 10 months of pregnancy than kill another person because that’s the lesser suffering put on the scale. If you don’t like the consequences of your actions then don’t engage in sexual intercourse or keep said intercourse to actions that won’t result in a pregnancy such as oral or anal sex.

[fandomsandfeminism]

You’ve misunderstood the metaphor about the blood transfusion. This isn’t a question of the hospital BEING UNABLE to treat you by accident, but LEGALLY REFUSING TO because you got on the motorcycle and the people in Congress think motorcycles are sinful.

And just because YOU think you’ve solved the trolley debate (though misusing how it was being applied, since it was being used to discuss action vs inaction) doesnt make it law.

Again, we are not incubators or broodmares. Our bodies are ours, only ours, completely and irrevocably. That means we get to decide what happens to our bodies, who gets to use it, how they use it, and for how long.

We don’t surrender our right to medical care and control over our bodies because we got laid. That’s not how this works.

We don’t surrender our right to medical care and control over our bodies because doing so might keep another person alive, whether that person is a fetus, or a stranger who needs a kidney, or a friend who needs blood. We get to make the choice how our bodies are used, even when lives are on the line.

You dont get to use another person’s body against their will for your benefit. No one does. Not even a fetus.

Its. A. Choice. Thats what consent and bodily autonomy mean.

Our bodies are ours. Only ours. Inherently and irrevocably. You dont get to take that away.

[bangurz]

me: h-

blonde republican women:

[ewfadsasddsdasd-deactivated2018]

women with porn blogs be like “daddy fucked me hard style and then bought me taco bell cunch wap supeme cuz i was a good girl i love daddy’s cum” and then they post a pic of their bf and he looks like this

[anarchocunt]

Just delete this whole fucking site.

[thesupremesourcream]

People who say bi erasure doesn’t happen need to realize Freddie Mercury is known as the most famous homosexual man when he identified himself as bisexual. If that’s not bi erasure I don’t even know.

[stupiduglyfatcunt]

Also PoC erasure, most people don’t know he was 100% Indian

[daggers-drawn]

Specifically he was Parsi. Also raised Zeroastrian.

[avaazeman]

*zoroastrian 

[cornflakepizza]

#i dont think the white boys can handle a queer brown guy being their god

[karis-the-fangirl]

^^^ centuries of religious art featuring white-skinned blue-eyed Jesus have made that pretty clear

[joycevbyers-deactivated20191228]

His real name was Farrokh Bulsara. He was born in Zanzibar.

[blakrosemess]

And he was bisexual.

[date-a-jew-suggestions]

If you would report an undocumented immigrant to ICE you would have reported me to the Nazis and I don’t fucking trust you

[prismatic-bell]

A note:

I live in a state where you “have to” report anyone you suspect of being undocumented (that wonderful hellhole of Arizona). Now in practice this law has fallen far short, thank goodness. But if you live in such a place and they start enforcing it, here is how you get around it:

Assume everyone who doesn’t speak English is visiting.

Never ask about their job, because if they tell you they work here then you know they’re not visiting. You see them a lot for several weeks or months? Hm. Someone in the family must be ill. That’s terribly tough. They always dress in old, ratty laborers’ clothes? I feel you, my dude, I can’t afford new clothes either, and my dad has the fashion sense of an aardvark, so sometimes it’s not even about “affording” them. They say they’ve been here for years? You must have misunderstood. Spanish isn’t your first language, after all. First and last name? It never came up, or you don’t recall–you meet a lot of people.

And then, if you’re asked: no, you haven’t seen anyone residing illegally in the United States. Just people visiting.

[date-a-jew-suggestions]

Very good very important addition

[appropriately-inappropriate]

Essentially, this is the civil society version of a work-to-rule strike.

Don’t do more than is expressly asked of you, and do what you are asked with such an intense attention to protocol that not asking you at all becomes more effective than even bothering.

In this case:

“Have you seen an illegal immigrant?”

“Could you describe an illegal immigrant, officer?”

*officer describes a person who is in the country without appropriate paperwork, or who has crossed the border illegally*

“No, sir, I haven’t seen any illegal immigrant.”

And this is correct. You have NOT seen an illegal immigrant, because you have no way of knowing if Jose Fulano is here legally or not. And since you can’t see his paperwork (or lack thereof), and did not personally see him cross the border illegally, you are only answering precisely the question asked.

[dancingwiththelostboys]

I’m not American, and I have like, three followers, but this is important.

[black-to-the-bones-deactivated2]

Dropping some knowledge for you. I bet you didn’t know that and they won’t teach you something like this at schools. That’s a shameful part of the history they want to forget, but you need to know this, to be aware of what happened to our people back then. These people experienced terror and torture just because white people didn’t want them free and flourishing.

[badgyal-k-deactivated20190901]

Take time to read this.

[liquidlightandrunningtrees]

I detest the masculine point of view. I am bored by his heroism, virtue, and honour. I think the best these men can do is not talk about themselves anymore.

Virginia Woolf, The Pargiters (via liquidlightandrunningtrees)

[left-reminders]

Why is “economic freedom” always measured in how easy it is for rich assholes to own limitless property and exploit the working class by the thousands, and not in how easy it is for the average person to meet their basic necessities so they can live comfortably and happily in society?

Really makes you think. It’s almost like we live in a society where those same rich assholes control the media and dominant ideological institutions, thus constricting us to a very particular socially-constructed definition of “freedom” that benefits them materially. It’s almost like power seeks to reproduce itself or something.