¿Things?

yeah i just post whatever

[jung-koook]

260114 - 2026/2027 BTS WORLD TOUR schedule announcement

[thepromiscuousfinger]

[nicolessjade]

No words. Presenting without comment.

[moniquill]

This person clearly does not know what ectopic pregnancy is.

[darth-revan-dark-lord]

A new coworker was talking about his experiences at college and how he couldn't wait to graduate. He asked me if I had been to college, so I said a little yeah, never got any sort of degree, but if college was free I'd go for the rest of my life.

He seemed shocked. "Why would you do that to yourself, wouldn't you get sick of it?", he asked. I was shocked that he was sort of protesting it? He continued: wouldn't you get sick of doing the same thing over and over again. I tried to counter that by saying I'd be learning things I only wanted to learn, but in the end he was all "that's bizarre to want to college for forever." Idk maybe this is a bit of an age gap sort of deal?

Tl;dr this isn't a gotcha/would you rather with a penalty. It's free and you can take whatever classes you want.

If the college of your choosing was free and you can take any classes you could, would you go for the rest of your life?

Yes, and I was born pre 2000

Yes, and I'm Gen Z/Alpha born post 2001

No, and I was born pre 2000

No, and I'm Gen Z/Alpha born post 2001

Nuance/am already big wrinkly brain smart 🤓

Voting ended onSep 28, 2025

[goshihateusernamessofcknmuch]

just bc youre an asexual catholic doesnt mean age-appropriate sex education is evil

AGE. APPROPRIATE

being the key word here.

Let children be innocent. They shouldn't know about stressful or gross topics like Sex until they're ready.

[moniquill]

Why do you think sex is 'stressful or gross'??

What do you think constitutes 'age appropriate', and importantly how do you make that judgement? What counts as 'sex ed'?

[aetherograph]

Hot take: "gross" is a judgement of dismissal and contempt. You should never ever turn that word on anything involving a human person including their body. That is harm. That is doing material harm and in this case, to a child. You will not harm children on my watch thank you VERY much.

Bodies are bodies. They do things as they move through the world. Puberty can feel scary and gross, but it is not those things. Those feelings are real and they can hurt (they are a form of pain!) but it's important to learn they are feelings and what feelings they are and what they are responding to. Your body changing on you without your control is one of the most terrifying and universal human experiences and it's incredibly cruel to say you would condemn a child to face that alone, with no help from the adults that are supposed to be helping them, because those adults (like you) are telling themselves a lie that it isn't happening. That's an unbelievably cruel, selfish, irresponsible thing to do.

I don't have kids of my own, but I know my duty as an adult is to make the kids have better lives than I got, than I have.

That means making sure they are NOT abandoned to suffer something they don't understand alone. That means making sure they know their rights, and that they have them. That means not keeping them ignorant, but giving them books and skills to look up more information safely if the books they first get don't have all the answers they need. That means letting them ask adults anything and not laughing, yelling, or hitting them for asking. That means not speaking judgementally when to them when we explain how bodies work to them. That means telling them EVERYTHING about how their bodies work, even the stuff we have trouble talking about, without passing on our hangups to them! If I can't handle talking doing this, I have to fight for kids' rights to have adults that can!

That is what being an adult MEANS. It means you are the new architect of the present and you have to fight for the sake of the kids that will inherit this present after you. It doesn't mean you personally have to do this, but it means you have to facilitate a society that does this for kids. Because humans are a social group-rearing animal, that is just what we all are. You do NOT get to opt out of being your own species.

You don't seem to understand YOUR responsibilities as a grown-up adult. You don't get to squirm just because reality makes you feel disgusted. You don't get to pass on your fucking hangups to a child, ANY child, whether they're yours or not.

Kids can't vote. We can.

Kids can't protect themselves or access knowledge without adults to help them do so. So fucking help them.

Ignorance is not help, it is harm.

[seravph]

being so fr when I say that transmisogyny has put feminism back like 50 years

[seravph]

what i thought we had distanced ourselves from was the reduction of women to vaginas and wombs and the ability to bear children. i thought we had progressed past ‘dresses are for women and pants are for men.’ i thought we progressed past the idea that someone is less of a woman if she does not adhere strictly to beauty standards. i thought we progressed past the idea that naturally being comfortable adhering to highly feminine standards is vulgar. but i (sarcastically) guess no one could have predicted that trans-exclusive feminism would be the downfall of all the progress we’ve made

[autoenucleate]

“We’re in danger of losing what the entire second wave of feminism, what the entire second wave of women’s liberation was built on, and that was ‘Biology is not destiny’. ‘One is not born a woman,’ Simone de Beauvoir said, ‘one becomes one’. Now there’s some place where transsexual women and other women intersect. Biological determinism has been used for centuries as a weapon against women, in order to justify a second-class and oppressed status. How on Earth, then, are you going to pick up the weapon of biological determinism and use it to liberate yourself? It’s a reactionary tool.”

— Quote by Leslie Feinberg, from TransSisters: The Journal of Transsexual Feminism, issue 7, volume 1. 1995.

[prettylovemachine3]

HAPPY 21ST BIRTHDAY TO THE GOAAAATTT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[zmpl]

and this all happened on world suicide prevention day too. never kill yourself

[thatsprolifeactually]

Replying to @/bmoreisapunkrocktown’s comment on x.

Nope! I am pro-life because I believe entirely in every human being having dignity, respect, and autonomy, whether inside the womb or out. Do not claim to know why I believe what I believe.

More people die from abortion than childbirth, even if you don’t include the unborn. Past 12 weeks, it is always safer to carry to term, or induce early labor should any problems arise, even if the child is unable to survive. No unborn child needs to be intentionally killed for anyone’s health. You’re right to live is not dependent on having a right to kill anyone.

Being pro-choice means regarding some lives as more valuable than others, which is eugenics. It means ignoring how many people die from abortion, how many people are exploited by the industry. It is the killing of millions of people.

I don’t nor do I want decide who is worthy of life, but the abortion agenda is to decide just that, to create dilemmas where there are none for the sake of profit. It’s sickening, the way women have been made into faceless pawns for human rights actively eating itself alive. Either all humans are deserving of life, or every human being’s right to life is at stake.

[moniquill]

You're making a bunch of claims without presenting any data, @thatsprolifeactually - what evidence do you have to support the claims "More people die from abortion than childbirth" and "Past 12 weeks, it is always safer to carry to term, or induce early labor should any problems arise" and, corollary, what do you consider 'inducing early labor' in this context? Is mifepristone+misoprostol 'inducing early labor'?

(also the overwhelming majority of abortions happen before 12 weeks: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states , so there's that)

I support the right of a pregnant person to access voluntary medical termination of pregnancy because I believe that the right to bodily autonomy is paramount to all other rights, and that no person has the right to the use of another person's body without that person's express and ongoing consent. This is not 'regarding some lives as more valuable than others' - the standard is universal.

There is no such thing as 'the abortion agenda'

[thatsprolifeactually]

Apologies, I made a mistake! I conflated three facts: 1. an abortion in the THIRD trimester is more dangerous than an emergency c-section, because a c-section typically takes 45 minutes, but an abortion at that stage can take days, and in a life threatening situation, that time is precious, 2. an abortion in the second trimester, after 12 weeks, is more dangerous than an abortion before 12 weeks, and 3. in countries and territories where abortion has been banned or heavily restricted, Chile, and parts of Mexico, maternal mortality rates have gone down, not up, and Poland and Malta who have banned or restricted abortion with life of the mother exception only have the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world.

If access to abortion is life saving, then why do less people die when they cannot get one?

Nearly all statistics of maternal death rates in the US include those that die from abortion, and more people, unborn or not, die from abortion than childbirth because abortion can result in maternal death, but always results in fetal death.

In abortions after 12 weeks, up to 50% or higher experience complications.

Death in childbirth has been overestimated, and only 10.4 out of 100,000 childbirths (.0104%) result in death of the mother.

Of legal abortions, 1 out of 100,000 abortions (.001%) result in maternal death. The percentage of deaths from abortion between 9-13 weeks onward (.00039%) is not greater than the number of deaths from childbirth (.0104%) but that does not include all abortion deaths.

I could not find numbers for the US percentage of death from illegal abortions, but worldwide it is estimated to be 13%.

Because there isn’t data, I cannot confirm that the number of deaths from illegal and legal abortion in the US outweigh those from childbirth. Considering deaths from abortion have been underreported, it is likely to be much higher. Additionally, the statistics of abortion death focus on “uncomplicated abortions”, whereas childbirth death statistics include complicated delivery, for example c-sections. Comparing directly “uncomplicated abortions” to “uncomplicated childbirth”, the risk of dying from abortion is twice as high, and, from the same article, in one study, women were 62% likely to die from any cause after an abortion, such as suicide or substance abuse, than women who carried to term. If you read any of these all the way through, read this one.

Personally, I do not want abortion banned before 12 weeks. Statistical evidence suggests more women would be harmed. That doesn’t mean I think abortions before then are right, just that most other people don’t even know someone is pregnant before then. Stopping those abortions has to do with changes in medicine and healthcare, not laws about abortion. Medical care in pregnancy needs to be about two lives, not one, and that reform is larger than change in law can cover.

So no, there is no way to tell for absolute certainty that more people die from abortion than childbirth, but the fact remains that a huge number of people die from abortion, more experience complications, and it would be less altogether if we put resources and research into carrying difficult pregnancies to term instead of aborting them. Again, less women have died when and where abortion is made illegal, which logically implies abortion kills more women than childbirth.

And yes, most abortions are before 12 weeks, and cannot be regulated. They are usually done before anyone else knows the person is pregnant. This does not mean I don’t think they are wrong, just that there is no effective way to ban them, so there’s little point.

You cannot deprive another dependent upon you from life. As their mother, you have a responsibility to them.

When you consent to sexual intercourse, you consent to the possible results. Consent is not applicable to have to be ongoing in this case. You have already become pregnant. You consented to the possibility of that coming about. There is no consent to be revoked from a child being there, anymore than you can revoke consent to having a piercing. You have to wait for it to naturally end, (birth) or heal (a piercing closing up). No, it’s not a great analogy, but nothing really captures the uniqueness of pregnancy. It’s a very important decision who you have sex with and when, and no method of contraception will ever completely eliminate the possibility of pregnancy.

If you did not consent to what resulted in pregnancy, you still cannot kill a child for its dependency on you. The unborn person has no agency, and is taking no action to harm you. Their right to live now they are here (alive) is as important as yours or mine. Taking it away because of their state of development and dependency is ageism, ableism, and eugenicist.

Bodily autonomy over everything, even human rights, is a wild stance to take. How is suicide, murder, and theft wrong under that philosophy? If I should be allowed to do whatever I want, because it’s my body, where is the line between what I’m allowed to do exercising my autonomy and when it’s harmful to myself or violates someone else’s, unborn or not? What amount of harm is acceptable in the name of autonomy?

And about miftepristone and mistoprol, the use of that unless an unborn child is confirmed to already be dead is just an abortion. Labor is involved in many abortions and miscarriages, but neither has to happen to deliver a premature baby to save the mother’s life. Providing medical care that results in death of the child ≠ intentionally killing the child.

The life of the unborn in every case of abortion is disregarded. They are dehumanized. They are suffocated, poisoned, or dismembered. Their remains are discarded as medical waste or incinerated.

Planned parenthood has a very clear laid out agenda (as defined, a plan or list of problems to address), as do all the pro-choice people I have met, and it is explicitly against the rights of unborn persons, and dismissive of the huge amount of abuse and harm inflicted on people through the abortion industry.

A third trimester abortion is longer than a c-section, so if it’s being done to save the mother’s life, stopping to ensure the child is dead is not life saving care. Abortions do not save lives. They only end one, and have the high likelihood to end and harm another.

Killing cannot be healthcare.

I think that’s everything. I read very slowly, am very bad with facts and numbers, do not retain information well, and am even worse at research. Thank you @killed-by-choice for the articles on maternal death rates.

I have a severe headache from screen use now, but I hope this clears up what I said.

Typically, with proper medical care, a delivery is safer than an abortion after 12 weeks.

Abortion is more dangerous than carrying to term.

Also. You don’t need to @ me if you’re reblogging my post, I have notifications turned on.

[moniquill]

I'm going to be responding to this point by point because this is disorganized and repetitive text wall:

FIRST AND FOREMOST

"Personally, I do not want abortion banned before 12 weeks."

THAT'S PRO-CHOICE ACTUALLY!

Your assertion that a cesarean is safer than an induction because of time is fallacious; time is not the only factor in determining the safest course of care. Course of treatment in a pregnancy that has gone badly wrong is something that each individual patient and their chosen medical team should determine on a case by case basis.

No one ever claimed that termination later in pregnancy is safer than termination early in pregnancy; of course a termination should occur as early as possible. Late terminations don't happen because someone just decided 'Oh, I've changed my mind!' they happen because something has gone wrong in a pregnancy that was intended to be carried to term. No one deliberately waits until late in gestation to terminate.

"If access to abortion is life saving, then why do less people die when they cannot get one?"

Correlation does not imply causation! Places with socialized medical care have less maternal death for a whole host of reasons. This is not a simple 'abortions vs no abortions' equation. Are you speaking from ignorance here, or deliberate dishonesty?

"The fact remains that a huge number of people die from abortion, more experience complications, and it would be less altogether if we put resources and research into carrying difficult pregnancies to term instead of aborting them."

This conclusion is not substantiated by the evidence that you have provided. This is an opinion.

"When you consent to sexual intercourse, you consent to the possible results."

That is not how consent works. The nature of consent is that it must be express and ongoing. Consent to X is not consent to Y, and even when consent is given, it can be withdrawn.

Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy, and consent to pregnancy is NOT consent to carry to term.

I, as sovereign of my own physical body, have the right to say to anyone at any time 'I do not consent to the use of my body in this way at this time'

"There is no consent to be revoked from a child being there, anymore than you can revoke consent to having a piercing."

Both a foreign object (jewelry) and a fetus can be physically removed from one's own body, and in both instances the healing outcome will be altered by this removal. You can take the jewelry out. You can take the fetus out.

"You have to wait for it to naturally end"

This is exactly the same logic as "If you said yes to sex, you have to keep going until your partner finishes. You can't say 'Stop' because you consented to starting." - do you understand how horrific that is?

"You cannot deprive another dependent upon you from life. As their mother, you have a responsibility to them."

This is a baseless opinion.

"Bodily autonomy over everything, even human rights, is a wild stance to take. How is suicide, murder, and theft wrong under that philosophy?"

Suicide isn't 'wrong' in a moral or legal sense; there are sound and valid reasons that a person might choose it and it should be their right to do so. Of course people who are driven to suicidal ideation by unendurable pain should be offered every possible support and treatment for that pain, and no one should be offered suicide/forced into suicide in lieu of other treatment, but I firmly support the right to die.

Home

Home

If I should be allowed to do whatever I want, because it’s my body, where is the line between what I’m allowed to do exercising my autonomy and when it’s harmful to myself or violates someone else’s, unborn or not? What amount of harm is acceptable in the name of autonomy?

I do not see a moral quandary in killing another person in defense of one's own bodily autonomy - self-defense is not murder. If another person has breached my physical body without my consent, it is reasonable to use any force necessary to remove that person from my physical body.

I cannot think of any scenario in which theft of property and right to bodily autonomy could intersect, but I'm willing to hear you out if you provide a scenario.

Planned Parenthood is not 'the abortion agenda'; Planned Parenthood is an organization and this is their mission statement:

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/mission

"Killing cannot be healthcare."

This is a really REALLY baseless opinion, and one that indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of how medicine works.

"Typically, with proper medical care, a delivery is safer than an abortion after 12 weeks.

Abortion is more dangerous than carrying to term."

These assertions are not substantiated by the data that you have provided.

No person has the right to the use of another person's body without that person's express and ongoing consent.

[gorochuva]

The only abortion we should be outlawing is the kind where the mom is doing it because she doesn't want to be a mom and that's it, because if we phrase that line of thinking as "I want this baby dead"; now you're more likely to hear "I want this person dead" and that is called conspiracy to commit murder. And if that baby is a person, as pro-lifers will argue, then therefore, abortion solely to get out of motherhood should be conspiracy to commit murder. Everything else (i.e., "special cases") is just exigent circumstance

[moniquill]

You realize that this is a made-up scenario in your head, right?

People who are pregnant choose to terminate pregnancies because they do not want to continue being pregnant. Literally no one, ever, terminated a pregnancy because they 'want this baby dead'

[gorochuva]

I've said it once, I will say it again: If the Pokemon world can make an embryo from a lock of hair and raise it to adulthood, we should be able to scoop a teeny tiny little baby out of someone's womb and throw it in an incubator for nine months

There's also such a thing as freezing embryos for things like embryo adoption. I wanna know what drives these women to choose abortion specifically.

[moniquill]

They are pregnant, and they don't want to be pregnant anymore.

We do not currently have the technology to remove fetuses from the womb and have them survive, not until after 20 weeks gestation.

Most people who are pregnant and don't want to be pregnant terminate their pregnancies as soon as they're discovered- the overwhelming majority of pregnancies are terminated earlier than 12 weeks gestation.

We do not have the technology to remove fetuses/embryos from the womb and have them survive at less than 12 weeks gestation. Which is when most people terminate pregnancies.

What planet are you FROM?

[moveslikekeithrichards]

working with little kids is so dangerous. you get one kid who has a unique way of speaking & then spend the rest of your life with an internal monologue like “me’s go bathroom?”

[moveslikekeithrichards]

other thrilling destructions of my vocabulary:

the kid who replaced his hard G sounds with soft ones, leaving me incapable of thinking of glasses as anything other than jlasses

kid who would holler "DID" any time she finished her work no matter how many times we told her to just raise her hand

kid who began her scary stories with "once a time" and her friend who began his with "paw time"

middle schooler i had during student teaching who pronounced magritte as "mah-gritty"

the kid who said "i got boogies comin out my nose" while sobbing and the kid who said "theres his puddle of cry" while describing a drawing, both of whom i think of when im crying

kid who said that if he was 80 he would get big and turn grandpa

kid who, for no reason in particular, would just say "like a little feet" as a standalone phrase in relation to nothing

edit how could i forget. the kid who got sneezed on and angrily said "whyd you blessyou on me"

[crimsonbitch5-deactivated202602]

This is probably a criminally unpopular opinion, but people whose walls are covered in brand new booktok books are just as complicit in trend-driven overconsumption as the Stanley girlies or the showertok creators with 80 treehut scrubs. I don't necessarily mean the romance girls either, so don't think the 'my year of rest and relaxation' crowd gets a pass here.

Literally the amount of people I talk to who say reading is their favorite hobby and they read like 3 books a week then will tell me that they don't have a library card is insane. How much money do you guys spend on books without any guarantee that you'll even like it? Why not just read a library copy then buy the book if you really liked it?

"But why would I buy a book that I've already read?"

Why did you buy it without knowing you were going to want to read it more than once??? If you didn't like the book then you've just got a $25 piece of wall decor lmao.

I think that this also opens up a broader conversation about the commodification of hobbies on social media. Reading used to be a means to an end to consume a story you enjoyed, and now it's an aesthetic to be performed on Instagram, just like any other trend but with an added air of superiority.

I'm just ranting but if someone can explain to me how buying endless books that'll be read once and then left to collect dust on your shelf is different than buying an eyeshadow palette that'll be used once then shoved to the back of a drawer for years, I'm all ears.

[moniquill]

::raises hand::

One of these things supports authors, who have to exist under capitalism.

Signed, an Author

[aetherograph]

Books are made of recyclable, compostable materials. Did you forget that paper can be made into... more paper? Like infinitely?? It's like aluminum or glass, you can INFINITELY RECYCLE paper!

When novels published by houses like Harlequin don't get bought, the bookshop strips off their covers and trashes the rest of the book, sending the covers back to the publisher to be counted, so the publisher can keep track of how much was sold. You might have seen on the flyleaf a warning about "if you bought this without its cover you have bought a stripped book, which is unlawful to resell and was reported as 'unsold and destroyed' to the publisher". That's what that means. You holding that book doesn't mean you've necessarily prevented any pollution--it's a fucking brick of PAPER, paper decomposes! Source: I have stripped boxes of Harlequin novels when I worked at a bookstore.

I think sometimes this championing of libraries really does not understand that this isn't to say you aren't allowed or should feel guilty about BUYING BOOKS. Libraries do not want you to stop buying books! I'm pretty sure librarians have lots of books they haven't read yet! It's a running joke among readers, and has been for decades, that we own more books than we have read. Just because your own habits are to only buy books you've already read doesn't mean that's the only "correct" trot with books! I would like to know the answers to the following questions:

A. Do you feel this way about giving OTHER kinds of artist money? I.e. do you think we shouldn't buy music, shouldn't buy video games, shouldn't buy paintings, shouldn't ever hire a plumber, shouldn't ever go to a restaurant, shouldn't ever pay anyone to do anything? Where does this end? Who is worthy of money and who isn't?

B. How do you think authors get enough money to be asked by their publisher to write another book? Go through how you think making a living off writing books works.

C. Have you considered perhaps it's a little fucked up to be mad at your peers for reading in a way you don't, instead of finding a corporation or law to be mad at more productively? It is not your peers' fault libraries are closing.

Instead of being mad online, perhaps it is time for you to go to a city council meeting and channel this anger more productively to advocate for more funding for your local library, you clearly feel very passionate about it and that's good! But helping libraries does not mean closing bookstores and starving authors of sales. Saving trees does not mean making less paper, it means making paper FROM paper, not from wood. I assure you, there's already a LOT of recycling old unsold books into more books. You don't need to worry about that. It's why they're called "pulp".

[taldigi]

Hello???? Suggestions????

[starlightomatic]

i read this book like ten years ago that was basically... like an alternate history but in the future? an imagined future? it started with descriptions of US-backed regime change in other countries, then hinted at the idea that someone was trying to seed regime change in the US by stirring up political strife

then, automation (mostly in the form of physical robots) started replacing lots of jobs, and tons of people lost their homes. there was a scene where iirc a journalist is interviewing a family living in a huge homeless encampment; similar encampments had sprung up all over the country because of the widespread homelessness. i think the characters were hunting pigeons in a fountain to eat?

eventually, it gets to a point where things are so broken down that states start seceding from the union. i think it's california first, but once california goes everyone goes. the states re-formulate into several smaller countries. for example there's a country of new england

at the end of the book it's revealed that it was russia behind it all; they successfully seed e regime change in order to weaken the US for their own interests.

anyway.

[starlightomatic]

i cannot stress enough that i read this book in like 2015. it was published not only before we knew about trump's russian collusion but before trump had even announced his presidency. it was certainly published long before generative AI was on the scene

[mrskayathefrog]

trump had announced his run by 2015. he was elected in 2016

[starlight-shadowbanned]

that's true! i had misremembered and thought he announced in november of that year, but it was actually june. i read the book during fall semester, so it was after the announcement. i don't know when the book was published because i can't remember the title or author, so i guess it's possible it was published after the announcement.

[starlight-shadowbanned]

@whitepeoplespicy23

I found it! Appropriately, it's called Twilight's Last Gleaming, by John Michael Greer.

I apparently forgot almost the entire plot, which centers around a war involving the US, China, Tanzania, and Kenya.

The plot synopsis on Wikipedia also doesn't mention the automation part, so either I conjured that or, more likely, it was a relatively minor thing which I focused on because it was a topic in some classes I was taking at the time (I also read this book for a class).

(Also, it was published in 2014.)

[evilkaito]

i dont think whites understand how being white makes literally everything easier.

it effects everything.

being trans is easier when youre white.

being gay is easier when youre white.

being disabled is easier when youre white.

being a woman is easier when youre white.

being autistic is easier when youre white.

oppression is eased when you are white, as you get extra privileges, and your whiteness is seen as a positive characteristic that in some ways counter-balances your other forms of being a minority. whiteness controls everything.

you are automatically way more innocent in your own oppression as a gay, trans, disabled person because of your whiteness.

never forget this.

[raccoon-piss]

three things:

1. it’s true

2. white people get pissed when i bring this up/wear this shirt

3. the comments to this thread melted my fucking eyeballs seriously why the fuck are y’all like this

[lady-hibiscus]

white people you don’t need to say you’re white when you reblog this btw. you don’t even need to mention it btw

[greater-than-the-sword]

When you're a kid you just take trees for granted. Then when you get to be an adult you realize that a fully mature tree cannot be created in an amount of time that fits in a convenient landscaping timeframe for love nor money nor all the powers of science. Then you realize that people are very very very cavalier about chopping them down

[greater-than-the-sword]

I just wanted everyone on the post to know that I'm in perfect understanding about having to remove a tree that's dead, dying, or badly damaged in such a way that makes it a hazard to safety, or was planted with poor foresight (eg. 1 foot from a structure) and you don't need to feel bad about that at all. And the rest of you I am commisserating

[noblogurlisavailable]

The right to refuse use of your body does not justify putting someone else in a position in which they can't survive without your body, and then killing them.

[moniquill]

You know that becoming pregnant is not a voluntary function, right? The embryo/fetus puts itself there. Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy.

My uterus has barbed wire and a 'trespassers will be shot on sight' sign (a copper IUD); any embryo/fetus that attempts to implant into my uterine lining should expect to be forcibly removed.

[sapphoandvanzetti]

True! And also, you have the right to an abortion even if you DECIDE to get pregnant, on purpose, and then change your mind. Maybe someone is in a relationship, has a great job and housing, and then loses all of that, and feels like they're not prepared to raise a baby on their own while unemployed and homeless? They too have the right to yeet the feet (us).

Maybe someone joyfully got pregnant excited to be a parent, then got a devasting health diagnosis and realized they won't live to see their child grow up, and they don't want to do that to themselves or a future child? I'm so sorry that happened, and I respect your decision. OR MAYBE someone was like hell yeah let's get pregnant, then a couple weeks later was like wait what was I thinking, hell no, for absolutely no reason they can define? Also a totally valid reason not to have a baby.

[pinapplewalls]

So if a mother has a 2 year old baby girl and she realizes she's not financially stable for a child, she should pay someone to rip the baby apart?

And that's perfectly normal and should be a "right?"

[moniquill]

Is this hypothetical toddler INSIDE OF HER BODY?

Because if so, I absolutely support her right to have it surgically extracted! Something has clearly gone WILDLY wrong with this pregnancy!

Also, for fun, look up the short film 'Her Only Living Son' Written and directed by Karyn Kusama (because this wild-ass scenario reminded me on that horror flick)