No title available
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
izzy's playlists!
No title available
Cosmic Funnies
trying on a metaphor
ellievsbear
will byers stan first human second
i don't do bad sauce passes
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
#extradirty
h
PR's Tumblrdome
d e v o n
sheepfilms
todays bird
No title available
Game of Thrones Daily
NASA
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Slovakia
seen from Germany
seen from India
seen from Türkiye
seen from Latvia
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Israel
seen from T1
seen from Philippines
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Latvia
seen from United States
seen from Paraguay
seen from China
seen from Türkiye
@roeverturned
So ignoring the fact that wishing a mass shooting upon people is horrific, let’s just all laugh at the fact that pro aborts devalue their own arguments by constantly using abortion as an insult.
You can’t say abortion is good while simultaneously wishing death on people and calling that abortion. You’re contradicting yourself.
Unconsciously or not, you *know* abortion kills a person, and you can’t even hide it.
What happens when men prefer porn?
god, nobody writes like caitlin flanagan
Watching online porn has become most adolescents’ first sexual experience. The average 14-year-old boy today has seen more hard-core porn than all of the American fighting forces in the Second World War. (Probably a good thing, because we really needed to win that one.) Because of the internet’s power to desensitize people and wear down their natural responses to shocking things, and because of the way these algorithms work, young people quickly proceed to more and more extreme videos, and—as it has always been—these earliest experiences of sexual events pass deeply into their sense of what sex should be.
You can’t spend 15 minutes scrolling through a porn site without coming across a video in which a woman seems to be not performing fear or pain, but actually experiencing those things. If you’re one of those people who enjoy watching coerced sex, you’ll never be bored for a second of your life. As far as the moral equations of watching porn go, the one that matters is: Are you excited by the obvious abuse of women, or have you learned to countenance that abuse as a necessary cost of your own pleasure? And which of those is worse?
Okay. Let's get to the same level as you, and asume that a bundle of cell is human. It goes back to one crucial belief: can you force a human adult to give a kidney to another? Can you force a human adult to medically or financially risk their life, for many years, for another? Can a governement do that? If not, why should they do that for a baby?
Hi! I appreciate your effort to make that assumption for the sake of dialogue.
Pregnancy is not comparable to kidney donation or a stranger asking someone else to risk their life for them.
The following things make pregnancy unique:
- The child is completely vulnerable and has no means of communicating needs, much less filling them on their own.
- The child is completely dependent on one person, their mother, and under current medical capabilities cannot be transferred to the care of someone who is more willing.
- The vast majority of pregnancies pose no serious or long-term harm to the mother, and those that do have complications can be managed with good medical care.
- The process of removing the child through abortion involves killing that child directly. It is not comparable to saying no to someone’s request for an organ donation, because that person can go ask someone else or look for alternative treatments, even artificial organs in some cases. The child can’t do that.
Let me put it another way. There are many starving children in the world. Every so often we see ads on TV for charities that help them asking for one-time or monthly donations. If I do not donate, for whatever reason, nobody is going to come and arrest me for neglecting those children. Does that mean those children don’t have a right to life or aren’t valuable? No, it just means I am not directly responsible for them. It would be good for me to donate, but I am not legally required to.
If a parent refuses to feed their own child, we call that neglect. The difference is that the parent is directly responsible for the child’s well being and is expected to care for their physical and emotional needs.
In pregnancy, not only is the mother directly responsible for the child’s well being, but is the ONLY person who can care for the child. We can support her and make sure she has what she needs, but only she can provide nutrition and shelter for her child.
Once the child is born, she can place the child with another family or receive support in raising her child. She can now safely transfer her responsibility to someone else. But someone has to have responsibility for the child until the child is an adult and can care for themselves. And if the person responsible for that child neglects or harms them, they can be held responsible.
In abortion, the mother isn’t simply refusing to donate an organ or donate money to a charity. She isn’t refusing to adopt a child who needs a home. In abortion, the child is in her uterus, alive, growing, receiving what they need from their mother. An abortionist then either gives the mother a pill that cuts the child off from their supply of food and oxygen or goes in with instruments and removes the child, often piece by piece.
If someone asks me to donate a kidney and I refuse, I don’t then go and pay someone to kill that person.
"If someone asks me to donate a kidney and I refuse, I don’t then go and pay someone to kill that person."
There are obviously concerns about how artificial wombs could be used to make “parentless” children, but it’s definitely interesting to see abortion advocates having an issue with the idea that a pregnancy could be ended without killing the baby.
I dont Have insta and it will not play here
Darn!
Here’s one on YouTube - it’s not the same video but covers the same issue with the same basic points
Oh boy time to point out my favorite Secular Pro-Life article!
"As for abortion supporters, they are left with the ethical dilemma that begs the question: is abortion meant to merely end a pregnancy, or kill a child? For the pro-life person, the only dilemma is whether we are able to help our pro-choice neighbors see the humanity of the most helpless among us. Perhaps the artificial womb will aid us in that endeavor."
The modern notion that sex and pregnancy aren't connected to one another has done untold damage to the people of this world.
Like. People aren't sex dolls that you can use and then throw away as you please. They are people and there are natural consequences of this kind of behavior. Some of them (like getting pregnant) are the natural result of sex, some are the result of sleeping around specifically (like broken relationships & STDs), and some (like abortion and broken households) are the results of people trying to avoid the consequences of their actions.
Sex is the font of life through which new human beings are brought into the world, and the refusal to accept this truth has caused so much death and heartache. The divine is not meant to be abused as such, and it shows.
“It started in 1971 when a young attorney named Sarah Weddington argued before the court that pregnant students, working women, and poor women needed access to abortion, rather than to challenge universities, employers, and society to address the unmet needs of mothers and their children. This anti-feminist sentiment was echoed in 1992 when the court determined in Casey that women were basically incompetent, telling women that they cannot succeed in the workplace and have children, implying that bearing a child is an “undue burden.” At Feminists for Life, founded a year before Roe v. Wade was handed down, we never considered having children an “undue burden.” It would be years later that our co-founder Pat Goltz learned from the great suffragist Alice Paul that we were not the first pro-life feminists; the first-wave feminists opposed abortion, too. Nor did we know at the time that during the latter half of the 19th century, the leaders of the women’s movement advocated for the protection of women and children from abortion, along with doctors (including the first women physicians) and the liberal media. Since then, we have widely shared our original research documenting how the first-wave feminists opposed abortion without known exception.”
— Serrin Foster, Don’t underestimate women
“Tellingly, the legal right for a woman to kill a child in her womb was won before the legal right for a woman not to be fired for being pregnant. The message is clear: women must become like men to be free.”
— Dr. Abigail Favale
Masterpost of Anti Porn Masterposts
Anti porn masterpost
Negative effects of pornography
Another anti porn masterpost
Porn star testimonies
Addition: another masterpost
Addiction: another another masterpost lol
Porn addiction help
Science on porn data base
Porn myth busting
Porn and Homicide
Prostitution masterpost
Prostitution statistics
DDLG SUCKS
Unconditioning from kink
Male privilege
Let me know if any links don’t work.
This is a masterpiece. Best collection on Tumblr!
there’s a connection between the numbing sprays for your feet so you can wear high heels and the anal desensitizing lube so you can have anal sex for your boyfriend and the suppressants for your gag reflex so you can deepthroat that same boyfriend. can’t quite make it though
to add to this: appetite suppressants so you can ignore your hunger signals, and that recent study that was going around that showed that women who self-objectify are less likely to perceive pain or the cold
@cisthoughtcrime
Yikes
some excellent additions from the reblogs
I don’t know where the pro choice and pro abortion crowd is getting the idea that people who oppose abortion just want to see women suffer. That we just want to punish them for having sex.
The reason I, and many others, are pro life is because we see the fetus that is in a woman’s uterus as a separate human being from the mother with the same right to life as the mother. Performing an abortion is intentionally killing said human being, and that is murder and is wrong.
It has nothing to do with the fact that women have sex and us wanting to punish women for having sex.
A lot of us financially and materially support crisis pregnancy centers, which help financially and materially support women who need it through their pregnancy. Many of us financially support organizations that help women escape abusive homes. There are many who adopt and who are involved in helping kids in the foster care system. There are many pro lifers who would make an exception for rape* as well as if the mother’s life is in danger**.
It is disingenuous to call us ‘forced birthers’ and to say we only want to punish women. Saying those things only proves that you’ve never actually talked with a pro lifer or someone against abortion and I will immediately lose respect for any opinion you have on abortion if you use them.
*I am not one of those but it a common position to make exception for rape in the pro life community.
** Measures to save the life of the mother are seen as life saving measures, not abortions, by the majority of the medical community and pro lifers but I include this for the sake of the argument.
This is extremely well put, I just want to add: my strong impression is that the rape exception is perhaps the biggest reason people believe pro-lifers want women to be punished for having sex. If you say you believe a fetus is a living human (undeniable) and therefore deserves human rights, but you only stand by that as long as the mother made a choice to bring that human life into being and will compromise if she was raped, then what does that really say about what you believe? Abortion doesn't undo the violation of rape; it only adds suffering for both innocent parties. That ethical inconsistency is common from people who haven't really thought through the pro-life position, and it's exactly why people jump to conclusions about the movement as a whole. Our goal is not to enforce consequences, but save lives and embrace the value of every human, whatever their circumstances.
Excellently put!
what would be your answer to such a question/situation ?
https://defused.com/shuts-up-pro-life-people/
Ah, I remember seeing this fiasco when it first appeared on Twitter. Patrick Tomlinson thought he came up with some genius scenario that, according to him, "no pro-lifer had ever been able to answer" when in reality he was ignoring and blocking everyone who answered him in a reasonable way that showed he and his scenario were foolish and not the clever trap he imagined it to be.
He is approaching this very disingenuously from the start with the way he poses the question. He will only accept a person saying A (save the five year old from the fire) or B (save the 1000 viable human embryos) and that's it. He won't allow you to even rationalize to him why you selected one or the other because he's already decided why a person picked one or the other. He decided that if a person picked A that meant it was because they thought the child's life had more value than the life of the embryos and were not equal and if you picked B, well, you're just a monster. And that was it. And when you ask a question to other people where you decide beforehand what the only possible explanation for any answer is you're setting yourself up to look like an idiot. And when you pretend the reasons you imagine are the only rationalization for the choices and you do not allow people to say "well, actually, this is the reason I'm going with this option, which is different then the reason you imagined up" then you're not there genuinely looking for answers. You're just trying to "own" pro-lifers. Case in point, one person answered they would save the 1000 embryos using the rationalization that I've seen pro-aborts use when they justify murdering children which is "save as many lives as possible" and he just called them a monster.
So he created a scenario. He gave two options. He decided beforehand that there was only one certain explanation for each answer and there was only one right answer that he would accept. Which makes him a pretentious fool who cannot have an honest discussion about the scenario he invented.
But, anyway, this illustration he came up with is you're in a fertility clinic where a fire breaks out and you only have the chance to save a crying five year old or a container with 1000 viable human embryos and it is just a rehashing of the trolley problem.
Do you pull the lever on a runaway trolley to divert it to a track where it will kill one person or let it keep barreling down the path its on where it will kill five people?
It's a thought experiment that poses a moral dilemma to explore human ethics and moral responsibility. These questions are not designed to have perfect solutions where everyone gets a happy ending and they are not questions that determine who are people and who are not and which human lives are more valuable based on a decision you make in a high stakes situation where no matter what you do someone is going to die.
In the trolley problem, no one makes their decision because they think the individual human lives at stake don't have equal worth or value and no one assumes that's the rationalization behind the choice you're forced to make. So the fact that Tomlinson is presenting the revised trolley problem as a scenario where whichever choice you make means the other lives have less value and are not equal to the life you chose to save means he doesn't understand the question he is asking.
But, anyway, now that I've gone over the very serious flaw in the question asker and the way he is approaching this issue, the answer I give is the answer most people would give. I would save the crying five year old. But the reason I choose this option is not because I don't see the embryos as having equal moral value as Tomlinson thinks is the only possible reason. The reason I go with this option is because if I am in a situation where I am about to die and only have time to grab one or the other before we are all gone, it's ridiculous to assert this is a time where I would be at an intellectual peak able to weigh the moral and ethical questions raised by any choice I would make when I just have to get out as quick as I can and only have the time to hastily go with one or the other. It's also fallacious to assume that the choice I make under such extreme pressure reflects how I feel about the moral value and worth of the life I do not save. Even if I hypothetically chose the five year old because I thought their life had more value than the lives of the embryos that does not actually determine what the reality is. My choice in a high stakes situation does not determine what lives are valuable and which ones aren't. Like of course in a situation like that I would instinctually try to save the child I can hear screaming for help. But that doesn't mean that I think the embryos are less valuable because my gut instincts do not determine human worth.
But I just don't like the dishonesty Tomlinson brings with this question. He can't give you a situation where two (or more) people are going to die, give you the option to only save one and tell you that your decision means whoever you don't save you see as lesser and think their lives don't matter on the same level as whoever you choose to save. Because I can ask him that question right back and just change who his choices are to save. I can say you're in a burning building and your mom is one room and your dad is in the other. You can only save one before exiting the building. There is no third option or way to save them both. And whoever you choose to leave behind in this scenario, you are leaving behind because you know the lives of your mother and father are "not the same, not morally, not ethically, not biologically." If you rescue your mom that means you don't believe your father's life is morally equivalent to the life of your mother and vice versa. So, who do you save? Whose life has the most moral value? Your mom or your dad?
Sorry for the long rant but the arrogance he has over his deeply flawed and disingenuous "question" annoys me to no end.
You're in a burning fertility clinic. There are two children there, a white girl and a black boy. You can only save one.
If you save the girl, you must not value black lives. If you save the boy, you must hate women.
Never mind that this is a ridiculous construction, that it is never going to happen, that your split-second choices in peril dont necessarily reflect your actual values, that saving one doesn't necessarily devalue the other, etc. etc. etc.
Pro-aborts use this argument to distract from the very real scenario of abortion, in which humans make the conscious choice to kill other humans.
(Very thorough takedown of the burning fertility clinic, OP.)
Slides from Fight The New Drug on Instagram
wake up wake up wake up wake up
they do this so often!!! in my university, several women’s toilets were turned into gender neutral ones and the men’s were all left alone. and i heard similar for other universities in the UK! it’s insane because men’s bathrooms aren’t as crowded as women’s, and men aren’t at risk in bathrooms like women are, yet it’s women who are losing our bathrooms?
Can confirm - I’ve been in multiple building that have a ‘men’s washroom’ and a ‘washroom.’ And that’s all the options.
Even if both are labelled ‘gender neutral’ I can’t physically use a urinal so, practically, it’s not going to happen.
