Life Begins At Conception Masterpost
Keep reading
KIROKAZE

Origami Around

Love Begins
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda

JBB: An Artblog!
hello vonnie
Keni

No title available
No title available

No title available

#extradirty
Peter Solarz
Sade Olutola

blake kathryn
i don't do bad sauce passes

Andulka
No title available
🪼
we're not kids anymore.

Product Placement
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Brazil
seen from Canada

seen from Angola

seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Singapore

seen from Singapore
seen from Germany
seen from Poland
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from United States
seen from Netherlands

seen from Australia
seen from Germany
seen from United States
@thisblogmakessense
Life Begins At Conception Masterpost
Keep reading
Acting like a fetus, who only knows survival, is intentionally trying to "steal your nutrients" is insanely stupid. There's this push to assign some sort of malicious intent to the fetus, despite the fact that they don't have the cognitive brain power to act maliciously. That, to me, is an admission of guilt.
Also, you put the damn thing in there.
people in my replies arguing for their fav white guy???
CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS:
1. Do you think a post pointing out an issue with fandom racism and misogyny is an appropriate place to bring up your favorite white male character? Why or why not?
2. Did this post call you racist for relating to a white male character? If you thought or think so, consider why you got defensive.
3. Think about the disproportionate amount of art and writing about white male characters in fandom spaces. Do you think this is, across all boards, due to them being written better or more relatably than the POC protagonist?
a. If so, consider why you notice the writing of white male characters more often. Are white male characters written "better" than the POC protagonist, or do you have an internalized fear of relating to non-white characters that you need to work through?
b. If not, consider what ingrained biases might lead to this phenomenon in fandom spaces.
c. If you read a. and thought that white male characters literally just are usually or always written better than the POC and/or female protagonist, accept you are wrong and consider some self reflection.
4. Have you researched how to write and draw characters that are non-white and/or non-male? If not, does this limitation lead you to gravitate towards characters you feel "qualified" to make content about, therefore inflating the issue?
5. If people are telling you to reconsider your point of view in my replies section, did you stop to consider what they said apart from your human instinct to be defensive? Have you considered that arguing against those trying to educate you about fandom racism and misogyny, which can be difficult to see in yourself, in the notes of a post talking about fandom racism and misogyny, might be short-sighted and counterproductive?
6. If you are inclined to defend your favorite white male character, pause. Are all of your other favorite characters also majority white? Are they majority male? Are they either of these and NOT the main character of the show, movie, or game they originate from?
a. If not, this comic is not for you. Please move on and give it a reblog if you're feeling generous.
b. If so, consider this pattern. If you want to break it, ask someone for a reccomendation for characters or media similar to your favorites. Expand your horizons, and engage with your community rather than fighting against them.
I know i reblogged this before, but im gonna donit again for the questions.
I know Tumblr has a hard time understanding things like this but here’s a concept: it’s okay for people to love a character who’s not considered a minority. It’s okay for a fandom to LOVE them. It doesn’t take away anything from the other characters.
Maybe instead of complaining that the other characters don’t get enough love from fans, you be the person to give that? Be the one to make the content you want to see for them? Instead of complaining that others won’t. I don’t know it’s just a thought.
does anyone have that post about OSHA compliant sex work? something about a dude who shows up to a guy's house in full ppe to give him a dry handjob
Maybe my jokingly saying that women throw their entire fucking brain away after having a kid isn't even that wrong. Apparently hormones from the pregnancy prune your brain to make you a better child-care providing robot lol. And never forget that males will fetishize this because they are disgusting creeps and this is what you're helping perpetuate by giving birth to more of them.
Remember when I said I'm not friends with mothers because they have no personality and are bland and only talk about their kids and nothing else? And how they always expect free labor from childfree women because "well you must have so much free time!" and other bullshit?
I originally attributed it to abuse and neglect of the father, because she has no help she has to be solely focused on the kids, since no one else is.
No. That shit is biological. Doesn't matter how helpful your boytoy is, your brain literally shrinks the part that gives you your own identity and imagination in the interest of being a better babymaid. It alters the part of your brain that dictates how you view other people. You literally become programmed to view Baby above all else, and the other people around you are viewed based on how they can assist you with the Almighty Baby. Like a damn leech. Fuck that shit. I already knew I didn't want kids but now I'm even more sure.
Also this articulates what I was going to say better than I could've. "Hurr durr the shrinkage isn't bad! It's good! All you lose is the ability to think about yourself in the interest of being the best babymaid you can be!
It reminds me of when the study came out showing that tampons have 10x the "safe" concentration of lead, and arsenic, and "scientists" were coming out like "well we have no PROOF that the vagina walls ACTUALLY absorb the lead! We just need more research! Keep using tampons!" When you know damn well if condoms were found to contain arsenic and lead the whole industry would be overturned within the week and men would always say "baaaaaabe I can't wear a condom! You know it's uncomfy and feels 1% less as good it has toxic lead in it!"
This is a very purposeful misogynistic misreading of the data being released.
A study tracks how the structure of the brain changes during pregnancy, drawing on brain scans gathered before, during and just after one pe
I know y'all are so desperate to call women stupid that you can't bother to read the actual studies you're attempting to discuss, but the crux of the matter here is that we don't yet know the reason that pregnant women's brains are undergoing these changes, let alone how they fully impact women's overall mental health and intellect.
Noted, tho, that you're chomping at the bit for it to be negative.
Both op's source and the one I included above referenced that teenager's brains undergo a similar shrinking process, and that some of these changes are not permanent. One of the scientists leading the study, Liz Chrastil, is also the woman whose brain was studied while pregnant. But I suppose you think this world-reknown scientist doing ground-breaking work is now just some baby-obsessed freak incapable of critical thinking and having a personality because she got pregnant?
Y'all do not live in the real world. There is no way you have healthy social lives if you think MOTHERS are all dumb, bland people. Mothers have been at the forefront of all progressive activist movements throughout human history. They have been our most brilliant inventors, artists, scientists, leaders, and warriors. You have no idea what the Boudiccan Destruction Horizon is, you cannot know who Ada Lovelace was. You simply do not know women's history if you're ignorant of the contributions women have made, while pregnant, while raising children.
You're just spreading incoherent, misogynistic rhetoric.
For what?
listen to sexworkers but only the ones filming anonymously from the comfort of their bedrooms and never the ones who are trafficked or groomed and are forced to do scenes that they don’t want to with people they don’t want to at the risk of their livelihood or even life because those stories bum me outttt and therefore don’t count despite making up the majority of cases.
the irony is pro choicers actually do this. Do you know how many people will argue you should especially abort your baby if it’s disabled. That it is actually immoral to not abort your baby
have you wondered why there are so few people with Downs Syndrome in Iceland. Do you think about why that might be
do you think these people wouldn’t do the same to LGBT people if a specific gay gene was discovered
Abstract. This paper discusses the issues of deciding to have a child with mental retardation, and of terminating a pregnancy when the futur
No ur right. It’s pro lifers who hate the lives of people who don’t fit the norm though. They’re the ones saying that. I am sure
The pro-abortion party always uses de-humanizing language so they can feel justified removing the life of someone who had no say or consent in their creation purely for their own convenience.
That's why they call them "parasites." It's literally no different from when the Ancient Romans would kill their infants and call them "plants." It's to remove the inherent humanity in order to decrease guilt and responsibility for taking an innocent life of which didn't need to be taken.
There's no difference---the only difference between those two mindsets is the aesthetics of the culture. But they used the exact same reasons that pro-abortionists use today.
While sure, the ancient romans mainly viewed things from a 'practical' stance whereas the pro-abortionists of today view things with a pretentious sense of false empathy that's never truly been there. Because they'll claim that it's to prevent suffering of disabled or quote unquote 'unwanted children,' but fail to understand that having GENUINE empathy means that we should desire to actively improve our world and resources for that demographic---not just remove their right to live simply because society deems it convenient.
I already went into detail about how abortion is literally just eugenics when you boil down the most common arguments. I don't say this out of superiority complex. I used to support abortion like crazy when I was younger---but I no longer do because I eventually came to realize just how bad abortion is and I can no longer support it or the institutions that allow for the practices.
At the end of the day, their common arguments often argue that some people have inherent less value in being alive than other people because of circumstances outside of their control. For example, in India, sex-screening is banned because of how often female children would be aborted in favor of having boys instead thanks to the misogynistic culture.
And sure, someone could try to say, "I disagree with abortion in those cases, but I still support abortion." But the problem with that statement is that you're still acknowledging the inherent human right for someone to exist in those regards. So this brings up another question.
When is a human a human and when does that human have the right to human rights? Because if you're claiming that abortion is wrong in certain contexts but not others, what difference could there possibly be to justify those other contexts from not being excluded?
A child doesn't ask to be made. A child doesn't ask to be created. So why is it that the child's right to live is dependent on situations they had no say in? Why are we the ones who say whether or not a child has the right to live? Out there, somewhere, there is someone who thinks that you shouldn't have the right to live because of what you are, who you are, and who + where you come from. Does their opinion suddenly have value and legitimacy over your existence? And if not, why does your opinion in that regard have value as well over a child's life?
Humans do not create anything else but human offspring with their bodies. Human women do not give birth to rabbits, donkeys, robots, etc. Human women give birth to HUMANS. It is not a parasite.
And if you support abortion, you are inherently opposed to human rights because you believe that one's humanity is contingent on circumstances they had no control over. And this ideology is all summed up in one word.
Eugenics. If you don't know the word, search it up on Google. Do it.
Infants are human---whether in or out the womb. And America has a LOT of blood on its hands.
I find it funny when pro abortionists ask for sources on why you believe what you believe, and when you give it to them, they still shut it down because of the fact that they're 'pro-life sources.'
The only reason why pro-life institutions are researching the physical drawbacks of abortion is because it wouldn't be in good favor of pro-abortion institutions to look INTO that. Who do you think gets the money when you pay for an abortion? Certainly not you.
So of course it's only pro-life foundations that are looking into those things because why would pro-abortion foundations do that? It wouldn't help their business by making women more aware of the bodily consequences. That's like asking a cigarette company to make a study on lung cancer.
Pro-choicers really like to call us who don’t want an innocent baby in the womb to die “forced birthers.” Abortion is also a use a force that kills the baby. They try really hard to frame the pro-life position as evil when they are literally the ones in favor of murder. If we’re for “forced birth” then they are for optional murder. I know which position I’d rather take.
The ones who call themselves pro-choice will also get mad when a mother decides to keep her disabled child 🙄 I kid you not, there was someone who said that it should be illegal to do that.. Yeah.. because making it illegal for a mother to keep her disabled child is totally pro-choice and it's definitely not eugenics or anything like that..
Yup, and they refuse to acknowledge the problem that comes with abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood gladly aborting even if the mother verbally disclosed that it’s for eugenics. People have tested this several times; you can call them and say you want to abort your baby because you found out it’s likely to have down syndrome. They will tell you they’re still willing to abort.
Don’t forget the countless testimonies of mothers who were recommended abortion by medical professionals solely because their child is likely to have a disability. Completely disgusting.
IVF is making this a lot worse too…with most of its purpose being for eugenics….and people still support it because it allows them to have their designer babies.
Reblog if you want more abortion representation in media.
I’m so tired of characters in movies and tv shows changing their minds at an abortion clinic the very last minute because “this baby is precious🥺 this life is innocent🥺”. abort that parasite. abortion is human rights. abortion is healthcare. abortion is good.
Pro-choicers desperately want people to stop acknowledging the life of a baby.
Pro-choicers really like to call us who don’t want an innocent baby in the womb to die “forced birthers.” Abortion is also a use a force that kills the baby. They try really hard to frame the pro-life position as evil when they are literally the ones in favor of murder. If we’re for “forced birth” then they are for optional murder. I know which position I’d rather take.
One stand advocates for forcing women to go through all the hell, suffering and sacrifice for some baby and won't give a flying fuck once the baby is actually out and leaves the mom to fend for herself and the kid, or let the baby be dumped in some adoption center.
The other stand actually let's the woman have a choice if she has some serious reasons of wanting to abort like idk.. not wanting to be a mother or ruin her life??
I couldn't give two shits anymore, call us murderers or whatever— atleast we actually care for the life and wellbeing of women.
If you acknowledge it’s a baby, why do you think it’s still okay to kill it? Because it can inconvenience the mother? That doesn’t excuse murder.
There’s many pro-life pregnancy centers and resources who want to support the mothers before, during, AND after birth by the way. If anyone reading this wants these resources, please let me know!
You just acknowledged that adoption is an adoption. So why did you bring up parenthood? She doesn’t necessarily have to become a mom.
We also care for the life of the mom, but we care for both their lives. Not just one or the other. The woman in the womb matters too.
I never said I believed an embryo equals to a baby, but I'm choosing not to argue about it again.
Some women just don't want to go through the whole shmick of pregnancy, and that's okay. I don't know why it's a big deal, if a woman doesn't want to give birth then why force her?
But it’s proven to be a real live human being at the embryonic stage. Life begins at conception.
Hey yeah, same, so I get it. I’d like to be a mother one day but I’d rather adopt. But it doesn’t justify killing somebody else. If I get pregnant when I didn’t intend on it, even though I may not want to be in that situation, killing the human being growing inside me is not going to make me feel better because I committed an injustice. They’re vulnerable and valuable and need to be protected.
Respectfully, your view is just your opinion. Yes— science shows a fetus is biologically human, but that’s not the same as being a person with full rights.
Bodily autonomy is non-negotiable, no one gets to use your body against your will, even to save another’s life. Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy is far more unjust.
You don’t get to decide what’s right for someone else’s body or life.
What makes someone a person then? Because we know that they’re alive, and we also know that they’re a member of the human species.
You said "Nobody’s right to life should ever get “canceled out.”" yet you also said "one person’s rights end once it affects another person’s rights."
So you aren't actually pro-life. You don't give af about human lives at all, truly.
I see what you’re saying, so maybe I should’ve clarified this before: our constitutional rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come in that order. The right to life always comes first. So you cannot violate someone’s right to life and claim it’s because you have the right to do so—that never holds up. We have laws against that.
People keep making this argument to me, that not being able to kill their baby violates their rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our system has never worked this way. If I murder an innocent person and claim in court that it’s because it’s my right to liberty and/or the pursuit of happiness, they don’t care.
Nobody in the United States has the constitutional right to take away another person’s right to life.
Pro-choicers really like to call us who don’t want an innocent baby in the womb to die “forced birthers.” Abortion is also a use a force that kills the baby. They try really hard to frame the pro-life position as evil when they are literally the ones in favor of murder. If we’re for “forced birth” then they are for optional murder. I know which position I’d rather take.
You’d rather take the position that strips people, mostly women, of their right to their body and give fetuses rights that no other human has? And you think you’re the good guy?
You don’t have a right to murder. If you’re in the US then your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness end once it affects another person’s set of those rights. Your position advocates for taking away a human being’s right to life.
If someone is using my body against my will I have every right to stop them, even if it means killing them.
The right to life does not give anyone, fetuses included, the right to someone’s body to live off of. If you needed a kidney and only I could give you mine, I am not obligated to do so.
Right to life does not mean right to infringe on the bodily autonomy of someone else.
I’m presuming you’re speaking of sexual assault there, in which case it would be the rapist who disgustingly used your body against your will. If you’re pregnant as a result, the baby may be an inconvenience to you and your body (if that’s your perspective), but it’s not choosing to use you. It can’t help itself.
That’s a false equivalency. That’s letting a sick stranger die as opposed to killing your baby who’s already alive and healthy. And it doesn’t acknowledge all the nuances of a parent’s moral, ethical, and legal obligations to their child.
…Well that’s what your position advocates for, to infringe on a baby’s right to life, which by proxy infringes on their bodily autonomy. Also, our bodily autonomy is limited. We don’t get to do anything we want to and claim “it’s my bodily autonomy!” without facing consequences.
No, I’m speaking generally. If someone tries to use your body in a way you do not consent to, you get to use whatever force necessary to make them stop. A fetus has no right to the body of someone else. No one does.
You’re missing the point: You cannot legally compel anyone to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of someone else, even if it may kill them. If my own child was dying of blood loss, no law in the land could force me to give mine, even if I’m the child’s own mother.
I do not think you know what bodily autonomy is.
But it does have the right to life which would require it to continue using your body for nutrients. Same with older kids too by the way. You have to use your body to cook them food, take them to school, clean them, etc. and if you claim you don’t want to because you don’t consent, then you’re considered neglectful. You can still use your bodily autonomy to be neglectful, but it’s not okay to do, and there are consequences for it.
You do not know what bodily autonomy actually is, it’s embarrassing.
Anyway, having a right to life doesn’t not entitle you to the body of someone else.
You literally said it yourself you weird fucking ghoul:
If you’re in the US then your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness end once it affects another person’s set of those rights. Your position advocates for taking away a human being’s right to life.
Virgoanmaenad is telling you that a fetus is impacting those freedoms for the person who is pregnant with it. The fetus does not, and should not, have a right to infringe on the rights of the person pregnant with it. The pregnant person can choose to continue the pregnancy, but they have zero moral or ethical duty to continue a pregnancy they do not wish to continue inside of their own body.
That’s the thing is that a baby doesn’t yet have the capacity to choose, so they’re not actually infringing on anything. They’re not exercising a right, but we believe that we should protect its human rights, by not killing it. Because the adult mother does have the capacity to make decisions.
Whether the fetus has made or can make a choice is completely irrelevant. The fetus is affecting the pregnant person's bodily autonomy, and the pregnant person has a right to protect their bodily autonomy, regardless of who or what is infringing on that autonomy.
The pregnant person's capacity to choose is relevant, and they should be able to choose whether they surrender their bodily autonomy or not.
It’s not irrelevant because it absolves them of blame.
Your rights to bodily autonomy end when it affects another person’s human rights. Abortion infringes on a human being’s inherent right to life. You don’t have a right to do that. I don’t have a right to kill another person using my bodily autonomy.
There is no blame here? Nobody is blaming the fucking fetus, babe. The fetus isn't a person, of course it's not at fault for anything.
But as you've said, yet again, your rights end when it affects another person. The fetus does not have the right to affect and limit the person carrying its bodily autonomy, even if we accept your crackpot fetal personhood narrative.
If we don't follow fetal personhood, the primacy of the body carrying the fetus is self-evident, and that clump of cells can try again next time.
It’s a human being, yes. It’s alive and a person. That’s the whole problem with the pro-choice position. This is why we believe it has human rights, because it’s a human being.
It's like talking to a fetus
life + liberty + pursuit of happiness = advantage to team abortion
fetus right to life cancelled out by pregnant person right to liberty
abortion is permissible under the right to pursue happiness as long as getting an abortion makes you happy
it’s right there in your constitution guys it’s pretty basic math
That’s not how that works at all. The whole point is that one person’s rights end once it affects another person’s rights. Our rights are not infinite. I can claim that robbing a bank is my right to liberty and pursuit of happiness, but that doesn’t hold up for obvious reasons.
Nobody’s right to life should ever get “canceled out.” Thats unconstitutional.
Pro-choicers really like to call us who don’t want an innocent baby in the womb to die “forced birthers.” Abortion is also a use a force that kills the baby. They try really hard to frame the pro-life position as evil when they are literally the ones in favor of murder. If we’re for “forced birth” then they are for optional murder. I know which position I’d rather take.
Notice how none of the pro-choicers that spoke with me in the notes have acknowledged that it’s alive. They continuously ignored fundamental facts about human development.
Pro-choicers really like to call us who don’t want an innocent baby in the womb to die “forced birthers.” Abortion is also a use a force that kills the baby. They try really hard to frame the pro-life position as evil when they are literally the ones in favor of murder. If we’re for “forced birth” then they are for optional murder. I know which position I’d rather take.
You’d rather take the position that strips people, mostly women, of their right to their body and give fetuses rights that no other human has? And you think you’re the good guy?
You don’t have a right to murder. If you’re in the US then your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness end once it affects another person’s set of those rights. Your position advocates for taking away a human being’s right to life.
If someone is using my body against my will I have every right to stop them, even if it means killing them.
The right to life does not give anyone, fetuses included, the right to someone’s body to live off of. If you needed a kidney and only I could give you mine, I am not obligated to do so.
Right to life does not mean right to infringe on the bodily autonomy of someone else.
I’m presuming you’re speaking of sexual assault there, in which case it would be the rapist who disgustingly used your body against your will. If you’re pregnant as a result, the baby may be an inconvenience to you and your body (if that’s your perspective), but it’s not choosing to use you. It can’t help itself.
That’s a false equivalency. That’s letting a sick stranger die as opposed to killing your baby who’s already alive and healthy. And it doesn’t acknowledge all the nuances of a parent’s moral, ethical, and legal obligations to their child.
…Well that’s what your position advocates for, to infringe on a baby’s right to life, which by proxy infringes on their bodily autonomy. Also, our bodily autonomy is limited. We don’t get to do anything we want to and claim “it’s my bodily autonomy!” without facing consequences.
No, I’m speaking generally. If someone tries to use your body in a way you do not consent to, you get to use whatever force necessary to make them stop. A fetus has no right to the body of someone else. No one does.
You’re missing the point: You cannot legally compel anyone to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of someone else, even if it may kill them. If my own child was dying of blood loss, no law in the land could force me to give mine, even if I’m the child’s own mother.
I do not think you know what bodily autonomy is.
But it does have the right to life which would require it to continue using your body for nutrients. Same with older kids too by the way. You have to use your body to cook them food, take them to school, clean them, etc. and if you claim you don’t want to because you don’t consent, then you’re considered neglectful. You can still use your bodily autonomy to be neglectful, but it’s not okay to do, and there are consequences for it.
You do not know what bodily autonomy actually is, it’s embarrassing.
Anyway, having a right to life doesn’t not entitle you to the body of someone else.
You literally said it yourself you weird fucking ghoul:
If you’re in the US then your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness end once it affects another person’s set of those rights. Your position advocates for taking away a human being’s right to life.
Virgoanmaenad is telling you that a fetus is impacting those freedoms for the person who is pregnant with it. The fetus does not, and should not, have a right to infringe on the rights of the person pregnant with it. The pregnant person can choose to continue the pregnancy, but they have zero moral or ethical duty to continue a pregnancy they do not wish to continue inside of their own body.
That’s the thing is that a baby doesn’t yet have the capacity to choose, so they’re not actually infringing on anything. They’re not exercising a right, but we believe that we should protect its human rights, by not killing it. Because the adult mother does have the capacity to make decisions.
Whether the fetus has made or can make a choice is completely irrelevant. The fetus is affecting the pregnant person's bodily autonomy, and the pregnant person has a right to protect their bodily autonomy, regardless of who or what is infringing on that autonomy.
The pregnant person's capacity to choose is relevant, and they should be able to choose whether they surrender their bodily autonomy or not.
It’s not irrelevant because it absolves them of blame.
Your rights to bodily autonomy end when it affects another person’s human rights. Abortion infringes on a human being’s inherent right to life. You don’t have a right to do that. I don’t have a right to kill another person using my bodily autonomy.
There is no blame here? Nobody is blaming the fucking fetus, babe. The fetus isn't a person, of course it's not at fault for anything.
But as you've said, yet again, your rights end when it affects another person. The fetus does not have the right to affect and limit the person carrying its bodily autonomy, even if we accept your crackpot fetal personhood narrative.
If we don't follow fetal personhood, the primacy of the body carrying the fetus is self-evident, and that clump of cells can try again next time.
It’s a human being, yes. It’s alive and a person. That’s the whole problem with the pro-choice position. This is why we believe it has human rights, because it’s a human being.