Photo
oh-snap-pro-choice:

fightforhumanity1:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

personhoodusa:

That’s not a radical concept, is it? http://ift.tt/1pQtCsX

The government should not allow ownership of a persons body to be transferable to a second party under any circumstance.
That’s not a radical concept, is it?
-Lemon

Do you  even  know  what  ownership means?
 defined: the act, state, or right of possessing something.
How  does  a  baby   possess the  women  when  it is  just  receiving  nutrients  to  not  die ? 

The pregnant person owns their own body yes? They have ownership of their body. Meaning they get to decide who gets to use it, how, for how long and what parts. No one gets to decide for them. The have the right of possessing their own body.
When you make abortion illegal you decide that pregnant people do not own their own bodies, because they no longer get to decide who gets to use their body, how, what parts or for how long. They no longer maintain ownership of their bodies.
The fetus is INSIDE a persons body using their internal organs and resources. Meaning they require ongoing consent to be there from the person they are literally inside of.
To say otherwise is to say the pregnant person is owned by the fetus because the pregnant person is not permitted the right to decide who may or may not use their body. Or the government. Either way it’s a gross violation of human rights of the pregnant person.
Do you even understand that pregnant people exist too though or have you just been picturing fetuses floating in a vacuum this whole time?
Do you understand how pregnancy works like, at all here or have you been bullshitting your way through this?
Also nice cissexism, not just women get pregnant.
-Lemon

A person  can  control their  body, but  they  are not  allowed  to  kill  another  human doing  so. A  pregnant  person  chooses  to  allowed  the  fertilzation of  her  eggs.  If   abortion  was  illegal it  wouldn’t  violate  any rights  because  the  women  still  choose  weather  the pregnancy  happens  in  the  first  place. Not  being  able  to  stop  a pregnancy once it is  passed  fertilization  would  also  not  be  a  violation  because  1. when you have  sex  consensual   you are  participating   in  procreation  under your  own  will  knowing  the  out  come  could  be  pregnancy . 2. You  have   20+ options  that  are close to  or  90% effective in  prevention. When you  become  pregnant you  are  now  involving  a  another  human   into  situation  that  is  directly  effected  by  your  choice.  It  is  not  as if  aborting  a baby makes  it  a  little smaller  or  gives  that   baby  developmental problems. When you  abort a baby  you kill it. In any other  situation  that would make  your  actions  of  abortion  illegal  regardless of  the  baby  being  in your  body  or  not, especially  since  it  doesn’t  directly  hurt the  women.  
You  are  failing  to  acknowledge  when  it  comes  to  the  law  the  ability   to  govern your  body  in  actions  that  kill  another  human  are  illegal, even  if not  doing  so inconveniences  you   in  anyway.  Show  me a situation  where  one is  allowed  to   kill  another  when  ones  bodily autonomy   is not  being  violated. A  fetus  doesn’t  violate  the mothers  bodily  autonomy   because  the  baby  is  there  by  the mothers will.

oh-snap-pro-choice:

fightforhumanity1:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

personhoodusa:

That’s not a radical concept, is it? http://ift.tt/1pQtCsX

The government should not allow ownership of a persons body to be transferable to a second party under any circumstance.

That’s not a radical concept, is it?

-Lemon

Do you  even  know  what  ownership means?

 defined: the act, state, or right of possessing something.

How  does  a  baby   possess the  women  when  it is  just  receiving  nutrients  to  not  die ? 

The pregnant person owns their own body yes? They have ownership of their body. Meaning they get to decide who gets to use it, how, for how long and what parts. No one gets to decide for them. The have the right of possessing their own body.

When you make abortion illegal you decide that pregnant people do not own their own bodies, because they no longer get to decide who gets to use their body, how, what parts or for how long. They no longer maintain ownership of their bodies.

The fetus is INSIDE a persons body using their internal organs and resources. Meaning they require ongoing consent to be there from the person they are literally inside of.

To say otherwise is to say the pregnant person is owned by the fetus because the pregnant person is not permitted the right to decide who may or may not use their body. Or the government. Either way it’s a gross violation of human rights of the pregnant person.

Do you even understand that pregnant people exist too though or have you just been picturing fetuses floating in a vacuum this whole time?

Do you understand how pregnancy works like, at all here or have you been bullshitting your way through this?

Also nice cissexism, not just women get pregnant.

-Lemon

A person  can  control their  body, but  they  are not  allowed  to  kill  another  human doing  so. A  pregnant  person  chooses  to  allowed  the  fertilzation of  her  eggs.  If   abortion  was  illegal it  wouldn’t  violate  any rights  because  the  women  still  choose  weather  the pregnancy  happens  in  the  first  place. Not  being  able  to  stop  a pregnancy once it is  passed  fertilization  would  also  not  be  a  violation  because  1. when you have  sex  consensual   you are  participating   in  procreation  under your  own  will  knowing  the  out  come  could  be  pregnancy . 2. You  have   20+ options  that  are close to  or  90% effective in  prevention. When you  become  pregnant you  are  now  involving  a  another  human   into  situation  that  is  directly  effected  by  your  choice.  It  is  not  as if  aborting  a baby makes  it  a  little smaller  or  gives  that   baby  developmental problems. When you  abort a baby  you kill it. In any other  situation  that would make  your  actions  of  abortion  illegal  regardless of  the  baby  being  in your  body  or  not, especially  since  it  doesn’t  directly  hurt the  women.  

You  are  failing  to  acknowledge  when  it  comes  to  the  law  the  ability   to  govern your  body  in  actions  that  kill  another  human  are  illegal, even  if not  doing  so inconveniences  you   in  anyway.  Show  me a situation  where  one is  allowed  to   kill  another  when  ones  bodily autonomy   is not  being  violated. A  fetus  doesn’t  violate  the mothers  bodily  autonomy   because  the  baby  is  there  by  the mothers will.

Text

sinfulgod said: Lol did you just hate follow me m8

Calm down you  are covering up the  porn on my dash!

Link

princessfknpeach:

defender-of-the-unborn:

princessfknpeach:

defender-of-the-unborn:

princessfknpeach:

defender-of-the-unborn:

princessfknpeach:

defender-of-the-unborn:

princessfknpeach:

defender-of-the-unborn:

Fetuses are not persons, they are humans, but they are not persons, and even if they were persons they sure as fuck have no right to use someone else’s body without their continued consent, just like real persons.”

This is an actual comment I saw, right here on Tumblr.

First off, how can the…

Except bodily autonomy is upheld even if your own child needs your bodily resources and even if it is completely your fault they need them?

Give me an example?

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/739633.shtml

It wasn’t his fault that his son needed bone marrow but if you have any counter-examples where someone did injure their child (or anyone else for that matter) and then were forced to give up organs or blood as a result, by all means, present them.

The father is incredibly selfish and cruel. As a parent, he should’ve given bone marrow to his son.
Our country upholds mother’s bodily autonomy in the same way, detrimental to their child.
And I’m arguing against it all.

Yo, at least you don’t front like you have any legal backing.

Hahaha what?

You had nothing to say except “well *I* don’t think that’s right”. At least you’re not pretending that there was some point in legal history that backs the concept of life trumping the right of bodily autonomy.

No I don’t. But I have morals, and I can easily distinguish between right and wrong, whereas so many pro-aborts don’t/can’t.
Sure it would be nice to have legal cases backing me up, but I don’t need them. Conscience and morality will always win out in the end.

I expected some self-righteous bullshit and you didn’t disappoint!

Morals are obviously subjective, as I see forcing someone to share their body as immoral and you don’t. 

And lol, Roe v Wade isn’t getting overturned any time soon so idk what you mean about winning out in the end.

You  do   realized  that  this  article  is  from china. Also  organ  done is  volunteery  for  a  reason. Forcing  some one  to  give  up  their  organs  is  against  bodily  autonomy  and  their  are  thousands  upon  thousands of  people that  can  be  a donor.  A person  refusing  to  donate a organ doesn’t kill  the  person  who  needs  a  organ.  Abortion and  organ doning  are not  comparable  because  abortion kills  a  individual  for  another  persons actions. No  one is  is  entitled  to  another  persons  organs .  

There  is  a  big  difference  between  a person  forcing  another person  to  give up  there  organs  so  they  can  survive ,  and  a person  creating  another person and  forcing that person  to survive  on  the  creators  body , then  the  creator  killing  that person. The  difference  is  that  the   donor  who  refuses  to  donate  doesn’t  kill  the  person  that  is  in  need  to  donate .  They  are  simply  refusing  to  help. An abortion kills  a  person intentionally to convenience themselves. 

Text

feduptoinfinity:

stephenhawqueen:

the US is unreal like girls cant wear shorts to school, you can literally lose your job for being gay, and unarmed black children are brutally murdered on the regular but old white ppl r still like “what a beautiful country. i can freely carry a gun for no reason and some of our mountains look like presidents. god bless”

Alright, one, girls can wear shorts to school depending on the school. There are usually length limits in place but some schools are pretty lenient and allow short shorts.

Two, again that differs by location. Some states can fire you, others are states that can but cities may have their own laws for that that protect you from workplace discrimination.

Three, yes we have a huge problem with police brutality that affects black boys and men more than anyone else. That is a fact. It is most likely due to racist attitudes still being passed down generations from 50 years ago. 

Four, anyone has the right to bear arms, not just old white men. How people react to those who aren’t white, but are legally carrying, is because of those people’s racist mindsets that have most likely been cemented in them as children.

Finally, are you really lumping in girls wearing shorts into things that are actual rights violations? Are you really? Because that is so fucking wrong I can’t formulate how damn stupid you are due to my utter astonishment that you said that shit. Girls following dress codes is not a violation of their human rights like being fired for your sexuality and being murdered for your skin color are.

Sit your ass the fuck down.

(via ughsocialjustice)

Tags: ha
Text

cerebralzero said: also PS, your government is run by cartels. Might want to do something about that... oh wait you can't because you disarmed yourselves and allowed them to dictate how you live you life, which is at the mercy of the cartels. Smart move.

prochoice-or-gtfo:

and yes, my obsessed-with-metal-phallic-objects friend, the Mexican government is run by cartels, that is not news to anyone, and guess what? we never “disarmed ourselves” in any way, shape or form, way to talk about something you don’t know shit about and pretend you’re an expert lol.

I’ve got no idea for what you mean with “disarming” ourselves, the Mexican army is well armed, only incompetent and corrupt. smart move. -Yar

Yeah  there  were  actually  a bunch  of  vigilantes  that  capture  some  cartel leaders  not  too long  ago  because  the  police  weren’t  doing  there job.

Photoset

sushinfood:

tastefullyoffensive:

20 Mind-Boggling Shower Thoughts [showerthoughts/distractify]

Previously: Name Improvements for Everyday Stuff

The Crisp one was amazing to me until my Aussie friend spoke up and said AND IT GOES THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION IF YOU SAY PISS RACK.

(via angelicasylum)

Tags: Awesome
Link

luchaigcaileag:

kovu190:

luchaigcaileag:

kovu190:

prochoicecuznotmydecision:

thisgingerischronic:

kovu190:

tinalikesbutts:

bringingthetruthback:

tinalikesbutts:

So when boys want to wear tank tops, it’s okay, but when I want to do it, it’s indecent and my shoulders are going to give every boy in a 20-mile radius a boner?

if your underage and…

If the OP is arguing about tank tops and men bein able to wear them OBVIOUSLY OP doesn’t mean a professional environment.
If men can wear tank tops on one place then women should be able to too.
Breasts are NOT sexual organs. Not the nipple and especially not “side boob”

The  OP is  talking  about  school; even though it  has  a relaxed dress code, it is a professional environment.  As for  boobs being a sexual organ  like I said  that  can  be argued. While it’s not necessarily a organ  used   for  sexual activity, but  like the  vagina and  uterus  it  is  strictly  used  for  reproduction . plus, women  sexualize their boobs by  showing them slightly and  refusing for them  to  be  touched  in  every  day  life. I myself  am more  inclined  to  use  the latter  of  justification  than them being  sexual  organs.  But ,  the point  is  boobs  are not  to  be seen  and  with   the  shirts that  are  worn by  women  that  is  a possibility. Plus , men  in  tank tops  are sent  to the  office  ,  but  the  shcool  wont  have  a sexual harassment  suit  if  some one  looks  at  his  chest  for  a small amount of  time. 

Oh, I almost forgot about this lovely bit of disgustingness. I’m not up to unpacking this whole mess, but I would like to say that they wouldn’t have a sexual harassment suit for a woman in that situation, either. Contrary to what people like you like to claim, sexual harassment suits aren’t some magical power that women can use at any time for any reason to punish men.

Are you  kidding   sexual harassment suits  can  be made  because of  a  poster  or  shirts  someone wears. sexual harassment can be for  as little  as  some  one  grazing  another person. 

I. Prohibited Sexual Harassment

1. Prohibited sexual harassment includes, but is not limited to, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

(Education Code 212.5)

a. Submission to the conduct is explicitly or implicitly made a term or condition of an

individual’s academic status or progress.

b. Submission to or rejection of the conduct by an individual is used as the basis for academic

decisions affecting the individual.

c. The conduct has the purpose or effect of having a negative impact on the individual’s

academic performance, or of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive educational

environment.

d. Submission to or rejection of the conduct by the individual is used as the basis for any

decision affecting the individual regarding benefits and services, honors, programs, or

activities available at or through the school.

2. Type of conduct which are prohibited in the District and which may constitute sexual harassment include, but are not limited to:

a. Unwelcome sexual flirtations or propositions

b. Sexual slurs, leering, epithets, threats, verbal abuse, derogatory comments or sexually

degrading descriptions

c. Graphic verbal comments about an individual’s body, or overly personal conversation

d. Sexual jokes, notes, stories, drawings, pictures or gestures

e. Spreading sexual rumors

f. Teasing or sexual remarks about students enrolled in a predominantly single-sex class

g. Touching an individual’s body or clothes in a sexual way

h. Purposefully cornering or blocking normal movements

i. Limiting a student’s access to educational tools

j. Displaying sexually suggestive objects

 http://www.lincolnhigh.net/sexualharassment

The  bold text  are  conditions  in which  a  student  that  is looking  at  another  students  boobs  can  get in trouble  and might  help with a case of  sexual  harassment. Plus  these rules  are pretty  close  to  what most  schools  have. Plus even if it  is  in the  school doesn’t  mean  one  can’t  bring it  to the police or sue for  it , espeically  if the  school  acknowledges  it  happened.

"Leering" is substantively different from "looking briefly." And yes, you can get a sexual harassment suit for a poster or shirt you wear, if said shirt or poster is of a nature that creates a hostile and sexualized environment — Posters of explicit pornography or with openly misogynistic and demeaning messages aren’t magically okay because they’re posters.

Grazing someone? Well, if you’re “grazing” someone in a way that’s intended to harass — brushing up against breasts or other body parts while using the excuse that you’re “just passing by” or something — yes, that could be sexual harassment.

Also, what you’re citing appears to be the California education code, rather than a more broadly applicable definition.

It also doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means, but very little does.

Yeah  I am  sure  that  any  student  can  prove  that  difference  with there 24 hour  security  cameras  staring  at their  faces  straped  to  their  waist.

Tags: dress code
Link

luchaigcaileag:

kovu190:

prochoicecuznotmydecision:

thisgingerischronic:

kovu190:

tinalikesbutts:

bringingthetruthback:

tinalikesbutts:

So when boys want to wear tank tops, it’s okay, but when I want to do it, it’s indecent and my shoulders are going to give every boy in a 20-mile radius a boner?

if your underage and…

If the OP is arguing about tank tops and men bein able to wear them OBVIOUSLY OP doesn’t mean a professional environment.
If men can wear tank tops on one place then women should be able to too.
Breasts are NOT sexual organs. Not the nipple and especially not “side boob”

The  OP is  talking  about  school; even though it  has  a relaxed dress code, it is a professional environment.  As for  boobs being a sexual organ  like I said  that  can  be argued. While it’s not necessarily a organ  used   for  sexual activity, but  like the  vagina and  uterus  it  is  strictly  used  for  reproduction . plus, women  sexualize their boobs by  showing them slightly and  refusing for them  to  be  touched  in  every  day  life. I myself  am more  inclined  to  use  the latter  of  justification  than them being  sexual  organs.  But ,  the point  is  boobs  are not  to  be seen  and  with   the  shirts that  are  worn by  women  that  is  a possibility. Plus , men  in  tank tops  are sent  to the  office  ,  but  the  shcool  wont  have  a sexual harassment  suit  if  some one  looks  at  his  chest  for  a small amount of  time. 

Oh, I almost forgot about this lovely bit of disgustingness. I’m not up to unpacking this whole mess, but I would like to say that they wouldn’t have a sexual harassment suit for a woman in that situation, either. Contrary to what people like you like to claim, sexual harassment suits aren’t some magical power that women can use at any time for any reason to punish men.

Are you  kidding   sexual harassment suits  can  be made  because of  a  poster  or  shirts  someone wears. sexual harassment can be for  as little  as  some  one  grazing  another person. 

I. Prohibited Sexual Harassment

1. Prohibited sexual harassment includes, but is not limited to, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

(Education Code 212.5)

a. Submission to the conduct is explicitly or implicitly made a term or condition of an

individual’s academic status or progress.

b. Submission to or rejection of the conduct by an individual is used as the basis for academic

decisions affecting the individual.

c. The conduct has the purpose or effect of having a negative impact on the individual’s

academic performance, or of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive educational

environment.

d. Submission to or rejection of the conduct by the individual is used as the basis for any

decision affecting the individual regarding benefits and services, honors, programs, or

activities available at or through the school.

2. Type of conduct which are prohibited in the District and which may constitute sexual harassment include, but are not limited to:

a. Unwelcome sexual flirtations or propositions

b. Sexual slurs, leering, epithets, threats, verbal abuse, derogatory comments or sexually

degrading descriptions

c. Graphic verbal comments about an individual’s body, or overly personal conversation

d. Sexual jokes, notes, stories, drawings, pictures or gestures

e. Spreading sexual rumors

f. Teasing or sexual remarks about students enrolled in a predominantly single-sex class

g. Touching an individual’s body or clothes in a sexual way

h. Purposefully cornering or blocking normal movements

i. Limiting a student’s access to educational tools

j. Displaying sexually suggestive objects

 http://www.lincolnhigh.net/sexualharassment

The  bold text  are  conditions  in which  a  student  that  is looking  at  another  students  boobs  can  get in trouble  and might  help with a case of  sexual  harassment. Plus  these rules  are pretty  close  to  what most  schools  have. Plus even if it  is  in the  school doesn’t  mean  one  can’t  bring it  to the police or sue for  it , espeically  if the  school  acknowledges  it  happened.

Tags: dress code
Photo
imaginationfiction:

protego-et-servio:

persephoneholly:

fightforhumanity1:

Every  time  I  talk  to  a pro-choicer ,  they  always  say that  women  would be  forced  to be  pregnant  if  abortion  is not  available.  But,  They  disregard  the many  chooses  that  they  had  before pregnancy.  Women have  many  means  of  controlling when  and how  they  get pregnant. Women  do not  have  sex  and  only  have  abortion  to  fall  back  on. While  being  pregnant  may  narrow  options  women had  the  choice  to  not  get to that  spot.  Once  the life  a  child  is  created  ,  with  this many  options,  why  should any  one  have the  right to  kill the  child. Even  though pregnancy  is not  easy  and  is 9 months, they had  20+ decisions  that  they  choose  to  give  them  that  result. A child  should  at least  have the  one  choice  to  live. 

1. You assume everyone has the same amount of education of and opportunity to use contraceptives. They don’t. 8% oh people who get abortions are uneducated on sex ed or unable to obtain contraceptives. Remember, many states don’t have comprehensive sex ed and many more have abstinence only sex ed.
2. No method is 100%, not even sterilization. Even abstinence isn’t fool proof with the amount of sexual assault in this country.
3. It’s not a child, it’s a fetus.

That is one confusing ass chart. 

That chart was way too confusing. Just like sex education in the US, just like pro lifers want it to be. Excuses, excuses.
In the end, you’re still treating pregnancy like a punishment and you disgust me.

Really  that is  confusing  to  you, are you  overwhelmed at the  amount  of  choices  you  can  make  before having  sex.  Plus,  sex education  in the  US  is not  confusing you  either  get  a  class that  shows you  the  basic information  about  contraception , I only  got  information on the  pill  and  condoms  from  mine, or  you  get  abstinence only  which is  lacking  information  in  contraception.  What is  there  to  be  confused  about. 
So  to you  show  people  how many  options  they have  to  prevent  pregnancy  is   treating  pregnancy  like a  punishment.  Pregnancy  is  not  a punishment if you  are looking  at  that  way  you  are  making  that  connection  yourself  by  thinking  anything  that  doesn’t  go  exactly  how you  want it  is  a punishment. 

imaginationfiction:

protego-et-servio:

persephoneholly:

fightforhumanity1:

Every  time  I  talk  to  a pro-choicer ,  they  always  say that  women  would be  forced  to be  pregnant  if  abortion  is not  available.  But,  They  disregard  the many  chooses  that  they  had  before pregnancy.  Women have  many  means  of  controlling when  and how  they  get pregnant. Women  do not  have  sex  and  only  have  abortion  to  fall  back  on. While  being  pregnant  may  narrow  options  women had  the  choice  to  not  get to that  spot.  Once  the life  a  child  is  created  ,  with  this many  options,  why  should any  one  have the  right to  kill the  child. Even  though pregnancy  is not  easy  and  is 9 months, they had  20+ decisions  that  they  choose  to  give  them  that  result. A child  should  at least  have the  one  choice  to  live. 

1. You assume everyone has the same amount of education of and opportunity to use contraceptives. They don’t. 8% oh people who get abortions are uneducated on sex ed or unable to obtain contraceptives. Remember, many states don’t have comprehensive sex ed and many more have abstinence only sex ed.

2. No method is 100%, not even sterilization. Even abstinence isn’t fool proof with the amount of sexual assault in this country.

3. It’s not a child, it’s a fetus.

That is one confusing ass chart. 

That chart was way too confusing. Just like sex education in the US, just like pro lifers want it to be. Excuses, excuses.

In the end, you’re still treating pregnancy like a punishment and you disgust me.

Really  that is  confusing  to  you, are you  overwhelmed at the  amount  of  choices  you  can  make  before having  sex.  Plus,  sex education  in the  US  is not  confusing you  either  get  a  class that  shows you  the  basic information  about  contraception , I only  got  information on the  pill  and  condoms  from  mine, or  you  get  abstinence only  which is  lacking  information  in  contraception.  What is  there  to  be  confused  about. 

So  to you  show  people  how many  options  they have  to  prevent  pregnancy  is   treating  pregnancy  like a  punishment.  Pregnancy  is  not  a punishment if you  are looking  at  that  way  you  are  making  that  connection  yourself  by  thinking  anything  that  doesn’t  go  exactly  how you  want it  is  a punishment. 

Text

luchaigcaileag said: ... Why are you even following me? You're a seriously gross person who, judging by your posts, would likely disagree with me on statements like "Gravity is the force by which objects with mass attract other objects with mass" or "Oxygen is necessary for human life."

luchaigcaileag:

kovu190:

Because  I  can ,  and  I have  no  interest arguing  about  gravity  ,  or  oxygen . I  like  those  facts .  

… Amazing newflash: This tumblr user actually has facts they like, rather than, as seemingly was implied by their posts and positions, hating logic, rationality, and facts like they killed their dog’s parents.

What  are you  talking about?