Photoset

talking-fedora:

antifeminist111:

talking-fedora:

huffingtonpost:

If Harry Potter doesn’t believe in the friend zone, neither should you.

For more about Daniel Radcliffe’s opinions on dating, love and friendships here.

(Via BuzzFeed Brews)

Oh, DanRad, I had such faith in you…I would’ve thought that you, as a man, would know that men can feel more than just sexual attraction…

he’s gay, and for some reason a lot of *gay men see straight men the way a lot of feminist women see men. So instead of thinking that men want a living relationship and are unhappy that they can’t be with the person they are into, Dan thinks that all men are perverts wanting sex and are just having tantrums…

…I wonder if he thinks the same about gays.

 *I know not all gay men are like this, but there are a bunch that do think this way.

I’m almost positive he’s straight, actually.

This  is  so Ironic  because  in  hair  potter, harry was put in  the  friendzone  by  cho.

Photo
escapedosmil:

fightforhumanity1:

escapedosmil:

personhoodusa:

Human rights begin when human life begins (which is long before birth). http://ift.tt/1yChRNN

Actually yeah it does. 
Birth endows someone with bodily autonomy you wreaking sack of rotten sour apples. 

No , you  implying  that  because the  baby  is  in  another  person  it  can  not  have  bodily autonomy.  That  is not  true. The  baby  is  physically   a separate individual their  is literally  a  barrier  between  the  baby  and  the  rest of the mothers  body.  It  is  a  living  human  that  has the  right  to  be bodily  autonomous  and right to  life .  It  has  human  dna so it is  human,  and  it  is  not  a  blob  it is   a organism.

It is existing within another person and cannot exit without that person.
These two things that I DOES not have and cannot have bodily autonomy.
Also, it does not exist separate from the person in which it is gestating. They share a blood stream and nutrients.

The  existence  of  it  in  another person  is  the actions of  the person  it  exist  in. regardless of  that  existing  in  another  human  doesn’t  make it  any  less  human.
last time  I  checked  mothers  can’t  choose when  to have their  baby.  It is  somewhat  of  a bodily  function  based  on  the  the  collaboration  of  the  babies  and  the  mothers  bodies  to  provide  a  safe incubation  environment  for the  baby. A  baby  may  need  help  getting  out ,  but  the mother  doesn’t  deiced when  the  baby  wants  to  leave.  They  don’t  have  control  over  what  the  baby  does  in  the  womb.
A baby  in  the  womb  does have  bodily  autonomy  it is  a  separate individual  that  has  its own  environment  it  provides for  its self  in  the  womb.  It  is  completely  separate from  the  women’s  body  and  often  acts  under its own  will. The  sharing  of  blood  and  nutrients, Is  a  symbiotic  relationship  between the  baby  and  the  women’s  body  called  commercialism. The  women’s  body  lets  the  baby  share  the  nutrients  and  blood  from her  system so  the  baby  can  develop its  own.  This  doesn’t  make  the  baby  in the  womb  less autonomous  because  it is   symbiotic  relationship  between the  baby  and  the  women’s  body. 
A baby  grows and  acts  as  a  separate  individual  in the  womb  and  should  be  treated  as  such.

escapedosmil:

fightforhumanity1:

escapedosmil:

personhoodusa:

Human rights begin when human life begins (which is long before birth). http://ift.tt/1yChRNN

Actually yeah it does. 

Birth endows someone with bodily autonomy you wreaking sack of rotten sour apples. 

No , you  implying  that  because the  baby  is  in  another  person  it  can  not  have  bodily autonomy.  That  is not  true. The  baby  is  physically   a separate individual their  is literally  a  barrier  between  the  baby  and  the  rest of the mothers  body.  It  is  a  living  human  that  has the  right  to  be bodily  autonomous  and right to  life .  It  has  human  dna so it is  human,  and  it  is  not  a  blob  it is   a organism.

It is existing within another person and cannot exit without that person.

These two things that I DOES not have and cannot have bodily autonomy.

Also, it does not exist separate from the person in which it is gestating. They share a blood stream and nutrients.

The  existence  of  it  in  another person  is  the actions of  the person  it  exist  in. regardless of  that  existing  in  another  human  doesn’t  make it  any  less  human.

last time  I  checked  mothers  can’t  choose when  to have their  baby.  It is  somewhat  of  a bodily  function  based  on  the  the  collaboration  of  the  babies  and  the  mothers  bodies  to  provide  a  safe incubation  environment  for the  baby. A  baby  may  need  help  getting  out ,  but  the mother  doesn’t  deiced when  the  baby  wants  to  leave.  They  don’t  have  control  over  what  the  baby  does  in  the  womb.

A baby  in  the  womb  does have  bodily  autonomy  it is  a  separate individual  that  has  its own  environment  it  provides for  its self  in  the  womb.  It  is  completely  separate from  the  women’s  body  and  often  acts  under its own  will. The  sharing  of  blood  and  nutrients, Is  a  symbiotic  relationship  between the  baby  and  the  women’s  body  called  commercialism. The  women’s  body  lets  the  baby  share  the  nutrients  and  blood  from her  system so  the  baby  can  develop its  own.  This  doesn’t  make  the  baby  in the  womb  less autonomous  because  it is   symbiotic  relationship  between the  baby  and  the  women’s  body. 

A baby  grows and  acts  as  a  separate  individual  in the  womb  and  should  be  treated  as  such.

Photo
johncory9mm:

fightforhumanity1:

proudly-pro-choice:

johncory9mm:

I’m pro-choice, but seriously, what is with the black community? There are many forms of contraception, is it really that difficult to act responsibly?

All I got from your statement was “I’m a racist shitbag”.

Actually  it  is about  most  schools  in black communities do not  have  sex  education  and abortion is advertise  as  a  way  out  for them . Instead  of  helping  the  community  by helping  them  by  making it  easier for people to  maneuver obstacle in  their lives   they  are  told   killing  their baby  is the only way.  

Interesting, do you have any data to back this up? 
I personally went to a public school that was about 80% white and 20% black. We had decent sex education and learned about contraception. 
It seems weird that kids today would not know about contraception, but I don’t have any direct knowledge one way or the other on this.

Of  what  that  schools  in  black  communities  don’t  have  good sex ed programs  or  planned  parent hood  advertising  to  balck women as  the  only  choice?
Your  mere personal experience  is  not evidence  of  my  statement  being wrong. your  school  is  1 in  a million. 
Plus,  it is  well  known  or  at least  fact that margret sanger and birth control  has  always  been striving  to stop unwanted people  from  procreating. When  birth  control  started  out  the  goverment  would  bribe poor  often  black  women  to  be sterilized  or  be on  birth  control. 

johncory9mm:

fightforhumanity1:

proudly-pro-choice:

johncory9mm:

I’m pro-choice, but seriously, what is with the black community? There are many forms of contraception, is it really that difficult to act responsibly?

All I got from your statement was “I’m a racist shitbag”.

Actually  it  is about  most  schools  in black communities do not  have  sex  education  and abortion is advertise  as  a  way  out  for them . Instead  of  helping  the  community  by helping  them  by  making it  easier for people to  maneuver obstacle in  their lives   they  are  told   killing  their baby  is the only way.  

Interesting, do you have any data to back this up? 

I personally went to a public school that was about 80% white and 20% black. We had decent sex education and learned about contraception. 

It seems weird that kids today would not know about contraception, but I don’t have any direct knowledge one way or the other on this.

Of  what  that  schools  in  black  communities  don’t  have  good sex ed programs  or  planned  parent hood  advertising  to  balck women as  the  only  choice?

Your  mere personal experience  is  not evidence  of  my  statement  being wrong. your  school  is  1 in  a million. 

Plus,  it is  well  known  or  at least  fact that margret sanger and birth control  has  always  been striving  to stop unwanted people  from  procreating. When  birth  control  started  out  the  goverment  would  bribe poor  often  black  women  to  be sterilized  or  be on  birth  control. 

Tags: abortion
Link

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. 

Tags: dress code
Text

ablogaboutchoice:

fightforhumanity1:

ablogaboutchoice:

fightforhumanity1:

ablogaboutchoice:

To anyone who actually believes what Live Action says:   

fightforhumanity1:

ablogaboutchoice:

Planned Parenthood did not try to cover up a sex-trafficking operation. This article came out before the videos surfaced. Yep, that’s right, Planned Parenthood contacted the FBI before the “evidence” was released. Live Action forgot to mention that part though. Oops.

To tell you the truth it really doesn’t matter when this article came out or not or when the evidence came out. The articale states that the police was only called after planned parent hood caught wind of the sting. The police were only first contacted on the 15 th. By that time 7 clinics had already been visited. The call to the fbi came at the earliest the 16th after it was suspected that they been part of sting. There is no report of the 7 clinics in nj , va, ny, and DC calling the police. so maybe not the whole organization is at fault, but at least seven clinics are. In the videos plan parenthood employees clearly try to help the pimp get what he needs without getting in trouble.

It said that both clinics in Arizona contacted the police after they were visited on the 15th. It doesn’t say that the 15th was the first time that the police were alerted nor did it say that the other clinics didn’t call the police when they were visited. Even if they didn’t contact the FBI until the 16th, that doesn’t mean that the local police weren’t alerted first (which is usually how it goes anyway).

I don’t know why I’m wasting my time though, none of this is going to matter to you. Just like Live Action, you love twisting and manipulating facts to suit your agenda. “Oh, the article said that the clinics in Arizona called the police after they were visited on the 15th? Obviously that means that the 15th was the first time that law enforcement was alerted. I’m so logical!”

It’s time to wake up. Your beloved organization is full of shit.

The   videos  that  were posted  on the  site  were of  ones  from nj, va , ny,  and  DC.  The  report  says:

Bryan Howard, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, said staff at the clinics in Tucson and Scottsdale were in a state of vigilance when the visitor showed up on Jan. 15, because of alerts that had come from affiliates in the East about suspicious visits earlier that week. Also, Arizona clinics had been the target of a Live Action operation in the past.

Howard said his staff at both clinics notified local police.

Assuming  that  stings  done  in  Arizona , New Jersey ,  New York, D.C, Virginia are the only  ones  who  were visited,  The  report  only  accounts  for only the  two  in  Arizona that  called the  police. The  report  only  reports  that  the  east  affiliates  only  called  the  west after they  found  out   that  that  it  might  be  a sting.  If  the  others  called  the police  it would  be reported  that  more  called  the police.  Plus,  if  those  were  the only  plan parenthood  hit  their  would  be less videos on live action. If you  watch the  videos it  explains  that  ” if  one  doesn’t report  claims of  sex trafficking  they  become  an  accomplice”  Hence  why  the  president  of  planned  parenthood  wrote to  the FBI,  it gets  any  planned parenthood  who  didn’t  call the police  off the  hook of  being prosecuted. But ,  it doesn’t  show   that   any  of  the   clinics  on  live  action  did so.     

You think you’re really intelligent, don’t you? I’ve been waiting a while to get back to you on this. I would have sooner but I haven’t had access to an actual computer.

Let me explain something to you. When someone runs an illegal operation that involves something as serious as sex trafficking, they’re not going to admit to a stranger that they’re doing that. Why? Because if you’re convicted of such a serious crime, you get sent to a maximum security prison for a loooong time, possibly for the rest of your life. Do you want to know what that’s like? 23 hours per day in a small cell and one hour per week outside in the rec yard.

What I’m getting at is that Live Action made it obvious that they were trying to make one of those “sting” videos. They don’t know how to portray sex traffickers. The workers damn well knew they were being scammed.

Despite all of that, it’s not just the Arizona clinics that called the cops. However, since you insist on drawing conclusions before doing any research, I decided to do you a favor and do some research for you. You’re welcome.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/03parenthood.html?_r=0

http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/03/03/washington-times-pushes-falsehood-that-planned/177140

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/is-it-an-underage-sex-slave-ring-or-a-hoax-either-way-planned-parenthood-calls-the-fbi

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/01/AR2011020106135.html

Weather  or  not  the  workers  thought  it  was  a  sting  or  not,  they  didn’t  follow  protocol for the  law  or  planned parenthood. It  is  not  up  to  the  worker   to  deiced  if  it  is a sting  or   for real. In  each  video  the pimp  and prostitutes repeatedly  make it  clear  that  they  are in  sex  work  and    some of their workers  are  underage  and  illegal (there is  no legal sex work that  is  allowed the  employment  of  girls  under the  ages of  18, much less 14 or 15).There  was  no  confusion  in  what he did. There was  no  confusion  in  the relationship between the said pimp and prostitutes.  Once  those words  were  uttered the  police  should  of  been  called that  day, If  not  when  they  were  still there.  The fact that  the  president  even  admits  that  they  don’t  know the  true  identity  of this  guy  means  that it is likely none the  clinics on live action  attempted  to  call the police  while  they were their ,  and  planned parenthood  has  yet  to  release  any  statement  with  evidence assuring that  each  clinic  called the police.   

As for  your “research”  your  first  article Doesn’t  mention  any calling  of the  police, but  references the  letter to  the  FBI  exactly  a  week  after  the  first  sting, which is  only  after  they  got  wind of  the  sting and  wanted  to  save their  asses. 

Your  second  article  is  very  biased  or  at least the  quotes  they  use from other  articles  are  biased .  It  also  makes  claims  that  the videos  are  discredited  but  don’t  give  any  evidence  of  this, but  claim that  there  is  no  wrong  doing in the  videos  and  that  the  videos   are  selectively  edited.  yet  in  6 out  7 of  the  videos   the  workers  can  be  heard   whispering  incriminating  information  and  advising  the pimp or  prostitute ways  to  get around  the  rules  of  how  to  get  services. One worker saying   that   ” They  don’t  need to  know  anything”.  Even  if  you  don’t  agree with that  being  incriminating  the  fact  that  their  is no  reports  or  evidence of  the  clinics on  live action immediately  calling  the police   is  wrong doing in its self. Also, it mentions that  the  FBI was  contacted before the  videos  release. But, that  is  irrelevant  since  it is  still  fact that their  is no  evidence  majority  of  the  clinics  immediately called  police.  

Your  third  article  only  mentions  that  

The Planned Parenthood spokeswoman said that individual clinics called local law enforcement. “ 

But  doesn’t  mention which ones  called   and which ones  didn’t. All the  articles you provided  were  written well  before the   NBC article , which mentions that  the Arizona  clinics  were hit  but  called the police, only  after they  were warned  by the  east  clinics.  The  later articles had  the  information  or  could have  obtained the information, but  they  only  use  the  blanket  statement  that  the  authorities  were called. If  all were called  why not  report it  or  show  evidence  of such. For the  clinics  that   are  reported to  have called the police  there  are no  videos. So you would have to  assume that  the videos  are  of  the   ones  that  didn’t  call. 

You  last  article  mentions that

"In a statement Tuesday, Planned Parenthood spokesman Stuart Schear said that immediately after the Jan. 13 visit, the clinic staff alerted the national organization and contacted local authorities about the possibility of a sex ring operating in the area."

Before  the  Jan 13  sting  5 out  of  the  7 successful  stings  were already  done .  Plus, this  article also  doesn’t  mention  Arizona.  Yet  planned parenthood  has  not   released  evidence of  any of  the  the  clinics  calling  the police  and  if  they  did  call  the police  immediately  after why wasn’t  the  actors  arrested or  even  questioned. They had  to  make  a copy of  his license  to  have the  service he  did.  so  likely  it is  false  that  the  the police  was  called  before the  Arizona  clinics. Even  so  even planned  parenthood said  that  the  NJ clinic  worker did  wrong and she  was  fired. So even  taking  the  13th  as  the   earliest the  police  were  called  5 clinics  failed to  call the police  after the  visit.

In conclusion  I am not  just making this  up  these are the  facts

  • Majority  of the clinics  didn’t  call the police
  • The only  clinics that  are reported  to  call the police  are the Arizona clinics. They  are the only ones  mentioned in  any  article  to  call ,  and they  only  called after they  were warned  of the  sting. 
  • The  actors  weren’t  captured  and  weren’t  questioned or  arrested. If  the police  were  called  like they  said they  were at the  clinics shown on live action he would of  face one  of the  above events. 
  • The  NJ clinic manager was  fired.
  • In  each  video  it  is  clearly  mentioned  that   the  people  shooting the videos  are  pimps  and prostitutes and that some of their  workers  are  underage  and illegal.  There  was no  confusion  of  the  situation. 

The first article mentioned that the Perth Amboy clinic (the one where the manager was fired from) notified authorities. It doesn’t say what the other clinics did, but it was definitely worth mentioning since you seem to think that none of the clinics in the videos that were released notified law enforcement, especially not this “bad clinic”.

You’re in no place to talk to me about bias when you support Live Action. The fact that Media Matters is liberal doesn’t change the fact that their findings raise a lot of concerns. Why is Live Action doctoring the audio of their videos instead of cutting out parts of the video that they deem unimportant? The latter is MUCH easier. People don’t intentionally make things more difficult for themselves for no reason. The source also mentioned that the employee from the clinic in Virginia notified law enforcement. That’s worth mentioning for the same reason that the first article was worth mentioning. It also mentioned that they have been working with federal and local authorities.

And there you go again with the hair splitting. It’s funny how you’re so eager to nit pick every shred of evidence that shows that Planned Parenthood acted appropriately but you have no qualms about blindly believing an organization that is A LOT more biased and unreliable than the sources I found.

Regarding the last source, did you not read the entire thing or were you just hoping that I wouldn’t notice that you completely ignored the part that said “At least 12 clinics in six states received visits in January by men claiming to be engaged in sex trafficking, according to Planned Parenthood. In each case, the clinic’s staff notified federal and local authorities”?

Most of the clinics reported the visits. Get over it. Live Action is not to be trusted. I know that you love what they fight for, but they’re not good people to listen to.

There  are  is  a problem with that. If  they did  call  law  enforcement,  planned  parenthood  just  fired  someone  for  doing  their  job, since  she  would had  to  give  the  order  to  call  the police. But, in the planned  parenthood’s  statement  they  said  her  behavior  was  unacceptable. If  that  is so, having  someone  visit talking  about a  sex ring  with underage  and illegal participant  that they run, then  calling  the  police  is  what  planned parenthood  deems  unacceptable behavior then  they are  contradicting themselves. Even if  she did  seem like she  was  aiding them ,  she  did  call  the police  didn’t  she?  so  why  would  planned parenthood  fire her  for  doing  exactly  what  they  would of  wanted her  to  do.  So  either  planned  parenthood  fired a women  for  doing her job, or  they fired her  for trying to  aid a pimp in  a  sex ring. Plus, the  Washington post is the only  news  story  I have looked up  that  states  that NJ did, and  it is  not  a  direct quote.

I don’t  support  live  action this post  is  the first  time  I have heard of  them. But ,  by looking  at the  videos  and  looking  at  all  the  reports  and the  ones you  provided  their is  more  evidence on the  side  of  live  action. It is  not  just  that  they are liberal  it is  that they  only  have  quotes  from  TWO SOURCES  that  are  both also liberal. 

They  didn’t  doctor the  videos  The  audio  is  just off. Everything that  is  said in  the first  video  is  said  in the full  version. The  audio was  probably  not placed  right  for  the  edited  video.  That  and  just  editing  the  over 14 minute  video down  to  7 minutes   is not  doctoring  the  audio.  If you  record  audio  separate from   video  it is  almost  impossible  to get the audio  in sync  with the  video  with  out  a  visual  and sound of  a signal.  

Here  is  my problem with  the  reporting. Planned parenthood  requires  you  to   show  id  when you  are  asking about  stds.  I  had  to  do this  once  or  twice.  So  if   this person  visited  several  clinics  they  would  have to have  a copy of  his  Id  If he  wasn’t  caught in  virginia  where he  did  a few  visits  then  how  is  it   that  they  called the  police. Even  if  he left  they  would  be able  to  look  up  his  name  and car  their  is no  reason   this  guy  wasn’t  caught.  If  police  were  called  immediately  in  any of  these  clinics how  did they  get into (at leas for the  guy) 5  clinics without  getting  caught ? Please answer me that.  Also, most  articles  say  that  planned parenthood  as  a  non quoted statement  said that  all  clinics  called  the police.  Yet  no  one  got  caught  or  no  investigation  was made  until a  week  after  the  stings  were  done. It  doesn’t  add up.  Unless you  can  provide  evidence that  all  clinics  called locally  or  some  did .  Then you  can’t  assume that  any  of them  did, for the fact  that  they  didn’t  catch  this  guy   and  that   none  of  the  reports on this situation  confirm  which  clinics  called  the  cops. Nbc only  says that  arizona did, ny times  says  nj did, and abc  says  virginia did ,  yet  it is  not  in  any  other  report. Also  no  report  directly quotes   that  every  one called the  cops.

You  have  not  proved  any  wrong  doing  of  live actions  videos.  Planned  parent hood  fired  one  of  their manager, yet  they have not  tried to  prove  that  they  called  the police . They  only  have  a  claim that  the  head  of  their  company  wrote  to  the FBI a week  after  everything  happened.  The  videos  maybe  poorly  edited  but  not  deceivingly. They seemed  legit  enough to  planned parenthood  to  fire one of  their  employees.  Not  to mention  different reports  give  different  timelines  of  what  happened  between  the  days  of  the  start  and finish  of  the  stings.  If  they  were  contacted  immediately  then the  pimp should  of  been  arrested  by at least the  13th.

1. It says that  12 clinics  were visited  meaning  that  the  seven  on  the  site  were the  successful  stings.  Knowing that  the  arizona  clinics  were don’t  during or  on  the  13 th, 7 or more  clinics  were  visited  between  the  11 th  and  13th  3 being in  virginia. That  is 7 or more  clinics that  have this  guys  drivers  license, or  at least a photo  id of this  person.  But,  this  guy  was  never  caught  by  police? Police  catch  shoplifters with  less all the  time. But  police  can’t  catch a  pimp with  a copie  of his  id with  7 or more clinics ?

2. That  statement  is  a  statement  by  the  washington post  that  reads  ” According  to Planned Parenthood.” The point  is  that  all mentions  of   clinics  calling  the  police   come from planned  parenthood  that  say  that  they  called  the police  immediately, which  strives  in  all  odds, if they did , to  why this  guy  wasn’t  caught. Also ,  planned  parenthood  is not  going to  incriminate  themselves. So  asking  them  is like  asking  a  killer  if he  did it   and asking  live action  is  like  asking  the  family  of  the victim if he  did it. There  is  no  third  party  confirmation ( the police ) saying  that  they  did it.

3. read the  first paragraph , proves  that  nj didn’t .

4. You  are  taking  every  report  word  of  what  they  say   as  gospel  when  the  facts  follow  that  this guy  wasn’t  caught  when police  are  totally  capable  of   capturing  him. Planned parenthood  fired  their  employee for  UNACCEPTABLE  BEHAVIOR,  and  planned parenthood in  their  own letter  states  that they  don’t  know  weather it is  a  hoax or  real. So,  if  the  head  didn’t  know  how  would  the  affiliates  know?

Your  argument  or, best  argument  is  that  only  some  of  the  clinics  did call  the police  after  the  13th.  I  can  agree with that.  But,  you  would  have to  agree  that  the  clinics  on  video  did not  call  the  police  because  if they  did  what  would  be the point of  them  being  on the  site.  You  already proved  that  there  were 12 clinics  that  were visited.  So lets  see this  from  the  extreme of both  sides. If  liveaction visited  12  and  none of  them  called  the  police  ,dispite  the  Fbi letter  a week  after,  there  would  of  been  12 videos  on  the liveaction  site because  if they  called  the police  then  they  didn’t  break any laws. If  live action  visited  12 clinics  and they  all  called  the  police then  there would  be  no  videos  on  the  site  because  if they  called the  police  then  they  didn’t  do  break  any  laws.  However  the  reality   of  the  situtuation is  that there  are seven  videos .  So  there is  more than  a pattern  that  workers  maybe encouraged to  do  stuff like is  shown in the  video. 

Link

strejdaking:

fightforhumanity1:

fandomsandfeminism:

We are supposed to have HEALTHCARE, not “stave off death in the bare minimum way care.”

Like, I won’t DIE without birth control. I also won’t die without my sumatriptan and high dosage naproxen to treat my chronic migraines. My boyfriend won’t die without his anxiety…

But  that is  exactly what you  can do.  I f your  company  doesn’t  cover the  drugs  you need, you  can  get  a individual plan  , pay out of pocket , or  go to a job that  covers  your  drugs. No one is  deciding  if you  need the  drug or  not, they  are deciding  weather  they  want  to  cover it. Doesn’t  mean you can’t  get  it  by your  own  mean or  another companies means.

Yeah, that is definetly gonna work for people who rely on employer provided healthcare and don’t have the luxury to turn down any job based on their health plans.

Well if you  rely  on  employer healthcare  ,  I would have to  assume that  you  are working  at  a job  that  doesn’t  pay you  enough  to afford healthcare  that can  be  as low  as  $100 or less for  a individual   200-300 for  a family.  Meaning  that  if that  job doesn’t have  what you   need  to  be covered  then you  can find  a job  with  the  millions  of  non christian companies  to  get health insurance  that  will  cover  birth  control.  If you  do  have  a job  that  pays  you   a  hefty  salary  then  you  can  obviously  buy  health insurance  individually.  

plus ,  the  CEO said they  are  strictly  against  Emergency  contraception, that  does not  include  preventive contraception. Emergency  contraception is  the  morning  after pill  , the  week  after pill , ect.  No  one is  going to  go  broke  trying to  get  these pills  it is  49 dollars  at  any  convenience store and  less online. I really  don’t  think  anyone  is going to  have  to  get  another  insurance plan just because  their  current  won’t pay  for  a 40 dollar pill.

Tags: hobby lobby
Photoset

skyhens:

re: morgan-xanthos TO BE FAIR WITHOUT CONTEXT WOULD ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THIS SHOW IS ABOUT LMFAO.

(via hojo-hibiki)

Photo
Text

prochoicecuznotmydecision:

misandry-mermaid:

Interesting how we’re always hearing how shameful and irresponsible it is to be a teen mom.

But we never hear the same messages directed at teen dads.

Or even the words “teen dad”.

It’s almost like society demonizes women’s sexuality and sexual choices while absolving men of all sexual responsibility and judgement.

I hear teen dad all the time? The only reason I hear mom more than dad is because the dad abandons a lot of the time so he’s “not a dad” anymore

it  is  because  teen  dads  are  refereed to  as  deadbeats, weather  they  are  or  not. They  are never  called  teen  dads. 

Photo
istaq:

willsleepfordreams:

kruemelcaskett:

st1cks-andst0nes:

s-pecious:

wingedaradia:

dickcatchyourowngrenade:

ohsoooohealthy:

roadto—health:

janaeariel:

What do you call a woman who has a lot of sex? Her name. GOD FUCKING YES, that.

THIS. WHOLE. PICTURE. <3


Oops, sorry, this picture automatically reblogged itself.

this whole picture is just great

Sorry for the color, but this HAS to be on my blog.

I Could Not Pass This Without Reblogging.

Fucking Hell to the fucking YES!

Fuck yeah look at that guy in the back just like… fuck yeah

TRUE THAT!

To  answer the  questions  to the  signs:
1. The person  that  would  rape your  will  always be a rapist. Due to  the  nature  of  their  crime  speed  and  ease of  execution is  paramount to its completion. So  if  a rapist  is  torn between  two victims  one  fully dressed  and  one   in what the women is  wearing up above  he will most likely choose  the one  up above .  The only varibles  that  would  influence  choosing the  other  would  most likely be  personal . However even if  the  he chooses  you  to be groomed  ( becoming  acquaintances or friends accounting for the majority  of rapes  being  so) a rapist is  likely  to choose  a  victim  that  dresses   scantily clad  since  in  their  eyes scantily  clad  women are more sexually  promiscuous   which correlates  to the  likely  hood  of  her having sex with  the rapist  consensually  , which correlates  to  people  believing  she has  the selection process close to that  of a prostitute when it comes to  her  sexual partners.  
However  despite this  the law  is  very  clear that  rape  is  always  wrong despite  clothing  choice. 
In conlusion to a  rapist yes raping  you is  more  OK  in that  outfit. To the law  your  outfit  is  irrelevant  and  rape  is  still a crime . any  other opinion  is  irrelevant  to  consult  unless it has  leverage in the outcome  of  your  rape  case.
2. Her name is  actually  the wrong  answer. You  would  only  call  her  name  if you  are  trying  to  address her  or  get her  attention. The question  is obviously  asking for  a adjective or  noun, with the  condition that  she  has  a lot of sex.  To start off  you might think of  the  terms loose , philandering  , promiscuous, wild. Or  if you are  looking  for  a noun to describe such behavior  you  probably  choose  Prostitute, whore ,slut , sex worker , ect. Her name  can not  describe this  activity.  To  say  her name  is  description of  a women who has  a lot of  sex  is to  say  all  women  of  that  name  have  sex. 
3. Real men, are men  that  exist in  a  dimension  that  is  observable  to every  human  being at least , if not  the  all the animal  kingdom. Coming  from strictly  a  human  perspective   a real  man  is  observable  to  every human.  To  say  that  real men  don’t  rape  is  to  say that   any man  that  rapes  doesn’t  exist  essentially calling   every  rape  victim raped  by  a  man  liars.
If you  are  speaking  of  a  real man by meaning  arbitrary traits  given  to  the  male . You  are  speaking  of  gender  roles. Since  gender  is  the  categorized stereotypical traits  of  each  sex you  are  saying  again  that   victims  raped  by  men  do not  exist  since if  a  rapist    fits  the  gender of  man , yet  one  of  the  qualifications  is  to  not  be a rapist,   that   rapist  can  not  be  a man. Which  essentially  implies that  only  women  or  other gender binaries  can  be  rapist ,  and that  no  man is  a  rapist. 
In  conclusion you  are  wrong. 
disclaimer : Rape  is  wrong,  my  words  in  no way  support  this  horrendous crime.

istaq:

willsleepfordreams:

kruemelcaskett:

st1cks-andst0nes:

s-pecious:

wingedaradia:

dickcatchyourowngrenade:

ohsoooohealthy:

roadto—health:

janaeariel:

What do you call a woman who has a lot of sex? Her name.
GOD FUCKING YES, that.

THIS. WHOLE. PICTURE. <3

Oops, sorry, this picture automatically reblogged itself.

this whole picture is just great

Sorry for the color, but this HAS to be on my blog.

I Could Not Pass This Without Reblogging.

Fucking Hell to the fucking YES!

Fuck yeah look at that guy in the back just like… fuck yeah

TRUE THAT!

To  answer the  questions  to the  signs:

1. The person  that  would  rape your  will  always be a rapist. Due to  the  nature  of  their  crime  speed  and  ease of  execution is  paramount to its completion. So  if  a rapist  is  torn between  two victims  one  fully dressed  and  one   in what the women is  wearing up above  he will most likely choose  the one  up above .  The only varibles  that  would  influence  choosing the  other  would  most likely be  personal . However even if  the  he chooses  you  to be groomed  ( becoming  acquaintances or friends accounting for the majority  of rapes  being  so) a rapist is  likely  to choose  a  victim  that  dresses   scantily clad  since  in  their  eyes scantily  clad  women are more sexually  promiscuous   which correlates  to the  likely  hood  of  her having sex with  the rapist  consensually  , which correlates  to  people  believing  she has  the selection process close to that  of a prostitute when it comes to  her  sexual partners.  

However  despite this  the law  is  very  clear that  rape  is  always  wrong despite  clothing  choice. 

In conlusion to a  rapist yes raping  you is  more  OK  in that  outfit. To the law  your  outfit  is  irrelevant  and  rape  is  still a crime . any  other opinion  is  irrelevant  to  consult  unless it has  leverage in the outcome  of  your  rape  case.

2. Her name is  actually  the wrong  answer. You  would  only  call  her  name  if you  are  trying  to  address her  or  get her  attention. The question  is obviously  asking for  a adjective or  noun, with the  condition that  she  has  a lot of sex.  To start off  you might think of  the  terms loose , philandering  , promiscuous, wild. Or  if you are  looking  for  a noun to describe such behavior  you  probably  choose  Prostitute, whore ,slut , sex worker , ect. Her name  can not  describe this  activity.  To  say  her name  is  description of  a women who has  a lot of  sex  is to  say  all  women  of  that  name  have  sex. 

3. Real men, are men  that  exist in  a  dimension  that  is  observable  to every  human  being at least , if not  the  all the animal  kingdom. Coming  from strictly  a  human  perspective   a real  man  is  observable  to  every human.  To  say  that  real men  don’t  rape  is  to  say that   any man  that  rapes  doesn’t  exist  essentially calling   every  rape  victim raped  by  a  man  liars.

If you  are  speaking  of  a  real man by meaning  arbitrary traits  given  to  the  male . You  are  speaking  of  gender  roles. Since  gender  is  the  categorized stereotypical traits  of  each  sex you  are  saying  again  that   victims  raped  by  men  do not  exist  since if  a  rapist    fits  the  gender of  man , yet  one  of  the  qualifications  is  to  not  be a rapist,   that   rapist  can  not  be  a man. Which  essentially  implies that  only  women  or  other gender binaries  can  be  rapist ,  and that  no  man is  a  rapist. 

In  conclusion you  are  wrong. 

disclaimer : Rape  is  wrong,  my  words  in  no way  support  this  horrendous crime.

(Source: trashmitzvah, via intergalactic-asexual)