IT'S GONNA BE FULL OF POLITICS AND FAN ART AND STUPID AWESOME GIFS
SOMETIMES ALL TOGETHER
(Source: melodicnotes)
22nd March 2013
Reblogged From voreyeur
Notes: 26
yes, yes to this. also, after talking to many of the kumfa moms, i’ve realized that a similar thing happens to them. this cartoon is about abortion vs. having your baby but you could make a similar cartoon about sending for adoption before/after.
before they have the baby, everyone around them is telling them adoption is the greatest gift they could give to their child, the final act of true, selfless, motherly love for their child. but then if they actually decide to send for adoption, they should be ashamed - how could they give up their own flesh and blood, they are so selfish to not want to raise the child.
there is no winning for women.
(Source: rjgibbs)
A quote I just read in relation to abortion. Very well put.
“Body Autonomy” or “Bodily integrity” is self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. You can’t be forced to give blood, bone marrow, or any part of you to another. You can’t even have them taken from you after you die without permission. The fact that you can save a life is irrelevant, nobody can forcefully take something from you.
Yet, there are people out there who believe 50% of the population *must* give up their body for 9 months, even if there’s risk of it killing them.
This is my new favourite “anti-choice folk are ignorant, sexist, idiots” argument.
(via justcarl)
BOOM
(via callingoutsexists)
AP: Praveen Halappanavar, the widower of an Indian woman who died in an Irish hospital after she was refused an abortion, plans to sue Ireland’s government in the European Court of Human Rights. His lawyer confirmed the decision.
Halappanavar’s wife, Savita, died Oct. 28 in Ireland, one week after being admitted to a hospital for severe pain amid a miscarriage. Doctors did not perform an abortion while the fetus still had a heartbeat. Savita fell ill after the dead fetus was removed. A coroner ruled she died from blood poisoning.
In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:
“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: ‘If a man kills any human life he will be put to death’ (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”
The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.
These stalwart evangelical institutions and leaders would be heretics by today’s standards. Yet their positions were mainstream at the time, widely believed by born-again Christians to flow from the unambiguous teaching of Scripture.
why doesn’t this stuff get reblogged more often??
(Source: azspot)
Reproductive rights is not only about cis women having access to abortion and birth control.
It’s about trans women not being required to be sterilized in order to have legal gender recognition, too.
(Source: hollowpikeman)
The Huffington Post has obtained the transcript of a 2000 phone call made by pro-life Congressman Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee, in which he pressured his former mistress to have an abortion.
In the call DesJarlais asks his lover to terminate a pregnancy.
“You told me you’d have an abortion, and now we’re getting too far along without one,” he tells the woman who he met when she was a patient of his.
They also discuss whether he will accompany her to the clinic for the aforementioned procedure.
“You told me you would have time to go with me and everything,” she says.
“I said, if I could, I would, didn’t I? And I will try,” he replies. “If I can [find] time, you’re saying you still will?”
Let me guess: he was a special exception because his abortion was the only moral abortion?
Oooh, let’s see how he’s voted on abortion issues in the past!
Yes on the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act
Yes on barring Obamacare from covering abortions
Yes on prohibiting federal funding for abortion
Yes on defunding Planned Parenthood
What a sack of shit. And yes, she was his patient. Unbelievable.
And yet, we still don’t offer servicewomen access to abortion.
Oh yeah. We get briefings out the wazoo about how to avoid being raped.
And the males get briefings on what is considered rape (any time both parties are drunk, even if the sex is supposedly consensual, according to the UCMJ it is classified as rape because both parties are inebriated).
However, what the UCMJ says and what is actually reported and handled are different.
Safe abortions have always been available to the rich, Dan. You simply want to deny them to the poor, and if you succeed, poor woman will be forced to get them anyway. They’ll be forced into the alleys with hangers, plungers and vacuum cleaners, risking death or mutilation. But you’d like that, wouldn’t you, Dan? You sadistic, elitist, sexist, racist, anti-humanist pig!Saturday Night Live 3x18
This aired in 1978. Thirty-four years later, it’s still a fucking ~debate.
