AboutThis is the Tumblr for Cand86, a.k.a. Gwen, just a crazy girl who spends far too much time online.
This is the tumblr for my as-of-lately rarely updated blog, Pop Shot, a simpler place for me to drop off all the random thoughts in my brain and a dumping ground for every one of the amazing things I happen to find whilst meandering on the Internet- pictures, videos, songs, quotes, and websites that would otherwise languish in folders or on my browser's Favorites bar until I felt I could organize and post them "properly". Enjoy the unorganized mess!
I thought this was satire, but it’s not which makes it all that much more amusing. :D
Star trek is about a hopeful view of the future why would Ann Coulter even go except as a publicity stunt to later be defended by Bill Maher.
Erm, guys, this is totally satire … The Daily Currant- which is linked to above- literally bills itself as “The Global Satirical Newspaper of Record”.
Ann Coulter has actually said so many ridiculous, asinine things; must we really try to attribute fake quotes to her? And is it that hard to check a source?
sixxangel94 asked: Hi! Thanks for responding to my post. I love hearing other people's opinions. Sorry if you were offended by it, though. I maybe should have explained better. Most of my best friends are actually pro-choice, so it's not that I have a problem with your opinion. Just wanted to put mine out there too, just the same as you. :) Have a nice evening!
Oh, no worries- I wasn’t offended and didn’t intend it to come off that way, just as a nice suggestion. There are so many debates about the best way to brand ourselves- not just one side accusing the other of lying/doublespeak (“They support the death penalty and war- they’re not pro-life, they’re pro-fetus!!!!” and “Pro-choice? How about the choice to NOT HAVE SEX?!?”), but even within each side (for example- is “pro-choice” the right term to use when “choice” requires resources to which not all people have access?).
And then you get into the whole legality-versus-morality question; someone will say “I’m pro-life, but, you know, everybody should be able to decide for themselves.”, which might be the same position someone who identifies as pro-choice holds. It deeply confuses the terminology, which is why I like the clean, clear-cut options of “pro-abortion rights” and “anti-abortion rights”. It has no connotations the way that, say, “pro-life” does, it cannot be confused (i.e. “Pro-choice? What choice?” or “Pro-life? Whose life?”), it doesn’t hide from what we’re talking about (no accusations of using language to obfuscate), and places the focus clearly on legal rights. (Alternatively, if you oppose abortion but support its legality, I think “anti-abortion” is a similarly fine descriptor to express your moral opposition).
I don’t quite think that calling people who support abortion rights “anti-life” or “pro-death” or even “pro-abortion” is on the same level as calling someone who opposes abortion rights “anti-choice”; to me, that rings as a false equivalency (I think it’d be hard for anybody to argue that “anti-choice” has the same negative connotations of “anti-life” or “pro-death”, for example). But even so, I really do think that for the sake of ease and clarity, we ought adopt “pro-abortion rights” and “anti-abortion rights”.
Anyways, thanks for the kind message!
Sherlock’s relationship with Moriarty in many ways replicates the relationship he has with his father: Intense, distant, communicating via surrogates, being manipulated by someone who claims to love him.
It’s not unusual for us to be attracted to people who will replicate relationships we have with our parents, even dysfunctional ones. So it’s very interesting that his primary intimate relationship outside his family of origin was with someone who turned out to be very much like his father.
Something I hadn’t thought of, but is very intriguing.
Being called anti-choice. It sounds derogatory. Please, even if you don’t agree with my personal values, call me by the proper term - pro-life. I always use the word “pro-choice” instead of “anti-life” or “pro-death.” I think I deserve the same respect.
How would you feel about being called “anti-abortion rights”, and me calling myself “pro-abortion rights”? Both completely accurate, neither should step on anybody’s toes or sound derogatory.
Where do you draw the line? At what point will you say, “Actually… that abortion was wrong.”
I’ll give you some examples:
- When the unborn has a minor condition such as a cleft palate?
- When the unborn is female?
- When the unborn is found to have an unknown faulty gene? (Normally parents find this out in the early stages of pregnancy. Can be anything from malfunctioning kidney to Down’s and so on.)
- When/if the unborn’s gay gene is found?
- When the surrogate wants to abort?
- When the parents want a surrogate to abort?
The answer to this question holds in the balance any shed of respect I had for pro choicers. Go.
I don’t believe in judging people for deciding they can’t or won’t be a good parent and therefore not becoming one. I’m not in that person’s situation, period.
Homophobia is wrong. So is sexism, and ableism. But homophobes and sexists and ableists are not born; they are created and shaped by society, and as such, in many cases, the decision to, say, abort a female fetus is one that makes the most sense in the parent(s) life in their social context. It doesn’t mean it’s not abhorrent- it just means that screaming “This abortion is bad!” is tackling the wrong problem. Sex-selective abortion is a product of a sexist society, not of abortion availability. And honestly, it doesn’t matter how much guilt and shame you try to heap onto women making these choices; they are going to keep making them until the situation changes (i.e. when it is beneficial rather than detrimental to have a girl child, or only girl children, or a firstborn girl). Until then, they’re acting in what is their best interest or perceived best interest, and I really don’t think you can fault anybody for doing so.
I also wholeheartedly believe that anybody who opposes certain kinds of abortions must necessarily oppose certain conscientious contraception as well. If you oppose sex-selective abortion, you damn well better be against sperm sorting that allows parents to choose the gender of their child. If you oppose abortion in cases of fetal abnormalities, you sure as hell better also oppose genetic counseling for couples hinging their decision to get pregnant on the probability of their child inheriting a terrible recessive disease. These are also acts motivated by the desire to not have certain types of children and should thus receive the same moral judgment as abortions- unless of course the real issue at hand is abortion and they’re only using subsets (sex-selective, race-selective, etc.) to make it seem worse. Saying a woman is wrong to abort because she can’t handle raising a child, but not wrong to use birth control or abstain from sex for the same reason is bullshit; both women have the exact same motivation in mind: I don’t want a kid.
tl;dr: The only abortion that I think is wrong is one that is forced, or where the patient is otherwise coerced, manipulated, or pressured into. (And yes, that includes parents who want a surrogate to abort, or refuse to allow a surrogate to abort. The right to terminate or carry to term ultimately should always lie with the person carrying the pregnancy, in my opinion).
Yo elementapeeps: how much time do we think/know passed between the opening of A Landmark Story and the opening of The Woman?