RSS | Archive | Random

About

This 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!

Ask Me Anything

Following

7 April 14
It’s pretty fuckin’ rich to make a graphic like this considering that in reality, it’s the people seeking and providing abortions who are getting shot at.
(Via sunny-burn)

It’s pretty fuckin’ rich to make a graphic like this considering that in reality, it’s the people seeking and providing abortions who are getting shot at.

(Via sunny-burn)

13 February 13

She’s sixteen years old; common sense should be forcing her to get an abortion, and failing that, Child Protective Services should force her to terminate the pregnancy.

We put age limits on drinking and smoking, and issue licenses to drive a car specifically to limit the damage caused by people who are not yet mature enough to do any of those things. Why should we behave any different in the case of creating life, to limit the damage caused by creating a life that is doomed from the start?

- Gawker commenter Zesty.Piquante

”image”

23 December 11

Reblogged: keepyourbsoutofmyuterus

19 August 11

Reblogged: mybrainisworkingovertime

3 August 11

Not Exactly: “A fetus, given the opportunity, will grow into a baby”

dez-ray:

Devaluing something that you perceive others to over value is just as bad.

It is a fetus, that given the opportunity will grow into a baby. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop calling the fetus a parasite. You do nothing to further your cause.

Oooh!  You know, I’ve had this lingering in my drafts, needing some finishing touches, and then what comes up on my dash?  prolifehypocrisy reblogging someone using the exact argument I’m debunking!  So without further ado, my original post, tailored a bit here as a response:

One of the most disingenuous arguments I’ve ever heard is the idea that “a fetus, given the opportunity, will grow into a baby” or “a fertilized egg, unmolested, will become a baby.”

This is simply not true- human fertilized eggs are not like avian and reptilian eggs.  We don’t simply deposit them in a safe spot and presto! you’ve got babies after a suitable period of incubation.  (Which itself is rare and limited to few species, like turtles; most animals that lay eggs do incubate them or intermittently attend to them even when they use warm sand as an incubator).

Human pregnancies require a womb and a plethora of hormones and nutrients in order to gestate.  An embryo in a petri dish will not become a baby.  To say that a fertilized egg or fetus automatically becomes a baby is to either be woefully ignorant, or to believe that a woman is nothing more than warm sand, not a person, but literally an incubator.

The “fertilized egg, unmolested, will become a baby” is not an original argument, but rather, a response.  It has long been a tenet of anti-choice rhetoric that a fertilized egg represents potential life (well, plenty of anti-choicers do not even use “potential” as a qualifier, so I suppose it’s the more moderate folks who soften their tone in that way).  Of course, this argument is somewhat weak- potential life is not only found in blastocysts and embryos and fetuses, but also in sperm and ova.  After all, all of the above require something (or many things) in order to continue their development from potential to realization- sperm need an ovum, an ovum needs sperm, a blastocyst, embryo, and fetus all need a uterus in which to gestate, and the aforementioned hormones and nutrients.  If they all represent potential life, and destruction of potential life is anathema, this certainly puts male masturbation, nocturnal emissions, menstruation, and all forms of birth control in a suddenly more sinister light.*

And so, because of this conundrum, the anti-choice response has been to clarify their position: “potential life” must refer to a fertilized egg, a blastocyst, a zygote, an embryo, a fetus.  Talking about this “potential life” while referencing the pregnant people never sounds good- after all, in comparing “potential life” to actual life, most people understand that the latter deserves more consideration.  Reality trumps potential.  And therefore, for your argument to be effective, you must remove women/folks with uteri from the equation altogether.  Don’t even mention them- and maybe nobody will have to think through what forcible pregnancy actually means for the person who will be forced to remain pregnant.  That is how you arrive at the statement “a fetus, given the opportunity, will grow into a baby”, even though it’s missing that huge, vital piece of what human reproduction entails.

Oh, and as far as comparing the fetus to a parasite- it’s the only metaphor that works.  Every anti-choicer seems to try to compare abortion to something else.  It’s like murder!  It’s like killing your two-year old kid!  It’s like euthanizing someone in a vegetative state!  But the fact remains that there is nothing like abortion except for the parasite/host model.  That is the only example of a person who has a separate, unique organism inside his or her body.  Does it sound shitty?  You betcha.  But that doesn’t make it any less true.  Parasites are creatures inside your body that you do not want there- so if a woman is experiencing an unwanted pregnancy, her fetus is in essence a parasite.  A creature who lives inside your body that you do want there, even if it takes something from you, is engaging in a symbiotic relationship- ergo the fetus of a wanted pregnancy is in essence a symbiont.

I don’t typically use the “parasite” argument, but if someone tries to create a false equivalency between abortion and some other situation that doesn’t fit, you bet I will invoke the fetus-as-parasite argument, because it really is the only comparison that works.

* Don’t be so quick to protest this as ludicrous; religious folks on the extreme ends have often believed attempted procreation to be mandatory.  One interpretation of the Old Testament story of Onan is that it demonstrates that God viewed the failure of sperm to connect with ova as tantamount to not allowing a child to come into the world.  Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae states: “Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. So some birth contraceptions aren’t as good as other ways Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

Reblogged: proto-flake-deactivated20120717

13 July 11

Reblogged: poorrichardsnews

24 May 11
fuckyeahchoice:

teatimewithsylviaplath:

fuckyeahchoice:

frannymars:

Let Me Live!!

The only reason someone that far into their pregnancy could legally obtain an abortion is if their life is in danger or the fetus is not viable(some states, not then) 
Obviously I don’t need to explain to you that a fetus cannot talk, think or reason. And when elective abortions are legal cannot feel pain. 
I hate pictures like this. I think it’s insulting to any person who has ever had an abortion. It’s not an easy decision, it’s not a happy time in their life, but they shouldn’t be targeted by your stupid website or pickets because you value a fetus over the quality of life and rights of an actual person.

Do most people out there think that the majority of women seeking abortions really do so this far into term? Ads like this disgust me.

Because if they showed a picture of the majority of people who get an abortion procedure they wouldn’t look pregnant enough to scare people. Pro life seems to cater more towards an emotional response, so scare tactics and trigger words is probably the best advertising. 
I’m just starting to get my preggo belly at 20 weeks. Everyone’s different but this lady looks like her due date could be any day. 

Okay, seriously?  Worst image ever!  My first thought when I saw those outstretched fetal hands (which look, um, rather huge and a little alien-ish) was “OMG that baby is trapped!  It’s being held inside against its will!  Not so much ‘Let me live!’ as ‘Let me out!’”.  At least the images of peacefully curled up fetuses evoke thoughts of innocence, helplessness, comfortable slumber, yada yada, but this … yeesh.
Also, all the above commentary.  But mostly, really bad choice, whoever made that image.

fuckyeahchoice:

teatimewithsylviaplath:

fuckyeahchoice:

frannymars:

Let Me Live!!

The only reason someone that far into their pregnancy could legally obtain an abortion is if their life is in danger or the fetus is not viable(some states, not then) 

Obviously I don’t need to explain to you that a fetus cannot talk, think or reason. And when elective abortions are legal cannot feel pain. 

I hate pictures like this. I think it’s insulting to any person who has ever had an abortion. It’s not an easy decision, it’s not a happy time in their life, but they shouldn’t be targeted by your stupid website or pickets because you value a fetus over the quality of life and rights of an actual person.

Do most people out there think that the majority of women seeking abortions really do so this far into term? Ads like this disgust me.

Because if they showed a picture of the majority of people who get an abortion procedure they wouldn’t look pregnant enough to scare people. Pro life seems to cater more towards an emotional response, so scare tactics and trigger words is probably the best advertising. 

I’m just starting to get my preggo belly at 20 weeks. Everyone’s different but this lady looks like her due date could be any day. 

Okay, seriously?  Worst image ever!  My first thought when I saw those outstretched fetal hands (which look, um, rather huge and a little alien-ish) was “OMG that baby is trapped!  It’s being held inside against its will!  Not so much ‘Let me live!’ as ‘Let me out!’”.  At least the images of peacefully curled up fetuses evoke thoughts of innocence, helplessness, comfortable slumber, yada yada, but this … yeesh.

Also, all the above commentary.  But mostly, really bad choice, whoever made that image.

Reblogged: fuckyeahchoice

Posted: 12:31 AM

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sometimes I feel like I talk too much about abortion … but I can’t let it go when I hear about some of the things that are going on.  One of Jezebel’s tags for their posts on abortion is “Roe vs. World”, and it seems dead-on.

I don’t even understand how they’re trying to justify this; at least other attempts to stop abortion usually fall under justifications that sound good and right (i.e. “We just want to protect women’s mental health!” or so on).  I mean, as the video points out, if this is about safety and health, why aren’t other outpatient procedure clinics being subjected to the same regulation?  And for that matter, what horrible event occurred in an unregulated abortion clinic that made Ken Cuccinelli realize the horrible oversight and need for two gurney-wide hallways?

Oh, there wasn’t one?  Gotcha.

20 May 11

You’ve Got To Be Shitting Me

Remember how once upon a time in America, white people in the South used to own black people and treat them like chattel?  This horrible event- known as slavery- included the black men and women being forced to live inside of the white folks.  The slaves couldn’t do anything- being uncomfortably squished inside of the white folks’ bodies, they didn’t have much choice; you can’t work the fields, pick cotton, cook, or clean when you’re housed in someone’s abdominal cavity.

This calls to mind our current situation today, where the ones doing the unpaid, forced manual labor is actually fetuses.  Harrowing, indeed, to see them toiling out there, being treated liked property.

If that describes the world, the comparison of slaves to fetuses is fine.  If you live in the real world and that isn’t the case at all, THEN STOP COMPARING FETUSES TO SLAVES.

I don’t mind people who hold the belief that a fertilized egg, a zygote, an embryo, and a fetus are people from the moment of conception, but I really hope that the same people who hold those beliefs can also realize the ludicrousness of this argument (not to mention the racial insensitivity and co-opting of civil rights as mentioned in the article).

I mean, honestly.  What.  The.  Fuck.

I hate bringing up the whole “parasite” argument, because I do think it’s pretty awful, but it’s stuff like this that really makes me want to say “Fine, you think it’s a person with the right to life?  Well, right now it’s trespassing on my body so I’m gonna pull the sucker off and you can have it.”  Because seriously, if anybody is a slave in this scenario (a comparison I wouldn’t use in the first place), it’s the woman. The government has never forced private citizens to care and provide for other private citizens, and they’re more than happy to take those for whom you cannot do so, either forcibly (Child and Adult Protection Services, foster care) or willingly (Child Drop Off centers, orphanages).

I am not an incubator.  If you want, take the thing out of me and put it in your own goddamned incubator, because the women wanting abortions don’t want these “slaves”, as you call them.  And masters not wanting their slaves is a really shitty example of slavery, Colorado.

16 May 11
fuckyeahchoice:

And everyone who posts this doesn’t have a very good grasp of this whole debate.
You are comparing humans with well established memories, feelings, families, friends, pain, dreams and you know, a life.
With a fetus who has no memories, no thoughts, no life(I didn’t say it wasn’t alive) and can’t even feel pain when almost all abortions are preformed. Abortions after 24 weeks are always because of the woman’s health or the viability of the fetus. In addition to all of this, a fetus is physically dependent on only it’s biological mother. It cannot survive outside or without. No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy they don’t want.
p.s. Reagan sucks.

Ah, time for epic logic!fail.  The problem with this argument is that the two statements are fundamentally different, but are trying to present themselves as the same in order to draw a comparison.
The first statement, regarding slavery, is one that is falsifiable.  In order to prove it false, all you have to do is to find just one slave who supported slavery.  Until you do, it can be assumed to be true.
The second statement, however, is not.  You cannot falsify it, because there is no way to query the opinions of those who were never born.  It’s as ridiculous as saying “Everybody who supports cremation is still alive.” for your anti-cremation rhetoric.  It’s not as if you can speak to someone who has been cremated and ask “Okay, now that you’ve been through the process, do you still feel the same way about cremation?” in order to falsify the statement.  And no, you cannot query people who have never been born.
In the vacuum of falsifiability, this argument seeks to imply that those who were not born do not support abortion … but there is no good reason to draw that conclusion.  It is just a valid assumption to believe that all those who were not born do support abortion.  (All of this paragraph, of course, is on a theoretical level because again, as demonstrated above, you cannot ask someone who was not born).
It’s really, really easy to get drawn into a big debate about what constitutes a person and all that with this argument, but the simplest way to deal with it is to expose it as a fallacy:
One question that must be asked about any doubtful proposition or  conjecture is, “how can this be disproved if it is false?”  If there is  no way to test if the proposition is false, there are no rational  grounds whatsoever for assuming the proposition to be true.

fuckyeahchoice:

And everyone who posts this doesn’t have a very good grasp of this whole debate.

You are comparing humans with well established memories, feelings, families, friends, pain, dreams and you know, a life.

With a fetus who has no memories, no thoughts, no life(I didn’t say it wasn’t alive) and can’t even feel pain when almost all abortions are preformed. Abortions after 24 weeks are always because of the woman’s health or the viability of the fetus. In addition to all of this, a fetus is physically dependent on only it’s biological mother. It cannot survive outside or without. No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy they don’t want.

p.s. Reagan sucks.

Ah, time for epic logic!fail.  The problem with this argument is that the two statements are fundamentally different, but are trying to present themselves as the same in order to draw a comparison.

The first statement, regarding slavery, is one that is falsifiable.  In order to prove it false, all you have to do is to find just one slave who supported slavery.  Until you do, it can be assumed to be true.

The second statement, however, is not.  You cannot falsify it, because there is no way to query the opinions of those who were never born.  It’s as ridiculous as saying “Everybody who supports cremation is still alive.” for your anti-cremation rhetoric.  It’s not as if you can speak to someone who has been cremated and ask “Okay, now that you’ve been through the process, do you still feel the same way about cremation?” in order to falsify the statement.  And no, you cannot query people who have never been born.

In the vacuum of falsifiability, this argument seeks to imply that those who were not born do not support abortion … but there is no good reason to draw that conclusion.  It is just a valid assumption to believe that all those who were not born do support abortion.  (All of this paragraph, of course, is on a theoretical level because again, as demonstrated above, you cannot ask someone who was not born).

It’s really, really easy to get drawn into a big debate about what constitutes a person and all that with this argument, but the simplest way to deal with it is to expose it as a fallacy:

One question that must be asked about any doubtful proposition or conjecture is, “how can this be disproved if it is false?”  If there is no way to test if the proposition is false, there are no rational grounds whatsoever for assuming the proposition to be true.

Reblogged: fuckyeahchoice

Themed by Hunson. Originally by Josh