Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
62,074 notes (via stfuconservatives & misandry-mermaid)
34,826 notes (via stfuconservatives & waitforhightide)
The claim, as illustrated by the quote I posted below, is that a new person is created at the moment the egg and sperm meet and a zygote is formed, and therefore we are supposed to do all we can to protect that new person who apparently has all the rights of a born person.
But that logic apparently doesn’t apply to ALL zygotes. Here’s some science, folks: After the egg and sperm meet (the moment of “conception”), it still takes usually 7-10 days for the newly formed zygote to actually implant in the uterus. That’s why it takes a little while for the person to know that they’re pregnant. But here’s the thing. It’s estimated that about 60 percent of the time, implantation fails to occur, and the zygote is naturally expelled from the body. The person gets their period and they never know that they were “almost pregnant.”
If a fertilized egg is a person who must be saved at all costs, that means 60 percent of people are dying shortly after fertilization, not even including abortions and miscarriages! So why is no one up in arms about all those dead zygotes that never had a chance? Why aren’t they holding vigils for those failed implantations? Maybe there’s a potential medical breakthrough out there that could reduce the implantation failure rate and save all those unborn humans.
But no one is pouring money into that kind of research or spreading the word about this common tragedy. Instead, they only want to restrict the rights of people who have a positive on their pregnancy test, or who want to use birth control or in vitro fertilization. If they really cared about zygotes, they would care about all of them.
But they don’t care about zygotes. They only care about controlling the ability of a female-bodied person to decide whether or when they have children.
23,244 notes (via rabbleprochoice & genderagnostic)
Emily Maguire in ‘Like a Virgin’ for The Monthly (via monocled—misanthrope)
So true. I remember sitting through abstinence (or “purity”) lectures in school. When talking to the boys, the speaker would tell them that when they were tempted to have sex, or looked at a girl sexually, they should think about how they would feel if a guy looked at their future daughter that way. They were expected to be interested in protecting their imaginary daughters’ virginities — and thus the virginities of girls they were dating — but not necessarily their own. It’s like girls are either pure or corrupted, while boys are just neutral. And apparently girls can’t make their own decisions, so boys have to take care of them and keep them pure/safe/whatever. Also, how paternalistic/patriarchal is that? No wonder men are terrible.
32,460 notes (via rabbleprochoice & lyrianfleming)
Page 1 of 3