it is not having its rights infringed on

anonymous asked:

Hi I'm sunni and I don't understand the differences between shias and sunnis and why it's such a big deal? Like I've tried researching but it all goes back to like Abu Bakr and those people and I don't understand

The basic difference is not having the dilemma of praising killers and usurpers in the same breath as the Prophet (saw) and his Pure Progeny (as).

1) Prophet Muhammad (saw) appointed his successor at Ghadir Khumm: his cousin and son-in-law, Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as). Therefore, Abu Bakr’s claim to Caliphate was an infringement on the rights of Imam Ali (as).

2) While Imam Ali (as) and other companions were busy attending to the Prophet’s washing and burial, Abu Bakr and Umar went to Saqifa to seize the Caliphate. This is the meeting where the future of the Ummah was decided, and it took place without the attendance of Imam Ali (as), nor was his opinion sought. Imam Ali (as) did not recognize Abu Bakr’s claim.

3) Abu Bakr took Fadak away from Sayeda Fatima (sa), which was the Prophet’s gift to his daughter. She remained disgruntled with him until she died.

4) Abu Bakr launched a War of Apostasy (Ridda Wars) upon the people who withdrew their Zakat. Many of those killed were simply Muslims who did not recognize Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and therefore did not pay him their Zakat. The war was launched immediately after Abu Bakr’s inauguration; while Zakat can be paid anytime during the year. He was ignorant and unjust. He refused to punish the rapist/murderer Khalid Ibn Waleed (Allah’s Curse be upon him).

5) Abu Bakrs actions as Caliph were unacceptable. He had taken the rights and property away from the Ahlulbayt (as), and killed people unjustly.

anonymous asked:

Funny how the only time you defend LGBT people is when you attack Islam. Funny how you say you don't have LGBT people but then go and reblog something condemning LGBT Christians, some of whom are trying to change their sexuality. FUNNY HOW YOU REBLOG RIGHT WING SOURCES SAYING ITS A CHOICE. NO ONE CHOOSES TO GET HATE THROWN AT THEM. NO ONE CHOOSES TO GET THROWN IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS IN RUSSIA FOR BEING GAY.

By defend, do you mean defend their right to life, liberty, etc.? No, I’m pretty in favor of that in all cases. It’s just not a relevant thing to mention except in cases where those rights are being infringed upon. Like, y’know, gay people being hung, decapitated or thrown off buildings in Middle Eastern countries. 

By LGBT Christians, do you mean people who think they can live a homosexual, bisexual or transgender lifestyle while living a life that is pleasing to God? Because yeah, as someone who believes that’s impossible and a sin I’m kinda obligated to call it out when I see it among people claiming to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. If you mean Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction or the like, but acknowledge it as a sin and try to fight it with God’s help, then I try to have compassion for them, as much as for any other Christian, because we are all equally sinners.

And, no, how others react to your decisions is not necessarily your fault, that’s true. At what point did I imply otherwise?

Dude, I have all sympathy for the people in camps in Russia and Chechnya. Of course they don’t deserve that kind of treatment. When did I imply otherwise?

Are you okay? You seem very upset and trying to start an argument with me isn’t really a healthy way of dealing with it. 

  • Conservative: Trump isn't racist.
  • Me: Here's several times in which he stated very racist things and supported racism.
  • Conservative: Trump isn't against gay rights.
  • Me: If he isn't, why did he select Mike Pence as his running mate, who has advocated for conversion therapy as well as passed anti-LGBT legislation in Indiana?
  • Conservative: Trump doesn't hate women, he loves them. He just doesn't believe in abortion.
  • Me: If he loves women, why doesn't he respect them? Why does he say things like "grab them by the pussy"? Why doesn't he respect his daughter? Why does he only pay heed when a woman is attractive, and even then it's about seeing us as property, or as an object?
  • Conservative: The government isn't infringing on women's rights. You'll still have birth control.
  • Me: What about the bill that recently passed which no longer requires insurance companies to pay their copay on birth control, and also states that pre existing conditions will no longer be covered?
  • Conservative: this is all in your head. You're just upset that there's no more Obama.
  • Me: Here are several reliable news sources which back up the things I'm worried about.
  • Conservative: that's biased news.
  • Me:
  • Me:
  • Me: Are we in different dimensions or something?

The Great Giana Sisters was an obvious clone of Super Mario Bros. Very obvious, right down to level layout.  Unlike most clones, however, it didn’t suffer any of the problems that usually come with such territory: Programming, music track, graphics, and general playability were all good, and the game received much positive praise from critics. There is a longstanding rumor that the programmers of this game were served a lawsuit by Nintendo for copyright infringement, but both parties have denied that such a lawsuit was ever served. Nintendo did, however, persuade them to stop sales of the game, and they did so not long after its release. As a result, original copies are now rare and somewhat valuable.

Due to the fan love for the game, the developers produced several sequels, but changed the name for at least the first sequel, as well as several elements including character design to avoid any further issues with Nintendo.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This is, of course, the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, oft cited as the justification for gun ownership and lax gun control in America. Various qualms have existed about its interpretation, however, with some people believing that it grants a blanket right to all citizens, while others believe it frames the founders’ intent in the context of militias.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…”

The most common argument people bring up is that the first clause is grammatically clarifying the second clause. Militias are meant to maintain security. This can be interpreted in modern days as the military, the police, or the national guard. However, there is a more obvious argument for gun control here.

“A well regulated militia…”

Yes, it’s right there. Look a little more closely…

“well regulated”

That’s it right there. Well regulated. Not only is the 2nd Amendment limited to militias… but those militias should be well-regulated. Guns are meant to be regulated, not freely given.

Keep reading

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the second amendment, the one that so many people reference when discussing gun control in the US.
Personally I dont believe that you should be able to own a gun unless you have gone through a strict process, and only if you pass certain requirements. I dont think that my neighbor owning a gun is a part of this amendment, he is not in a militia nor is he a hunter.
Why do people think they need guns? Its a power thing. The argument I’ve been given was they want to be able to defend themselves from an attacker. Yes defense is a good thing to have but if an attacker is able to do a decent amount of damage they can probably get a gun out of your hand.
‘I can have one therefore I should’
No. On so many levels no. I can have a lion but you dont see me parading mufasa around on a leash. And just like a lion being hazardous to others in public so are guns. If someone is walking down the street with a gun there is no knowing if that person is going to turn and start shooting others.
People are concerned with their own safety and forgetting that owning a gun increases your chance of being shot. If I dont own a gun, or carry a gun then someone cant use it against me, I wont ever have to deal with the thought 'if i get jumped right now can they grab my gun?’
Ok so what if the attacker already has a gun? Drawing your own will only threaten the attacker making them more jumpy and eager to pull the trigger, because then they are defending themselves. Its very unlikely that in a situation if two people pointing guns at one another that no one will end up injured.
Stop trying to protect yourself by adding another weapon into the mix.
If you are so concerned with your safety then maybe help those who are in need, those who cant get a job and resort to thieving.

The fanartists in the One Direction fandom are definitely the most talented bunch that I have ever come across and am proud to be a part of. HOWEVER, I have also been astounded by the amount of disrespect that we receive by some people in this fandom.

Us artists make all this fanart because we want to. Not because we have to. We do this out of the goodness of our hearts, taking time out of our lives because we want to share our art with you guys. So much time and effort goes into each post we make and when it gets stolen and discredited we get more and more inclined to stop making art all together. When someone erases our signature it takes away any ownership we have over the art. How would you feel if something you spent hours working so hard on is taken away from you? Like shit I bet. I know the feeling.

I have had my artworks stolen, manipulated, discredited and completely disrespected numerous times, and so have many other artists. Its gotten to a point where we have to keep an eye out on 1D art competitions to see if anyone has stolen our art and report it. And unfortunately, the fact that Zayn has been appreciating fanart more publicly recently means that there has been an increase in art with the original artist’s name erased and replaced by another tweeted at him for his attention.

Perhaps its due to a large chunk of this fandom not being educated enough about how to treat art and creative content, so this is me EDUCATING YOU.

Don’t repost art without the artist’s consent.
Fanartists are motivated by the amount of feedback and love we get from you guys. One form of this is the amount of notes that a post has. By reposting art instead of reblogging, retweeting or liking the art you are effectively taking away that feedback from the artist. If your only intention is to spread the love for this artist by posting it on a social media platform that the artist is not on, then make sure you ask the artist for their consent before posting it.

Don’t alter the art without the artist’s consent.
We spend hours perfecting our skill, style and art. When you alter it in any way its basically insulting our talent and decisions as an artist. One of my past artworks of an OT5 drawing was altered because it was too “Larry”. If you want an artwork that caters to your tastes then create it yourself or find another art account. Don’t alter a finished work just because you like it better that way.

Don’t use any part of the artwork for your own creations without the artist’s consent.
You want to make a video? An edit? Any creative material that contains the artwork? Make sure you’ve asked the original artist first before doing it and give credit where its due.

Don’t erase/alter the caption underneath the artwork.
Even if the caption says “AWURUNFEDIOJS:A"RK” you have no right to erase it from the original post because at least the artist has their url linked when you reblog with their caption so that others can find the original artist. And captions usually contain information about the art, perhaps dialogue, links to inspirational songs etc., so bottom line is don’t erase it.

Don’t send the boys any art without the artist’s consent.
Whether or not you are allowed to send art that is not yours to the boys depends on the artist and their content. I’m frankly fine with it as long as you give me credit and do nothing to alter my original artwork. But, this is different to every artist, because some artists create content that they absolutely do not want the boys to see. So please, before you go tweeting the boys, ask the artist if it is okay.

This is the absolute worst thing you can do to an artist. It means that you are erasing any sort of ownership that the artist has over the drawing and giving yourself credit for all the hard work that they have done. THIS IS STEALING ARTWORK. I’ve had many people erase my signature and insert their own and its basically the reason why I have watermarks all over most of my art now.

*Note To: Artists, please make sure you always have a legible signature on any art you post online because that is your stamp of copyright and ownership. For an extra blanket of protection, a watermark is a good idea !

Don’t profit off the artworks without the artist’s consent
You want a t-shirt with the artist’s design? Then go to the artist’s store to purchase one. If the artist doesn’t have a store, then ask them about it. Do not, under any circumstances use an artwork for merchandise and the like to sell and profit from. Its not yours, it’s the artist’s. Any profit form the product should go to the artist unless explicitly agreed upon by the artist and the seller themselves.
Entering competitions with stolen art also falls under this category: By entering a competition with another artist’s work you are taking away the profit (prize) that they would have gained if they themselves won said competition. If you want to design something for any competition, you do not have the right to use art that is not yours in any facet of the design without the consent of the original artist. And its entirely unfair for those entrants who worked hard on their own designs for the prize to be taken by an entrant with stolen art. Even though we have the right to take down stolen entries, the fact that we have to go to all the grief of contacting the competition organizers is just unnecessary if you all do the right thing.

To put it bluntly: profiting, altering, posting and using art without the artist’s consent is an infringement of copyright. And the artist is well within their rights to ask you to take it down and/or report you to the related organisation (i.e. tumblr, facebook, twitter, SONY). In severe cases they have the right to take legal action against you.

It boils down to the artist's consent. If you have their permission then you are allowed to do whatever it is you want to do with the art. But only if the artist has explicitly given their consent. Check the artist’s FAQ about this information, and if its not there, send them a message. Its always good to check first if you are unsure.

I absolutely love being part of this fandom and creating art to entertain you guys as I am sure all my fellow fanartists are too. However, you guys need to respect us and our creative content by adhering to these basic principles. If not, you’re gonna be seeing tonnes of heavy watermarks all over beautiful fanart in an effort to protect our ownership. Or worst case scenario, we will stop making fanart all together x


anonymous asked:

It seems Indiana RFRA isn't going to legalize discrimination. I see it as an act to protect people's 1st amendment rights. The government seems to want to infringe upon those rights more and more. It appears RFRA isn't hurting the economy either; it's the businesses that withdraw from Indiana that cause harm. These companies that call it "discriminatory" are fine with doing business in China and the Middle East where both homosexuals and Christians alike are discriminated against. Thoughts?

1. So let’s say that as a tenet of your religious faith, you believe, as many people do, that it is wrong for women to drive cars. You have the first amendment right to say that you think it’s wrong for women to drive cars, and since the U.S. currently affords the full protection of the first amendment to corporations, if you are a car dealership you can also put ads in newspapers saying it’s wrong for women to drive cars, protest NASCAR races that Danica Patrick participates in, etc.

But as a car dealership that believes it is wrong for women to drive, you cannot refuse to sell a car to a woman, because it is illegal in Indiana (and everywhere else in the U.S.) to discriminate against people because of their sex, their race, or their religion. These are called “protected classes,” but sexual orientation and gender identity are not protected classes in Indiana (or in most other states). So to be clear, the RFRA law in Indiana does offer people a legal justification for discriminating against LGBT people.

I don’t think a person or organization should be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people any more than they should be allowed to discriminate against anyone else. I believe it should be as illegal to refuse to rent an apartment to a trans person as it is to refuse to sell a car to a woman. This doesn’t seem radical to me. It seems, like, super obvious.

And yes, that will inevitably infringe upon some people’s freedom of expression. It’s true that in the U.S. you can’t freely express your belief that women shouldn’t work by refusing to hire them. But I don’t think the freedom of the powerful to legally oppress the marginalized is the kind of freedom we want.

2. I don’t see how one can debate whether it’s bad for the economy to discriminate against certain sectors of the work force. Of course it is. It’s always bad economics to tell a certain group of people, “You can’t participate fully in the economy,” because it definitionally inhibits economic growth. 

this-is-jacks  asked:

What race did you play in Skyrim and did you ultimately choose imperials or stormcloaks? Why?

CAUTION: Spoilers for Skyrim’s main quest line.

I literally played ‘em all, and I did both sides of the Stormcloak/Empire quest chain. I found them both equally frustrating. One one hand the Empire is an absentee landlord, currently offering little security, allowing the insufferable mega-assholes of the Thalmor to infringe on the rights of its citizens. On the other hand, the Stormcloaks have an uncomfortable number of outright racists and are led by a lazy, self-entitled prick. In my ideal world, the Dragonborn would have been able to a) kick Ulfric Stormcloak into a lake, b) forge a compromise between the Stormcloaks and the Empire that restores the commitment to rights and responsibilities on both sides, and c) unite both factions to smack the Thalmor into next week.

There are fascinating arguments to be had in this situation about the strengths and weaknesses of empire, about sworn oaths versus ties to home and family, about notional ideals versus practical realities, and yet the game manages to have none of them.

I also have a lot of trouble accepting the story premise that the Thalmor have quashed the worship of Talos and branded him a “False Divine.” I just don’t see how this is remotely possibly in a world where the proofs of religion (to quote Robert Jordan) are everywhere self-evident; where anyone can pray at a shrine and receive immediate, literal magical assistance. I mean, fine, whatever, tell me he’s a bad god, tell me he’s a stupid god, tell me he’s a morally suspect god, these are all debatable. But when you tell me he’s not a god at all, and yet I can stroll over to his public shrine and be suffused in glowing light and have my diseases cured, I’ve got to wonder where you get the nerve. 

Last but not least, I find it remarkable that during the Thalmor embassy section of the main questline, the Dragonborn discovers written evidence that Ulfric Stormcloak was tortured and broken by the Thalmor, and released into his current position purely as a ploy to destabilize the Empire, and that this subject is never once brought up anywhere in the rest of the game. Despite the fact that the Dragonborn takes these documents with them when they leave… this absolutely damning indictment of Ulfric, this incontrovertible proof of an ongoing act of war against the Empire on the part of the Aldmerei Dominion… it just gets left there, forgotten. If this was a story point that was meant to be followed up on, it should have been expunged when that became impossible. If it was a story point that was never meant to be followed up on, it’s even more head-smackingly inexplicable. 

TLDR: There was the potential for truly compelling stuff to be had in the Empire/Stormcloak conflict, yet Skyrim managed to avoid it with preternatural narrative dexterity. 

It’s beginning to sound like I didn’t actually enjoy Skyrim… I really did find it immense fun for too many hours to count, but the quests/faction side of the game were not what delivered the real satisfaction for me. Don’t even get me started on the dialogue or the voice acting.

If someone tells you “I believe in the right of freedom of movement of individuals” and your response is “well I don’t” then that’s fine. You simply do not believe in personal freedom. What you believe in is state-granted privileges to a certain demographic group. You cannot claim to believe in personal freedom if you support gun ownership rights and the right to privacy, but at the same time support the state stopping individuals from crossing a border or smoking a substance.

You either draw and absolute line or don’t draw a line at all. Ambiguity establishes nothing. If you have consented to the state that it may at any given time prevent an individual from exercising one of their rights (e.g. freedom of movement), then you have established that the state can infringe any other right at any given time. You have given the constitution consent to control you, and then it’s just a matter of who control the institution. All it takes is one change of government for the state to infringe all your other rights privileges and grant them to someone else. If you have established that a state can work against freedom of movement, then there is no line that prevents the state to work against ownership of guns, against privacy, against voluntary transactions, against keeping your property.

Several people in this site fail to understand what sovereignty is. Sovereignty does not mean “the state gets to kick all them illegals out and keep itself for our pure ethnic population”. Sovereignty is that a state has absolute control over its governing decisions without external interference. While borders lock-down and mass deportations can be a sovereign decision, so is the decision to open borders.

The question here is what you put first: the right of individuals or the rights of the state? Choosing the former limits the nature of the latter. Choosing the latter does not limit the nature of the former; instead, it makes it disappear at all.

If you establish the rights of men and women as inalienable, then the sovereignty of the state ends where these begin. However, granting the state absolute power under the excuse of “sovereignty” turns rights into privileges, and the privileges become subject to removal.

It couldn’t be any more clear than this.

So feel free to choose your mainstream ideology with your ambiguous values. Just know that when you play the game of democracy under the absolute power of the state, you have consented to the possibility of others to rule and do what they please with your state-granted privileges.

some reminders for ~sex positive~ feminists:

  • asexuality exists, and it’s not inherently a result of sexual trauma. 
  • an aversion to/lack of desire for sexual activity that is a result of trauma is still valid!!!! you don’t get to act like people who aren’t into sex — for WHATEVER reason — are somehow “broken” and it’s your duty to “fix” them.
  • being asked or encouraged to examine the potentially problematic roots of your sexual preferences is not kink-shaming. i don’t give a shit if you’re into consensually choking someone during sex, but there still needs to be a dialogue about a sexual culture that so widely fetishizes sexual violence (esp. against women), and that doesn’t ~infringe on your right~ to have rough sex. grow up.
  • there isn’t anything inherently immoral or sexist about the concept of pornography, but that doesn’t mean the porn industry is above reproach. criticism of an industry that capitalizes on, among other things, the perpetuation of racial fetishization and sexual violence against women to the extent that fantasized rape of “asian schoolgirls” could be considered its own mini-economy within the industry is not anti-feminist, god fucking damn.
  • there isn’t anything inherently immoral or sexist about the concept of sex work. many women engage in sex work consensually. it’s a perfectly valid job. not every sex worker needs to be ~rescued~. 
  • but sex trafficking is still a thing. forced sex work is a thing. underage sex work is a thing. this shit needs to be address. stop painting every sex worker with the same reductive fucking brush.

stop acting like a healthy sexual culture is one in which industries based off sex aren’t deserving of close scrutiny. stop acting like a healthy sexual culture is one in which everyone is getting laid. 

sex positivity was supposedly born out of a desire to stop equating sexual activity and freedom with shame, worthlessness, impurity, et cetera. and if you feel liberated through sexual activity, that’s awesome! go consensually fuck your brains out! have fun!

but not everyone’s liberty is achieved the same way.

if a woman in full possession of her sexual desire isn’t a ~bad feminist, neither is a woman who has no sexual desire. if  a woman who chooses to have a lot of sex isn’t a ~bad feminist, neither is a woman who chooses to wait until marriage, or abstain entirely. if a woman feels comfortable with using her body and/or sexual ability to make money isn’t a ~bad feminist, neither is a woman completely opposed to the idea.

stop playing into the notion that a woman’s self actualization is dependent on her sexual activity OR lack thereof rather than the agency with which they choose or don’t choose to engage in said activity. 


VIDEO: Bill Whittle gives the best explanation of the 2nd Amendment's text you'll ever hear

Does the phrase “a well regulated militia” restrict individuals not belonging to a militia from keeping and bearing arms? That’s what liberal progressives would lead you to believe.  They routinely re-write the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment for their own political purposes and completely ignore the original meaning of Constitution.

Bill Whittle explains that not only is the liberal “militia-only” interpretation completely counter to the Founding Father’s intentions, it doesn’t even make sense if you break the sentence down grammatically.

Here’s the video:

A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.  Does that mean that only a well-schooled electorate –high school graduates, say– are the only ones with the right to keep and read books?

Just look at those two sentences above?  That is the most concise and perfect rebuttal to the liberal “militia-only” argument I have ever heard.  It is brilliant in its simplicity.  

If you’ve know somebody who doesn’t seem to understand the 2nd Amendment or could use a little extra ammunition when defending it, feel free to send share this page with them.  

The 2nd Amendment is terrible.

Alright nerds.  Today, I’m going to teach you all about grammar using the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

First off, The subject of the sentence is Militia - NOT the ‘right of the people’. The thing about phrases is that they aren’t complete thoughts.  They rely on another part of the sentence for clarity.  Also, you can remove them from the sentence and it still works.

For example - “Being necessary to the security of a free State.” is not a complete sentence.  It has no subject.  You read that and you have no idea WHAT is necessary.

Nor is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” a sentence.  If you yank out all the prepositional phrases there, you’re left with a two word sentence “the right.”  See?  Makes no sense.

With that in mind, if you remove everything within the commas, the Amendment reads:

“A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.”

Alright, the wording is strange, but it is obviously saying that no one should be permitted to infringe on a well regulated Militia.  Fair enough.

Now let’s put the phrases back in, one at a time:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.”

Yep, still makes sense and now you know why they think so highly of Militias, because they are necessary to State security.

Now let’s put the second phrase back without the first:

“A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Here it’s saying that the Militia IS the right of the people to keep and bear arms! Again, the wording is a bit funny, but the subject of the sentence has not changed.

IF there were a conjunction in front of “the right of the people” THEN the assertion that this sentence ensures the rights of people to own guns would certainly be correct:

“A well regulated Militia and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

BUT - it’s not there. So that understanding of the sentence cannot be immediately assumed.

Even when we drop both phrases back into the sentence, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The nature of them both being phrases and not complete sentences forces them to refer back to the subject of the sentence - which is Militia.

So, you either have a good understanding of language, or you have the NRA 'understanding’ of the sentence, but you cannot have both.

This sentence is of particular note because its grammar is really bad. The placement of commas here is highly irregular and certainly not clear.

That is why legislators INTERPRET laws. Because first off, when they were written 200+ years ago, LANGUAGE was different. So when you look at this through modern eyes, you HAVE to take into account context, historicity and intent.

This is also why modern laws are 20 pages long when 1 would get the job done. Future generations will be forced to parse the texts of our documents to help them understand our intent. They can more easily do so if we define terms for them as we 'understand’ them in the present.

For my money, this example alone is reason enough to NOT be a lawyer.



Walmart is terrible and I’m sure this is some kind of rights infringement but at the moment I don’t care 


I’m not crying you’re crying.

anonymous asked:

sooo just because you choose to place your own life at the same level of a fetus and are able to carry through dangerous pregnancies means you want every other pregnant person to go through the same? i don't care what you do with your body: my life, my career, my studies will always be more superior than a non-sentient, non-feeling fetus. i place myself above it, and i won't lie.

I do believe I am equal to a human fetus. If you place yourself above all human fetuses, I guess you place yourself above me too.

You can believe that you (and your “studies” and your “career”) are superior to any human being you want, me, an unborn human being, or anyone else. You are not the first human being in history to do this, in fact, through out history this is quite common. A human being seems to always need to fit into certain categories that are classified by people who are at an advantage or privilege such as yourself, rather then be accepted for the biological definition. Currently, a human being must reach a level of sentience and independence in order for it to be seen as a human being. The fact that a fetus is a human being, is a biological and undeniable truth. This is known.

Do other human beings have the right to see another human as less then human, and do they have the right to take away the life of that human being for existing as it should?

I am assuming, forgive me, that you do believe this is a right.

What you do with your body, I have no right to infringe on, until you use your body to take the life of another human being. The argument “its my body” to be honest is ridiculous in a world where we most certainly cannot do whatever we chose with our bodies. Your right to do as you please with your body ends when you or the life of another human being is compromised. Does the state have an obligation, to protect the “right” that another human being can end the life of another?

I do believe your life, your studies, and your career are of importance, but I do not believe that you are more significant in value then any human being, or that you have the right to take the life of that human being for any reason. I also do not believe that any human being has the power or legal right to decide that another human beings life is of less value, and end that humans life.

And at that point, I know we disagree.

When you reach a point in your life where the life of other humans are of equal importance and value to your own, we can further discuss this.

Peace be with you.

Forget the Republican Party.

The decision to defund Planned Parenthood goes directly against what makes the United States such a great nation. And I’m pissed about it. 

The U.S.A. once cared about personal freedoms. But that isn’t the U.S.A. of today, which places the government in the waiting room. The U.S.A. of today would rather a man who has the money to afford plenty of babies get up in the face of men and women who already have unimaginably difficult decisions to make, and a force decision down their throats. The Republicans aren’t pro-life. And I refuse to be silent in the presence of such hypocrisy when they call a movement which values the lives of African Americans, a “terrorist movement”.

They claim to be pro-life, but you don’t see them working to make education better. They claim to be pro-life, but they don’t give a DAMN about the thousands of Latin@s who flee corruption in their home countries. They claim to be pro-life but what about the lives of the Syrian refugees, if they are so pro-life how come they haven’t been demanding the U.S.A. take in refugees?

What happened to their pro-life claim when it came to the bill to extend healthcare benefits to first-responders during the aftermath of 9-11 in 2010?

The Republicans of today will fight for the right to own a gun which can end a life, but not for a woman to have a say in when she brings a new life into the world? They claim to be pro-life but they would destroy the Iran deal and potentially help Iran get a nuclear weapon so that it could be gigantically more powerful and threatening to living people then it is right now?

Their version of pro-life is pathetic. In a perfect world, pro-life would mean working to expand access to health-care. It would mean working to ensure that mothers can have paid maternal leave. It would mean supporting bills that should be bi-partisan such as Elizabeth Warren’s “Schedules that work” act. It would mean raising the minimum wage to a genuine living wage. It would mean expanding social security and working to create jobs across the country. It would mean caring about the healthcare of the inspiringly brave men and women who decided to give up years at best and their lives at worst, by joining the military.

Pro-life shouldn’t mean shaming women who’ve made the decision to get an abortion. And it certainly shouldn’t mean working to deny women throughout the country access to valuable healthcare and family planning services because an organization has some 3% of its services be abortions.

Pro-life should be working to people’s rights. Pro-life should be working to reverse decisions that infringe upon someone’s rights to vote, to go to school, not to deny people access to basic human rights.

I reject the decision by Congress to defund Planned Parenthood. I reject the decision to infringe upon the fundamental freedom to make a conscious decision about when someone will have a baby in the United States. I reject the idea that an organization that has done nothing wrong should be punished because people who have money don’t like 3% of its services.

Pro-life can and should be better than this. Pro-lifers should vote for people who actually care about the quality of life of people in the United States, not just that women who get pregnant give birth.

It's not your body

“It doesn’t have my permission to use my body.”
You gave it permission when you had sex. (Not to mention, a baby can’t ask your permission) When a person engages in an activity that is specifically for reproduction, they can’t claim that it doesn’t have their permission. Everyone knows that sex leads to pregnancy, and by having sex, you are saying pregnancy is a chance you are willing to take. It is, scientifically, alive. It has human genes, making it human. Living human. Does this not mean they have unalienable human rights? Why shouldn’t they? They have everything you have, the only difference is that they are at a different stage of life. Even after birth, a baby is 100% dependent on its mother. Yes, they are using your body and you may not like it. Every person has a right to their own body. But your rights end where another’s start. And by getting an abortion, you are infringing upon the rights of that child; its right to life. Life trumps body. And you only have to share your body for a few months. When you go through pregnancy, you go through 9* months of sharing your body, but abortion ends a life permanently. And no one has the right to decide when another persons life should end.
The Trans Movement Just Had Its “I Have a Dream” Moment
On paper, the current conflict between the U.S. Department of Justice and North Carolina can seem dry, academic even. ...

“North Carolina passed a law forbidding trans people from using certain bathrooms that align with their gender identity. The Department of Justice notified the state that its measure violates several federal civil rights laws; North Carolina threw a tantrum, filing a lawsuit against the agency. Then, on Monday, the DOJ struck back, filing suit against North Carolina for infringing on trans residents’ federal civil rights.”

What sounds like soap opera drama is just politics and law colliding on trans rights, and the broader discussion of discrimination. Loretta Lynch delivered a landmark speech foretelling the tidal wave of support for gender diversity. 

Worth reading the whole article and watching the video.
Stop Calling Terrorists "Militiamen"
Heavily armed domestic terrorists have occupied a wildlife preserve in Oregon and invited other extremists to take up arms and join the movement.

Heavily armed domestic terrorists have occupied a wildlife preserve in Oregon and invited other extremists to take up arms and join the movement. Calling themselves “patriots” the followers of Cliven Bundy are protesting the impending imprisonment of two ranchers on arson charges. The anti-government radical leader has long challenged restrictions on grazing his cattle on Federal land. Neither the human rights organizations that track domestic hate groups, nor those of us who study violent extremism are surprised by this latest development. We are, however, puzzled by one thing: Why do virtually all media outlets dignify these people by calling them “militiamen?” They are terrorists, pure and simple.

The contemporary ‘citizens militia’ movement has appropriated and perverted the concept of militias in use at the time of the American Revolution. Lacking a regular army, the colonists initially relied on local bodies of armed citizens to resist tyranny. Despite their celebrated stands at Lexington and Concord, however, militiamen fared poorly against British regulars. The Continental Congress quickly established a conventional army. Militias did play an important role in winning American Independence, but only when they operated under proper authority and in support of regular troops.

The new American Republic was understandably leery of creating a large standing army in peace time, having seen how such forces had been used in Europe to suppress freedom. Its founders, therefore, wrote militias into their new constitution. The much debated second amendment declares that: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Gun rights advocates are fond of quoting the second clause in this sentence while ignoring the first. It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of the term “well-regulated.” Militias always operated under government authority, usually that of the state. In case of national emergency, state militias could be brought under command of the small regular army, as they were at the outbreak of the Civil War.

Militias are thus the ancestors of the modern National Guard, not of self-proclaimed “patriots” who show utter contempt for any form of authority beyond themselves. The extremists playing solider in the woods of Oregon are at best criminals and at worst domestic terrorists, and they need to be identified as such. Fighting extremism requires contesting ideology as much as combating organizations. These people must, therefore, be denied even the shred of legitimacy they try to claim.