religious argument

 all right, folks—as promised, here are my thoughts on russian homophobia and what factors have shaped it to be how it appears today. please keep in mind that while i did put in hours of research into this and speak partially from experience as someone who grew up in a homophobic russian household, i am by no means an expert and for brevity had to simplify some issues/concepts. 

to begin with, russia wasn’t always so violently homophobic. the russian empire was generally more or less tolerant as far as persecution goes until peter the great began to westernize and discovered that the west was generally opposed to same-sex relations. even then, the crackdowns were fairly mild, and the government generally stayed out of such matters. even towards the end of the 1800s, the tolerant attitude prevailed, and alexander ii’s reforms actually spurred the development of a lgbt+ by promoting freedom of press and abolishing serfdom, which created an influx of peasants to the cities, where they lived in close quarters and without many women around. as you can imagine, this resulted in a rise in same-gender relations and even marked the beginning of the first urban lgbt+ communities. while homosexuality was still illegal, cities teemed with discourse on the matter, which was potential enough. (this period can also be noted for the emergence of lgb+ writers and artists, such as mihkail kuzmin, marina tsvatayeva, and numerous others [but that’s for another post])

at this point, most of the opposition to same-sex relations stemmed from orthodox christian values, which marked homosexuality as sin (along with many other carnal sexual acts) and biological arguments that used early endocrinology and psychology to argue that homosexuality was unnatural and must be treated. however, it is vital to note that at the same time, some scientific circles also promoted tolerance on the basis of same-sex attraction being a natural variation of human biology, which was incredibly progressive for its time. while not all views were positive (in fact, some actively pathologized homosexuality, much like western science), it is important to note that there was discussion.

the first shift came with the 1917 revolution and lenin’s regime. while lenin decriminalized homosexuality (as well as many other things, such as abortion and prostitution), the regime also limited freedom of the press and speech, which stunted conversation about same-sex desire. 

what truly demolished the russian/soviet lgbt+ community was stalin’s regime, which coincided with wwii and rise of fascism. in response to wwii, a wave of hypermasculinity and patriotism shook the nation through propaganda to encourage men to be strong, hard working, and loyal to the country—male homosexuality, which was seen as effeminate and weak, had no place in such a society. what officially led to the recriminalization, however, is the alleged nazi infiltration of moscow’s gay circles, which led stalin to pass a law banning male homosexuality. by this time, homosexuality came to be associated with bourgeois decadence and aristocracy, which clashed with soviet proletarian values. weimar germany’s infamous tolerance of same-sex relations also influenced the association of fascism with homosexuality (nevermind that hitler’s regime was violently homophobic, as well). a popular slogan was: “destroy the homosexuals–and fascism will disappear”

stalin’s strict repression had the most profound influence on the lgbt+ community—it erased its history by silencing literature and arts and prevented lgbt+ people from being able to find each other and create opposition. this lasted for decades after stalin’s death, which, to the average public, made same-sex attraction and gender nonconformity apprear nonexistent within the soviet union.

that is exactly why the 80s and 90s, when gorbachev’s reforms allowed lgbt+ individuals some freedom to gather and converse (thus gaining visibility) came as such a shock to the straight russian public. it seemed that “the gays” appeared out of nowhere—and since the period is also marked by the fall of the soviet union and introduction of western capitalism—seemed a product of western infiltration. since the west, especially america, had a visible lgbt+ community by then, it only seemed logical that lgbt+ russians are brainwashed by the west. another wave of hypermasculinity spread through the country once the soviet union collapsed, leaving the nation in crisis. all these reasons, in addition to the old religious and biological arguments, played a role in cultivating the very specific strain of homophobia in russia today.

because of this association with the west, it is incredibly difficult for activists to achieve anything, and in some circles even prompts discussion of whether it is truly worthwhile and beneficial. a quote by a russian lesbian haunts me in particular: “the problems for lesbians only start when they fight for their rights. because now the russian public knows the word. they know that lesbians exist.”  

violence, financial insecurity, and psychological damage awaits anyone who is outwardly gay or associates with lgbt+ organizations, which makes it hard to gather collective action. funding for organizations is also low; if you lose your job because you’re lgbt+, it’s unlikely that you’ll have money to contribute to organizations. for many people, the costs of associating with an lgbt+ organizations outweigh the benefits.

that is why financial support rather than demonstration and protest is potentially more important to russian activist efforts. western demonstrations, such as those following the sochi olympics, only further solidified the connection of homosexuality and the west and made russia retaliate further against lgbt+ people. if you want to help, i think the best thing to do is stay informed, spread awareness, and contribute financially if you are able to. local efforts, such as those by the russian lgbt network, are in many cases better able to provide the specific aid that is required (for example, by evacuating gay men at risk in chechnya, or by assisting with legal issues). 

only by understanding russia’s complex history and unique political and social climate can we cater our activism to be effective at helping lgbt+ russians.

sources/additional reading

my inbox/IM is open to anyone who wants any further insight, discussion, or clarification! (please do be mindful, however, since this is a highly sensitive topic for me)

okay pro-lifers, gather ‘round

We’re going to ignore the blatant hypocrisy of your entire movement, the science, and the common fucking sense for a minute. I just have one question for you:

Where in the Bible does God forbid abortion? Because I have the weirdest feeling that none of you have actually read your own Good Book.

Go ahead, go check. I’ll wait. And no, don’t quote Psalms at me, don’t give me your inferences and implications thereof. I want a nice, clear, explicit ruling, like ‘Do not steal’ or ‘Honour no other god before Me.’

…No? Oh, that’s right. Because the only time any part of the Bible explicitly mentions a punishment for ‘human-caused miscarriage’ is Exodus 21:22-25.

Have you not read that recently? I’ll summarise for you: if two men are fighting, and one of them hits a pregnant woman, and a miscarriage is caused, the offender must pay a fine to the woman’s husband. 

Yes, you heard me. Causing an abortion was punishable by the ancient world’s equivalent of a parking ticket

(And don’t you even with the whole ‘But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life’. That’s referring to the death of the mother, not the fetus. The mother is viewed as a living person; the ‘death’ of an unborn fetus is viewed as property damage. Check the original Hebrew.)

The Bible says God knows us in the womb (which does not translate to ‘we are sentient and alive in the womb’, before you say it) but Genesis explicitly states (Gen 2:7) that the first human being did not live until God breathed on them and they started to breathe. They were not alive until they breathed

From a biblical standpoint, a baby isn’t a living baby, isn’t a person, until it’s breathing. You can make the argument that this also applies to any fetus that could breathe on its own if given the chance, i.e. any fetus that has grown to the point it could survive outside the womb unassisted/with minimal assistance. But it absolutely, categorically contradicts all the bs you’re spouting about an embryo being a living sentient creature and abortion therefore being murder.

I studied this stuff for six years; I don’t think you morons have studied it for six minutes

If you have a pro-life stance from a non-religious argument, that’s an entirely different thing. But shut up about God and sinners and going to Hell and ‘life begins at conception’. Fuck off, and read your own texts, because it’s just fucking embarrassing to listen to you announcing to the whole damn world that you don’t even know your own religion.

Seriously. It’s pathetic.

pianoplayersara  asked:

Do you have any non religious arguments against abortion?

Yes!

Current biology research shows us that, once fertilization takes place in humans, the resulting zygote is an individual organism and a member of the human species. This organism is self-directed, which means it develops from within using its own unique DNA (as opposed to, for instance, how a car is put together one piece at a time).

In fact, for the first week (prior to implantation), the human embryo is not directly connected to the mother, but continues to grow and develop from a single-celled organism to a blastocyst with hundreds of cells that at this point begin to differentiate (different cells are going to develop into different body systems).

The development is gradual and continuous, which means there is no definite point after fertilization where we can say that the human embryo/fetus has become something different that it wasn’t before. All of our descriptions of stages of development and the terms we use are arbitrary and only for our own benefit in understanding what happens.

Birth itself is simply a change in location for the fetus. We change our terminology, but the fetus/newborn doesn’t change in any significant way.

If this is the case, we can easily say that the fetus is a member of the human species.

However, this means nothing if we don’t know how to treat members of the human species. Science cannot answer that question - it can only tell us what the fetus is and what it does. At this point, we have to turn to philosophy and ethics.

Most people can agree that all human adults and human children have human rights and deserve equal treatment.

Most people also agree that while animals should not be abused or neglected, they don’t deserve equal treatment with humans. If they did, the punishment for a hit-and-run would be the same whether the victim was a squirrel or a human toddler.

But why?

We have to have a consistent explanation for equal treatment that tells us, without ambiguity, who does and doesn’t have rights.

Our explanation must include human adults and human infants, but exclude animals.

If we base our explanation on ability, such as self-awareness, sentience, verbal ability, etc. we run the risk of either excluding some human adults or infants or including squirrels.

However, if we base our explanation on the common humanity shared by human adults and human infants, we satisfy all three requirements with an explanation that should make sense to us.

This explanation, that all humans deserve equal treatment regardless of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, or ability, means that a human fetus (or even a zygote) deserves equal treatment because it is human.

This means that if it is wrong to intentionally kill a 2-year-old, it is wrong to intentionally kill a fetus, regardless of the fetus’s stage of development. Therefore, if we agree that it should be illegal to kill 2-year-olds, it should also be illegal to kill fetuses.

A law based on this fact would simply be the existing murder statute applied to all human beings equally, as the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution already requires.

This would mean that it would be illegal for abortionists to kill preborn children. The mother of the preborn child would be considered a second victim of a medical professional who chose to violate the law and medical ethics.

tl;dr: Fetuses are biologically human. All human beings have equal rights. Fetuses have the same rights as everybody else.

I just had a long discussion with my parents about how basically and given Discworld book would be a better thing to read in school than Lord of The Flies.

Reason number one: all of the same lessons are taught.

In LoTF, the reader is supposed to learn about mob mentality, oppression, and general prejudice, yes? Thud! is a good example of all of this. You’ve got two different groups of people fighting because Reasons, and the main character coming to terms with his own subconscious racism. What a damn good thing to teach high schoolers!

Reason number two: none of them are nearly so depressing.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can not think of a single Terry Pratchett book that ends on a bad note. Not one. LoTF was painful for me to read, because all of the characters were making horrible, murderous decisions because… plot??? Boys will be boys?? The base instincts of humanity?? I am the author and everyone else sucks??? 

Reason number three: they are fun to read!

This kind of goes along with the last one, but the fact that Pratchett combines relatable characters and a good sense of humor with real world scenarios (going back to Thud! with the internalized racism) makes the books a joy to read! I have, out of the six books I’ve had to read for school, been indifferent or even hated four of them. I didn’t want to read any of them! I read two books a week for three frippin years! And I didn’t want to read the books they chose! I, just. 

In conclusion: LoTF sucks, Thud! would be a much better choice.

If there’s one main thing I want non-Jews, specifically of the white Christian variety, to understand, it’s that there are ways of thinking about things – culture, tradition, argument, religious rules, loving thy enemy (or not), religious rites, intermarriage – that are different across cultures.

It seems like a lot of the time, white Christians (this includes secular people who are culturally Christians) assume that everyone thinks about things the same way. They assume that cultures have different foods and traditions (sometimes, unfortunately, they don’t even assume this) but that everyone thinks about the world the same way. They don’t.

The ways you think are not universal. People from another culture – including subcultures within a general culture – think about things differently and have different paradigms. Try to understand that.

queencityqlass  asked:

Speaking of Edward/Angela, that makes me think they could have been a solid pairing. Like he respects her and thinks highly of her relative to the other students. They arguably could've been a healthier ship since Angela is pretty level headed as seen in her calm advice to Bella and perhaps more logical and rational than Edward. Though Angela is perhaps more family oriented because of her siblings.

I think there’s a lot of potential there. Like, he’s assuming Bella’s thoughts are good and pure, but he actually knows Angela’s are. And I think that’s a big issue–that he can read her mind–and that would change the dynamic and not always in healthy ways, but other than that I think there’s a lot of good, interesting stuff. 

I think, also, the “no we can’t be together” thing might work better? Because in the books, Bella’s all in. She’s ready for this. She’s begging to become a vampire. It’s just Edward who hesitates.So I didn’t quite buy their love was so impossible, because it was just up to one of them to resolve it. I think with Edward/Angela BOTH of them would be hesitant.  Angela has more to lose, as you point out, a happy home life with her parents and brothers. That would be a lot harder for her to give up, I think, than Bella’s more bohemian existence with Renee and loving, but still a bit distant, relationship with Charlie. Not to mention that Angela’s father’s a pastor, so Edward’s religious/moral/soul-related arguments would probably resonate with her a lot more than they did with Bella, and she might share some of the same concerns. So instead of just Edward being like “no I cannot curse you with this!” we’d also have Angela wrestling with it along the same lines, in a deeper way than Bella did. I don’t think Angela is “born to be a vampire.” It would actually be a bigger sacrifice and a bigger gamble–she might think she IS risking her soul, while Bella doesn’t really believe in any religion so those issues don’t faze her. 

BREAKING: Neil Gorsuch is Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

  • Neil Gorsuch, a 49-year-old judge from the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, is President Donald Trump’s pick to replace late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
  • Trump announced Gorsuch’s selection in a highly publicized Tuesday evening address. 
  • The pick will likely delight conservatives and dismay progressives; Gorsuch, like, Scalia is a judicial originalist and strict textualist, meaning he believes constitutional law should be interpreted only in the context in which it was written and justices should not consider legislative intent when making decisions.
  • Gorsuch could potentially serve the court for decades, shaping the course of the nation’s judicial system long after Trump leaves office.
  • According to Vox, he’s “reliably, though idiosyncratically, conservative” on a number of issues, including opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia, that the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate is unconstitutional and he has taken a “limited view of a defendant’s right to competent representation.”
  • Gorsuch is quite amenable to the religious freedom arguments social conservatives have deployed to justify discrimination against LGBTQ people in recent years.
  •  He was one of the justices who ruled against former President Barack Obama’s administration in their case against Hobby Lobby, which argued it was free under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act not to offer employees insurance covering contraceptives as mandated in the Affordable Care Act. Read more
11 Blogs I'm Unfollowing Immediately

[Disclaimer: Angry post. Sorry.]

Once in a while, I do a “spring cleaning” of social media by unfollowing a ton of stuff. Not things I disagree with (we need disagreeing points of view) and not because I’m better than anyone (my insecurity would immediately banish the thought), but because it’s simply better for my mental state. It’s never a hasty decision. But where I’m going, I can’t take every voice with me. If you must, please discern wisely to unfollow me, too.

Here are eleven kinds of blogs or social media I’ll be leaving behind.

1) Random pornographic images. I know that art can be made out of the body (most work by Michelangelo and da Vinci are floppy beige sketches of the human form), but maybe we can draw the line at exploitative objectification. Not to be prude-ish, but I’m a recovering porn addict, and a relapse would have me missing work. And yes, most pornography supports violent cycles of human trafficking, and I can’t endorse that.

2) Hypocrisy. If you market yourself as an “inspirational blogger” but do nothing but preach online and get into passive-aggressive religious arguments all day, bye. There’s a whole world outside that’s starving.

3) Suicide culture. Look, I’ve wrestled with depression my whole life. No one wants depression. If you glorify that stuff with memes and moody movie scenes (from movies you’ve never seen), you’re both diminishing a very real illness and feeding into it, and I have to question if you’re really suffering depression or you’re just trying to go viral.

4) Shaming your parents. I know there are some really awful parents, but “Screw them because they didn’t get me the iPhone I wanted last Christmas” surpasses my tolerance for privilege. Unless you’re a parent, you have little clue how much they’ve sacrificed for your best (and yes, they’re people too, and they’re going to mess up sometimes). My family grew up with nothing; I know how hard they struggled.

5) Entitled fandoms. You’re strangling creativity. You’re why screenplay writers won’t take risks. They don’t owe you anything. Let them finish their story, and then complain.

6) Reactionary bitterness. If your blog is obviously acting out of unresolved anger all the time, bye. Go solve that stuff in real life, not with your thumbs. (And I recognize the irony of posting an angry post about angry posts: except it’s more out of grief than anything.)

7) Contrarian. If you’re constantly the guy who says “Well what about—” you’re actually an important voice, as we need critical thinkers, but at some point the edgy backlash of finding microscopic flaws that starts with “Am I the only one who doesn’t—” gets desperately exhausting.

8) Hyper-religious overbearing inspirational Instagram preachers. Seriously, bye. Why should anyone listen to you? What makes you a credible authority on anything? And why are you yelling “lukewarm” all the time? Please join any number of charities at the ground level.

9) Anti-religious atheist-fundamentalists. Seriously, blocked. I get the whole not-believing-in-God thing (I was an atheist for a very long time), but yelling at Christians in shrill snarky videos is just petty. You’re basically Westboro Baptist Church but replaced the “God hates you” signs with “I hate everyone who disagrees.”

10) Anyone who emotionally blackmails me to get money. I get at least one message a month that says something like, “You owe me, I made you who you are, don’t try to think you’re too big for me now.” Like this one: http://jspark3000.tumblr.com/post/152224898828/ (who by the way is still writing a bunch of “inspirational” stuff).

11) Dichotomous “Us vs. Them” rhetoric. If you can’t possibly make room and dialogue with the “other side,” politically or religiously or philosophically, you’re probably not mature enough to have a blog. If you can’t admit when you’ve been wrong or you only offer non-apologies, you have zero credibility for a platform. Go live a little, experience foreign cultures, admit where you need to grow, talk with people you’d normally never agree with, read different opinions. Please come back wiser.

J.S.

I collaborated with @violabeatriceophelia with them writing this amazing fic down below and me doing the art up top with my royal au! I hope you enjoy! 


The lights of the city were mirrored across the dark sky like the reflecting pool in the palace gardens, like they were staring into an endless void of stars. It was a clear night, the sort that only happened in the middle of the desert, the sort that seemed magical with its undisturbed stillness.

Keep reading

I once saw a person on the Internet argue that it was bad for children’s shows to exist in which boys loved other boys and girls loved other girls. They said that when boys who didn’t want to kiss other boys watched those shows, they’d feel confused and alienated, like there was something wrong with them. The conversation moved on before I got the chance to ask this person what the hell they thought the current media environment was doing to boys who did want to kiss other boys.

I mention this because it’s a rare example of directly stating this argument, rather than making it implicit. People say that all this push for fiction with gay and queer characters is going to make kids feel like they have to be gay and queer, even when they’re really not. But unless they’re making a religious argument, people don’t usually state what needs to be done to not cause any harm to these hypothetical alienated straight kids. They just say they’re “uncomfortable” or “worried” about gay and queer representation, and they leave any possible solutions to the listener’s imagination. It’s concern trolling in its purest form, and it’s obnoxiously hard to argue with, because if you call out the implications, they can always claim they never actually stated that it’s wrong to let kids know that queer people exist.

There are going to be some five-year-old boys who want to kiss other boys, and that’s okay. Some of those boys will grow up and decide they like girls more, and that’s okay, too. Kids can try on the identity of a future astronaut or a future firefighter, then decide that’s not really what they want to grow up to be. They can try on the identity of a queer person, too, and they have plenty of time to figure out whether or not it fits them. All they need is the understanding that being queer, or not being queer, is something they might be.

Imagine being raised in a strict and religious, Hispanic household. You and Loki decide it’s finally time to meet your parents, so you arrange a dinner night with just your parents. Arriving at the front door with Loki, you’re greeted with welcome arms from the whole entire family, while Loki stands in the background being interrogated by your father, uncles, cousins, and older siblings.

During dinner time, you have a lovely conversation with everyone except your father who is constantly giving Loki death glares and snide remarks in which Loki returns the favor. Their rude comments and scowls soon turn into an argument, but before anything escalates, you curtly and angrily reprimand them in a combination of Spanish and English for acting like children.

Afterwards, your father and Loki apologize and reluctantly call it a truce with a handshake, although, their cold gazes and tense hand grips said otherwise.  Nonetheless, you forgive them and continue the evening by breaking pinatas, stealing candy, dancing, and enjoying each others company. 

Sana's second Surah

Like many of the shorter surahs, the surah of the Unbelievers takes the form of an invocation, telling the reader something they must ask for or say aloud. Here, the passage asks one to keep in mind the separation between belief and unbelief both in the past and the present, ending with the often cited line “To you your religion, and to me mine”. Although some view this as an argument against religious intolerance, others see it as a more time-specific revelation, warning the newly founded Muslim minority in Mecca against being induced (by the Quraish majority) to collude with disbelievers. “Wahb bin Munabbih has related that the people of Quraish said to Allah’s’ Messenger: ‘If you like we would enter your faith for a year and you would enter our faith for a year.’”(Abd bin Humaid, Ibn Abi Hatim). In this latter view, from time to time the Quraish leaders would visit Muhammad with different proposals of compromise so that if he accepted one of them the dispute between them would be brought to an end.

Meanwhile Al-Fātiḥah (first sura) is often believed to be a synthesis of the Quran.it in itself is a prayer at the very beginning of the Quran, which acts as a preface of the Quran and implies that the book is for a person who is a seeker of truth—a reader who is asking a deity who is the only one worthy of all praise (and is the creator, owner, sustainer of the worlds etc.) to guide him to a straight path. It can be said to “encapsulate all of the metaphysical and eschatological realities of which human beings must remain conscious

Bloody genius

June 7 1811 saw the birth of James Young Simpson, pioneer of anaesthetics and chloroform.

In the mid 18th century we were still a deeply religious society. Biblical literalism was common in patients and sometimes their doctors. Whereas woman in labour who sought pain-relief no longer risked being burned alive as a witch on royal command, any innovation that challenged the natural and God-given order of the world was bound to be controversial.

James Young Simpson was distraught that patients were going through surgeries without pain relief and sought an answer to this, he first toyed with mesmerism, a type of hypnotism pioneered by German doctor Franz Mesmer, but when he heard about the revolutionary breakthrough across the Atlantic of anaesthetics being used in dentistry and surgery he started using diethyl ether in january 1847 to relieve labour pains, that same year he wrote “In Answer to the Religious Arguments advanced Against the Employment of Anaesthetic Agents in Midwifery and Surgery” seeking to demolish all conceivable religious objections to painless surgery and childbirth.

Ether was proving to be inconvenient highly flammable and had a noxious smell so Simpson championed chloroform, he first experimented with this on November 4th 1847 using himself and two of his friends as guinea pigs in his townhouse at 52 Queen Street, Edinburgh, as seen in the picture from the Wellcome web site. On inhaling the chemical they found that a general mood of cheer and humour had set in. But suddenly all of them collapsed only to regain consciousness the next morning. Simpson knew, as soon as he woke up, that he had found something that could be used as an anaesthetic. They soon had Miss Petrie, Simpson’s niece, try it. She fell asleep soon after inhaling it while singing the words, “I am an angel!”

What surprised me while researching this is that for all he did for midwifery in the years after starting to use chloroform,  he was said to be a fierce rival of Joseph Lister, who, in Edinburgh was advocating the use of antiseptics, Simpson proclaimed   Lister’s, [antiseptic, method as a hoax. Let’s not hold that against him though, he has been described as having been “inspiring and vigorous,” popular with both students and patients, as well as generous, hospitable and convivial. A devout Christian, he also supported the anti-slavery movement.


flor-ay  asked:

1) That video was super interesting! I'm doing some research about Islam at the moment. I live in France where we have a significant population of muslims and it does create tensions because some people have difficulties to deal with France's multiculturalism which is very sad because I personnally love it! Anyway, I've always defend Islam and muslims when people say dumb or mean things but as a non-religious person my arguments are very limited which is why I'm currently looking for information

2) about Islam. and I had no idea how you put on a hijab! Thanks SKAM for giving me the opportunity to learn so much ahah Also, thank you! I know muslims receive a lot of hate these days and I just wanted you to know that there’re people who love and accept you all :)

Thats so nice honestly! Thank you for liking my video, I’m glad it gave you an insight on hijabi’s. I’m v happy that you’re trying to understand and be more aware because thats always a good thing. SKAM is such a wonderful platform that has just allowed so many people to come together as one community or sub-communities, in addition to creating safe spaces like the Muslim group chats. 

This ask has honestly made my day so thank you very much for taking your time out and being a sunflower! 🌻🌻🌻🌻

15 Reasons why Pro-Life arguments are ignorant

1. The classic religious argument that stems from the bible ”it’s Gods body….its God’s baby….God made the choice for you to have a child…“, in the US we have a separation of Church and State. Also, is God paying for the child-care for families/women who cannot support a child? No. Are you? No, lol you’re complaining about being taxed too much.

2. The argument of “women aborting babies after 23 weeks is murder…” 92% women do not abort after 23 weeks, they abort within 12-15 weeks. Keeping that in mind: 2% of women in the US actually have an abortion each year between ages 15-44. 2%.

3. Making abortion illegal will NOT STOP abortion from happening lol.

4. (Moving onto Planned Parenthood) 3% of all the healthcare they provide is abortion.

5. Planned parenthood is the #1 women’s reproductive healthcare provider.

6. They aren’t ‘killing babies’.

7. A fetus isn’t a baby! (Surprise?)

8. You trying to make decisions for people when you don’t know their situation is ignorant and is sending this country into turmoil.

9. You’re not 'saving lives’ by forcing women to have unwanted pregnancies.

10. If you happen to be in the same group of people who are transphobic, homophobic, etc. so if this 'baby’ turns out to be any one of those things—you’ll tell them they’re going to hell and don’t deserve the same rights as you.

11. Pro-Choicers aren’t necessarily pro-abortion. Women aren’t just going and getting an abortion every other day. And even if they were, it’s none of your goddamn business.

12. Adoption is an option which is great if that’s what the mother wants, but so is abortion.

13. If you will never be pregnant you shouldn’t get a political say.

14. It is the woman’s body.

15. It is her choice.