#literally a clump of cells

[isawthismeme]

[schizononagesimus]

it is so fucking patronizing to live in a country where i am in the literal worst pain of my life and they HAVE to have a pregnancy test in order to give me pain medication despite the fact that not only is that sexually not possible for me to be pregnant but i am MEDICALLY STERILE. im allowed to refuse, but not if i want medication for my fucking SPINE INJURY. it doesn't matter what you tell them because it is literally THE LAW that they have to make sure youre not pregnant.

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Quick Pro-Life Responses

Keep in mind: the fundamental disagreement between pro-life and pro-choice is on whether a fetus is being formed into a person, or if the fetus is already a person and is simply developing.

Confidently assert, “you say that because you think a fetus is not a person yet.”

They may concede fetuses are people in word, but still not conceptualize them as full people worthy of equal consideration.

“I have the right to bodily autonomy.”

Abortion is literally suffocation, poisoning, or dismemberment of a living human organism.

Abortion induces fetal demise by depriving a human of oxygen, blood, or vital function.

Bodily autonomy does not justify abuse of power and excessive force over a helpless person.

Abortion, a disproportionately brutal response to a passive threat, is aggressive violence.

“No one has the right to use my body.”

Correct. But, a prenatal person does not use a pregnant person’s body. They have no agency.

A pregnant person’s body takes care of the prenate. This care is ordinary and healthy.

Abortion is not like refusing care to a dying person, it is like murdering a healthy captive.

No one has the right to murder someone who they caused to be dependent on them.

“I have the right to revoke my consent.”

When you give consent, you agree to accept the foreseeable outcomes and risks of an action.

The creation of a bodily dependent is a foreseeable outcome of consensual intercourse.

You cannot revoke consent to outcomes. You can revoke consent to actions.

You may not violently sacrifice a helpless person to “mitigate” a risk of a consensual action.

“Anything dependent on my body is a parasite.”

If you make parasites, then you’re a parasite; it’s misogynist to suggest women are parasites.

The female body would not actively try to make pregnancy happen if it were parasitic.

Prenates never directly cause pregnant people harm; they are not aggressors or parasites.

Using developmental dependency to justify murder is simultaneously ageist and ableist.

“An embryo is just a clump of cells.”

Human embryos meet NASA’s criteria for the characteristics of distinct living organisms.

Human embryos are self-directed and their development follows a body plan.

Human embryos are organized and individual. They already have inherited capacities.

Tumors and gametes do not follow an organized body plan.

“Early humans have no cognitive capacities.”

By week 3, the embryo has a spine and is developing a nervous system.

By week 5, the embryo has a rudimentary brain that controls their pulse.

By week 8, the embryo has pain reflexes and can move their limbs.

It’s incredibly ableist to use the cognitive inabilities of a human being to justify their murder.

“If a fetus is a person, so is a brain-dead human.”

A brain-dead human is, obviously, dead. It’s an oxygenated corpse, the remains of a person.

Death occurs when human organisms stop resisting entropy and lose organic integration.

Preborn people actively resist entropy (decay) and have organic integration (unity).

An early human organism isn’t dependent on a mature brain to organize her vital functioning.

“Later abortions only happen for medical reasons.”

According to two studies by pro-abortion researcher at UCSF Katrina Kimport, this is untrue.

Kimport’s studies found that the reasons for later abortions are similar to early abortions.

Later abortions aren’t euthanasia; infants are stabbed with lethal injections and dismembered.

Perinatal hospice and palliative care relieve suffering. Dying babies deserve love, not murder.

“What about rape and incest?”

Abortion is not evidence-based treatment for sexual trauma. Abortion is traumatic as well.

A preborn child should not be condemned to the death penalty for their father’s crime.

It is safe for most menstruating children to carry pregnancies to viability with sufficient prenatal care.

Children conceived in incest are likely to have disabilities; that’s not reason to murder them.

“What about health of the mother?”

Every abortion ban in the US has exceptions for if the mother’s life or body is in grave danger.

We are not against tragic cases of triage. We are against elective induced abortion.

Some procedures coded medically as abortions aren’t legally or ethically defined as abortions.

Pro-life doctors report that the bans have not impeded their ability to treat their patients.

Your Core Arguments

There is no sound evidence or consistent logic that proves the preborn are the only class of human beings exceptional to the rule that humans are people with equal rights.

If a being is in the dynamic process of bonding with us as kin, then that being is a whole actual person by the manner of actively and inherently relating to our collective humanity.

Embryonic humans are full and equal people like us because they latently embody our same capacities and are manifesting them as we are, on account of sharing our nature.

[mariacallous]

Earlier this month, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion, complete with a wildly theocratic concurrence from Chief Justice Thomas Parker, that functionally outlawed in vitro fertilization (IVF) in the state.

In the wake of the ruling, Republicans have tried to unwind this mess, with the Alabama legislature considering passing a law to ensure IVF access and Donald Trump coming out to say he strongly supports access to IVF. 

All of this is a bit of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, as the damage is done. The entire spectacle was inevitable once the GOP gave the party over to anti-choice zealots decades ago.

In brief, the reason the Alabama Supreme Court’s opinion implicates and outlaws IVF is that the state has a Wrongful Death of a Minor statute, and the court decided this applies to “all unborn children, without limitation.” But there’s no language in the statute that says this. Rather, it’s just that over the last 15 years, the Alabama Supreme Court has issued a series of rulings saying that the undefined term “minor child” in the statute can be stretched to “unborn children” regardless of what state of development the embryo is at. Once the court created such an expansive definition, the decision that frozen embryos are people was inescapable. 

To be fair, though, the Alabama Supreme Court is entirely made up of conservative Republicans, they were a bit hamstrung in their decision. Alabama’s state constitution states that “it is the public policy of this state to ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate." But that doesn’t necessarily mean the court was required to, as it did here, extend that “unborn child” definition to what it calls “extrauterine children” — embryos frozen by people pursuing IVF. 

That IVF is even controversial is an indictment of the GOP

An IVF cycle is designed to produce multiple eggs that can be retrieved in one procedure. The more eggs produced, the greater the likelihood of a viable embryo that can be implanted, hopefully resulting in a pregnancy. Because of this, multiple embryos often remain, and people freeze those for several reasons. People may use them if the first attempt at implantation doesn’t work, thus avoiding multiple egg retrieval cycles. They may save them for later if they decide to have more children. They may donate them to other people struggling with fertility issues. 

For people not saddled with the misguided anti-choice belief that a tiny clump of cells is the same as a person, this is a non-controversial process. It enhances the chance of pregnancy and allows people to plan for future children without undergoing multiple invasive egg retrieval cycles. But if one subscribes to the notion of fetal personhood — that a fetus is quite literally a person, with all the attendant privileges that confers — then those frozen embryos are the same as babies. 

This is, of course, a religious, not scientific belief. Chief Justice Parker, in his concurring opinion, made clear that his vote, at least, stems directly from his religious beliefs rather than being grounded in the law. Citing Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, the Ten Commandments, and the King James Bible, Parker concludes that “even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”

Notably, none of those things are legal precedent. Indeed, in a country founded on the separation of church and state, they shouldn’t inform a court holding. However, since religious conservatives dominate the US Supreme Court, that separation has largely collapsed. This has emboldened conservative litigants and conservative state and federal judges to take ever more anti-choice stances. 

Reproductive health activists have been sounding the alarm about the anti-choice attacks on IVF for years, particularly in the wake of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. At least two prominent anti-choice groups, Americans United for Life and Students for Life, have railed against IVF. The chief legal officer for Americans United for Life, Steve Aden, called IVF “eugenics” and said that IVF created “embryonic human beings” that were destroyed in the process. Students for Life called IVF “damaging and destructive.”

These same anti-choice groups also hate birth control, and the Dobbs decision paved the way for them to mount a theocratic attack on it too. Christopher Rufo, who ginned up a panic over benign diversity initiatives and helped force out the first Black president of Harvard, Claudine Gay, has already telegraphed that this is his next attack.

Over on Elon Musk’s increasingly Nazi-fied social media site, X, Rufo is spewing rhetoric about how “the family structure disintegrated precisely as access to birth control proliferated” and that recreational sex is bad and leads to single-mother households. 

Rufo isn’t alone. The Heritage Foundation, which is also busy with a blueprint for a second Trump presidency that would destroy the administrative state and whose leader is still pushing the big lie that Trump won the 2020 election, has also called for the end of birth control. Also over on X, Heritage’s official account posted last year that “a good place to start would be a feminist movement against the pill and … returning the consequentiality to sex.”

And there you have it. Religious conservatives are calling for a return to a world where sex isn’t recreational or for pleasure but is instead fraught with consequences — namely, pregnancies that can’t be terminated even when the pregnant person’s life is in danger. To do this, however, they would need to succeed in getting the Supreme Court to overturn Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that invalidated restrictions on birth control. 

More importantly, Griswold affirmed the constitutional right to privacy. It’s that right that not only underpinned the right to an abortion in Roe but also underpins other cases related to the rights of Americans to pursue sexual and marital relationships without government interference. In Lawrence v. Texas, decided in 2003, the Supreme Court relied upon Griswold to throw out laws that criminalized sexual contact between members of the same sex. Twelve years later, that same reasoning was used in Obergefell v. Hodges to affirm a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. 

Justice Clarence Thomas hates the right to privacy and has made no secret he wants it gone. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs, he called on the Court to “reconsider” all these cases and overrule them as “demonstrably erroneous.” Justice Samuel Alito has been a bit more evasive about this, writing in Dobbs that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” However, Alito’s Dobbs opinion is littered with references to “fetal life” and how abortion destroys an “unborn human being.” As recently as last week, Alito wrote a statement decrying Obergefell because he doesn’t think it’s fair that people who are bigots about same-sex marriage ever get called bigots. 

It isn’t just Thomas and Alito. During her confirmation hearing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett refused to say whether she thought Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell were rightly decided. In 2012, she signed an open letter stating that the Affordable Care Act’s required coverage for birth control was an assault on religious liberty. Similarly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in his confirmation hearing, also wouldn’t say whether Griswold was correctly decided. Justice Neil Gorsuch did the same. 

That makes five likely votes — with Chief Justice John Roberts a possible sixth — for a rollback of privacy rights in America. With that pillar of law gone, states would be free to outlaw same-sex marriage, get rid of birth control, and impose any other theocratic conditions they’d like. 

The dog that caught the car

Right now, Republicans are scrambling to undo the damage they’ve wrought, realizing that an anti-IVF stance is alienating to most. Last year, the Pew Research Center found that 42 percent of adults had used fertility treatments or knew someone who had. From 1996 to 2018, over 1 million babies were born as a result of fertility treatments. Mike Pence has spoken publicly about how he and his wife used IVF and that the procedure should be protected. 

In Alabama, Republican legislators are planning to introduce a law that would say the embryo isn’t a person until implanted in a uterus. But legislation doesn’t trump the state constitution, which means the Alabama courts could throw out any law they deem contrary to their fetal personhood interpretation of the constitution. Several Alabama fertility clinics have stopped IVF services, citing the legal risk. The state’s GOP attorney general, Steve Marshall, said he wouldn’t use the decision to prosecute IVF providers or people seeking IVF treatment, but that’s a slender reed to rely upon. What provider or patient wants to rely upon the vague assurances of the attorney general rather than a law that protects access?

And it isn’t just IVF. Elected officials in states that have banned abortion have openly mocked those people who have come forward with horror stories of being refused abortions even as they developed sepsis or faced the possibility of permanent future infertility. Doctors have no clear guidance on when they can terminate a pregnancy to save the life of the pregnant person, leaving them vulnerable to prosecution. People who currently have frozen embryos have no idea what to do with them, and nor do clinics. If the hardest-line anti-choice people get their way, access to birth control will become as spotty and politicized as access to abortion is now. 

This type of amorphous fear is a feature, not a bug, of the post-Dobbs landscape. When the entire spectrum of reproductive health is murky, and the threat of prosecution looms large, doctors won’t perform abortions or IVF treatments. Patients won’t seek abortions even as their health deteriorates to a level that could result in death. People who can get pregnant will have their lives narrowed to nearly nothing as they try to sidestep the landmines of an ever-shifting jurisprudence over their bodies. 

And that’s exactly the way conservatives want it, no matter their current feeble attempts to get out from under an IVF disaster of their own making. The GOP made common cause with the worst people in the country on this issue, and now we’re all stuck with the consequences. 

[fred-erick-frankenstein]

my official stance is a pregnancy is whatever the pregnant person wants it to be. if it’s a 4 weeks old clump of cells and they wants to call it a baby it’s a baby. if they're 20 weeks and they want to call it a parasite it’s a parasite. if they're 39 weeks and call it a fetus it’s a fetus. “why are you so sad about miscarrying at 6 weeks it was literally just an embryo” because that was their baby. “how can you get an abortion at three months” because that wasn’t a baby. hope that helps.

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

I recently reblogged this thread recently and I have to say, it's mind blowing to me. This is a great thread but looking through the replies is mind numbing. Women have children. Aside from RARE exceptions this is a biological fact. The thing that causes this to happen? Sexual Intercourse. The thread is shown here:

Now. Let me start this off by saying that I don't have solid beliefs when it comes to Pro Life or Pro Choice. I really don't. I know several people I follow are pro life and would not be happy with me saying that but I mostly sit on the fence for this one. I lean more towards the Pro Life side of things but I'm honestly not 100% pro life. And I'm not good at articulating why. But that's something I personally have to live with.

However the reason I'm making this post is because of some comments I saw. Specifically from one person. Now, I didn't see the things they were replying too, but I can still approach what was said in the comments as they were statements that need no context to understand. I'll address them kind of together but also separately.

Here are the comments:

So let me make this blatantly clear. All of this is bullshit. All of it.

A fetus is a HUMAN fetus first and foremost. Meaning it is human from conception. And yes. Children have more rights than adults. Why? Because you can get charged for neglect towards a child. As well as other things. Kids have varying protections under the law that adults do not. So it's not, "More rights than a regular person". It's "More legal rights and protections than an adult."

A fetus is NOT a corpse. And even in the case of a miscarriage, there should still be a level of dignity given to the lost life.

"By allowing people to chose to terminate a pregnancy, that ensures both the parent and the child have equal human rights" No it doesn't. It means that the child has no right to life and the mother has a right to destroy said child before it is delivered. Even after said child is viable. When functionally a fetus is viable after a point in time where it can survive outside the womb. If it has to come out either way at that point, why kill it? Oh right, because you don't view it as a living human.

This here is a load of shit. Bodily autonomy stops the moment another life is added to the equation. "It means no one can use your body without your consent."

*SIGH*

YOU LITERALLY CONSENT TO THE CHANCE OF HAVING A CHILD THE MOMENT YOU DECIDE TO HAVE SEX. EVERY THING YOU DECIDE TO DO IN YOUR LIFE HAS CONSEQUENCES! IF YOU WANT TO HAVE SEX AND NOT HAVE KIDS GET FUCKING FIXED! And if you can't get fixed, the reason is because doctors have been SUED for letting people get fixed when they were too young to realized they'd eventually want kids. And after a LOT of legal issues most doctors will no longer fix people under a certain age without X amount of kids. Unless you opt to freeze your eggs first. However there are doctors that will still do it.

If you are so concerned, find those doctors. THEN when you decide ok now I'm ready, I hope you lose in court against the doctors or hospital you sue.

Nah. This is the sentiment of MOST pro choice advocates. It used to be "Safe, Legal, and Rare." Because back then, we understood life started at conception but very FEW exceptions were made. We did NOT call it "Just a clump of cells". We did not call it, "Just some tissue". It was, "As early as possible" "Not after a certain point" and "Put it up for adoption if you change your mind".

Now a days, it's "It's not a life at all, it's just some tissue, and it's only a baby when I PERSONALLY decide it is". <You all admitting you don't care about science or logical fact. It's human in it's developmental stages from the moment the egg is fertilized. And the only reason people DON'T want that to be the understanding is because people think it's their right to have consequence-less sex and have zero repercussions at all. It's people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions.

And here's the kicker. I have casual sex. I LOVE SEX. However, if I EVER got a girl preg and she kept it, I'd be a responsible adult and help take care of it. As the child would be half mine.

And contrary to the idea that denying a woman's ability do "Chose" is somehow, "Boiling women down to just their ability to give birth", No it's not. Not even remotely. It's just saying if you make a choice, and that choice results in a new life being created, you opted to make the choice that created it. It's not making women less than. It's holding men AND WOMEN accountable for their actions.

However, there is another element to this too. Which is another fun part of this WHOLE BS narrative. MEN are the only ones expected to have to be responsible. Both by society AND by law. They also, (in the west) do not have legal say over keeping the kid if the mother wants to get rid of it. So basically, your stance is probably, "Women should have carte blanche to have sex with NO consequences what so ever, but if the mother decides to keep her child the man has ZERO choice is if he has to pay child support in most of the western world. So again, we come back to this narrative of infantilizing women saying they can't be held to account for actions they themselves take. But others can be held to account for them.

How hard is it to stop having sex or don't have sex at all? Really though. Try being physically addicted to it to the point your mind actually gutter bombs into "It's fine I can stop living". A lot of Nymphomaniacs live that reality and often have to be on heavy medications to more or less kill their libido entirely. Except less than 5% of the world populace has that problem. It's a want that you are trying to pass off as a need.

This is an annoyed post mostly and probably moderately incoherent but honestly? This whole argument pissed me off. Women are not toddlers. Please stop pretending that being exempt from consequences is somehow "Empowering" and "A human right". It's not.

[triforce-of-mischief]

my official stance is a pregnancy is whatever the pregnant person wants it to be. if it’s a 4 week old clump of cells and they want to call it a baby it’s a baby. if they're 20 weeks and they want to call it a parasite it’s a parasite. if they're 39 weeks and call it a fetus it’s a fetus. “why are you so sad about miscarrying at 6 weeks it was literally just an embryo” because that was their baby. “how can you get an abortion at three months” because that wasn’t a baby. hope that helps.

slightly edited and stolen from a terf don't like this post? keep scrolling. clowns will be instantly blocked

[pfaugh]

my official stance is a pregnancy is whatever the person wants it to be. if it’s a 4 week old clump of cells and they want to call it a baby it’s a baby. if they're 20 weeks and they want to call it a parasite it’s a parasite. if they're 39 weeks and calls it a fetus it’s a fetus. “why are you so sad about miscarrying at 6 weeks it was literally just an embryo” because that was their baby. “how can you get an abortion at three months” because that wasn’t a baby. hope that helps.

[mossy-green-aka-ferrythem]

I love how deeply Elden Ring Shadow of the Erdtree is about Motherhood.

I think deeply on it a lot by now.

Same goes for how those themes are present throughout all of Elden Ring...

...and even moreso:

All of From Software's Souls games.

Like. All of theme have themes of motherhood present in at least some small way. Even as far back as Demon's Souls, with Maiden Astrea, I'd say!

Also. It goes without saying that Bloodborne is probably one of the most VISCERAL examples of this.

Like.

Nightmare of MENSIS

The Blood Dregs literally look like clumps of Sperm Cells.

All the symbolism with pregnancy and birth, and all the themes that come with it.

Like once you see it, it just becomes so clear what so many things in Bloodborne are supposed to represent. Things that thematically made no sense without this perspective, begin to make perfect sense.

Like just. You fundamentally cannot understand Bloodborne if you do not understand how themes of womanhood play a role in it.

[anamericangirl]

Hello! I thought about you when I watched this.

Here's the link, shortened for convenience: https://shorturl.at/eikOS.

I used to buy in the clump of cells narrative. Back then, I would of looked at this story and thought that this could of been prevented had she aborted. But now? I'm hurt that she didn't even think to put the baby up for adoption.

I'll include a link to the full story

But you are right this is so sad and so unnecessary. The "clump of cells" narrative is so harmful because it allows women to think of their babies as disposable. And pro-aborts might acknowledge this was the wrong thing to do but they advocate for literally the same thing if it's done just a little bit earlier.

It was just so unnecessary. She already had the baby and adoption or taking them home would have been the right thing to do here. There is no justification for what she did. That baby did not deserve that. Unwanted children should not be killed and I hope there is justice for the innocent life that was taken.

Thank you for sharing this story with me!

[acerikus]

my official stance is a pregnancy is whatever the person who's pregnant wants it to be. if it’s a 4 week old clump of cells and they want to call it a baby it’s a baby. if they're 20 weeks and they want to call it a parasite it’s a parasite. if they're 39 weeks and call it a fetus it’s a fetus. “why are you so sad about miscarrying at 6 weeks it was literally just an embryo” because that was their baby. “how can you get an abortion at three months” because that wasn’t a baby. hope that helps.

[potatosapien5]

okay this might seem like a really random post, but I am incredibly angry. It is absolutely awful how society, though specifically the US for me, treats pregnancy. The amount of predatory clinics designed to make someone feel like they have options and then scare them into not choosing abortion is insane. The first results on the internet for not wanting to be pregnant are these places. There’s an anti-abortion clinic literally RIGHT NEXT to my local planned parenthood. It has all positive reviews, but it is so obvious from the moment I checked the website that they do not want anyone to get an abortion and will actively attempt to stop people. Even the way that normal people will talk about regretting pregnancy is horrendous. Everywhere I’ve looked the answer to someone very clearly stating “I regret getting pregnant, I don’t want this” is to go “are you sure? You must be depressed. You’re just anxious, everyone gets anxious. You’ll get over it.” Sure, this can be true in some cases, but it still feels so icky to me. I’m not talking about this because it’s a problem I personally am having to deal with. But it still feels incredibly overwhelming to see. I hate that I live in a world where this is normal. I hate that I feel like if something were to happen, the world would be on the side of my reproductive organs(ones I don’t even want) and not me. I hate that I am considered wrong for finding the concept of pregnancy disgusting, not in the least because of how it is treated by society. Maybe it’s not my fault that I feel this way, maybe it’s actually justified to feel disgusted that pregnancy is considered essential to an afab person’s worth by so many people, that the life of a clump of cells matters more to the world than the fully fledged person who is forced to carry it. I don’t know. I’m really tired.

[rollercoasterwords]

the thing that fucks me up abt being a twin is that it's like.....i was a twin before i was a person. like at the earliest stage of existence i was a clump of cells beside another clump of cells which means before i had lungs or a brain or a heartbeat i had a twin which means before i had a body i had a twin. it is highly likely that the first words ever spoken about me when the nurse looked at the ultrasound were "it's twins!" which means that quite literally every growing cell in the clump that was my body was shaped by the clump growing beside it not only in the womb but in the mouths of the people outside the womb. from our conception my sister and i shared not just a physical space but an ontology, because we existed not as individuals but as a shared conception of identity that could not be separated from itself: we were not two distinct people, we were twins. for any other kind of sibling birth is the moment in which you grow closer and more tangible, but for a twin birth marks the point in time from which you are destined to only ever grow further apart, until one day you are expected to un-become the very thing that you have been since before you were even human. i think if i were to outlive my twin it would be like spending the rest of my life carrying a corpse around on my back.

[isa-ghost]

Can someone genuinely politically competent (PoliSci majors or smth idk) come tell me why the fuck the US is letting Trump campaign when he’s been indicted so many times? Seriously, I want an answer here.

Why are they letting him even PRETEND to run for President if he has all these charges against him?

Is it so he’s too busy with his delusions that he’s gonna get into office again that he won’t go into hiding like a little pussy to escape consequences?

Is it so he has a platform to spout more incriminating shit against himself so they can get him in even deeper trouble?

Is it because legal things take 9000 fucking years so while the government or justice system or whatever is fumbling to get his rich stupid criminal ass in prison, he’s speedrunning his campaign to get into office so he’s “safe” from consequences again? (Bc we all saw how impeachment failed multiple times 🙃)

Or are our legal and government systems just THAT corrupt and fucked that there’s no hope anything is REALLY going to come out of this and we’re just all doomed to suffer being powerless witnesses to the next torrent of stupid shit he does as “president?” Am I just on obscene amounts of copium here hoping there’s a real and sensible reason he’s not in prison and/or deplatformed and barred from campaigning yet?

I’m so fucking tired and angry and hopeless. I have no faith in our country or government or legal/justice systems to do ANYTHING when it matters, because god forbid they do something that would actually do the country some good instead of attacking innocent people and bickering in courts over stupid shit like “should trans people have the right to take a shit in public?” or “should women be able to remove a clump of cells from their body so they don’t fucking die or fall into financial ruin?”

I NEED someone to give me an honest and logical understanding of why the fuck he’s running when he’s literally a proven treasonous criminal because I’m at the end of my fucking rope here.

Reblogs would be appreciated from anyone who doesn’t have half the words I said here blacklisted so maybe this reaches someone who will answer me.

[arsondotpng]

my official stance is a pregnancy is whatever the pregnant person wants it to be. if it’s a 4 week old clump of cells and they want to call it a baby it’s a baby. if they’re 20 weeks and they want to call it a parasite it’s a parasite. if they’re 39 weeks and call it a fetus it’s a fetus. “why are you so sad about miscarrying at 6 weeks it was literally just an embryo” because that was their baby. “how can you get an abortion at 4 months” because that wasn’t a baby. hope that helps.

[ohtobeleah]

Literally not horny in any way but I can't stop thinking about childhood friends to lovers with rhett and just having pictures of you both scattered everywhere. Like they're all over your room, kept hidden in a safe spot in his room, a picture of you in his bull rider vest, in his hat, I could go on forever

Umm so we’re talking Outer My Mind Rhett & Rebel right 🥺

Rhett’s convinced he’s in love with Maria. Everyone, including yourself, is convinced Rhett is in love with Maria. Has been since he was like sixteen. The whole town knows it.

But it’s not her photo that sits framed on his bedside from when you were both seven. It’s not her photo that’s in his wallet from graduation. And it’s not her photo that’s taped to the inside of his centre console in his car from when the two of you went skinny dipping in Spencer’s Cutting.

And it sure as shit isn’t her ultrasound the one that would never be more then a clump of cells, that’s hidden inside his sock drawer, along with the photo of you ass naked on top of him—smiling down at him as you hold his Stetson on top of your head. Riding your cowboy.

It’s you. Rebel. Which makes it all the more hard for you to understand what she has that you just don’t. Even after all these years and a failed pregnancy later—