eddyizm: stfuconservatives: girljanitor: thecommonsenselibertarian: infinitecharlotte: What dafuq? This is so stupid and ignorant. We white people need to suck it the fuck up and accept the fact that we have privilege WHICH MEANS WE TAKE TIME TO SPREAD AWARENESS OF UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IN OUR SOCIETY AS WELL AS DOWNRIGHT RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION PRESENT ALL AROUND US Gosh. Unequal opportunities based on race? I can agree with that… Just not in your context. Being white, I have access to fewer scholarships than a minority. I had to join the military just to be able to go to college at all. “Caucasian students receive more than three-quarters (76%) of all institutional merit-based scholarship and grant funding, even though they represent less than two-thirds (62%) of the student population. Caucasian students are 40% more likely to win private scholarships than minority students. These statistics demonstrate that, as a whole, private sector scholarship programs tend to perpetuate historical inequities in the distribution of scholarships according to race.” The Distribution of Grants and Scholarships by Race BUT WHAT ABOUT FINANCIAL NEED BASED SCHOLARSHIPS???? OH HEY IS THERE ANOTHER SOURCE FOR THIS? It debunks the race myth, which claims that minority students receive more than their fair share of scholarships. The reality is that minority students are less likely to win private scholarships or receive merit-based institutional grants than Caucasian students. Among undergraduate students enrolled full-time/full-year in Bachelor’s degree programs at four-year colleges and universities, minority students represent about a third of applicants but slightly more than a quarter of private scholarship recipients. Caucasian students receive more than three-quarters (76%) of all institutional merit-based scholarship and grant funding, even though they represent less than two-thirds (62%) of the student population. Caucasian students are 40% more likely to win private scholarships than minority students. REMEMBER THAT TIME YOU STARTED PARROTING RACIST MYTHS INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY FACT CHECKING? Scholarships Go Disproportionately To White Students OOOOOOOOOOOOOPS White Students More Likely To Win Scholarships OOOOOOOOOOOOPS OOOOOPS OOPS. Tumblr law: you are obligated to delete your blog if you put “common sense” in your URL and then talk absolute nonsense. lol #burn Original post - are you fucking serious? Everyone else’s responses? Spot on. Also I wanted to reblog for the scholarship / merit  facts.

eddyizm:

stfuconservatives:

girljanitor:

thecommonsenselibertarian:

infinitecharlotte:

What dafuq? This is so stupid and ignorant. We white people need to suck it the fuck up and accept the fact that we have privilege WHICH MEANS WE TAKE TIME TO SPREAD AWARENESS OF UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IN OUR SOCIETY AS WELL AS DOWNRIGHT RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION PRESENT ALL AROUND US

Gosh.

Unequal opportunities based on race? I can agree with that… Just not in your context. Being white, I have access to fewer scholarships than a minority. I had to join the military just to be able to go to college at all.

“Caucasian students receive more than three-quarters (76%) of all institutional merit-based scholarship and grant funding, even though they represent less than two-thirds (62%) of the student population.
Caucasian students are 40% more likely to win private scholarships than minority students. These statistics demonstrate that, as a whole, private sector scholarship programs tend to perpetuate historical inequities in the distribution of scholarships according to race.”

The Distribution of Grants and Scholarships by Race

image

BUT WHAT ABOUT FINANCIAL NEED BASED SCHOLARSHIPS????

image

OH HEY IS THERE ANOTHER SOURCE FOR THIS?

It debunks the race myth, which claims that minority students receive more than their fair share of scholarships. The reality is that minority students are less likely to win private scholarships or receive merit-based institutional grants than Caucasian students. Among undergraduate students enrolled full-time/full-year in Bachelor’s degree programs at four-year colleges and universities, minority students represent about a third of applicants but slightly more than a quarter of private scholarship recipients. Caucasian students receive more than three-quarters (76%) of all institutional merit-based scholarship and grant funding, even though they represent less than two-thirds (62%) of the student population. Caucasian students are 40% more likely to win private scholarships than minority students.

REMEMBER THAT TIME YOU STARTED PARROTING RACIST MYTHS INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY FACT CHECKING?

Scholarships Go Disproportionately To White Students

OOOOOOOOOOOOOPS

White Students More Likely To Win Scholarships

OOOOOOOOOOOOPS

OOOOOPS

OOPS.

Tumblr law: you are obligated to delete your blog if you put “common sense” in your URL and then talk absolute nonsense.

lol #burn

Original post - are you fucking serious?

Everyone else’s responses? Spot on. Also I wanted to reblog for the scholarship / merit  facts.

(Source: communismkills)

Tags | scholarship | racism | facts |
Birth Control 101 For Idiots

bitchesguidetoetiquette:

bemusedlybespectacled:

This is hormonal birth control.

As you can see on the box, you take exactly one pill per day. To make sure it works, you need to take one pill every day at the same time, or it stops working. You take only one pill, and you keep taking them regardless of what you are doing that day.

Hormonal birth control can be used to treat a lot of different diseases, like anemia caused by excessive menstruation. It is a prescription medication that can cost around $15-50 a month. Because it is a prescription medication, it should be covered by insurance, as it treats legitimate health problems.

This is Viagra.

It, too, can treat legitimate health problems like altitude sickness and pulmonary hypertension, but it is usually prescribed for erectile dysfunction. Unlike the Pill, Viagra is taken every time you want to have sex. A lot of health insurance companies cover Viagra, so it costs about as much as your co-pay.

This is a condom.

It is not a prescription medication, and has no health benefits (besides the prevention of STIs and pregnancy). Like Viagra, you must use one before you have sex: indeed, before each sex act. They cost about a dollar per condom.

This is Sandra Fluke.

She testified before a small, Democrat-led hearing after she was cut out of the actual birth control/insurance discussion. Her testimony was about a friend of hers who, because her insurance did not cover birth control, lost an ovary due to an ovarian cyst.

This somehow translates into “I, myself, personally, am having so much sex I can’t afford birth control, and so I want the government to pay for it.”

This is wrong for multiple reasons.

  1. It was about a friend, not her. To say her testimony was about her personally is factually incorrect.
  2. Sex had nothing to do with the testimony - her friend lost an ovary because of medical condition that was left untreated. A medical condition that was completely treatable, but wasn’t, because her insurance wouldn’t cover it. To say that her testimony was about her being “a slut” or “a prostitute” is factually incorrect.
  3. Even if she was having loads of sex, she would still only have one pill a day, not one pill per sex act, so to say “I’m having so much sex I can’t afford birth control” is completely erroneous. The Pill is not Viagra or condoms. To say that she is such “a slut” that she constantly needs more pills is factually incorrect.
  4. The current political debate is not “should the government pay for birth control?” The debate is “should insurance companies, that people and their employers pay for, on their own, be required to cover birth control?” To say that Sandra Fluke wants the government to pay for her birth control is factually incorrect.
  5. Religious organizations do not want to have birth control covered by their insurance, even for employees not of their faith, even if their employees never actually use their insurance to cover birth control. By this logic, they should also not pay their employees, because they could use that money to pay for birth control out of pocket. To say that this issue is about religious freedom and not about women’s health is disingenuous, as Ms. Fluke’s testimony demonstrates.

Hopefully this makes things a little clearer.

Very helpful. Thanks, OP!

This is a perfect post. 

ALSO even if Sandra Fluke and/or all the women at her college were having loads and loads of all the sex …. it wouldn’t be anyone else’s fucking business. 

Facts about women.

feminismandequality:

The stats upset and disappoint me every time I read them.

For everyone who thinks women are totally equal.

There really is no difference between men and women's math abilities

fuckyeahfeminists:

I know my lovely readers knew this already, but thought it can never be reiterated too many times.

Now, researchers Jane Mertz of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Jonathan Kane of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater have performed the most comprehensive exploration yet of math performance. They took in data from 86 different countries, many of which had not previously kept reliable records of math performance and so their addition allowed for much stronger cross-cultural analysis. So what did they find?

First, in many countries, there’s no gender gap at all both at the average and very high levels of performance. Some countries, including the United States, do show a gender gap, but that gap has decreased substantially over the last few decades, and some test scores suggest American girls have already caught up to their male counterparts.

Tags | education | math | gender | science | sex | facts |
What Planned Parenthood Actually Does

becauseiamawoman:

The Oppressed Little Fetus: What Planned Parenthood Actually Does

feministblackboard:

Conservatives are fond of willfully ignorant statements like: Our tax dollars shouldn’t go to abortion, so Planned Parenthood should have its funding stripped. We all know this is a lie. The information to debunk this claim is widely and readily available. Aside from the three percent of PP’s budget that goes to abortion care (and that 3% is privately funded, duh), PP’swide range of health care services include:

Women’s Health

Includes:

  • birth control
  • emergency contraception
  • checkups for reproductive and sexual health problems
  • gynecological exams
  • pregnancy tests and pre-natal care
  • routine physical exams

Men’s Health

Includes:

  • checkups for reproductive or sexual health problems
  • colon cancer screening 
  • erectile dysfunction services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral 
  • jock itch exam and treatment 
  • male infertility screening and referral 
  • premature ejaculation services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral 
  • routine physical exams 
  • testicular cancer screenings 
  • prostate cancer screenings 
  • urinary tract infections testing and treatment 
  • vasectomy

General Health Care

Includes:

  • anemia testing 
  • cholesterol screening 
  • diabetes screening
  • physical exams, including for employment and sports
  • flu vaccines
  • help with quitting smoking
  • high blood pressure screening
  • tetanus vaccines
  • thyroid screening
  • STD testing, treatment, and vaccines

So conservatives: tell me again why Planned Parenthood’s funding should be eliminated?

(Source: feminist-blackboard)

stfuprolife:

(TW: Rape/Abortion) No male should be pro-life.

We’re having a political discussion.  Please be respectful and exclude any mention to any religion or any god.  It would be really appreciated.

 Ok. Here’s another question. Can anything and everything be justified by its nature of “choice”? I might say that raping little girls is a choice. But certainly you’d not want me to do that.

So what are you doing? You’re restricting my “choice.” You believe that I should not be granted a choice to rape little girls. So by your own definition you are an immoral person, because you are restricting my choice. MY position is that there are some things that are never justified, and require restriction. Human choice needs to be restrained.

But what you are saying is that everything should be a choice. You’re saying ‘it’s immoral to believe that someone shouldn’t be granted a choice.’ Well in most causes I’d agree. But get to human life, and whether or not to kill it, and I will stand up and say, “I will not let you make that choice.” 

The choice to rape an actual sentient girl is extremely incomparable to ending a pregnancy.  You’re taking the word “choice” out of context.  By eliminating a person’s choice to end a pregnancy is immoral, if you’re looking for specificity.  Why?  Because you are now taking this person’s control of hir body away.  Telling people that you believe that this person must bear the punishment of a pregnancy that was completely unwanted and sometimes unwarranted, then that is immoral.  For one thing, it is not your body.  It is none of your business.  You may be uncomfortable with abortions, but to believe no one else is allowed to make a choice within their reproductive rights is wrong.  To think otherwise is regressive.

Ok, let me ask another question. You said that murder is wrong.

Does that mean that you value human life? Do you believe that the life of a grown man is precious and ought not to be violated or destroyed?

I do value human life.  And I also value the quality of life.  I do believe that a life of a person separate from another person’s womb to be precious and to be not violated or destroyed.

Safe for who? The little baby being ripped apart by a suction device? Or being scalded to death by a highly acidic salt solution? Or, when all of his body excepting the head is outside the mother, his skull being punctured and collapsed, and his brain sucked out to make the delivery more convenient? 

Oh that’s all good and fine, but we want the “safety of the mother” because the convenience of the mother means more than the life of her baby.

And you said it’s fine with you as long as it’s legal? Does something being legal morally justify it? For a long time it was legal in medieval Spain for Christians to go around torturing “heretics.” Same reasoning?

If you want to continue this discussion, you have to use the correct terms so that everything would remain accurate.  There is no baby involved with an abortion.  Only embryos and fetuses, which are insentient and again, incomparable to those who are sentient and separate and physically autonomous.  Thank you.

Many of the procedures you are describing have been outlawed for a while now, these things can only happen before the viability of a fetus, deemed viable if extracted, the fetus can survive without the use of someone else’s body.  And if brought to such a case, the fetus was wanted to begin with.

The removal of a mere embryo/fetus via suction aspiration or medically seems fine.  Except here’s some more accurate medical information, the suction aspiration does not rip apart a fetus since this surgery 9/10 happens before the first trimester. It sucks out the fetus as a whole.  It can also be used after a miscarriage to clear leftover uterine content.  In every suction aspiration procedure, the fetus extracted is examined for completeness.

And yes, the life of an actual person should always be valued over an insentient fetus that is not viable to begin with.  If the fetus is viable, it will be saved.  That is always the case in a late term abortion.

You’re taking my words out of context.
I said that abortion should always remain legal and I would be fine with that.
But thanks for trying.
And again, avoid comparing fetuses to actual people.  It takes away from an accurate and factual discussion. 

Empathy for who? It seems as if the pro-choice position is anything but empathy. You are highly concerned for the mother, who doesn’t want to have the responsibility of a baby, or who will be inconvenienced by its existence, and who has already had decades of lifetime (and, unless she is killed in childbirth, will have decades more,) but you treat like trash her infant, who hasn’t even seen the light of day, cannot speak out in defense of itself, and has its entire LIFE ahead of it. Think about all the people that were murdered before they were even born, and think of the happiness and fulfillment that they could have had from life, just as you and I do. But no, we value the woman’s convenience more than that.

Again, it is an insentient fetus.  It cannot speak or think for itself because it is insentient, without sense or feeling or thought.  The mother should always have more empathy and sympathy than a mere fetus.  It is her body after all.  To be against such an idea is anti-woman and extremely oppressive.  The death of actual people is a tragedy.  The removal of someone’s fetus is simply a person’s choice.  It isn’t yours.  If you were ever pregnant, you will be granted the choice of keeping it or removing it.  It will be your choice.  If you are not able to get pregnant, then this conversation has been very silly.

What matters more, the convenience that someone has from avoiding the consequences of their actions and living childless, or the life of a human being? I’m surprised you believe in objective morality and favor the former. Even if I were to have to choose between the life of a woman who would die in childbirth and the life of her baby, I would encourage the woman to sacrifice her life for her child, because she has already had decades of life, and it is supremely selfish to choose your life over that of an innocent, who is in existence because of your actions. It is hard but if I were in that position I wouldn’t hesitate to give my life for my child.

And what people don’t realize most of the time is that there are other options. People rush into these choices not realizing that child-raising is a tremendously rewarding, enriching experience that brings so much joy. In their youthful foolishness, to paraphrase with all due respect, people imagine that life with a child would be horrible and miserable, and that you’d never have a free moment of your own. But simply isn’t true. Might be when you have ten kids, but just one? Come on.

And has everyone forgotten about adoption? I’d rather put my kid up to have a good life with people who love him, then allow myself to kill him simply because I wouldn’t. Who is the immoral one now, I ask.

The thing about the pro-choice position is the paradoxical position of empathy and caring concerning the woman who only wants an abortion because she doesn’t want to have to make a commitment, and the hateful murdering and cold disposition of a helpless infant. They just seem like polar opposites, yet people seem to support them simultaneously. Don’t think I will ever understand it.

I have to say it again, to make sure you get it: It is not an infant, child, or baby.  It is a fetus.

What matters most in this debate is the life of the person who will be forced to continue a pregnancy because it would make others uncomfortable if this person didn’t.  Getting pregnant is a consequence and abortion is not an easy decision for most.  Sometimes an abortion itself can be traumatic, especially with those who aim to harass the person in every way.  But overall, a pregnancy should never be a punishment.

Again, it is a fetus.  And you think people should give up our lives for mere insentient embryos and fetuses?  

It seems that you need more education on this topic.  The only reason a person would be saved during a late term abortion would be because the fetus is not viable to begin with.  There is no reason for a person to simply die for a fetus that will not even be viable.

Not every person wants to be a parent.  You may feel that way about parenting being enriching, but that does not mean simply feeling it will make someone else share that sentiment.  It is self-centered to think otherwise.

You’re not even mentioning ectopic pregnancies.

No one excludes the option of adoption.
It’s a valid choice.

But there are still people who do not want to be pregnant for another nine months just to cast off this child to a most likely terrible life.  There are already way too many unwanted children in the system, and this child would only be another one.
According to the National Adoption Information and National Family Survey, for every adoption seeker there are four children.  Annually, there is about 500,000 adoption seekers, four times that is how much?  How many unwanted children?  You can do the math.
If abortion was made illegal, that’s a possibility of another 1.2 million+ unwanted children in the system.

People support the pro-choice movement on a factual and logical basis, and basic empathy for actual people who would actually experience suffering unlike a fetus being removed.
An embryo/fetus does not feel or think until well after 24 weeks, when it is wanted.  But since pregnancy has several complications, more so than abortions, things happen.  And sometimes, a fetus must be removed during a late term abortion.  If it is viable, it will be saved.

Again, an embryo/fetus does not feel or think.
The person who you think should be forced into a pregnancy does feel and think.

Sources:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/pn094.pdf

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/statistics/adoption.cfm

http://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/you-are-pregnant/pregnancy-complications.cfm

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Abortion_in_Australia

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/abortion.html

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces/family_planning_abortions.html

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm

http://birmingham.academia.edu/LisaBortolotti/Papers/70735/Stem_cell_research_personhood_and_sentience

http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/cduncan/230/adoption.htm

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr090308.html

I’m reblogging this for the FACTS & also the resource links

I am the Pro-Choice Generation

stfuprolife:

daskannnichtsein:

I am Pro-Choice because 61% of those who have abortions already have children.[1]

I am Pro-Choice because 42% of those who have abortions are living 100% under the poverty level. [2]

I am Pro-Choice because 37% of those who have abortions are living 100-199% under the poverty level. [3]

I am Pro-Choice because there is no perfect contraceptive method.

I am Pro-Choice because I want every child loved and wanted and every parent ready.

I am Pro-Choice because adoption is not a cure-all.

I am Pro-Choice because I understand the radical notion that there are people, like me, who want to have sex and never want children.

I am Pro-Choice because fertile people owe nothing to these mythical infertile couples who angst over not having children but are never told to go adopt.

I am Pro-Choice because I am sex-positive.

I am Pro-Choice because it’s not of my business what someone else does with their body.

I am Pro-Choice because I see the opposing sides’ arguments; I see their graphic photos, their propaganda, their murders of doctors and I know that I am right.

I am Pro-Choice because every time I see a graphic photo or a fetus letter asking for its mother to help stop the pain of abortion, I want to rip it up—because none of these assholes understand the pain of watching, being, a mother anguishing over a sick, sick infant.

I am Pro-Choice because 58% of those who got an abortion would have liked to have it earlier and 60% had to delay it because of money and various arrangement problems. [4]

I am Pro-Choice because people are more than a womb.

I am Pro-Choice because my body is not a political battleground.

What I really love about this is that the facts are cited. :)

(Source: handsomephillip)

CNN Fetus Pain Study (NOT UNTIL 24 WEEKS!!!)

stfuconservatives:

Submitted by C:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/06/26/study-fetuses-pain/

I’m practically frolicking around all of the STFU sites with this wonderful link.  It is the biggest STFU to Conservatives I’ve ever seen that doesn’t even directly mention them.  Perhaps more people will realize the absurdity of giving the rights of a full-developed, feeling being over to another who can’t feel nor exist on its own.

Reblogging with contents of articled for the too-lazy-to-click folks (I sometimes one of them).

Before 24 weeks, nerve endings in the brains of fetuses are not sufficient developed to sense pain. (via Wellness Blog)  

The study was conducted by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) in Brtain; the conclusions are revealing:

The report concludes that fetuses under 24 weeks must be pain-free, because at that age the wiring doesn’t exist to send pain signals from nerves around the body to the cortex, the area of the brain where pain is experienced. At which later point such connections form is unknown, so analgesia should still be considered after 24 weeks

The study is sure to cause waves in the ever-evolving abortion debate. Consider, for example that in April a law was signed in Nebraska that banned abortions later than 20 weeks, based largely on arguments that this is the point at which a fetus can feel pain. See the complete analysis of the study on the Wellness Blog.


-
Bans Do Not Cut Abortion Rate

Restricting the availability of legal abortion does not appear to reduce the number of women trying to end unwanted pregnancies, a major report suggests.

It [the Institute] did note that improved access to contraception had cut the overall abortion rate over the last decade.

Every year, an estimated 70,000 women die as a result of unsafe abortions.

In the developed world, legal restrictions did not stop abortion but just meant it was “exported”, with Irish women for instance simply travelling to other parts of Europe…In the developing world, it meant lives were put at risk.

Western Europe is held up as an example of what access to contraceptive services can achieve, and the Netherlands - with just 10 abortions per 1,000 women compared to the world’s 29 per 1,000 - is held up as the gold standard. Here, young people report using two forms of contraception as standard.

n much of eastern Europe, where abortion was treated as a form of birth control, abortion rates have dropped by 50% in the past decade as contraceptives have become more widely available.

[emphasis above mine]


Theme created by: Roy David Farber. Based on concepts from: Hunson's Black and Blue Eyes theme. Powered By: Tumblr.
1 of 1