Best reaction to noticing a typo ever.
Best reaction to noticing a typo ever.
For my photography class I did series of self-portraits in which I attempted to portray culture and counterculture for the past 10 decades. This is the product of that idea…
this is SO COOL oh man
"My body, my choice" only makes sense when someone else’s life isn’t at stake.
Fun fact: If my younger sister was in a car accident and desperately needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was the only person on Earth who could donate blood to save her, and even though donating blood is a relatively easy, safe, and quick procedure no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown person, it would be ILLEGAL to FORCE me to donate blood if I didn’t want to.
See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this….cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon.
Like, we can’t even take LIFE SAVING organs from CORPSES unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy.
To tell people that they MUST sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what YOU view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the VAST majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died.
You’re asking people who can become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant to dead bodies.
reblogging for commentary
But, assuming the mother wasn’t raped, the choice to HAVE a baby and risk sacrificing their “bodily autonomy” is a choice that the mother made. YOu don’t have to have sex with someone. Cases of rape aside, it isn’t ethical to say abortion is justified. The unborn baby has rights, too.
First point: Bodily autonomy can be preserved, even if another life is dependent on it. See again the example about the blood donation.
And here’s another point: When you say that “rape is the exception” you betray something FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN about your own argument.
Because a fetus produced from sexual assault is biologically NO DIFFERENT than a fetus produced from consensual sex. No difference at all.
If one is alive, so is the other. If one is a person, so is the other. If one has a soul, then so does the other. If one is a little blessing that happened for a reason and must be protected, then so is the other.
When you say that “Rape is the exception” what you betray is this: It isn’t about a life. This isn’t about the little soul sitting inside some person’s womb, because if it was you wouldn’t care about HOW it got there, only that it is a little life that needs protecting.
When you say “rape is the exception” what you say is this: You are treating pregnancy as a punishment. You are PUNISHING people who have had CONSENSUAL SEX but don’t want to go through a pregnancy. People who DARED to have consensual sex without the goal of procreation in mind, and this is their “consequence.”
And that is gross.
This has been added to since I last saw it, so reblogging again.
Busted wide open.
I was there,Gandalf…
”-Isildur, we need to destroy it!
-You gonna drag this shit on the top of the mountain?
I was there the day the strength of Men failed…
say it with me:
makeup is gender neutral
I whispered “makeup is gender neutral” out loud on the train and the guy next to me looked at me weird but then whispered “fuck yea” back
When he was 2 years old, he fell out of a second story window and fractured his skull
When he was 6 years old, he mistakenly drank boric acid.
When he was 9 years old, he fell over a small cliff and broke his leg.
When he was 11 years old, he contracted measles and was in a coma for nine days.
When he was 14 years old, he broke his arm when he caught it in a carriage door.
When he was 19 years old, he was struck on the head by a falling brick.
When he was 23 years old, he almost died from the effects of tainted wine.
When he was 29 years old, Adolph Sax invented the saxophone.
clearly someone didn’t want that saxophone invented
THIS NEEDS TO BE A 300-PAGE SCI-FI NOVEL BECAUSE I WOULD READ THE HELL OUTTA THAT
I do not know one woman, NOT ONE who hasn’t had a part of her body grabbed by a strange man at one time or another or been pressured into doing something sexual she didn’t want to do, or who has been sexually assaulted. Not one, NOT ONE woman who I have ever…
"Hufflepuffs are known to have good friends in Slytherin. Hufflepuffs are some of the few who won’t judge based on negative rumours. This means they’re the most likely to approach Slytherins and help them when in need. This makes amazingly loyal friends between the houses. Mess with a Hufflepuff, and you’ll likely find a Slytherin getting revenge for the more forgiving house."
HELL YEAH FUCKING RIGHT
it’s true doe
Daniel Radcliffe on shooting a gay sex scene in Kill Your Darlings
That moment when you realise that he has little skulls on his bow tie
This is the picture that is launching a MILLION Tomsephone fics in my head….
Ties are cool, but ties with skulls are even cooler.
If you’ve ever wondered how big Gengars are, here is your answer.
Isn’t it nice how people twist their religious scripture to suit their weds but when it’s used against them it’s suddenly not okay
I talked to a monk about this quote once (we have mutual friends, and he came to a New Year’s Eve party at my shared art studio). He said this isn’t even talking about homosexuality. That the bible never actually says homosexuality is wrong. What that passage means is this:
Women were treated as subservient and it that you shouldn’t treat other men as subservient, like they are beneath you. It is not talking about homosexuality. If it was, it would say it outright since the bible lists other things outright.
I take the word of a monk who have studied the bible extensively more than a self proclaimed Christian.
The above text, I would like to point out is from the point of view of this translation of the original Hebrew. I spoke with my cousin’s rabbi on the matter and his response was different, saying that it was a mistranslation. See, the true translation says that a man shall not lie with another in the bed of a woman, which is to say, the Hebrews had a shit ton of rules about when a man was or was not allowed in a woman’s bed and private quarters (including, if she didn’t want you there, you weren’t allowed there. Hebrew women were also allowed to divorce their husbands and the image of the ‘oppressive Hebrew people’ is an image that was propogated by Christianity which, historically speaking, doesn’t treat the Jewish people too well and liked to paint them as being rather barbaric and backwards and cultish with their traditions, which, another piece of fun info, their traditions were one of the main reasons why the Jewish people were less likely, in medieval times, to die of the plague. Because washing your hands and avoiding the dead and vermin and the like was a lot of help. Of course the Christians persecuted them for not dying but that’s another matter. I’m sidetracked). So the verse is literally saying ‘Don’t fuck in some lady’s bed because that’s just goddamn rude’
Also, whenever a Christian brings the book of Leviticus up, you should feel free to point out that these are rules that were given to make the Hebrew people prepared for when the son of God came to earth. In Christianity, it’s believed the son of God was Jesus. So by following the rules set in Leviticus or pushing them as things we should follow, they’re saying that Jesus was not the son of God, and that Jesus did not, in fact, die for our sins. Jewish people believe, in their faith, that the son of God hasn’t yet been born, so many choose to follow these rules.
Most people of course roll their eyes when I explain the translation of the verse (full breakdown found here) but it’s always fun to point out the nature of the rules in Leviticus and the implications of following them.
I’m a theology student and I am on the verge of crying because of how accurate this commentary is. Historical context is simultaneously the most interesting and most important part of interpreting any texts.
Most religious people seem to base their beliefs on things that are severely mistranslated. I wish they would do their research before using the bible for hate.
I studied theology extensively and was going to become a theologist until I switched majors. The above commentary is 100% accurate and what I try to stress in a lot if conversations with Bible Thumpers.
Jesus also affirms the homosexual relationship between the Roman Centurion and his “slave”. The particular Greek word used to refer to this special slave was “pais”. Greek language studies and contexts show that a “pais” was a male love slave. Regular slaves were called “dolos”. The Centurion makes this distinction clearly when he asks Jesus to heal his slave (pais), and then to prove his status he tells Jesus that his slaves (dolos) go when he tells them to. But this slave (pais) was special. He was the Centurion’s lover.
Hearing this, Jesus was so amazed he says he had not found ANYONE ELSE who had such great faith. He then blesses the Centurion and heals his male lover.
THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY TEACHES ABOUT SAME SEX COUPLES.
In short, the English adaptation is a mistranslated farce.
reblogging for the comments ^^^^^^
EXCUSE ME WHILE I REBLOG THIS FIFTY MILLION TIMES
This commentary is so powerful. Someone is going to get delivered.
IN OTHER WORDS JESUS BLESSED THEM, AND THEIR UNION!