I Appreciate Your Response And That You Seem To Be Understanding What I Was Attempting To Communicate.

I'm hearing a pro-abortion argument that fetuses 'don't count' as being alive because their lungs don't yet work outside the womb abd they're reliant on outside intervention. Apparently 'functional lungs' are part of yhe definition of a living being.

Ignoring yhe raw absurdity of that statement, I'm in renal failure. My kidneys mo longer function and I have to perform routine dialysis treatments. Withou this artificial intervention, I - and the other half a million Americans with renal failure - will die.

So do we mo longer count as alive? Is it of no moral consequence to kill us?

I'm still pretty young. I've seen people in their teens and twenties in the same position. We have our lives ahead of us. But we can't live without mechanical assistance.

So could someone decide, well, having to deal with your medical bullshit-- that's inconvenient, I don't want to deal with you anymore. Well, you're a permanent patient, you clearly have no quality of life, I'm just trying to prevent your suffering. Your vital organs don't work so you aren't really a living human being anyway.

What about those with pacemakers, or who need supplemental oxygen? They don't count because they can't survive independently?

I know it's just justification to kill a child without having to deal with the moral repercussions. They never think beyond justifying their actions. But what a sick idea.

I'm sorry for the situation you're in and I will be keeping you in my prayers.

Your message demonstrates yet another fatal flaw of the pro-abortion mindset. Any argument they made for killing children in the womb can be used to justify killing a person outside and even if they don't realize it and will deny it when it's pointed out, when they argue that an unborn baby isn't a person because their lungs aren't fully functional, they aren't conscious, etc. they are arguing those arbitrary points are what makes someone a person and if it justifies killing an unborn child then it in turn would also justify killing a person who has already been born.

But of course once you point that out they quickly make up a reason why it doesn't apply anymore once the person is born. But that in itself is just them debunking their own argument because if a fetus doesn't count as being alive because that same line of reasoning doesn't apply to someone who is outside the womb then lung, kidney, or other organ functionality is not the real argument and this new issue they brought up is.

They are hard to debate sometimes because every time you back them into corner they suddenly change their argument.

Pro-aborts do not think about the implications of their preposterous claims at all and they need to understand that when they create those arbitrary standards that they made up, they are revoking personhood from more than just the unborn and justifying murder of anyone who doesn't meet the perimeters they set - whether that person has already been born or not.

Aww man, I want a heart shaped mouse 3:

Supernatural Romances make NO sense - A Random Opinion

Here's the thing: As much as I enjoy these concepts or tropes, they don't make sense when you take the time to think about it. Don't believe me? Let's go down the list then.

Vampire romances: The concept of a vampire romance really doesn't make sense when you take just five minutes to add all the aspects together.

Sure, it can be intriguing or whatever (especially if there’s a unique way in which the premise is handled), but let's really boil down the contents of its true implications here.

A vampire is a creature that feeds on human blood. Vampire romances USUALLY (not all the time, but usually) involve a vampire falling for a human rather than a vampire falling for another vampire.

Let me say this again. Vampire, which eats humans---then has stories where they then fall for humans.

That's like a chupacabra hooking up with a goat. What sense does it make for a creature to fall in love with something it usually tends to eat?

Even if the said predator of this relationship has no intention of eating their mate or harming them---would you, as a rational person, feel comfortable knowing that your partner has to harm YOUR species and eat them for their own survival? I highly doubt it.

"Oh, I know you kill people and drink their blood, but I know you won't kill ME! I'm just DIFFERENT--"

It literally makes no sense.

Zombie romances: Zombie romances make even less sense to me. Because now instead of a creature that simply wants your blood, it’s a creature that quite literally wants to rip your stomach open and eat your intestines like Twizzlers.

At least with a vampire, you could just have IV blood bags for them to drink to put off their thirst for a WHILE. But when it comes to zombies, they literally rely on eating the WHOLE entirety of the human.

Once again, it’s like a chupacabra dating a goat. Oh, but what if the zombie doesn’t want to eat or harm their partner?

Well, then we get into even more ethically concerning details on the human’s part. Because aren’t zombies walking corpses that eat people? And if a human is willing to date or become uh…'entangled’ with a zombie, isn’t that a form of necrophilia since the zombie is literally just a man-eating corpse? 

Sure, we could argue whether or not zombies are living or non-living. But let's be honest here: the majority of the time, zombies do not look cute. They are rotting parts of their bodies, they look dead, they smell horrible, they’re covered in blood, and sometimes missing a limb or two. If you’re unironically attracted to that in real life or something (not including those who JUST like the stories for the stories), you are mentally ill—there’s no way around it for me. You are attracted to something that looks like a corpse. That in itself is necrophilia and it’s honestly gross from an incredibly literal standpoint.

Even if the zombie were to look like some cutesy/idealistic anime character or something, it still doesn't change the fact that this thing's practically DEAD.

Sure, like vampire romances, it could be interesting depending on the intricacies of the story. But it still makes no sense when you write it down on paper. Wow, you’re dating a creature that looks dead and has to fight off the urge to eat people every single second they're on this planet. How quirky. 

Ghost romances: Ghost romances also don’t make sense on paper. Now, this one is a bit more loose in my opinion since ghost archetypes are often experimented with in terms of what they can do or not do. It’s just one of those things where it really depends on the story world and the premise it's placed in. However, from the very cultural and general stance of how ghosts work, they can’t touch anything (except when it's to conveniently scare people, so even then, their intangibility is transient) and they can’t age. 

I’m sorry, but aren’t the driving points of a romance being able to see the characters display affection and/or get old together? And if a ghost can’t touch anything, what’s the point in being romantically involved with someone you can’t kiss? I get there’s long distance relationships, but if they’re in the same room with you—why would you want that? 

Even if the subject of physical intimacy wasn’t an issue, there’s still the prospect of aging. Because if your boo (pun intended) died young and is a ghost, that means they’re physically stuck at that age forever. Even if they were to be centuries older than you, wouldn’t it be weird to see some elderly person smooching on a young looking supernatural?

Let me put it like this. A human woman at 25 years old is in a relationship with a male ghost. The said male ghost died at 30. Sure, she could get away with dating him for another five or ten years, but eventually, the human woman ages in appearance physically and looks older than her ghost partner. And if she lives long enough, she’s gonna be 80 while her boo still looks 30. You’re seriously telling me that DOESN’T look weird from the outside? Wouldn't you be weirded out if some super old person was smooching up with someone decades younger than them?

At that point, to avoid any oddities, you’d be better off killing yourself in whatever spot they’re stuck to so you wouldn’t have to worry about aging out of proportion in the relationship (and if not aging, then to touch them). That sounds like a lot more work than it’s worth.

Werewolf romances: Werewolf romances are the only sort of supernatural romance I could possibly get behind—and even then, it’s still highly dependent on how the said story chooses to handle the workings of lycanthropy. 

At least with this partner, they most likely can turn humans who won’t HAVE to kill you out of survival. You don’t have to be sorry about some super weird complex age gap. And you can touch them. Sounds like a pretty decent basis so far. BUT there’s always a catch.

A werewolf is (duh) a person who can turn into a wolf (or wolf-like monster). When it comes to these beings, it really is a roll of the dice. Because some versions will make them seem they have no thought process or control at all—whereas others give them complete control. So to call a werewolf automatically dangerous to the well being of their human partner is rather tough to say off the bat. Though, I do know that all of that fur that sheds off of them will be annoying to deal with (and that’s not even counting all of the things they might chew up---like your shoes).

And while I would be inclined to agree that being in a relationship with a werewolf could most definitely be a form of beastiality, at the very LEAST a werewolf can revert back into a human the majority of the time. So as long as you’re only doing stuff with them as a human, you should technically be fine, right?

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I still don’t find much appeal in becoming romantically involved with someone who can become some giant creepy wolf abomination, but at least there’s SOME things in there you COULD manipulate depending on which universe you land into.

Overall, while I do think supernatural romances are indeed a fun concept (and I DO tend to enjoy some of these stories), there’s no way in HECK I think they’re ACTUALLY plausible (unless you add some major--MAJOR--plot armor).

i went to a leftist festival last month and there was a panel dedicated to prostitution, why abolition is the only road to go for leftists and how to help and support prostituted women exiting the trade, and i keep thinking about that union organizer who said, "we hear more and more that 'sex work is work', but if that were true, then there'd be professional trainings leading to a qualification for prostitution, then there'd be prostitution diplomas, then high schoolers could send applications to follow those trainings and become prostitutes. but we all know that all these things don't exist, and if they did exist we would all recognize them for what they are: a grooming business encouraging pedophilia and violence against women and girls." and what she said later; "trade unions that argue that 'sex work is work' never engage in legal battles against pimps or brothel owners. they don't even recognize that pimps are the bosses of the prostitution market. "sex workers' trade unions" don't fight pimps because sex workers' unions don't represent the alleged "workers" (prostituted women), they represent the bosses: pimps."

and that made me think of what Kajsa Ekis Ekman said about the trade unions that consider prostitution to be work and prostituted women to be workers: they offer trainings about condom use and spend millions of dollars funding "worker peer education" about "safe sex".

So one again, it's prostituted women who are held responsible for the spreading and the prevention of STDs - not the johns, not the pimps. the prostituted women, many of them victims of sex trafficking. "As human trafficking expert Malka Marcovich has pointed out, this means a return to nineteenth-century ideals of hygiene, where the onus was “primarily on the women to take responsibility for the health of ‘the customer’, so diseases would not be spread to their families” (2007, p. 347)."

It's quite obvious to any trade union organizer that prostitution is not work and the sex trade can't be organized as a trade union. a few months ago, the biggest unions in my country (which included the traditional left-wing trade unions as well as students' unions) issued a paper condemning the 'sex work is work' narrative and the pimp lobbies got so mad about that because they know their strategy isn't working because leftists know what left-wing politics look like and they know women's liberation doesn't come from prostitution. Now it's interesting that the biggest voices of the "sex work is work" movement come from the USA, where the anticapitalist left doesn't exist. American liberals love to pass reactionary politics as revolutionary but not because they are stupid in their own country does it mean they should influence the actually left-wing labour movement in other countries, right?

One Marvel pairing I'd be interested in seeing in the comics (if done correctly) would be Spider-Man x She-Hulk. I genuinely think with the proper writing and nuance, a relationship between them could work. Spider-Man reads to me like he'd appreciate a woman of her caliber.

Men: Let's raise little boys and teach young men that emotions are stupid, effeminate, that people are stupid for having them, that their emotions are not to be expressed unless it contributes to their anger or dominance, and thus also teach them that it makes women irrational whenever they try to talk to us about their emotions or problems, so we have to remind them of that.

Also men: Why do women initiate the majority of divorces?

As someone who's against abortion, I feel like this needs to be said: Society really doesn't do enough to help women endure pregnancy either. Unfortunately, pregnancy complications are a lot more common than people would originally think, which is also another reason as to why a lot of women today are now opting out of having children. Because more often than not, our society gives them very little support, women are shamed for being pregnant outside of marriage even when it was outside of their control (such as being raped), women often don’t get help and in fact, there’s a very obvious trend of men abandoning the women they impregnate. The trend is so widespread that we joke about it. “Haha, your dad left to get milk and never came back.” You realize how disgusting that is?

In the grand scheme of things and in terms of history, we have only recently gotten out of a system that automatically writes women off as ‘hysterical’ and now listen to their pain or issues—but even then, there’s still countless of stories of women who had complications in their bodies—not just in pregnancy—due to the fact that their doctors just would not listen to them when they told them they’re in pain or suspected something was wrong. It was only until 1993 did women in America actually start to be medically studied.

When you have it all down, it is any wonder why women in this day and age don’t want to bear children anymore when there seems to be little perceived benefit for themselves and the child involved? And I don't wanna hear any red-pillers going, "Oh, females take advantage of the child support---" You're not a rapper. You're not a celebrity. You're on Tumblr. You don't have any gold to dig. And even if you do run into a situation where a woman crappily uses the system against you, it's your fault for not being sexually responsible in the first place. Sorry, she didn't get pregnant by herself, sir.

As much as I don't want abortion to be a thing, I think we really got to show how we plan to actually improve society outside of creating hospitals :l

Not saying that ALL of us are bare-bottoms who doing nothing, but the one's voicing for us could definitely be doing a LOT more.

This is why I don't wanna place myself in either political party because conservatives aren't talking about the concerns women SHOULD have regarding their bodies during pregnancy and/or how it'll effect their lives and what help they're gonna get.

Both sides have things they ignore, but my gosh.

My Conclusion about Prince Adam - A Disney Theory

I already know I'm probably gonna make some people disagree with what I'm gonna say, but honestly? I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone else comment on this yet. If you genuinely are going to be offended just from me having my own opinions and observations about a FILM, then I dunno what to tell you, bro. I perfectly understand if you disagree with my theory, but that's what it is---a theory, not fact. You can still like the movie.

Now finally addressing the main point...

So, according to some other fan theories, the Beast/Prince (his name is Prince Adam, don't know why they never mentioned it in the movie, but apparently, that’s his name) was a child when he was cursed by the enchantress since the flower was supposed to die during his twenty-first year.

And the movie specifies that enough time had passed to the point where the rose began to wilt and lose petals—which was the condition it was in before he met Belle anyway. Chronologically, this would mean Prince Adam got cursed when he was eleven. So if that were to be the case, then yes---the Enchantress would be the real villain here for cursing a child that followed the simple rules of 'stranger danger.' And for a while, I also believed this conclusion.

However, there's something else in the movie that I think disproves this theory entirely.

When Belle enters the West Wing despite the Beast telling her not to, she notices a ripped painting of a man. Then when the beast gets transformed back into a human at the end of the movie, he looks like the man in the ripped painting.

In order for that painting to have been made, he was way more than likely already a grown up before he became a beast---hence how the original artist even got the facial reference to know what to paint. You really expect me to believe this is a random painting of someone else who just HAPPENS to look like Adam? I don't think so.

Same creepy wide blue eyes, same length hair, same skin color, etc. And sure, the shading and colors are a bit different, but the similarities are still there.

There’s no way he was around 11 when that portrait was painted. Even if he was let's say in his late teens, he still would not have been young enough for him to be a smaller child. The ABSOLUTE youngest I think the prince could've been in order for that painting to be made and ALSO look like that is at the very LEAST 15.

Even in the beginning of the film, it shows Prince Adam definitely not looking like a kid. He's also wearing a SIMILAR collar to the one he wears in the torn painting.

That dude don't look 11 to me. And keep in mind, the curse said he would die during his twenty-first year if he didn’t find love. The curse very well COULD'VE meant his 21st year of being a BEAST and not necessarily point to his AGE. Considering the controversy around what Belle's ACTUAL age could/might be, I'm not gonna comment on that. But TLDR: I don't think Prince Adam was a child when he got cursed in the movie due to the ripped painting of him found in the West Wing.

I hate how it's always a 'young woman who took advantage of a 60 year old for her position' and not 'a 60 year old man who only promoted women who were willing to give him sexual favors.'

Black Cat is NOT better than MJ - An Insomniac Rant

Listen, I'll definitely make a post about how crappy a love interest Insomniac's version of MJ is for Peter Parker (and when made, I'll link it in THIS post). But there ain't no way in dog drool I am EVER going to say that Black Cat is better love interest for him. If anything, a part of me would like to argue she's a bit worse.

"Oh, I only like her/ship them as a joke---" Congratulations, you can leave the post because I'm obviously not talking about you :)

Maybe I'm off my rocker, but what about this DC Catwoman copycat screams wifey-material to you guys? Felicia has manipulated, lied to, and used Peter for her own advantage time after time with seemingly no remorse. And even if she supposedly did for one millisecond, she sure as heck doesn't atone for it. And even when she apologized for tricking him into helping her, it sure sounded un-genuine.

Whether she truly had a son or not (though considering Felicia's history of being a pathological liar, I wouldn't put it past her), she used that narrative to trick Peter into a sense of false security, only to then trap him in a room after she got what she wanted.

And let's say that Felicia having a son WAS true. Guess what? THAT'S EVEN WORSE!

Because NOW instead of it just being a slimy scheme to get him vulnerable, she's lying to him by omission. Regardless of what her so-called intentions could be, she's still manipulating him which is an absolute no-bueno for ANY type of relationship (romantic or not).

You guys seriously need to stop glossing over how flawed these characters are just because you're attracted to them.

Y'all will complain up and down about how Peter's constantly broke but then want him to hook up with a chick that'd just steal his money without a blink? Make it make sense.

Once again, MJ is DEFINITELY not a good girlfriend for him either, but are we really going to pick a literal criminal as a love interest JUST because she's pretty?

“Oh, but Felicia has a similar lifestyle to Spider-Man!” Uh…no the freak she does NOT.

Spider-Man fights crime. Felicia COMMITS crimes.

Do they have chemistry? Yes, way more than an actual chemistry lab. But Felicia would absolutely NOT be a good long-term partner for Peter—he deserves way better than her.

At this point, if Peter having a love interest MUST (utterly MUST) be a prerequisite, I'd genuinely prefer he at least (at the freaking LEAST) get with Sable or Watanabe (before she became Wraith, that is—don’t even get me started on that mess) because at least those two try to have SOME (not good but some) sense of decent morality.

“Oh but look at her, she's bad–” You don't need to project the fact you're a masochist on everyone else.

If you're the kinda person who likes being manipulated and taken advantage of by people you find hot, that's your problem you need to get fixed in therapy.

But here's what annoys me the most about this whole thing: I know for a FACT that if MJ was the more attractive one and that FELICIA was mid-looking, you guys would then be SCREAMING for her to be with Peter instead of Felicia.

Really think about it. Without Felicia's looks, what kind of person is she? Is she really someone worth being with? Don't worry, I have the answer: NO-

Felicia is in NO way a better love interest for Peter and I'm tired of people acting like she is just because she looks like an Instagram cosplayer.

“Felicia's always been this way in the comics and stuff—”

As if that makes it any better. If anything, all that's doing is giving me MORE proof as to why she's not a good person for him WHATSOEVER.

If the genders were reversed, you'd all be grossed out by Felicia, let's not even lie. If Felicia was a guy doing all of this to a female version of Peter, you'd all be calling him a creep and trying to cancel him on Twitter -_-