My Conclusion About Prince Adam - A Disney Theory

How dare Marvel Rivals make me obsess over a fictional couple I knew nothing about until a few days ago

So, like. In a society that is deeply misogynistic, does not help pregnant women, and openly shames them when they end up abandoned and unable to support the child. Are you saying women should stop (getting abortions, or in your terms) committing murder anyway? When:

- pregnancy is a health condition that renders people unable to work, some during and most for a significant period after;

- this is true—this is a country where the complication rates for pregnant women and children are actually quite poor for the average wealth;

- there is nowhere near enough support, financial or service based, that helps that clump of cells that was saved to ever become a toddler. Neither foster care systems nor current food banks and support could possibly count, not with the quality they are or amount of time they take away from the day to day.

Like… I don’t understand, why not change the focus from judging women for their choices (one way or the other), pursuing this in the name of feminism, to changing the world first.

Because feminism is great, as a concept. But you can’t eat it. It won’t help you calm a baby who’s been crying for hours. It won’t teach you what you need to know to take care of that kid.

Historically a lot more kids died of various causes, starvation included. Why should anyone accept this as a possibility in the 21st century? If other countries can give new mothers 1-3 year maternity leave and tax breaks, why are we content with living knee deep in misery?

Philosophy is well and good, but we can’t afford it yet.

All very fair points :)

I appreciate that you sound willing to have a conversation instead of resorting to just throwing insults at me, so thank you.

I do think we should change the world first and I'll admit, I haven't done a good job stating that in the past. I'll admit I didn't do a good job at making those viewpoints clear earlier and so because of that I come across as judgmental. Miscommunication (or rather lack thereof), I will always be willing to apologize for.

Everything that I do think about this topic I obviously have not stated on this profile because I do like to talk about other things and not JUST politics. But in regards to the topic itself that you mentioned, as much as I don't like abortion, I don't think it should be banned immediately. I do think there needs to be a gradual shift so that way so-called pro-lifers can earn the trust of women. And also because of economic reasons since as you said, some changes we can't afford yet. I hope these said changes come, but even if they do, I don't have faith they'll come within due time.

I know I have not stated this in the past before but honestly I think it's because I never really thought to do so. I guess it was because no one else was curious to ask but even then, I'm more than willing to accept responsibility for how I come off.

I do have a lot more thoughts and opinions regarding this topic so if you do want to know more about what I think on the topic you can just DM me, send another, or we can continue this conversation (which I'm more than happy to do). I will post more in the future regarding my views so my most recent one most certainly won't be the last because I don't like how both sides handle the issue.

But I completely agree: the world does need to change first in order for abortion to be removed because women rightfully don't trust the world. How can we when it's been harsh to us time and time again?

Because a large reason why lots of women are getting them in the first place is because they don't trust the world to help them out which is WAY more than fair. Hospitals in America don't really do much to help women with Jack and it wasn't until 1993 did women in America start being medically studied, which is so disgusting.

I think one of the things we as a society can do is make sure pregnant women have free (or at the bare minimum, much cheaper) and baby products should not be taxed. Our government has so much money to spend on everything else so I don't see their need to squeeze cash out of stuff.

Obviously there's a LOT more aspects of this but I don't want to run your ear off unnecessarily so I hope it's clear what I'm trying to say. But I'd be willing to continue talking about this :)

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.

Being an artist nowadays is so scary on the internet. Imagine working hard and spending HOURS on your art and then posting/sharing them to the internet only for some unknown entity to call it "AI" as a baseless accusation without actual proofs to back it up. Only for some inconsiderate jerks to steal your art, use it to train AI, use that very AI to create 'art', and then claim it's their 'work'.

If you make a minor and totally reasonable mistake in your art (mostly when it comes to anatomy especially because anatomy is a pretty hard field to grip on in art)? It's AI.

If your art is actually nice and up to your standards? It's AI because it's 'too perfect'.

Not to mention that as if AI 'art' alone isn't enough to fuck with artists, something called AI speed paint exists now so AI 'artists' can back their 'work' up with an 'actual speed paint'.

I feel so terrible for artists that have to go through this kind of bs when they post or share their art online. For artists that have to quit because jerks are either stealing their art for their AI or because people just point and make accusations without evidence nowadays. For artists that are afraid to share their hard work online because of these issues.

I understand spreading awareness about AI 'art' and being cautious, but some people do be calling everything AI at this point.

SpideyMoon/MoonSpider is not a pairing I would've thought of but somehow I could see it working.

"omg spideypool!" "aww spideytorch" "venom is literally a crazy ex gf"

"moonie"

I know I'm gonna ruffle a lot of feathers when I say this, but I think this is something people don't really touch on when it comes to the topic of female modesty (at least not too often).

A big criticism I have when it comes to the topic of female modesty (especially in some ‘Christian’ spaces) is that most who speak on it often approach it from the lens of “Immodesty makes men lust.” And regardless of how true that is, lots of women roll their eyes when they hear it because lots of us have experienced harassment (and a lot of women even sexual abuse) from men REGARDLESS of WHAT we are wearing.

Whether or not the message of “dress this way and men won’t harass you” was your personal intention or not, that is unfortunately the message that has been pushed on a LOT of women from the time we could first walk by OTHER people.

Sure, clothes have an effect on how people perceive us, I’m not gonna pretend it doesn’t. You obviously can’t walk into your office job wearing a low cut halter top and booty shorts—you have to dress for the environment you’re in (durr).

But clothes definitely have not stopped people from doing what they want to do to us at the end of the day. I think the main reason why lots of women roll their eyes when the topic of modesty comes up is because we’re being told the solution to a problem that we know for a fact has not actually worked.

If people kept telling you that wearing a helmet prevents serial killers from targeting you, but serial killers kept targeting you anyway, would you be more convinced to wear a helmet? No, because wearing a helmet didn’t change anything.

Lots of women realize this reality and so I think that’s why a lot of women dress with the mindset of “I’m gonna wear whatever the heck I want because it clearly doesn’t matter what I wear or don’t wear—men are still gonna behave the same.”

I’ve gotten harassed by a male ‘friend’ who bullied me in highschool and snuck around to obtain my phone number (without my permission) so that way he could flirt with me despite me telling him to stop (pretty tame all things considered). And all throughout high school, I wore nothing except big hoodies, jeans, and sometimes sweatpants.

Modesty is important, I agree. But stop promising women that it provides GRAND changes in how men will treat them. So many women have experience that proves it really doesn’t. Because it’s not about the clothes and never will be about the clothes, it’s about the character of the men we interact with. So if the only way a man can respect a woman is if she covers herself head to toe like a box, I don’t know if I can consider him a respectable person.

Sure, modesty can help people respect you more---but stop telling women that it ELIMINATES mistreatment from men---because it doesn't. And to tell something that isn't true is a lie.

I love this image so much

🐠🖥️

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?

If you're a Hisoka simp, watch this!