I'm Pro-Life for All. I follow a consistent life ethic, and I do my best to live my life by these standards. Current student and aspiring activist.

  • Question: "Abortion isn’t the treatment for suicidality, and it never has been. " I don't think people are really saying that, if she had gotten the abortion, she wouldn't have been depressed anymore; it's more that the woman was forced to 1. carry a child under circumstances that could have led to the death of the woman and/or child and 2. had surgery that she didn't consent to. It's not really the fact that she was denied an abortion, but the way it was handled. - titlecore
  • Answer:

    straight-to-county:

    prolifeforall:

    pik-a-chuuuu:

    prolifeforall:

    milkshak3speare:

    prolifeforall:

    milkshak3speare:

    prolifeforall:

    She actually DID eventually consent to the c-section.

    "However, in the intervening period, the woman agreed to have the baby delivered. "   - http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/baby-delivered-as-woman-refused-abortion-under-law-30512513.html

    Under that kind of pressure, like what were her other options? Real talk.

    What kind of pressure? Being kept alive? 


    They forced her to remain pregnant rather than get an abortion. She was backed into a corner. What was she going to do? What were her other options besides consenting to a c section? She was backed into a corner, friend.

    Do you think someone freely consents to an abortion when they are suicidal? Is that the situation when you say “yes, this is her clear and well thought out decision”?

    Whether clear and well thought out or not, it was HER decision to make. Psychiatrists agreed with her. But no, she was forced to continue a pregnancy she didn’t want, took drastic action endangering TWO LIVES, (it’s not just about the foetus, it’s about the mother too) because she was suicidal, and wanted to end the pregnancy at minimum. So, they pressured her into having a cesarean instead? When she didn’t even want the goddamn fucking pregnancy?

    You seem to forget, although being suicidal doesn’t put you ‘in the right frame of mind’ to make such a huge decision, to refuse the decision that she made almost cost the life of her too. How’s that fair? It isn’t, it’s fucking hypocritical.

    So hmm… keeping her alive… would have killed two people? 

    When you’re in the hospital, it’s very difficult to find ways to commit suicide. There aren’t shower rods, doors don’t lock, nurses check on you every 15 minutes at night.  Your magazines aren’t allowed to have staples, they take any shoes with laces, and your pants can’t have drawstrings. If the staff notices you doing something suspicious or dangerous, you’ll be taken into a different section - the one with the padded rooms and all. The exact procedures probably vary by hospital, but if she’s in the hospital’s care, she’s safe.




    This may or may not make a difference… but http://goo.gl/ns9Kmf that link has information from women who were raped and got an abortion. Or kept the child. And it may not make a difference, but I would like to point out all these women felt pressured by others around them. Not forced to keep the child, but that subliminal messaging and shit gets to a person… but they weren’t forced in a hospital.

    I feel, instead of using opinions of people who never went through a situation like this (being forced to keep a monster’s child) we should learn from those who were faced similar conflicts.

    I’m not saying I know what it’s like to be pregnant from rape, but I am a rape survivor by multiple men and I have been in the hospital from a suicide attempt.

    I’ve embedded two videos. One is from Feminists for Life by a woman who survived rape. The second (which can link you to dozens of other testimonies) features a Northern Irish woman speaking about abortion made her desperation and fears worse.

Source: prolifeforall

  • Question: "Abortion isn’t the treatment for suicidality, and it never has been. " I don't think people are really saying that, if she had gotten the abortion, she wouldn't have been depressed anymore; it's more that the woman was forced to 1. carry a child under circumstances that could have led to the death of the woman and/or child and 2. had surgery that she didn't consent to. It's not really the fact that she was denied an abortion, but the way it was handled. - titlecore
  • Answer:

    pik-a-chuuuu:

    prolifeforall:

    milkshak3speare:

    prolifeforall:

    milkshak3speare:

    prolifeforall:

    She actually DID eventually consent to the c-section.

    "However, in the intervening period, the woman agreed to have the baby delivered. "   - http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/baby-delivered-as-woman-refused-abortion-under-law-30512513.html

    Under that kind of pressure, like what were her other options? Real talk.

    What kind of pressure? Being kept alive? 


    They forced her to remain pregnant rather than get an abortion. She was backed into a corner. What was she going to do? What were her other options besides consenting to a c section? She was backed into a corner, friend.

    Do you think someone freely consents to an abortion when they are suicidal? Is that the situation when you say “yes, this is her clear and well thought out decision”?

    Whether clear and well thought out or not, it was HER decision to make. Psychiatrists agreed with her. But no, she was forced to continue a pregnancy she didn’t want, took drastic action endangering TWO LIVES, (it’s not just about the foetus, it’s about the mother too) because she was suicidal, and wanted to end the pregnancy at minimum. So, they pressured her into having a cesarean instead? When she didn’t even want the goddamn fucking pregnancy?

    You seem to forget, although being suicidal doesn’t put you ‘in the right frame of mind’ to make such a huge decision, to refuse the decision that she made almost cost the life of her too. How’s that fair? It isn’t, it’s fucking hypocritical.

    So hmm… keeping her alive… would have killed two people? 

    When you’re in the hospital, it’s very difficult to find ways to commit suicide. There aren’t shower rods, doors don’t lock, nurses check on you every 15 minutes at night.  Your magazines aren’t allowed to have staples, they take any shoes with laces, and your pants can’t have drawstrings. If the staff notices you doing something suspicious or dangerous, you’ll be taken into a different section - the one with the padded rooms and all. The exact procedures probably vary by hospital, but if she’s in the hospital’s care, she’s safe.




Source: prolifeforall

  • Question: "Abortion isn’t the treatment for suicidality, and it never has been. " I don't think people are really saying that, if she had gotten the abortion, she wouldn't have been depressed anymore; it's more that the woman was forced to 1. carry a child under circumstances that could have led to the death of the woman and/or child and 2. had surgery that she didn't consent to. It's not really the fact that she was denied an abortion, but the way it was handled. - titlecore
  • Answer:

    milkshak3speare:

    prolifeforall:

    milkshak3speare:

    prolifeforall:

    milkshak3speare:

    prolifeforall:

    She actually DID eventually consent to the c-section.

    "However, in the intervening period, the woman agreed to have the baby delivered. "   - http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/baby-delivered-as-woman-refused-abortion-under-law-30512513.html

    Under that kind of pressure, like what were her other options? Real talk.

    What kind of pressure? Being kept alive? 


    They forced her to remain pregnant rather than get an abortion. She was backed into a corner. What was she going to do? What were her other options besides consenting to a c section? She was backed into a corner, friend.

    Do you think someone freely consents to an abortion when they are suicidal? Is that the situation when you say “yes, this is her clear and well thought out decision”?

    Yes. I do.

    Do you think that wanting to kill yourself is a clear rational thought?

Source: prolifeforall

  • Question: "Abortion isn’t the treatment for suicidality, and it never has been. " I don't think people are really saying that, if she had gotten the abortion, she wouldn't have been depressed anymore; it's more that the woman was forced to 1. carry a child under circumstances that could have led to the death of the woman and/or child and 2. had surgery that she didn't consent to. It's not really the fact that she was denied an abortion, but the way it was handled. - titlecore
  • Answer:

    milkshak3speare:

    prolifeforall:

    milkshak3speare:

    prolifeforall:

    She actually DID eventually consent to the c-section.

    "However, in the intervening period, the woman agreed to have the baby delivered. "   - http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/baby-delivered-as-woman-refused-abortion-under-law-30512513.html

    Under that kind of pressure, like what were her other options? Real talk.

    What kind of pressure? Being kept alive? 


    They forced her to remain pregnant rather than get an abortion. She was backed into a corner. What was she going to do? What were her other options besides consenting to a c section? She was backed into a corner, friend.

    Do you think someone freely consents to an abortion when they are suicidal? Is that the situation when you say “yes, this is her clear and well thought out decision”?

Source: prolifeforall

(via shamsisrad)

Source: -teesa-

(via humanrightsupdates)

Source: david-gunther

medievalpoc:

thepeoplesrecord:

Arizona’s law banning Mexican-American studies is constitutional, judge rulesFebruary 25, 2014
A court upheld most provisions of an Arizona state law used to prohibit a controversial Mexican-American Studies curriculum in Tucson on Friday.
The ruling dealt a blow to supporters of the suspended classes, who had hoped the courts would overturn a 2010 law championed by Arizona conservatives determined to shut down the unconventional courses.
“I was really surprised at the decision,” Jose Gonzalez, a former teacher of Tucson’s suspended Mexican-American Studies classes, told The Huffington Post. “But as a student and teacher of history, I know in civil rights cases like this there’s always setbacks.”
The experimental Tucson curriculum was offered to students in different forms in some of the local elementary, middle and high schools. It emphasized critical thinking and focused on Mexican-American literature and perspectives. Supporters lauded the program, pointing to increased graduation rates, high student achievement and a state-commissioned independent audit that recommended expanding the classes.
But conservative opponents accused the teachers of encouraging students to adopt left-wing ideas and resent white people, a charge the teachers deny. Aiming squarely at Tucson’s Mexican-American Studies program, the Arizona legislature passed HB 2281 — a law banning courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, foster racial resentment, are designed for students of a particular ethnic group or that advocate ethnic solidarity.
Federal Judge Wallace Tashima said the plaintiffs failed to show the law was too vague, broad or discriminatory, or that it violated students’ first amendment rights.
The news wasn’t all bad for supporters of the suspended classes. Tashima ruled that the section of the law prohibiting courses tailored to serve students of a particular ethnicity was unconstitutional.
Originally filed in October of 2010 on behalf of the program’s former teachers, who lost standing because they are public employees, the case is currently brought by former Mexican-American Studies student Nicholas Dominguez and his mother Margarita Dominguez. They will likely appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals within the next 30 days, their lawyer Richard Martinez told The Huffington Post.
“This case is not over,” Martinez said. “It’s not only important to Arizona, but to the country as a whole that this statute be addressed.”
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne began a campaign to eliminate the Mexican-American Studies program from Tucson Unified School District in 2006, when he was serving as the state’s Superintendent of Public Education.
Angered that Mexican-American civil rights leader Dolores Huerta had said that “Republicans hate Latinos” in a speech to Tucson students, Horne sent Deputy Superintendent Margaret Dugan, a Latina Republican, to give an alternate view. But the intellectual exercise turned confrontational when students, who said they were not allowed to ask Dugan questions, sealed their mouths with tape and walked out of the assembly room.
“As superintendent of schools, I have visited over 1,000 schools and I’ve never seen students be disrespectful to a teacher in that way,” Horne said in an interview last year.
The final product of his efforts was House Bill 2281, which then-State Sen. John Huppenthal (R) helped pilot through the Arizona legislature. Huppenthal, who succeeded Horne as state superintendent of schools, then found Tucson out of compliance with the new law and ordered the district to shut Mexican-American Studies down or lose 10 percent of its annual funding — some $14 million over the fiscal year. In January of 2012, the school board complied, voting 4 to 1 to discontinue the classes.
The decision drew national attention as administrators plucked Latino literature that once belonged to the curriculum from classrooms, explicitly banning seven titles from instruction.
Full articlePhoto

RE: bolded
This is what I’m often referring to when I talk about backlash and suppression of education in the United States. There is literally legislation that bans teaching the history of colonization and civil rights movements in various states-states like Arizona, in which 43% of the population are “minorities”…30% of Arizona is Hispanic/Latin@.
That’s not actually a coincidence. :|
This is systematic, institutional disenfranchisement in action.

medievalpoc:

thepeoplesrecord:

Arizona’s law banning Mexican-American studies is constitutional, judge rules
February 25, 2014

A court upheld most provisions of an Arizona state law used to prohibit a controversial Mexican-American Studies curriculum in Tucson on Friday.

The ruling dealt a blow to supporters of the suspended classes, who had hoped the courts would overturn a 2010 law championed by Arizona conservatives determined to shut down the unconventional courses.

“I was really surprised at the decision,” Jose Gonzalez, a former teacher of Tucson’s suspended Mexican-American Studies classes, told The Huffington Post. “But as a student and teacher of history, I know in civil rights cases like this there’s always setbacks.”

The experimental Tucson curriculum was offered to students in different forms in some of the local elementary, middle and high schools. It emphasized critical thinking and focused on Mexican-American literature and perspectives. Supporters lauded the program, pointing to increased graduation rates, high student achievement and a state-commissioned independent audit that recommended expanding the classes.

But conservative opponents accused the teachers of encouraging students to adopt left-wing ideas and resent white people, a charge the teachers deny. Aiming squarely at Tucson’s Mexican-American Studies program, the Arizona legislature passed HB 2281 — a law banning courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, foster racial resentment, are designed for students of a particular ethnic group or that advocate ethnic solidarity.

Federal Judge Wallace Tashima said the plaintiffs failed to show the law was too vague, broad or discriminatory, or that it violated students’ first amendment rights.

The news wasn’t all bad for supporters of the suspended classes. Tashima ruled that the section of the law prohibiting courses tailored to serve students of a particular ethnicity was unconstitutional.

Originally filed in October of 2010 on behalf of the program’s former teachers, who lost standing because they are public employees, the case is currently brought by former Mexican-American Studies student Nicholas Dominguez and his mother Margarita Dominguez. They will likely appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals within the next 30 days, their lawyer Richard Martinez told The Huffington Post.

“This case is not over,” Martinez said. “It’s not only important to Arizona, but to the country as a whole that this statute be addressed.”

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne began a campaign to eliminate the Mexican-American Studies program from Tucson Unified School District in 2006, when he was serving as the state’s Superintendent of Public Education.

Angered that Mexican-American civil rights leader Dolores Huerta had said that “Republicans hate Latinos” in a speech to Tucson students, Horne sent Deputy Superintendent Margaret Dugan, a Latina Republican, to give an alternate view. But the intellectual exercise turned confrontational when students, who said they were not allowed to ask Dugan questions, sealed their mouths with tape and walked out of the assembly room.

“As superintendent of schools, I have visited over 1,000 schools and I’ve never seen students be disrespectful to a teacher in that way,” Horne said in an interview last year.

The final product of his efforts was House Bill 2281, which then-State Sen. John Huppenthal (R) helped pilot through the Arizona legislature. Huppenthal, who succeeded Horne as state superintendent of schools, then found Tucson out of compliance with the new law and ordered the district to shut Mexican-American Studies down or lose 10 percent of its annual funding — some $14 million over the fiscal year. In January of 2012, the school board complied, voting 4 to 1 to discontinue the classes.

The decision drew national attention as administrators plucked Latino literature that once belonged to the curriculum from classrooms, explicitly banning seven titles from instruction.

Full article
Photo

RE: bolded

This is what I’m often referring to when I talk about backlash and suppression of education in the United States. There is literally legislation that bans teaching the history of colonization and civil rights movements in various states-states like Arizona, in which 43% of the population are “minorities”…30% of Arizona is Hispanic/Latin@.

That’s not actually a coincidence. :|

This is systematic, institutional disenfranchisement in action.

(via texansforreproductiverights)

Source: thepeoplesrecord

(via fixingwhatistarted)

Source: seachangeprogram

Text

fixingwhatistarted:

I will not give up to my depression; I will not surrender to those who want me to fail.

Source: fixingwhatistarted

bankuei:

babybutta:

augustallday:

fuckimunique:

Capitalism in power

real fucking tears :(

So you mean to tell me these people don’t get no fucking CHOCOLATE?!

Welcome to the world of cash crops and triangle trades.  You can’t eat the stuff you grow/pick, you have to pay to have it re-imported back into your country, and you probably can’t afford it even then.

(via fixingwhatistarted)

Source: sizvideos

blog comments powered by Disqus