(Source: firstclassconfessions)

(Source: anxietycat)

dr-kara:

Nest making is … complicated.  This inspired by scifigrl47 and her post here lol

rabbleprochoice:

nikosnature:

stfuprolife:

nikosnature:

uglyorangecouch:

stfuprolife:

stfuprolife:

1. An estimated 19-20 million unsafe abortions take place every year.  97% of these are in developing countries.
   
   
2. Despite its frequency, unsafe abortion remains one of the most neglected global public health challenges.
   
   
3. An estimated 68,000 women die every year from unsafe abortion, and millions more are injured, many permanently.
   
   
4. Leading causes of death are hemorrhage, infection, and poisoning from substances used to induce abortion. 
   
   
5. Access to modern contraception can reduce but never eliminate the need for abortion. 
   
   
6. Legalisation of abortion is a necessary but insufficient step toward eliminating unsafe abortion. 
   
   
7. When abortion is made legal, safe, and easily accessible, women’s health rapidly improves.  By contrast, women’s health deteriorates when access to safe abortion is made more difficult or illegal.
   
   
8. Legal abortion in developed countries is one of the safest procedures in contemporary practice, with case-fatality rates less than one death per 100,000 procedures. 
   
   
9. Manual vacuum aspiration (a handheld syringe as a suction source) and medical methods of inducing abortion have reduced complications. 
   
   
10. Treating complications of unsafe abortion overwhelms impoverished health-care services and diverts limited resources from other critical health-care programmes. 
    
    
11. The underlying causes of this global pandemic are apathy and disdain for women; they suffer and die because they are not valued.

[source]

*This applies to anyone with a uterus.

Just in case anti-choicers missed this the first time around.  I will continue posting this over and over again.

New study shows making abortion illegal does not increase maternal mortality rate.  (Just in case you missed it the first time around.)

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036613

So you have one study against what the World Health Organization has to say about it?  Typical.  Good game though. :)

You’re not taking into account of the several other factors your one study provided.  From the study, “Educational and maternal health policies had a significant impact on the mortality trend.”

You seem to think that the WHO is a source that should be trusted on the abortion debate.  Having been to the UN enough, having sat on panel discussions, having met people who work in the UN I can tell you that the pro-choice bias in there is palpable.

Uh. That’s…not how research works.

Or, at least, that’s not how peer-reviewed scientific research works.

The opinions of people who run any experiment is irrelevant until they start manipulating the data like many “scientists” that pro-lifers quote. This is why researchers are required to provide the methods they used to collect data: because sometimes we can’t see if we’re unintentionally biasing results and publishing the methods of our research makes sure others are able to see if we remained neutral throughout. If the methods were flawed, the research is thrown out and the methods must be redone in a way where personal biases will not influence the results. This is why being peer-reviewed is so important to scientific research. If your research doesn’t hold up because of your methods or your research can’t be replicated, then your research is useless.

Pro-lifers purposefully mislead people by using reports twice my age or more that are outdated and weren’t taken seriously even when they were published. Often times “scientific reports” that pro-lifers use are not peer-reviewed, are not double blind studies, and are not published by peer-reviewed, reputable journals. And usually they are so old that the report is completely irrelevant. Their methods are also almost always problematic, which is usually the reason they weren’t published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The political opinions of the people who put together these statistics for WHO is irrelevant because the WHO’s statistics are peer-reviewed and their methods are accurate. Their findings are backed up by separate research firms that crunch data and report essentially the same information. The Guttmacher Institute also has research supporting these findings.

And even if you want to tell me that the Guttmacher Institute and The WHO are in conspiracy with one another to make abortion the leading form of birth control, that’s fine, but you’d be wrong because these findings are supported just by everyday observations.

Guttmacher supports number 3 on this list with peer-reviewed data, here.

Number 6 is proven time and time again when access to contraception and education about contraceptives leads to reductions in teen pregnancy rates in schools.

Number 7 was investigated by the BBC and found to be accurate.

Number 8 is supported by abortion reporting in developed countries since those complications have to be reported and incidences of complications are all investigated by state due to the negative stigma of abortion and the increased distrust and unnecessary hoops abortion providers must go through to keep their practices open. This fact is also independently supported by Guttmacher here. 

Number 11, as any woman can tell you, is what living in a patriarchy does. Hell, pro-lifers know this. Pro-lifers put the value for women under the value of fetuses, telling them that they are not valued and that they should be willing to die to give birth to a fetus they may not want, that may not live, or that could kill them during the pregnancy.

Number 11 is supported just by the fact that you find the WHO statistics dubious and biased. There are NUMEROUS organizations that disprove the lies the pro-lifers tell and support these findings and all of the people that die because of illegal, unsafe abortions doesn’t matter to you as much as finding a link that questions the WHO’s statistics.

You can argue all you want about how people at the UN are biased and how Guttmacher and the WHO are biased all you want but when it comes to reality, their research supports the reality that we all live in.

But let’s take a look at that link you’ve got there, anyway.

First of all, it’s not a new study, it’s five year’s old. 

Second, their methods used old medical records of live birth rates. Abortion doesn’t fall under “live birth” and for nearly 30 years’ worth of those old medical records abortion was illegal and therefore no medical records existed showing how many people died from the illegal abortions they were receiving, since, you know, it was illegal.

Third, when abortion was made legal in Chile, one of the figures (Figure S2) they use actually directly goes against what they say their study claims. After abortion was made legal, deaths from it went down. And those are just the deaths they were able to find records for since the majority of their study took place when abortion was illegal.

People who get illegal abortions generally do not go see a doctor for those and therefore no medical record would exist which means this study you found has some serious flaws in it because they are ignoring a factor that it’s impossible to account for: all of the deaths caused by illegal abortions.

Love,

Rabble

fuckyeahsexeducation:

tyleroakley:

Because that’s the worst insult possible, obviously.

Can people see why I really don’t like this person now?

Russell (as his uncle): You better watch out, Russell, there’s gays, they’ll get you.
Russel: They’ll “get” me? They’re gays, not ninjas. 

(Source: carbonbased-)

mom: “what are you doing?”
me: “I’m on tumblr.”
mom: “the feminist cat website?”

the feminist cat website.

the feminist cat website

the feminist cat website

the feminist cat website

THE FEMINIST CAT WEBSITE

(Source: farahjoon)

(Source: stfuhypocrisy)

fuckyeahsexeducation:

captain-sonic:

labelmeskinnyyy:

besideher-insideher:

goldenheartedrose:

marzipansexual:

goldenheartedrose:

trafalgarslaw:

goldenheartedrose:

the-unpopular-opinions:

octoparfaire.tumblr.com/ask

Does that make me a unicorn again?

Damn.

I kind of wonder if the OP has ever seen Doctor Who. I’d like to introduce Jack and the Doctor to them.

Seriously.

If we don’t exist, why are they making such not-terrible-looking graphics about us?

If we don’t exist, why do you care? What are you afraid of?

(uuuuugh fuck people)

Pretty much that.

Oh lookie, the OP even went to the trouble of colouring the text accordingly! 

Anyway, can everyone who apparently “doesn’t” exist have a party?

Your sexuality doesn’t define you, they’re not saying you don’t exist, just that those sexualites don’t exist, which I agree with. Youre more inclined to one sex than the other.

Yeah maybe you are more inclined to one gender, but a lot of people are not. Dismissing and erasing people their sexualities is gross.

Polysexuality, Demisexuality, Grey-A, Multisexuality and Queer didn’t even make it to the “not existing list”! Seriously guys, identity policing is not cool.

oma-shu:

Lin Beifong: the life and times of a badass

thaisce:

a handy guide to shipping

friendlyatheist:

ihateallyourgods:

robertafett:

Word.

These people look so stupid right now. Just imagine how they will look in another 40 years.

40? More like in 15 years. Tops.