🔥 Popular | Latest

mysharona1987: little-butch-crouton: severelynerdysheep: somehavegonemissing: spookyboyfelix: princess-nakamoto: mysharona1987: No, seriously: I do think zoos do a *lot* of good. Much of the time. It’s not necessarily a Seaworld situation. Yeah a lot of animals don’t even have habitats anymore anyway. So zoos are just giving them a home. Even if people come to see them nearly everyday, its better then being kicked out of their habitat eventually by man. The funds from zoos are often used to feed the animals anyway (most zoos are non profit they cant use that money for people) if you pay to go to the zoo you are paying to keep those animals alive Zoos also educate people about animals, allowing for people to fall in love with the weird and wonderful. They help promote habitat preservation and putting a stop to poaching. Please don’t dismiss zoos, they’re not the same places as they used to be in the 1800s, or even the mid 1900s. So while Zoos are absolutely miles better than they were historical, there are still many serious issues. In terms of education, while I totally get why most people believe that zoos teach people (children especially) about how to protect animals and their habitats and are great places of education, this is not actually the case. In reality viewing captive animals in zoos only teaches people how animals react to boredom, depression, and stress in captive situations. The most effective methods of education in zoos come via presenting videos, documentaries, interactive modules, graphic displays, and computer simulations. which all show animals in their natural environments and do not require any animals to actually be kept in zoos. In terms of the work Zoos to in regards to species conservation and habitat preservation, zoos really are not effective, especially compared to other conservation and preservation work. While there are zoos that do good conservation work, most of the significant conservation work is not from zoos but other organizations that work with wildlife and natural habitats. Most animals in captivity are not even classified as endangered, with the priority of Zoos being in getting hold of animals popular with visitors, rather than those who face extinction. When it comes to breeding programs (and breeding animals in captivity aren’t the best way to help in conservation)   zoos do spend plenty of money on these programs however half of the animals being bred by Zoos are not classed as endangered in the wild and 25% are not threatened species but ones popular with visitors. It’s also actually massively more expensive to keep animals captive in zoos than to protect equivalent numbers of them in the wild! When it comes to the research, few Zoos actually support meaningful scientific research (with fewer employing scientists with full-time research jobs) and of those that do employ scientists its common for these scientists to study free-living animals rather than those within the zoo. Due to the nature of any research that does take place in zoos, the results of this research also generates little information about how to best conserve species in the wild as studies of captive animals have limited benefits to animals in the wild and animals brought up in captivity are less likely to survive in the wild if reintroduced as they often don’t have the natural behaviors needed for survival in the wild. More effective methods of habitat preservation and species conservations would be a multipronged approach tackling habitat loss and climate change, investing in conservation programs in the wild, education, working with local communities, seriously addressing poaching etc. and also to move away from the Zoo model towards more ethical and effective models of species conservation.  Just a few of the other ethical issues with Zoos include surplus animals, who, when grow older, and are less attractive to patrons, will often be sold or killed. Animals who breed frequently also are sometimes sold to game farms and ranches where hunters pay to kill them and other surplus animals are sometimes sold to roadside zoos,, private individuals, animal dealers, or to laboratories for experimentation purposes. The animals not sold often end up being fed to other zoo animals. In terms of the health of these captive animals, many develop health conditions and mental health problems such as Zoochosis. Of course, a major problem with zoos as well is that the animals who live there are kept in enclosures that don’t allow them to live their lives in a natural way and don’t compare with the natural habitat the animals were meant to be in. Zoo animals have to spend day after day, week after week, year after year in the exact same enclosure. This makes their lives very monotonous. Take elephants, for example, elephants in the wild, are used to traveling many miles a day in herds of about ten related adults and their offspring but in zoos are usually kept in pairs or even isolated in incredibly small enclosures compared to what they are used to in the wild. Elephants kept in zoos often show many signs of being mental distress and the average lifespan of elephants in zoos is around 16-18 years, instead of the 50-70 years they can live in the wild. I’m just going to copy paste your response when people ask me what I’m going to school for. I’m very pro zoo and I want animals in their natural habitat just as much. This is genuinely quite an interesting discussion.: (Ja)ded @thefathippy 20h maooo000 Judy Harris Yesterday at 5:04 PM. 0+ Why the zoo charge us to look at animals they stole? this ain't even yall shit Sharon @MySharona1987 Replying to @thefathippy To be fair, they are doing a lot to help pandas screw. 4:56 AM- 11 Jul 2018 mysharona1987: little-butch-crouton: severelynerdysheep: somehavegonemissing: spookyboyfelix: princess-nakamoto: mysharona1987: No, seriously: I do think zoos do a *lot* of good. Much of the time. It’s not necessarily a Seaworld situation. Yeah a lot of animals don’t even have habitats anymore anyway. So zoos are just giving them a home. Even if people come to see them nearly everyday, its better then being kicked out of their habitat eventually by man. The funds from zoos are often used to feed the animals anyway (most zoos are non profit they cant use that money for people) if you pay to go to the zoo you are paying to keep those animals alive Zoos also educate people about animals, allowing for people to fall in love with the weird and wonderful. They help promote habitat preservation and putting a stop to poaching. Please don’t dismiss zoos, they’re not the same places as they used to be in the 1800s, or even the mid 1900s. So while Zoos are absolutely miles better than they were historical, there are still many serious issues. In terms of education, while I totally get why most people believe that zoos teach people (children especially) about how to protect animals and their habitats and are great places of education, this is not actually the case. In reality viewing captive animals in zoos only teaches people how animals react to boredom, depression, and stress in captive situations. The most effective methods of education in zoos come via presenting videos, documentaries, interactive modules, graphic displays, and computer simulations. which all show animals in their natural environments and do not require any animals to actually be kept in zoos. In terms of the work Zoos to in regards to species conservation and habitat preservation, zoos really are not effective, especially compared to other conservation and preservation work. While there are zoos that do good conservation work, most of the significant conservation work is not from zoos but other organizations that work with wildlife and natural habitats. Most animals in captivity are not even classified as endangered, with the priority of Zoos being in getting hold of animals popular with visitors, rather than those who face extinction. When it comes to breeding programs (and breeding animals in captivity aren’t the best way to help in conservation)   zoos do spend plenty of money on these programs however half of the animals being bred by Zoos are not classed as endangered in the wild and 25% are not threatened species but ones popular with visitors. It’s also actually massively more expensive to keep animals captive in zoos than to protect equivalent numbers of them in the wild! When it comes to the research, few Zoos actually support meaningful scientific research (with fewer employing scientists with full-time research jobs) and of those that do employ scientists its common for these scientists to study free-living animals rather than those within the zoo. Due to the nature of any research that does take place in zoos, the results of this research also generates little information about how to best conserve species in the wild as studies of captive animals have limited benefits to animals in the wild and animals brought up in captivity are less likely to survive in the wild if reintroduced as they often don’t have the natural behaviors needed for survival in the wild. More effective methods of habitat preservation and species conservations would be a multipronged approach tackling habitat loss and climate change, investing in conservation programs in the wild, education, working with local communities, seriously addressing poaching etc. and also to move away from the Zoo model towards more ethical and effective models of species conservation.  Just a few of the other ethical issues with Zoos include surplus animals, who, when grow older, and are less attractive to patrons, will often be sold or killed. Animals who breed frequently also are sometimes sold to game farms and ranches where hunters pay to kill them and other surplus animals are sometimes sold to roadside zoos,, private individuals, animal dealers, or to laboratories for experimentation purposes. The animals not sold often end up being fed to other zoo animals. In terms of the health of these captive animals, many develop health conditions and mental health problems such as Zoochosis. Of course, a major problem with zoos as well is that the animals who live there are kept in enclosures that don’t allow them to live their lives in a natural way and don’t compare with the natural habitat the animals were meant to be in. Zoo animals have to spend day after day, week after week, year after year in the exact same enclosure. This makes their lives very monotonous. Take elephants, for example, elephants in the wild, are used to traveling many miles a day in herds of about ten related adults and their offspring but in zoos are usually kept in pairs or even isolated in incredibly small enclosures compared to what they are used to in the wild. Elephants kept in zoos often show many signs of being mental distress and the average lifespan of elephants in zoos is around 16-18 years, instead of the 50-70 years they can live in the wild. I’m just going to copy paste your response when people ask me what I’m going to school for. I’m very pro zoo and I want animals in their natural habitat just as much. This is genuinely quite an interesting discussion.
Save
gold-from-straw: angelicpaintbrush: coelasquid: thiocyanat: coelasquid: satanpositive: How to tape up your hands before a fight Useful reference? Let’s go beat someone up! But no seriously, does this prevent pain or something ? What do these bandages actually serve ?  It keeps your bones aligned to prevent injury, compresses soft tissue to make the fist more rigid, and pads the knuckles. Skull bones are sturdier than hand bones, and even if you know what you’re doing there’s a high risk of damaging your metacarpals if you punch someone barehanded. It’s why they recommend if you find yourself in a fight unprepared to bunt their nose with the butt of your palm, because if the other person tucks their head and you end up hitting their forehead instead it’ll do a lot less damage to your palm than your knuckles. Tumblr teach’n you how to fucks someone’s shit up. I’ve never wrapped my hands for training, but yeah, if you punch even the tiniest wrong it hurts like hell (especially with hyper mobility). So yeah, heel of the hand is good! : 8 6 5 3 4 gold-from-straw: angelicpaintbrush: coelasquid: thiocyanat: coelasquid: satanpositive: How to tape up your hands before a fight Useful reference? Let’s go beat someone up! But no seriously, does this prevent pain or something ? What do these bandages actually serve ?  It keeps your bones aligned to prevent injury, compresses soft tissue to make the fist more rigid, and pads the knuckles. Skull bones are sturdier than hand bones, and even if you know what you’re doing there’s a high risk of damaging your metacarpals if you punch someone barehanded. It’s why they recommend if you find yourself in a fight unprepared to bunt their nose with the butt of your palm, because if the other person tucks their head and you end up hitting their forehead instead it’ll do a lot less damage to your palm than your knuckles. Tumblr teach’n you how to fucks someone’s shit up. I’ve never wrapped my hands for training, but yeah, if you punch even the tiniest wrong it hurts like hell (especially with hyper mobility). So yeah, heel of the hand is good!
Save
Real Life Vampire: probably-voldemort Okay so like there are vampires but one of the side effects of becoming a vampire is that you can't explicitly tell people you're a vampire Like, if they already know you're a vampire, that's cool and you can talk about it with them whenever. And if they don't know but are straight up like "hey are you a vampire?" you can be like "yes I am" and then you can talk to them about being a vampire because they already know now. But the point is you can't tell people So you've got this vampire who really wants to tell their friends and they're dropping all these hints and being as obvious as they possibly can be but their friends just think they over-exaggerate everything "Hey, when did you learn to lock pick?" "Sometime around the middle ages, I think." "Okay, fine, I won't pry then." "Cool shirt! When did you get it?" "Oh, about fifty years ago or so." "Dude you weren't even alive. It's a hand-me-down, then?" "Hey check out this cool Renaissance painting." "points to a person lying dramatically on the ground* "That's me." "Haha, that totally would be you. I'm the one getting his head chopped off" "No, you don't get it that's actually me." "God, I know. You're so dramatic." "How long has it been since you've been to Europe?" "A couple centuries at least." "What's this red drink in your fridge?" "Blood." Is it that new diet drink?" "No it's blood." "No, seriously. I'm thinking about trying this diet. Does it work?" sighs" "No." How come you don't have any mirrors in your house?" "I don't have a reflection.""Cool It's really admirable that you're not letting society's expectations dictate your life." "Hey, it's really sunny out today. Wanna go for a walk?" "No. I will literally burn up and die." "Fine, stay inside and watch Netflix. That's cool too "I heard these coffin beds are really supposed to help you sleep. I've never seen one this cool though. Where'd you get it?" "I was buried in it." "Fine Don't tell me." Dude, why are you always so cold?" "I'm dead." "No, really. I think you might be anemic. Are you getting enough iron?" Real Life Vampire

Real Life Vampire

Save
Real Life Vampire: probably-voldemort Okay so like there are vampires but one of the side effects of becoming a vampire is that you can't explicitly tell people you're a vampire Like, if they already know you're a vampire, that's cool and you can talk about it with them whenever. And if they don't know but are straight up like "hey are you a vampire?" you can be like "yes I am" and then you can talk to them about being a vampire because they already know now. But the point is you can't tell people So you've got this vampire who really wants to tell their friends and they're dropping all these hints and being as obvious as they possibly can be but their friends just think they over-exaggerate everything "Hey, when did you learn to lock pick?" "Sometime around the middle ages, I think." "Okay, fine, I won't pry then." "Cool shirt! When did you get it?" "Oh, about fifty years ago or so." "Dude you weren't even alive. It's a hand-me-down, then?" "Hey check out this cool Renaissance painting." "points to a person lying dramatically on the ground* "That's me." "Haha, that totally would be you. I'm the one getting his head chopped off" "No, you don't get it that's actually me." "God, I know. You're so dramatic." "How long has it been since you've been to Europe?" "A couple centuries at least." "What's this red drink in your fridge?" "Blood." Is it that new diet drink?" "No it's blood." "No, seriously. I'm thinking about trying this diet. Does it work?" sighs" "No." How come you don't have any mirrors in your house?" "I don't have a reflection.""Cool It's really admirable that you're not letting society's expectations dictate your life." "Hey, it's really sunny out today. Wanna go for a walk?" "No. I will literally burn up and die." "Fine, stay inside and watch Netflix. That's cool too "I heard these coffin beds are really supposed to help you sleep. I've never seen one this cool though. Where'd you get it?" "I was buried in it." "Fine Don't tell me." Dude, why are you always so cold?" "I'm dead." "No, really. I think you might be anemic. Are you getting enough iron?" Real Life Vampire

Real Life Vampire

Save
<p><a href="http://krungle.tumblr.com/post/171933983002/libertarirynn-matt-ruins-your-shit" class="tumblr_blog">krungle</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171933218134/matt-ruins-your-shit-kajiosblog-this" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://matt-ruins-your-shit.tumblr.com/post/171925993106/kajiosblog-this-articles-title-is-rather" class="tumblr_blog">matt-ruins-your-shit</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kajiosblog.tumblr.com/post/171917720473/this-articles-title-is-rather-misleading-they" class="tumblr_blog">kajiosblog</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>This article’s title is rather misleading.  They aren’t encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs or something like that.  They aren’t encouraging anything.</p> <p>The truth of the matter is that expecting mothers who find out that their baby will be born with fatal defects will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early, in order to allow for organ donation.  Note this this is simply an option, and there is no incentive or penalty for either choice.</p> <p>Source: <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/650467/NHS-to-harvest-babies-fatal-defect-foetus-donate-organs-mothers-option-terminate-birth">https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/650467/NHS-to-harvest-babies-fatal-defect-foetus-donate-organs-mothers-option-terminate-birth</a></p> </blockquote> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="200" data-orig-width="370" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e52518448e2c705676d57e41594cdcb7/tumblr_inline_p5oc0lNajE1si8t7m_540.gif"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e52518448e2c705676d57e41594cdcb7/tumblr_inline_p5p3fvAsQ11rw09tq_540.gif" data-orig-height="200" data-orig-width="370" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e52518448e2c705676d57e41594cdcb7/tumblr_inline_p5oc0lNajE1si8t7m_540.gif"/></figure><p>I don’t think a single other person read that headline and thought they were “encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs.” That’s not why people find it incredibly disturbing and I’m astounded those were the conclusions you drew and thought it needed to be corrected. No seriously where did you get the idea that it was being claimed that mothers were being told to disable unborn children so they could be harvested? That makes no sense, that’s like the logic of Ricky from Trailer Park Boys who thinks that as long as you drag stolen goods down to the curb it becomes garbage and it’s not illegal to steal garbage. The very idea of a baby needing to be disabled in order to justify harvesting it’s organs should be offensive, it implies disabled people have less right to be alive and have their organs inside their own fucking bodies. The article title wasn’t misleading your terribly needless strawman explanation of the title was misleading. This is the exact reason I hate “fact checkers” you need fact checkers for the fact checkers they can be so bogged down in spin and semantics and dumb bullshit like this. The problem is with the harvesting of organs from disabled babies full stop. I didn’t think this needed to be explained but here goes.</p> <p>First of all it turns human life into a commodity, and not just a commodity but a commodity that would be controlled by the medical system of an increasingly fascist socialist government. What could go wrong?</p> <p>Like for example it hasn’t even happened yet and already there seems to be confusion about what exactly constitutes fatal defects. A system that always is going to want more organs is going to determine for themselves what is disabled enough? And what level of disabled is enough that you should be determined as scrap parts instead of a person? How do you know the baby will die? Doctors tell people their kids will be born dead or will die soon all the time that live full lives. One of my best friends parents were told he wouldn’t make it past a few weeks and he’s in his late twenties now. Really glad this wasn’t the policy back then.</p> <p>“will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early” No, carrying out the pregnancy has always been an option it’s the harvesting of organs that would be the new factor here. If it’s as you said that they are being given the option to carry out the pregnancy does that mean that right now women are being forced to have abortions? No giving birth is and always has been the default option. I find it gross that you think the only thing people do when they find out a baby will have serious defects is just abort it. These fatal defects represent a percentage chance of survival not a guarantee, so while yes a lot of people just say fuck it and abort at any sign of a problem there are also lots of people that take the risk give birth because worst case scenario the baby dies naturally best case scenario it survives. Medium case scenario it survives but raising it is costly and they have a lower quality of life…but it’s still a life and it should be up to a person to decide if their quality of life is low enough that they would rather not have it at all. <br/></p> <p>The horrifying part is they are not talking about stillborns, they’re not talking about babies that died in the womb. They’re talking about babies they believe will die eventually after being born. Who makes that determination? You trust the NHS… a system so shitty they amputate the wrong limbs on people to decide what babies are basically done for before they’re even born. Especially when they will benefit from every single baby a parent decides to allow be harvested. If there is room for corruption there will be corruption.</p> <p> So what happens once those babies are born and they’re alive? Do they start up a daycare center thats whole purpose is to wait for babies to die so they can be harvested? I’m sure the care there would be super humane and hospitable. What do they do with the ones that survive? By that point they would have become property of the NHS because they’re not babies they’re just living organ donations that haven’t had the courtesy to die naturally yet. Do they call up the mother and say hey so remember when you told us we could harvest your dead baby…well can you come by and pick up your two year old… that fucker is being really stubborn about not dying like we promised. Or much more likely they’ll just kill the babies immediately to avoid that burden and complication and not give them the chance to survive. I’ve already heard the term post birth abortion or as someone with a soul left would call it baby murder. </p> <p>They try to get around this by claiming the harvesting wont be an option until they are told the mother wants to have an abortion. What a great failsafe right? Well except that they can tell the mother whatever they want to get her to say she wants an abortion. They can tell her that her baby will definitely die when it might have a good chance of living. Which happens already without the added incentive of wanting to harvest the organs.</p> <p>Where would the oversight be. The NHS is already overwhelmed you think there’s going to be someone checking to make sure nobody is telling mothers their babies have fetal defects when they don’t? You think the system is going to check every single case, especially when every single case is going to benefit them? What fairy tale world do you live in. It’s the setup for a system where you give a doctor the power to say to himself this baby has a 10-60% chance of survival this mother is being a real bitch…and we’re in need of organs right now…maybe I tell her the lowest number in that estimate. Which is all it will be…fucking estimates. I have a member of my family that was pronounced dead four times and lived another twenty years. These people can’t even figure out when a person is dead and you want to give them 100% authority to determine who will die. Fuck that, fuck this. If they do this there will be horror stories rolling out within the week.</p> </blockquote> <p>Imagine fucking reading this and being like “no guys you don’t understand nobody’s asking the mother’s to disable the babies, just to give birth to disabled babies instead of murdering them in the womb so we can chop them up for parts! Because that’s so much better!”</p> </blockquote> <p style=""> “ babies diagnosed with fatal illnesses “</p> <p>That is a pretty high bar if you ask me. The kid will die anyway, sometimes destroying the organs in the process and often involving massive pain while being kept alive for enormous sums of money on machines. At least in this way the poor kid doesn’t have to suffer and some other kid gets a chance to end their suffering, as well, when they receive their transplants.</p> <p>The entire conversation on this started with fetuses that developed with no brain.</p> <p>You all that say this is wrong because of ‘compassion’ are showing no compassion for either the pain and suffering of the baby or the pain and suffering of the kids who will be able to live a much more normal and longer life once they get transplants. It isn’t ‘compassion’ you are showing but a strict adherence to a moral code and be damned how much pain and suffering it causes others.</p> <p>You people would show more compassion for your dog than you would for another human being.<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>“No YOU guys are actually the cruel ones for not wanting to murder sick babies to harvest them for parts!“</p><p>Are you fucking serious? First of all apparently it’s no longer possible to harvest organs after natural death despite the fact that it’s done all the time? “They’re going to die eventually anyway“ I’ve got a newsflash for you pal, so are you. I like how you think this is completely justified based on your assumption that all babies born with fatal illnesses are in constant pain and should therefore be exterminated for their own sake. This is post is a hot mess in every way.</p>: Barber: "what you want?" Him: "give me the most dystopian shit possible" Barber: "got ya fam" LifeNews com LifeNews.com @LifeNewsHQ Follow British Govt Encouraging Women to Give Birth to Disabled Babies to Harvest Thei Organs buff.ly/2Fuaepo <p><a href="http://krungle.tumblr.com/post/171933983002/libertarirynn-matt-ruins-your-shit" class="tumblr_blog">krungle</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171933218134/matt-ruins-your-shit-kajiosblog-this" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://matt-ruins-your-shit.tumblr.com/post/171925993106/kajiosblog-this-articles-title-is-rather" class="tumblr_blog">matt-ruins-your-shit</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kajiosblog.tumblr.com/post/171917720473/this-articles-title-is-rather-misleading-they" class="tumblr_blog">kajiosblog</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>This article’s title is rather misleading.  They aren’t encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs or something like that.  They aren’t encouraging anything.</p> <p>The truth of the matter is that expecting mothers who find out that their baby will be born with fatal defects will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early, in order to allow for organ donation.  Note this this is simply an option, and there is no incentive or penalty for either choice.</p> <p>Source: <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/650467/NHS-to-harvest-babies-fatal-defect-foetus-donate-organs-mothers-option-terminate-birth">https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/650467/NHS-to-harvest-babies-fatal-defect-foetus-donate-organs-mothers-option-terminate-birth</a></p> </blockquote> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="200" data-orig-width="370" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e52518448e2c705676d57e41594cdcb7/tumblr_inline_p5oc0lNajE1si8t7m_540.gif"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e52518448e2c705676d57e41594cdcb7/tumblr_inline_p5p3fvAsQ11rw09tq_540.gif" data-orig-height="200" data-orig-width="370" data-orig-src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e52518448e2c705676d57e41594cdcb7/tumblr_inline_p5oc0lNajE1si8t7m_540.gif"/></figure><p>I don’t think a single other person read that headline and thought they were “encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs.” That’s not why people find it incredibly disturbing and I’m astounded those were the conclusions you drew and thought it needed to be corrected. No seriously where did you get the idea that it was being claimed that mothers were being told to disable unborn children so they could be harvested? That makes no sense, that’s like the logic of Ricky from Trailer Park Boys who thinks that as long as you drag stolen goods down to the curb it becomes garbage and it’s not illegal to steal garbage. The very idea of a baby needing to be disabled in order to justify harvesting it’s organs should be offensive, it implies disabled people have less right to be alive and have their organs inside their own fucking bodies. The article title wasn’t misleading your terribly needless strawman explanation of the title was misleading. This is the exact reason I hate “fact checkers” you need fact checkers for the fact checkers they can be so bogged down in spin and semantics and dumb bullshit like this. The problem is with the harvesting of organs from disabled babies full stop. I didn’t think this needed to be explained but here goes.</p> <p>First of all it turns human life into a commodity, and not just a commodity but a commodity that would be controlled by the medical system of an increasingly fascist socialist government. What could go wrong?</p> <p>Like for example it hasn’t even happened yet and already there seems to be confusion about what exactly constitutes fatal defects. A system that always is going to want more organs is going to determine for themselves what is disabled enough? And what level of disabled is enough that you should be determined as scrap parts instead of a person? How do you know the baby will die? Doctors tell people their kids will be born dead or will die soon all the time that live full lives. One of my best friends parents were told he wouldn’t make it past a few weeks and he’s in his late twenties now. Really glad this wasn’t the policy back then.</p> <p>“will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early” No, carrying out the pregnancy has always been an option it’s the harvesting of organs that would be the new factor here. If it’s as you said that they are being given the option to carry out the pregnancy does that mean that right now women are being forced to have abortions? No giving birth is and always has been the default option. I find it gross that you think the only thing people do when they find out a baby will have serious defects is just abort it. These fatal defects represent a percentage chance of survival not a guarantee, so while yes a lot of people just say fuck it and abort at any sign of a problem there are also lots of people that take the risk give birth because worst case scenario the baby dies naturally best case scenario it survives. Medium case scenario it survives but raising it is costly and they have a lower quality of life…but it’s still a life and it should be up to a person to decide if their quality of life is low enough that they would rather not have it at all. <br/></p> <p>The horrifying part is they are not talking about stillborns, they’re not talking about babies that died in the womb. They’re talking about babies they believe will die eventually after being born. Who makes that determination? You trust the NHS… a system so shitty they amputate the wrong limbs on people to decide what babies are basically done for before they’re even born. Especially when they will benefit from every single baby a parent decides to allow be harvested. If there is room for corruption there will be corruption.</p> <p> So what happens once those babies are born and they’re alive? Do they start up a daycare center thats whole purpose is to wait for babies to die so they can be harvested? I’m sure the care there would be super humane and hospitable. What do they do with the ones that survive? By that point they would have become property of the NHS because they’re not babies they’re just living organ donations that haven’t had the courtesy to die naturally yet. Do they call up the mother and say hey so remember when you told us we could harvest your dead baby…well can you come by and pick up your two year old… that fucker is being really stubborn about not dying like we promised. Or much more likely they’ll just kill the babies immediately to avoid that burden and complication and not give them the chance to survive. I’ve already heard the term post birth abortion or as someone with a soul left would call it baby murder. </p> <p>They try to get around this by claiming the harvesting wont be an option until they are told the mother wants to have an abortion. What a great failsafe right? Well except that they can tell the mother whatever they want to get her to say she wants an abortion. They can tell her that her baby will definitely die when it might have a good chance of living. Which happens already without the added incentive of wanting to harvest the organs.</p> <p>Where would the oversight be. The NHS is already overwhelmed you think there’s going to be someone checking to make sure nobody is telling mothers their babies have fetal defects when they don’t? You think the system is going to check every single case, especially when every single case is going to benefit them? What fairy tale world do you live in. It’s the setup for a system where you give a doctor the power to say to himself this baby has a 10-60% chance of survival this mother is being a real bitch…and we’re in need of organs right now…maybe I tell her the lowest number in that estimate. Which is all it will be…fucking estimates. I have a member of my family that was pronounced dead four times and lived another twenty years. These people can’t even figure out when a person is dead and you want to give them 100% authority to determine who will die. Fuck that, fuck this. If they do this there will be horror stories rolling out within the week.</p> </blockquote> <p>Imagine fucking reading this and being like “no guys you don’t understand nobody’s asking the mother’s to disable the babies, just to give birth to disabled babies instead of murdering them in the womb so we can chop them up for parts! Because that’s so much better!”</p> </blockquote> <p style=""> “ babies diagnosed with fatal illnesses “</p> <p>That is a pretty high bar if you ask me. The kid will die anyway, sometimes destroying the organs in the process and often involving massive pain while being kept alive for enormous sums of money on machines. At least in this way the poor kid doesn’t have to suffer and some other kid gets a chance to end their suffering, as well, when they receive their transplants.</p> <p>The entire conversation on this started with fetuses that developed with no brain.</p> <p>You all that say this is wrong because of ‘compassion’ are showing no compassion for either the pain and suffering of the baby or the pain and suffering of the kids who will be able to live a much more normal and longer life once they get transplants. It isn’t ‘compassion’ you are showing but a strict adherence to a moral code and be damned how much pain and suffering it causes others.</p> <p>You people would show more compassion for your dog than you would for another human being.<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>“No YOU guys are actually the cruel ones for not wanting to murder sick babies to harvest them for parts!“</p><p>Are you fucking serious? First of all apparently it’s no longer possible to harvest organs after natural death despite the fact that it’s done all the time? “They’re going to die eventually anyway“ I’ve got a newsflash for you pal, so are you. I like how you think this is completely justified based on your assumption that all babies born with fatal illnesses are in constant pain and should therefore be exterminated for their own sake. This is post is a hot mess in every way.</p>
Save
<p><a href="http://matt-ruins-your-shit.tumblr.com/post/171925993106/kajiosblog-this-articles-title-is-rather" class="tumblr_blog">matt-ruins-your-shit</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kajiosblog.tumblr.com/post/171917720473/this-articles-title-is-rather-misleading-they" class="tumblr_blog">kajiosblog</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>This article’s title is rather misleading.  They aren’t encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs or something like that.  They aren’t encouraging anything.</p> <p>The truth of the matter is that expecting mothers who find out that their baby will be born with fatal defects will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early, in order to allow for organ donation.  Note this this is simply an option, and there is no incentive or penalty for either choice.</p> <p>Source: <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/650467/NHS-to-harvest-babies-fatal-defect-foetus-donate-organs-mothers-option-terminate-birth">https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/650467/NHS-to-harvest-babies-fatal-defect-foetus-donate-organs-mothers-option-terminate-birth</a></p> </blockquote> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="200" data-orig-width="370"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e52518448e2c705676d57e41594cdcb7/tumblr_inline_p5oc0lNajE1si8t7m_540.gif" data-orig-height="200" data-orig-width="370"/></figure><p>I don’t think a single other person read that headline and thought they were “encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs.” That’s not why people find it incredibly disturbing and I’m astounded those were the conclusions you drew and thought it needed to be corrected. No seriously where did you get the idea that it was being claimed that mothers were being told to disable unborn children so they could be harvested? That makes no sense, that’s like the logic of Ricky from Trailer Park Boys who thinks that as long as you drag stolen goods down to the curb it becomes garbage and it’s not illegal to steal garbage. The very idea of a baby needing to be disabled in order to justify harvesting it’s organs should be offensive, it implies disabled people have less right to be alive and have their organs inside their own fucking bodies. The article title wasn’t misleading your terribly needless strawman explanation of the title was misleading. This is the exact reason I hate “fact checkers” you need fact checkers for the fact checkers they can be so bogged down in spin and semantics and dumb bullshit like this. The problem is with the harvesting of organs from disabled babies full stop. I didn’t think this needed to be explained but here goes.</p> <p>First of all it turns human life into a commodity, and not just a commodity but a commodity that would be controlled by the medical system of an increasingly fascist socialist government. What could go wrong?</p> <p>Like for example it hasn’t even happened yet and already there seems to be confusion about what exactly constitutes fatal defects. A system that always is going to want more organs is going to determine for themselves what is disabled enough? And what level of disabled is enough that you should be determined as scrap parts instead of a person? How do you know the baby will die? Doctors tell people their kids will be born dead or will die soon all the time that live full lives. One of my best friends parents were told he wouldn’t make it past a few weeks and he’s in his late twenties now. Really glad this wasn’t the policy back then.</p> <p>“will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early” No, carrying out the pregnancy has always been an option it’s the harvesting of organs that would be the new factor here. If it’s as you said that they are being given the option to carry out the pregnancy does that mean that right now women are being forced to have abortions? No giving birth is and always has been the default option. I find it gross that you think the only thing people do when they find out a baby will have serious defects is just abort it. These fatal defects represent a percentage chance of survival not a guarantee, so while yes a lot of people just say fuck it and abort at any sign of a problem there are also lots of people that take the risk give birth because worst case scenario the baby dies naturally best case scenario it survives. Medium case scenario it survives but raising it is costly and they have a lower quality of life…but it’s still a life and it should be up to a person to decide if their quality of life is low enough that they would rather not have it at all. <br/></p> <p>The horrifying part is they are not talking about stillborns, they’re not talking about babies that died in the womb. They’re talking about babies they believe will die eventually after being born. Who makes that determination? You trust the NHS… a system so shitty they amputate the wrong limbs on people to decide what babies are basically done for before they’re even born. Especially when they will benefit from every single baby a parent decides to allow be harvested. If there is room for corruption there will be corruption.</p> <p> So what happens once those babies are born and they’re alive? Do they start up a daycare center thats whole purpose is to wait for babies to die so they can be harvested? I’m sure the care there would be super humane and hospitable. What do they do with the ones that survive? By that point they would have become property of the NHS because they’re not babies they’re just living organ donations that haven’t had the courtesy to die naturally yet. Do they call up the mother and say hey so remember when you told us we could harvest your dead baby…well can you come by and pick up your two year old… that fucker is being really stubborn about not dying like we promised. Or much more likely they’ll just kill the babies immediately to avoid that burden and complication and not give them the chance to survive. I’ve already heard the term post birth abortion or as someone with a soul left would call it baby murder. </p> <p>They try to get around this by claiming the harvesting wont be an option until they are told the mother wants to have an abortion. What a great failsafe right? Well except that they can tell the mother whatever they want to get her to say she wants an abortion. They can tell her that her baby will definitely die when it might have a good chance of living. Which happens already without the added incentive of wanting to harvest the organs.</p> <p>Where would the oversight be. The NHS is already overwhelmed you think there’s going to be someone checking to make sure nobody is telling mothers their babies have fetal defects when they don’t? You think the system is going to check every single case, especially when every single case is going to benefit them? What fairy tale world do you live in. It’s the setup for a system where you give a doctor the power to say to himself this baby has a 10-60% chance of survival this mother is being a real bitch…and we’re in need of organs right now…maybe I tell her the lowest number in that estimate. Which is all it will be…fucking estimates. I have a member of my family that was pronounced dead four times and lived another twenty years. These people can’t even figure out when a person is dead and you want to give them 100% authority to determine who will die. Fuck that, fuck this. If they do this there will be horror stories rolling out within the week.</p> </blockquote> <p>Imagine fucking reading this and being like “no guys you don’t understand nobody’s asking the mother’s to disable the babies, just to give birth to disabled babies instead of murdering them in the womb so we can chop them up for parts! Because that’s so much better!”</p>: Barber: "what you want?" Him: "give me the most dystopian shit possible" Barber: "got ya fam" LifeNews com LifeNews.com @LifeNewsHQ Follow British Govt Encouraging Women to Give Birth to Disabled Babies to Harvest Thei Organs buff.ly/2Fuaepo <p><a href="http://matt-ruins-your-shit.tumblr.com/post/171925993106/kajiosblog-this-articles-title-is-rather" class="tumblr_blog">matt-ruins-your-shit</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kajiosblog.tumblr.com/post/171917720473/this-articles-title-is-rather-misleading-they" class="tumblr_blog">kajiosblog</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>This article’s title is rather misleading.  They aren’t encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs or something like that.  They aren’t encouraging anything.</p> <p>The truth of the matter is that expecting mothers who find out that their baby will be born with fatal defects will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early, in order to allow for organ donation.  Note this this is simply an option, and there is no incentive or penalty for either choice.</p> <p>Source: <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/650467/NHS-to-harvest-babies-fatal-defect-foetus-donate-organs-mothers-option-terminate-birth">https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/650467/NHS-to-harvest-babies-fatal-defect-foetus-donate-organs-mothers-option-terminate-birth</a></p> </blockquote> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="200" data-orig-width="370"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/e52518448e2c705676d57e41594cdcb7/tumblr_inline_p5oc0lNajE1si8t7m_540.gif" data-orig-height="200" data-orig-width="370"/></figure><p>I don’t think a single other person read that headline and thought they were “encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs.” That’s not why people find it incredibly disturbing and I’m astounded those were the conclusions you drew and thought it needed to be corrected. No seriously where did you get the idea that it was being claimed that mothers were being told to disable unborn children so they could be harvested? That makes no sense, that’s like the logic of Ricky from Trailer Park Boys who thinks that as long as you drag stolen goods down to the curb it becomes garbage and it’s not illegal to steal garbage. The very idea of a baby needing to be disabled in order to justify harvesting it’s organs should be offensive, it implies disabled people have less right to be alive and have their organs inside their own fucking bodies. The article title wasn’t misleading your terribly needless strawman explanation of the title was misleading. This is the exact reason I hate “fact checkers” you need fact checkers for the fact checkers they can be so bogged down in spin and semantics and dumb bullshit like this. The problem is with the harvesting of organs from disabled babies full stop. I didn’t think this needed to be explained but here goes.</p> <p>First of all it turns human life into a commodity, and not just a commodity but a commodity that would be controlled by the medical system of an increasingly fascist socialist government. What could go wrong?</p> <p>Like for example it hasn’t even happened yet and already there seems to be confusion about what exactly constitutes fatal defects. A system that always is going to want more organs is going to determine for themselves what is disabled enough? And what level of disabled is enough that you should be determined as scrap parts instead of a person? How do you know the baby will die? Doctors tell people their kids will be born dead or will die soon all the time that live full lives. One of my best friends parents were told he wouldn’t make it past a few weeks and he’s in his late twenties now. Really glad this wasn’t the policy back then.</p> <p>“will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early” No, carrying out the pregnancy has always been an option it’s the harvesting of organs that would be the new factor here. If it’s as you said that they are being given the option to carry out the pregnancy does that mean that right now women are being forced to have abortions? No giving birth is and always has been the default option. I find it gross that you think the only thing people do when they find out a baby will have serious defects is just abort it. These fatal defects represent a percentage chance of survival not a guarantee, so while yes a lot of people just say fuck it and abort at any sign of a problem there are also lots of people that take the risk give birth because worst case scenario the baby dies naturally best case scenario it survives. Medium case scenario it survives but raising it is costly and they have a lower quality of life…but it’s still a life and it should be up to a person to decide if their quality of life is low enough that they would rather not have it at all. <br/></p> <p>The horrifying part is they are not talking about stillborns, they’re not talking about babies that died in the womb. They’re talking about babies they believe will die eventually after being born. Who makes that determination? You trust the NHS… a system so shitty they amputate the wrong limbs on people to decide what babies are basically done for before they’re even born. Especially when they will benefit from every single baby a parent decides to allow be harvested. If there is room for corruption there will be corruption.</p> <p> So what happens once those babies are born and they’re alive? Do they start up a daycare center thats whole purpose is to wait for babies to die so they can be harvested? I’m sure the care there would be super humane and hospitable. What do they do with the ones that survive? By that point they would have become property of the NHS because they’re not babies they’re just living organ donations that haven’t had the courtesy to die naturally yet. Do they call up the mother and say hey so remember when you told us we could harvest your dead baby…well can you come by and pick up your two year old… that fucker is being really stubborn about not dying like we promised. Or much more likely they’ll just kill the babies immediately to avoid that burden and complication and not give them the chance to survive. I’ve already heard the term post birth abortion or as someone with a soul left would call it baby murder. </p> <p>They try to get around this by claiming the harvesting wont be an option until they are told the mother wants to have an abortion. What a great failsafe right? Well except that they can tell the mother whatever they want to get her to say she wants an abortion. They can tell her that her baby will definitely die when it might have a good chance of living. Which happens already without the added incentive of wanting to harvest the organs.</p> <p>Where would the oversight be. The NHS is already overwhelmed you think there’s going to be someone checking to make sure nobody is telling mothers their babies have fetal defects when they don’t? You think the system is going to check every single case, especially when every single case is going to benefit them? What fairy tale world do you live in. It’s the setup for a system where you give a doctor the power to say to himself this baby has a 10-60% chance of survival this mother is being a real bitch…and we’re in need of organs right now…maybe I tell her the lowest number in that estimate. Which is all it will be…fucking estimates. I have a member of my family that was pronounced dead four times and lived another twenty years. These people can’t even figure out when a person is dead and you want to give them 100% authority to determine who will die. Fuck that, fuck this. If they do this there will be horror stories rolling out within the week.</p> </blockquote> <p>Imagine fucking reading this and being like “no guys you don’t understand nobody’s asking the mother’s to disable the babies, just to give birth to disabled babies instead of murdering them in the womb so we can chop them up for parts! Because that’s so much better!”</p>
Save