A Conservative Tumblog

Hey Tumblr, I have a riddle for you, do you like riddles? How about this:

Anonymous asker:

“What do you guys think about me buying a fertilized female embryo, growing it in an artificial womb, birthing and raising it, then waiting until she was of age and making her my sex slave? She’s essentially just a lump of biomatter. She never lived a real life. People are only people if they had lived actual lives and had relationships, so since my bitchslave’s entire life was under my control, I own her and she doesn’t have any rights, right? I want to know your honest opinion on this.”

(Source: gaypher)

15 notes

Black Abortion. aka “Oh snap, that’s ballsy.”

You know what I haven’t talked about in a while? Abortion. Mostly because it’s a settled issue. The pro-abortion crowd is wrong despite their insistence that abortions are necessary, desirable, morally permissable, and otherwise unobjectionable. They can’t make their case to save their lives—and when they try, they’re ultimately reduced to an argument of “We want to kill in utero beings just for the hell of it.”

I can already see the steam coming out the ears out of the leftist pro-borts that seem almost eager to embrace the idea that sexual irresponsibility is best dealt with by killing an in utero being. Oh, the things they’ll tell themselves to convince themselves of it—“it’s not human,” “we’re doing that kid a favor,” “who else is going to take care of it,” “what about rape,” blah blah blah—the same old tired arguments they’ve been making since 1973 that all fall flat on their face under even the slightest amount of scrutiny.

I find it interesting that anti-abortion measures aren’t being met with as much opposition anymore. South Dakota passed a harmless (though it’s being called “the most restrictive”) abortion bill that federally-funded Planned Abortionhood, amongst other left-wing mouthpieces, is all ticked off about. I don’t know why—if a chick in South Dakota wants an abortion she’s got six bordering states that can supply her with one. Or, just wait three days and give lip service to a counseling center and then still get her abortion.

In fact, how does this bill even really “restrict” abortion at all? What, it’s now less convenient to get an abortion? Why don’t I hear any pro-borts making that argument? Or, is it that they don’t want to use “convenient” and “abortion” in the same sentence—since that’s what 99.999% percent of abortions are? “Get rid of this inconvenient burden I brought entirely upon myself.” I mean, that’s abortion in a nutshell, right folks?

Anyway, I find it interesting that we’re not seeing much mention of this in the mainstream media. Have they abandoned the cause in the face of an exponentially growing sentiment that maybe abortion isn’t as great as folks once said it was? Isn’t there better, more pressing news to cover such as our Present-In-Chief sending $600mil+ in warships kinetic action ships to Libya for a fight we don’t have a reason to give a damn about?

Oh, who even cares what that dimwit is even doing (or, more appropriately, not doing) anymore. God knows we’re all just counting down the days until the next election and/or his own vice-president impeaches him.

Why bring up Obama in a post about abortion, you might be wondering? Well, maybe you’re not wondering—I do like to kick the President while he’s down. But actually, there is a good reason. See, the subject of abortion has had a lot less publicity lately because of the growing public resentment towards it. But when I do see it pop up, I’ve been seeing it a lot in one of two contexts: 1) that Planned Parenthood is a criminal enterprise (which we already knew); and 2) that a lot of the current beef with abortion is that it seems to be targeting the black community.

The word that the anti-abortion community is using is “genocide.” That’s come under some fire—but honestly, IS there a better word for it? National statistics claim that 36% of abortions are from the black community, despite blacks only being 13% of the national population. It’s no secret that the black community is most affected by abortions—we don’t need stats for that. Hell, that psychotic quack in Philly was making a killing (no pun intended) for years off of it. So it makes one wonder—why isn’t there a HUGE outcry from the black community against abortion?

Well, I don’t know—but I did see an ad today that—I don’t know if the “black community” came up with it or not, but man it makes a powerful statement:

For sake of candor, it should be noted that the same people who were behind this ad (conceived, by the way, by a black guy… in case that matters to you)—which was pulled after pressure and protests by the “freedom-loving, choice-respecting” pro-abortion crowd. Was the ad wrong though? ISN’T that the most dangerous place for an African-American these days? 

Anyway…

It’s no secret that the majority of race-minority and white-guilt voters voted for Obama solely on the basis of his skin color. God knows there’s enough right-wing exposés and Jay Leno skits to prove it. It was an important election, they said. A historic election. A time in which America could finally close the book on racism once and for all. And yet, the black community continues, and the American left supports the widespread killing of these possible future leaders.

Now, I know what you pro-borts are thinking: “This is no different than saying every abortion is killing the next Mozart, or the next Hitler.” And yeah, that dismissive argument has some merit against the rhetoric of the anti-abortion crowd—BUT you have to keep in mind the disproportionate amount of black abortions. With the numbers as staggeringly high as it is for blacks when it comes to abortion isn’t it kind of realistic that this ad is right? That “every 21 minutes our next possible [black] leader is aborted?”

Who would support that? Least of all in the black community?

Unless, of course, the black pro-bort community doesn’t believe that their future children could ever achieve such success. Who here wants to make that argument?

41 notes

Pro-Choice Rhetoric

antiabortionactivist:

“We have a voice, we have a choice!”

• I agree with both sections of that sentence, unless you’re talking about the “choice” to kill an innocent human being. Then, I disagree with the second half.

“Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!” 

• Well, I don’t have a rosary. Abortion isn’t always (or even mostly) a religious issue. Nonetheless, assuming I did own one, it wouldn’t be in your ovaries. Frankly, I don’t care what you do with your body. I’m just concerned with what you do to others’ bodies. Your assumption that all pro-lifers are religious is extremely offensive to many.

“My body, my choice!”

• See the first comment.

“Age means nothing; knowledge is everything!”

• Very few pro-choicers hold this sign, but it just goes to start a debate on infanticide. If age means nothing (and knowledge means everything), do I not have a right to kill a mentally retarded person or an infant? I mean, I’m smarter and older than both, so what’s the big deal, right? This makes absolutely no sense.

“Having a baby shouldn’t be punishment for a contraceptive mishap.”

• And a mistake on behalf of the parents should not be a death sentence for the child. Yet, that is exactly what abortion does.

“Choose Your Life.”

• I actually agree with this sign. Of course, I believe every human should be able to choose their own lives. On the flip side, I don’t think a doctor or a mother should be able to choose the life (or, in this case, death) of another human being.

“We won’t go back!”

• This sign is always accompanied with a picture of a coat hanger. Of course, I agree! I’d rather you not kill your child with a coat hanger. The difference is, you care more about the methods of murder than the actual killings themselves. How sad.

“Would you be pro-life if the baby if it were gay/a woman/etc.?”

• Yes, we would. I don’t care what race, sex, religious affiliation, political affiliation, or sexual orientation that your baby will (or does) pertain to, I’d just prefer you didn’t kill it.

“Against abortion? Don’t have one.”

• “Against slavery? Don’t own one.” Of course, this is illogical and, frankly, unintelligent. Whether or not we should do something is okay, as long as we don’t hurt another human being in the process. This means no slavery or abortion, as both hurt (and one directly kills) human beings.

“Keep your (or ‘the government’s’) hands off my body.”

• Certainly, as long as you keep your hands off your fellow humans. I don’t care what you do with your body, until you put your hands on another’s body.

21 notes

Why the fetus or embryo is not a parasite.

1. a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.) 
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
   
   
2. a) A parasite is an invading organism — coming to parasitize the host from an outside source. 
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg — the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote — the first cell of the new human being.


3. a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite. 
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.


4. a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host’s tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.). 
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.


5. a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human). 
   
   b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother’s uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.


6. a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.) 
   
   b) Evidence presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, “The Embryo as a Transplant” (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast — the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo — blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.


7. a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host’s capacity to reproduce. 
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.


8. a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives). 
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus. 

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species). A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

(Source: l4l.org)

13 notes