People Who Say That Abortion Is Needed Because Of The Fact That Rape Victims Exist, I Feel Are Missing

I love this image so much

🐠🖥️

Reasonable reaction, cuz like what, who wrote the scene? Never let them write again 💀

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

I personally will never understand why Marvel is so consistently trying to paint Peter Parker as this loser dork when the guy is able to pull beautiful/powerful women on a daily basis.

Mary-Jane Watson Gwen Stacy Gwen Stacy's Cousin Betty Brant Liz Allen Cindy Moon Carly Cooper Debra Whitman Felicia Hardy Captain Marvel Silver Sable Black Widow Hawkeye's ex-WIFE Emma freaking FROST

You've got to be out of your darn mind if you think I'm going to believe that the guy who could pull Emma Frost is a loser.

Sorry not sorry, y'all have got to stop destroying people's property in the name of 'protest.'

I don't care how valid you think you are in hating another person. I don't care what your politics are. I don't even care what the heck you believe or don't believe. You could have the most valid reason ever in the world, and I still wouldn't care because this is atrocious behavior.

By y'all destroying, breaking, setting fire to, and vandalizing Teslas by putting Swastikas on them, you are committing legitimate CRIMES. You are breaking someone's property. And not even because the actual person with the car DID something to YOU, but because you don't like the PERSON who bought the BUSINESS to have the cars made (because Tesla was around before Elon ever had his hands on it).

You say you guys want people to take you seriously, that you're the party of love and acceptance, but then go around and terrorize people doing stuff like THIS. How can people listen to your side when you don't even make your side appealing to listen to?

I don't care what you think is right or not. I don't care what your politics are. Hate MAGA all you want. Hate Elon all you want. Hate Trump all you want.

But that does NOT give you the RIGHT to cause destruction onto someone else's property. It doesn't not give you the right to burn someone's belongings (especially not if those belongings cause toxic fumes to go into the air). It definitely doesn't give you the right on the grounds of politics. Because wanna know what that means? It means you're committing a hate crime. And what qualifies as a hate crime? This:

"Hate crime in criminal law involves a standard offence with an added element of bias against a victim because of their physical appearance or perceived membership of a certain social group."

If politics has you so worked up to the point where you are willing to actively ruin someone's property, do not be surprised when the political party you are a part of all of a sudden has people not wanting to listen to you.

Crap like this is EXACTLY why I don't want to be on this side of politics anymore. The reds certainly aren't the best either (absolutely not). But I can say for darn sure (as a former blue) that y'all have lost your darn minds if this is what you think is okay to do.

I don't care how justified you think are you for doing it because let's be completely honest here:

If the roles were reversed and someone’s property was vandalized with hate symbols because they were left-leaning, because they supported Biden or Kamala, you guys would be FUMING.

The hypocrisy isn't a cute look, babe.

If it wouldn't be okay for someone to do it to YOU, don't do it another person. It's that simple. And if your politics don't or can't agree with that, maybe you need a better outlook on what your politics actually are and WHY you support it. Because something is clearly wrong if you think crimes like this are justified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand your point as well 👍

Something I think anti-abortionists (including myself) need to understand is that when you (rightfully) call out the fact that abortion is murder---or at the very least wrong, you're gonna get push back.

You're asking these women to confront a reality that's gonna force them to rethink every aspect of their life and how they see themselves as person.

Imagine if all your life you were told this thing was fine/okay to do, and that it's empowering for you to do it, only for you to find out you were actually committing evil in the process.

I doubt many people would be willing to face that reality because no one really wants to think of themselves as an evil person (lest they be a legit psychopath). Most people don't like confronting uncomfortable truths about things regardless of how necessary it might be because it's human nature to want to run from things that don't feel good to know.

Imagine if you found out that you were actually committing murder this whole time? Would you be so easily willing to accept that truth? Of course a bunch of these women are going to show major resistance because they don't want to believe what they're doing is horrible because by extension, it would mean they're a horrible person and they would have to wrestle with their self worth and regret because that's what it would translate to for them. No one wants to deal with that.

I'm not saying this erases it, nor do I believe all women who've had abortions are genuinely evil. But really take the time to look from their perspective here. Is it really any wonder that there's so much resistance/division on this topic?

A part of me thinks that Deadpool suggested Parker Industries because he knew there was a chance that Peter would see her on the roof and instantly jump to save her (or at the very least stop her).

Also, I know that Deadpool's the 'merc with a mouth' but that doesn't mean his mask needs one.

Supernatural Romances make NO sense - A Random Opinion

Here's the thing: As much as I enjoy these concepts or tropes, they don't make sense when you take the time to think about it. Don't believe me? Let's go down the list then.

Vampire romances: The concept of a vampire romance really doesn't make sense when you take just five minutes to add all the aspects together.

Sure, it can be intriguing or whatever (especially if there’s a unique way in which the premise is handled), but let's really boil down the contents of its true implications here.

A vampire is a creature that feeds on human blood. Vampire romances USUALLY (not all the time, but usually) involve a vampire falling for a human rather than a vampire falling for another vampire.

Let me say this again. Vampire, which eats humans---then has stories where they then fall for humans.

That's like a chupacabra hooking up with a goat. What sense does it make for a creature to fall in love with something it usually tends to eat?

Even if the said predator of this relationship has no intention of eating their mate or harming them---would you, as a rational person, feel comfortable knowing that your partner has to harm YOUR species and eat them for their own survival? I highly doubt it.

"Oh, I know you kill people and drink their blood, but I know you won't kill ME! I'm just DIFFERENT--"

It literally makes no sense.

Zombie romances: Zombie romances make even less sense to me. Because now instead of a creature that simply wants your blood, it’s a creature that quite literally wants to rip your stomach open and eat your intestines like Twizzlers.

At least with a vampire, you could just have IV blood bags for them to drink to put off their thirst for a WHILE. But when it comes to zombies, they literally rely on eating the WHOLE entirety of the human.

Once again, it’s like a chupacabra dating a goat. Oh, but what if the zombie doesn’t want to eat or harm their partner?

Well, then we get into even more ethically concerning details on the human’s part. Because aren’t zombies walking corpses that eat people? And if a human is willing to date or become uh…'entangled’ with a zombie, isn’t that a form of necrophilia since the zombie is literally just a man-eating corpse? 

Sure, we could argue whether or not zombies are living or non-living. But let's be honest here: the majority of the time, zombies do not look cute. They are rotting parts of their bodies, they look dead, they smell horrible, they’re covered in blood, and sometimes missing a limb or two. If you’re unironically attracted to that in real life or something (not including those who JUST like the stories for the stories), you are mentally ill—there’s no way around it for me. You are attracted to something that looks like a corpse. That in itself is necrophilia and it’s honestly gross from an incredibly literal standpoint.

Even if the zombie were to look like some cutesy/idealistic anime character or something, it still doesn't change the fact that this thing's practically DEAD.

Sure, like vampire romances, it could be interesting depending on the intricacies of the story. But it still makes no sense when you write it down on paper. Wow, you’re dating a creature that looks dead and has to fight off the urge to eat people every single second they're on this planet. How quirky. 

Ghost romances: Ghost romances also don’t make sense on paper. Now, this one is a bit more loose in my opinion since ghost archetypes are often experimented with in terms of what they can do or not do. It’s just one of those things where it really depends on the story world and the premise it's placed in. However, from the very cultural and general stance of how ghosts work, they can’t touch anything (except when it's to conveniently scare people, so even then, their intangibility is transient) and they can’t age. 

I’m sorry, but aren’t the driving points of a romance being able to see the characters display affection and/or get old together? And if a ghost can’t touch anything, what’s the point in being romantically involved with someone you can’t kiss? I get there’s long distance relationships, but if they’re in the same room with you—why would you want that? 

Even if the subject of physical intimacy wasn’t an issue, there’s still the prospect of aging. Because if your boo (pun intended) died young and is a ghost, that means they’re physically stuck at that age forever. Even if they were to be centuries older than you, wouldn’t it be weird to see some elderly person smooching on a young looking supernatural?

Let me put it like this. A human woman at 25 years old is in a relationship with a male ghost. The said male ghost died at 30. Sure, she could get away with dating him for another five or ten years, but eventually, the human woman ages in appearance physically and looks older than her ghost partner. And if she lives long enough, she’s gonna be 80 while her boo still looks 30. You’re seriously telling me that DOESN’T look weird from the outside? Wouldn't you be weirded out if some super old person was smooching up with someone decades younger than them?

At that point, to avoid any oddities, you’d be better off killing yourself in whatever spot they’re stuck to so you wouldn’t have to worry about aging out of proportion in the relationship (and if not aging, then to touch them). That sounds like a lot more work than it’s worth.

Werewolf romances: Werewolf romances are the only sort of supernatural romance I could possibly get behind—and even then, it’s still highly dependent on how the said story chooses to handle the workings of lycanthropy. 

At least with this partner, they most likely can turn humans who won’t HAVE to kill you out of survival. You don’t have to be sorry about some super weird complex age gap. And you can touch them. Sounds like a pretty decent basis so far. BUT there’s always a catch.

A werewolf is (duh) a person who can turn into a wolf (or wolf-like monster). When it comes to these beings, it really is a roll of the dice. Because some versions will make them seem they have no thought process or control at all—whereas others give them complete control. So to call a werewolf automatically dangerous to the well being of their human partner is rather tough to say off the bat. Though, I do know that all of that fur that sheds off of them will be annoying to deal with (and that’s not even counting all of the things they might chew up---like your shoes).

And while I would be inclined to agree that being in a relationship with a werewolf could most definitely be a form of beastiality, at the very LEAST a werewolf can revert back into a human the majority of the time. So as long as you’re only doing stuff with them as a human, you should technically be fine, right?

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I still don’t find much appeal in becoming romantically involved with someone who can become some giant creepy wolf abomination, but at least there’s SOME things in there you COULD manipulate depending on which universe you land into.

Overall, while I do think supernatural romances are indeed a fun concept (and I DO tend to enjoy some of these stories), there’s no way in HECK I think they’re ACTUALLY plausible (unless you add some major--MAJOR--plot armor).

Why I think Silver deserves to be in the fourth Sonic movie

So off the bat, I know some of you guys are going to disagree with me and that is perfectly fine. I know a lot of people have mixed opinions regarding Silver as a character, and I certainly have my own.

All I ask is that if you do have any disagreements or information I might be missing, that you convey them respectfully since we're talking about FICTIONAL characters---the world isn't gonna end if we think different about a floating psychokinetic hedgehog.

I think he should be in the next Sonic movie, but in order for my points to coalesce properly, there's other aspects of the topic I'd like to address first in hopes you guys will see where I am coming from.

Personally, on top of having his powers being freaking awesome, I think Silver is a good character and is rather underused in more recognized forms of Sonic media. Don't get me wrong, he was in Sonic 06 and could very well have other mediums he was in---but for the most part, I don't see him and it's as if the Sonic franchise forgets he exists.

Now, don't get me wrong---I understand why some people might have an aversion to Silver regarding his appearance in the Sonic 06 game. His boss battle is tough for utterly no reason, he believes Mephiles at the drop of a hat, and then became a (sometimes annoying) meme. But personally, I don't think this makes him a bad character--but rather he had a bad introduction and I'll explain what I mean.

Regarding his trust in Mephiles, I'd be one to agree that it was naive for him to do, but Knuckles the Echidna underwent similar situations with Eggman MULTIPLE times. Especially if we're talking about Sonic X, Knuckles is shown to have believed Dr. Eggman's lies and fight Sonic multiple times. So personally, I feel as though if you dislike Silver for believing Mephiles, you should have similar thought patterns toward Knuckles for doing similar stuff---if not more than Silver.

For me, I interpret Silver trusting Mephiles as desperation to save his world from destruction. Silver---like Sonic---is an adolescent boy who has the weight of the world on his shoulders and is doing the best he can with the information that is given to him.

I'm explaining all of this because I for one, can't exactly agree with the narrative that Silver is a villain or that he's plain stupid (as some---not all, but some---have argued). And even if I were to agree with the notion that Sonic 06 had the worst portrayal of Silver, I still wouldn't agree with the implication that because of his introduction in the game--that it means he doesn't deserve a redesign or rewrite to fit the movie (since that's what Jeff Fowler has done with other characters in the film already).

I think having Silver in the movie could reintroduce a new version of him and considering Jeff Fowler's obvious skills in bringing honor to the iconic characters, I don't see why Silver would be any different.

Some people think Silver wouldn't fit, but I disagree due to a pattern I noticed within the more recent Sonic films (including the end credit scene for the third one involving Shadow).

Granted, we don't know what the fourth movie is about (or at least I don't) so for all I know, Silver COULD not actually fit into the plot. But considering what we saw with the metal Sonics, I think he'd fit right in.

In the second movie, it gave Sonic two allies (Tails and later on Knuckles) and an enemy (Eggman). In the third movie, it gave Sonic two allies (who would later on be Shadow and Eggman) and an enemy (Gerald Robotnik). While sure, they definitely have their differences in how they manifested plotwise, there was still a pattern.

In the end credit scene of the third movie, it already shows us who the new enemy would be [metal sonic] and who the new ally would be [Amy Rose]. So Silver could very easily fit that role of being the second ally. And sure, the whole 'enemy turned friend' thing might be predictable or old for some people, but I don't think it's a case of lazy writing. I think it's more about the franchise showing who Sonic truly is as a character and how at his core, he wants to help people.

In the case of Silver, I think that could work very well. And it's not like Jeff has it happen the exact same way each time. Heck, even if they were to make him an ally for Sonic off the bat without them being enemies first, I believe it could still very much work.

Once again, the fourth movie hasn't even released and so not many of us (at least not me) know know what the plot for it will be. But, if possible (and that's a big if), I think Silver deserves a shot at redemption by being in the fourth Sonic movie.

Abortion is Murder & Unbiblical

The Bible does not use the word abortion. How could it? The term itself as a procedure wasn't invented yet! However, the Bible does cover: 

Humanity's inherent value and rights as (uniquely among creation) made in the image of God

Murder

Child/infant murder as something abhorrent to God

Life's beginnings, indirectly (although that also has biological support) 

Legal ramifications of killing a child in the womb 

How God sees and interacts with children in the womb 

How we as His followers are meant to treat children 

What He expects us to do for the defenseless and vulnerable (i.e., the most defenseless and vulnerable human imaginable is the one in the womb) 

And how the question of following Him and His Word is what makes or breaks the difference between a Christian and someone who claims the name but is tragically unsaved  Below are some verses and some additional explication (partial credit: @glowsticks-and-jesus)  

Proverbs 31:8 

Luke 1:44 

2nd Kings 17:17 

Jeremiah 19:5 

Genesis 9:6 

Exodus 21:22-25 

Matthew 7:20 - 23 

John 15:14 

1st John 1:5-10, 2:3-6 

Exodus 20:13 

Mark 10:13-15 Leviticus 20:3-5 (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/mizzaro_2233.htm) 

Matthew 18:10, 14

Psalm 22:10

Jacob & Esau, John the Baptist, Samson, etc. 

Judges 16:17  Glowsticks-and-Jesus Collection:

"Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 'Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.'"Jeremiah 1:4-5

"The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name."Isaiah 49:1

John the Baptist leaped in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary greeted her cousin (Luke 1:39-45), an example that babies in utero are responsive human beings already aware of the outside world.

The righteous Hebrew midwives at the time of Moses pleased God by saving babies deemed unworthy of life by the authorities of their day (Ex. 1:15-21).

 As an additional note -- these references are included above, but worth a second mention -- it's plain that child sacrifice - child murder - is something that God abhors and explicitly does not command. I'd look here (https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/19-5.htm) and here (https://biblehub.com/2_kings/17-17.htm) and check out the cross-references as well. Likewise, there is direct support for laws against murder and the protection of the unborn (up to capital punishment) in the Bible (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 21:22-25  -- an additional reference here included about the common misunderstanding of the latter verses: https://www.str.org/w/what-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion).

In summary -- it's possible (although, I believe, it does deprive its proponents of a foundational basis for the value of life) to be both secular and anti-abortion. But it is not possible for a Christian who truly understands their faith, their God, and His Word to be pro-abortion.