I'm Honestly So Tired Of How Formulaic 'creative Mediums' Feel Now And That Social Media Is Honestly

So I have something I want to say, and I think it's something both pro-life and pro-choice people can and should agree on.

It's this: Women deserve better than abortion.

Now stay with me, please. There is this charity that I love, called Let Them Live, and they open their doors and fundraisers to moms in need, raising enough money and giving them all the support they require to confidently choose life. And that's beautiful -- I think people on both sides can agree on that.

The thing is, the stories these moms in need tell strike stunningly similar notes, over and over again.

"I don't want to abort my baby, but I'm so scared of being homeless."

"I would never choose abortion, but my life is too unstable/dangerous because of an abusive partner to choose life."

"I want to keep my baby, but no one in my family is supporting me."

"It breaks my heart to abort, but my partner/family is pressuring me into it."

"I'm scared."

"I'm alone."

"I'm unsafe."

"I'm jobless."

"I'm about to be evicted."

Doesn't it break your heart? What happened to the world that we now look at these women in dire straits, who often have children already and say, "The answer is abortion." Over and over, these women are told by society, by family members, by partners, and by friends that the answer to their problems is to deny every maternal instinct and subject themselves to a dangerous medical procedure that snuffs out the small life growing inside them.

Is this really what the pro-choice side is fighting for? I have spoken to many pro choice people in my time... They hold their beliefs because they see abortion as crucial to women's rights, to feminism, and to female safety. But is it really? Does it empower women at all when we tell them that to be free and on an equal level with men they have to get an abortion -- an invasive and potentially life threatening procedure? Does it keep them safe when abortions are continually used to destroy the evidence of rape, of incest, and of forced prostitution? When abortion itself can be and has been lethal? When the battle for abortion rights contributes to the misconception that abortion is ever necessary to save a pregnant woman's life, to the point where doctors become negligent? Does it further feminism to elevate the rights of one group of people (women) over the rights of another (unborn girls and boys) and create another kind of oppression? I don't think it does. When I look at the stories of the women who come to Let Them Live, desperate and alone, I become more convinced than ever that abortion hurts. It does not help.

The pro-life side often focuses on the unborn's right to life -- as they should! They fight their battles with biological facts about conception and gestation. They bring truth to the table by describing the reality of abortion procedures and laying out statistics regarding abortion that put a lie to many of the common arguments for it. And that is good.

But I think we need to emphasize another facet of the argument.

Abortion is stupid.

Abortion is a stupid, violent solution to a systemic problem. Ask yourselves this: when did we get so lazy and so disconnected from our communities that the main solution to a desperate or frightened mother's unplanned pregnancy was to abandon her to an abortion clinic? To a cold room, to forceps that rip her baby apart, to saline injections that poison her baby, to pills that starve her baby.

Abortion doesn't solve poverty.

Abortion doesn't stop abuse.

Abortion doesn't heal trauma.

Abortion doesn't make society and careers more hospitable to mothers.

Abortion doesn't stop misogyny.

Abortion doesn't prevent rape.

Abortion doesn't spread love.

For many of this things, abortion actually perpetuates them.

We spend so much time as a culture fighting over abortion! One side (rightly) hates it, and the other upholds it as the salvation of women.

And while this disagreement spins on, moms are hurt. Abuse is covered up. Poverty is rampant. Little girls have their innocence stolen. Instead of a culture of life, there is a culture of death.

Abortion is stupid. It is lazy. It is a symptom of the problem; not the solution to it. It gives people an excuse to blame women for their struggles, rather than helping them. Rather than gathering these women into the arms of a community and promising that, yes, of course we will help, abortion lets us believe that the best help we can give is making them an appointment and driving them to an abortion clinic. Don't tell me that doesn't happen. We all know it does.

Do all people refuse to help? Of course not! Pro life and pro choice individuals alike reach out to these women, and that is wonderful. We need more of that.

But society as a whole? It still calls for death. It empowers the strong, not the vulnerable. Imagine a world without abortion gumming up the works, where communities surrounded mothers who needed help. Where workplaces gave adequate maternity leave and better maternal health insurance. Where abortion could no longer serve as an excuse for the people who will abuse their power or make lazy policy decisions.

Companies like Disney will pay for an abortion, but will they shell out the considerably larger amount of money necessary for proper maternity leave and for adequate health insurance? Of course not! Not when they have an easier, cheaper option. Abortion gives them that option. Abortion gives fathers a way to avoid paying child support and taking responsibility. Abortion gives abusers a way to hide. Abortion gives pimps a way to maximize their profits. Abortion gives society yet another way to shuffle mothers aside and disrespect all that they do.

So. Is abortion helpful? Is it feministic? No. We can do better. We have to do better, for the sake of the thousands upon thousands of moms who need our help.

Abortion is stupid. It's a bad solution. Come on, everyone. We're smarter than this.

You're so real for this. There's actually proof that women who do get them actually suffer from WORSE mental and physical consequences despite what they'd like you to think.

An Ode to Simplicity :D

I have rarely, if ever, had trouble hitting a minimum word count. I like to explain things. I like to look at things in depth and from different angles. But what I love is the simple distilled truth of something. There is elegance in brevity. (Which I don't often attain to, as you can see. :D) There is also, usually, a lot less room for deception. This is one reason I favor the pro-life position. When I see pro-abortion arguments, I typically see three pages of mental and verbal gymnastics that have to speedrun through logical fallacies and into advocating ableism, discrimination, eugenics, and more on their hasty way to explain how it's actually "compassionate" and "moral" and "forward-thinking" to murder babies. Oh, sure, there are a few tired, pseudo-pithy mottos that can be tried: "the freedom/right to choose!" and "equal rights!" and "my body, my choice!" But I or anyone can drive a truck through the plot holes in those slogans with very little effort. - For example, "Freedom/right to choose!" becomes a lot less nice-sounding when you ask, "Freedom/right to choose...what?" Because it turns out that most sane people actually have some strong opinions about giving someone else the freedom and the right to choose to murder people. - "Equal rights! Human rights!" Great! So what about the rights of the human in the womb? Ask this, and you'll watch the pro-abortion crowd either fall over themselves to deny science or to reveal that they actually don't believe in equal rights for all humans -- they instead believe in equal rights for some humans and not others, based on physical and arbitrary characteristics like size, degree of development, and location. Which is what we call "inequality" and "discrimination". - "My body, my choice!" Sure! Except it's not your body that's getting torn apart by forceps or starved of nutrients, obviously, so it's not really your choice -- you're just taking it away from the baby. Not to mention that EVERY civilized society restricts the lesser right of autonomy in the event where it infringes upon another's primary right to life. (Otherwise, have fun explaining to people why you believe there shouldn't be any laws against assault, murder, rape, drinking and driving, etc.) - BONUS: "YOU'RE KILLING WOMEN!" Um, no -- you are. Where do you think women come from? Rocks? And feel free to look it up -- there is a difference between triage, tragedy, and murder. And in no medical case is an abortion the "treatment" necessary to save the mother's life -- oftentimes, it can actually put her in even more danger. Meanwhile, while the proponents of abortion have to either write essays and essays futilely attempting to claim otherwise to maintain the moral high ground OR abandon it altogether and lean into the whole infanticide-worshipping cult thing, me and any other pro-lifer can state our position as a whole pretty simply without having to do any of those things. It goes like this: "Hi! It's wrong to murder babies. Please stop doing it."

*Mic drop* That's it. That's literally it. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. :D

As someone who's against abortion, I feel like this needs to be said: Society really doesn't do enough to help women endure pregnancy either. Unfortunately, pregnancy complications are a lot more common than people would originally think, which is also another reason as to why a lot of women today are now opting out of having children. Because more often than not, our society gives them very little support, women are shamed for being pregnant outside of marriage even when it was outside of their control (such as being raped), women often don’t get help and in fact, there’s a very obvious trend of men abandoning the women they impregnate. The trend is so widespread that we joke about it. “Haha, your dad left to get milk and never came back.” You realize how disgusting that is?

In the grand scheme of things and in terms of history, we have only recently gotten out of a system that automatically writes women off as ‘hysterical’ and now listen to their pain or issues—but even then, there’s still countless of stories of women who had complications in their bodies—not just in pregnancy—due to the fact that their doctors just would not listen to them when they told them they’re in pain or suspected something was wrong. It was only until 1993 did women in America actually start to be medically studied.

When you have it all down, it is any wonder why women in this day and age don’t want to bear children anymore when there seems to be little perceived benefit for themselves and the child involved? And I don't wanna hear any red-pillers going, "Oh, females take advantage of the child support---" You're not a rapper. You're not a celebrity. You're on Tumblr. You don't have any gold to dig. And even if you do run into a situation where a woman crappily uses the system against you, it's your fault for not being sexually responsible in the first place. Sorry, she didn't get pregnant by herself, sir.

As much as I don't want abortion to be a thing, I think we really got to show how we plan to actually improve society outside of creating hospitals :l

Not saying that ALL of us are bare-bottoms who doing nothing, but the one's voicing for us could definitely be doing a LOT more.

This is why I don't wanna place myself in either political party because conservatives aren't talking about the concerns women SHOULD have regarding their bodies during pregnancy and/or how it'll effect their lives and what help they're gonna get.

Both sides have things they ignore, but my gosh.

My Conclusion about Prince Adam - A Disney Theory

I already know I'm probably gonna make some people disagree with what I'm gonna say, but honestly? I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone else comment on this yet. If you genuinely are going to be offended just from me having my own opinions and observations about a FILM, then I dunno what to tell you, bro. I perfectly understand if you disagree with my theory, but that's what it is---a theory, not fact. You can still like the movie.

Now finally addressing the main point...

So, according to some other fan theories, the Beast/Prince (his name is Prince Adam, don't know why they never mentioned it in the movie, but apparently, that’s his name) was a child when he was cursed by the enchantress since the flower was supposed to die during his twenty-first year.

And the movie specifies that enough time had passed to the point where the rose began to wilt and lose petals—which was the condition it was in before he met Belle anyway. Chronologically, this would mean Prince Adam got cursed when he was eleven. So if that were to be the case, then yes---the Enchantress would be the real villain here for cursing a child that followed the simple rules of 'stranger danger.' And for a while, I also believed this conclusion.

However, there's something else in the movie that I think disproves this theory entirely.

When Belle enters the West Wing despite the Beast telling her not to, she notices a ripped painting of a man. Then when the beast gets transformed back into a human at the end of the movie, he looks like the man in the ripped painting.

In order for that painting to have been made, he was way more than likely already a grown up before he became a beast---hence how the original artist even got the facial reference to know what to paint. You really expect me to believe this is a random painting of someone else who just HAPPENS to look like Adam? I don't think so.

Same creepy wide blue eyes, same length hair, same skin color, etc. And sure, the shading and colors are a bit different, but the similarities are still there.

There’s no way he was around 11 when that portrait was painted. Even if he was let's say in his late teens, he still would not have been young enough for him to be a smaller child. The ABSOLUTE youngest I think the prince could've been in order for that painting to be made and ALSO look like that is at the very LEAST 15.

Even in the beginning of the film, it shows Prince Adam definitely not looking like a kid. He's also wearing a SIMILAR collar to the one he wears in the torn painting.

That dude don't look 11 to me. And keep in mind, the curse said he would die during his twenty-first year if he didn’t find love. The curse very well COULD'VE meant his 21st year of being a BEAST and not necessarily point to his AGE. Considering the controversy around what Belle's ACTUAL age could/might be, I'm not gonna comment on that. But TLDR: I don't think Prince Adam was a child when he got cursed in the movie due to the ripped painting of him found in the West Wing.

Its the most beautiful thing ever

Retro RV 1950 Chevy with 1946 Spartan Camper

Characters Who Apologize/Change Before They Die - An Unpopular Character Writing Take

I'm so sorry, but characters who do a bunch of awful stuff and then apologize AS they're dying are straight up punks to me. You do not get to raise hell on this planet and then try to act like you learned your lesson now that you're seconds away from meeting your maker. 

Now granted, in some specific (and well done) cases, this can be an emotional or amazing moment for a character or plot line. However, most of the time (to me personally), it's just a lazy or improper way for a writer to make a 'redemption' arc for a character without having the said character put the work in. How on Earth am I supposed to have empathy (sympathy even) for a character that out of nowhere got a change of heart 00000.01 seconds after finding out they're dying?

Congratulations, you realized too late that you were a piece of dookie and can't even do anything to help clean the mess that YOU made. 

For example, I do not like Bakugou Katsuki whatsoever but at the very least HE of all people made the effort to apologize to Deku BEFORE he got murked and on top of that, actually tried to freaking HELP at some points. 

You got me messed up if you think I'm really about to feel bad for a character that did nothing but contribute to the pain and suffering of others around them, and then think they can die an angel just because they apologize or admit they were wrong. You're not slick, I know what you're doing. 

It's one thing to simply have that be a part of the plot and it's complete 'nother for the writers to try and gaslight me into feeling bad that the one who did nothing but cause problems is holding onto their final breath. Of course you wanna make things right now that you realize you're gonna be put to sleep for all eternity with potentially no one coming to the funeral. You had more than enough time, more than enough opportunities, to turn around and be better but you didn't take it. 

When it comes down to villain redemption (or character redemption IN GENERAL), I feel it's a rather delicate process that I feel usually (not all the time, but USUALLY) is written in either the flattest or laziest ways possible. And having a crappy character who did crappy stuff apologize from their last breath or because they were close to it is on that list. 

This isn't to say you can't like evil or horrible characters. You can like a character that does crappy stuff. But it's another thing to JUSTIFY the crappy stuff that they do. Stop acting like an angry 24/7 paid lawyer for this fictional being that I know for a FACT would not ever do the same for you should they be an actual person.

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.

Thanks for the sources! Will definitely be referencing these.

An Ode to Simplicity :D

I have rarely, if ever, had trouble hitting a minimum word count. I like to explain things. I like to look at things in depth and from different angles. But what I love is the simple distilled truth of something. There is elegance in brevity. (Which I don't often attain to, as you can see. :D) There is also, usually, a lot less room for deception. This is one reason I favor the pro-life position. When I see pro-abortion arguments, I typically see three pages of mental and verbal gymnastics that have to speedrun through logical fallacies and into advocating ableism, discrimination, eugenics, and more on their hasty way to explain how it's actually "compassionate" and "moral" and "forward-thinking" to murder babies. Oh, sure, there are a few tired, pseudo-pithy mottos that can be tried: "the freedom/right to choose!" and "equal rights!" and "my body, my choice!" But I or anyone can drive a truck through the plot holes in those slogans with very little effort. - For example, "Freedom/right to choose!" becomes a lot less nice-sounding when you ask, "Freedom/right to choose...what?" Because it turns out that most sane people actually have some strong opinions about giving someone else the freedom and the right to choose to murder people. - "Equal rights! Human rights!" Great! So what about the rights of the human in the womb? Ask this, and you'll watch the pro-abortion crowd either fall over themselves to deny science or to reveal that they actually don't believe in equal rights for all humans -- they instead believe in equal rights for some humans and not others, based on physical and arbitrary characteristics like size, degree of development, and location. Which is what we call "inequality" and "discrimination". - "My body, my choice!" Sure! Except it's not your body that's getting torn apart by forceps or starved of nutrients, obviously, so it's not really your choice -- you're just taking it away from the baby. Not to mention that EVERY civilized society restricts the lesser right of autonomy in the event where it infringes upon another's primary right to life. (Otherwise, have fun explaining to people why you believe there shouldn't be any laws against assault, murder, rape, drinking and driving, etc.) - BONUS: "YOU'RE KILLING WOMEN!" Um, no -- you are. Where do you think women come from? Rocks? And feel free to look it up -- there is a difference between triage, tragedy, and murder. And in no medical case is an abortion the "treatment" necessary to save the mother's life -- oftentimes, it can actually put her in even more danger. Meanwhile, while the proponents of abortion have to either write essays and essays futilely attempting to claim otherwise to maintain the moral high ground OR abandon it altogether and lean into the whole infanticide-worshipping cult thing, me and any other pro-lifer can state our position as a whole pretty simply without having to do any of those things. It goes like this: "Hi! It's wrong to murder babies. Please stop doing it."

*Mic drop* That's it. That's literally it. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. :D

Hi, I liked your post criticizing the toxic dynamics in the Dracula family in Hotel Transylvania, and I want to ask for your thoughts on the movies in general, as well as your opinions on the concept of "zing", the way Mavis and Johnny's relationship is written and if the movie handled its message about acceptance well.

Personally I dislike the concept of "Love at First Sight" which zing basically is, because it robs a couple from getting to know each other, but also because it portrays an unrealistic view of love and romance. Real love can't come from mere physical attraction but has to be built.

HT also uses monsters as a metaphor for minorities to tell a message about acceptance and freedom from prejudice, which a lot of other media do, so Im curious about your opinion on if the movies handled this theme well.

Hi~! So sorry for the late response ^^

First of all, it's so nice having asks like this!

In terms of how I feel about the movies generally---they do have some likable characters and they do unfortunately hold some semi-dearness to my heart due to me enjoying it as a child. But as a 20 year old woman, I am MORE than aware of how deeply messed up these movies are---and as someone who does enjoy the intricacies of story writing, the Hotel Transylvania is very disappointing in that regard.

I agree with you on the 'zing' thing. I've come to despise the whole 'zing' concept because it reminds me of 'imprinting' that's used in other supernatural romances. Either way, I see it as a sloppy excuse or shortcut creators use to make characters have 'chemistry' without having it genuinely be earned.

Johnny is the everyman trope---a stupid regular degular dude who gets the manic pixie dream girl. Johnny's a monster fanatic---and Mavis is a vampire with limited knowledge on the world thanks to her piece of dookie father. The way Johnny and Mavis' relationship is written hits all of the wrong notes for me.

Regarding the whole minorities thing, as a woman who is part of a minority group herself, I can say for certain that if portraying metaphors for minority groups and acceptance was the goal, it didn't just miss the target---it actively didn't even hit the circle.

That's not to say that I can't *now* see where that might have been intended. But I think it still doesn't hit if that's what they were going for. Because throughout all of the movies, Dracula never genuinely learns his lesson. And sure, realistically, there are *some* people who never overcome their biases towards certain groups. But the franchise often tries to trick us into believing he's changed when he never does. He doesn't even improve.

Heck, he even mentally, emotionally, and physically endangers his own family for his own personal gain BECAUSE of these biases. From what I've seen, Dracula cares more about his own agenda regarding these groups than he does his own family. And regardless of how realistic it is or not----if the goal was to showcase acceptance (which I have a hard time believing it was), it did AWFUL.

There's a major difference between tolerance and acceptance, and Hotel Transylvania never evolves past tolerance. The humans had already accepted the monsters. In fact, the monsters very VERY beloved by the humans. It's DRACULA and those like him that seemingly never evolve.

Even in the fourth movie, despite MARRYING a HUMAN (a van HELLSING AT THAT), Drac lost his CRAP at the possibility of Johnny inheriting the hotel BECAUSE HE WAS HUMAN. I could understand if it was because Johnny's a doofus (which he is), but for being a HUMAN?!

Yeah, as much nostalgia the franchise brings, Hotel Transylvania fails IMMENSELY in terms of genuinely good writing and supposedly handling minority themes. Which is very disappointing because a (well written) series about a monster hotel would've been so great.

I hope that answers your wonders about my perspectives. I apologize for going on a tangent there ^^