wannajoke:

Shit Just Got Serious

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOL

stay-in-reality-liberals:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

coochieclawed:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

coochieclawed:

pwag42:

coochieclawed:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

This is Tim, owner of Tim’s Place. He has Down Syndrome, but he’s not sad or suffering. He’s happy and loving, and he shares that love with everyone he meets through his restaurant, where he says the hugs are more important than the food. 
Richard Dawkins said yesterday on Twitter that, if you have the choice, bringing people like Tim into the world is immoral. He recommends having preborn babies who might end up like Tim ripped apart in the womb or given a heart-attack-inducing drug. That’s the moral and civilized thing to do, he says. 
The twitter user who had originally asked him what he thought then continued to ask whether people with Autism should be aborted before birth if the mother knows while she’s still pregnant. He says that people with Autism have a lot to contribute, while people like Tim don’t.
So apparently, your contribution to society is what makes you valuable. Or is it your emotions? 
Dawkins was quick to cover his tracks, insisting that he didn’t wish that anyone currently living with DS had been aborted. 
But his comments still stand. He hasn’t backed down from what he thinks “the right thing to do” after a prenatal DS diagnosis is. In Dawkins’ view, it’s immoral to bring someone like Tim into the world. Despite the fact that our ability to care for people with DS has greatly increased over the last few decades and people with DS now have a much greater quality of life, it’s apparently immoral for their mothers not to kill them in the womb.
If Dawkins had his way, we’d be facing a future without people like Tim. I don’t want that. Do you?

I think he means that it’s be better if Tim had a chance to be neuro typical.

Are you suggesting that when a baby is aborted, it reincarnates? Aborted children don’t get born. If the parents later actually have a child, it will be a different child. The first one remains dead.

The body of the first child never was born, so the first child never came to be. If later there is a child born, then it’s a different body and a different potential for life. But to say that you lost a person when the first fetus died is a bit like saying that periods are another form of potential life being robbed it’s chance, rite?

No, not right at all. You’re showing a misunderstanding of basic biology.
When a period happens, all that’s lost is an unfertilized egg. Just a cell. No human life there.
After conception, we have a living, growing human being with individual DNA and an individual body, receiving only nutrients, oxygen, and shelter from mom.
In fact, we can say the fetus is not part of the woman’s body because the mom likely doesn’t have Down Syndrome, but the baby does.
If you get a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome, there is already a person in existence who might have a chromosomal anomaly. That anomaly doesn’t make them deserving of death any more than Tim’s extra chromosome makes him deserving of death.

Aren’t egg cells living? And dont they have their own unique DNA? And doesn’t it grow, only with the encouragement of healthy sperm? I guess I’m having a hard time understanding the difference in loss. I don’t see a zygote or a fetus as a being, since that’s a very complicated term that we even have yet to define.I *do* know that if it is to be considered a human “being”, it likely wouldn’t be assigned any more rights than the next human being, and one of which is the right to bodily autonomy. If a person doesn’t consent/continuously consent to being another “person’s life support system/donating an organ to save a life, ect ect, then that person has a right to reject helping the other “individual”. Do you see my point? If the fetus is a person, it only gets as many rights as everyone else, and even then, it doesn’t grant them the right to use other people’s bodies, even their parents’.If it’s *not* a person/human being, then it has no rights, and cannot force/keep itself inside of another person without that person’s consent.

Unfertilized eggs don’t have their own DNA. They have half the genetic information of the mother. The sperm contributes the other half of the genetic information necessary to create a whole human person. Only at that point does a new human life begin, and only then can the new human life grow and develop.
This is basic biology. We really should be past this point.
The fetus, then, is a human person with the same right to life as anyone else. The right to life comes above all other rights. That’s why the only justification for killing someone is when you are defending your own life or the life of someone who can’t defend him or herself (this extends to our military defending our country).

Exactly.
stay-in-reality-liberals:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

coochieclawed:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

coochieclawed:

pwag42:

coochieclawed:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

This is Tim, owner of Tim’s Place. He has Down Syndrome, but he’s not sad or suffering. He’s happy and loving, and he shares that love with everyone he meets through his restaurant, where he says the hugs are more important than the food. 
Richard Dawkins said yesterday on Twitter that, if you have the choice, bringing people like Tim into the world is immoral. He recommends having preborn babies who might end up like Tim ripped apart in the womb or given a heart-attack-inducing drug. That’s the moral and civilized thing to do, he says. 
The twitter user who had originally asked him what he thought then continued to ask whether people with Autism should be aborted before birth if the mother knows while she’s still pregnant. He says that people with Autism have a lot to contribute, while people like Tim don’t.
So apparently, your contribution to society is what makes you valuable. Or is it your emotions? 
Dawkins was quick to cover his tracks, insisting that he didn’t wish that anyone currently living with DS had been aborted. 
But his comments still stand. He hasn’t backed down from what he thinks “the right thing to do” after a prenatal DS diagnosis is. In Dawkins’ view, it’s immoral to bring someone like Tim into the world. Despite the fact that our ability to care for people with DS has greatly increased over the last few decades and people with DS now have a much greater quality of life, it’s apparently immoral for their mothers not to kill them in the womb.
If Dawkins had his way, we’d be facing a future without people like Tim. I don’t want that. Do you?

I think he means that it’s be better if Tim had a chance to be neuro typical.

Are you suggesting that when a baby is aborted, it reincarnates? Aborted children don’t get born. If the parents later actually have a child, it will be a different child. The first one remains dead.

The body of the first child never was born, so the first child never came to be. If later there is a child born, then it’s a different body and a different potential for life. But to say that you lost a person when the first fetus died is a bit like saying that periods are another form of potential life being robbed it’s chance, rite?

No, not right at all. You’re showing a misunderstanding of basic biology.
When a period happens, all that’s lost is an unfertilized egg. Just a cell. No human life there.
After conception, we have a living, growing human being with individual DNA and an individual body, receiving only nutrients, oxygen, and shelter from mom.
In fact, we can say the fetus is not part of the woman’s body because the mom likely doesn’t have Down Syndrome, but the baby does.
If you get a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome, there is already a person in existence who might have a chromosomal anomaly. That anomaly doesn’t make them deserving of death any more than Tim’s extra chromosome makes him deserving of death.

Aren’t egg cells living? And dont they have their own unique DNA? And doesn’t it grow, only with the encouragement of healthy sperm? I guess I’m having a hard time understanding the difference in loss. I don’t see a zygote or a fetus as a being, since that’s a very complicated term that we even have yet to define.I *do* know that if it is to be considered a human “being”, it likely wouldn’t be assigned any more rights than the next human being, and one of which is the right to bodily autonomy. If a person doesn’t consent/continuously consent to being another “person’s life support system/donating an organ to save a life, ect ect, then that person has a right to reject helping the other “individual”. Do you see my point? If the fetus is a person, it only gets as many rights as everyone else, and even then, it doesn’t grant them the right to use other people’s bodies, even their parents’.If it’s *not* a person/human being, then it has no rights, and cannot force/keep itself inside of another person without that person’s consent.

Unfertilized eggs don’t have their own DNA. They have half the genetic information of the mother. The sperm contributes the other half of the genetic information necessary to create a whole human person. Only at that point does a new human life begin, and only then can the new human life grow and develop.
This is basic biology. We really should be past this point.
The fetus, then, is a human person with the same right to life as anyone else. The right to life comes above all other rights. That’s why the only justification for killing someone is when you are defending your own life or the life of someone who can’t defend him or herself (this extends to our military defending our country).

Exactly.

stay-in-reality-liberals:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

coochieclawed:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

coochieclawed:

pwag42:

coochieclawed:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

This is Tim, owner of Tim’s Place. He has Down Syndrome, but he’s not sad or suffering. He’s happy and loving, and he shares that love with everyone he meets through his restaurant, where he says the hugs are more important than the food. 

Richard Dawkins said yesterday on Twitter that, if you have the choice, bringing people like Tim into the world is immoral. He recommends having preborn babies who might end up like Tim ripped apart in the womb or given a heart-attack-inducing drug. That’s the moral and civilized thing to do, he says. 

The twitter user who had originally asked him what he thought then continued to ask whether people with Autism should be aborted before birth if the mother knows while she’s still pregnant. He says that people with Autism have a lot to contribute, while people like Tim don’t.

So apparently, your contribution to society is what makes you valuable. Or is it your emotions

Dawkins was quick to cover his tracks, insisting that he didn’t wish that anyone currently living with DS had been aborted. 

But his comments still stand. He hasn’t backed down from what he thinks “the right thing to do” after a prenatal DS diagnosis is. In Dawkins’ view, it’s immoral to bring someone like Tim into the world. Despite the fact that our ability to care for people with DS has greatly increased over the last few decades and people with DS now have a much greater quality of life, it’s apparently immoral for their mothers not to kill them in the womb.

If Dawkins had his way, we’d be facing a future without people like Tim. I don’t want that. Do you?

I think he means that it’s be better if Tim had a chance to be neuro typical.

Are you suggesting that when a baby is aborted, it reincarnates? Aborted children don’t get born. If the parents later actually have a child, it will be a different child. The first one remains dead.

The body of the first child never was born, so the first child never came to be. If later there is a child born, then it’s a different body and a different potential for life. But to say that you lost a person when the first fetus died is a bit like saying that periods are another form of potential life being robbed it’s chance, rite?

No, not right at all. You’re showing a misunderstanding of basic biology.

When a period happens, all that’s lost is an unfertilized egg. Just a cell. No human life there.

After conception, we have a living, growing human being with individual DNA and an individual body, receiving only nutrients, oxygen, and shelter from mom.

In fact, we can say the fetus is not part of the woman’s body because the mom likely doesn’t have Down Syndrome, but the baby does.

If you get a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome, there is already a person in existence who might have a chromosomal anomaly. That anomaly doesn’t make them deserving of death any more than Tim’s extra chromosome makes him deserving of death.

Aren’t egg cells living? And dont they have their own unique DNA? And doesn’t it grow, only with the encouragement of healthy sperm? I guess I’m having a hard time understanding the difference in loss. I don’t see a zygote or a fetus as a being, since that’s a very complicated term that we even have yet to define.
I *do* know that if it is to be considered a human “being”, it likely wouldn’t be assigned any more rights than the next human being, and one of which is the right to bodily autonomy. If a person doesn’t consent/continuously consent to being another “person’s life support system/donating an organ to save a life, ect ect, then that person has a right to reject helping the other “individual”.
Do you see my point? If the fetus is a person, it only gets as many rights as everyone else, and even then, it doesn’t grant them the right to use other people’s bodies, even their parents’.
If it’s *not* a person/human being, then it has no rights, and cannot force/keep itself inside of another person without that person’s consent.

Unfertilized eggs don’t have their own DNA. They have half the genetic information of the mother. The sperm contributes the other half of the genetic information necessary to create a whole human person. Only at that point does a new human life begin, and only then can the new human life grow and develop.

This is basic biology. We really should be past this point.

The fetus, then, is a human person with the same right to life as anyone else. The right to life comes above all other rights. That’s why the only justification for killing someone is when you are defending your own life or the life of someone who can’t defend him or herself (this extends to our military defending our country).

Exactly.

logicd:

Just curious why the people in charge of reporting the news to us are so fucking retarded

After they published that, they then changed it a little while later to “An AK-47-type assault revolver with high-capacity magazines”

Then they finally fixed it to just an Ak-47 and a revolver

Add this to the list of ghost guns and 30 magazine clips, shoulder things that go up, the Everytown poster, the whole Senator Leeland Yee debacle, and how media like CNN tried to ignore it, the criminals behind “Mayors against illegal guns,” and so on and so on

Or the multiple debunked gun control myths people still push such as:

74 School shootings since Sandy Hook
Race of mass shooters being overwhelmingly “white”
A womans vagina being more regulated than guns
A whole bunch of various completely false “stats” by anti gun communities

(Source: theonion)

madworldnews:

Huge Investigation Opens After Man Notices Something Odd on His Speeding Ticket

image

After a Houston police officer handed a man a ticket for speeding, he didn’t know that the offender he was citing was also a police officer. The cited man identified only as “Jerry” noticed something fishy with the ticket, which then prompted a department-wide investigation. On the ticket was listed an additional police officer as a witness, even though there had only been one present.

“I…

View On WordPress

guardian:

Wildlife on the river Nile - in pictures 

Photo: Destination Wild: Wild Nile on S/NGC

cool cows

(Source: theguardian.com)

  1. Camera: Nikon D800
  2. Aperture: f/5
  3. Exposure: 1/800th
  4. Focal Length: 116mm

(Source: vinebox)

ivyinspired:

this accurately represents my class participation

Is that Donald Trump and Bill O’Rielly

ivyinspired:

this accurately represents my class participation

Is that Donald Trump and Bill O’Rielly

(Source: nonstopsmile)

feduplion:

iwishiwaskristenstewartsgf:

briellableu:

beautiesofafrique:

Newborn baby stuns doctors by holding her own bottle (in the UK)
A baby girl has amazed doctors with her ability to hold her own feeding bottle. Two-week-old Ammra was able to grasp her bottle alone just three days after she was born at Queen’s Hospital, Romford in Essex, her mother Onyi Chiedozie said.The 20-year-old, who is using a combination of breast and bottle feeding, said doctors and nurses were stunned by the baby’s ability to master her strong grip so soon after she was born.
Source

Black excellence 

this baby is gonna be a brain surgeon when she’s like 10

"Black excellence"
Her skin color has nothing to do with it.

feduplion:

iwishiwaskristenstewartsgf:

briellableu:

beautiesofafrique:

Newborn baby stuns doctors by holding her own bottle (in the UK)
A baby girl has amazed doctors with her ability to hold her own feeding bottle. Two-week-old Ammra was able to grasp her bottle alone just three days after she was born at Queen’s Hospital, Romford in Essex, her mother Onyi Chiedozie said.The 20-year-old, who is using a combination of breast and bottle feeding, said doctors and nurses were stunned by the baby’s ability to master her strong grip so soon after she was born.
Source

Black excellence 

this baby is gonna be a brain surgeon when she’s like 10

"Black excellence"
Her skin color has nothing to do with it.

feduplion:

iwishiwaskristenstewartsgf:

briellableu:

beautiesofafrique:

Newborn baby stuns doctors by holding her own bottle (in the UK)

A baby girl has amazed doctors with her ability to hold her own feeding bottle. Two-week-old Ammra was able to grasp her bottle alone just three days after she was born at Queen’s Hospital, Romford in Essex, her mother Onyi Chiedozie said.The 20-year-old, who is using a combination of breast and bottle feeding, said doctors and nurses were stunned by the baby’s ability to master her strong grip so soon after she was born.

Source

Black excellence 

this baby is gonna be a brain surgeon when she’s like 10

"Black excellence"

Her skin color has nothing to do with it.

Anonymous Asked
QuestionI don't understand why you don't believe their is a white race. White people exist as is evident if one opens heir eyes. Those people are a race. Some people... Answer

miss-andrea:

general-westergaard:

Europeans make up a few different races. They’re not one big monolithic race, that literally makes no sense given the differences between us all. There is more to us than just our skin colour and our hair/eye colours as well. The differences may be small but they’re there. 

It’s like saying that all black people are one race, or all Asians are one race- but we know that that cannot possibly be true given how different one black can look from another depending on where it is they come from. 

Whiteness is a useful term that encompasses the European and Euro-descended people but tbh that’s about all it’s good for. 

I’m glad that you at least recognize the utility of the term