🔥 | Latest

Alive, Anaconda, and Apparently: 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>
Alive, Anaconda, and Apparently: 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>

<p><a href="http://krungle.tumblr.com/post/171933983002/libertarirynn-matt-ruins-your-shit" class="tumblr_blog">krungle</a>:</p><blockquote>...

Alive, Anaconda, and Bailey Jay: 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>
Alive, Anaconda, and Bailey Jay: 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>

<p><a href="http://matt-ruins-your-shit.tumblr.com/post/171925993106/kajiosblog-this-articles-title-is-rather" class="tumblr_blog">matt-ruin...

Abraham Lincoln, Blackpeopletwitter, and Life: factsinallcaps HARRIET TUBMAN ESCAPED FROM SLAVERY AND THEN WENT BACK TO GET OTHERS. LIKE, I KNOW YOU KNOW WHO HARRIET TUBMAN IS AND THAT SHE DID THAT, BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO TAKE THAT IN FOR A SECOND HARRIET TUBMAN WAS HELD CAPTIVE AND BOUND TO UNPAID, BACK- BREAKING LABOR SINCE BIRTH UNDER PENALTY OF TORTURE OR DEATH. SHE MANAGED TO ESCAPE THAT LIFE, AND SHE TURNED THE FUCK AROUND AND WENT THE FUCK BACK TO GET EVERYONE ELSE WHO WAS STILL TRAPPED IN IT. AND THEN SHE DID IT AGAIN EIGHTEEN MORE TIMES WHEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS UNSURE WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS PREPARED TO MAKE A STAND AGAINST SLAVERY, HARRIET TUBMAN BASICALLY SAID HE SHOULD STOP BEING SUCH A DIAPER BABY AND THAT GUYS WHO ARE TOO SCARED TO END SLAVERY DONT DESERVE TO WIN WARS NOT ONLY DID SHE SECRET OVER 300 SLAVES TO FREEDOM ON THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD, BUT SHE ACTED AS A SPY FOR THE UNION ARMY DURING THE CIVIL WAR, AND BECAME THE FIRST WOMAN TO LEAD AN ARMED ASSAULT IN THE CIVIL WAR. THAT RAID BROUGHT FREEDOM TO OVER 700 SLAVES IN ONE GO SO I JUST WANT YOU TO STEW ON THAT FOR LIKE A MINUTE ACTING IN THE SHADOWS, SHE WALKED INTO HELL ON EARTH 19 TIMES TO SAVE HER FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS FROM THE TORMENT SHE ENDURED, AND THE SECOND SHE WAS GIVEN EVEN A MODICUM OF POWER, SHE MANAGED TO FREE SEVEN HUNDRED SLAVES IN ONE DAY I GUARANTEE HOWEVER IMPRESSED YOU ALREADY ARE WITH HARRIET TUBMAN, YOU ARE FALLING LIKE AT LEAST 40% SHORT OF HOW IMPRESSED YOU SHOULD BE WITH HARRIET TUBMAN. SHE IS ONE OF THE BEST EXAMPLES OF BADASSERY IN THE ENTIRETY OF AMERICAN HISTORY <p>SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK (via /r/BlackPeopleTwitter)</p>
Abraham Lincoln, Blackpeopletwitter, and Life: factsinallcaps
 HARRIET TUBMAN ESCAPED FROM SLAVERY AND THEN WENT BACK TO
 GET OTHERS. LIKE, I KNOW YOU KNOW WHO HARRIET TUBMAN IS AND
 THAT SHE DID THAT, BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO TAKE THAT IN FOR A
 SECOND
 HARRIET TUBMAN WAS HELD CAPTIVE AND BOUND TO UNPAID, BACK-
 BREAKING LABOR SINCE BIRTH UNDER PENALTY OF TORTURE OR
 DEATH. SHE MANAGED TO ESCAPE THAT LIFE, AND SHE TURNED THE
 FUCK AROUND AND WENT THE FUCK BACK TO GET EVERYONE ELSE
 WHO WAS STILL TRAPPED IN IT. AND THEN SHE DID IT AGAIN EIGHTEEN
 MORE TIMES
 WHEN ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS UNSURE WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS
 PREPARED TO MAKE A STAND AGAINST SLAVERY, HARRIET TUBMAN
 BASICALLY SAID HE SHOULD STOP BEING SUCH A DIAPER BABY AND
 THAT GUYS WHO ARE TOO SCARED TO END SLAVERY DONT DESERVE
 TO WIN WARS
 NOT ONLY DID SHE SECRET OVER 300 SLAVES TO FREEDOM ON THE
 UNDERGROUND RAILROAD, BUT SHE ACTED AS A SPY FOR THE UNION
 ARMY DURING THE CIVIL WAR, AND BECAME THE FIRST WOMAN TO
 LEAD AN ARMED ASSAULT IN THE CIVIL WAR. THAT RAID BROUGHT
 FREEDOM TO OVER 700 SLAVES IN ONE GO
 SO I JUST WANT YOU TO STEW ON THAT FOR LIKE A MINUTE ACTING IN
 THE SHADOWS, SHE WALKED INTO HELL ON EARTH 19 TIMES TO SAVE
 HER FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS FROM THE TORMENT SHE ENDURED, AND
 THE SECOND SHE WAS GIVEN EVEN A MODICUM OF POWER, SHE
 MANAGED TO FREE SEVEN HUNDRED SLAVES IN ONE DAY
 I GUARANTEE HOWEVER IMPRESSED YOU ALREADY ARE WITH HARRIET
 TUBMAN, YOU ARE FALLING LIKE AT LEAST 40% SHORT OF HOW
 IMPRESSED YOU SHOULD BE WITH HARRIET TUBMAN. SHE IS ONE OF
 THE BEST EXAMPLES OF BADASSERY IN THE ENTIRETY OF AMERICAN
 HISTORY
<p>SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK (via /r/BlackPeopleTwitter)</p>

<p>SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK (via /r/BlackPeopleTwitter)</p>

Life, Marriage, and Money: zellie @zellieimani George Washington's wooden teeth is a myth. In reality, he had his dentures fitted with teeth pulled from slaves. <p><a href="https://officialfist.tumblr.com/post/169723727921/proudteenageconservative-bestpresidentna" class="tumblr_blog">officialfist</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://proudteenageconservative.tumblr.com/post/143698158744">proudteenageconservative</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://bestpresidentna.tumblr.com/post/124770375180">bestpresidentna</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://the-barricades-shall-rise.tumblr.com/post/124761849969">the-barricades-shall-rise</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://theultradork.tumblr.com/post/111238208438">theultradork</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://dickmasterson.tumblr.com/post/111233299880">dickmasterson</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://poppypicklesticks.tumblr.com/post/111232918044">poppypicklesticks</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://abendlichter.tumblr.com/post/111232514605">abendlichter</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://burntpicasso.tumblr.com/post/111203771259">burntpicasso</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://dripping-adorableness.tumblr.com/post/111195568117">dripping-adorableness</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://myuncreativeurl.tumblr.com/post/111194627661">myuncreativeurl</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><strike>Wow</strike></p> </blockquote> <p><strike>Happy Presidents’ Day</strike></p> </blockquote> <p><strike>Shit they leave out of the textbook #4838821</strike></p> </blockquote> <p>Can I get a citation on this?</p> </blockquote> <p>I would like a citation on this because this seems like the kind of sh*t tumblr makes up to go “omg white people are trash all their faves are trash smh”</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.mountvernon.org/research-collections/digital-encyclopedia/article/false-teeth/">His false teeth were made of ivory, you f–king idiots</a>.</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington#Slavery">I’d also like to point out Washington inherited his slaves, gained others by marriage, came to OPPOSE slavery but legally could not free his slaves under penalty of law in Virginia and so treated them well, and ordered them freed and paid them a sum and had them taught skills to start a new life with in his will.</a><br/><br/>Learn your dang history.</p> </blockquote> <p>As was popular in that era, dentures were made of ivory as well as other people’s teeth. Although teeth were harvested (gruesome word to use here) from dead people, it was not uncommon for poor people and slaves to seek monetary compensation for giving up their teeth (see: Les Miserables). George Washington had several sets of dentures. Indeed one set contained teeth from his slaves, but <b><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/video/lives.html">he paid them money for their teeth. In fact, Washington paid his slaves money for doing extra work outside their expected duties which would sometimes allow them to purchase their freedom.</a></b> History is fun to cite to gain understanding of the world we live in, but only when done correctly. In failing to point out the monetary compensation part of teeth pulling, the OP makes it sound like Washington forcibly took the teeth of his slaves. Editorial history is dangerous.</p> </blockquote> <p>:^)</p> </blockquote> <p>It’s amazing how swift people are to eat up revisionist history without a second thought. Sad, honestly.</p> </blockquote> <p>People who make posts/tweets like op deserve harassment</p> </blockquote> <p>Even Thomas Jefferson was morally against slavery and tried to outlaw it in the Declaration of Independence, but he was shot down by the southern states. He also had slaves that he wanted to free but he was in a weird position due to his debts and the laws at the time (not gonna say anything in defense of his “relationship” with a teenage slave, ‘cause that was fucked. Just saying the general slavery thing was complicated).</p><p>Look slavery was shitty and people in the past did did some shitty things, but looking at history without any sense of nuance leads to serious ignorance. Hamilton, Adams, and Franklin were markedly against slavery. Jefferson and Washington had a general discomfort with it. Sweeping generalizations about the founding fathers (or anybody else) just don’t work.</p>
Life, Marriage, and Money: zellie
 @zellieimani
 George Washington's wooden
 teeth is a myth. In reality, he had
 his dentures fitted with teeth
 pulled from slaves.
<p><a href="https://officialfist.tumblr.com/post/169723727921/proudteenageconservative-bestpresidentna" class="tumblr_blog">officialfist</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://proudteenageconservative.tumblr.com/post/143698158744">proudteenageconservative</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://bestpresidentna.tumblr.com/post/124770375180">bestpresidentna</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://the-barricades-shall-rise.tumblr.com/post/124761849969">the-barricades-shall-rise</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://theultradork.tumblr.com/post/111238208438">theultradork</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://dickmasterson.tumblr.com/post/111233299880">dickmasterson</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://poppypicklesticks.tumblr.com/post/111232918044">poppypicklesticks</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://abendlichter.tumblr.com/post/111232514605">abendlichter</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://burntpicasso.tumblr.com/post/111203771259">burntpicasso</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://dripping-adorableness.tumblr.com/post/111195568117">dripping-adorableness</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://myuncreativeurl.tumblr.com/post/111194627661">myuncreativeurl</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strike>Wow</strike></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strike>Happy Presidents’ Day</strike></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strike>Shit they leave out of the textbook #4838821</strike></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Can I get a citation on this?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I would like a citation on this because this seems like the kind of sh*t tumblr makes up to go “omg white people are trash all their faves are trash smh”</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.mountvernon.org/research-collections/digital-encyclopedia/article/false-teeth/">His false teeth were made of ivory, you f–king idiots</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington#Slavery">I’d also like to point out Washington inherited his slaves, gained others by marriage, came to OPPOSE slavery but legally could not free his slaves under penalty of law in Virginia and so treated them well, and ordered them freed and paid them a sum and had them taught skills to start a new life with in his will.</a><br/><br/>Learn your dang history.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As was popular in that era, dentures were made of ivory as well as other people’s teeth. Although teeth were harvested (gruesome word to use here) from dead people, it was not uncommon for poor people and slaves to seek monetary compensation for giving up their teeth (see: Les Miserables). George Washington had several sets of dentures. Indeed one set contained teeth from his slaves, but <b><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/video/lives.html">he paid them money for their teeth. In fact, Washington paid his slaves money for doing extra work outside their expected duties which would sometimes allow them to purchase their freedom.</a></b> History is fun to cite to gain understanding of the world we live in, but only when done correctly. In failing to point out the monetary compensation part of teeth pulling, the OP makes it sound like Washington forcibly took the teeth of his slaves. Editorial history is dangerous.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>:^)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s amazing how swift people are to eat up revisionist history without a second thought. Sad, honestly.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>People who make posts/tweets like op deserve harassment</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Even Thomas Jefferson was morally against slavery and tried to outlaw it in the Declaration of Independence, but he was shot down by the southern states. He also had slaves that he wanted to free but he was in a weird position due to his debts and the laws at the time (not gonna say anything in defense of his “relationship” with a teenage slave, ‘cause that was fucked. Just saying the general slavery thing was complicated).</p><p>Look slavery was shitty and people in the past did did some shitty things, but looking at history without any sense of nuance leads to serious ignorance. Hamilton, Adams, and Franklin were markedly against slavery. Jefferson and Washington had a general discomfort with it. Sweeping generalizations about the founding fathers (or anybody else) just don’t work.</p>

<p><a href="https://officialfist.tumblr.com/post/169723727921/proudteenageconservative-bestpresidentna" class="tumblr_blog">officialfist</a>...