some dumbass: inclusive language makes no sense all words in spanish are gendered and replacing the ‘a’ and the ‘o’ with an ‘x’ makes everything literally unpronounceable and is useless outside of written language
Some people are so against “pregnant people” because it includes trans men and nb folks that they don’t seem to realize it includes cis women and girls.
All it shows is that they don’t believe that cis women and girls are people. Which isn’t that surprising.
Yeah, it’s really not surprising. This is the same crowd that’ll say things like “people don’t get pregnant, women do,” after all.
Remember that people who aren’t women also need and want abortions. Include and protect trans and intersex people in this conversation. Keep watch for terf rhetoric and dogwhistles. Terfs will use this as ammunition.
And when we push for gender-inclusive language in legal and healthcare contexts, it’s not just because being called the wrong word makes us feel bad. If the language of a healthcare law or regulation uses specifically gendered language, that creates a loophole that can be used to deny trans people coverage. Ask any trans man who’s had to try and find gynecological care, or any trans woman who has ever needed a prostate exam. Yes, it is difficult and often humiliating to be called the wrong words, but what we’re mostly worried about is losing our access to the healthcare we need alltogether.
Ask some people that question, and they will probably say something simple like “It’s a procedure used by doctors to terminate a pregnancy.”
Ask someone else the same question and they may scream back something like, “It’s the murder of an unborn child.”
Others heatedly deny it’s murder, because it’s “the woman’s body” and she has the right to terminate the unwanted “fetus”.
Besides that, it’s legal, ruled so by the U. S. Supreme Court itself.
End of story, right? Well…maybe.
Let’s see what Webster has to say. “1. Induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus is capable of survival as an individual. 2. Any fatally premature expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the womb.”
So, it seems even Webster dodged the point, except to call the life within the woman a “fetus” or “embryo.” No mention of “human life.” Although, Webster does use the term “fatally.”
In my opinion, “fatally” refers to the death of someone or something. Or to kill someone or something.
Others may view it differently
Which brings on the question: Are you pro or anti-abortion?
As for me, I have to go with the antis. The life in a pregnant woman’s body is indeed “human.” How can you say otherwise? Life is life.
And as for the old adage that “It’s the woman’s body and her right?” No. No. No. There are two bodies involved – the potential mother and the baby she carries. Or fetus if you prefer.
The great Supremes can rule it lawful until the cows come home, but a life still has been taken and violently, or “fatally,” as Webster would have it.
However, there are several exceptions to my stand on the subject. I believe in cases involving sexual assault – rape – or incest, and where the mother’s life is in possible danger, the woman has the right to to get an abortion if she so desires. Forced to have a child in such circumstances could have dire consequences in her future.
Otherwise, the Pros can jump up and down and do back flips to the moon and back. But, when it all settles back down, a death or deaths do occur.
A pregnant woman is not unlike one of our apace ships. The lives of the crew on a spacecraft depend solely on their ship.
Food, shelter, clothing, air, water. The whole nine yards.
The same applies to the mother to be.
She is the spaceship for that life growing within her body. It depends totally on her natural bodily functions for its food, shelter, air, etc.
Abortion “violently” interrupts that process, killing the life inside her. That is the gospel. You can take it to the bank. No court ruling, No “It’s her body” claim can be justified.
I am not advocating overturning Roe vs Wade. I am just insisting that abortion be labeled for what it really is: The violent taking of a human life.
Stop playing games, Pros. If you want to kill your babies, then go right ahead. But do it with the full understanding of what you are truly doing,
That’s all.
I’ve seen anti-choicers compare pregnant people to all sorts of inanimate things, from houses to boats to life-support machines.
Butspaceships?
That’s a new one.
No human being on this planet has the right to survive using another person’s body.
“Food, shelter, clothing, air, water” does not include a human being’s BODY as a resource. We cannot even take viable organs from corpses without permission prior to death.
You are not advocating for the life of a fetus (and by the way, pretending that anyone is denying the humanity of a fetus by using the scientifically correct terminology is immature and weak). You are advocating for people - real, born, established human beings with actual lives - to lose ownership of their own bodies because of the reproductive parts they were born with.
Here’s a question for you, OP, since you want to protect poor innocent children so badly, why are you suddenly okay with a rape exception? Are the fetuses created by rape somehow different to a fetus created by consensual sex? A rape exception implies that in order for a woman* to have full control over her own body (and yes, it is HER body) that she has to have been violated first.
Once again, proving that it is not about life, it’s not about the fetus. It’s about control.
See. Here’s the thing. We call ourselves pro choicefor a reason. We want pregnant people to have the ability to choosefor themselves, what they want to do and what they are willing to endure.
You don’t care about that. You don’t even care about the pregnant person at all, actually, since you chose to refer to women as spaceships.Pretty fucking misogynistic, if you ask me.
Ask some people that question, and they will probably say something simple like “It’s a procedure used by doctors to terminate a pregnancy.”
Ask someone else the same question and they may scream back something like, “It’s the murder of an unborn child.”
Others heatedly deny it’s murder, because it’s “the woman’s body” and she has the right to terminate the unwanted “fetus”.
Besides that, it’s legal, ruled so by the U. S. Supreme Court itself.
End of story, right? Well…maybe.
Let’s see what Webster has to say. “1. Induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus is capable of survival as an individual. 2. Any fatally premature expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the womb.”
So, it seems even Webster dodged the point, except to call the life within the woman a “fetus” or “embryo.” No mention of “human life.” Although, Webster does use the term “fatally.”
In my opinion, “fatally” refers to the death of someone or something. Or to kill someone or something.
Others may view it differently
Which brings on the question: Are you pro or anti-abortion?
As for me, I have to go with the antis. The life in a pregnant woman’s body is indeed “human.” How can you say otherwise? Life is life.
And as for the old adage that “It’s the woman’s body and her right?” No. No. No. There are two bodies involved – the potential mother and the baby she carries. Or fetus if you prefer.
The great Supremes can rule it lawful until the cows come home, but a life still has been taken and violently, or “fatally,” as Webster would have it.
However, there are several exceptions to my stand on the subject. I believe in cases involving sexual assault – rape – or incest, and where the mother’s life is in possible danger, the woman has the right to to get an abortion if she so desires. Forced to have a child in such circumstances could have dire consequences in her future.
Otherwise, the Pros can jump up and down and do back flips to the moon and back. But, when it all settles back down, a death or deaths do occur.
A pregnant woman is not unlike one of our apace ships. The lives of the crew on a spacecraft depend solely on their ship.
Food, shelter, clothing, air, water. The whole nine yards.
The same applies to the mother to be.
She is the spaceship for that life growing within her body. It depends totally on her natural bodily functions for its food, shelter, air, etc.
Abortion “violently” interrupts that process, killing the life inside her. That is the gospel. You can take it to the bank. No court ruling, No “It’s her body” claim can be justified.
I am not advocating overturning Roe vs Wade. I am just insisting that abortion be labeled for what it really is: The violent taking of a human life.
Stop playing games, Pros. If you want to kill your babies, then go right ahead. But do it with the full understanding of what you are truly doing,
That’s all.
I’ve seen anti-choicers compare pregnant people to all sorts of inanimate things, from houses to boats to life-support machines.
And here we see more evidence that the anti choice crowd actually doesn’t understand what the word choicemeans.
Funny though, considering that the pro life attitude in these same situations is usually “you shouldn’t have had sex then”.
Except for foster kids. Who y'all like to trot out on parade to “prove” how abortion isn’t necessary. While ignoring actual fostered teens/adults who are telling you to stop because fostering/adoption has massive issues inherent in the system.
Almost like none of you actually know what you’re talking about. But we knew that already.
Daily reminder, life is a continuous process that began at least 3.5 billion years ago and anyone who says otherwise is preaching religious doctrine and not objective facts.
You don’t have to be religious to be pro life or to not acknowledge science. I personally think from liking science that living things were around far beyond 3.5 million years ago when we consider the study of dinosaurs and sea creatures. A single creature or human is created when our own life begins at conception. (I am speaking of when the sperm and egg join as one, for clarification).
I said 3.5 billion, not million. Important distinction. I realize that not everyone who is against abortion is catholic but they’re still following catholic doctrine whether they like it or not. Also, why start at conception? Isn’t sperm already a living thing? Why not say life begins at ejaculation? Oh right, because this is actually about controlling women’s bodies.
TW / CW For: Period Mention, Sex Mention, vomit mention, OR Eating Food mention
NSFR and Ramadan misconceptions
By CAPESCH.ARTS
Image 2: What is NSFR?
Not safe for ramadan is a Tag within the Month Of Ramadam Of The Muslim Calendar. It Is Meant To Substitute Tags For NSFW posts, Food, And Anything that is considered To interfere With Islamic Ramadan Activities Within, Specifically fasting.
Image 3:
Why nsfr is inappropiate and shouldnt be used
- the tag was not made by muslims
- it defeats the purpose of our worship
- it spreads misinformation and misconception of our religion
- it does nothing to help muslims and reeks of performative activism normal tagging already suffice cex. Nsfw, food, etc. )
- comes it off and uncomfortable as to rude some muslims
Image 4:
How does it spread misinformation?
“I post food! Do not go in my page!”
“I swear a lot! So I may be nsfr!”
“Do not talk about food in front of them!”
“Wait, you are not to not allowed talk about s*x? ”
These are and misunderstanding on our misconceptions fasting. Most will not break our fast!
Image 5:
What breaks the fast
1. Eating and intentionally drinking
2. Vomiting
3. Smoking
4. Intentionally intercourse, masturbation or any sexual activities that lead to ejaculation or orgasm
5. Consuming medicine
6. Periods
7. Chronic illness or disease
8. Nutrition injections
What does not break the fast
1. nose bleeds
2. using an inhaler
3. Smelling perfume or incense
4. Swearing
5. Unintentional Vomiting
6. Cutting hair or nails trimming
7. anaesthetic injections
8. Using make-up
9. eye drops
10. Listening to music
Image 6:
Looking at food will not break our fast.
We will encounter food anyways irl when prepare for iftar.
Listening for music won’t break our fast.
Talking about sex is not a factor to break our fast, especially when it done for informative reasons (sex ed, biology, etc) and pornography
Swearing will not break our fast, and reading or listening too swearing will not either.
Muslims would focus on worship and religious activities, and will not be online even most of the time.
It is our own responsibilities regarding these things, and is one of the main points in this holy month.
Image 7:
What you can do to support us instead
- be open with discussions with muslims to learn more about our religion
- donate to causes
- join in our festivities if allowed, like iftar or fasting too!
- Focus your attention to real world crisis against muslims, the france hijab ban and/or uyghur muslims!
^ The person above me in this thread did a great transcription, for anybody in the notes looking for a captioned version.
Questions about swearing, periods, medicine, points of theological debate, etc have been addressed multiple times by OP in the notes, so be sure to give those a read for more info. In particular, this response covers why certain things break the fast:
Fasting requires optimal health. If a woman is on her period she is not required to fast in Ramadan, BUT she could pay it back by fasting at another month immediately.
And it includes medicines too. If you cannot take it at Iftar or Suhoor (the meals after fasting and before fasting), and you can’t fast, you can pay the fast back outside of Ramadan.
Allah is fair, and in both of these cases prioritize your health first.
@miseriathome but what if your medicines are there forever and no you can’t take them just before and after meals?
@toomanyfandomnames The above things were all written by the OP in the replies, but they’ve since deactivated.
This post only covers fasting, which is in turn only one aspect of Ramadan; Ramadan as a holy month encompasses more than just the fast. Since fasting requires optimal health, being unable to fast would mean not fasting. Disabled people and anybody else who is unable to fast can engage through other channels such as extra prayer, Qur'an study, community service, etc.
In another reply, the OP specifically pointed to “learning Tafsir or listening to Quran recitations” as forms of worship that non-fasting people could still participate in.
This article on chronic illness and Ramadan covers a lot of ground, from conservation of energy to time management. The idea that many people are unable to fast is already taken as a given, but here are some excerpts that relate to non-fasting forms of worship:
It’s okay to mourn what you have lost (ability to fast, to pray at night, etc.) but don’t let that be a trick to prevent you from doing what you actually are able to do. I realized that with a shock one year when, after playing pity party for the first week of the month, told myself, “Wait. You can’t pray qiyam, but you sure can pray your five prayers awesomely. Why aren’t you doing that at least?”
Reading and listening to extra Quran, making extra dhikr are also acts of ibadah that can benefit those who may not be attend taraweeh or qiyam.
One of the things I remember about fasting is how much more time there seems to be in the day when you’re not spending any on food and drink. So for those of us who cannot fast, we can reconsider how much time we choose to spend on eating during the Ramadan days. This doesn’t mean skipping meals, but perhaps minimizing meal prep times, or skipping the non-essential snacks and “comfort foods” that may take up time to prepare and eat but are not essential to our health (like a leisurely snack of tea and cake). This frees up valuable time for worship.
At Masjid al-Rabia, where Pervez serves as accessibility director, the mosque’s co-founder, Mahdia Lynn, said she finds ways to practice Ramadan each year despite medications that limit her participation. When she first came to Islam, she said, she tried to fast the traditional way, but like Pervez, she quickly realized fasting wouldn’t work for her. She said she used to feel guilt but tried to find an alternative.
“I learned that the faith says that if you can pray, you should pray. If you can’t kneel while you’re praying then pray standing up. If you can’t stand up while you’re praying then sit down. If you have to lay down, then lay down. If you can’t do that, then just be where you are,” she explained, referencing a hadith, or saying, of the Prophet Muhammad. “It was really the Quran that helped me understand that this tradition is meant to meet people where they are.”
This Ramadan, as one way to focus not just on consumption for the body but also healthy consumption for the soul, she said, she has deleted social media apps from her phone, and the mosque is hosting a community conversation on disability and Ramadan which, she said, will be available online as a video conference, and with a transcript.
This article on Islam and blindness also discusses alternatives and accommodations surrounding Ramadan, although not for fasting specifically.
