#doesn't mean u have to do abortion work or you can't have personal reasons to not want one whatever

[panb1mbo]

bro i love being a birth worker who luvs abortion. if i got pregnant rn? it's not about it being a girl or a boy. it's a-borted. this is not a spicy take either but some ppl think it is and i love seeing their reactions

[shamrock313]

Pt. 2 of Evan Reading

So, last night I decided to see if the cards would change. Here's what I got.

August 22 @ 12:02 AM

Nat POV: 9oP + 2oS (side) = 9oP "high standards for partner" "healthy mix of love and independence" Feels she can be herself. She can't wait to see where this relationship goes. 2oS (U) Don't ignore the issues you have to make whether its about relationship, family, or work. Indecisive. Continue relationship or move on to someone better. (R) More indecisive and confused about changes within her life. Check the pros and cons on your options.

OC: Gold Digger OC: Queer, Spiritual, Losing Interest. With the Queer card maybe she's experimented with the same sex or she's an alley to the LGBTQ+ community or she's just happy.

Evan POV: QoP (R) = You're in the relationship for the wrong reasons. No serious feelings (?) Okay...Consider your love's needs and desires. Evan, Nat wants attention and she's not getting it. Be more respectful. Insecure and possessive, now this isn't a bad thing it just means he might find other suitors as a threat to his relationship. So, he might want guys to back off. Projecting insecurities. Lacking confidence. Worried she'll leave him. Need to work on himself.

OC: Unavailable and Communication. OC: Mixed signals, synergy, communicate

Overall Dynamic: 3oW (R) + HP = 3oW "frustations and obstacles in love" "compromise in love". Baby steps. Not ready to commit. Not ready to make promises that cannot be filled. HP "increasing in intimacy" "remaining patient in love" Taking time to get to know one another still. Slow pace. They see you as a significant person in their life.

OC: Secrets OC: Pregnancy and Confession

Okay, so they need to talk. Whatever issues that they have that hasn't been addressed need to be discussed now. With Pregnancy, I understand that might make some fans nervous and it doesn't help that the HP card is in this. So, I wrote down "contraception issues" well literally 39 minutes ago, @itsthequeenofswords sent me a photo of Nat next to contraception pills and other things regarding pro-abortion. Mind you, I have Nat blocked. I don't check her page. I am not giving this girl my views. I've had her blocked ever since I saw those comments after Coachella. So, I know people on the other blog hate me, I get it, but Imma do my thing.

Anyways, I was surprised to be informed about this especially since Admin had no clue that I did a reading last night, so I'm going to assume the Pregnancy card was about that. If it turns out to be what we think it means well at least you all know or it could just mean that she's fertile. We've even discussed in past readings about her being fertile. I was DROPPING HINTS some caught it early on.

EDIT: Just want to add one more take this could also mean someone is "expecting" news. Maybe that's why the card came out. Like a promotion

As I stated in the Part One reading, if I am wrong, I'm fine with that. There are mistakes and things change in tarot.

What's next for them? 5oW (R) - "Avoiding conflict" "resolve issues" Don't bottle up any emotions. Can lead to resentment. Clear up any misunderstandings. Competitiveness and I say this only because someone is going to flirt with a 3rd party to make their partner jealous. It's like a punishment. "Oh you did this? Well Imma talk to so and so and Idgaf about your feelings"

OC: Toxic OC: "No" and Move On meaning the cards don't want to talk more about this and someone needs to move on from someone who isn't available or someone who is wasting their time.

[cornerstorebitch]

(previous ethics asker) good argument -- there is a difference between forced interventions and artificially limited options. (i wonder if the new abortion law doesn't blur that difference though, or somehow render it less relevant. abortion is still a medical intervention and pregnancy is not, but it's different when extra steps are taken to prevent people handling a pregnancy themselves with ecbolic teas or coat hangers. doesn't that mean, despite it not being an intervention, for anyone not prepared to live outside the law it will just as surely force a medical decision? it's categoriclly similar to the vaccine mandate; you don't have to get the vaccine technically but people need their jobs the way they need not to have the law breathing down their necks. anyway i'm with you 100% as far as inalienable rights, right to choose what happens with your own body should fall near the top of the list (privacy is the only thing which might come above it, but that's relevant to the vaccine mandate too. online charting has somehow created the concept that others' medical trends are anyone's business. people are spreading contagions every day. and when has the cdc ever kept a named national registry instead of anonymous incidence logs? there is actually no need for a competent doctor to identify a patient before treating them.)

what you've said is right (kevorkian mentioned that pressured euthanasia is simply murder) -- but i was thinking more along the lines of, doctors are not very good at their jobs since their medical knowledge is often lacking; it's also kind of a privilege to be in a position to help others; if they can't think creatively and compensate for lack of patient knowledge by clarifying, they're not fit for the field. but my mind wandered saying that; it has nothing to do with legal issues, unless what passes culturally eventually dictates what's acceptable in terms of policy, which means the system is broken anyway

"If there's a legal precedent to be cited here (which there is, but thats a different lengthy paragraph)" -- will you say more about this? please and thank you. your mind remains sharp as always and it's delightful to read what youve written

yeah i think the primary difference between SB8 and the vaccine mandate is that people are by and large choosing to comply with SB8. obviously the law exists and some people want to sue but i think the chances of anybody actually forking over 10k+ to the courts or losing their livelihood is... unlikely. maybe that sounds dismissive. but there are a hell of a lot of people seeking abortions in the state of texas so it seems patently absurd to me that abortion providers immediately tucked tail instead of deciding they couldnt catch everyone. the vaccine mandate already has caused people to lose their jobs, will continue to do so, and will probably make anyone who does not wish to be vaccinated virtually unemployable if things go like theyre looking. and it's going to be a LOT harder to fight legally than SB8 because the vaccine mandate has legal precedent supporting it and SB8 does not. the vaccine mandate is also dramatically less legally clear cut than SB8 is, which inarguably creates an unjust obstacle to accessing abortion which is considered a protected right by the supreme court.

i do agree about doctors and the medical industry. ive said this before but doctors are generally competent in the same way mechanics are generally competent. does a doctor probably know more than i do about whatever random medical issue is being discussed and have a much larger knowledge pool to pull from in general? yeah. are they after your money? also yes. are they infallible? absolutely not. but most people don't know enough about cars or medicine to argue

the strongest argument supporting the vaccine mandates is simply the fact that public schools and universities already require certain vaccines to attend. consequently, i would say it's hard to argue against requiring covid vaccinations in analogous contexts. that said, the primary reason why we require vaccines in public schools is because a room full of snotty children who don't cover their mouths in close contact is a lot more likely to spread, idk, whooping cough, than a bunch of adults working in a hospital. and that argument only applies to places that receive funding from the government, not private businesses (which iirc are not currently required to comply) which does probably include most healthcare facilities. i can't remember if HPV shots are required in schools but i would say thats a heavy argument on either side bc the HPV shots were similarly new when they began to encourage them for teenagers. anyway thats a lot of circular talking to say that the vaccine mandate does in my opinion exist in a rather large legal grey area with... related but not really directly comparable legal precedents at play as well as highly vague and highly contested constitutional arguments regarding privacy and personal liberties

thank u for the kind words