bellebrita
Belle Brita
bellebrita

Aside from all of that, Thought Catalog is kind of fucked-up in terms of how it seems to be a good platform for writers, but they also demand that a piece you submit to them is ONLY submitted to them, and also state that they have liberty to use it without crediting you. The submissions thing is pretty standard for,

Censorship is never a good thing because it only let those ideas fester in the dark ,reappear in a very pernicious way, reach an audience that might have dismissed it may those writings were out in the open.

Callie, is there some sort of tacit policy against Gawker writers admitting their mistakes? Because it's rare when one of you other than C.A. Pinkman or Burt or Mark Shrayber admits to fucking up. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that every Gawker writer should care a whit about every commenter pointing out their every

Only the government can censor. Sites like TC can post or not post whatever they want, they are not censoring anyone if they choose to not post their piece.

It's SO hard to build up a real audience with a blog, even if you are committed and write every day, that I can understand the allure of writing for a big, established site with a built in traffic flow. Every online writer I've ever read has a link to their personal/official blog in their bio—it's natural to try to

When this piece originally went up, I had written that both offensive articles were taken down — I mistook the "continue" button at the bottom of the disclaimer for a "continue to the Thought Catalog homepage" kind of thing — but both pieces are still up, just hidden behind warnings that they've been reported. I've

"It's also troubling that [Schwyzer] was allowed to publish such patently unacceptable content on such a large platform for so long..."I would like for [Jezebel] to say, 'We will no longer serve as a platform for hatred, misinformation, and prejudice,' and then make good on that promise," "

"Free speech" is not a shield that protects against the consequences of one's speech. The writers pulling their content from the site are to be commended – that is how this works.

My office blocks Thought Catalog (but not Jezebel!!!), so that's a sign of their garbage content.

In retrospect, my post was quite heteronormative...so let me clarify, I think any effort to bring a child into this world not agreed upon 2+ parents initially(independent of relationship status after the fact) is inherently selfish. The difference here is that for about 20 yrs women have had that option, and I don't

Looking at the comments, I think people are missing the point. I think if artificial wombs were soley implented by women unable or unwilling to give birth for whatever reason she wouldn't really have an issue. I think her fear(one probably subconsciously held by more women than are willing to admit to themselves) is

IVF and ectogenisis are hugely different though... the months long gestation process and birth are very important and finely tuned (although imperfect), where mothers go through immense physiological changes in order to be able to support the baby during and after birth, where as the fertilization of an egg is a much

In a similar way that IVF was developed. Tests would be done on animals first and once the technology got perfected a number of consenting parents would allow their babies to be born using this method (although they would possibly have to sign release of liability forms as well).

Yeah, womb tanks sound like the best thing ever, but I would still have concerns about the tactile and auditory stimulation caused by actual uterine incubation. Newborns recognise the language of their mother even when someone else speaks it. That amazes me.

Right, but how well would it work? How can you test it without having those first guinea pig babies grow up into adults, seeing how it affects their development, personalities, relationships, etc?

Megan McCain aside, I am way uncomfortable with artificial wombs. And I say this as someone who was, twice, the worst pregnant person ever. I mean, hated every moment of it. And I'm no scientist, but the idea of baby being "incubated" without the rhythm of a parent's (mom, dad, whatev) heartbeat, breathing and sleep;

Yes, this is my issue with ectogenisis as well. There are so many physiological changes mothers goes through to be able to mother and support the baby when it's born (I mean, one obvious one... breastfeeding??), and the same goes for the baby to recognize voices, smells and bond with their parents. Even vaginal birth

You'd think that a pro-life person would *love* for there to be artificial wombs. I mean, really, think of the implications there: while there will always be the need for access to abortion for a variety of reasons, all of which were valid, I personally would wager that there are 1) some women who would choose

I don't have an issue with artificial uteruses (I hate the word womb, btw) because they somehow diminish women's ONE TRUE PURPOSE. I do have some concern that fetuses chilling in those things won't get the interaction with parents/learning parents' voices pre-birth that they'll need for their brains to develop