HOME | DD
SaritysAnimation — Struggle For Control
Published: 2013-04-10 02:46:24 +0000 UTC; Views: 18788; Favourites: 999; Downloads: 106
Redirect to original
Description
I'll leave it at that.Related content
Comments: 1121
At what point do you consider it a human, then?
No, you should just accept responsibility for the actions you willingly chose to engage in.
If you never want kids, why don't you get your tubes tied, or something? Ensure you never conceive, then. By the way, Mary wasn't a virgin forever.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
For me, that is when you can see it is human and when it has a beating heart.
And i dont want to get my tubes tied, simply because i dont have to. There is something called birth control. And i use it, because i dont want a kid, and still want to be able to enjoy being with my boyfriend.
But your stubborn religious head probably does not accept the way a woman decides over their own body and actions
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, because you recognize it as human. You alone define life, apparently. So should I go kill people that are mutilated beyond recognition? In an upper comment, you also said since they're not aware, they can be killed, too. Can I go slaughter a home full of mentally retarded individuals because they're not self-aware enough to understand life, anyways? By your definitions, I haven't done anything wrong.
And when the birth control fails, you get to kill the new human.
It's not about religion, it's about morality and common sense. What if a small part of our bodies, the pinkie finger for example, were fused together in some freak occurrence. Do you have the right to blow my brains out because your body is now involved?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm curious about your views of end-of-life care.
Suppose your mother is dying from, for example, terminal breast cancer. Somewhere along the course of her disease, she has extensive metastases. She is rarely awake. When she is awake, her body is wracked with pain that even the strongest opioids have difficulty controlling. She cannot breathe on her own. She cannot feed herself, and is dependent on tube feeds. The cancer has spread to her marrow, such that she has almost no functional immune system. She is dependent on daily transfusions, she cannot make even her own blood. Whose responsibility is it to decide whether or not to continue care for her? She does? Her family? Sure, ok, they have a say, as long as the doctors caring for her are magnanimous enough to keep feeding her, transfusing her, giving her pain medications, etc. What if they don't have the resources to keep this up? Whose responsibility is it to terminate extreme measures?
Sure, you could say that abortion and end-of-life issues vary from each other in one important aspect: the fetus will live as its natural course, and the mother will die. But, you can see how these two situations share many important aspects.
If only your mother had done her yearly mammograms. Tsk.
Ate right. Exercised. Had yearly checkups. Took all her meds as directed on time. Examined her breasts in the shower regularly.
It's not like she couldn't have prevented all these health issues. Sheesh. All these people making themselves sick. It's their own fault.
Blasted humans, so fully of sin and irresponsibility. Tsk tsk indeed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I fail to see how this answers my question.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you won't entertain a friendly ethical discussion about rights to life in general?
I had some hope for you. Clearly I was mistaken.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, you dodge the question; one that wasn't even posed to you, anyways. And instead, simply try to psychoanalyze me. Then you leave me off with your disappointment as though I am obligated to please you.
I'm all for a friendly discussion, but pattern dictates that there is no such thing. And, that both parties will religiously adhere to their standpoints.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never intended to answer your questions. I simply opened a related discussion. Refer back to my message. "I am curious about..."
I have no intention of psychoanalysing you. As stated, I simply wanted to debate ethics.
You can address the subject I posed or not, it's up to you. Messages can be deleted without responses.
"I'm all for a friendly discussion, but pattern dictates that there is no such thing. And, that both parties will religiously adhere to their standpoints."
I've never heard a better excuse to dodge than that. Clearly, you wish your viewpoints to be known. Otherwise, you would not have been commenting on this artistic piece, nor to the girl you were discussing with. Had you not wanted your views to be discussed publicly, you would have taken the discussion to private notes. The very publicity of the discussion would imply some interest in discussion. Yet, you only want to discuss one very limited subject: abortion. Ok then.
You can prove you're up for friendly discussion, up to you. Or you could not. But pointing to a pattern that doesn't clearly exist is simply making up excuses. Just say you don't want to discuss the subject and wish to return to the previous one. Simple.
If you know both parties (and which parties are these?) will religiously stick to their standpoints, then why do you continue? If you're trying to convince me that you won't budge, and therefore any attempts I could make to dissuade you are useless, then so be it. It doesn't prevent us from discussing those viewpoints. It might, in fact, take the strain of persuasion off the debate and turn it into, yes, a discussion, between two parties, that leads to mutual understanding.
So the only question that remains is whether the debate itself is useful, even without the goal of persuasion? Must there be a destination in an journey of exploration and discovery?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Should women also be used as organ farms for their already born children? Say, one needs a kidney, should the mother be legally required to give hers up? The child needs a liver, the woman should be forced to donate a bit of hers? Because, currently no one-not even a woman's own child-can demand she sacrifice parts of her body for them. What makes a fetus so special that it deserves a right that NO ONE else has, to use her body against her will? The question isn't "are fetuses human beings?" the question is "do fetuses have rights that supercede the woman whose body their inhabiting?" You don't seem to respect women very much or their right to control what's in their body.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, women shouldn't be organ farms. The fetus is special because it is a living human of its own. You don't seem to respect human life very much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Rights are made up. There is no right to be alive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
its funny how i could tell you're a man without even needing to look at your profile. of course you can say that, you will never be faced with such a situation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You could apply that argument to obese people by saying that they chose to eat junk food and now they have to deal with the constant heartburn.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is the twenty-first century. Attitudes have changed a little. Women are the ones that get stuck with a baby, men can, and too often do, leave when they think there's going to be a baby that they're responsible for. Some people (including the Catholic Church, which is against the right to contraceptives) are trying to say, yes, women should be stuck with that baby, it's their responsibility, since they weren't careful. Others, however, think that since we have the technology to allow it, maybe women should be allowed the right to a sex life as free from worry as that of a man.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Oh god, you deserve a cupcake
Well said,
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Additionally, some abortions are a lot more humane than others. In the first trimester, a fetus is a small clump of stem cells, with no heart or brain, and should not be equated with a baby.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Alright i don't get it. Are women keyholes now. I wanna understand this'
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it's about abortion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ohhhhhhhhh no wonder there was a big bunch of text on my screen covering everything
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
bullshit fuck the church woman are able to do whatever the fuck they want with her bodies
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The comments section seem to consider this to be a pro-abortion piece. This confuses me.
1. The woman-figure is depicted wearing a nun's headpiece (I do not know the name of this article of clothing) implying that she is a nun. If she is a nun, isn't the notion of abortion irrelevant as nuns aren't supposed to get pregnant to begin with?
2. The location of the "lock" is very ambigous. It's a little too low to be the location of a developing fetus and a little too high to be the location of the external ladyparts. This muddles the symbolism.
3. If it is a pro-abortion piece, why is it a priest/cardinal/pope/whatever pulling the key away? Christianity has gone to great lengths compared to other faiths when it comes to letting Women be equals allowed to make decisions for themselves. It's not that women aren't in control of their own bodies, it's that killing an unborn child is still considered murder even if it -is- inside your body which leads to the anti-abortion idea. Also that's a largely cultural thing, not a religious one. If that is the intent I feel the symbolism is inaccurate and blunt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pretty sure that's her hair, actually.
The Church, the Catholic one in this case, has also had a long history of oppressing women. Just look up the Magdelen Laundries, you'll see what I mean.
The position of the lock pretty obviously indicates that it means her sex life. The Catholic Church wants to get rid of contraceptives for whatever reason, which would make it more risky for women to have free sex lives, since they're the ones who get stuck with a baby if they get pregnant.
I don't support the right to third trimester abortions, but banning them altogether is idiocy. A small cluster of stem cells that has no heart or brain should not be considered the same as a baby. It's not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You could add a few more symbols on the hat of that guy, since a lot of religions aim at controlling sex for their own benefit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
As for the image itself, I do like it a lot. It gets it's point and opinion across very well, as quite a few simple pieces do. Good Job.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Tali having a tug of war with a religious figure over a key?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Tali having a tug of war with a religious figure over a key?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The whole idea that pro-life people are sexist is another strawman argument. To some people, abortion is murder. So to us, you're saying it's okay for a mother to murder her toddler if she doesn't like it. You think that doesn't make sense? That's because these are two entirely different viewpoints and we're like aliens to each other, impossible for either side to understand the other. But like I said, the whole "Women's rights" aspect of the thing is something your side uses to make us look like a bunch of degenerate hyper-conservative morons.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
I find the whole idea that anyone is "pro-life" is laughable. It more like "pro-birth" since most of them are conservatives who don't want to give pregnant women protection against work discrimination, don't want to give poor women pre-natal care, and don't want to give them welfare or any kind of assistance to raise that bundle of joy they brought into the world. Plus, who isn't pro-life? I'm pro-life! I'm very pro-equality and pro-taking care of born children. How's that not pro-life? People who are pro-choice are for protecting the quality of life of women and their children, painting the opposition is "pro-life" just makes it look like we hunger for death and misery which is completely inaccurate.
If you don't think the "pro-life" position is sexist, you're being a little obtuse. In your discussions of abortion, where's the woman? You know, the person who's donating their body to the fetus? I never see pro-life people acknowledge the mother as a woman with rights who is sacrificing her physical and mental health as well as her career, earnings, time, etc. to the child. It's always about an innocent fetus in a womb. Which I guess exists in outer space or some other realm because pro-life people don't seem to want to acknowledge the many many burdens of pregnancy.
Have you ever watched a pro-longed argument on abortion? It starts out with the "pro-lifer" saying fetuses are babies and they are a gift that every woman should embrace, then the "pro-lifer"'s resolve slowly unravels and they start calling these "gifts" the consequences for having sex. Is pregnancy a gift or is it a scarlet letter to show everyone what a dirty whore that woman is?! They deny the struggles of pregnant women and treat it as a minor inconvenience, despite the fact that abortion is FOURTEEN times safer than childbirth and pregnant women face LEGAL discrimination in this pro-birth nation. Don't want a child? Give it to a wealthy family who will pretend it's theirs and face trauma for the rest of your life! Because poor women are breeding mares for rich people who can't have kids. How can the position not be sexist when, inevitably, it always becomes about women having pleasurable sex and being punished? Eventually during any extended debate pro-birthers will start slut shaming and calling pro-choice women "ugly". These are usually men who resort to attacking women's appearances. I've never seen men call eachother ugly during an argument so that seems pretty sexist to me. I've even seen the argument devolve into "if I was your father I'd abort you too". Wait, you're pro-life, yet you're saying you'd kill this woman because she disagreed with you? No sexism there.
Yes, "pro-lifers" are sexist because they deny the woman's role in pregnancy and make it about a fetus. They seek to deny women the right to control their fertility and give the fetus MORE rights than any person has. No person, not even woman's own child, can demand the right to her body for medical care, so why should a fetus have that right? Would a woman denying her child her kidney be murder? Some might consider it murder, but it's not, and that's exactly what abortion is. You might not like it and you might think it's immoral, but women must have the right to it to control their lives and to be considered equal citizens under the law. Otherwise, why don't we set up an organ and blood donation registry for all sexually active adults to have their tissues forcibly seized in the event someone needs them? It's the EXACT SAME LOGIC.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
I wish I could favorite comments.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Most of the other responders seemed like humans, but you just act like everyone who argues against you is a moron. That fetus may not be fully developed but it is still a human. Someone pretentious like you would laugh at me for mentioning souls, so I'm going to say what I said before; we cannot understand each other's values. You keep viewing me as sexist (even though I am pro-feminist while still acknowledging that sexism is a two-way street), and I'll keep viewing you as a murder advocate. Most of the stuff you said had nothing to do with abortion.
By the logic that a woman can kill a fetus because she doesn't want it, she can kill a newborn. Weak argument, try another.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
a soul is something that is mostly linked to religion, it is not yet scientifically proven, therefore I have no reason to believe in one and so I find that you're belief of a soul should be totally irrelevant to my decisions about my body... you are however, welcome to take over any foetus that could grow in me if I where to get raped and go through the pregnancy yourself if you are so concerned about an underdeveloped life form, or is that where your concerns stops about this whole issue?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just because something isn't proven doesn't mean it's not true. This is one of the most hotly debated things today and trust me, no matter what either of us says, nobody's going to convince anybody of anything.
Good day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
so since its not proven animals dont have a "soul" equal to that of a human we should stop feeding on them?
It's not up to the opposing side to prove something does not exist, it's up to the side making the claim to prove it is true, because by that logic I can say that we should no longer wash with soap because there is an almighty deity saying that that is bad and it is up to you to prove that that deity doesn't exist...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Washing with soap is not the same as what we, and I cannot stress this enough, see as almost murder. This isn't some archaic myth, it is completely inarguable that there is a dead fetus involved.
This is turning into a completely religious debate.
This argument is not going to go anywhere and do you know how many times it's been argued? Too many times.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
it's not about the soap.... it's about the fact that if something has not been proven yet, you cannot force others to follow YOUR believes merely because you see it their responsibility to disprove it, it's actually a very childish attitude and the fact you are ignoring most of my points shows me already how ignorant you are.
a foetus does not compare to a living breathing thinking experiencing human being, and souls have not been proven real.
therefore what YOU see as murder should not effect our rights to our own bodies, yes the foetus will die but it will not even experience this as it is pretty much a cluster of cells...
but hey? you know what you could always do? get a bunch of people who are so pro life together, march down to the abortion clinic and demand to have some of those unborn foetuses implanted in your womb? that way it doesn't die and you will do a good deed to your own feelings right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm just going to make my point and be done with this: this is more than abortion. Yes, that's the most popular, but another situation is contraceptives in general. A majority of Roman-Catholics believe that things like condoms, birth control and Plan-B shouldn't be available because 1) it promotes sinful activity and/or 2) it messes up God's plan.
If that's what someone believes, then that's what they believe. I really don't care so long as they don't try to use their beliefs to control me- in any fashion. But when a person's argument against ANYTHING (Abortion, gay marriage, even the use of computers in some extreme cases) is that "God says 'No'", all validity is lost because it's your God, not mine, that's dictating my life and that makes no sense.
Now, for abortion specifically, the "murder" argument is a legitimate one and should be debated thoroughly until we find a peaceful common ground. But anything revolving around religion (as this picture demonstrates)will ultimately start some kind of war- be it with bombs or words.
The point: Argue with murder if you believe so, it's a logical point. However, and this is to everyone and in reference to everything, don't try to make your personal religion run the lives of every living creature. And don't use God as a reason to suppress ANYONE, because if I know anything about what people say God's message is (Love all), I know suppression and oppression don't fit in it.
And in case you're wondering (since this comment didn't mark religion anywhere in it), I bring God and Roman-Catholics up because that's the point of the picture. Not murder, but religion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You tell your opinion in an intelligent way. I may not fully agree with you but that was very well-put.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You are.
If you think the life of an ignorant embryo, without even a complete brain, is worth even a split second of a grown woman's physical and mental well being, then yes, to me, you're crazy and monstrous and what you believe IS nothing more than a violation of women's rights, because the BAREST minimum right a human should have is absolute dominion over life *inside their own body.* If nothing else in the universe, that's what every single person should have total control over. If an organism cannot exist without growing and feeding inside you, you should have the innate, inalienable right to terminate it for any reason whatsoever.
This would still apply even if that life were intelligent, which an embryo is not. You and I, assuming you're an omnivore like me, eat animals every day that know more pain, fear and thought than every embryo ever aborted in human history. Combined.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Not to mention that in the earliest stage of development, an embryo is no more a collection of cells, comparable to the cells in a drop of blood or a cancerous tumour.
And to Kampfer, equating abortion to murdering a toddler is a HUGE strawman argument. A toddler is already placed in the world, has developed a sense of what life is, has already stamped their mark of existence in the world. That is why it is way more abhorrent to kill a toddler than to have an abortion - an embryo is more parasite than it is human.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Yet those cells contain your DNA. I should just assume then that everything in me as well is a cancerous tumor and needs to be rid of ASAP. And while I'm at that, they contain the other person's DNA as well, meaning you killed a part of him.
And weren't we all "ignorant" embryos in our stage of life? You and I were parasites to our mothers. And here we are in full growth. Why would you deny the chance for a baby to grow into a mature intelligent being with a proper mother's care? What if you were aborted?
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
I fully understand I was a parasitic existence in my mother's body. It was (hopefully) her choice to carry me to term because she was in a position to be able to raise me and WANT me. No woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes, whether emotional or financial.
Using the DNA argument is false equivalence. A cancerous tumour, whilst containing your DNA, will cause you harm and you would excise it from your body, wouldn't you? Or would you keep it simply because it has your DNA? As for the mass of cells containing another person's DNA, you're not killing a part of the father in the physical sense at all. The two parental DNA have in turn joined and mutated into a whole new person with their own DNA signatures - killing me is not killing either of my parents in the physical sense. We are no more our parents than our children are us.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But the DNA coding has a part that can be linked to the mother or father, like how a certain type of species can be linked to another kind of species. It's not like that the DNA of the person just happens to be "BRAND NEW!" when an XX and XY pair up.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I fail to include that in my response. My fault.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You know what else contains part of your DNA? Your poo.
You know what else have the chance of becoming a mature intelligent being? A sperm.
And even if you force every man on the planet to never masturbate, those sperms would eventually die unless they were all miraculously used for their purpose. Still, it would need at least one woman for every sperm. Simply an egg wouldn't work, since babies needs a womb to grow in. That's a loooot of women.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The difference between those cells that you have in your waste and the one in your uterus is when you have the sperm or cell combine to form that new life, which that DNA not only has the code of you but also of your partner!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And as stated, pretty much everything in my body contains DNA. Millions of cells with my DNA dies every second. It's really not that big of a thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, yes, those sperm and eggs just sit there not being used. If they are not used, they have no purpose.
And yes, again, our DNA dies every second, and then becomes recoded back in an instant. But your DNA is not completely the same as the NEW DNA(containing both the father and mother's coding) being formed in the uterus.
Have you seen an abortion? How they actually do it? I personally don't like looking it up due to how graphic I see it, but if you feel bold, just look through on youtube the procedure.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>