HOME | DD
SaritysAnimation β Struggle For Control
Published: 2013-04-10 02:46:24 +0000 UTC; Views: 18783; Favourites: 999; Downloads: 106
Redirect to original
Description
I'll leave it at that.Related content
Comments: 1121
The baby is the end result. It is not an individual life with human rights while it is a mindless mass of flesh and tissue. And there is no nice way to say that if you think otherwise, not only are you wrong, you're an idiot.
π: 0 β©: 1
but won't the kid grow up to have rights?
π: 0 β©: 2
Once it becomes anything that may logically be categorized as a kid, then of course.
π: 0 β©: 0
Not if you aborted it before it was ever a separate or conscious entity. There's a reason only first trimester abortions can't be banned.
π: 0 β©: 1
but my point is that it will be if he/she were to grow up if the kid has the possibility of having rights then isn't he/she have the right to them whether or not they are able of conscious thought at that moment?
π: 0 β©: 1
I am of the opinion that the answer is no. I myself would dislike throwing away such potential, but then again, I don't ever intend to be in such a situation in which having a child is an /unwanted/ burdon. If a woman is raped, she shouldn't be forced to raise a child she never wanted. There's a difference between potential held and potential met. Since many instances of intercourse are capable of producing a child, since egg cells are already alive, why not ban contraceptives? I don't think people should be allowed to get third-trimester abortions, but first-trimester is different. At that point, it's a clump of stem cells with no nerves and no heart.
π: 0 β©: 1
those are all really good points.
im not sure if im for or against abortion but i do believe that the mother should have the final decision
this topic just has to many grey areas
π: 0 β©: 0
excellent! nice work and good concept
π: 0 β©: 0
First, the piece is wonderfully created, and simply done. It certainly conveys a message that we need to get across.
Second, reading all the comments about people not believing women have the right to what happens inside their body is sad. It doesn't seem like they take into consideration that it could be a rape baby. Or a hazard to the mother's health. I, for one, am 'pro-life', but not in the sense that 'Oh, she's pregnant and might have hazards later on! She's going to murder the innocent fetus!'. I'm pro-life in believing that every person has a right to live their life the way they want to. Because it's just that--THEIR life, not yours, not the church's, or the government's. It's theirs.
Personally, I can't have children, but I take birth control not because it's preventing pregnancy, but because it's controlling and moderating my PCOS. You can't take that away from me. You can't take away my right to medication that I need. Banning contraceptives and abortions is dangerous--a rise in STDs, unwanted pregnancies, illegal abortions and deaths due to them.
I can't see in the great plan of 'God' that he would want any of that. I can't see that he's looking down on his children and going 'There are hungry and miserable children already, better make more!'.
My point is that we, fundamentally, have the right to control what happens INSIDE OUR BODY.
π: 0 β©: 5
I agree Zeekay. Though I see the parts of the points others are making, it's inside a woman's body, inside her organs, so surely she should have the final decision, especially if her health is at risk.
Is it better to abort a foetus when someone has no intention of keeping it (there are many children up for adoption in all countries), or go through 9 months of pregancy (not always pleasant) to give a child up for adoption? It's a matter of choice, but personal choice of the woman involved; if she's religious then her religion will play a part, whatever religion she may be. But how can government think to impose choices (or restriction of legal options) on people; compulsory organ donation, regardless of patients wishes, doesn't occur. It seems more an emotional subject for politicians, than seeking to improve society. I'm not seeking to offend, just that this is how I see it.
On the art itself, deceptively simple but seems to fit such a debated and divisive subject (for some at least).
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh no, I agree with you. It's inside HER body, the body that she owns and no one else can tell her what to do with.
Politics and religion can't be allowed to shove in on that. It's their choice.
π: 0 β©: 0
ZeeKayl, you have the right to control what happens INSIDE YOUR BODY.
But PENIS + Vagina + SpermatozoΓ―d = Natural procreation recipe, isn't it ?
Condom & contraception are not natural, so if you end up with a baby anyway (happen to a friend), you have to deal with it.
In our days freedom = selfishness. We want everything and give nothing in return.
I'm born from adultery and happy to be alive ! My grandma wanted my mum to abort me, well I am the one who the closest to my parents now.
I was this "mindless mass of flesh and tissue", now I am proper human being happy to be alive. Thanks God for that !
π: 0 β©: 2
See, that is the conundrum, isn't it? Honestly, if that happens, it's an accidental conception. It doesn't necessarily call for an abortion. If the mother doesn't want to abort it, and can't keep it, then she can give it up for adoption. That's HER decision, not mine or anyone else's.
Freedom does not exactly equal selfishness. It means that sometimes we have to do what's best for ourselves. If I, by some miracle, were to become pregnant, I wouldn't be able to take care of it at this time. Now, I personally can't hurt anything, even if it's just a few centimeters big, so I wouldn't have an abortion. I'd give it up for adoption to someone who can't have a baby.
Like myself.
I'd rather adopt an unwanted child and love and care for them than risk bringing a child (that I don't have the means to take care for) into the world.
π: 0 β©: 0
Yes, but now that we have the ability to prevent women being the victims of such things, there isn't a good reason to deny them the right a sex life as free as that of a man. Women are the ones stuck with the baby, a man can run away from his responsibility and leave the woman. Why can't the woman be allowed to do that? Not allowing it is just oppressive. Look, we were all a fetus at some point, but we weren't the people we currently are. If something never even had a brain, can you really say it was even a living person? Short answer: no. Long answer: nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's a living creature until you kill it !
Just put the word "abortion" on google, the pictures speak for themselves.
And I think that men need to grow up, put their penis back in their pants and stop acting like dogs.
π: 0 β©: 2
Nice, I can see your point. However, why would you want to bring a child into the world if you can't care for it? Or if it would kill you? Why don't you adopt a child who needs love and warmth?
It isn't just men, women can be irresponsible too. Afterall, it takes two to tango.
π: 0 β©: 0
A tumor is a living until you kill it.
The reason those pictures are there is because you and people like you want that to be the image, not because that's what it is.
Yes, they do, but simply telling men to be responsible isn't going to work. You have to allow women the right to deal with it on their own.
π: 0 β©: 0
I do see the points you're making.
Though, the one I'm a tad confused on the bit about you taking contraceptives for a medical problem. You see, I'm Catholic, raised that way my whole life, and I was always taught that the most important part of an act is the intent. Thus, taking contraceptives because you want sex but not a kid would be wrong, but taking them because you have health issues is perfectly okay.
And the bit about rape babies also makes sense, but I don't see why that would require an abortion. I understand how a child conceived by rape could be a painful reminder for the mother, but couldn't you just have the child adopted? I just don't see why the child should be killed for the father's wrong-doings.
As for potential (or very likely)complications in the pregnancy or childbirth that could be very harmful to mother, child, or both...I don't really have an answer. In truth, I don't think there is a good way to handle that situation. In the end, it may very well come down to choosing between one life or another, and I don't think there's a catch-all answer to that.
The real problem I have with abortions is that so many of them seem to be done because it would be...inconvenient for the person to have a child. I know it sounds callous to say it that way, and I know that a person may be going through emotional or physical hardships that may lead them to this, but that's the best word I've really been able to find for it (if you know a better one, please tell me). Teen pregnancy, pregnancy outside of marriage, financial problems, pressure from others; these reasons are given (at least from the info I've found, and I have tried to find as impartial sources as possible) much more often than rape or health issues, and its estimated that a fair amount of rape abortions were untrue. To me, it seems like these people are putting other things in their lives over the lives of their children, and I can't bring myself to say that that's a good thing.
I know there's a lot of baggage that goes with every abortion, and its not as simple as I've put it here, but this is really just the footnote. Please respond, I'd like to have a good discussion about this.
π: 0 β©: 2
And I see your point as well. A lot of the time teen pregnancies are due to the teens wanting to have sex. You know why? Because it's worked into the media, and we see it our whole lives. Women are expected to be 'sexy' nowadays, and it's hardwired into a teen girl's brain to fit in. Teen boys are made fun of it they're virgins. The media is working in and enforcing the thought that sex HAS to happen.
It's natural. The conception of babies is natural. But sometimes there are things that happen that are out of our control. Like I said before; rape, problem pregnancies, &etc. However, with contraception readily available, we can help stop the spread of STDs and also reduce the amount of abortions.
I understand that it's a religious issue, but really, if everything is in God's hands, and he has a plan, was that planned? Was that child not ready for the world? Did he know that something would happen and want to keep it safe from harm?
And yes, some people ARE having unprotected sex and getting abortions willy-nilly. But as cruel as it is to say, I'd rather see an irresponsible mother have an abortion than bring another child into the world and not properly care for it. That being said, I believe there are certain circumstances were abortions are not acceptable. Like way late into the pregnancy.
I suppose for me, it's more a moral issue for the woman, and I think that the church should keep their religion to themselves. (No offense to you!)
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh hai
When you say that a child could just be put up for adoption well..things aren't as easy as it seems. I've seen some abortion stories where the mother is traumatized from it and it would be better in my opinion for the well being of the mother. As mean as I may sound I think the mother's well being should be put first. XP
π: 0 β©: 1
I couldn't have said it any better myself. I go to a Catholic school and so many people are ignorant to the fact that no matter what "God's word" is, it is not our place to force it. For the government to get involved with such things as marriage, contraceptives, and abortions is not the best course of action for a country that's supposed to have religious freedom.
I understand them considering abortion as murder, but it's still the woman's body as well and even if it's illegal it will still go on anyway, but at much higher costs and dangers like you said.
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree with your arguement Zeekayl
π: 0 β©: 0
Very cleverly designed concept!
π: 0 β©: 0
Insightful, provocative... simple yet very creative, great work
π: 0 β©: 0
I can't understand if this is about a Pope's own desires or the Catholic belief of no contraception. Maybe even the sexism with women being bishops...
π: 0 β©: 1
I think that's the beauty of it, that you can interpret it so many ways
π: 0 β©: 1
I believe the artist intended it this way. To interpret many ways, to spark discussion, to think, and feel, and be touched somehow by the piece.
π: 0 β©: 0
That's a great idea for a picture. A Pope shouldn't have ANY say about a woman's body or choice to have children, nor should a Pope make that decision for her. So, I like the tug-of-war for FREEDOM OF CHOICE in this picture. Kudos go to you for being ballsy and posting this picture.
π: 0 β©: 0
Art is genius!
And about abortion... People care about couple of cells, less or more 'wanted' when theres so much orphans, starving kids. If woman wants to 'delete' kid then maybe its better then born 'something' which wouldn't be loved and just will be?
π: 0 β©: 0
I love the simplicity of this.
Almost as much as I laugh at the butthurt of the whiners below who can't handle women being granted bodily autonomy. Fuck 'em and all their authoritarian false equivalences, you've done good work.
π: 0 β©: 0
really makes you stop and think, there are no details or fancy colors to distract you from the message
π: 0 β©: 0
Amazing work! Simple, yet very meaningful. It would make a perfect T-shirt design
π: 0 β©: 0
I will keep my political and religious views out of this since we could all sit here and argue all day. This piece is amazing. It stirs thought, enrages some, enlightens and pleases others. This is what art should be. Amazing that something so simple can do raise so many debates. LOVE IT!!!! This will be added to my favs.
π: 0 β©: 0
I love it when minimalism makes people stop and take a moment to ponder the message.
π: 0 β©: 0
OMG, I can't believe this. Now the comment section is used to discuss about abortion. Please, this is an art page; shouldnβt people be talking about the pic itself? :-/
Whatever, I will comment about the drawing, ok?
For me, this is not about abortion. This is about women controlling their sexual life without being criticised by church. Simple ^^
I like the pose that that both the woman and the⦠pope? Have. Despite being plane images, with no light or shadows, they do have energy and movement.
Like it! ^^
π: 0 β©: 0
Do you want what you want more than what you want to do because of God's love?
Romans 7:21
21 I have discovered this principle of lifeβthat when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. 22 I love Godβs law with all my heart. 23 But there is another power[b] within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. 24 Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin and death? 25 Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So you see how it is: In my mind I really want to obey Godβs law, but because of my sinful nature I am a slave to sin.
π: 0 β©: 2
Spew that at the victims of the Catholic Magdelen Laundries. The Catholic Church is made of people. Mortal, fallible, people, trying to hold together the patriarchy that society once was. Not all Catholics are like this, of course, but the Church itself is.
π: 0 β©: 2
They're simply expressing what they see in the artist's piece and relating it something they've seen elsewhere. This piece could just as easily be about the struggle between sexuality and moral responsibility as it is about (what everyone else seems to think) abortion. The artist left it deliberately ambiguous. You don't have to attack everyone who is religious.
π: 0 β©: 1
I suppose. I realize that I'm just arguing with people over the internet, you know. It passes the time. I just get annoyed when I see people saying things that seem almost deliberately ignorant, a description I'm aware does not apply to all religious people. I just have a tendency to try spreading what I see as the truth.
π: 0 β©: 1
I was under the impression that Christians "spreading what they see as the truth," especially by aggressive (or simply rude) means, was one of the major criticisms against them.
π: 0 β©: 1
'Tis indeed. I see your point. However, the reason that's frowned upon is that it's generally based on religious beliefs, derived from the two-thousand year outdated morality manual, written during the era of history during which pregnant mothers and young children drank alcoholic drinks, for lack of clean water. I view my beliefs as more well grounded because it is my own, formed from my experiences with people.
π: 0 β©: 1
I've yet to meet a person who believes their beliefs aren't well-grounded.
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course not. Nobody ever thinks in the present tense that they're wrong. I realize this, and its application to myself. The difference, I think, is that people arguing that their religion is more correct than their opponents tend to reference the desires of a being that they've never met or interacted with as the reason they can be right in telling other people they're wrong, or that people need to do or not do a particular thing. This as opposed to actual thought. Again, this does not, of course, apply in every situation. So yes, you could say that both sides see their argument as well grounded, but you can also say that one of them is /wrong/.
π: 0 β©: 1
I think stubborn pig-headedness is a trait that transcends religions, ideologies, and philosophies. There will always be people who are convinced beyond all thought that they are right. The best any person of reason can do is to not become one of them.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'am aware of this. I'm not convinced beyond all thought that I'm right. It's just that I've thought about this, and I consider myself a fairly intelligent person. Resigning to a problem being unsolvable is the worst thing you can do toward leaving it unsolved. I've been aware of everything you'e said for some time now.
π: 0 β©: 1
I never accused you of it. I'm simply saying Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
π: 0 β©: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>