HOME | DD
t-writes-poems β a voice for the voiceless.
Published: 2009-01-22 11:23:18 +0000 UTC; Views: 5043; Favourites: 112; Downloads: 8
Redirect to original
Description
thirty-six years ago today...the case of roe v. wade changed america forever, ruling
the genocide of innocent preborn children as a
constitutional act.
since that day, over 50 million tiny, voiceless children
have been slaughtered in its name.
thirty-six years ago.
how is this still going on?
there is no pro-choice.
the baby has no choice in his or her death; why should
the mother? after all, aren't we all created equal?
and if a choice truly must be made, it should be made
before the point of conception. not after.
give them a voice.
overturn roe v. wade.
it's a child, not a choice.
credit...
pregnant woman silhouette: [link]
(c)
Related content
Comments: 290
π: 3 β©: 0
π: 2 β©: 1
π: 2 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
I love your poetry; yet I am stunned by your point of view; not that they have anything to do with each other.
In my opinion, if society chooses to use medicine and other scientific breakthroughs to keep people alive for longer than their usual (read 'natural') life expectancy, then society should have the choice to control human life at its genesis. It's an un-natural balance that should exist. Death balances out life. Also, fetuses with 'two' cells for nervous system don't have a choice. Like you didn't have a choice what family to be born in to. -- What if I told you I wish I had the choice not to be born at all... See where I'm getting at?
All in all, I think when it comes to sensitive subjects like these people should have the chance to make their own choices, and have control over their bodies. If you believe in God - fine; but don't make people who don't believe keep their unwanted pregnancies - be it from broken condoms or rape, or any other reason for that matter.
With respect,
brg
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
Hate to drop this bomb, but even if it was outlawed, people would still be getting abortions. Β Only this time, they would be given by non-certified, back-alley quacks. Β I live in a state where the teen pregnancy rate is twice the national average, and I can tell you right now, without the option of abortion, several of my very good friends would be dead. Β I'm not even going to get into our horrific sex-ed program.
Fewer than 2% of adolescents have had sex by the time they reach their 12th birthday. But adolescence is a time of rapid change. Only 16% of teens have had sex by age 15, compared with one-third of those aged 16, nearly half (48%) of those aged 17, 61% of 18-year-olds and 71% of 19-year-olds. Β SoΒ basically, it doesn't matter how much of your morals you cram down their throats, people are going to have sex and they are going to fix their mistakes. Β Β
Also, don't use that quote from Doctor Seuss. Β It was made in reference to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the people looked small from the air. Β You have taken it completely out of context.Β Geisel's widow, Audrey Geisel, "doesn't like people to hijack Dr. Seuss characters or material to front their own points of view."Β Β According to Geisel biographerΒ Philip Nel , Geisel threatened to sue a pro-life group for using his words on their stationery. Β So don't use it.
This is a beautiful piece of art, and I am not attacking it's craftsmanship, but the opinion'sΒ expressed in it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Why back-ally abortions are a bullshit argumentThat's right bitches, I'm going there. I haven't posted a journal on a controversial topic in a while, so I figured it's about time to cause trouble again. ;D
Anyways, regardless of what side you're on, you've all heard this argument at least ONCE I'm sure: That abortion should be kept legal to keep the number of back-alley abortions down. After doing a little research, I've discovered that what a lot of the "facts" that people know about back-alley abortions are a load of bull. There's more common misconception than anything. Being the little trouble-maker I am, I'm going to break them all down for you and explain why they're a load of horseshit. :3
Misconception #1: Illegal abortions were done in unsanitary alley-ways by fake doctors.
Sorry but, that's not how it was at all. Actually, before it was legalized, about 90% of illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians. The term "back-alley" didn't refer to abortions literally being performed right there in an a
π: 0 β©: 0
"how is this still going on?" Simple, nobody born or not has any legal right to use someone elses body without prior and continued consent.
"there is no pro-choice." Pro choice in terms of abortion, is supporting the womans right to make a choice of aboriton, keeping the kid or adoption.
"the baby has no choice in his or her death; why should
the mother?" She has a legal right to kill anyone that uses her body without her consent, it's called self defense.
"after all, aren't we all created equal?" By words only, not in practice.
"and if a choice truly must be made, it should be made
before the point of conception." That defeats the purpose of choosing abortion or not.
"it's a child, not a choice." Unlike the dark ages, women have a right to choose not to have a kid. Or do you think women should go back to being broodmares?
π: 0 β©: 2
π: 0 β©: 0
If a Women doesn't want to be a "broodmare" maybe she shouldn't be having sex in the first place. That should be the choice, not killing the baby.Β
π: 1 β©: 0
Wowsers!
Second most awe-striking thing i've seen on the net today. First being who "Roe" was in Roe vs Wade:
[link]
π: 0 β©: 0
Beautiful piece. 
I love the quotes and the silhouette is very powerful. Lovely work.
π: 0 β©: 0
Quick poll, how many of you have ever lived in a time or place where abortion was completely illegal?
π: 0 β©: 0
We just heard a sermon about this on Sunday last. I remember wearing a black arm band to school the day after that ruling hit the news in 1973. Fantastic piece.
π: 0 β©: 0
Thank you for being brave enough to stand up for the innocent. The world needs more people like you, my friend. People who can see through the facade of "women's rights" to the truth.
π: 0 β©: 0
I love the "you were a fetus once, too" part at the top. Also, I'm very glad that I don't have to sit back and be murdered at someone else's convenience without a fight, but how long until America is against that, too? Not long, probably.
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree with you. 
π: 0 β©: 0
I need to stop wasting my time reading arguments on prolife things. It's way too time consuming xD
But yes, great message and great art ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
Don't we all...
π: 0 β©: 0
Thanks! :]
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm a woman, and I'm pro-life. What about my voice?
π: 0 β©: 1
If you dont want an abortion no one should be able to force you that is what pro CHOICE is that you make decisions for yourself and choices that are best for YOU
just because you are pro life does not mean you can force people to have children they couldnt cope with just because you think having children is great to you.
the point is let people make decisions that are best for them as they are the ones that have to live with those choices.
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually I don't plan on bearing a child. I'm going to adopt. Don't assume things about me if you want me to take you seriously.
But abortion isn't living with a choice; the vast majority of abortions are gotten by healthy women who consented to sex. How is throwing away another life because you chose to take part in an act that is known for leading to reproduction living with your choice?
π: 0 β©: 1
its not an actual life just potential and whether you have a child or adopt is insignificant because you will still take at least 18 years of your life to raise it just like a biological parent.
And yes they may have consented to sex but that does not mean they will be a fit parent forcing children on people who dont want and wont care for them is madness it just leads to abuse in so doing everyone is miserable so forcing people to have unwanted children is just madness and as for the care system its not worth mentioning as many of my friends and acquaintances have many horror stories about foster system since no one would adopt them.
π: 0 β©: 1
So do you with those friends had never been born in the first place?
If a person consents to sex they should be prepared for the possibility that they will become a parent. If they aren't wise in this decision, does that make it okay to kill somebody else because they were reckless? Didn't you just say people need to take responsibility for their actions?
You know, every time I talk to somebody about this, I hear "It's not a child" echoed back at me, but nobody ever produces proof of that. How do we know for sure when a fetus becomes a living being? And do we have the right to risk killing a living being because we can't prove or disprove its state?
π: 0 β©: 1
yes 3 of my friends wish they hadnt been born and two were suicidal and still need medication to cope.
its easy to prove as its not alive yet as it has no brain function for quite along time hence the time limit on abortions is when it actually starts to become human. and sometimes the most responcible thing you can do is have an abortion if you cannot raise a child and know you will only bring it misery why have it? why force yourself to have a child for other peoples beliefs when it will only bring you pain and misery? many people arent recklace but the sad point of the matter is people have sex accidents happen and people should deal with it in a way they can live with because no one will help them raise that child pay for it make it happy or console the mothers parents if she kills herself or dies in child birth abortion is in no way an easy thing but it is the best choice for some people.
π: 0 β©: 1
What happened to taking responsibility for one's actions? Now it sounds like we're saying it's just more convenient to abort. That having a child is just a pain and brings trouble.
Also, if it's really none of my business when somebody else has an abortion - let's just assume for a moment that abortions never happen past the limit (they do), there is absolute proof that a fetus is not a living being before the cutoff limit (there's not), and that I'm just going off outdated beliefs - why does my state use public funding? Why am I required to put my taxes towards something I find absolutely morally and scientifically disgusting?
Feel free to take time with your reply and calm down (I can tell by the lack of sentences or capitalization that you must be writing very quickly, probably because you're frustrated. Can't blame you - debating online can be a pain.) I need some sleep and won't be able to reply for a while anyway.
P.S. I have bipolar disorder and take medication after multiple suicide attempts. There was a family history, so my family could have chosen to abort me to save me from the years of agony I've went through, but didn't. After 8 years of battling this illness and seeing what being alive is, despite everything, I'm glad I'm here, and I pray that your friends soon get to enjoy life again too.
π: 0 β©: 1
There is more than one way to take responsibility for ones actions, saying abortion is just for convenience is merely simplifying a very complex issue of having children and how much effort and sacrifice it takes, which is quite insulting to parents.
There is a lot of things I wish my taxes didn't go to, but I would never deprive someone of necessary medical health care just because they did not comply with my wishes of how and why they were using it.
Its easy to judge from an outside perspective and more compassion is needed in this world there's enough hate as it is.
Abortion will never be a happy thing and I long await the day where science has progressed enough to where it is no longer necessary, but until then abortion is needed and all anyone can do is to try and further sex education, cheapen contraception and teach more people penetrative sex is not the only kind of sex.
p.s The reason I do not punctuate automatically is because of my Aspergers syndrome, I was kept out of mainstream for most of my vital years and my mother taught me how later on.
I too suffer from depression and have been fighting for 15 years.
My mother didn't know of my fathers illness when she had me and spent most of my life teaching me to cope, having been through a lot of hardships through life and my illness I would not wish it on anyone.
I do not want children as I could not psychologically cope with pregnancy or raising them, neither can my sister but she wants to adopt, as well as the fact I do not want to pass my genes along as I think it would be cruel.
Life is hard and I still don't truly know if I want to be here or not, generally I do not. So I don't think creating life should be taken lightly, as so much can go wrong with it.
Though I thank you for your concerns for my friends, its much appreciated.
π: 0 β©: 1
(Couldn't sleep. Got stuck on Wikipedia. %D; )
Hun, don't mistake what I'm saying as not having compassion. I know how hard it is to raise a child and how hard an unplanned pregnancy can be; but there are other options that don't kill a child. Safe zones, crisis centers, adoption programs with high success rates. (You don't have to give the baby to the state these days.)
And yes, creating life shouldn't be taken lightly. Sexual activity in general - because of this - should not be taken lightly. It's sad that is it and it's sad that there are people hurting because of unplanned pregnancies, but I don't believe ending another life is the way to solve it.
(OK now I need some sleep. G'night!)
π: 0 β©: 1
Those are good programs for some people, but it would not work for the majority who could not afford to give up there jobs toward the end of the pregnancy.
Or could not cope psychologically with the pregnancy, or the pregnancy could cause family problems.
In the uk adoption rates are at the lowest it has been for years, so not much hope there.
Ending pregnancy is never an easy thing but for alot of women that is the best course of action for them.
Good night
π: 0 β©: 0
What about the voices of unborn baby girls, they too are women.
π: 0 β©: 1
Until they grow up it seems, then you dont seem to listen anymore.
then your more than willing to strip them of their human rights and dignity's so they suffer just as their mother did if more of this extremism gets through
π: 0 β©: 1
We listen fine. The problem is people just throw on the woman hater label to avoid any discussion into the topic.
Stripping them of their rights? What about the Pro-Choicers stripping unborn babies of their right to life that is supposed to be guaranteed to them? That seems to be over looked a lot.
π: 0 β©: 1
First of all its not a baby its a clump of cells at this point and you seem to value that more than actual alive women or girls and two fetus's do not have a life guaranteed to them or there wouldnt be miscarriages or still borns so that's a pretty flimsy argument and its the woman who has to go through pain and agony for almost a year as well as the fact they could die in child birth now that is over looked alot.
π: 0 β©: 1
"fetus's do not have a life guaranteed to them or there wouldnt be miscarriages or still borns"
Complete logical fallacy. By this argument, all people don't have a right to life because there are such things as accidental deaths. I'm talking about the right to life under the law.
Modern science, and even leaders of the pro-choice and feminist movement, would like to disagree with you that it's just a clump of cells. The Law of Biogenisis would like to disagree with you: If two animal reproduce, what they produce can not be anything but what they are. Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology.
Now, leaders of your movement disagree with you as well:
"I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus." - Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of Planned Parenthood
"Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life...we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death" - Naomi Wolf, prominent feminist and abortion supporter
"In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development" - David Boonin, in his book "A Defense of Abortion"
"It is possible to give βhuman beingβ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to βmember of the species Homo sapiensβ. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being." - Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, in his book "Practical Ethics"
I can keep going on this, but all in all, your argument that there is no life in the womb is simply not true, and leading members on both the pro-life and pro-choice side would disagree with you.
π: 0 β©: 1
Personally I do not care as my main concern is protecting the freedom of autonomy for women.
life does not begin at conception even if it did it can not compare to actual life, it is only potential at best and killing or forcing live women and girls to live in misery for what is at best potential life is disgustingly flawed.
Those are living breathing women who are alive should not be stripped of their autonomy for a potential something especially if its something they do not want your being pretty idealistic if you think forcing women to carry unwanted children for supposedly idealistic reasons is the best course of action
π: 0 β©: 1
Life DOES begin at conception:
"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." - Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception." - Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." - Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes
""By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." - Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic
The only "idealistic" reason I hold is that every human being has a right to life.
Please explain to me why it is acceptable for a woman to decide which children get to live and which don't.
π: 0 β©: 1
No it doesn't, its potential not actual life no brain activity etc as it is not alive yet.
it is acceptable because the woman has to carry that child which can kill her or severely harm her body or psychological state of mind.
carrying an unwanted or health endangering fetus is detrimental to the woman's health it is her life and body which will be affected by this and it is she who has to live with the consequences her entire life that is why only each individual woman is qualified to make the decision especially since it a decision regarding HER life
π: 0 β©: 1
"No it doesn't, its potential not actual life no brain activity etc as it is not alive yet."
You're disregarding the law of biogenesis. If two people reproduce, it's impossible for them to form anything but another human life. According the biology, it is impossible for them to form anything BUT another human being.
You do realize abortion can cause more psychological, physical and emotional problems, right? (Such as Post Abortion Stress Disorder [link] , increase in breast cancer [link] )
In fact, it is MORE deadly for a woman to have an abortion than to give birth:
"Studying all causes of death for women aged 15-49 years, they report a mortality rate of 57.0 deaths per 100,000 person-years. For women who had an abortion within the last year, her mortality rate goes up to 83.1/100,000. On the other hand, women who miscarried during the last year had a mortality rate of only 51.9/100,000βslightly lower than the rate for women who had not been pregnant at all. Women who had given birth within the last year had a mortality rate of only 28.2/100,000. In other words, statistics show that women who give birth are significantly less likely to die of "all natural causes" than women who have an abortion. And these numbers do not include Dr. Joel Brind's opinion (referenced above) that hundreds of thousands of breast cancer deaths could fairly be classified as abortion-related." ( [link] )
"carrying an unwanted or health endangering fetus is detrimental to the woman's health it is her life and body which will be affected by this"
Something we can agree on here: If both the life of the mother and child will be lost during birth, such as is the case with ectopic pregnancies ( [link] ), then abortion is the only option. While it's heart wrenching that the child will die, it's better that happen than the mother and child both die.
"and it is she who has to live with the consequences her entire life that is why only each individual woman is qualified to make the decision especially since it a decision regarding HER life""
Adoption is always a good alternative. At least then the child has a chance at a normal life. And who knows? There have been plenty of cases where a mother thinks about aborting, decides not to, and ends up loving and raising that child. As well, it is not a decision regarding only her life, it is a decision also regarding the life of a child.
π: 0 β©: 1
As you said it has to FORM and that takes along time to actually become something human it CAN become human that is why there is time limits on abortion.
And most psychological issues that come with abortions are normally from pro life lunatics screaming murders and showing very late term abortions which not only happen rarely but mainly if the pregnancy is harmful to the mother and their are far more people suffering from post natal depression and it doesnt increase breast cancer that really is a load of bollocks.
π: 0 β©: 1
...There's been multiple studies that link abortion and an increase in breast cancer. You can't say it's "bollocks" just because you don't wanna believe it. I never once said a child forms: It starts right when the male sperm enters the female egg. According to the basic law of biology, it has to be a human being.
Honestly, this argument is getting no where. I have given evidence that has come from doctors, pro-choice advocates, and pro-life advocates, trying to keep it as unbiased as possible. You're choosing not to listen to any of them, thus this conversation is at a standstill. Rather than wasting my time repeating myself over and over, I'm just gonna choose to end it here.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>