HOME | DD
BunnyHopp — I WOULD RATHER HAVE A MOTHER
Published: 2013-05-27 07:33:10 +0000 UTC; Views: 13023; Favourites: 86; Downloads: 5
Redirect to original
Description
-than another little brother.Women should not be shamed into birthing children they do not want, cannot provide for, or that could potentially KILL them.
You cannot convince me that a POTENTIAL human being is more important than an ACTUAL human being. Yeah, that's right, I don't believe a fetus = a person any more than a leech = Bruce Campbell. I know, I'm a huge monster. I don't care if she is carrying the second coming of Jesus Christ in her uterus, if she wants an abortion, that's her decision. Not the government's, not yours, HERS.
America has too big a health epidemic to honestly believe that we can keep pushing out kids without mothers risking their lives in the process. Even with modern medicine, women cannot be guaranteed a child birthing experience that will in no way harm them physically or emotionally traumatize them in the long run. The lasting effects of post-child birth are commonly linked with depression, leading to a downward spiral of poor physical health which I'm sure only makes women feel even more confident about their appearance.
Pregnant women are common targets as well as victims to homicides brought on by domestic abuse. In fact, it is the third leading cause of death of women during pregnancy. So, it should not be shocking that someone whom may not die from the pregnancy itself, may not make it through the "beautiful miracle" of child birth, or for that matter, ever wish to BE pregnant.
Making abortion illegal does not stop people from having abortions. By making abortion illegal, we force women to find alternate, dangerous means of terminating unwanted pregnancies. It should not be a cause for celebration when abortion is outlawed. You are not saving "babies," you are murdering thousands of women, pregnant teenagers, pregnant preteens, rape victims, victims of incest, and bringing hundreds of thousands of unwanted children into this world and into abusive environments as well as the wonderful world of foster care, where every child, no matter what age, race, or disability, gets adopted by loving parents (haha... no).
People have argued with me that it's a mother's DUTY to die for her children. Why should it matter if a woman could die during child birth, how SELFISH must you be to choose your own life over your CHILD'S!
I'm not saying that mothers shouldn't defend their children, what I'm saying, is that they shouldn't throw their life away because they were given no other option. A dead fetus is less disgusting than how we treat women whom choose to live their lives how they want. No one should be guilted into believing their life is less important than a potential life.
If they argue that a fetus is a person, well, you're a person too. Stand up for yourself, because hey, you have the right to live too, and no other entity, potential or actual, has the right to take that away from you.
I will keep the comment section open until I'm convinced otherwise and/or get sick of reading half-assed "baby murderer" comments.
U.S. annual maternal mortality rate: [link]
Common health risks during pregnancy: [link]
Health risks after child birth: [link]
Statistics on unsafe abortions: [link]
Examples of pregnant victims of homicide: [link] [link]
Related content
Comments: 65
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
👍: 2 ⏩: 0
👍: 2 ⏩: 0
They ARE humans.
Events like these are tragic,but many times it is not a choice between life or death.
It's a choice between changing your life for someone else or killing that person so your life will not have to change.
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
This is the smartest thing that I've seen addressing the subject. Automatic fav!
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
[In response to 'Just because we have hospitals']
Death from childbirth is less common than it used to be thanks to hospitals, but it still happens on occasion...and sometimes it can be safer to have a home birth. This is merely my two cents opinion on the subject
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
This is the smartest thing I've seen on this subject.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I like the title. Very true.
My younger sister was supposed to be aborted. But my mother didn't. Because she didn't get raped. I asked her about it and even she said she would have aborted if she was raped.
Now she can't have any more children. We ate her energy and broke her gall bladder *^*
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I am so sorry to hear that.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
It's okay. She's happy with the amount of children she has, and she's glad she changed her mind about the abortion.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
I've talked to the other side, the pro-life group. It's a joke. Most of them would tell you that a woman needs to be shamed and your complaints about not being able to care for the child financially or emotionally are met with sneers saying that you should close your legs.
Basically, they're pro-fetus, anti-woman
👍: 2 ⏩: 4
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not being able to care for a child is a ridiculous reason to abort, adoption centers exist.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
If you can't care for a child, you should not have it. Adoption is no guarantee of a good home, given how overcrowded the adoption and foster systems are in many developed countries.
👍: 3 ⏩: 1
If a person's pregnant from consensual sex and not in danger, they should have no choice but to give birth whether they want to or not. As for the adoption system being overcrowded, better overcrowded than dead.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Yep. And this is why I'm no longer a pro-lifer!
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
It's a sad day when something that has every characteristic of a parasite has more reign over a woman's body than she does.
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
I've been having a screaming match with one of the pro life guys for a while. They're against any kind of contraceptive or sex education (they label it as kiddie porn) and they're against unwanted kids having any kind of government benefits or anything like that without really saying who'll pay for those kids.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I probably would have tuned out after they called sex ed "kiddie porn." Yes, knowing how human reproduction works and learning how to prevent unwanted pregnancies/spread of STD's is definitely the same as looking at dirty images of naked children. A+ in Basic Logic 101. I almost want to ask if they're joking/trolling, but knowing from my own experiences with pro-life debates, this person in all likely hood is completely serious and my heart goes out to you for trying to reason with these people.
Although, it seems like a more productive time would be spent discussing modern philosophy with a camel that spits on you every time you pause to take a breath. I know not all people who are pro-life are that delusional, I've actually been able to change a few people's minds on the subject and all it really took was enough facts/evidence and calmly reasoning with them. If they can't offer you the same courtesy, I don't see the point in debating with them at all.
To be fair though, the people whose minds I was able to change knew very little about the subject itself and were pretty on fence about what side to take. It's when you meet the ones with a passion for what seems like an improbable belief that get you stuck in this paradox of kicking water up hill. You can reason all you want with belief, but that doesn't mean they are any more willing to change their mind.
I would be a hypocrite to say that I'm not one of those seemingly irrational believers. I strongly believe that women are more important than fetuses and no matter what evidence may be provided to prove that a fetus can feel pain or "oh my goodness" it has precious little toes and a brain, I'm still not convinced that it has any more right over a woman's body than a tape worm or a tumor.
[holy shit, did I ramble there! Good luck with the pro-life debate and I hope it turns around. If not, abandon ship!]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would agree insofar as it refers to early stages (It is laughable to think that a blastocyst could have rights) But once a rudimentary brain and nervous system has fully formed, until human knowledge of mental development increases, I would be inclined to err on the side of caution and consider the late-stage foetus a person.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I do agree with everything you're stating in this drawing but I wanted to point out that your art style is really cute
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
For my this issue boils down to two truths:
1. Prohibition doesn't work. They will get abortions anyway, so might as well do it in a hospital instead of some back alley area.
2. I am a man and don't have a say in what woman do with their bodies.
Also we do have a scientific definition for life, and a fetis does not qualify. When the fetis does qualify abortions are not legal. No one is killing babies.
If you do not believe in that definition, that is fine, but understand you are in the same camp as global warming deniers and creationists: the anti-science/willfully ignorant camp.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I'd like to know what 'scientific definition' this is. The only one I've ever heard is that the human life starts at conception, when it is a genetically distinct individual. Source, please?
Also, in response to the OP, only about 1% of abortions are carried out because of higher-than-normal danger to the mother.
In addition, the norm at the moment is that mothers are pressured IN to abortions by society, not OUT of them.
I'm not arguing for anti-abortion laws (because of backyard abortions), but I certainly think we are not doing enough to educate EVERYONE (women included), so that abortion is not the 'quick fix' it is seen as now.
On the pic of emotional trauma from pregnancy. post-abortion trauma is a diagnosable psychological condition. Far more, and I mean FAR MORE, women are emotionally scarred by abortions than pregnancies.
If there's domestic abuse involved, the pregnancy is not the source of the problem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
A fetus is not an individual, that's the problem. Sure, life starts at conception, but it's life in the same sense that a potted plant is a life form. Until a body reaches self-awareness, one cannot speak of individuality.
I do agree on education- the best way to get abortion rates down is through sex ed, easily accessible preventatives and a healthy discussion about sex, sexuality and what comes with it.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
The difference between a foetus and a potted plant is that the foetus, conscious or not, is a human life. The potted plant is not.
The foetus is also very definitely an individual. You speak of self-awareness as the determining factor. Would you argue that you are not an individual while you are under anaesthetic, knocked out, or even asleep?
Glad you agree with me on education, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is the potential for a human being. It doesn't have the same functions, or rights, as an individual, fully grown homo sapiens.
That which cannot know itself is not an individual; it's as simple as that. A clump of cells which has not even developed a nervous system is certainly not an individual. The anaesthetic analogy is invalid, because the moment the anasthesia wears off, you are back on your feet, a self-aware human being. The fetus is not.
Quite.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
The anaesthetic analogy IS relevant, because you have the POTENTIAL to wake up. So does the foetus.
Following your logic, someone who is to be under anaesthetic for nine months or longer is no longer a person.
Things, objects, etc, are defined in part by their potential being. In this way we are able to see a tree's value as furniture, for example. In the same way, we are able to see a foetus's value as an individual human being. This is a principle that goes back as far as Aristotle.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It IS irrelevant, because as I said before, you are already a full human being when you enter the anaesthesia, and your waking up is not a matter of potential at all. A mouse has more complexity and autonomy than a fetus.
Not quite, no. Any person going into a coma or anaesthetic is still a person long before it happens, and will continue to be so. He will dream, his brain continuously being active. The same cannot be said for a fetus.
Only in part. A fetus does not have the same rights as a full human being, because it isn't a full human being. The only reason we could possibly see abortion as being immoral is if we assume the fetus is in every way equivalent to the adult it is growing inside of, with every last bit of autonomy, complexity and awareness. This is evidently false.
And by the way, citing tradition and Aristotle won't do you any good. That's an appeal to authority, not a rational argument.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I cited Aristotle to point out that I'm not making up any old argument to support my position.
A mouse may be more complex physically, but it is still NOT A HUMAN THING. It will never be a member of HUMAN society.
Humanity is not defined by any of the things which you have said a foetus lacks.
Perhaps I need to better understand your position on the matter. My question is this:
"At what stage of development does an unborn individual BECOME human, and how do you know this?"
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Sure, but it's not really relevant to the point at hand.
Again, a fetus is only potential. It is not an actual person.
Actually, it is. Humanity is not defined by having a beating heart, it is defined by individuality.
Because one must draw a limit, the limit is by necessity arbitrary. I draw the line at such a point that the fetus could survive outside the mother's womb.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A 'beating heart?'
Therefore those in hospital having their blood pumped for them are not human?
It is a genetically distinct INDIVIDUAL.
Arbitrary limits are just that. How do we know at what point the human life begins? At the moment by far the best time we can easily pinpoint is conception. If someone comes up with a better definition, then I will likely revise my stance.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Or whatever physical trait you'd like to choose to symbolize human physiology.
Again: people in a cometise or likewise state are already people long before. They dream. We've been over this.
No, it is not. Genetically distinct? Yes. Individual? It lacks the mental faculties, so no.
Like I said, the limit must be arbitrary if we do accept that a woman has bodily autonomy. If we are not absolutist, then any limit drawn at any point, about any sub ject, is ultimately arbitrary. What of it?
The bottom of the line is: to remove a cluster of cells which has not even developed a nervous system is hardly murder.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The stage where they can survive outside of the womb. When they can exist outside the body, I will gladly call them a human being. There, you have your answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
So someone on life support is not human?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I had a feeling you would bring that up. No, a fetus and a person on life support are not one in the same. A person on life support doesn't get to take advantage of your body against your will. A person on life support is an entirely separate entity from a woman's body. Just because a person's survival is dependent on other people, doesn't mean they are the equivalent of a fetus any more than they are the equivalent of a cancerous tumor with hands and feet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You know what? I'm out of here. I've already said everything I need to say. Hopefully someone that is undecided on the issue will come across this discussion and make a decision accordingly. It clearly won't be you, so I won't waste my breath any longer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The joke is that you didn't need to say anything. It should have been apparent from the start that I'm not changing my mind on the issue any time soon. I have heard all these same arguments and I still stand by my side of the issue: I'm a stubborn bitch, I guess. I do not believe that a fetus is this helpless, misunderstood person that can't speak up for itself. You may want what's best for the "child," I can absolutely respect that, but what if a fetus actually isn't a child at all? It's a sweet sentiment that a person's a person no matter how small, but yet again, the world is not an ideal place. I could fall in love with the idea that being against abortion means you are against killing children, I really used to believe that, when in reality, no, those aren't kids, not one bit. I honestly think it's you who needs to wrap their mind around the facts and quit clinging to these perfect world ideologies about fetuses being people.
Maybe when the average Joe can start to naturally fuse and grow off of teenage girl's bodies without any need for consent, I might start to buy into a fetus being a person.
I am sorry if I am rude, close-minded and crass as this is a passionate subject I feel towards, and I am sure you are a decent person with respectable morals, but do not tell me that an abortion means the death of children. All that belief does is repeat the ever present self-loathing of women whom chose to go through with having an abortion. By saying that a fetus is a child, that women have abortions as a "quick fix," you are telling women that they thoughtlessly killed their child when they chose to have an abortion. That is something I will not stand for, not for a moment. Women put up with enough guilt tripping bullshit, and this is not something that should be held over women's heads as an evil, wicked deed. I respect women too much for that. I respect women more than I respect fetuses. Fetuses can fuck off.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
;u; Dude, you're like, my hero.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yay, another asshole licker. ~ C
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
As for the, "how do I know this" part, because, well, in my experience as a human being, I do not have the right to attach to your body, feed off you, mutilate you, or murder you against your will. That is how I know I am a person, and a fetus is not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Anything above 0% is enough reason to keep abortion legalized.
"quick fix" Yes, people get pregnant under reckless behavior, and yes, there are women (not all) who don't entirely know what they're getting into when they have an abortion, but a one night stand should not become a life time commitment. Yes, there are women who have abortions and regret it afterwards for many different reasons, there are also many women who have children and regret it afterwards, but that's not considered politically correct to regret having children, so of course you have to grin and bare it and pretend it's absolutely wonderful having children or else you're a horrible human being, apparently.
"far more women are emotionally scarred by abortions than pregnancies" I wonder why that is... could it be because we keep trying to convince women that they are murdering children if they have an abortion? The slut shaming, the guilt we put on women who go through this operation, the common, guilt-ridden statements and questions such as, "You should have kept your legs shut!" "How could you do this?" or the classic, "Why did you murder your child?"
I'm not entirely certain if you live in the U.S. or not, but "the norm" here is to treat this subject like a dirty little secret. I wouldn't force someone into having an abortion any more than I would force them to go through child birth. I agree though, everyone should become more educated about abortion, especially if they are considering going through with it, but I do not believe women should be ashamed for having one, REGARDLESS of the circumstances. I will certainly try to add details later about the dangers and health risks regarding abortion, thank you for bringing that up.
I wrote the description at two in the morning, so I apologize that it is not thorough with establishing the counter arguments. All in all, my point is that abortion is unfortunate, but it shouldn't be shameful. I'm sorry if I'm still not covering all the bases here, as it is a diverse topic, varying under many circumstances, but it should be widely agreed upon that abortion should be kept safe, legal and OPTIONAL.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
| Next =>