Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×



Details

Submitted on
February 28, 2010
Image Size
15.4 KB
Resolution
99×56
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
2,584
Favourites
123 (who?)
Comments
319
Downloads
24

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
×
Pro Choice by AtheosEmanon Pro Choice by AtheosEmanon
Know the difference!!
Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion!

I made this stamp to voice my opinion on this issue.

Many people who are pro-life attempt to demonize those who are pro-choice saying that we are pro-abortion and want people to abort their fetuses. I am pretty sure that no one who is pro-choice is pro abortion, we are for women being able to have the right to choose what she does with her body, we also believe the government should not have any say in the matter when something is such a personal issue.

Pro-lifers love to preach the importance of life and want this to be 100% illegal, this would do nothing but cause more death, the fact of the matter is before abortion was deemed legal, the number of women who died trying to get abortions in back allies and other places outside of hospitals many of them died. On top of this, suicide rates also went up, they were higher because of woman who did not want to have the baby, yet did not know where to go.

Those who pride themselves on being pro-life pride themselves on the wanting to take the rights away from women, a gender who have been the ‘inferior’ species in male dominated societies for thousand of years, now they have the rights to do what they wish to, to their body with the need to seek the permission of their male counterparts as they have had to do in the past. If you want the government to start regulating what is morally right or wrong more than it already does you might as well get ready for a fascist government who will dictate every part of your life. Once you give them the right to dictate and regulate reproduction, everything else goes down hill from there.

I also cannot stand hypocrisy. Some people who are pro life say it is okay if they are raped, incest and certain other situations, so a child born from rape holds less value in your eyes? Either you are for something or against, there can be no middle ground on this issue. Either you are for a women’s right to choose what happens to her body under all circumstances, or you believe she should have no choice in the goings on of her own body.

If you truly care about the child, then sometimes in these situations, abortion may be better. I would much rather one child be aborted, than that same child to be abused through out their entire life because the mother did not want them to begin with. There are cases of mothers actually killing their infants after birth because it was the result of a rape, is that more inhuman in your eyes?

Adoption really; Many pro lifers speak of the mother having the baby and then putting it up for adoption. So, does the feelings of the mother matter less than the child? Many of these women go into deep depressive states, and in some cases have psychotic breaks, as well as harm themselves and in some cases kill themselves as the result of their depression.

But if we must speak of reality for a moment, and talking about the kids; if you want to speak statistics, there are millions of children in the foster care system in the US alone, and unless adopted the state/country is responsible for these kids until they age out of the system, which is not until the age of 21. So if a child is taken from the mother at 1, that means for the next 20 years tax payers are paying for these kids. In a system that is already overburdened with far too many kids and not enough money to take care of these kids. That is billions of dollars a year we spend on these kids, cannot afford to build new facilities that can house these kids, not enough case agents to check up on the kids properly to make sure they are being taken care of properly, that is if they are even lucky enough to be placed in a foster home or with a family.

Now let us speak of a reality if abortion were illegal. In the US alone there are on average 800,000 – 1,000,000 abortions performed per year, let us say that half of these kids are given up for adoption, that is 500,000 new kids put in a system that cannot handle this load this frequently, and these kids must be taken care of for 21 years. So for 21 years for EACH child the tax payers have to pay more and more, on top of a guaranteed 500,000 MORE KIDS being added to the system each year.

According to records on average it cost $40,000 per year per child in the foster care system, so that would be $40,000 x 500,000 per year added to a system that cannot support the work load, that does not have the money to support the kids it already has, yet the pro-lifers want it to handle more, as well as not enough case workers to make sure these new kids are safe when they are placed in a home. Which means these kids may be abused, physically and sexually, as many of the kids in foster care are.

So if you wish to be pro life and speak of the importance of the children, why not also show some of that same care for the kids that are already born. For each mother that is “forced” to have her baby and put it up for adoption, that is a kid who is already born who gets even less support than they already do now. So if you wish to add 500K kids per year to a system that is already working under budget to support the kids it already has, and still take the stance of caring about the kids, maybe you need to evaluate your own choices. Should we take from those who are already born just to save those who will be in a even worst position as it ages in the foster care system.

These are My opinions and reasons that I am pro-choice, I know many will disagree, and I know some may agree, but My opinion and reasons are Mines and Mines alone and does not represent anyone else other than Me.

As always, comments are encouraged, welcomed and appreciated.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconsoulessone12:
soulessone12 Featured By Owner Jul 22, 2014
Wait wait wait there's a pro abortion side as well? How many sides are there in this debate?
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jul 22, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
On the legality side.. two I would imagine. Those that believe it should remain/be legal and those who believe it should be made illegal.

lmao, but I know of no, in general, pro abortion side that advocates all pregnancies should be terminated... would make for an interesting debate between these groups though..
Reply
:iconsoulessone12:
soulessone12 Featured By Owner Jul 22, 2014
Thanks you and yes it will be interesting if there was a three way debate between all the sides
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner Jul 22, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
:thumbsup:
Reply
:iconlookatmylittleponeh:
LookAtMyLittlePoneh Featured By Owner May 18, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
I am a non-American person but I don't understand why people whine about religious rights being taken away. Freedom of speech as I understand it is for everyone and that includes those who do not associate themselves with religion. Should we silence them or censor the atheist/agnostic opinion because they may say any one thing that may disagree with a certain religion? Do they realise how problematic this is on a large scale, when looking at a large country such as my own, Australia or yours, America (I think)? There are so many religious denominations out there so would we have to cater to every one in the country? I bet the common Christian who would've previously whined on about their religion being "attacked" would shut their mouth once they have to give up luxuries such as the consumption of red meat, living a less capitalistic lifestyle, give up comfort, shaving their hair off etc. I think if we give them what we want the media/art in all reality could end up as a blur of incomprehensible words/images because of the mixed censorships. Believe what you want, but not everyone in the world can be forced to think the same thing at the exact same time. Also, religion and politics are not exactly the thing you want to mix, it becomes quite a hairy issue because with all these different belief systems no one will be able to agree on anything.

Anyways those who have a religion don't have to receive cold stares and misunderstandings because they choose not to believe. It's a farce that anyone's religious rights are being taken away, I mean talk to me when Atheism is seen as normal and I am not discriminated against and misunderstood. Then get back to me. Being pro-choice is a pretty recent way of thinking, so of course it is the more discriminated against. People are still too afraid to even think of anything other than pro-life, the opposite view is the emerging social value if anything.
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner May 19, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist

While of course America has a freedom of religion for some people in this country – other groups getting the rights that these religious groups have always had they claim they are being attacked for their religious beliefs.

 

Your understanding of Freedom of Speech is correct.

Asking some people, they would say yes, some people believe unless you are preaching the greatness of Jesus then you should not be included on the national dialog – Yes, I am in America. Well we have to say they have the right to their religious belief and the government cannot attempt to intertwine with religion though personally I do not like that many religions get tax exemption and such but.. that is the law – which I think should be changed but doubt it will.

 

I also agree that not everyone can be forced to believe what they [Christians] believe or any other belief structure.

 

I agree that Religion and Politics are things that should not be mixed.. but sadly in America – on the national stage – the likelihood of someone getting elected without the usual church speeches, without the usual dinners at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner which is a Catholic Dinner thrown where many politicians, priests, archbishops etc meet, give speeches and pretty much every modern president has went to these dinners… to say that you are not religious would make it harder to get elected. Currently America has not one open atheist in congress – congress has 535 members, so in a nation where 2% of people are apparently atheists then you would hope for at least one.. we had one atheist, Pete Stark, but he lost his seat to another Democrat back in 2012…

 

I am an agnostic atheist and often when debating politics, somehow everything leads back to that – especially when I am debating someone who is a conservative – seems my being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc is because I lack morals and that is of course *sarcasm* because I am an atheist.

 

I do not know about it being more recent.. in America at least.. Roe v Wade which legalized abortion happened in 1973 so around 40 years…  when did abortion become legal in your country?

Reply
:iconlookatmylittleponeh:
LookAtMyLittlePoneh Featured By Owner May 19, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
I think it's been legal since the 60s in Australia. But it's threatened now that we have a certain Prime Minister called Tony Abbott. He said and I quote "the scale of abortions is a national tragedy" the guy is a devout roman catholic. It's been like that since the 90s, I mean we've progressed to a level of more liberal attitudes but it's a young country so there is more resistance to new cultures and immigrants (internalised racist attitudes from parents/grandparents) same sex rights, and the majority of people in Australia are baby boomers, so until they all get dementia or something we are probably going to be extremely conservative for the next twenty years, and the young generation (that's me) are seen as whiners for wanting to change it basically. Meanwhile while us young people want to live our lives without being burdening with the possible abortion and denying same sex marriage in the near future the oldies have an unfair monopoly on the government. Since the 60s, we've been walking backwards in time. It's sad and quite negative of me, but it rings true No, I disagree! 
Reply
:iconlookatmylittleponeh:
LookAtMyLittlePoneh Featured By Owner May 19, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
*possible abortion ban
Reply
:iconatheosemanon:
AtheosEmanon Featured By Owner May 19, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
In America abortion, per a February 2014 report hit a 30 year low.. I do not know what is it in your country with respect to is it decreasing or increasing.  But in many nations they show their abortion rates decreasing so I am unsure what your Prime Minister is referring to. Ah, the 1980s in America is when we had the "culture wars" with the Reagan Administration when the religious right coalesced with the Republican party and since the from the Republican party especially things like gay marriage, things like abortion, gay rights in general ... have been focal points of pretty much every election in the last few cycles.

What seems to be needed as you seem to have already diagnosed - the youth must get more involved in the political process.
Reply
:iconlookatmylittleponeh:
LookAtMyLittlePoneh Featured By Owner May 19, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
We have compulsory voting in Australia actually, so of course that would have encouraged young people to vote (there is a considerable fine if you don't) but that last point is imperative.

Also let me give you a history on the baby boomers vs gen x gen y younglings, as this is key in Australia, so is the dynamics between all of us. You see, the system in the baby boomer's young days was actually quite well run. It was also very progressive, especially at the time. Abortion had just been let in as I mentioned, and one of the great policies to be introduced was a free tertiary education system. At the time this was a huge move forward as there was more of a divide between country living vs city living, verging on the level of unfair because country kids were uneducated on a large scale as a result of the fees required for travelling and being at university. They would be forced to work on their parent's farm or find something that didn't require a uni degree in a bigger city elsewhere. Then former prime minster Whitlam implemented a free university policy. Suddenly a lot of country kids with higher ambitions were able to learn at uni. Sounds great right? One of the things that grinds my gears is that Tony Abbott himself was one of these country kids who would've never have learned at uni had the 1970s policy not been passed. Yet he is trying to pass a budget that forces the few free unis left to charge the kids going to uni. And what about all those ambitious kids living in poverty? I guess they can forget it. It's this attitude that young people don't like. So they could have it, but the free education system was for them only? All I can say is, dat sense of entitlement.

Also he claims that young people do not work hard enough and so the way right now to fix this is to pass a very tough bill that takes away basic elements of healthcare, including a great medical insurance company called "Medicare", making people wait for the dole for periods of six months or more, and even then they may still need to do volunteer work in order for it to do validated, cutting disabled pension, cutting pensions, and the list goes on. My personal view is that this bill is harsh, generalises who actually uses these systems, and it could potentially hurt the quality of life of a lot of people. It fails to take into account minimum wage/unemployed uni students with little parental support/poor parents, single mothers and fathers with multiple children living on the dole because they are out of jobs, the Australian job market is quite competitive and the economy does little to help this, people just beginning to live on their own, and the list really goes on about the candidates of people this could affect. It is mainly young people because we are not in stable careers yet but we are stuck because our elders in these jobs are entitled, retire much later, and the rich ones tend to be amazingly stuck up, and they do not understand that they got it easy in life because their job market, conditions and job availability were much better than ours are today, and these budget cuts will not harm the rich and old, so they feel as if they can sit back and tell us we are whiny and that we need the "tough love" doled out by our hypocritical prime minister.
Reply
Add a Comment: