Choice #2 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

cyberelfo says:

Very good! I love it! Remembers me a scene from Amelie Poulain.

(1-2-3)
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Gaudior says:

Touche!
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Extra Medium says:

I'm with you. 1-2-3
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

melinabob00000 says:

that's a good photo.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Dean Forbes says:

yours
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Magalie L'Abbé says:

damn dakota!
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

G-rome says:

What an original way ! body and brain both : sensuality and message.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

Thanks to all for your feedback!
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

antiapathy says:

you think it's bad now, just wait til scalito and co. overturn roe v. wade.

who's up for emigrating to canada?
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Mr Normal [deleted] says:

Yea come on up, we have lots of space up here.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

dooda says:

I don't want to stir anything up here, but if you're interested in some civilized discourse, I have one question about the "it's my body, don't try and tell me what I can do with it" argument. Doesn't it sort of depend on how or when you define that the organism sitting inside you has taken on life? If it is indeed living, or is a human life or whatever, don't things become a little more complicated? Of course it's your body, but the organism that you're affecting isn't necessarily, or is it? I've always sort of wondered this, and asked myself that question when I hear the argument.

BTW, I'm no neo-conservative that wants to ban abortion, it just seems to me like there's a link missing in the discourse.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

dooda: well, i understand what you're saying - do we not have a right to uphold the life and defend the nature of things that cannot defend themselves - an embryo, a fetus, animals, the environment, etc? maybe... but it may all depend on how you define life, or more importantly, human life. the right to choose isn't just a matter of choosing pregnancy or abortion - it's also a matter of being able to choose what you believe in and what is right and wrong. so, it's not just "it's my body, don't try and tell me what I can do with it", it's also "don't tell me how to live my life" or "don't tell me what i should believe in". i support choice because i think each person should have the right to decide what the answer is for them.

also, if i were pregnant, then who else would that "organism" belong to, but me (and whoever else had a hand in creating it)? and don't tell me "god", because that answer won't fly with me. just so ya know. ;)
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

dooda says:

Surely you're merely a host and the organism belongs to itself, similar to your own body belonging to you. But you're right and that's why I said that it gets complicated, defining the starting point of the life of a human being.

I'm not so sure though that it's a matter of telling you what's right or wrong though. I mean if it is a human life we're talking about here, the moral standpoint on whether anyone has the right to take it is pretty clear.

So unless you have a clear and educated opinion on when the starting point of Human life is, ie: after birth as opposed to after conception, I find it difficult to see how anyone can have a firm stance on the issue?

I appreciate you listening, I've always sort of wanted to vocalize my thoughts with someone who was opinionated about this, and wondered how they'd respond.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

imagemkr says:

Excellent picture, and it's nice to see some civil discussion on this topic. I'd like to add my 2 cents as well, if I may.

To quote dooda, "So unless you have a clear and educated opinion on when the starting point of Human life is, ie: after birth as opposed to after conception, I find it difficult to see how anyone can have a firm stance on the issue?".

This, for me, is the backbone of the arguement for choice. No one can say when a fetus becomes a "person". Two cells? Eight cells? Ten thousand cells? This is why each woman should be allowed to make this very personal and difficult choice for herself.

Having a child or an abortion is also a medical decision, and I think most people would agree that allowing the govenment to make medical decisions for us is very very bad.

I think it is also important to say that being pro-choice does not necessarily mean being pro-abortion. I for one would like to see abortions become more rare. That brings us to people who are aginst birth control AND abortion, but that's another issue...
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Gaudior says:

Excellent point, imagemkr.

On a slightly different note, the world is already overpopulated. Yes, plenty of people want to adopt children, but it's an expensive process, often, and people are often choosy (for lack of a better word) about the child they want.

And isn't it less fair to bring a child into the world to parents (or a single parent) who doesn't want him or her, isn't able to care for him or her (emotionally, physically, financially, or all)?

And, yes, pregnancy takes its toll on a womans' body—hey, it's nine months of being an incubator!
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

compumstr says:

I agree gaudior. I think that we aren't doing the rest of the world a favor by forcing people to have children then can't afford to keep and aren't willing to give away due to emotional attachment.

Its not easy to give away a child either despite what the media would have you believe. Its almost as difficult as trying to adopt a child. And there is no guarantee your children won't end up in a foster home with sub-par care that essentially ruins their life and just ads to the ranks of parentless children.
Just my 2 cents.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

wow! first of all, it's great to hear everyone's thoughts - thanks so much for commenting!

everyone makes really great points here. i think the majority of us that have commented so far agree on a lot of issues.

imagemkr - you're absolutely right. there are a hundred different ways to define where human life begins. i have a degree in biology and i'm still saying there are a hundred ways to define it, haha. i say this because there are many things involved other than biology - a person's religion, their personal beliefs, etc. educated or not, it's still a matter of opinion - you can't tell a woman that she doesn't have a right to choose because, biologically there is another life inside her. that still doesn't answer it, if you ask me - personally, i don't view it as a life OF ITS OWN until birth. so, dooda, in response to your statement - if it's dependent on me for life, it's merely an extension of my body and nothing more. it's only a potential for life, as is an egg or sperm cell. if you believe in religion or in having a soul or the influence of a higher power or fate and destiny, you might disagree. but that is for you to decide - and i think everyone should have that right and the right to apply those beliefs to making a choice in what to do with a pregnancy. imagemkr makes a good point - it IS a medical decision afterall.

this leads to the points made by gaudior and compumstr - adoption is made to sound like such a simple solution and it's not. it's not a perfect system, it can be pretty stressful on the children, emotionally (even if they are adopted when they are first born). i'm not saying there aren't great parents out there waiting to adopt a child, but still...i don't think it should be treated as THE solution to an unwanted pregnancy - remember it's not just the child that isn't wanted - i don't think i would ever consider carrying out a pregnancy if i wasn't planning on keeping the child. as compumstr said, it's not that easy to give a child up. there are also issues with medical bills, welfare, etc to consider.

having said all this - when i say i support "choice" i mean a lot of things. i support the right to abortion, the right to plan WHEN you want to have children, to birth control, to emergency contraception, to sex education, etc. and most importantly, the right to choose what you believe is right or wrong.

thanks again everyone for commenting and for keeping it civil. keep them coming!
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

cwoehrl says:

This is quite an interesting and, yes, amazingly civil discussion. I'd say I'm mostly with dooda here, and what strikes me most in pro-choice/pro-life-discussions is: If a woman or a couple claim the right to "choose" after the act of conception, what about before? I'm sure almost nobody in the Western world these days has sex without knowing about possible consequences. So why not simply take precautions in advance? If there's really a difference between homo sapiens and the rest of the fauna, such rational behaviour shouldn't be a problem...
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Gaudior says:

Good point, cwoehrl, and I think you're right that many people, for whatever reasons, don't use birth control. Some don't know how to use it correctly (for instance, reapplication or use of two over the counter methods to increase the chance of protection).

However, many of the more effective birth controls are doctor-prescribed (IUD, the pill) and not covered by insurance (even when the use is medical).

Neither of these account for several instances: when birth control fails (except for abstinence and vasectomy/tubal ligation, none are 100% effective), cases of rape and incest, and medical danger to or problems with the mother or fetus (taking on an unwanted baby is one thing; taking on one that will need special and expensive care—which the state/country may end up paying for—is another).
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

vintagemilano says:

All you people argue about "life" as it refers to an abortion.
The more cruel legal taking of life is when a doctor removes a feeding tube from a patient in a coma. Here is a person, with all their living functions in place (heart beat, breathing) and is basically starved to death, sometimes against the will of the family.
As for the discussion at hand I am pro choice, for a civilization that values freedom, being able to choose is the only option.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Gaudior says:

Actually, that's a very important issue to me—death with dignity. I think it's a personal choice and something that each person needs to think about and put in writing. I know I already have (well, I've done a Power of Attorney for Health Care and discussed it with my family—as they have with me).

When someone is in a persistant vegatative state—their cereberal cortex is dead—they will never wake up, never. They may have some involuntary or reflex movement (and their lower brain functions work—breathing, digestion, etc.), but they are not and will never be who they were. It can be very hard on the family to go on like that. It also costs a lot—much more than the family can afford. In Oregon, we have the Death with Dignity Act, and it's well-written; a doctor can not "force" his or her opinions on a patient.

I wouldn't want to live like that, nor would I want my family to have to deal with it. But, as I've said, I've made my wishes known and taken action. And I guess we all need to be responsible for ourselves in that regard, by communicating our wishes.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

on the subject of birth control - cwoehrl, i totally agree with you on the subject of being responsible and realizing the consequences of your actions. but, first off, we have to admit that people aren't going to stop having sex, even if abstinence is the best form of birth control. i think you may be taking for granted the knowledge you have - you might be surprised at the lack of sex education in some areas in the united states, the fear to talk about it in schools, and the lack of communication between parents and children. i'm not saying that people don't know "how babies are made", i'm saying that people (especially teens) don't feel comfortable talking about it - whether it be while with a partner asking them to use a condom, or whether it be with their parents asking how to obtain birth control.

this brings me to comment on a good point that gaudior made - it can be hard to get some of the most effective forms of birth control - pills or other hormone regulating forms are expensive and often not covered by insurance or very little of the cost is covered by it. many people here don't even have insurance. AND, in many places, pharmacists have the right to refuse women contraception, even if they have a prescription.

in response to vintagemilano, all i have to say is...we're arguing about life as it refers to abortion because that was the original issue at hand, hence the photo. but, if you want my opinion on the removal of feeding tubes from patients in a coma...well, my sentiments pretty much echo those of gaudior. it's extremely rare (not to mention, illegal) that this is done without the consent of the family.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

dooda says:

Your points are all well put and have helped me understand to a degree where you're coming from on this issue.
I've often thought that something has a right to live when they notably attempt to avoid death. That's' problematic however as the very process of living and growing is avoiding death in a way.

I also think that the point that many aren't well educated, or that birth control is expensive/difficult could in any way be a rationale for birth control. The only rationale can be that the organism is not a life in and of itself. If it is a life in and of itself, I believe that every little issue you all bring up is completely moot, be it growing up in a less than priviledged family, living in a foster home. I think of the existential writings of Victor Fankle, surviving the Holocaust while loving his right to decide his reaction to whatever befalls him, no matter the atrocity. To take that right away from a life is really difficult to justify.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

0ne [deleted] says:

love this pic, jocieposse! interesting discussion, as well. i totally agree with you that while "incubating" a fetus is merely an extension of the host. that answers your last post, dooda - some of us do not believe it is a "life in and of itself". this argument, like most of our problems today, is a theological one. it is not fair to enforce belief or taste upon the public in the form of laws. i personally do not believe in souls - and this is the problem in a nutshell. the person who believes in souls has a completely different idea of what "life" is than me. however, and this is the crux, i'm supposed to be allowed to not believe in souls in this country. but everywhere i turn, i seem to be confronted with someone's religious beliefs or personal tastes infringing upon my freedom.

this ban in south dakota is frightening. i thought it was scary enough when hatred for homosexuals won the last election, but now things are even more terrifying. all i can say is that my body is my own.

another point to make: just like the war on drugs and the fact that prostitution is illegal, we're dealing with supply and demand here, pure and simple. there has always been, and will always be, persons wanting to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancies. always. making a law will never change that. have we forgotten back alley abortions and accidental suicides from the do-it-yourself wire hanger method? they're about to start all over again.

do we not have an obligation to the life that is already here among us? i think a person already existing is far more important than a potential person who cannot yet survive outside the host.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

dooda, i completely agree with you about "the right to life". it is a natural right that nobody can take away from you. this is why i don't believe in the death penalty - when you violate the laws created by society, you are ultimately giving up your right to participate freely in that society and are subject to punishment, but i don't believe society should possess the right to take away life as a form of punishment. the right to life is inalienable.

however, in my opinion - this does not apply to an embryo or fetus when it comes to abortion. it is not a person with a life at this stage. it has no rights.

as One said, the argument is an extension of people's varying theological beliefs (or lack there-of). you can dissect the biological stages of development in a pregnancy, but ultimately it often comes down to what people believe spiritually. i am completely understanding of this, and i allow others their religious beliefs, but as One said - it doesn't seem that many religious folks want to allow dissenters to have their own opinions.

i know the issue is not completely divided among religious and non-religious. i know a lot of religious people that are pro-choice. as i've said before, you can believe abortion is wrong for you, while allowing others to decide for themselves. i really don't understand the desire of some to infringe upon my rights, but that is exactly what is happening. and our country is letting it happen. not to say some of us aren't putting up a fight... ;)
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

dooda says:

Well, I may as well state at this point that I am religious (albeit a liberally minded one I think) as it has come up a couple times, but the question at hand has nothing to do with souls or religion or choice. In regards to this issue, no one is saying "you must have this definition of souls" if you're talking about a human life.

And I guess it's sort of problematic where religion goes, because in regards to this issue, pro-choice generally means taking that choice from someone else.

The fact that it would make abortions go back to the alleys and hangars is a good one though (and scary). I guess the only real solution is education, because the theoretical issues could go on for hours.

I really appreciate this discussion.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

cwoehrl says:

I, too, do appreciate this discussion, because it beautifully demonstrates how there are no easy answers, no obvious linear boundaries between one position and the other.

Thank you Gaudior for hinting at problems of accessibility of reliable methods of birth control - I might live in privileged circumstances compared to other parts of the world. And jocieposse, what you're describing makes me wonder if at least some parts of the USA are closer to third than first world? But you are probably right that in whichever kind of society the urge to have sex often comes before the knowledge about how to avoid consequences.

I'm just opposed to the notion that abortion might be just an option like the others, such as pill or condom; I'd rather see it treated as "illegitimate yet tolerated in extreme cases", such as described by Gaudior.

And no, I wouldn't say that you need to believe in the soul to view a fetus as a life of its own. Either life starts in the exact moment of birth (a definition which brings certain philosophical problems about artificially induced births, I'd think); or it starts at the moment of conception. Every date in between is, in my view, completely arbitrary.

Edited for clarity (I hope) - guess I should have used the dictionary in advance...
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Luke S. says:

None of us would be alive if our mothers had made the "choice" to abort us. Instead we would all look like this:

and this:

Tough choice eh?
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

well, this WAS a civil discussion...enter the 16 year old boy who thinks he knows about the world.

your pictures have no effect on me. they do nothing for the arguments of the "pro-life" movement either, even though they often use images like this for shock value - a tactic used by people when they HAVE NO ARGUMENT. for the most part, these photos are completely irrelevant. the fact is that a fetus is RARELY aborted at this stage of the pregnancy since it's illegal to abort in the 3rd trimester(unless the mother's life is in danger).

you've also missed the point of the discussion entirely - did you even read any of it? abortion IS a tough choice for a woman. nobody wants to have to make that decision, just as nobody wants to have children before they are ready.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

cwoehrl says:

Agreed, jocieposse, here's the moment where discussion becomes pointless. I guess everyone with an informed opinion on this topic is familiar with shocking scenes à la "Silent Scream"; but sadly the world isn't that simple, tempting though it may be to believe otherwise.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

dooda says:

Ah well, it was only a matter of time I guess, but we had a good run at good discussion!
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

just todd says:

always causing trouble. tisk tisk tisk.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

LouisCypher says:

Point well made, with an excellent image to match.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

antiapathy says:

real classy luke. people who use scare tactics like that make baby jesus cry...
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

SPedigrees says:

Love the photo and accompanying sentiment. (Your photo of course, not those posted by 16 yr old Luke.)
Speaking of South Dakota, I think you might enjoy the excerpted news story below, if you have not already read it. It lifted my spirits.

Oglala Sioux Tribe on the South Dakota Abortion Ban
by blackeye1776 Wednesday, Mar. 22, 2006 at 12:34 PM

"To me, it is now a question of sovereignty." President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder, says. "I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction."

and some entries from the forums:

1) Right on, sister!

2) I think that I would not cross a woman named Cecilia Fire Thunder..

3) For those who may be confused about the definition of tribal sovereignty, I hope this clears things up:
Quote: "Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a -- you're a -- you have been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity." --
G.W. Bush, Aug. 2004
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

SPedigrees - I hadn't read about that! That's awesome! I wonder if the state would try to pass legislation for those that live outside the reservation, banning them from going into the reservation to the clinic - in the way that some have tried to make it illegal for people to get abortions out of state. I'm sure they'd try just about anything... Ugh. Thanks for sharing that bit of news!
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

~Kenny says:

Whoa... I wanted to say how cute and original your buddy icon is and stumbled onto a rather heated discussion. OK, was about to speak my mind but I think it's reasonably covered by others.

I would only say Be Kind to others, humans and animals alike! What we need is more Peace and Love on Earth.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Sevenbright Photography / facebook.com/sevenbright says:

Score 7/10 (from the Score Me!
group)

Not bad. The colors could be adjusted a bit. Reset the white balance in your camera to compensate for the tungsten lighting, and the colors might come out more real. It's on the orange side as it is...
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

REDesign01 says:

Score 10/10 (from the Score Me!
group)

I think with all the comments brought out by your photo, it is indeed not the photo you must grade, but the deeper purpose of what emotions can come from a photo... Good for you.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Cassadota says:

Quite a discussion and a good place to get more exposure for it. I'll keep my scoring to the photo. Like the pose/hand, background a little distracting. Color balance a bit too yellow.

Score 7/10 (from the Score
Me!
group)

That being said -- I'm glad you're finding innovative and clearly effective ways to stimulate a discussion that is both urgent in its timliness and social impact.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Heaven`s Gate (John) says:

Score 7/10 (from the Score Me!
I can only rate the photo !
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

MaltLoafer says:

I just don't understand why people get so excited about this issue. You don't get vegetarians filming people going into the meat section of Wal-Mart's and to me the ethics seem roughly the same (I'm not a vegetarian BTW).

As for the photo - an interesting idea and careful (not to say tricky) composition :) but as has been said the colour is a bit too warm even for my tastes and the focus is perhaps a tad soft.

Score 7/10 (from the Score Me!
group)
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

Thanks all for your comments! I know the color is off - I took this when I first got this camera (my first digital) and didn't really know about the settings - apparently the auto white balance is NOT reliable! I kind of liked the funky colors for some reason. Ha, I guess they kind of grew on me after some failed attempts at fixing it. =P I was going for more commercial than natural on this one anyway...it was supposed to catch the eye.

MaltLoafer - you obviously have a penis. ;)
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

spaniel shari says:

Hi Jocie. (Firstly thanks for your helpful suggestion on my photo) Well done - this is a powerful photo and has stimulated a great debate. I think one of the most important points raised was when someone said that abortion is a bit like the war on drugs. It will happen whether we like it or not. The most important thing therefore is harm minimisation, and not to force it underground where it is more likely to be unsafe hygeinically, and open to exploitation. This side-steps the difficult moral issue entirely (I won't get started on that!) and looks at saving lives - ultimately the root of the debate.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

shari, you are totally right. but, i think the hardest part is for people to admit that it's going to happen whether legal or not. just like parents don't want to admit that their kids MIGHT be using drugs or MIGHT be having sex. people will use it's legality to say "well, they shouldn't be doing it anyway because it's illegal" and to try to sweep the issue under the rug. but we've seen that this doesn't work! people still use illegal drugs everywhere. yet our country insists on making that kind of mistake over and over again. denial doesn't make good laws! it's just not responsible law-making.

you make a good point - the morality shouldn't be the issue in a case like this where the person sitting next to you could have an entirely different opinion than you. but first people have to admit that this isn't something that's just going to stop happening if you make it illegal.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

Challenging the church - muahahaha!

This photo is challenging Paul from the pool of Highly Competitive - Flickr's 100 Best - www.flickr.com/groups/best100only. Vote me in!
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Sniper Adams [deleted] says:

The defender's photo is well performed. This one is clever but it lacks the photographic feel about it.

noneof100#1
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

BamaWester says:

While I support your right to make a political statement with your photography and the "message" in your shot, as a photo, it's not really in the same class as the defender.

none of 100#2
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

BamaWester says:

Now, I feel I must make a statement concerning the subject in this thread....and I will be civil, though I disagree with your viewpoint.

I read many of the comments above, but not all, so if I'm repeating something that has already been said, I apologize.

Okay, here goes. One of the things I find interesting in this whole debate is how when a woman "wants" her baby, she says things like, "I'm going to name my baby Sally," or "I hope my baby is a girl." You never hear someone who WANTS a child say, "I hope my fetus (or group of cells or potential life, etc) is a girl."

When a woman wants the child, she knows from day one what's growing inside of her and has dreams for the life of her child. However, when a woman does not want her child, then it's classified in medical terms to take away the human qualities so she doesn't have to feel bad about aborting it.

Also, why is abortion such a tough decision? I'm not being totally flippant here. I say that because if a baby isn't a "real" life until it's born, then what difference does it make what you do to it? I mean, if you have the money for an abortion and you believe that what's inside of you is not human, then what's the big deal? But that's not the case, is it? Most women who have abortions (and I know several) regret their decision later. Because deep down, no matter what the pro-choice folks say, a woman knows that an abortion ends a baby's life...plain and simple. That's why it's a hard decision.

Jocieposse, you said you were a biologist or studied it in school. Do you consider an amoeba (sp?) a living organism? Of course you do, because that's what taught in biology classes. So if a one cell organism is considered alive, then how can you or anyone else possibly use the argument that a baby growing inside you isn't a life? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You blew off those graphic pictures above as pro-life propganda, like the fact that those babies lives didn't matter one ioda. Those are obviously children and yet, you treat them like they were some drawing. Maybe abortions that late are rare, but they happen. Nevertheless, babies that are much less farther along also look very similar to those depicted, albiet smaller.

If your argument is that less developed babies are not as valuable as more developed babies (which you did when you said that most abortions aren't done in the 3rd trimester, therefore it's okay to abort them - though you also said that until a baby is born, it's part of your body, so I can only assume that you don't mind 3rd trimester abortions because to you they aren't babies anyways)......back to my development argument.....if I use the logic you were using, a 10 year old is twice a valuable as a 5 year old. That doesn't seem right, does it? But that's what you said. First and second trimester abortions are okay because the babies don't look like the ones depicted above.

My batteries dying in my laptop, so I'll end this part of my discussion. I'll come back later and answer any responses.

Thanks for hearing me out.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

BamaWester - thanks for your comments and one of the first arguments from the "other side" that I find to be concise and well-stated. I'll try to respond in the same fashion, one issue at a time:

I actually agree with you on the issue of dehumanizing what is growing inside a woman - this definitely has occurred, but I don't think it's "so she doesn't have to feel bad about aborting it" as you said. Originally, this probably began as a way to define a fetus or a baby for making laws pertaining to abortion. From person to person, the classification varies depending on how the woman feels about her pregnancy. Obviously the woman referring to it as a fetus feels differently than the woman who says she is "having a baby". The latter is clearly welcoming the pregnancy and has informed others of the news. Though I agree that it exists, I'm not sure what you think people really gain from the distinction. It's simply a case of two different emotions - one term (fetus) describes it from a medical standpoint, the other (baby) is a social term with emotional connotation. A woman WANTS a "baby", she doesn't want a "fetus". Biologically, it's not a baby yet.

This brings me to my next point - the issue you brought up of what makes a life. First of all, yes I studied biology in school and from a scientific standpoint there exists a distinction in the stages of development in the womb. There is the egg and the sperm - when they join, the product is called an embryo. And sometime later (I believe it is eight weeks later), the embryo becomes the fetus (I think this is when some of the cells differentiate and work together as tissues and begin to form functioning organs). It is considered a fetus until it is born. I will not argue with you that the fetus - at any stage - isn't life. But I WILL argue that this is not A life. Your example, an amoeba, is A life. Yes, it is a single-celled organism, but that is how it is meant to exist and support itself on it's own. An embryo does not exist as a single- or even many-celled organism - it cannot survive this way. So no, abortion does not end a baby's life - it ends fetal development.

Whether or not you consider all this a "baby" might make the decision to abort impossible or hard for you. I can only say this for me personally, but to me it's an issue of potential - this could potentially be the beginning of a family, of a different stage in my life. At this moment I do not feel ready for children - not emotionally, not financially, not in my relationship, etc. I don't have the stability that I'd like to provide for a child. But as I get older, it occurs to me that I might not have future chances at having children (for whatever reason), so if I got pregnant right now, it would be a harder decision for me in that regard than it would have been five years ago. When I say it's never an easy decision to make, it's not necessarily because I think women are torn about giving up a life or a baby (whether they admit it or not). There are a lot of factors that make that decision hard - not just the moral issue of right or wrong.

As for the photos - yeah I blew them off because they ARE propaganda. Images like this are constantly used for shock value. Do YOU know where they came from? Do you even know that they were the result of an abortion? If abortion occurs this late it's usually because the mother's life is in danger. BUT, the possibility exists that it wasn't a medical abortion at all - maybe it was a case of the fetus dying inside the mother and then being surgically removed. It's really not worth arguing about to me, since we don't know.

So, now that we are at the issue of third trimester abortions, I feel it only fair to say that you've completely twisted my words around. Your "logic" doesn't follow mine at all - where did I claim that value of life increases with development - and the point should be made that post-natal development is completely different than pre-natal development - again with the issue of viability and sustainability. The thing to consider when regarding birth, babies, and abortion is at the third trimester, it is medically possible to sustain the life of the fetus. Birth defines the transition of fetus to baby and sometimes babies are born early and kept alive by modern medicine and with the help of technology. It's generally accepted that this can occur successfully once you enter the third trimester of pregnancy. I guess it is partly because of this that they have a legal rule of thumb for when abortions should be performed. I honestly don't know what the reasons for that are.

Ok, I seem to be having some computer issues, too...so this is the end for me. For now... ;)
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

BamWester - as an afterthought (and I have said this before in this thread), I should say that, though I will make the above arguments, I don't necessarily think you are wrong for the way you think/feel. My main point to make about keeping abortion legal is that clearly this issue is not black and white - since many people feel differently and since it is such a personal issue, abortion should not be made illegal. Each person should be free to decide what is right for them, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Andy Marfia says:

It's nice to see a civilized discussion on this topic, and I appreciate photography that's willing to make a political statement. From a purely technical standpoint, the defender is the better photo. However, from a purely technical standpoint, the sky in the defender's shot looks a little too photoshopped to me.

So what the hell...

oneof100#1
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Gaudior says:

BamaWester,

You bring up some good points, which JosiePosse has pointed out.

What struck me, though, is your point about why it would be hard to make the decision to have an abortion. Putting all other arguments aside (life vs. no life, etc.), isn't deciding to do anything to your body difficult and something that needs thought? Heck, even getting ears pierced (well, the first and second, and maybe third holes!) usually requires some thought. Tatoos are similar, I would think.

As someone who's had several surgies, some major and some minor, which were needed and beneficial, it's not an easy decision to make. It's hard to let someone "do" things to your body, even if it's for the best in the end. And other people may have made different choices than I did in regard to surgery (and I'm not talking about plastic surgery; I'm talking about the removal, in one case, of a benign tumor and, in another case, of a major organ).

No, it's not the same thing as a potential baby, but please don't assume that doing or having anything done to one's body is ever easy.

Thanks.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

BamaWester says:

Guadior, we are really talking about two different things. I understand your point and yes, having any kind of procedure would make me nervous, but that is not what anyone means when they talk about abortion being a tough decision...and we both know that.

The reality is that most women have to make the decision on abortion out of fear, stress, bad family or economic circumstances, etc. I truly understand that each of those things is tough to deal with. But THE reason that an abortion is a tough decision is because we all know that an abortion ends the life a baby....no matter what terminology you want to couch it in.

If the abortion didn't happen, what would you have in 9 months? A baby. (Please, no comments about how some babies are born deformed, etc. Yes, that happens, but its a small percentage and really is not germaine to this point).

So regardless of the stage of development, an abortion ends a life....everytime.

As a society, we would never tolerate letting a parent kill a 2 month old baby would we? No, because it's easy to see that it's a life. But because the child forming in the womb doesn't wear cute clothes or coo, it has no value to some.

Basically, it boils down to this: to pro-choicers, the value of an unborn child is determined by one thing and one thing only - does the mother (or other affected parties - because I know that sometimes women are forced or goaded into having an abortion they don't want....but that's never mentioned by the pro-choice crowd)....want the child. If she doesn't, it's a fetus and not human. If she does, it's a wonderful precious life with potential and a future and dreams, etc. That to me is what is so sad.

The women's lib movement in this country has tied made that the most important issue in the movement and how sad that so much propoganda has been produced to convince women that an abortion is somehow tantamount to freedom. Ending the life of an unwanted child = freedom. My heart and soul weeps because of this.

One last point to make here is this. Someone above made the old, oft-used point that some children are unwanted or will grow up poor, without much opportunity, etc. If that is a plausible reason for a child not to exist then let's go to Africa and line up 100 poor starving children and ask how many of them want to die because their lives are so miserable. How many takers do you think there would be? ZERO...you know it and I know it.

I respect everyone's right to feel how ever they want to feel about abortion, but to ask me to respect the right of others to kill human life that they don't want is asking too much.

And yes, I agree that civil discourse on the issue is much appreciated.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

BamaWester - I think the link missing between your arguments and mine is something neither of us can help: a complete inability to see the other side from the opposite point of view. Even if we try to explain and rationalize, we'll never truly understand each other.

When you say "we all know that an abortion ends the life a baby....no matter what terminology you want to couch it in," you're wrong because we don't both define the life of a baby the same way. You're making this statement with your point of view in mind. I just explained to you the difference between "life" and "a life" - the difference of potential (an embryo or fetus) versus actuality (holding a born baby in your arms).

I don't see how you equate "ending the life of an unwanted child" with freedom. It's not that that gives us a sense of freedom - it's having a choice about our lives and bodies. It's about the responsibility involved in raising children in the right condition and at the right time. If you don't believe this is an issue tied to abortion, read about what happened in Romania when the government outlawed abortion:

Children Underground

It's a very real potential problem. It's INCREDIBLY likely that children will grow up poor and/or without much opportunity. Not everyone has parents that will pay for doctor's bills or clothes or food or childcare. If forced to have children, resentment will build among women making these issues more likely. Not everyone can afford to say "oh we'll work something out" when it comes to having a child unplanned.

Again, thanks for keeping this civil and argumentative!
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

lookin glass says:

oneof100#2

Yes...I have the say the power of the statement you've translated into this photo sways my vote to the challanger. A very emotional shot...and as I've said before, people judge shots based on technical, lighting, design...and the emotional impact. I guess when a shot hits me right between the eyes...well I gotta go with it.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

seanhfoto says:

A powerful statement that I agree with, but as far as technical skill it could have been done better, sorry.
noneof100#2
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

gdiazdeleon says:

I'm afraid of bearded men...and I'm pro choice...and of course, dislike XIX century bizantine discussions...so, in the photo subject I may say I like a lot this one, though not so technical and blah, but I believe we sometimes must say what we believe in the media we are able to mannage!!!

oneof100#3
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Le Jhe says:

I like the political statement in the picture, but I wasn't stunned as when I saw the defender's one. It's a good shot thou, but you aren't in the same category. I'll stay for the perspective and angle. That's probably the only time the church overcomes my political opinion, but:

noneof100#3
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Gaudior says:

Women have been finding ways to not have children they don't want (for any number of reasons) probably for many thousands of years (no, I have no anthropological evidence to back this up). They will still have abortions even if they are made illegal. Illegal abortions run higher risks of death to the woman, damage (so she could never have children) or other types of internal damage, illness, contamination, and extortion (I'm sure that there are still plenty of people out there would would take a ton of money from a desperate woman). By advocating that we take this safe, legal choice away, people are also indirectly advocating death and disfigurement to women who don't want a child.

If we can find ways to take care of all the children (and adults) in our overpopulated world, great. At least in part.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Arwenface says:

very good picture. I've heard of what happened, and I think it's ridiculous for them to pass a law like that. I am not 100% pro choice, nor am I 100% pro life, but I believe no law should restrict the choices women make about their bodies. It's a life-altering decision, and I don't think the people who pass these stupid laws realize that. by passing these laws, they are increasing the risk of girls getting unsafe abortins, having children that that they don't want and will dispose of, etc.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

Exactly, Gaudior! As I mentioned before, it's just completely irresponsible for lawmakers to think that banning abortion will end it.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

BamaWester says:

Guadior....people have been stealing for as long as there have been people....does that mean we shouldn't have laws against it? That is a non-argument to me. I mean, really, people will do it anyway, so let's don't outlaw it. I'm sure all the murderers and rapists out there would love to adopt that philosophy.

I understand where you're coming from and as you can imagine, I've had many, many conversations/debates about abortion and as I've stated, to me it's simply boils down to want or don't want...regardless of the circumstances that created the decision.

To pro-choicers, the baby growing inside of the mother has no intrinsic value other than what the woman places on it. Again, as I've pointed out, if a woman wants her child, she calls it her baby, gives it a name, has plans and dreams for her child....all before it is born or looks like a cute and cuddly infant.

However, if she doesn't want it, it's a "fetus" or "group of cells" or "potential life." Doesn't anyone see how wrong this is? I mean that's what it boils down to, the life situation, emotional state or desire for a child determines the life or death sentence for a baby that has never done anything wrong to anyone.

For those of you who believe in God (and I think it's obvious that I do, though I've not made any arguments heretofore based upon that belief) what do you think God would say to you if you asked Him if abortion was right or wrong? I'm sorry, but I don't see a God who said that He knew you before you were born saying, "I don't care one way or the other. You decide."

I know some children are born into awful situations, but who are we to decide if the should live or die. Like I stated above, if you took 100 kids from the worst, poverty stricken places on Earth and asked them if they wanted to live or die, how many would opt for death? NONE.

As for whether or not banning abortion will end it, well, it proabably wouldn't, but it would darn sure reduce the numbers a great deal because people would have to think long and hard about the consequences of their behavior.

Besides, to me, abortion is killing an unborn child. If we reduce the number of killed unborn children a year from 1.5 million +/- to anything lower than that number, then we have done a good thing.

Again, thanks for hearing me out.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

acastellano says:

Wow, if I were to judge this picture based on the quantity and quality commentary that it generated, it would be a top 100 for sure. I have to say that I am impressed by the thoughtfulness and civility of those arguing both sides of the issue. In fact, it seems to trivial in comparison to say "I like this photo or that one better than the other." But, trivial or not, here's the vote: to be top100 I think the picture needs to have meaning and be visually superior, so I go with the defender. Thanks for posting though.

noneof100#4
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

(Rimbaudian) says:

I'm pro choice and I really enjoyed reading the interesting and civil discussion above. For what concerns voting, though, acastellano said it for me.

noneof100#5
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

BamaWester - I think you've make some completely irrelevant comparisons. Stealing and illegal abortions are not comparable crimes. Stealing has always been considered illegal and unjust. The right to choose is up in the air (obviously) in terms of just, but it's something that IS legal - when you are faced with the chances that a valuable right could be taken away - it's something completely different. The consequences of making abortion illegal are also completely different. Yeah, people steal regardless of it's legality - but this only affects them in terms of what unfavorable consequence they will suffer. If abortion is made illegal and it happens anyway - and it will (with practices that are unsafe and unregulated), people will get hurt. People that are already living, breathing, have friends and families. People that are already citizens of this country and deserve to be protected. Their rights come first.

You also compare the life of people here to those in the poorest of countries where they are starving. Well, that is their daily life, no matter how miserable it may seem to us - people here are starving, too. Families that have too many children and can't afford to feed them! Most people that are already alive and willing don't want to die. Might you wonder if we were to ask the ADULTS of these impoverished places if they would control their births if they could? Think about that.

I know you come from the point of view that says "shouldn't somebody stand up for these living things that can't speak out for themselves?" Well, I disagree. It's a fetus. It's life, not A life. It doesn't have a will to live, but I do. My life, my body, my choice.

I'd really be interested in where you get your data from - your 1.5 million babies a year...? Yeah, we really need that many more people in this world.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

SPedigrees says:

Jocieposse, you are as articulate as you are artistic! There is very little that anyone could add to your pro-choice dissertations.

I'll just insert one personal observation and a couple historical notes.

First, there are very few persons who hold a genuine pro-life view. Only those persons who argue as passionately against capital punishment as they do against abortion deserve the pro-life moniker. All others are anti-choice.

Second, the first anti-abortion legislation was passed centuries ago in England for the express purpose of protecting women from the high mortality risk associated with this procedure in the days before the existence of sterile surgical conditions and antibiotics. At that time in history, the beginning of life was defined as when "born and brought forth."
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

dooda says:

Jocie, your comment about needing that many more people in the world is kind of gross to me.

Also, I'm curious about your comment that a fetus has no will to live. Does something magical happen as soon as it leaves the womb, that it suddenly has a will to live? Then you state that you have a will to live, and a right to choose etc, as if the fetus's proposed right infringes on your(if I understand you correctly) right to live and choose.

The debate can be really interesting. First, there's no way of truly showing if a fetus has a will to live. In fact I'd gather to say that it probably does have a will to live, otherwise it would probably stop living.

SPdegrees, your comment makes little sense to me (regarding monikers), and what was passed centuries ago does not support or debunk either side. We live in a completely different world.

I also think that justifying abortion because people will continue to do it is a copout. Making it illegal would force society to create methods of prevention. Historically we've always managed to come up with solutions to problems. Maintaining it's legality is saying that we simply aren't capable of creating a solution to the debate.

Of course, to me it all comes down to where the life suddenly has a will to live, and whether or not it can manifest the will or not. Because that's pretty much impossible to decipher, I find that I lean against abortion. It's tricky though, and I sympathize with both sides.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

SPedigrees: Ha, I respond terribly to compliments, but that's very kind of you, so I will simply say thanks! And you're right, I don't buy the pro-life group taking the moral high ground on the issue of choice when the majority of them (from my experience) also believe in capitol punishment. It doesn't make sense to me. I hate to stereotype and generalize, but it's almost always the case. At any rate, I think the moral issues involved in abortion are personal - not governmental.

Dooda: Following with that statement - my comment about not needing more people in the world isn't gross it all - as a society we can't even take care of the ones we have. That's what I meant by that.

As for the will to live issue - a fetus doesn't keep living and growing because of a will to live. That's silly. It's a biological impetus, not something metaphysical. It's also not infringing on my rights as you said, that would be the laws made by the government if they move to ban abortion. And no, I don't think that something magical at birth happens regarding a will to live. But as a governed society, we consider people "people" at birth - they are given a social security number, citizenship, future voting rights, etc. So, I think the responsibility of the government is to make laws with "people" in mind, not with potential people. That's what I mean by taking care of the ones we have. The morality of abortion is personal AND debatable. The government should not interfere with this. They should make laws to keep the practice safe for our citizens AND they should do a better job of helping people help themselves - we have people starving in our own country, we have people unemployed yet our government allows manufacturers to underpay people to work in sweatshops overseas, we have people on welfare, people that can't afford health care. So, in reponse to your statement, "Historically we've always managed to come up with solutions to problems. Maintaining it's legality is saying that we simply aren't capable of creating a solution to the debate." - At the moment, we DON'T have a solution and the government should admit it.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

dooda says:

Of course we don't have a solution, but a solution is out there. There's always a solution. Nevermind the government, I don't think it necessarily has to be them that comes up with it, but abortion's legality only allows a potential solution to stay hidden, and this moral debate to wear on.

I guess I'm silly, but I see no proof that a fetus has no will to live. Does it feel pain? Would it attempt to get away from pain if it could? Do you know this?

Your definition of people fails to convince me as well. Bureaucratic functions simply arise from societies' inability to control it's number, and has nothing to do with how we define a person, and when ultimately a person has a will to live.

Ideally we'd have a solution where this moral debate didn't take place, and people didn't have to wonder if they killed someone, or simply discharged matter. I don't see how you could ever rationalize knowing wheter or not it has a will to live.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

"There's always a solution." This is what people say that can afford to say it. I have no idea what your socioeconomic status is or what kind of family you come from, but some people have no money and no relatives to lean on for support. It might be hard for people that have these things to understand those that don't. What's a single mother to do without family to help her? She gets on welfare and can't get off because who takes care of the baby? She has no money for child care and can't get a job without someone to take care of the child. She's trapped. That doesn't sound like a solution to me.

I suppose you'll argue adoption as the next solution - one obviously invented by a man. Personally, I don't know many women who would go through with a pregnancy and then give up the child. That's quite a physical and emotional feat - particularly if the pregancy wasn't justly acquired (rape, abuse, etc).

A fetus doesn't feel pain until about halfway through a pregnancy (20 weeks) - and how can you beg the question "would it get away from pain if it could?" It can't, so what's the point of wondering? Once again, that's silly.

Bureaucratic functions have everything to do with how we define a person when it comes to making laws, in my opinion. You can't govern life before birth (though people are definitely trying to - case in point, Scott Peterson being charged with two murders instead of one). How would you even do that??? Do you give a fetus a SSN at conception and count it as one more member of a population? My point of defining a "person" was only for the purpose of determining government involvement in people's lives. A "person" can be different things to different people, which is why I don't think the government should interfere with a woman's decision about her pregnancy.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Fahara says:

Another comment at this point is probably meaningless, but I so support you and your statement. I have posted with your pic on my blog Would You Dance? I hope that's ok!
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

dooda says:

The point of wondering about whether or not it feels pain and whether or not it avoids it, refers to it's will to live, and our inability to detect that will. You can't run a test by poking and if it tried to get away, then it has a will obviously. You still haven't proven that a fetus has no will to live. Every time you don't understand my point you say it's silly...It's annoying.

And I agree, gov't shouldn't be interfering with anyone's decision with their personal lives, until the decision affects another, who displays an independent will to live. I don't know the answer, and it's obviously problematic as clearly shown in this thread.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

dooda says:

I just visited the top of this thread and we're running circles, sorry. It comes down to where the life takes on the value of human life. I'd almost gather to say that if you could prove that it has no will to live, than that might be a point, but I don't think you can (of course I'm usually wrong when I say that).
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Beppie K says:

Well, I'll add my opinion, since I can't seem to stay away from these sorts of things. :)

I am pro-choice. I think it's a bit hard to argue that no element of human life begins before birth-- as has already been pointed out in this discussion, it's difficult to pin-point any one moment at which something with the relevant number of chromosomes becomes "human." What I think this discussion is really about is "when do human rights begin?" Generally, in my experience of western countries (not meaning to exclude others, but I simply don't have the experience to speak for anywhere else) we consider human rights to include life, but also other things like personal freedom, and the right to have a private life to the extent that our private life doesn't infringe upon the autonomy of another.

In abortion debates, people in the pro-life camp seem to feel that the rights of the embryo/fetus are infringed upon when a woman decides to have an abortion. However, once you say that this is a matter of public concern, the pregnant woman's body, and indeed even the potentially pregnant woman's body becomes a public, rather than a private affair, thus denying her personal freedom for the sake of a fetus that has absolutely no autonomy in any sense-- it can't even eat and breathe without being physically attatched to another living body. Essentially, it's saying that the woman's human rights as an autonomous self-breathing self-feeding human being are less important than the rights of something that has absolutely no independent existence, and therefore CAN'T have the rights of freedom and privacy that people have once they are born.

I am aware that no-one is completely autonomous-- we all need other people to a certain degree, and some people are dependant on machines etc, newborn babies must have someone to feed them. But in none of these cases does dependence require physical attachment to another person-- therefore there IS a degree of autonomy there. A newborn may need to be fed, but it doesn't need to be the mother who feeds it, etc.

Personally, I am much more comfortable with the idea that while I was in gestation, my mother had the right to terminate my existence (just, indeed, as she would have had the right not to have sex the night that I was conceived, which also would have resulted in me not being born), than I am with the idea that my body as a fertile woman belongs to the public sphere.

Also regarding the argument about people choosing names for their children before birth, referring to them as their "baby" etc-- I'd like to point out that this also occurs before CONCEPTION in a lot of cases. If this argument is to hold any water, it must insist that the moment that a person WANTS a child, and thinks of that potential child lovingly, (a) they must have some obligation to bring it into existence, and (b) other people who DON'T want a child must also bring other children into existence because of the possibility that they could conceptualise having a child.

Oh yeah... great photo btw. :)
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

Fahara, Dooda, and Beppie - thank you all for your comments!

Fahara: I absolutely don't mind - I'm glad you like the photo! =)

Dooda: I'm trying my darndest not to be mean - it's not that I don't understand your arguments - I just think there's no point to them. The "will to live" is an intangible concept, but it is one that is learned rather than inherent, if you ask me. A fetus has no concept of this, so how can you propose that it has a will to live? Babies don't even have this, which is why they need to be taken care of so attentively - because they physically can't and they have no concept of taking care of ones self. They learn this over time. I can't prove that a fetus doesn't have one for sure and you can't prove that it does, so what's the point of dwelling on it? It's just plain silly. My only point in bringing that up was to point out that I am a willing and living member of society - above a fetus, above all potential children. I have rights that it doesn't and that's how it should be. As someone already alive and a member of this society, MY rights come first. Read what Beppie has to say - she makes a good case for this.

Beppie: Well said, girl! I agree whole-heartedly on the subject of autonomy and the right to a private life. This is what I've been trying to say - it's simply NOT the job of the government to make moral, PRIVATE decisions for me. It's the job of the government to protect its citizens and keep medical practices safe.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

pigeotto [deleted] says:

This pic would be great for a billboard! Very strong and meaningful.

As for the abortion issue. Both sides have really good arguments, and faults. Generally speaking, whether you're religious or not, killing babies is usually a bad thing. Even without gov't or religion to impose rules, I think "no killing" is one of those universal morals. That's why I think North Dakota made the law. The law means well, it benefits more than it hurts. But a mother should also have a say over her own body. I like to think though, that the father should have a say in the baby's life too. I believe the father should be 50% of the decision. I would be devastated if the girl I love legally killed my baby. I wouldn't be surprised if it happens all the time, and the guy doesn't know.

I can understand abortion in cases of rape and medical reasons, but if it's just irresponsibilty, or because you don't want it getting in the way of your club hoppin' party life, I won't have pity. Perhaps the baby will be better off than growing up with a horrible mother who didn't want it, but still... there is always adoption, and abstinence! People are afraid this controlling law will lead to Orwell's 1984, while others are afraid killing fetuses will lead to killing already born babies. Give an inch, people and gov't will try to take a mile, that's natural. Both sides mean well, I'll give it that. The answer, at least for now, is checks and balances.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Beppie K says:

Pigeotto, I think the problem with the argument that the father should have a say is that it's not the father whose body is sustaining the fetus, and there are a whole number of ways that this could be exploited. For instance, what if the woman wanted an abortion, but she was in an abusive relationship with a guy who was well respected in the local community? Similarly, what if a woman was raped by a man but didn't feel able to speak out about it (a very common situation), and he forced her to carry the child? What if a man who had no intention of raising the child forced a woman not to have an abortion out of spite? What if pro-life men suddenly started claiming to be the fathers whenever a woman went for an abortion, forcing a paternity test that meant that the abortion was delayed and unable to occur because the woman's pregnancy becomes too far along in the interim?

Certainly, if there is a couple in a good, supportive relationship (though its also true that seemly good, supportive relationships often become less so when an unplanned pregnancy comes into play), I think that it is ethical for the woman to consult her partner before seeking an abortion, but the fact is that decisions like this CAN'T be 50/50-- someone needs to have the deciding vote, and it only makes sense that this is in the hands of the mother, and that is the case whether her partner is supportive or not.

Another thing, regarding what you said about having no sympathy for people who get abortions due to irresponsibilty and party hopping-- firstly, if someone is too irresponsible to have safer sex, then how do you figure they are responsible enough for a baby? Secondly, the party hopping is a total stereotype-- as a matter of fact, a lot of women seeking abortions already have a number of kids, and don't feel capable of being fair to yet another. Or they might choose to do so because their partner doesn't want to bring up a child. Or, as I said before, they may do so because they have an abusive partner. You can't simplify these these things.

As far as "both sides mean well," I think there has to be some recognition that there are some very powerful people on the pro-life side who don't mean well at all. I have been to the websites of pro-life feminists and some pro-life Christian sites which DO seem to have genuine respect for a woman's body, and put forward very cogent arguments, that make me believe that they have women's best interests-- and indeed a deep respect for our personal liberty--at heart even if I disagree with them as to what those best interests and liberties are. HOWEVER, it is unfortunately the case that the most influential people in the pro-life movement also want to restrict women's access to birth control based on pseudo-scientific arguments that have the barest relationship to fact. This makes me think that what these people really want is to restrict women from having any reproductive control at all, because, let's face it, reproductive control helps women out a whole lot on the personal liberty front.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

dooda says:

Well, like it or not religion tends to come into play, and many people believe that a life or body is a single personage, or creation from a higher power. This obviously complicates things as it changes the terms of the debate.

Jocie, I think you're misunderstanding me, my debate isn't necessarily pro-life, it's about the complications of being pro-choice, when there are so many factors that you just don't know. And 'will to live' as a concept that is learned? I beg to differ on that. Honestly, every animal on earth is born with a desire to live on. Horses run within hours of being born, babies, though not being able to care for themselves, still have a will to live. Caring for yourself is perhaps a concept learned, a very complicated one, but not having a 'will'.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

pigeotto [deleted] says:

Yes, it's the mother who is sustaining the fetus, and if the father had a say, it could be exploited. But it can be exploited when only the mother has a say too. That fetus belongs to both the mom and dad. With that reasoning, you're saying that because the dad works all day and mom feeds the baby gerber food, it's still all hers even after birth. If situations like an abusive or deadbeat father come into play, then that is what courts are for. If a woman is afraid to report a rape or failed relationship, well, I'm not sure about that. If something like a(n) (un)planned breakup occurs, or some type of spite, that's part of being in a relationship. You can't predict stuff like that all the time. If you don't trust your relationship, it's not a relationsip. Again, a court, with the help of psychologists, could decide how much weight the father's opinion has by evaluating the relationship, who is the bad guy, good guy, etc. But I can understand your concern then, a woman carrying a baby only because of the father, would seem wrong for both the baby and mom. Unless custody went to the dad, and he was a really great guy, and saving his child from a bad mother.

People who don't want babies just shouldn't get pregnant. But yeah, it's not as simple as that. My example of those types may be a stereotype, but I see it all the time. You're right, there are others who don't want a new baby, such as family that already has kids. But killing it? Like the way we control the white tail deer population? Or the runt of a cat's litter?

I'm one of those people who hates seeing a pregnant woman smoking. I think they should be fined and slapped with child endangerment on their record. Maybe you can base some of my thoughts on that, or maybe that makes no sense. I dunno. :p

I'm not claiming to be on either side, just trying to think of various situations and variables like you all. I just think there's gotta be a better solution than killing the baby...
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

hey all,

i didn't want you to think i was neglecting the discussion - i'm out of town on business right now, but i will respond to everyone when i get home in a few days. thanks for your comments!

*jocie
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

andertho says:

I must say I would never force my spiritual beliefs on another unsolicited.

Unless, of course, they did so to me first.

Therefore...

This picture is the most perfect visualization imaginable of the following quote from Blessed Teresa of Calcutta:

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

dooda says:

Andertho,

I sort of agree, but the word child is problematic. Many believe that it isn't a child.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

0ne [deleted] says:

i won't repeat myself, and everything i posted 2 months ago i still stand behind.

what i would like to say now is, this matter of abortion is a PERSONAL one for the pregnant woman. the government dictating my personal life is wrong. the religious beliefs of others dictating my life is wrong. i do not seek to make anyone do anything, because i have a full, rich, interesting life. i do not wish to control the life of anyone else. however, religion is all about control, the US government, leaning right and religious, is all about control. it boils down to this: those with no lives of their own will try to control yours. this is why gay marriage is not legal. why does ANYONE care what I do with MY BODY? i've made it abundantly clear that i do not see a fetus as a person. this issue is about controlling the lives of women, and it's wrong any way you look at it. where will it end if this is where it begins? strip women of their rights to their own bodies and i tell you where we're headed: first the gays, then the jews, then those with brown skin all get carted off for conditioning or elimination. think i'm a little extreme? think again. this is all about control, and i'm a bit tired of men and their gods trying to control what i say and what i do. those that cannot lead their own lives try to lead yours for you. it's all bullshit, it's all ridiculous. don't like abortion? then don't have one. but stay out of my life and stay away from my body.

i tried being civil. i've seen the same argument put forth here over and over and jocie said it best when she stated that we will never understand each other. the key difference here is those on my side of the fence are not trying to tell those on the other side how to live their lives and what they can or cannot do with their bodies. i will never understand most people's belief in some fairy in the sky, but i'm not out there with atheist pamphlets trying to convince everyone otherwise. I HAVE A LIFE. i am too busy running my own life to give a damn about how you run yours.

george carlin said it best: "ever notice that those people opposed to abortion are people you would never fuck in the first place?"

i am behind jocieposse, gaudior, SPedigrees, and beppie K, and it's frustrating as hell that their opinions have been sumarily ignored by those still driving to control, control, control. please look to what you're lacking in your own lives that you're so interested in controlling the lives of others.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

pigeotto [deleted] says:

It's not about controlling women, it's about not killing babies. You can make up your own definition of what constitutes a living baby all you want, you're still ending it's life, because all the necessary egg and sperm cells were there, fused, and growing. What do you expect it to grow into?

I'm pretty sure even in Anarchy, you'd be pretty angry if someone you loved got killed. Maybe seek revenge? Thats why I think no killing is a pretty good "universal" rule, written or not, and I'm an atheist too. So enough with this "You can't control me!" stuff, it's not about that. Now if the gov't was mandating who CAN have babies, then I'd agree with you. That's the whole point in life, millions of years of animals having babies can't be wrong.

I just know my own mother aborted one of my siblings, and wanted to abort me too, but Gram talked her out of it. Am I supposed to love my mom knowing she wanted to kill me, just like she killed my sibling? For the same reason, I have trouble respecting any other women who HAD the choice to not get pregnant in the first place. That's where I'm coming from. Not saying I'm right, but I think I am, just like you feel you are, which is completey understandable given different circumstances in our lives. And I'm done. This is a picture site. :)
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

dooda says:

One, it appears that you haven't made the slightest attempt to understand a single argument here. Many people that are pro-life aren't the religious fanatics as you seem to suggest. They simply believe a fetus to be a person that deserves protection. I'd also ask where any opinion has been "summarily ignored". You clearly enjoy making shit up to support your crude views.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

whew! i have a lot of catching up to do... i may have to split this up. best to start from the beginning, i guess.

pigeotto: i agree with you - as would most - that we tend to operate on a "no killing" policy in society. everyone basically agrees that murder is wrong. but the problem lies in the definition of murder, which relies on the definition of a person or human life. many people believe that having an abortion is NOT murder nor killing. even more than that consider themselves to be pro-CHOICE (not pro-ABORTION) - this means that no matter what they think, the choice should be up to each individual and/or couple.

speaking of the issue of couples - i don't know how you could possibly say a man has half the say in the matter. he says "have the baby", she wants an abortion. where does that get you? if she wants one, she wants one and she'll get it. 50/50 would get you nowhere in terms of legal rights. as beppie said, it just can't be that way - someone has to decide and obviously that would be the woman, who is carrying the child.

and yes, as beppie also stated, the party girl abortion abuser is a total stereotype. i'm not saying these types of people don't exist, but that's rarely the norm. irresponsibility is definitely obnoxious but, it's also not your problem. odds are it'll be more of your problem if these people HAVE their babies. those are YOUR tax dollars contributing to welfare. anyway, i can't tell you how many people i've known that have gotten pregnant despite the fact that they were on birth control or taking other precautions. things happen. don't tell me abstinence is the best policy - that's just ignorant and unrealistic.

dooda: religion comes into play for each person's decisions in this matter, but they shouldn't come into play with the laws associated with abortion.

you're confusing "will to live" with other things, like instinct and factors that contribute to natural selection. animals don't reason with themselves that they must live. they only know to do what comes by instinct. horses run hours after being born because they are urged to stand up by their mothers - they LEARN to keep away from prey, wild cats must be taught to hunt by their mothers. these are all things that are partly genetic programming (instinct) and partly learned processes. they don't rationalize these actions. they don't decide/will to do them.

ok, loooong day of traveling. i'll continue address the other comments tomorrow!
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

0ne [deleted] says:

dooda: i totally understand your point of view. you think a fetus is a life. an opinion with it's roots firmly planted in religious belief. you sumarily ignored, again, that i do not consider a fetus a life - an opinion firmly planted in science (as jocie has described again and again). thanks for proving me right. i don't see anything in my statement that's made up, so again, you're just being silly. you silly, silly man.

if men could get pregnant, there would be no argument. and i'd go so far as to say, if men could get pregnant, you could get an abortion at mcdonald's.

pigetto: you're supposed to love your mom if she was a good mom. if you choose to withhold love because she chose to have an abortion, well, that's your choice.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

andertho says:

Really, I guess I am a little disappointed that my Mother Teresa quote did not engender more discussion.

I say that because of the amount of personal anguish that ensued when this photo challenged my "Paul" shot on "flickr's Best".

I figure turnabout is fair play.

Let's try again, shall we?

Here goes...

This photo is perhaps the MOST PERFECT PHOTO EVER THAT SUPPORTS THOSE WHO OPPOSE ABORTION!

What do I mean?

Well, I suspect that the author of this photo meant for it to convey a message something like this:

"MINE! This is my body, and no government or court has a right to tell me what to do with it it. MINE!"

However, I think the author has instead unintentionally conveyed a message that profoundly supports the anti-abortion movemeent:

"MINE!! This is my body, and no unborn child that has found purchase in my womb has any right to it. MINE!"

I cannot imagine a more selfish expression, nor could I imagine an image that more perfectly conveys the Pro-Life message and more clearly expresses the moral bankruptcy of the Pro-Abortion message.

"MINE".

Well yes it is. And that little child be damned.

Well done!
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

andertho, i've been out of town. i'm responding to the comments in the order that they were posted, so i'll get to you!

pigeotto: just wanted to touch on one point you made in the second comment about seeing a pregnant woman smoking. i agree that it's not right - it's been proven to harm the fetus, but it's still her choice and her business.

andertho: your quote from mother teresa means nothing to me. you are wrong to assume that people want abortions because a pregnancy interferes with their life. i'm sure that is the case for some, but for many it's an issue of what kind of life the CHILD would have. if you are not ready to have a baby emotionally and/or financially, or if you're in a bad or unstable relationship - what kind of life would the child have? the decision is not just about MY life.

one: i have mixed views on religion - it can be fine on a personal level. i don't care what people believe. and, as a child i attended a very open and liberal church which - though i don't believe in god and quickly outgrew the church as an adult - i have nothing but good things to say about. however, you're right - a lot of churches promote a sense of control and judgement over people. this absolutely exists in our government today and honestly, i'm not sure why. i don't know why they care what people do in their own homes on their own time in their own bedrooms. i don't know why they care so deeply about the decisions we make about our bodies and our families. if this judgement is tied into their religious or personal beliefs - and obviously it is - it doesn't belong in the laws of our nation.

i find it pretty ironic that the very people that boast the strongest feelings of patriotism and pride in the freedom our country provides (rednecks and republicans with their red white and blue bumper stickers) are the ones that want to restrict the freedom of others that don't agree with them. why? i don't know. but either way you slice it, it's control and/or pushing a religious agenda. you're absolutely right, christine.

pigeotto: christine/one says it's about control - what she means is essentially "why do you care what i do?" or "why do you want to take my decision away?" you say you care about not killing babies. i can argue with you all i want about what constitutes a "baby" (and i will - and have above - just for the sake of arguing, haha). but that isn't the point. as you say, even in anarchy someone would be angry if a loved one were killed. but given the state of anarchy, you'd have to accept that. it's natural to be angry, but you can't control what other people do. sometimes people do things you don't like or don't agree with, but that's life. so, why do you care what i do in my life? why would you care if i were pregnant and chose to have an abortion? you referenced the connection between love, killing, and anger - do you love all the fetuses of the world? is that why you care? i understand that you have personal issues with abortion, but that's YOUR business. that doesn't mean that everyone has to abide by your opinions on the matter. i appreciate that you shared that, by the way - because it does help me understand your view. and it proves the point that everyone has different experiences in life and therefore different opinions. but that doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong.

does it scare you, as a man, that a woman might have the power to take a potential child away because of this right we have? is that why there are so many more adamantly pro-life men than women? because you're scared that we hold the key to something powerful and you don't? the need to control stems from fear.

one: "if men could get pregnant, you could get an abortion at mcdonald's." HAHAHAHAHA. ha, it's so true. you rule.

andertho: back to you again. oh gosh, i'm so sorry you suffered personal anguish, haha. cry me a river.

you're absolutely right about the first quote. that is what i'm trying to say. the second quote, however is just putting words in my mouth. not a very good way to stand up in an argument. nice try, though. also, you make the same mistake that many pro-lifers make. it's not about being pro-abortion. i don't think every pregnant woman should run out and get an abortion. it's about being pro-choice. every woman should decide for herself if this is the right time to have a child.

ps, i thought your "paul" photo was boring as hell.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

andertho says:

"if you are not ready to have a baby emotionally and/or financially, or if you're in a bad or unstable relationship - what kind of life would the child have?"

So based on that comment, I assume you mean that no life at all is better than a life of being poor? Think about your logic for a second.

"back to you again. oh gosh, i'm so sorry you suffered personal anguish, haha. cry me a river"

Have you ever seen your child's beating heart in a sonogram only to suffer miscarriage?

Don't expect to be able to peddle your confrontational approach to ending life and not get some pushback from those with a slight bit more life experience than you.

"you're absolutely right about the first quote. that is what i'm trying to say. the second quote, however is just putting words in my mouth. not a very good way to stand up in an argument."

Putting words in your mouth?

Of course I'm not. I know there is no way you would ever say that. However, the power of images is that they convey ideas to the viewer. Whether you meant it or not, the most powerful component of this image is its selfishness. Well done.

"ps, i thought your "paul" photo was boring as hell."

And you need to drop about 7 or 8 pounds.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

andertho: A comment about my weight coming from someone that thinks he has a lot more life experience than me - I guess you didn't gain any maturity from all that experience you claim to have.

If I can control the type of life my children will have, I will. I think THAT is being responsible.

"Have you ever seen your child's beating heart in a sonogram only to suffer miscarriage?"

Assuming this is your situation... I'm sorry for your loss, but I don't see what that has to do with my photo challenging yours. I'll never be guilted into carrying out a pregnancy I don't want because of other people's misfortunes. Like I told pigeotto - everyone has different experiences in life and it doesn't make one person better than another.

"Whether you meant it or not, the most powerful component of this image is its selfishness."

I've already explained many times over that the decision to abort or carry out a pregnancy isn't just about my life. Is it selfish to want freedom? Is it selfish to be in charge of my own body? No, it's natural. What does a pregnant woman owe the fetus growing inside her? You might say a chance, a life. I say that's for her to decide.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

0ne [deleted] says:

a suggestion to all those who claim to be pro-life:

please put your money where your mouth is and adopt a crack baby, or a 10 year-old orphan, or a child with "special needs", or any orphan at all in the city nearest you. everything you say about saving children means absolutely nothing if you cannot act with the conviction of your belief. claim to be a champion of life and children? i don't believe you. want to prove your point? adopt an "unwanted" child. otherwise, you're merely talking out of your ass.

and andertho? good for you for taking your argument back a notch. until now, nobody resorted to immature personal jabs. bravo.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

one: exactly, christine. children are like puppies - nobody wants to adopt them when they're older...
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

andertho says:

@one:

My wife and I currently are working with Catholic Charities to adopt. We have placed no restrictions and are open to all special needs children.

Does that qualify me to legitimately believe what I believe, or are you still the arbiter of the legitimacy of my beliefs?

As for "personal jabs"? Funny, I thought Jocie started that with her unsolicited and unnecessary "boring as hell" comment. Funny how you overlooked that. Also, please note that I was drawn into this when a thumbnail of this image showed up unwelcome on one of my images, with the quote introducing it here in this stream of "Challenging the church - muahahaha!". My faith is very important to me. I did not come after Jocie's position, she came after mine. Frankly I wish I had never seen this testament to contemporary American self-absorption.

@Jocie:

You never addressed my question. Which is better:

a. To live in poverty?
b. To not live at all?
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

dooda says:

I would continue but I believe I've been erased. I don't think I said anything offensive, but if I did, I apologize. One, it will take more than calling me silly to offend me. Good try though. My recommendation, next time you pick up the cabbage, try throwing it. Your limp wristed attempt was pretty embarrassing. All I said was that the issue is complicated because of the complications with applying a definition.

Religions are all so different, lumping them all together makes no sense.

BTW, My wife comes from a family where 8 of her siblings were adopted, half of which were born with drug addictions, and 3 of them over the age of 7. She and her mother are both outspoken, opinionated, pro-woman's rights, and anti-abortion. This business that it's all men against abortion is wrong.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

andertho: you're right, i took a stab at your photo. i thought it was boring - it was an opinion and this is a photography site afterall. i didn't seek out your photo because i wanted that to be the nature of the challenge. actually it was my first challenge, so i looked through all the photos and yours struck me as dull and lacking in contrast between the statue and the sky. then i read what it was a statue of. i thought it would be cheeky to challenge yours, so that's how it unfolded. have a sense of humor.

i commend you for placing no restrictions on your adoption requests. you prove to be an exception to the rule. funny you should mention faith and self-absorption. you WANT to have children, correct? do you NEED to have children? if you and your wife can't conceive, do you think god wants you to have children? how would a religious person interpret that situation? selfishness comes in many forms. the desire to have children IS a desire. i'm not saying there's anything wrong with wanting to have children. selfishness isn't always bad. and i think adoption is a great thing - i'm sure some child will find a great home with you. but i don't think i should have to endure being called self-absorbed because i don't want something that you do want (at least not right now). i view having children as a great responsibility - whether or not i choose to abstain from sex, use contraception, or have an abortion are all things to consider with my boyfriend - and all things that are our business and not that of the public.

to live in poverty or not to live at all. i have never been rich, but definitely don't know what it's like to live in poverty. i don't know that i can really answer that. my answer was the statement i made above that if i can control the type of life my children have, i will. given the choice, i would not bring a child into a world of poverty.

dooda: i didn't erase any of your comments...
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

0ne [deleted] says:

andertho, you are the exception that proves the rule. i wish you all the best in your adoption endeavors. i did not overlook jocie's statement, which was about a photograph, not about you. your insult to jocie was tantamount to a two-year-old saying, "you stink!" petty and childish.

dooda, the thing is, there are 2 kinds of religions. deity-based such as christian and jew and muslim, and non-deity-based like buddhism. you're missing the point again. i do not believe in any of them. i do not believe in a god, i do not believe in souls, i do not believe in any kind of heaven or hell. being free from worshipping a deity does make me kinda lump religions together. here's the difference: i would not support laws forcing you to behave as i believe. this is why i think you're silly. i'm not trying to offend you. i think it's silly to ignore the fact that others don't believe as you do.

neither one of us has the right to make decisions for the other. full stop.

i am well aware that there are women that are anti-choice. the religions they believe in, 9 times outa 9, are patriarchal. i see enormous similarities in most religions: they don't think much of women.

i don't get the cabbage reference tho. i get that you think my calling you silly was weak, but cabbage? (head scratch)
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

dooda says:

Throwing cabbage at the bad comedian...nevermind.

Please spare me that you weren't trying to offend me. Be truthful, repeating that I'm silly 4 times after asking Jocie to stop calling me silly wasn't a little much?

When did I ever say you believed in religion/God/Deity/anything metaphysical? All I said was lumping them as the general movement behind anti-abortion is wrong. The fact that many are religious is beside the point, that is a certain group of people believe that when your choice affects something that is inherently human value, the debate becomes distorted and irreconcileable because one word signifies different signifieds (them FETUS = HUMAN LIFE/ YOU FETUS = FLESHY MATTER). I agree, no religion should tell you what to do. But when they believe that your choice affects a the life of a human, then it becomes complicated.

Please show me where I ignored the fact that other's don't believe as I do? I'm totally confused about that. In fact, I don't even know what I think about it, much less tell others how to think.

I also think that your outside view of how every religion treats women is pretty vague. How deeply have you looked really? To truly understand how one is treated in a religion, you'd have to join.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

0ne [deleted] says:

i have read as many religious texts as i could get my hands on. the koran, the bible, the bhagavad gita, so on and on. i have been to the religious services of many different religions, as i find the study fascinating. they are, however, amazingly similar in their core beliefs. (1. "god" is male. 2. women should bear children and obey. 3. women are barred from having any power {female jewish rabbis are the only exception - unless you dare acknowlege wicca} 4. complete obesiance to the religion and relinquishing of personal will. 5. convert as many as possible. - in fact, the two most similar religions are islam and christianity)

you persist in insisting that there is a "life of a human", which is a religious belief. there is no proof that it is a life, as it cannot survive outside the host. i hate repeating myself. you believe there's a soul involved. i do not. there isn't a single supporter of the ban on abortion who doesn't believe in souls and/or a god. i understand that you believe in souls and would never support a law forcing you to act like you do not. so why do you support a law that forces me to act as if i do?

if you would have said tomatoes, i would have got it. we played in different playgrounds.

i'm done here. say what you will, i'm exhausted.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

You	Sign in \| Create Your Free Account
Explore	Places \| Last 7 Days \| This Month \| Popular Tags \| The Commons \| Creative Commons \| Search
Help	Community Guidelines \| The Help Forum \| FAQ \| Sitemap \| Get Help

Choice #2

Comments

cyberelfo says:

Gaudior says:

Extra Medium says:

melinabob00000 says:

Dean Forbes says:

Magalie L'Abbé says:

G-rome says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

antiapathy says:

Mr Normal [deleted] says:

dooda says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

dooda says:

imagemkr says:

Gaudior says:

compumstr says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

cwoehrl says:

Gaudior says:

vintagemilano says:

Gaudior says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

dooda says:

0ne [deleted] says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

dooda says:

cwoehrl says:

Luke S. says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

cwoehrl says:

dooda says:

just todd says:

LouisCypher says:

antiapathy says:

SPedigrees says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

~Kenny says:

Sevenbright Photography / facebook.com/sevenbright says:

REDesign01 says:

Cassadota says:

Heaven`s Gate (John) says:

MaltLoafer says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

spaniel shari says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

Sniper Adams [deleted] says:

BamaWester says:

BamaWester says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

Andy Marfia says:

Gaudior says:

BamaWester says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

lookin glass says:

seanhfoto says:

gdiazdeleon says:

Le Jhe says:

Gaudior says:

Arwenface says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

BamaWester says:

acastellano says:

(Rimbaudian) says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

SPedigrees says:

dooda says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

dooda says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

Fahara says:

dooda says:

dooda says:

Beppie K says:

jocieposse (aka skid ho) says:

pigeotto [deleted] says:

Beppie K says: