pixyled:

lastlinq:

sharemyshelter:

bebinn:

sharemyshelter:

kaufdie:

So, I might be wrong, but this is just what I’ve been thinking lately.

On the topic of abortion, a common argument is that a woman shouldn’t be forced to carry a baby to term because essentially the baby is a parasite and she its host. It cannot survive outside of her body, so therefore she has…

quick answer to your question: a foetus is physically dependent on the mother. a baby is socially dependent. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence. Social dependence; that’s where the child depends on society - on other people - to feed it, clothe it, and love it.

Right. The difference here is between someone donating the use of their organs, blood, and nutrients for nine months, and someone donating their time and money. I’d say the former is a bit much to ask of an unwilling person, wouldn’t you? We don’t legally require parents to donate organs to their children, and we don’t mandate blood donations from every citizen every few months, either.

I agree with you. I was just providing clarification for the asker - am completely pro-choice.

Well time and money raised a child? Time and money? Time and money is all that matters in keeping a child alive. Honestly.

Why is your definition of a parasite only exclusive to blood, organs and nutrients? Why am I not a parasite if I live off your time and money for until I am no longer dependent on you? No real distinction, right? Both an infringement on your freedom. To draw a distinction is to place a value judgment on time and money and to say that it is less important that organs, blood and nutrients—the value of which amounts to organic tissue, that is not sacred and is only valuable insofar as it enables you to function and yes, gives you “time and money”? What if I consider time and money to be vitally more important than organs, blood and nutrients? Then if someone fed off my “time and money”, and if I was unwilling like how some people actually are, he’d be more a parasite than a fetus right? And I could kill him?

By all your logic, it only leads us to that babies are parasites too, and that you would allow for people to kill babies because of individual freedom. After all, you’ve got the time, and you’ve got the money

No, it doesn’t.
If you don’t want a baby draining your time and money, you can give it away for some one else to take care of. There are options there besides ending its life that will still protect your rights.
If you are pregnant, LITERALLY the ONLY OTHER OPTION is abortion if you don’t want to give birth and be pregnant. If there were another options that DIDN’T end the fetus’ life, then THAT would be used instead. But there ISN’T. 

Damn, just…Use your brain. You can’t just hand a fetus off to some one else for them to take care of because the thing it needs to survive is your body. A baby you can give to literally ANY other adult and it’ll survive if it’s taken care of.

But…. Fetal transplant?

1. thunderspooky likes this
2. kaitlynthevegan reblogged this from theoppressedlittlefetus and added:

   Ugh I see this all the time. None of the anti-choicers using this ‘point’ seem to understand that a newborn baby is not...

3. whyvoneenee likes this
4. accordingtosami reblogged this from pixyled and added:

   But…. Fetal transplant?

5. razingcomplacency reblogged this from bebinn
6. pixyled reblogged this from blueincat and added:

   No, it doesn’t. If you don’t want a baby draining your time and money, you can give it away for some one else to take...

7. bubbybobble likes this
8. bebinn reblogged this from blueincat and added:

   I’m sorry, but you are already on the internet. Google is literally a click away. All you have to do is type in “define...