Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
August 23, 2012
Image Size
142 KB
Resolution
2424×916
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
946
Favourites
33 (who?)
Comments
77
Downloads
8

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
×
It's Your Body by JesIdres It's Your Body by JesIdres
Another joint project between @Ali_Davis and myself: a reminder what is at stake this November.

As someone who has friends and family directly affected by the ability to choose what happens to their body, volunteered at Planned Parenthood and watched first hand the tactics used by anti-choicers to deny women their basic rights to proper medical care, the current attempts to overturn and push back women's rights in the United States frightens and angers me.

Ali, a brilliant comedian and commentator, approached me to help make a simple design to remind and rally those who want to champion women's health and body rights. After our success with the transvaginal probe branding (Nothing, I mean, nothing sounds weirder than your name said on national television), I jumped on the chance.

There are two versions, both open for use under the creative commons license, on Tumblr:

Blue-
[link]

Green-
[link]
Add a Comment:
 
:iconotherworldling:
Otherworldling Featured By Owner Aug 29, 2012
You are absolutely wonderful. This was such a beautiful thing to see on my dash!
<3
Reply
:iconjesidres:
JesIdres Featured By Owner Aug 29, 2012  Professional General Artist
Thank you!
Reply
:iconraspberryicecream:
raspberryicecream Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
what's going on with woman's health care in the US? ( sorry I'm a brit)
Reply
:iconjesidres:
JesIdres Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012  Professional General Artist
The current Republican nominee for president has said he supports life beginning at conception, and has picked a running mate that has supported banning all abortion, even in cases of rape/medically dangerous.

This is on top of a wave of right wing legislation supporting denying women access to affordable medical care, and stripping them of equal rights and pay. It's a danger zone out here.
Reply
:icongaia1390:
Gaia1390 Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2012
Erm. How can someone be allowed to try for such a role when they believe such horseshit? I know people should be allowed to believe what they want, but its like these guys don't understand that women like to chose what happens to them. Its medieval.
Reply
:iconjesidres:
JesIdres Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2012  Professional General Artist
Welcome to the religious right. It's frightening.
Reply
:icongaia1390:
Gaia1390 Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2012
But but but THIS IS POLITICS. Not religion. Politics is about people. Religion is about faith. They're different. How can he be allowed to combine them and get away with it?
Reply
:iconv-eih:
V-eih Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
This argument is stupid because abortion is legal according to the supreme court. Thus, no changes on it can be made. People may have their views but they cannot in any way ban abortion as the highest court has deemed it legal...
Reply
:icongaia1390:
Gaia1390 Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2012
Oh. Phew. Thank-you. I'm British I don't know how the US system works all that well.
Reply
:iconraspberryicecream:
raspberryicecream Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
ok thank you x all i can say is what a dick head... abortion i think in some circumstances is wrong but not in the case of rape or medical danger.
Reply
:iconmacgyver644200:
Macgyver644200 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
One problem I have with abortion is that (in several cases) it is forced on women by their partners, making an allegedly feminist idea (it still feels too much like exposing an infant to me) into another form of men dominating women. Since it is difficult to determine whether or not a woman has been forced into this, I prefer making abortion illegal (except in cases where the mother will undoubtedly die if it is not performed) and having unwanted children go into foster care.
Reply
:iconjesidres:
JesIdres Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012  Professional General Artist
The situation you're referencing is rare and accounts for very few abortions. Far more children die in foster care than women who are forced to have abortions- nevermind how many are abused or neglected. By your logic, we should do away with foster care, rather than abortions, because that's more likely to take a life.

Look, under your circumstances, my sister, who was drugged and raped at a party in college, would have been forced to carry her child to term, dropping out of college to go through a traumatic experience for nine months that most likely would have scarred her for life. Having a baby is an extremely horrific experience, and should only be undertaken by people who are prepared and have a support network in place to help them.
Reply
:iconmacgyver644200:
Macgyver644200 Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Actually, I'd prefer to fix the foster care system and try to do away with rape. Make abortion the absolute last resort. At least find a surrogate parent for the unborn child.

I am sorry for your sister. But I also honestly believe that human fetuses are their own unique life-forms, and should thus not be killed unless by necessity.

Also, I don't think that pregnancy is the horror show you're making it out to be. In today's day and age, approximately 8000 pregnant women a year die in all developed countries. Hardly a horror show when the birth rate of the United States alone tops 4 million. The overwhelming majority of maternal deaths come from Africa and Asia.
Reply
:iconjesidres:
JesIdres Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012  Professional General Artist
So, as long as you die, pregnancy is fine? I've worked with girls raped by family members and forced to keep their children because of abortion consent laws, who are left seriously traumatized, and suffer long term body issues and medical problems. I've had 10 year olds in classes I've taught severely traumatized by being forced to bring pregnancies to term. You're putting a cluster of cells above the mental and medical well being of actual human beings. I don't know where you're getting your information, but pregnancy- even a planned, carefully monitored one- causes serious stress and permanent changes on any woman's body, never mind their mental state. Being told you have no say on what happens to your body makes them second class citizens.

And what of my friend, who already has three kids, who got pregnant due to an error in her tube tying? She and her husband were responsible, and yet you'd have them be forced to have a kid they couldn't afford because of someone else's error.

You say we should 'fix' the foster care system. How about we just 'fix' people's perception of what abortion and choice is. It's just as simple, honestly.
Reply
:iconmacgyver644200:
Macgyver644200 Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Yes, there are those cases. If we could find a way to save the life of the fetus without causing the mother mental or physical trauma, I would like that very very much. Finding a way to give the fetus to someone else or to grow them in an artificial womb would be a better alternative than abortion. As it stands, removing right to bodily domain may make people second class citizens, but removing right to life unless it's to save a life in return (such as in the case of ectopic pregnancies) makes them cattle. And yes, I view a fetus as a person, not fully formed, but a person none-the-less.

Another problem of mine are those abortions where rape, incest, and medical necessity do not come into it. According to the Guttmacher institute study, 1% of abortions had rape as a reason for the abortion, <0.5% had incest, 12% had health risks to the mother, and 13% had possible health risks to the child. Based on the numbers given for the other causes, those reasons probably stack. Health risks to the mother are the only case wherein I consider abortion justified, provided that abortion is the only way to save the mother from inevitable death. Rape, incest, and potential health risks to the fetus all give me grief that the only way to save the fetus's life is to make them or the mother suffer. All other cases have the adoption system and the fact that abstinence is free. I'll save my true pity for those women who genuinely suffer through pregnancy, for example, your sister and those children.

Yes, pregnancy is risky. Pelvic girdle pain, gestational diabetes, deep vein thrombosis, postpartum depression, ectopic pregnancy, all of these can happen and all of them are serious. Yes, pregnancy changes the body. However, in the developed world, where good medicine is available, it's hardly a death sentence.
Reply
:iconspongemuffin:
SpongeMuffin Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012
I understand you want to help women, but making abortion illegal would really, realllyyyy make things absolutely horrible for women everywhere. You can't deny something millions of women need because a small percentage of those women are forced into it. In the end all the women would suffer instead of just a sad few.
Reply
:iconmacgyver644200:
Macgyver644200 Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Need? No. I want to help women, and I want to help their children, too.

Given that the number I have on abortions undertaken due to rape or incest is 1%, hardly necessary. There are about eight thousand maternal deaths a year in all developed countries combined, and the U.S.'s birthrate alone is over 4 million, hardly deadly with the right tools.
Reply
:icongaia1390:
Gaia1390 Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2012
Excuse me, but might I point out that in a way killing one bundle of cells before it is a formed human may in some ways be the more helpful action. We do have 7 billion people on the planet at the moment and as a species we ought to allow people to try and reduce the stress we cause the ecosystems of our world, thereby making the life of peoples children better. This does sounds somewhat paradoxical, but I hope it makes sense.
Reply
:iconmacgyver644200:
Macgyver644200 Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I'd prefer it if that bundle of cells never came to exist in the first place. Abortion should be completely unnecessary except for cases of medical emergency. As it stands (according to the Guttmacher institute's study), most of these abortions would be moot points if the parents had simply decided not to have sex. I'm all for lessening human birth rate to manageable levels, but it'd help if people would stop trying to make more of themselves, especially if they realized that, even with protection, there's still a chance that they will in fact conceive.
Reply
:icongaia1390:
Gaia1390 Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2012
True, but unfortunately the world is imperfect. I would much rather the world was more perfect but it isn't. So, considering the state of the world as it is, is it not fair to permit people to abort children that may well be poorly cared for were they allowed to live?
Reply
:iconmacgyver644200:
Macgyver644200 Featured By Owner Aug 28, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
If the parents don't want the child, they can give them up for adoption (a system that needs fixing, so we should get to that). If they stay alive, then there is a chance they can find someone to properly care for them and they can be happy. If they die, then they lose that chance.
Reply
:icongaia1390:
Gaia1390 Featured By Owner Aug 28, 2012
Dude, I get all this. I understand that there are a lot of alternatives. BUT THIS IS NOT A PERFECT WORLD. The adoption systems in every country are a shambles and people aren't perfect. Its what makes us human. Sure we can try and make the world better BUT while we're trying to do that why is it so wrong to allow a woman to remove a bundle of cells that would otherwise be poorly cared for?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconspongemuffin:
SpongeMuffin Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012
Just because the fetus wasn't made through rape or incest doesn't mean the fetus isn't unwanted. If a woman doesn't want a child, whether because of money, spousal problems, health problems, or just plain unwanting, she deserves to have the right to remove that fetus.
Reply
:iconmacgyver644200:
Macgyver644200 Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
And the fetus deserves the right to develop is what I'm saying. I'd be less miffed about the pro-choice movement if they offered an alternative solution to undesired children other than, in essence, kill it.
Reply
:iconspongemuffin:
SpongeMuffin Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012
But unfortunately, to respect a woman's right to bodily domain, there is nothing we can do BUT kill it. It's a sad thing, but we have to care about the woman first.
Reply
:iconmacgyver644200:
Macgyver644200 Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
And in order to respect a fetus's right to life, we must let it live. I do care about the woman, but no killing her child unless it is to prevent the death of the mother. Right to life trumps bodily domain.
Reply
:iconspongemuffin:
SpongeMuffin Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012
But a fetus has no right to life, legally or by the laws of nature. The mother is a sentient productive member of the human species, a fetus is not sentient, nor productive, nor useful.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012
How nice it would be if people like you supported every person's right to their property.
Reply
:iconjesidres:
JesIdres Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012  Professional General Artist
...'property'? When did this election become about legislator's right to occupy my uterus? Or do you believe everything you put your dick in automatically yours?

Come back to me when you're being forced into a highly dangerous medical situation for nine months against your will because a cluster of cells is more important than you are.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012
Hmm, I'll ignore your inappropriate assumption for the time being. For the record, I support a woman's right to control over her body, and it would've been nice for you to ask for clarification of what I was referring to rather than jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

What I'm having an issue with is that, more often than not, people of the "pro-choice" crowd, in spite of their talk of supporting the right to choose, only defend certain areas of that right. Do they support homosexual marriage, gun ownership, control over one's business, and all other things that involve the right to choose with equal fervor, or do they become indifferent when it's not about control over a woman's body?

From what I've seen, it's the latter, and frankly, I find that hypocritical. How can one stand by a woman who declares "I have a right to control my body" when she doesn't defend a gay's right to marry whom they choose, or a person's choice to own a gun, or a business owner's choice about what happens in said business, or at worst, openly supports violating their right to choose? How can one respect her wishes if she has no respect for the wishes of others?

Do not take this to mean I believe abortion should be illegal, if only to enforce that lesson; that would only be perpetuating the problem. However, if those who call for abortion to be allowed in the name of freedom to choose uphold such a double-standard, I do believe they should be called out on it. Otherwise, they have no moral ground to stand on.
Reply
:iconjesidres:
JesIdres Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012  Professional General Artist
...I live in Massachusetts. I not only helped in the campaign that led to the very first state that allowed equal marriage for all, I have been a witness for three separate marriages of the 'gay' persuasion. Talk about assumptions here.

As for guns, please explain to me how you owning an assault rifle or hollow point bullets is anyway comparable to women's rights or marriage equality. One is very much not like the other... I've give you a hint: two involve a choice that only affects themselves, and another leads to my best friend being stuck in her building on Friday because there was a good chance if she left, she was going to be SHOT.

Gun rights aren't going anywhere- in fact, under Obama, there have been even more concessions to the gun lobby than ever before. And while I can understand responsible gun ownership- I have regularly shot a rifle in hunting trips, although I prefer my bow- the notion that extended magazines and assault rifles are somehow used for anything than cold blooded murder is ridiculous.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012
"...I live in Massachusetts. I not only helped in the campaign that led to the very first state that allowed equal marriage for all, I have been a witness for three separate marriages of the 'gay' persuasion. Talk about assumptions here."

Consider us even then. What goes around comes around.

"As for guns, please explain to me how you owning an assault rifle or hollow point bullets is anyway comparable to women's rights or marriage equality. One is very much not like the other... I've give you a hint: two involve a choice that only affects themselves, and another leads to my best friend being stuck in her building on Friday because there was a good chance if she left, she was going to be SHOT."

Do explain to me how my choice to buy a gun affects anyone but me (and unless you can prove I will use it to commit murder [self-defense doesn't count], you don't get to use that). And I listed it because, like it or not, it falls under the same right as abortion; control over one's property. Blow away all the scare stories and a gun is nothing more than a piece of property, plain and simple. That it could be used to kill doesn't change that basic fact.
Reply
:iconspongemuffin:
SpongeMuffin Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012
What does personal property have to do with women's reproductive rights?
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012
As the title says, it's the person's body, ie, it's that person's property. What's the difference between a women's body and a gun owner's firearm, when you get right down to it? Are both not property, and is the right to control said property not equal in both cases? And yet, from what I've seen, the "pro-choice" crowd seems to pick and choose which choices they will defend, as if the right to choose belongs to some but not to others.

I think you'll understand that I find this rather hypocritical. And for the record, I do support a woman's right to control over her body.
Reply
:iconspongemuffin:
SpongeMuffin Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012
A woman's body isn't a lethal weapon, unless she's in a James Bond film or something. Defending a woman's right to protecting and owning her own body is completely different from a man owning a weapon that was created solely for the purpose of killing.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012
Uh, actually, the gun won't kill unless the person using it actually aims it at someone. If you remove the hooplah and look at it objectively, a gun is designed to use mechanical and chemical actions to propel a projectile at high speed. That's what it will do if loaded and the trigger is pulled, each and every time. The killing part requires human action. A hammer can be used to kill someone and a knife can be used to kill someone if a person uses them to do so, but no one will say they are designed to kill.

And if it helps, you can substitute gay marriage ("This is my body and I wish to share it with a member of the same sex). The point being is that unless someone respects and defends everyone's use of freedom of choice, they have no claim to it themselves.
Reply
:iconspongemuffin:
SpongeMuffin Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012
The entire purpose of a gun is to kill. Not to be some marvel of technology, but to kill. Knives and hammers were designed for useful purposes, comparing them to a gun ain't gonna work.

Don't get me wrong, I think guns are fine to own. I live in a house with over 30 guns myself. I just think comparing a lethal weapon to a hammer or a woman's body is a terrible comparison. They're not remotely similar.
Reply
:iconpyrrhusivictoria:
PyrrhusiVictoria Featured By Owner Aug 23, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
:thumbsup: Nothing beats a party platform that believes valid methods of contraception include aspirin between the knees and the classical 13th century method of "not enjoying the rape".
Reply
:iconjesidres:
JesIdres Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012  Professional General Artist
...and abstinence only education is the best contraception.... x___x
Reply
:iconpyrrhusivictoria:
PyrrhusiVictoria Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
True that, but I'm not surprised by the abstinence thing. They beat that drum every chance they get. But to hear a congressional nominee in the 21st centry say that rape pregnancies are rare because sometimes the woman likes it (somehow making it not-rape), but if she doesn't enjoy it, thereby making it "legitimate rape", then her body has ways of shutting down reproduction... I nearly passed out when I heard that. If this guy and enough of his neanderthal buddies get elected, they will be bringing the full force of their medieval medical knowledge and male sensitivity to lawbooks and uteri near you.
Reply
:iconawbwi:
Awbwi Featured By Owner Aug 23, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Hell yeeeeee. A wonderful thing to see when logging onto deviantart.
Reply
:iconjesidres:
JesIdres Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2012  Professional General Artist
Thank you.
Reply
Add a Comment: