Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2019-05-23 06:30 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2019-05-23 06:30 pm
[ SECRET POST #4521 ]
⌈ Secret Post #4521 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
__________________________________________________
10.
[Nine Lives Man]
__________________________________________________
11.
[Citizen Kane]
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 11 secrets from Secret Submission Post #647.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
Re: Venting Thread
The counter I get from the pro-chioice side is "No it's a clump of cells"
Then the counter from the pro-life side is "A clump of cells with a heartbeat and brainwaves and nerves and all the other criteria of life?"
To which my response has always been "Not all the criteria. Homeostasus is required to call something alive, before a certain point is does not have the ability to regulate it's own body.
Then they come back with "What IS that point" (can you tell I've had this argument before? So many times.)
I say "Generally accepted to be about 22-24 weeks."
"So it after 22 weeks it's a life and should not be be aborted, what about 21 weeks?"
"It's not reasonable to assume it has developed the ability to survive on it's own at 21 weeks"
"But it could!"
"Small chance"
"Yes, but if there is even a small chance that the fetus is a life, can you risk murdering it?"
And here, I would LOVE to know what other pro-choice people think, because this is typically the part at which I have to say "Hey, you think it's a life, I lean in the other way" and we call it a day. Because I don't know an intellectually honest way to answer that.
I am also anti the death penalty - not in principal, some people can only cause harm and NEED to be killed to save others, but in practice there is no way to know with any certainty that the person the state is executing will always be one of these people, and if there is even a small chance that the state is killing someone who does not deserve to die, I cannot support it. BUT if there is even a small chance that the fetus is a living entity deserving of rights... I apparently am a-ok with ending it's life. I simply cannot rationalise those too thoughts.
Re: Venting Thread
Don't get me wrong, the pro-life ppl do that too, but they also have a solid train of reason as to why a fetus should be kept alive.
Re: Venting Thread
(Anonymous) 2019-05-24 11:05 pm (UTC)(link)No one has the right to use someone else's body. We can't compel organ donations, even from a parent to a child. Even if someone caused a car accident and the victim needs a blood donation or they will die, the cop's can't compel the other driver to give blood. In the US, we require positive consent (either previously given or from whoever has power of attorney) to take organs from a corpse, even though there are people who will die without the organs.
But "pro-life" people want to create a special right for fetuses (and embryos, in the latest laws) to be able to use a woman's body without her consent for nine months.
Pregnancy and childbirth are not risk-free. According to the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_mortality_in_the_United_States
"Although the United States was spending more on healthcare than any other country in the world, more than two women died during childbirth every day, making maternal mortality in the United States the highest when compared to 49 other countries in the developed world.[3] The CDC reported an increase in the maternal mortality ratio in the United States from 18.8 deaths per 100,000 births to 23.8 deaths per 100,000 births between 2000 and 2014, a 26.6% increase;[4]"
One of my friends nearly bled out giving birth. In Los Angeles. In 2001. Her doctor told her that another pregnancy would probably kill her. So when she got pregnant again, rather than risking leaving her husband alone to raise the two children she already had, she had an abortion. Should the government have the power to force her to risk her life?
Pregnant women regularly have short-term and long-term health consequences. Many people choose to accept the risk because they want to have a child, but forcing someone to accept that risk of is a gross violation of bodily autonomy.
Even in a pregnancy where nothing goes wrong, the pregnant person has to deal with a great deal of pain, discomfort, indignity, and inconvenience. Again, there is a big difference between someone freely choosing to undergo the process, and someone being forced to endure it.
The reason that a lot of people on my side dismiss "pro-choice" people as not really being only concerned about "unborn babies" is because we know what reduces the number of abortions: comprehensive sex education and easily available birth control. However, the people who oppose abortion also generally (not always) oppose those policies.
Re: Venting Thread
Like the example I keep using is:
If there was a person locked in your basement, totally without your fault or their fault, it was just a "Shit happens" situation, but they were totally trapped, and you couldn't get them out without killing them, and because it was your house you were responsible for feeding them and looking after them: Would you be happy about that? Just... being responsible fo supporting someone you don't know or care about and it being legally mandated that you do that? Cause I wouldn't
And I feel that's a reasonably strong argument but it doesn't always fly because 1. that's an absurd situation completely devoid of real world logic and 2: The best argument they have come back to me with is: "This isn't "totally without your fault" if you choose to have sex you should accept the possibility and the responsibilities."
Which is a bit heartless in my opinion, but the woman who pulled that on me had previously gotten me to say admit that I think it's reasonable to forcibly eject the man from my basement, even if it means killing him because He is not entitled to one scrap of my resources" so I couldn't really play the heartless card on her.
Also the "For the woman's health" is a good argument, and one I rarely get any push-back on. Most pro-life people agree if the woman is in danger an abortion is reasonable. What the come back is from them is to point out that the vast majority of abortions are done for none health reasons, so I tend to stick to the libertarian "Her resources are her's and if that means fetus dies that's fair" and "It's not a life until it can support itself biologically.
Trouble is both of those argument had pretty glaring weaknesses.
Re: Venting Thread
(Anonymous) 2019-05-25 01:46 am (UTC)(link)You can, barring medical complications like infection or hemorrhage, survive donating a lobe of your liver. Over time, it will grow back and you'll be able to able to function at full capacity again. You have to stop drinking and using certain medications for a few months. It's not a perfect one-to-one for pregnancy - donors actually have a lower mortality rate than women giving birth, and both the recovery time and necessary period of unmedicated sobriety are much shorter than a pregnancy - but it's close on many of the key points.
And I guarantee you that the vast majority of pro-lifers would not be remotely in support of a law that mandated they be living liver donors for strangers for whom they were a donor match, and the percentage would only shift a bit if you narrowed it to mandatory donation to blood relatives. Their bodily autonomy is more important to them than other people's lives.
Re: Venting Thread
Like if I made a stupid decision - drink driving for example - and it lead to someone needing a liver donation, would I support a law that forced the driver to have to give up a lobe of their liver to ensure the life of the victim?
Yeah... I kinda would. Again I have some wriggle rom because it's not the exact same situation because DUI is illegal, but the thrust is still the same, isn't it? Make a decision that leads to someone needing a liver donation - You should have to make that situation right and yeah, donate a some of your liver if you can.
Re: Venting Thread
(Anonymous) 2019-05-25 03:33 pm (UTC)(link)Or, more germane to the argument that a pregnant woman is partly responsible for the existence of the fetus, would you be in favor of a law that would require you to donate a lobe of your liver to your biological child? You're partly responsible for their existence, and you're also partly responsible for the genes that increase their chance of liver disease.
And, since abortion restrictions only impact people who have a uterus, would you be okay with this hypothetical liver donation law only being applied to people who were born with testicles? If it aids the thought exercise, let's pretend that we have some new science that proves only people who were born with testicles can successfully do live liver donation.
You're always going to run into the same problem, no matter the argument you attempt, because there is no perfect analogy. There is no other circumstance under which one human being is entirely physically dependent on one single other human being for all of their physical needs, to the detriment of that other human being's health and ability to fully participate in their own life.