fandomsecrets | [ 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Well, yeah, the libertarian argument usually carries some weight, but it never flies totally well, since there is no comparable situation.

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.

It's not a sound argument because it's not a stranger living in your house, it's a stranger living in your body. AYRT's organ donation analogy is much closer to the actual reality.

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.

I'll keep the organ donation argument in mind, it has merit, I agree, but I feel I'm gonna run in to the same problem I have with the stranger in the basement argument: It's not exactly the same situation because in the case of pregnancy the person is partly responsible for the existence of the life's very existence.

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.

If you made a perfectly reasonable everyday decision like driving completely sober, driving safely, and got into an accident that resulted in another person being injured in such a way that they required a liver donation, would you support a law that forced you to give up a lobe of your liver? Because having sex is a pretty normal everyday activity, not a deliberately negligent high-risk one.

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.

[ SECRET POST #4521 ]

Re: Venting Thread

Re: Venting Thread

Re: Venting Thread

Re: Venting Thread