[ SECRET POST #1839 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1839 ⌋


Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________

02.


__________________________________________________

03.


__________________________________________________

04.


__________________________________________________

05.


__________________________________________________

06. [repeat]


__________________________________________________

07.


__________________________________________________

08.


__________________________________________________

09.


__________________________________________________

10.


__________________________________________________

11.


__________________________________________________

12.


__________________________________________________

13.


__________________________________________________

14.


__________________________________________________

15.


__________________________________________________

16.


__________________________________________________

17.


__________________________________________________

18.


__________________________________________________

19.


__________________________________________________

20.


__________________________________________________

21.


__________________________________________________

22.



Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 07 pages, 156 secrets from Secret Submission Post #263.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeats ]
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Being forced to allow another person the use of your body without your consent is being a brood-mare for the state. The state cannot force you to donate blood or bone marrow to save the life of your own 10-year-old child, but it can force you to undergo an even more dangerous and intrusive experience to save the life of a "child" whose cells haven't even differentiated into different tissues yet? No.

Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy. The "you were responsible for creating that child" argument is nothing more than an attempt to shame women for having sex.

[(Anonymous)]

Can we drop this now? We've all heard this argument before, and Kribban isn't even pro-life.

[kribban.livejournal.com]

No it's not. It's hyperbolic rhretoric. "Being a brood-mare for the state" would be accurate if you were punished if you didn't give birth a certain number of children (Romania in the 1980s) or if you were forcibly inseminated by the state.

Pregnancy is also different from organ donation in that you are not being asked to do something that is out of bounds for your body to do. The uterus has evolved to nourish and shelter embryos, that is it's normal function.

The only valid argument for legal abortion is that pregnancy always comes with a medical risk, and that no person should be required to risk their life for someone else, even if that someone is their own off-spring.

The "you were responsible for creating that child" argument is nothing more than an attempt to shame women for having sex.

There is no birth control method that has a 100 % success rate. That means that every single time you consent to intercourse (not sex, intercourse) you are taking the risk of getting pregnant. There is no getting around this.

In the "sickly violinist"-example that I'm sure you're thinking of, the narrator had been kidnapped at while she was asleep. Aborting an offspring - child - that you willingly conceived would be akin to her hunting down the violinist and performing a procedure that had a 10% chance of hooking him up to her.

[typhlogirl.livejournal.com]

I may be a little late but I really wanted to respond to your comment as I rarely get the chance to debate with pro-lifers who are actually coherent:

The only valid argument for legal abortion is that pregnancy always comes with a medical risk, and that no person should be required to risk their life for someone else, even if that someone is their own off-spring.

This sort of justification makes me rather uncomfortable. There are plenty of perfectly valid legal arguments for abortion that aren't just related to the physical capacity of the woman in question. What about in cases of rape or incest? Surely you wouldn't want to doom a rape victim into having her rapist's baby, even if she was perfectly capable of carrying the baby to term? It just seems completely inhumane. No woman should have to suffer that.

Aborting an offspring - child - that you willingly conceived

I wouldn't call falling pregnant after intercourse 'willing conception' unless the intercourse was strictly for the purpose of such. It seems...I don't know, strange to me. Most people don't have sex for the purpose of procreation, I'd say.

I personally find the thought of having to have a baby I don't want quite horrifying. I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to abort an unwanted pregnancy. This whole 'you had sex now you're pregnant too bad deal with it' thing seems so middle-ages to me.