[ SECRET POST #2031 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2031 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #290.
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.

Comments

Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

There's definitely a case to be made for Steve. He's firm in his belief in God over anyone else's, for starters ("There's only one god, ma'am, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that!"). He has strong military leanings. I also think he would find the idea of abortions that weren't necessary to save the mother's life abhorrent.

And while I think he would support immigrants and making it easier to immigrate, I don't think he would have much patience for people who go about entering the country illegally. (There might be a *little* wiggle room on that, given the methods he went through trying to join the military, but he wanted to join the military to fight for his country...).

And I'm not to sure what he would think of today's version of welfare. Because, yes, he was poor kid growing up with a single mom, but they worked for what they had. It wasn't handed to them, and I think THAT would stick with him and have him siding more with the right's idea of creating jobs (whether or not they're plans actually do) while leaving charity to the willing volunteers.

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

I really, really don't agree at all. I don't think that one line is indicative of his believing in his god over all others, for one thing -- I think Steve is a respectful enough person to realize that people believe different things and that that is okay. He wouldn't be okay with someone elevating one religion above all others and making it The Only Religion And Anyone Who Believes Otherwise Is Evil And A Terrorist. He's also all about tolerance and equality, which negates not only the Republican view of religion, but also of race, gender, sexuality, and so on.

I think Steve is also respectful enough and intelligent enough to respect that he is not a woman and cannot truly understand what a woman goes through when she finds herself pregnant and doesn't want to be. I think he would respect women's choices and their ability to make those choices freely. So, he would be pro-choice. He's not the kind of guy who would stand there and tell women "I don't like this so I'm going to say I know better than ALL OF YOU and tell you what you are and aren't allowed to do!" He's just... not. That's not Steve. He'd defer to, you know, women and probably like that they should have the right to make their own decisions, even if it's not a decision he personally likes that much.

I think Steve would be supportive of all immigrants, really. He understands what it's like to want something - to want to do something and be somewhere so badly that you'll do ANYTHING to get to that. I think he would find the implicit and explicit racism and territoriality of the Republicans when it comes to illegal immigration to be distasteful at best, and probably disgusting.

I also think Steve would be glad that people on welfare today are better off and provided more for than he and his mother were. He wouldn't want people to suffer like they did and like the people around him did when he was young. (And protip: Welfare in the US isn't a "handout" and people on welfare DO work and are expected to work unless they have a disability.)

Basically Steve would disagree with everything about the Republican party. He's not for discrimination and he's not for taking away people's rights, and he's not for leaving children to starve in the streets. He has more empathy and more intelligence than that.

(Also if he was pro-life Peggy would probably come back from the grave just to kick his ass and castrate him.)

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT
I think Steve is a respectful enough person to realize that people believe different things and that that is okay. He wouldn't be okay with someone elevating one religion above all others and making it The Only Religion And Anyone Who Believes Otherwise Is Evil And A Terrorist.

See, and this is where we have a philosophical problem. Because I think there is a world of difference between "You don't believe what I believe and therefore you are WRONG AND BAD AND AN EVIL TERRORIST" and "I believe I'm right." Because you can believe you're right and someone else is wrong without believing the other person is a bad person who shouldn't have the right to believe what they believe.

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

If I could frame this comment, I would. THIS.

Wow

[(Anonymous)]

Way to project your modern day abortion views.

Re: Wow

[luxshine]

This.

Also, comic!Steve is obviously a democrat... if only because the times when he has quit being Captain America is when there's a Republican president.

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

lol I'm sure Peggy and all the other 40's characters would be pro-life. Given the mindset they grew up in, it's not an issue of "women's rights" but rather an issue of life and death.

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

Um, no, not really.

I don't think women would be "pro-life" when thousands upon thousands of their family, friends and other women were dying due to illegal back-alley abortions. If anything, I'd imagine they'd be as pro-choice as you get -- especially military women like Peggy, for whom an unwanted pregnancy would mean either the end of her entire career or a risky and possibly deadly back-alley abortion.

I mean, do you really think they'd enjoy going back to watching their friends sicken and die due to unregulated illegal abortions?

Re: Good case for Steve

[seiberwing]

I think it's wrong to assume that the characters in Captain America would hold mainstream 40s viewpoints, because it's obvious that they don't.

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

Can we please acknowledge that at least some on the pro-life side (Yes, I know not all) don't feel that way because "How DARE this evil slut have sex that wasn't with the express purpose and intent of bringing a child into a monogamous heterosexual marriage? There must be CONSEQUENCES!"?

Personally, I'm an atheist pacifist environmentalist sort of gal. Rights for all genders, sexualities, ethnicities, nationalities. I'm leery of big government, Libertarian leanings, but otherwise I'd probably be the ideal democrat...

But I can't get past abortion. Can't.

Frankly, the very concept of anyone having the gall to say "I KNOW that this, right here, is the proper place to draw the line between 'Cluster of cells to which one has no ethical obligation' and 'Actual person with its own life and rights'." is boggling to me.

Even though I don't believe in god - ...or maybe especially because of that - I can't imagine *playing* god. Whether you consider that line to be heartbeats, fingers, a designated number of weeks, or the process of birth, it's the fact that people give themselves the right to draw that line that makes me feel ill.

1. Yes. Forcing a woman to devote nine months of her life to nurturing a child that she does not want, to see her body change in irrevocable ways, suffer emotionally and physically, face health risks, face societal, familial, and career stigma, deal with all of that for a child she never wanted to have, is an evil.

2. But. Extinguishing a blameless life that had no choice about coming to be is also an evil.

In my opinion, the second is the greater of those two evils.

Those harmed by other political policies at least have *some* recourse to defend themselves. Those harmed by this one have none.

(And no, I can't see 'Might as well make it legal and safe because people would just do it illegally anyway' as an argument. How many other laws regarding the taking of a life would that fly with?)

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT, and at the risk of starting abortion wank:

You are advocating for the torture of women for the sake of a group of cells that are not a human being. You are literally advocating torturing women and forcing them to risk their lives and possibly die. That's disgusting, and there is nothing "pro-life" when you're advocating for the death and torture of women.

And no, you do not support rights for "all genders" if you think women should not have the right to bodily autonomy.

Disgusting.

Re: Good case for Steve

[kribban]

The other person does not believe that it is "a group of cells." They believe it's a human being. You obviously have a different cut-off point for when you believe a fetus becomes a human being, and that's your opinion, but don't push things on OP that she doesn't believe.

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

Not the person you're replying to, but yes, if that "right to bodily autonomy" involves extinguishing an innocent life then I am very much opposed to it.

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

Now, see, THIS is where we need the "Troll in the dungeon" gif. Someone makes a very thoughtful comment saying "Here's why the abortion issue is not simple, and it's not cut-and-dried," and someone pops up saying "YES IT IS SIMPLE" "ALL THE ANSWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO ME" "YOU ARE A TORTURER IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE AS I DO" How disappointing and predictable.

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

I would agree with you but I don't really want any more babies in this world. I think the earth is starting to stretch how much human life it can support already. I'd rather women not get pregnant in the first place. It's not forcing women to go through something they don't want in my mind. It's more of a consequence. I'd also rather have human population reduced in favor of more plant and animal life.

We extinguish "blameless" life all the time. We cut down trees, squash bugs, take antibiotics. I think it should be elaborated that the "cell growth" will probably become sentient.

Reminds me of that tumor-baby in Hellboy2. If anti-abortion, would it be unethical to "abort" that tumor?

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

~I don't really want any more babies in this world. I think the earth is starting to stretch how much human life it can support already. I'd rather women not get pregnant in the first place. It's not forcing women to go through something they don't want in my mind. It's more of a consequence. I'd also rather have human population reduced in favor of more plant and animal life.~

Absolutely agreed on those points. Contraception and progressive sex-ed for everybody. But few population-adjustment advocates want that 'reduction' to be carried out by killing people who already exist. These babies, born or not, do.

Re: Good case for Steve

[kribban]

Well, there is also the argument that a woman can die in childbirth. Even in industrialized countries there is always a risk of dying while giving birth, no matter how small, and should you really have a society that forces people to risk their lives for others?

But you are absolutely right. No matter how you cut it, it's a matter of which evil you consider to be the greater one. Like Jon Stewart wisely said: Do you condone what some would consider to be rape to prevent what some would consider to be murder?

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

this.

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

The trouble is, even if you consider the fetus to be an "actual person with its own life and rights," no one has the right to use or occupy another person's body without her consent. You don't have the right to another person's body, tissues, or organs against their will in order to sustain your own life. Even if that person is dead -- consent is required for organ donation. Women should not have fewer rights than corpses.

That a fetus must die in order to remove it from an unconsenting woman's body is tragic, but the bottom line is, without her consent, it doesn't have a right to be there.

Re: Good case for Steve

[elialshadowpine]

Honestly I probably see Steve as being somewhere in the middle on abortion. I think he'd probably dislike it and want there to be other options (like access to contraception, sex ed, things that would reduce the need for it) but I don't really see him supporting laws that would result in women having to risk their lives to get abortions. I can see him personally disapproving but recognizing the necessity of the procedure's availability.

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I can see that, for the most part. I do think Steve would oppose legislation that makes abortions more difficult to obtain, too, though? (Because he would see them for what they are -- attempts to force women to remain pregnant and/or resort to desperate measures, which he'd be against.)

I can't see Steve as someone who would outright disapprove of a woman's choice on what to do with her own body. He's more respectful of individual rights than that. And the women in his life would kick his ass if he tried.

(I will just be imagining Pepper schooling Steve on abortion rights now. "No. Nuh-uh. You don't get the say here. We know what we're doing. Don't give me that look.")

Re: Good case for Steve

[seiberwing]

Cap cares about people. That's the biggest thing about Cap. He had an integrated, multicultural unit in a time where the greater military couldn't get its act together on putting black soldiers next to white ones, and his mission statement is 'I hate bullies'.

Therefore no, he's not going to go with the party that abuses people who commit nonviolent crimes out of desperation (and their children, who had no choice in the matter at all). He won't go with the party that takes food out of the mouths of the hungry for not being good enough to 'deserve' it. Certainly won't go with the party that does everything it can to take away women's rights in every aspect of sexuality and reproduction.

And the Avengers showed us he sure as hell won't put up with the military engaging in shenanigans just because he's a captain.

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

You need a course in Politics 101 if you don't think both political parties bully each other. If there's power to be held, people will bully. End of story.

Re: Good case for Steve

[seiberwing]

Ah, yes. The infamous 'both sides' argument. It's only the end of the story if you completely ignore all historical and contemporary political context that ever existed. The parties are not equal. No parties in any election ever have been equal. That's not how the world works.

Re: Good case for Steve

[(Anonymous)]

I can see Steve being a 1940's Republican, maybe, in that that's what party he tends to vote for, but for all his AMERICA FUCK YEAH ness Steve doesn't strike me as someone who votes along party lines at all, and 1940's Republicans were kinda different from modern-day Republicans. For me it always came down more to the fact that Captain America must be a liberal superhero, because otherwise he doesn't work as a character. If he was conservative in the 1940's he simply wouldn't be able to function dropped down in the early 2000's America because the values are too different and things that were considered EXTREMELY LIBERAL back then are only moderately liberal to common place now.

Since we don't have(/can't have) Captain America throwing around casual racism and misogyny, I always figured him for exceptionally liberal, especially for his time, especially in Marvel Cinematic Universe since he dealt so easily with Peggy Carter and Nick Fury without having any problems with them being in a position of authority over him.