fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2031 ]

[ SECRET POST #2031 ]

⌈ 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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?)

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.

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.

AYRT

It doesn't matter. They're still advocating the torture of living women. Period. That doesn't change if you think it's a clump of cells or a baby or a two-headed dinosaur creature from the planet Mars. You're still saying it should be okay to literally torture and kill women for the sake of a dependent something-or-other that relies on, drains and consumes their resources and bodies in order to survive. That's not up for debate. "Pro-life" is pro-torture of women.

If whether you're referring to a life or not 'doesn't change' the argument, it comes back down to the same thing. 'Torture', if that's the word you choose to use, and yes, risk, to one life on one hand, 100% risk of death to the other life on the other hand.

Contraception has been brought up elsewhere in this thread, and that's the issue I can't fathom both sides not vehemently agreeing on, the only way to turn that choice between two evils into no need to MAKE that choice.

Contraception has been brought up elsewhere in this thread, and that's the issue I can't fathom both sides not vehemently agreeing on

It's because a lot of people on the anti-choice side are not actually invested in "saving babies" -- they want to punish women for having sex. Contraception allows "loose" women to escape the "consequences of their actions." That's why they don't support it, because being able to prevent pregnancy will "encourage immoral behavior." That's genuinely the argument that a lot of anti-choicers make.

Okay, so you're pro-torturing women. Just making sure I've got that.

Hypothetical - Adult Siamese twins. Because of the way the inner systems are distributed, one could survive a separation, the other could not. The one who would survive wants the surgery anyway, the other doesn't. Because that twin relies on the other, could not survive without the other, does that render him a second-class citizen who has no say in his life or death?

Pregnancy and childbirth is not torture or violence. It's a natural biological process that women's bodies have evolved to withstand.

The focus should always be to make childbirth safer, but still, the chance of dying if childbirth in an industrial nation is extremely low.

Abortion to save the life of the mother is of course a completely different issue.

Forcing someone to go through pregnancy and childbirth is absolutely torture. It is, for one thing, FORCING someone to go through an extremely dangerous, painful process that changes their bodies for the rest of their lives and may KILL them. It can also be extremely psychologically damaging, and forcing a woman to undergo pregnancy and childbirth can cause PTSD, as well as other psychological problems. It may cause a woman to commit or at least consider suicide. It forces a woman to spend nine months as a prisoner in her own body, a body which becomes more foreign to her by the day, unable to stop a process she DEEPLY does not want to go through. How is that not torture?

By the by, an intimate partner forcing a woman to become and remain pregnant is considered serious abuse -- it is called "reproductive abuse" and is one of the most common forms of intimate partner violence and abuse against women.

Further, the chance of dying in childbirth is not low in "industrialized nations." The US maternal mortality rate in 2008 was 24 in ever 100,000 births, which is considered very high. Since I assume by "industrialized nation" you mean "suitably wealthy Western English-speaking country" (because nearly all countries are "industrialized" these days, I mean, seriously), I will add that the US has the highest rate of maternal mortality of Western English-speaking countries, but other large, non-Western countries have even higher maternal mortality rates: In Russia it is 39 per 100,000 births; In China it is 38, in Mexico 85, in Indonesia 240, and in South Africa it is 410. It is hardly rare. Your citing the chance of dying in childbirth also ignores the extremely high risk of complications due to pregnancy and/or childbirth, which can seriously and severely effect the health of the woman and possibly kill her in the future.

Just so you know, you're advocating to kill, harm, torture, irrevocably injure women like me, AND you're incredibly ignorant about childbirth and pregnancy. So, uh, fuck you.

Signed,
A woman who would kill herself if she were forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth. Thanks for wanting me dead! <3

It's not torture because it's not violence. It might be (mental and physical) pain, but it's not done by the hands of another person, but by a biological process that no one is in control over.

If you are so scared of pregnancy that you would commit suicide, you need to seek counseling. It sounds as thought you might suffer from tokophobia. Nothing is ever worth killing yourself over.

I also hope that you have a partner who is considerate of you and would never put you at risk of becoming pregnant.

Sabotaging someone's contraception should be prosecuted as battery. Rape should be prosecuted severely. We should all work to make the health care in our respective countries better and available to women regardless of income.

However, to someone who belives a ZBEF is a valuable human being, it's impossible to support something that has a 100% mortality rate and that happens so very often. Which brings me back to my original point, you and the AYRT differs in how you view the ZBEF and that colors how you view the question. Pro-lifers look at the abortion statistics and literally see millions of dead people.

Although, it may make you feel better to know that even though the AYRT wants to make abortion illegal, not all pro-life people want that. All Our Lives is a good example of an organisation that seeks to stop abortion by changing hearts and minds and alleviating the root causes of abortion.

Have a great day and take care.

DA.

A regular pregnancy isn't torture. Forced pregnancy is not the same thing. It can definitely be argued that forcing someone to undergo drastic physical changes cuminating in what is described as the most painful experience of one's life is indeed a form of violence.

It is generally not legal to physically prevent an adult from obtaining safe medical treatment that would prevent unwanted physical changes and pain. In fact, doing so in any other circumstance DOES count as torture and violence. For the same reason that imprisoning someone with a health condition and not allowing them medical treatment is also considered torture and an act of violence (recall that starving a prisoner is also the same - there doesn't have to be hitting -- depriving is also considered violence and torture in some circumstances. To use a silly example to make a point, if there were a law that prevented people from having some other medical procedure that prevented a great deal of pain and risk for moral reasons, then that would be institutional torture, done by society.

I understand that what complicates this is the issue, as you pointed out, of when separate life begins. So I'm not saying that my examples are exactly the same as the issue here. Obviously, this issue is way more complex than the examples above. I'm just saying that if someone does NOT want to be pregnant, it's not fair or accurate to tell someone that they can't think of forced pregnancy as torture. (If it clarifies, I think forced pregnancy is to pregnancy as rape is to sex --- NOT the same).

That said, I actually was not very aware that there were prominent pro-life groups who don't advocate for legal restrictions. It's a shame that groups like that don't get the attention of the larger groups, but thank you for bringing it up - that was very informative. I personally feel like the ethical issue is a complex one with many reasonable sides, but as to the legal aspect, I find that one side is much more fitting for a free society. So it's nice to hear that the ethical and legal issues are recognized as separate by people with many different perspectives.

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.

So you're totes okay with torturing and killing women and denying them the right to bodily autonomy, forcing them -- by physical force if necessary, I'm sure (perhaps tying them down, or medicating them into a stupor so they can't hurt themselves?) -- to continue a pregnancy they do not want, which, let me repeat again, will at the very least change their bodies and health for the rest of their lives, irrevocably, and can and in many cases would kill them or cause them to kill themselves in desperation.

Because of a clump of cells you call an "innocent life," you think that's okay.

It's good to know where people stand, I guess. If you want to stand on the side advocating to torture, maim and kill innocent women, that's on your conscience, not mine.

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.

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?

~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.

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?

this.

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.

Seriously, this.

If you're going to frame it as a trespassing argument, I believe there was discussion elsewhere on this thread over whether it's justified to use deadly force on a person who has broken into your home, even if the person is posing no immediate threat. Facedown on the floor, hands in the air - any mental image you wish to use convey the universal message of one who means no harm.

If there *is* an immediate threat, a weapon, say - analogous to an abortion medically necessary to save the woman's life - the decision becomes much harder for an objective party to make. But not until then.

1. I'd say a person's body is more inherently "theirs" than the property they live in, so occupying someone's body against their will goes a bit beyond simple trespassing.

2. Even under ideal circumstances, with proper medical care, childbirth carries a nonzero risk of death for the woman. That's enough of an immediate threat for me.

A woman's body is not an object.

Let me repeat that: A woman's body is not an object.

Your argument is completely invalid.

How do I give you all my applause?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2031 ]

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Forced pregnancy is not the same as pregnancy

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve

Re: Good case for Steve