[ SECRET POST #2079 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2079 ⌋

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.


__________________________________________________











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 057 secrets from Secret Submission Post #297.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

anon for obvious reasons

[(Anonymous)]

Really not trying to start anything. I don't have another place to ask this with the hope of actually getting an answer.

I just don't understand being "pro-life" (believing abortion is murder) but believing abortion is okay in cases of rape.

If you sincerely believe abortion is murder and you are saving a life what does the circumstances of the conception have to do with that viewpoint?

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[(Anonymous)]

religion works in mysterious ways

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[(Anonymous)]

ohohoho man I bet I'll get some flames for this but...yeah, as someone who's pro-life because I'm not convinced that a fetus isn't a life, I have a hard time swallowing when people go "But what if the woman was raped?? The mother would go through so much having the baby!"

Yes, if the woman was raped it's horrible, and I ABSOLUTELY sympathize with it not being easy for her (particularly since I've also been a victim of sexual abuse), but I've already told you I see the fetus as human, so...I don't know, it sounds to me like "this woman would be traumatized unless we kill this baby" and oh god it just sounds absolutely horrific in my head.

That being said, I completely understand this logic from a "it's just a body part" aspect. If it's not a life, why put someone through that? but since I don't view it as just that pretty much all of the arguments people make to me about why I should be pro-choice sound pretty...scary.

So yeah, I don't get pro-life except for cases of rape or incest. With me it seems like it makes more sense as an either/or thing. Either it's a life or it isn't. I'm much more OK with people who are pro-choice because they don't see it as a life (even if that still makes me a little uncomfortable) than I am with someone who believes it is a life but is still okay with killing it...ick.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[(Anonymous)]

I'm pro-choice all the way but I would agree that always/never is more consistent logically than "it's okay sometimes but other times not."

...I'm wading in.

[anonymouslyyours]

I personally am not sure where I fall on when a fetus is life. However I do not believe any human being has the right to life at the expense of someone's bodily autonomy.

If you believe organ/blood/bone marrow donations should be mandatory I disagree with you but won't call hypocrite on your beliefs on abortion. Otherwise I guess I will.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not pro-life/anti-choice so I can't really say, but many pro-lifers don't seem to have the basics of logic down.

It always makes me wonder how they would classify miscarriages, involuntary manslaughter?

Is my period egg suicide?

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[(Anonymous)]

I'm the pro-lifer that commented above. My mother had a miscarriage before she had me (so soon before that I wouldn't have been conceived if she hadn't, actually). Both her and I see it as a tragic loss of a young life, but it wasn't anyone's fault. Sometimes death happens.

The egg isn't fertilized so no, it's not a "suicide" or anything as dramatic as that. I'm not sure exactly when life begins, but it certainly wouldn't be before the egg's even fertile, that's asinine. I don't know anyone that's prolife that would treat it as otherwise.

It might help to actually talk to people about the positions they have other than make stupid assumptions, you know. (And yes, I know people on my side do this, too, and it makes me just as pissed off when they do, too.)

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[saku]

most pro-lifers who go so far as to want protection from the date of conception recognise that singular sperm or eggs are not fertilised and therefore arent zygotes/embryos/foetuses/what have you. to them there's a difference between these cells and embryonic ones.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[fingalsanteater]

Most people who sincerely believe abortion is murder do not believe in abortion in any circumstance.

Most people who say they are pro-life but allow for abortion in cases of rape or incest think that women are using abortion as birth control. It's more the stance of people who think women who have abortions are promiscuous. They jump on the "abortion is murder" bandwagon to avoid the whole "women are sluts" thing.

Anyway, you can't get pregnant if you are legit raped, so this is a moot point.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[(Anonymous)]

I know that last bit is sarcasm but omg that statement makes me want to hit someone (Well, mostly Todd Akin)

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[veronica_rich]

Really excellent question. If you get any answer other than "women shouldn't have the same sexual freedom as men," I hope you side-eye it HARD.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[(Anonymous)]

Also anon, for obvious reasons.

Even if it is murder, I don't really see the problem. It's socially acceptable to murder innocent people in our society, provided it's for "good reasons", and we do it all the time. We start wars knowing there will be "collateral damage" (i.e. we will murder innocent people as a direct result) but do so anyway because we think we're protecting our freedoms/freedoms of others/the interests of oil businesses. So, that's perfectly okay. We also murder innocent people through the justice system, by means of capital punishment. The Innocence Project has already proven the innocence of at least 14 (and counting) executed prisoners. We know this happens, we accept it as justified because we believe it acts as a "deterrent" to other criminals. I.e. we kill a few to, ostensibly, save more. Or something more important. Even better, we pay for this state-sponsored murder of innocent people with our taxes.

So, saving the life/health/sanity of a woman seems like a perfect justifiable reason to take an innocent life, even if you consider the fetus one. Honestly I'd rather pre-formed human with no consciousness die than a fully-formed adult human with a family die because a racist jury decided he was guilty on dubious evidence. Of the evils and atrocities I support with my tax dollars, honestly that's pretty minor. Dead fetus versus bombed school? No-brainer.

Yet almost all "pro-life" people are pro-war and pro-capital punishment. Fuck this earth.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[(Anonymous)]

prolifer above, I'm anti-death penalty for the reasons you mentioned and I only support war when it's to stop things like genocide or when you're defending against an attack.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[veronica_rich]

I agree that abortion is killing a living thing. Frankly, I've felt for a long time that pro-choicers weaken their argument when they skirt over this, so I stopped doing it. Plenty of animal species can self-abort to adjust for population and food, or nonviability of fetus - but the one sentient species that can reason and plan long-term shouldn't be allowed to take responsibility for population control of its own species?

But more than that, so long as the burden of birth, prenatal care, and post-birth support is on only one half of the species - biologically and legally - it's not right to make laws that tell that half they're stuck with whatever happens to their bodies, their time, and their wallets that will NEVER be forced on the other half of the species in the same way. (For any drive by commenters extolling the virtues of child support, I can refer you to a massively long list of single mothers who've never seen a dime from the father. Believe me, if those assholes duck and hide, there's not much any state here, at least, can do to correct it.)

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[biohazardgirl]

From what I understand, most pro-lifers do not believe abortion is okay in cases of rape, but I think those that do make the exception are only doing so because they know they wouldn't want to keep the baby to term if they themselves were raped. They simply can't imagine being in any other situation where they wouldn't want a baby, so they make an exception mentally just in case that does ever happen to them.

What really is awful about the abortion debate in my opinion is that we spend so much time talking about less common abortion candidates like rape victims and pregnant teenagers and we don't spend enough time talking about the realities of the majority of women who get abortions. I'll give a (half hypothetical) example.

I have a dear friend who went to basic training a few months ago. She had (and has) a boyfriend who she loves very much. They have sex and use birth control, because she is smart and she isn't ready to have a baby yet. If you are pregnant, you can't go to basic training; basically if she got pregnant her whole military future that she'd been planning for for years would change. We were having a discussion one day over dinner shortly before she left and she told me,

"I'm probably going to hell in a handbasket for it, but if I found out I was pregnant right now I would get an abortion. I can't have a baby right now, I just can't."

This is a perfectly valid (in my opinion) reason to have an abortion. If she waits to have a child, by the time she is ready to have one she will have a career and money and time to support the child. She will not have to give up everything she ever worked for to be a vessel for a being she didn't want. I think not addressing these cases is wrong because it suggests that the only reason abortion is even on the ballot is not for women like this, but for pregnant teenagers and rape victims. According to every news outlet everywhere it doesn't matter if your dreams of being,say, a fighter pilot are dashed, because the public doesn't find that story as interesting or sympathetic for whatever reason.

Idk, it's late and I don't know if what I'm saying makes any sense, but basically I think the whole argument surrounding abortion has been sensationalized and warped. I am pro-choice, I don't know if I could actually go through with doing it myself but I support the right for women to do with their bodies whatever they please.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[(Anonymous)]

I think what you're saying is an important part of the debate because it's only ever women who have to give up their life and their career because of getting pregnant. In every case the man has a CHOICE that a woman doesn't despite the fact that it's the man's baby just as much as the woman's.

Basically, it's not a woman's (or transman's) fault that they were born with a uterus. And we're not typically allowed to get them removed (unless it is needed for medical reasons) so why are we the ones who must carry a baby for 9 months?

I also think people gloss over the fact that pregnancy is a medical condition and there are very real risks that come with being pregnant. Even if you're not in danger of dying there is a lot of illness and other terrible things that can happen. Your body also changes forever, why should someone be forced to go through that?

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[veronica_rich]

"I think not addressing these cases is wrong because it suggests that the only reason abortion is even on the ballot is not for women like this, but for pregnant teenagers and rape victims. According to every news outlet everywhere it doesn't matter if your dreams of being,say, a fighter pilot are dashed, because the public doesn't find that story as interesting or sympathetic for whatever reason."

This happens because of lack of basic biological and psychological education and logic. It's easy to gross out people and prejudice them against killing a picture you're waving of a seven- or eight-month-old fetus, IF they don't understand abortions of ones that far along are almost totally because of (a) a bad problem with the fetus itself or (b) danger to the woman's life. And many people don't. They also don't realize many already-mothers, including married ones, get abortions because they can't afford another mouth; and that there ARE married people who don't want children.

It's often hard to control an emotional debate if you don't evoke extreme emotion. This is why pro-choicers so often look like unfeeling ice cubes, because they're deliberately cast as mustache-twirling villains who are out to slaughter helpless gurgling, chubby-cheeked "D'AWWWW" babies ... instead of advocating safe access to abortion for women who don't want a pregnancy to get anywhere near that advanced a stage.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[yeahscience]

I actually agree with this. I'm absolutely as pro-choice as they come personally, but I've never understood pro-lifers who include exceptions.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[(Anonymous)]

Perhaps they see it more along the lines of having to carry that child to term would be further victimizing the would-be mother, that she's already suffered enough, and that while still murder, the abortion of the fetus is a necessary step in the process of her recovery from her ordeal.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[(Anonymous)]

Pro-life here, and believe that life is sacred from conception to natural death. (Yeah, putting on the asbestos cloak of invisibility now)

I don't believe in abortion myself, can't quite figure out the whole rape/incest thing (happened to me, didn't get preg but my abuser told me I'd be getting an abortion if I had), and I don't judge the women who have an abortion for whatever reason. That said: I do find women who have multiple abortions to be a whole different creature. THAT I don't get: contraceptives are readily available. Don't want a kid? Then don't create one, I would think.

I don't have the right to tell anyone what they can or can't do. I don't want to be responsible or complicit in someone else's choice either. I believe in conscience laws. Not popular, I suppose, but I don't understand why pro-lifers can't tell pro-choicers what to do/not do but there's a trend toward telling pro-lifers to shut up and do what they are told to, personal beliefs be damned. Tolerance should be a two- way road, imho. It's not just the pro-life people who have the market cornered in intolerance.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[(Anonymous)]

I don't have the right to tell anyone what they can or can't do.

So, you're pro-choice.

Alrighty then, carry on.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[veronica_rich]

"I don't understand why pro-lifers can't tell pro-choicers what to do/not do but there's a trend toward telling pro-lifers to shut up and do what they are told to"

Because in one of those scenarios there's an extra human to feed, clothe, educate, raise, and otherwise pay for for at least a couple of decades; or give away and think about for the rest of one's life. In the other - there's someone being told to mind their own business. Not remotely the same.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[ill_omened]

Negative vs positive freedoms.

Theoretically the woman made the decisions to knowingly take acts that might make her pregnant and bears the responsibility to have her body used to support a life as she created it, whereas obviously in rape this isn't the case and killing is considered acceptable in this case (there's plenty of other examples of this).

the incest exception is th eone that throws me for the loop.

p.s. for the record I don't believe this, am pro-choice blah blah but it holds together as a coherent ideology and a lot of the critiques of it are trite bumper car arguments.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[veronica_rich]

See, I don't get this. So a precious, innocent life should be preserved at all costs ... unless it causes one specific kind of distress to the woman? Then it's acceptable to kill it and there's no stain on anyone's soul? Questioning that brand of logic doesn't seem especially argumentative, but that's just IMO of course.

Re: anon for obvious reasons

[saku]

are you goldgato on gaia because i swear i just went over this exact same thing.

pro-lifers focus their energy on the foetus, whereas pro-choicers focus on women. for the pro-life argument, it's a matter of a right to life; for the pro-choice argument, it's all about the rights of women to dictate the integrity of their bodies. it's very rare that either side ever 1) understands this difference in focus and 2) takes it into consideration to any degree. instead they always apply their values to the other side and assume said other side is anti-their values, ie. "pro-lifers hate women" or "pro-choicers hate children."

thus a pro-life individual who is making rape and incest exceptions is actually giving consideration to pro-choice arguments. yes, it's inconsistent with pro-life values, but that doesn't make it "wrong." further, their stance on rape and incest cases in no way funnels them into a mindset where they think these foetuses are "lesser" than others. if anything, the pro-choice community promotes this mindset, with their "every child a wanted child" mentality.

i consider myself pro-life in my values and attempt to live with as consistent a life ethic as possible, but i'm in favour of abortion rights (as a pro-life person i would rather abortion - which is a societal necessity - be legal and safe, so that women don't die in an attempt to get one) and i don't consider myself a "bad" pro-lifer for it. i also don't view the unborn as "lesser" human beings, but legally we have to concede that foetuses are not people and don't get the same legal rights. further, restricting abortion rights does not statistically reduce abortion numbers. i want abortion numbers to be reduced (as i'm sure most people do, it's not a pleasant reality for anybody) so i focus my attention on promoting sex education and the availability of contraceptives.

tl;dr pro-life people who make exceptions or are otherwise not rabid about their position are making reasonable compromises that encompass both pro-life and pro-choice values