[ 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

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: ...I'm wading in.

[(Anonymous)]

+1 I'd also say "life" doesn't stop when the baby is born, I feel like if you're pro life then you should also be willing to spend tons of money towards making sure the baby is not abandoned in a dumpster, has a suitable home, is able to eat, has access to education, etc etc.

I am not religious but there was a great quote by a nun on what it truly means to be "pro life", I wish I could find it because it was extremely well put.

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[(Anonymous)]

I am, actually. I plan on adopting when I'm married and my homelife is stable and I'm ready to have children because I feel so strongly about this. It'd be good if some sort of reform could happen of our foster care system to make sure the kids are put first, too, although I know there's a lot of complex stuff going on there. I also strongly believe in forms of birth control like condoms and the pill in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening as much as possible in the first place.

I'm also against the death penalty for similar reasons.

I know it's popular to assume these days that pro-lifers don't actually care about kids and just want to feel superior to others, or something, but I feel very strongly about making sure that as much care as possible is given to those children, as well as their mothers.

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[anonymouslyyours]

Just to be sure... Do you support anti-abortion legislation right now or theoretically if we lived in an ideal world where all those children would find loving homes?

Even in that world unless there was a way to support the fetus outside of the woman's body, the extraction process posing no risk to her, I would still support abortion but it would be significantly harder to do so.

And just to be clear I think abortion is horrible and wish no woman ever had to be in that situation but facing facts abortion is a harsh reality of the world we live in. To badly paraphrase there is no such thing as no abortion in our world, just no safe abortions.

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[(Anonymous)]

I support it right now. I just absolutely don't feel comfortable with the killing of an innocent child. there are other alternatives out there and I think they should be reformed and supported over abortion.

i know there's no such thing as 'no abortion' in the world, and that people will do it if it's illegal or not, but that doesn't make it right or OK. I am absolutely OK with people doing whatever they want with their own bodies, but when another life is involved, that's where I draw the line.

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[anonymouslyyours]

Even if I agreed with you I would believe the reformation should come way before any anti-abortion legislation should be introduced. Supporting anti-abortion legislation right now guarantees children being raised in horrendous situations. I've seen first hand the impact getting lost in the system or being raised by parents who resent your existence can have.

And I don't imagine there will ever be a world where making abortion illegal will not mean women and children being maimed or killed by botched abortions.

I'm pretty sure you genuinely have good heart but for me I believe sometimes the right thing to do isn't always the pretty one and in the long run I think legalizing abortion saves and improves lives. I'd rather see all the anti-abortion focus be moved to education and prevention in the hopes of eliminating the need for abortion rather than just denying access to safe medical procedures to desperate women.

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd rather see all the anti-abortion focus be moved to education and prevention in the hopes of eliminating the need for abortion rather than just denying access to safe medical procedures to desperate women.

This. Abortion is a solution to an underlying problem. Taking away the solution does not remove the problem.

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[(Anonymous)]

I have a friend that was adopted out of a pretty screwed-up situation because of her mother being a drug addict, so I know what happens to kids like this. And it sucks. But the alternative just sounds like a mercy killing thing, and I just...can't get behind it. I can't get behind killing someone because they might not have a good life. We can't really see the future. There's a lot of "wanted" children that have screwed-up homelives, too. there's a lot of people that manage to move beyond their pasts and make meaningful contributions to the world. There's kids that get adopted like my friend did and manage to find themselves in much better homes, too.

I do think that we need to put more attention on education and alternatives, though. I'm not someone that's against, say, sex education. I think the more women have other options, the better.

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[anonymouslyyours]

I think the more women have other options, the better. Are you the same anon who said they support anti-abortion legislature?

I just want to make it clear there is no "might" about it. Denying people access to safe, legal abortions absolutely does and will result in horrible situations that should have been prevented. Wanted children come into the world at a far greater advantage than unwanted children. And there is data to back that up and not just an anecdote from my personal life for that.

The anecdata I have is not something I want to talk about and I think I want to bow out of this little back and forth because I don't have the luxury of applying wishful thinking to my real life decisions and beliefs and I'm actually getting a little upset.

eta: the current system that is so horrendously failing children is doing so without the added pressure of the thousands of children who would ostensibly be born if abortion was made illegal and difficult to obtain. Leaving aside the women and children who would be killed or maimed in that event.

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[(Anonymous)]

just because someone will do something doesn't make it OK. people will steal, kill, and rape, no matter what the law is.

if the current system is failing then we need to fix the system. i don't get why neither side seems to try to focus their energy there instead.

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[anonymouslyyours]

Are you the same anon?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make by comparing abortion to stealing, killing, and raping. I stated that anti-abortion laws only hurt and damage women and children. Giving women access to safe abortions saves lives period. Unless you are suggesting dying from a botched abortion is a reasonable punishment for women who break anti-abortion laws and completely ignoring the fact that when an abortion is botched the child can survive maimed, paralyzed or it can take days for the fetus to die?

If there weren't people trying to pass anti-abortion legislation there wouldn't be people trying to prevent it from being passed. So if you want the system fixed FIX IT instead of focusing your energy on legislation that screws over people in a terrible situation who are resorting to what they feel is the best option for them.

And look, even if the system was perfect not every woman can carry a pregnancy to term safely and with little impact to her daily life. eta: but to suggest abortion should be banned in favor of adoption right now sounds like an awful, awful idea even when you ignore women's rights to bodily autonomy.

I don't like the fact that abortions exist. But I have no idea how anyone thinks banning abortions are in any way a good idea or a solution to the problem. All it does is take an awful situation and make it worse.

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[biohazardgirl]

+1 on the botched abortions. Women have gotten abortions for hundreds of years whether or not it was safe, and they'll still seek out the procedure even if it is illegal, only then many of them will die from the procedure.

It's like the argument against birth control and sex education. The people against it may think abstinence is the best option, but they can preach it all they want and teens are still going to have sex. Teens have always had sex, and they're not just going to stop doing it because you tell them to. The only difference is if you don't help them then you're going to wind up with a whole lot of pregnant teenagers, or teenagers with life threatening STD's that won't ever go away.

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm curious: What is your view on abortion when you know the child will die shortly after the birth/won't survive the pregnancy?

And are you against abortion as well if the child is endangering the life of the mother?

Just really curious because both of those strike me as problematic given the way you see things.

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[(Anonymous)]

Hey anon, can I say how pleased I am to read that someone else is considering adoption? So many people don't consider it or treat it as somehow less than getting biological child. They spend so much money on fertility treatements and all, and it kind of hurts me a bit because there are so many children EVEN IN THE COUNTRY who need a home. Myself and my siblings, all 6 of us, were adopted from different families and locations and we're so greatful someone was willing to take us and not put us in fostercare.

I'm entirely capable of having a baby, but I've already decided that when I want a child and have the means I will adopt. Even if it does cost a bit more.

Although in regards to this thread. I am a pro-choice person, but I personally would bring a child to term (provided they're not going to have an exceptionally painful life due to any diseases)

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[(Anonymous)]

okay, so what about conjoined twins? if killing one would save the other twin's life, is it justified?

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[ariakas]

Doctors and parents make this call when it comes to conjoined twins all the time, actually, if one has less of a chance of viability, and the viability of the other will be greatly improved without the twin. They surgically separate them even though that guarantees one twin's death.

And nobody charges them with murder.

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[anonymouslyyours]

I'm not sure what you mean by "justified". I also am not entirely certain what scenario you are proposing. Both twins are going to die but there is a chance one could survive if one is terminated first? Or do you mean only one will survive and the medical procedure would shift the odds in a different twin's favor? Or did you mean that the dominant twin wants a higher quality of life at the expense of the other twin?

Whatever you did mean I am absolutely not qualified to discuss any of that but still stand by my belief that no person is obligated to sustain another person's life against their wishes. Fetus or adult.

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[(Anonymous)]

Ok, let's say two adult conjoined twins. Both currently healthy, fully cognizant, etc (not that this should really matter, but then abortion is legal up to full term here if you have reason to believe the baby is disabled). With both conjoined, they will both live full adult lives. If seperated, twin A will die and twin B will be able to live as a basically normal person. Twin B decides that they want to live without a twin, to have a normal life. Twin A is horrified, and begs not to be killed.

If the right to bodily integrity is more important than the right to life, will you anaesthetise the crying, begging twin A in order to separate them from twin B and kill them? What about twin A's bodily integrity?

What about the foetus's bodily integrity?

This isn't a "gotcha": I'm interested in knowing if this is really what you believe, really why you believe abortion is okay, or whether it's your explanation but it only applies when you don't really believe one of the parties is a human person.

Re: ...I'm wading in.

[anonymouslyyours]

What part of "I do not believe any person has the right to life at the expense of another person's bodily autonomy," wasn't clear? I'm not saying your scenario is black and white easy to think about but it doesn't change the fact that I don't think anyone is responsible to sustain another person's life against their will regardless of circumstances.

You want to talk hypotheticals? What if someone required a surgery to be conjoined to another person for whatever reason and would die without it, do you believe the healthy person should be forced to undergo that life-changing procedure against their will?