[ 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: ...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?