[ SECRET POST #2111 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2111 ⌋

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.


__________________________________________________



21.


__________________________________________________



22.


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 124 secrets from Secret Submission Post #301.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

No, it's really not.

[(Anonymous)]

+1
Hold your ground.

[(Anonymous)]

It means you think that women should have less sovereignty over their own bodies than corpses do. You have to explicitly opt-in to be an organ donor after you die. Anti-choicers don't think that women should be able to opt-out of allowing a fetus to use their organs and tissues to sustain its life.

So yeah, thinking women should have less agency over their bodies than dead people is anti-woman.

[(Anonymous)]

The key difference in your little analogy is that the corpse isn't harboring a life inside of it. If you view having agency to be more important than preserving life, then that's your prerogative. I don't see the fact that one is concerned for the lives of unborn men

continued

[(Anonymous)]

The key difference in your little analogy is that the corpse isn't harboring a life inside of it. If you view having agency to be more important than preserving life, then that's your prerogative. I don't see the fact that one is concerned more for the lives of unborn men and women than the individual choice to end this life is anti-woman in and of itself.

Re: continued

[(Anonymous)]

Please, please tell me how that means anything other than "women's bodies don't actually belong to them," and how that isn't anti-woman.

Re: continued

[(Anonymous)]

Once you become pregnant, you share a body with the baby. So there are two lives to think of, not just one.

Re: continued

[(Anonymous)]

No. "Share" implies a voluntary arrangement. Once you become pregnant, your body is being occupied by a baby. Why should it be able to remain there if the woman it is occupying doesn't consent?

Re: continued

[(Anonymous)]

Because the baby did not ask to be born; it is an innocent in the situation. Its only alternative is death.

Re: continued

[(Anonymous)]

As tragic as that is, why should a woman be forced to surrender her rights to save another person's life? The baby's innocence or guilt is immaterial here; what's relevant is whether the baby has the right to force a woman to accept the non-consensual occupation of her body. Last I knew, no one has that right, no matter the stakes.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't believe life starts at conception. A fetus in the early stages is basically a parasite. I shouldn't be told what I can and can not do with my own body based on someone else's religious views.

(Google Fetus In fetu, I will warn you that it is pretty disturbing)

[(Anonymous)]

It's funny you should bring up Fetus in fetu, because my mom had one of those removed a long time ago.

Then when do you define when life begins? When it actually pops out of the woman, even though you can see the fully-formed baby in ultrasounds before them? Someone has to draw the line. Imo, it would be when a baby gets a heartbeat, but I'm obviously not in charge of the legislation (much to your relief, I'm sure lol)

[(Anonymous)]

Certainly not at conception, when it is nothing but a spec of cells.

[(Anonymous)]

Ok, but you did not answer my question. When do you believe life begins?

[(Anonymous)]

Not the same anon, but I'd answer somewhere between when the heart starts to beat and the brain starts to produce brainwaves. So... around sixth week-ish?

And yet still, it is always the mother's decision what to do with her own body.

[(Anonymous)]

Here's the thing. In no other circumstance is one person allowed to use any part of another person's body to support their own life without that person's consent. If I'm terminally ill and need a bone marrow transplant and you're the only compatible donor, I can't force you to give me bone marrow against your will, even if I'll die without it. Why should "unborn men," as you call them, have the right to use women's organs and tissues to sustain their lives against her will? Are you telling me that you don't view one person's right to bodily integrity as more important than preserving another persons life, if doing so would necessarily violate their bodily integrity? That telling a woman, "No, for the next nine months, your body is not your own, regardless of what you want, because someone else needs it" is okay?

[(Anonymous)]

You bring up a very good and interesting point. See, what it comes down to for me is that we are talking about innocent babies. Causing the death of a baby because I do not want to help it survive just upsets me tremendously, perhaps because I work with so many babies and young children at my job and I plan on being a mother soon. And I would wish with all my heart that all adults should want to help that person that needs an organ donor if they are the only ones who can, simply because I cannot fathom the alternative. I realize some will have no problems with ignoring the donor that needs help in the life or death situation, or ending the life of a baby, but the whole thing seems practically incomprehensible for me. When you put it in the context of using another body for support, I feel the case for abortion becomes stronger, but the idea of ending the life of one who has no way of speaking for itself just distresses me.

And as far as "unborn men" goes, I meant to say "unborn men and women," but I accidentally hit "enter" so it got cut off. That is why I don't view being against abortion as being anti-women per say; because you are concerned for the rights of unborn women as well. But yes, I suppose there is no legal precedence for them to have that, but the whole concept behind it just feels so...cold and clinical, for lack of a better word.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry for replying to your comment before you had a chance to finish it; I wasn't sure you were going to add more.

Here's the thing, though: If you want to help the baby survive by allowing it to use your body, or save the life of the sick person by donating bone marrow or organs, that's your choice and you are welcome to do so. But do you think you should be able to force someone else to make the same choice as you? I agree that the fetus is "innocent," insofar as it made no conscious decision to occupy an unwilling woman's body. But I don't think that fact places an obligation on the woman to give over her rights to her own body in order to support it. You might think she does have a moral obligation, but she most assuredly does not and cannot have a legal obligation to surrender her rights for someone else's sake.

I don't actually think that the gender of the fetus matters in this case. Anti-choice legislation doesn't become pro-woman because female fetuses are saved along with male ones. The only people being forced to surrender their rights are women, which makes it anti-woman, regardless of the number of female babies born as a result.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm glad I am having this conversation, as it has given me much to think about.

No, I suppose the woman does not have a legal obligation to share her body with the baby. I just cannot fathom how any mother can willingly end their child's life. I don't think I could live with it personally, but I am just one person in a sea of many, and there are many who do not share my morals and it is not my place to enforce them on others.

My main fear in regards to abortion is that it will be used too often for bad reasons. I know the word "bad" is very vague and I will most likely cause anger for using it, but I can't think of an English word that fits what I am about to say. I will use an example: in some countries, once a family finds out a child is a girl, the parents decide to have it aborted. In this case, I would describe abortion as being what is anti-woman, and regulations as pro-woman, though I suspect you may disagree. This is why I do not share the point of view of those that do not want abortion to be regulated; if abortion has some degree of regulation, then it would prevent situations like this. I don't think this is so much a problem in America as it is in other places of the world, but it is an example of what could happen.

da

[(Anonymous)]

Sex-selective abortion is an issue in some parts of the world, but it's a symptom of a larger problem, i.e. the widespread devaluation of women and girls. Simply outlawing it won't actually solve anything.

Re: da

[(Anonymous)]

It won't stop the devaluation problem, but regulating it (as in, not allowing abortions because of this reason) would save the lives of thousands who would otherwise never get the chance at experiencing the wonders of life.

[(Anonymous)]

The solution to sex-selective abortion is changing the culture that considers females to be less inherently valued than males. Restricting abortion will only lead to women seeking more dangerous means of terminating their pregnancy, or having daughters that they or their husband treat poorly or abusively. Many would argue that even a life full of abuse and feeling like your parents don't love you is better than no life at all, but that's not true in all cases -- I've heard personal accounts of people who grew up in abusive and unloving homes who say that it would have been better if their own mothers had aborted them rather than having a baby that they didn't want and couldn't or wouldn't raise in a healthy way.

Also, once you start saying that there are some legitimate reasons to legally restrict access to abortion, that sets a dangerous precedent, and there are already too many forces trying to restrict a woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions.

[avatarmn]

You can go ahead and be tremendously upset about abortion. But you've no right to let that make you impose your will on someone else. If you seriously understand anon's point.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, it really is actually.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, it is. If you're anti-choice you're saying you're fine with going back to the days of women dying in back-alley abortions because all the safe, clean, licensed doctors won't legally be allowed to perform the procedure anymore. Abortions will happen, the choice is about whether they'll be safe and legal or dangerous and illegal.
By all means, say you yourself won't have an abortion. It's your right. But ignoring the ramifications of outlawing abortion is just frighteningly ignorant.