[ 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)]

American politics is not exactly at the forefront of my mind, so no, I don't feel I have to do in-depth research on an American politician before I post a question on fucking fandomsecrets. This place clearly has a left-wing slant, so I (correctly) assumed I would have more than enough people here to fill me on on the basics.

Like he said in the debate, regardless of circumstances a life is being taken away, so that's why he thinks the circumstances don't matter. Even in a situation like rape, the baby is not the one at fault. But because this is such an emotional, complicated issue he is willing to temper his position for the sake of the American people, even if he personally disagrees. I don't think the fact that he's personally anti-abortion in any instance (except for the life of the mother? maybe? idk) is proof of HATRED for women; it's proof that he values the life of unborn men and women. And I don't see how The Personhood Ammendment is proof of hatred either. I think it's a bit silly for them to count as "people" once fertilized (if anything, wait until it has a heartbeat!), but again, not hatred.

What are his reasons for defunding planned parenthood?

The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act thing was news to me. I don't know how anyone in their right mind would vote against it.

[yeahscience]

Uh, except that posting "why on earth... I never got the impression... unless you believe [blah blah] which of course is ridiculous" makes you sound openly combative. If you don't know something, there are ways to ask it that aren't LIBERAL MORONS ON FANDOMSECRETS, DEFEND YOUR VIEWS. You sounded both ignorant and belligerent. Which is especially silly on an issue that can literally be researched by typing these three words into google: "Paul Ryan women." If you want to be genuinely educated, don't fucking start it by trying to fight the people you want to educate you.

His reasons for defunding Planned Parenthood are that Republicans have ignorantly and incorrectly painted the organization as an abortion provider, even though that's an incredibly small fraction of the health services they actually provide to women, in particular low-income women.

He also, by the way, is part of a group that has been stalling the passage of the Violence Against Women Act. Thanks, Republican Congressmen!

[(Anonymous)]

Holy shit.

It might be that the internet can't convey tone well, or it might be because English is not my first language, but I am not trying to "combat" anyone. I made it very clear to say "I" never got that impression. Not that he's not, necessarily, but it would come as a surprise for me from what I have seen of him. And I don't know why the heck you think I hate liberals or think they are morons, I just know that many here are up-to-date on these issues and hate Ryan. I am not "belligerent" or trying to fight anyone. You may believe me or not; it is none of my concern. And I do admit I am ignorant in some regards to American politics because I have other things much closer at home to worry about. I know the basics but I do not know about things that are generally not spoken about a lot or not on the television. If you believe I am combative because of the "ridiculous" part of my comment, I should hope that most people are sensible enough to assume that not wanting abortions does not mean he or she "hates all women." It's a lot more of a complicated issue than that. No one should take offense to that because I believe most people are intelligent enough to see the gray here, even if they don't agree with it.

[yeahscience]

Okay, then let me just say, since English is not your first language: every part of what I quoted makes you sound belligerent and like you're ridiculing people who think Paul Ryan is misogynist. "Why on earth" and "I never got that impression" connote disbelief; and yes, the "ridiculous" part is absolutely combative, since you start off making an assumption about the people saying he's a misogynist (that we say that because he's anti-abortion) and then immediately follow it with saying that position is ridiculous.

Again: if you want to be educated on something, the way to say it is something like, "I didn't know that. Can you tell me why you think he's misogynist? Is it only because of his position on abortion, or are there other factors?" Not saying something that connotes, "I don't think that's true, you probably just think this and that's silly."

[(Anonymous)]

I said "why on earth" to show disbelief because I wanted to express my surprise. THe sees like such a nice young man! "I never got that impression" is true though; from what

continued, accidentally hit "enter" key

[(Anonymous)]

I said "why on earth" to show disbelief because I WAS surprised by that assertion and wanted to express my surprise. "I never got that impression" is true though; from what I've seen he seems like such a nice young man so it’s a shock to me that he would support such awful things. I can see why “ridiculous” is combative since it means “silly,” but I honestly did not believe there was anyone here who actually held the view that one who is against abortion hates all women.

I suppose my English is not as good as I thought it was, lol. I believe this is something that can only be helped by practice.

Re: continued, accidentally hit "enter" key

[(Anonymous)]

I honestly did not believe there was anyone here who actually held the view that one who is against abortion hates all women.

Sure, it only means hating fertile women.

Or maybe you can think someone shouldn't have rights without "hating" them, somehow.

Re: continued, accidentally hit "enter" key

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, you can think someone shouldn't do something and not hate them. In this case the "right" ends up killing a living thing.

Re: continued, accidentally hit "enter" key

[(Anonymous)]

When that "living thing" is occupying your body against your will, its death is tragic but an act of self-defense. And you can think that the person shouldn't do it as much as you like, but when you actively seek to remove a person's right to control their own body, that is hateful.

[yeahscience]

To be honest, it's kind of coming across like you don't really get the connotations of misogyny, either. No one is suggesting that Paul Ryan personally hates all women. What we are saying is that his policies, decision, and actions harm women and are hateful to women, and that makes him a hater of women. A misogynist isn't necessarily someone who is personally cruel to every woman. I knew a guy who was very polite and charming to women, but also once expressed the view that successful men were "owed" attractive women and sex, and that women were prizes to be obtained and showed off. Is that not misogyny? He had been perfectly kind to me up until that moment.

In this case, anyway, Ryan has absolutely indicated with his votes that he views women as less than himself. We don't deserve equal pay or medical care. We don't even deserve safety. We don't count.

And frankly, I do agree that any anti-abortion policy is a misogynist policy for much the same reasons as Biden and the anons in this thread have said: that it removes a woman's right to make decisions about her own body and health and instead imposes a male-led government's standard on her. But that is far from the only reason people are calling Paul Ryan a misogynist scumbag.

[(Anonymous)]

You cleared up a lot in this comment. I assumed the English word "misogynist" meant someone who hates all women (or "woman-hater", as the dictionary says), which clearly is not the case since he loves the women in his family. Yes, some of his policies are certainly harmful to women, and it saddens me that someone in this day and age would support some of these sexist things.

Wow, that man from your story sounds like an absolute horror! I hope you warned your female friends about him! It is not only depressing that he holds that view, but also because he has no shame telling someone openly!

I respect your view on abortion even if I myself do not believe that being against abortion means misogynist. Because ways of exercising that right can lead to the death of another living being, I feel that there is more of a gray area in that regard.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think the fact that he's personally anti-abortion in any instance (except for the life of the mother? maybe? idk) is proof of HATRED for women; it's proof that he values the life of unborn men and women more than he values the right of born women to refuse to incubate them.

That's the problem. He can "value" the lives of fetuses all he wants, until he starts trying to force women to gestate them against their will. That's when it becomes hatred for women.

What are his reasons for defunding planned parenthood?

Because PP provides abortion services (though they are forbidden from using government money for abortions), which in his mind makes them completely evil and so they shouldn't get any funding to help low-income women get contraception or pap spears or mammograms or prenatal care

[(Anonymous)]

If they don't use government money for abortions then I certainly question the logic in defunding it in the first place. You would think that if Ryan wants to implements stricter abortion laws than there should be a greater push for contraception.

As far as abortion goes, the issue is that if women choose not to gestate, then the baby is killed. It comes down to rights vs life: do you believe a person should have complete control over one's body, even if it means killing an innocent? Because of this I don't believe that enabling laws that require mothers to keep the baby to term (except in the cases of rape, incest, health) means that he hates women, exactly. It's more like he's imposing morals on others because there are two lives in the picture instead of one. Which I suppose is problematic in and of itself, but there is no simple solution to this problem.

[(Anonymous)]

Why the exceptions for rape or incest, though? An innocent life is an innocent life, after all.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know, you would have to ask Ryan. I happen to agree; all life is sacred, and once a baby's heart starts beating my morals tell me it should not be killed. In my comment I said "exceptions in cases of..." because I was talking about Ryan and his policies (more specifically, the "anti-woman" perception of abortion laws) , which have exceptions for rape and incest.

The value of the life of a baby does not change, regardless of how it was conceived. I imagine the laws exist because with consensual sex, you know the risk going in. Pregnancy is always a possibility.

[(Anonymous)]

His "logic" involves wanting to punish women for not adhering to his own standards of "sexual morality," wherein women should never have sex ever if they're (a) unmarried or (b) not prepared to have a baby. In his mind and the minds of people who think like him, contraception "encourages immoral sexual behavior" and "can act as an abortifacent" (both of which points are, of course, bullshit).

In the issue of "rights vs life," I'm not comfortable with the government violating one person's rights for another's sake. I'm not comfortable with the government violating the rights of anyone who has not committed a crime (thus having those rights restricted through due process of law). I'm definitely not comfortable with the government taking control of one's body away from that person and giving it to another person. That's what happens when a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will: ownership of her body is taken away from her and given to the fetus.

The idea that the fetus is "innocent" is irrelevant, as no one is talking about punishing it for anything. Abortion is currently our only way of removing the fetus from somewhere it is not allowed to be. If there were a way to immediately remove the fetus from the unwilling woman while keeping it alive, and that way was no more invasive than abortion, I would advocate that. But right now, no such method exists.

Can you explain the exceptions you offer to the circumstances under which a woman should be forced to give birth (rape, incest, health)? Because the rape and incest exceptions, especially, seem to suggest that in those cases, the woman is not "at fault" for the pregnancy, which seems to suggest that carrying a pregnancy to term is punishment for something. I really hope that's not where this is going.

Advocating laws that would take away ownership of a woman's body away from the woman and give it to someone else is an act of hatred against women, plain and simple. There is no other circumstance in which giving another person ownership of a mentally competent adult's body is legal, not even when lives are at stake.

[(Anonymous)]

I explained to the other anon that "exceptions" part of my comment are what Ryan stated as exceptions. Again, I believe all life is sacred, regardless of how it was conceived. I believe killing anything with a heartbeat is distressing, but for those who don't care the option could be there. I just don't understand it; it seems very alien to me. Perhaps this is due to massive cultural differences between my background and most Western people, but I cannot comprehend how one can view giving life as a "punishment." You say the baby's innocence is irrelevant because no one is talking about punishing it, but how is killing it not punishing it? The baby did not make a choice to exist or break laws.

[(Anonymous)]

Killing the fetus isn't punishing it; it's simply removing it from a place it's not allowed to be. Its death is a tragic side effect of that removal. It's not the fetus's fault that it's there, but that "innocence" doesn't grant it a right to be there.

On the other hand, how is forcing a woman to undergo an unwanted biological process that wreaks significant changes (some of which are permanent) on her body and dramatically impacts her life for an extended period of time, culminating in an intensely painful (sometimes fatal) incident, not punishment?

[(Anonymous)]

I believe this may simply come down to cultural differences, as I stated in my last post. I was taught that an individual should do his or her best to preserve all life (this includes animals) and every person has a moral obligation to do so. It would not be viewed as a "punishment" because even something precious is given up and the life of the mother is greatly impacted, a new life is allowed to live. I am not sure if this analogy would help, but if a person is told that they would need to cut off a finger in order to save the life of another person, I would hope that all people would have the compassion to do so. Because of the suffering a miracle is allowed to occur. I do not feel these morals should legally be imposed on everyone, I personally just can't comprehend the alternative.