[ 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)]

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.