fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2273 ]

[ SECRET POST #2273 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2273 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 117 secrets from Secret Submission Post #325.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ], [ 1 2 3 - trolls ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

- "they say they're pro-life but support the death penalty/dont give to charity/help kids after their born??"
- "how can you believe a fetus is a life but make exceptiosn for rape or incest?!?"
- "we dont make people donate their organs, havent u heard of the pianist argument which is brilliant and incisive and not at all challenged by philosophers?"
- "theyre just slut shaming, noone actually believes the bible"
- "if just women voted abortion would be fully legal, men have no right to vote on policies that dont affect them!"

Umm I'm not sure I understand what's going on in the third one. Are Liberals blamed for making people donate their organs? The pianist argument? Googling gives nothing.

No idea what the pianist argument is. But the organ donor thing is a thought experiment to try to get opponents of abortion to start thinking in terms of bodily autonomy.

Basically any metaphor for abortion is going to fall short, because there just isn't any other biological situation analagous to reproduction. But the question of whether or not you would ever mandate that any person donate an organ to save the life another person is a common rhetorical device in the abortion debate to make people focus on the question of mandatory pregnancy instead of when life starts or whose life is worth more (the terms of debate often favoured by the anti-abortion side).

I always found this argument lousy because I think you should be forced to donate your organs. Women making choices about their bodies are alive. But these selfish motherfuckers, they are dead. Give em up.

Edited 2013-03-25 08:06 (UTC)

p sure the argument is based not on post-mortem organ donation but on a scenario like robert silverberg's short story "caught in the organ draft"--in which it's been determined that society has an interest in prolonging the lives of its most creative and productive individuals by requiring living people to give up their "non-essential" organs.

i actually find your argument lousy because millions of people cannot trust medical personnel to prioritize saving their lives over salvaging their organs for the use of others

The pianist argument is also a thought experiment: if a world-famous pianist (or whatever) was going to die unless you and only you allowed them to be parasitically grafted onto you, would it be your moral obligation to do so? I think that's it, at least.

Hrmmmm.... Being pro-life *should* mean you're pro-life in all aspects. I, personally, don't actually care about that argument one way or the other, but it is hypocritical to be pro-war and pro-death penalty but pearl-clutch over cells.

Never heard the second one.
The pianist? I have no idea what that is. But, yes - bodily autonomy, it's an actual thing.

Never heard the fourth one.
Never heard the first part of the fifth one, but i do very strongly believe the last part. Men - especially old, white, Xian men - need to get the fuck out of my uterus.

Yeah, I agree about the first one.

Although I must say that I don't think the fifth one is valid. Hypothetically, yes. In practice? There should be no weird exceptions when it comes to referendums and making laws. Everyone has the right to vote, no matter what the law is about.

I suppose that, unless we want to start separating out our laws into 'male' and 'female' laws, that's so. But i am sick to death of men making laws that *only* impact women.

On the bodily autonomy.

Lets say you're a conjoined twin.

Do you have the right to separate by force from the twin you're conjoined to knowing they would die?

Leeetle bit different, since a fetus at 12 weeks (or whenever) is *nothing* like a living, thinking, breathing human. Now, ask if i should be allowed to smother my newborn, and we'll discuss.

But a clump of cells? A fetus that has no actual brain, just a nervous system? Not a person.

Re: Fellow Libruls

ill_omened - 2013-03-24 21:35 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Fellow Libruls

tabaqui - 2013-03-24 21:36 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Fellow Libruls

ill_omened - 2013-03-24 21:42 (UTC) - Expand

Yes, it's an unfortunate situation but twins have been seperated to save the life of one rather than lose both.

EVERYBODY needs to stay the fuck away from my uterus.

This.

The second one is for when people say they support abortion in the case of rape or incest, but don't support it in the case of consensual sex. Since the outcome is the same - termination of a fetus - they're putting value on the method of conception.

Basically, they're using the argument that the fetus has a right to live, but not if it was conceived via non-consensual situations. The fetus has nothing to do with HOW it's conceived, so there's a double-standard in that they support abortion in some cases but not others, and it's more specifically attacking women who choose to have consensual sex and become pregnant from that. If they were raped and became pregnant, then abortion becomes permissible, regardless of the outcome to the fetus.

Yeah, I actually agree with this and don't get why it's a flawed argument. I have a lot more respect for pro-lifers who are anti-exception than I do for pro-lifers who are also pro-exception, because I don't understand how that's morally justifiable at all.

Some people (I used to be one of them) have a moral hierarchy that goes like:

Requiring someone who had consensual sex to give birth is less immoral than terminating a fetus is less immoral than requiring someone who is already suffering from the trauma of rape to give birth. From that position, abortion of a rape pregnancy is still wrong, but should be legally permissible as should killing in self-defense.

I don't subscribe to that standpoint at all anymore, but I think it's different from using abortion politics as punishment for choosing to have sex.

Especially when the white men vote the women out from voting for using "vulger language"

(if I recall right she used the word vagina to refer to a vagina and bam! woman voted out of the woman's issue)

THIS. That was just in-fucking-furiating.

Do you mean the violinist argument?

Because yes, it's shit and people really need to stop using it like it has any validity. You'd think they'd at least wikiepdia it to see the central criticisms.

Yup, agreed here. Sounds like a lot of crap to me, even though I'm definitely pro-choice.

Having checked Wikipedia and looked at the "central criticisms," they are unpersuasive. What now?

Read Causing Death and Saving Lives to get a better more nuanced overview, that isn't as biased as the article.

Or use the criticisms to the criticisms in your general response.

However, I would be interested in a breakdown of why you consider the conjoined twin argument unpersuasive?

Re: Fellow Libruls

(Anonymous) - 2013-03-24 21:46 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Fellow Libruls

ill_omened - 2013-03-24 21:54 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Fellow Libruls

(Anonymous) - 2013-03-24 22:28 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Fellow Libruls

ill_omened - 2013-03-24 22:42 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Fellow Libruls

inkdust - 2013-03-24 23:12 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Fellow Libruls

itstopped - 2013-03-25 00:59 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Fellow Libruls

(Anonymous) - 2013-03-25 01:43 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Fellow Libruls

(Anonymous) - 2013-03-25 02:19 (UTC) - Expand

Translation: Please stop bombarding us with logic, because we're mad and just want women to shut up and let us decide what to do with their bodies.

Sincerely,

The Extreme Right

P.S. Pointing out our hypocrisy and implying that it makes us hypocrites really hurts our feelings. That's why we insist upon displaying our brilliant wit by calling you "Libruls".

I have no idea what the pianist argument is, but the point about organ donation is a logical argument. If one argues that saving lives is more important than the bodily autonomy and liberties of the individual, which the pro-life position does, then why not require everyone to be an organ donor and blood donor, as well as any non-essential organs and tissues? It definately would save countless lives.

But naturally people would start to object, citing consequences to their health, how it would affect their ability to work/raise their kids, how it would be against their religious beliefs, the pain and suffering involved, that the government should not have that sort of power over people, and that people just might not WANT to. Oh hey, lookit that - every reason why abortion should be legal.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only