fandomsecrets | [ 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

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.

Certainly agree, it's the perfect response with no worthwhile counter.

But that's not an argument from bodily autonomy?

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your question here.

"The pianist? I have no idea what that is. But, yes - bodily autonomy, it's an actual thing."

I took that to be you agreeing with the person the anon was sarcastically quoting that bodily autonomy was sacrosanct, and pointed out why people might run into ethical issues with that particular argument?

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.

[ SECRET POST #2273 ]

Re: Fellow Libruls

Re: Fellow Libruls

Re: Fellow Libruls

Re: Fellow Libruls

Re: Fellow Libruls

Re: Fellow Libruls

Re: Fellow Libruls

Re: Fellow Libruls

Re: Fellow Libruls

Re: Fellow Libruls

Re: Fellow Libruls

Re: Fellow Libruls

Re: Fellow Libruls

Re: Fellow Libruls

Re: Fellow Libruls

Re: Fellow Libruls