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

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?

Because in the case of conjoined twins, the body under contention equally belongs to both twins and always has. In the case of a pregnant woman and a fetus, there are two distinct bodies, one of which is within the other without the consent of the owner of the latter body. Something has been added to the woman's body without her consent and which she wishes to remove. The fetus doesn't have an equal claim to the woman's body in the way that a conjoined twin does; the fetus has its own body, it's just occupying a place that its not allowed to be.

One of the conjoined twins was first? At the moment we don't know which, but future advancements in science would allow you to work out who possessed person hood before the other. Is the difference merely the timescales, what makes that of any real relevance?

IF we're talking consent you can also argue if you consider the fetus to hold person hood that it never consented to this situation either, whereas the woman might have, which is where you get the conservatives defence of their argument against abortion except in the case of rape.

With the conjoined twins, it's not so much a matter of which was "first," so much as who the body belongs to -- in the case of conjoined twins, it belongs to both of them. There is no meaningful dividing line where one twin ends and the other begins. That is not the case with a pregnant woman and a fetus.

No, the pregnant woman did not consent to the pregnancy. Consenting to sex is NOT consenting to allowing a fetus to use her body, any more than consenting to kissing is equivalent to consenting to sex, or consenting to get into a car means consenting to becoming seriously injured in a car accident and not seeking medical treatment. The thing about consent is that it's an ongoing process that can be revoked at any time. It's not given once and then you give up all your rights. If a woman does not want to share her body with someone else, she can withhold consent, and then take the measures necessary to enforce that lack of consent. I'm not seeing how you're trying to suggest that fact that the fetus never consented to be physically dependent on another person's body to sustain its life affects this.

There's only a lack of a dividing line because we lack the ability at this point to discern such. There will be one of the twins who became a person first, in which case the only direct ethical difference between that and a case of pregnancy is the timescale involved, no?

I don't think consent necessarily works that way.

Let's say I consent to give my brother my kidney, can I then revoke that consent and take my kidney back? Business contracts would be another example. The difference I suppose would be that that doesn't apply to your body itself, but why does that exist as a special case? Even in modern liberal democracies we control peoples consent over their body. Laws against self mutilation, or suicide being the most obvious examples.

Your kidney example doesn't make sense because it's a procedure that has a start and end. You can consent to give a kidney and then revoke that consent before the operation takes place, but afterward it's no longer a question of consent because it's done. That's more analogous to a woman consenting to go through with a pregnancy and then trying to revoke that consent after the baby is born. Which doesn't make any sense.

Can you cite a law against self-mutilation? I'm not aware of any such thing in the US, at least.

That's not how identical twins work. The "second" twin is not an interloper or invader or even secondary.

Egg. Eggs splits. Two halves.

Or look at it this way: You have a watermelon. You cut it in half with a knife. Neither side came first. Both sides were already there.

The difference between the egg and the watermelon is that both halves of the egg have the potential to continue growing into two genetically identical individuals.

In the case of conjoined twins, the split was not complete. One egg, two halves, partially connected. Neither was there first. Both were there first.

I'm pretty sure that's not actually how prenatal development and conjoined twins work. The zygote begins to divide into two zygotes, but separates incompletely. This occurs before anything like "personhood" of the type your talking about occurs. So by the time "personhood" becomes an issue, there are already two distinct but conjoined organisms in place with bodies that flow into each other without a meaningful ability to distinguish between them, because of the identical genetic material. Moreover, the gaining of "personhood" during prenatal development is a continuum, not a binary proposition, so it really doesn't work the way you describe.

Your example about consent with the kidney donation doesn't work. You DO have a right to revoke consent at any point after you agree to donate the kidney, right up until the point where you go under anesthesia and they pull the kidney out of you. After it's removed, it's no longer a part of your body, so you are no longer consenting to have anything done to your body (remember, this is a discussion about bodily integrity). However, the scenario you provided is an excellent example about how a person can, in fact, revoke consent -- you could agree to donate your kidney to your brother, and then change your mind on the day before the surgery, refusing to go through with the donation, and you'd be within your rights to revoke your consent that way.

Legally, business contracts in which you sign away certain rights are unenforceable. You cannot create a business contract that would allow you to enter chattel slavery to another person, or allow another person to murder and eat you. These contracts are legally unenforceable.

I haven't heard of laws against self-mutilation; in my experience, it's usually just seen as a symptom of mental illness or other problems.

[ 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