[ SECRET POST #2273 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

Re: Fellow Libruls

[ill_omened]

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.

Re: Fellow Libruls

[inkdust]

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.

Re: Fellow Libruls

[itstopped]

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

Re: Fellow Libruls

[(Anonymous)]

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.

Re: Fellow Libruls

[(Anonymous)]

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.