[ SECRET POST #2473 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2473 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 012 secrets from Secret Submission Post #353.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Inspired by troll on P1

[(Anonymous)]

The trouble with your complaint about framing is that it IS a matter of "the right to your body." Everyone has a right to live, but everyone does not have a right to live inside somebody else. I have no right to any portion of your body, even if I need it to survive. So no, one person's right to live does not "obviously trump" another person's right not to be forced to share their body with anyone else. That's the point of contention that you seem not to be getting about the pro-reproductive-rights position.

Re: Inspired by troll on P1

[(Anonymous)]

Point of information here - when you're making this argument, are you assigning unborn babies the moral standing of human beings? Do you think your position is basically true even if life begins at conception?

Re: Inspired by troll on P1

[(Anonymous)]

I'm basically saying that whether embryos, fetuses, etc. have equivalent moral standing to born humans or not doesn't matter, because even if they did, no born human has the right to use a non-consenting person's body to sustain their own life.

Re: Inspired by troll on P1

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you for the clarification.

Re: Inspired by troll on P1

[darkmanifest]

Exactly this.

Re: Inspired by troll on P1

[shinyhappypanic]

when I said "trump" I meant "cancels out," which I will further clarify by saying I meant that you can pretty much only side with one of the two arguments. also, as I assumed I made clear, I believe that life begins when the heart starts beating; thus, abortion past this point is murder in my opinion. I'm against murder.

also, I'll look past your rudeness and add that I definitely "get" the reason that people call it a right. as a woman of a certain age with internet access, I have seen, read, and heard pretty much every argument in the book. shockingly enough, I disagree with some of them! my post was meant to convey that I don't believe that abortion is a right. I don't believe that people have the right to decide who gets to live and who doesn't. I think what we're disagreeing on here is which fundamental right is more important: the right to life or the right not to carry a baby against one's desire. we could talk about this issue all day and still walk away with the same beliefs each because the matter really does come down to opinion (assuming that both parties have the same beliefs about when life begins, which doesn't seem too common in most debates about this issue).

Re: Inspired by troll on P1

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, I know what "trumps" means. However, the matter is not nearly so "obvious" as you suggest. Abortion may be killing what you regard as a living human being, but that doesn't make it murder; as long as it's invading a non-consenting person's body, removing it is self-defense.

Rudeness? I was trying to phrase that as understandingly as possible; I apologize if I missed the mark, but you genuinely seemed not to be taking that element into consideration, so I thought maybe there was something you were missing there. There are two things in direct tension in the abortion question: the life of the fetus and the bodily autonomy of the woman. Championing one of these necessarily implies that you regard the other as of lesser importance; actively disbelieving in a right to abortion necessitates believing that, under certain circumstances, a woman should be legally forced to surrender her body to the use of another person in order to sustain that person's life, even if she does not consent to such a use. That's not reductio ad absurdum, it's the logical outcome of opposing legal abortion. And the fact is, under no other circumstance would it be acceptable to use the law to force a person to submit to the use of their body by another. That is the sticking point. Ownership of one's body is never contingent on another person's need of it in any other circumstance. Do you think that should change, if the right to live trumps ownership of one's body in your book?

Re: Inspired by troll on P1

[(Anonymous)]

When the heart starts beating is a really random and arbitrary point of development to draw your line in the sound. I mean, if your heart ceasing to beat doesn't mean you're dead, and if a heart can still beat even when you are dead (and it sure can! I dissected a chemically killed salmon once. Its heart still beat. When we cut it out and put it in water it beat even faster!) then it doesn't exactly seem like a sensible benchmark for 'beginning of life'.

Re: Inspired by troll on P1

[(Anonymous)]

... Line in the sound. Line in the GROUND. Geez, I should go to bed.