[ 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)]

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?