fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2579 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2579 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

15. [SPOILERS for Shingeki No Kyojin / Attack On Titan]

__________________________________________________

16. [SPOILERS for A Series of Unfortunate Events]

[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

__________________________________________________

17. [WARNING for child sexual abuse]

__________________________________________________

18. [WARNING for pedophilia]

[The Venture Bros.]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #368.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

No, you can be a woman and hate women, too.

IMO, you have the right to decide what happens to your body after death, including not to be used as an incubator, especially if the baby is extremely unlikely to survive after birth.

How about we find someone else who didn't have a DNR and put the baby in their body to develop? After all, they're dead. What do their wishes matter?

The baby was wanted and was going to be carried to term had the woman lived. Just fyi. Why you are assuming that she didn't want to "be used as an incubator" and carry it to term I do not know. Also, I think we can assume that she was not expecting to be pregnant if she became brain dead, so we don't know that she WOULDN'T have made different plans had she somehow known.

Very true. We also don't know if she would have made different plans. The baby's father is most likely to know the mother's decisions and views on such things.

As I said in my reply to myself (posted after you), I was going more after the original post's logical fallacies.

What logical fallacies?

Because you sure haven't pointed out any IMO.

How about this one. The baby wouldn't have been extremely deformed if the pregnancy had gone on as planned. As in, if the woman hadn't been deprived of oxygen and become brain dead. There was no point in keeping her on life support when there was almost no hope of the baby even surviving to term/after birth.

That's not the issue that OP has with the arguments though.

Read their post again and it should become more clear.

"If you disagree, you're obviously a man who hates women." <-- Women can be misogynistic, as well.

'If you're dead, your wishes don't matter.' <-- That's completely opinion. I, in general, think the wishes of the dead do matter. I, of course, don't know what this woman would have wanted in this situation, but neither does anyone who's not personally involved.

Those aren't logical fallacies.

One is them pointing out what they're being accused of by virtue of not agreeing with the pro-choice hivemind, and the way that the issue is being framed.

Two is you having a different opinion to them.

OP stated their opinion as fact. I'm not sure if there's a formal name, but that seem pretty fallacious to me. Even if it's not technically a logical fallacy, it's still poor argument. You can't just state your opinion and have it be fact.

Pro-choice is not a hivemind. Neither is pro-life. They also phrased the 'way the issue is being framed' as "must", implying that "must be a man who hates women" is the only response, which it isn't.

And, in such a legally complicated situation as this, even pro-choice people might want to keep her alive, because she never said she didn't want the baby. There's a pro-life person below who doesn't see the point in trying to keep the baby alive, because it's almost certainly not got a chance outside the womb.

Two is you having a different opinion to them

Bullshit. Organ donor cards, anon--dead people still get to choose what happens to their bodies.

This isn't a case where the fetus was at eight months--this fetus was not only very early along but also denied oxygen.

Sorry, missed this earlier.

I'm not assuming she didn't want to incubate the baby, I'm saying she had the personal right to decide if she would want that. She didn't leave a living will explaining what she might have decided (understandably, who would think beforehand to put that in legal writing?), so the family and doctors now have this depressing situation.

FWIW the article I read said the husband claims his wife's advance directive was DNR.

Admittedly, this is the first I've heard of it, and I didn't thoroughly read Chard's post, so I'm very aware that I'm being reactionary without all the information. I was more going after OP's logical fallacies.

If the couple intended to carry the baby to term, and there was an accident or something, it's a very grey area. I ultimately have no opinion on what is decided here. I think the mother's pre-death wishes and the father's wishes are the most important thing.

You don't.

There's plenty of limits and regulations around what you can do with a body after the person dies, regardless of what they want to happen.

And really there should be plenty more.

Like people have to opt in to be organ donors (or can opt out?), fuck that.

Well, obviously we don't have full legal right, nor should we. You don't have the right to have your ashes dumped into a restaurant's food, either.

The right to decide what goes on within your body is just kind of a hot-button topic with me.

Fuck you. People have reported unexpectedly recovering after they were expected to die and heard the doctors and nurses discussing the imminent preparations to remove their organs, which these days begin BEFORE the heart has stopped on it own to ensure fresher product. THANK YOU, NO.

Well, as long as the organs weren't already removed...

Yes, this has been the case, and there have been cases where doctors have applied DNR orders explicitly against the wishes/beliefs of the patient/family members. But that isn't the case in this instance, as the woman really is dead, the body is not viable (not even as "an incubator") and neither is the fetus. So, not even remotely the same kind of situation at all.

Yes, I agree. Sorry, I was digressing there a bit and speaking directly to ill_omened's opinion that there should be no opt-in or ability to opt-out of organ donation. In the case under discussion here, I think it's probably for the best that life support be removed.

[ SECRET POST #2579 ]

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

AYRT