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

it was going to be carried to term.

AND NOW IT CAN'T.

BABIES AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE CARRIED TO TERM INSIDE DEAD PEOPLE.

This.

yep

I don't follow this case (it horrifies me, tbh), but what are, in general, the pro-choice/anti-choise sides making of it? Seeing as one of the religious anti-choise arguments I've seen is that a woman becoming pregnant is God's will and shouldn't be messed with I assume that that side would be against keeping the life support on, what with keeping the woman and the baby alive would also go against His plan. But on the other hand I can't see anti-choice people do anything but blindly screech that a fetus is sacred and MURDERERS!!!!

I assume that that side would be against keeping the life support on, what with keeping the woman and the baby alive would also go against His plan.

This is where I stand on it. The fundie nutters have elevated the fetus to the status of a living person, however, which falls outside of my religious beliefs. A child is not a fully alive human being until it takes the first breath, and if the pregnancy needs to be terminated to save the mother's life, YOU DO IT. The fundie nutters have twisted this entirely around, and rendered women absolutely worthless, save for the sole purpose to "be fruitful and multiply."

Which doesn't even play into the Munoz case because, AFAIK, the Munoz family are non-religious. So, not only are the fundie nutters actively going against the will of God (by keeping the body alive), they are trying to force their religious beliefs onto others. Which is...discriminatory, to say the least...

I don't get those right-wing fundies on a good day, but in this case they make even less sense than usual, which is quite the accomplishment. Wouldn't the fact that the woman died while pregnat imply that it is the will of God that thad fetus isn't carried to term? Otherwise He could have her die in childbirth, or at least waited until the baby was developed enough that the doctors could have gotten it out right away without keeping the mother alive for days.

What part of a child growing inside a corpse could possibly be God's design?

I'm curious whether you'd say the same thing if the baby was normal and closer to term? Personally I'd think there's a big difference between providing a few more weeks to a child who has a good chance of surviving and thriving, versus trying to salvage a severely blighted fetus over a span of several months, but that's just me.

The way I see it, if the woman is dead and the baby can be saved, that is, taken out of her and put in an incubator if it needs it? Then yes. Do that. If the normal practice is to keep the woman on life support for the last few weeks, okay. I'm not sure how everything would work because I'm not a medical professional, but okay. Basically: do what is best to save the mother and the baby--if one can't be saved, do what is best to save the other. But in this case, the pregnant woman died, and so did her future baby. It was just a slow death. So what's "best", imo, would be to let it die naturally and not drag it out.

I think you and I are basically agreeing, yes?

Pretty much, yeah.

DA who agreed

In my opinion, no matter the length of time, any action taken should be the family's decision. There should be no outside debate, legal or otherwise. In this case, if the family had wanted to keep her on life support because they were desperate to keep the fetus alive, in my mind that would have been their choice. Since they didn't, that should have also been their choice. No debate.

Personally, I find the idea of a few days or even weeks more palatable and more understandable than what happened here, but my view of that is irrelevant because it is not my family.

HOW ELSE ARE WE GOING TO KILL MACBETH?!

This is the first time I've laughed out loud over anything you've posted. Well done.

jeez exactly :(

[ 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

AYRT

Re: AYRT

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