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

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?

[ SECRET POST #2579 ]

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life

Re: When pro-choice is anti-life