#fetus rights | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mewtwo24 · 5 months

Text

I finally finished reading the fourth volume of svsss in full, and thing is--the first time through I only read the bingqiu content because I was ravenous for more of their happy ending.

Turns out that was a perilous mistake.

Because I started reading the airplane extras. And I swear to god. MXTX is trying to kill me

What do you MEAN demon lord Binghe was sitting on his big fucking throne. All stoic and forbidding. Surrounded by his demon generals who don't know shit about human courtship. Asking them what he should do, fully demoralized by constant rejections from sqq, only to have airplane tell him to act more pathetic and needy. Which is already hysterically funny and insane, UNTIL LBH'S RESPONSE IS THIS, KILLING ME INSTANTLY:

LUO BINGHE. WHY DOES HE SAY IT LIKE: "I already tried that, didn't work--nothing works :/ not mean, not maidenly, not housewife, not spicy, not capable disciple. Is doubling down on clingy really all it will take? What's a born hater with only one love in his life to do????"

The dichotomy of him sitting there like 'how can I reach the unfathomable depths of shizun's heart?' A HEART HE'S ALREADY WON OVER, MIND and then in the Holy Mausoleum solving the puzzle without blinking and being like 'oh yeah you just have to hit the acupoints, no sweat.' Literally the comedy writes itself I'm so--

How am I supposed to be normal about this. MXTX understands the juicy quintessential queer joy of a person with the world's power at their fingertips wishing only for love. Willing to do anything to earn that love, when unbeknownst to them it's already been freely given. Totally not screaming and yelling and clawing at the walls

And that's not even touching airplane's uproarious account of events. The way he's like 'lol what's next, lbh and sqq are best friends now? smfh' only to see lbh TACKLE SQQ LOVINGLY. FOR SQQ TO BE BASHFUL ABOUT IT BUT SO SO FOND OF THE LITTLE SCAMP. This when we've been experiencing sqq's constant inner monologue of 'I'm so cool and so dignified about my role, truly the epitome of propriety and poser-level fortitude.' Meanwhile, in their universe:

Airplane constantly flaming???? Sqq and lbh in his observations????? His absolute bewilderment and confusion????? Legendary. No notes every single second of this shit was hilarious.

Airplane's comment that sqq + older adolescent lbh traveling together was just watching a couple in their honeymoon phase. OR the fact that lbh is exceedingly petty and refuses to share their food in the wake of airplane's interruption of their time together, until sqq relents sheepishly and insists airplane eat what's left (ONLY AFTER PLACATING LBH WITH MORE FOOD FROM HIS PLATE, SOBBING)

Watching airplane salivate over Mobei-Jun and acting like that's totally normal behavior. Finding out mbj and airplane got together first. Finding out sqq encouraged airplane. LIKE THIS. WHILE HE IS STILL IN DENIAL ABOUT HIS OWN FEELINGS:

Mobei-jun clearly thinking their arrangement is a forever thing, heartbroken his human abandoned him with all the hapless fury of a scorned wife swept away by false promises of fidelity. Airplane writing demons to be the type to beat up their crush lovingly and still unable to connect the dots about mbj's feelings. Mbj letting him go and respecting his wishes, only relenting when there's indication airplane was poorly processing his own feelings and didn't actually want to leave. Mbj caring for him and listening to him as soon as airplane voices what he needs directly and with clarity. None of these gays are functional and it's everything to me

Unrelated, but I physically can't hold this information in anymore:

I'm still reeling from younger lbh having his sexual awakening from the image of sqq wrapped in the immortal binding cables. Condemn me as you like he was so, so real for that.

And no I will not be taking any comments about how luo bingge couldn't bear to see luo binghe cherished in ways he never got to have and all the haunting implications of that. I will also not be taking any comments about luo binghe's instinct to look for sqq in that alternate universe, only to be shaken to the very core to be unable to find his shizun anywhere. The unspeakable and latent horror of his relentless mind likely piecing together what happened, but unable to say it; to suspect what is true, and live with the harrowing confusion of his double's actions. To blame himself, to assume that he had let his anger get the better of him in that world and result in unspeakable folly...

I also refuse to talk about how heartrending it is to hear Tianlang-jun weakly say "In the end, I really can't bring myself to hate humans." The implication that the foolishness of that hope and bright-eyed fondness--the very thing that put him through such unspeakable agony--couldn't be beaten out of him entirely. To discover that his faith in Su Xiyan hadn't been misplaced, to the contrary: his beloved hadn't scorned him at all, but rather fought to the miserable end to protect the fruition of their genuine feelings of love when she couldn't protect tlj or herself.

How MXTX has sqq deliberately draw parallels between their situation and that of ygy+sj and tlj+sx; desperately wishing it might not be too late for them. The concept of breaking cycles of abuse and harm pervasive throughout the newly devised story, how it evolves for the better only when love takes the place of power, pride, and domination. How the moment sqq chooses vulnerability instead of saving face, the genre shifts to the so-called "cringe" girly genre where most if not every character is more fulfilled, more true to themselves. How the "male-oriented" former genre was aimlessly sensationalized and sexualized, how it was a sustained performance of aspirational toxic masculinity. How men objectify other men without end. All of the unspoken gendered implications that come with that.

Anyways. Going to go put my head in a sandbox and try to process everything I just witnessed because even a second reading is not enough to find a modicum of closure.

#svsss #bingqiu #moshang #i swear to god this series is just 'gay man who doesn't know shit inflicting his delusional reality on everyone else and inciting chaos'#and literally it's slapstick levels of hilarious every single time; mxtx never change #also i fully agree that we did not get NEARLY enough mobei-jun and sqh/airplane content #the amount of mental illness to mental illness communication going on there was astonishing #mobei-jun being afraid of his uncle and bringing sqh because that's the only person he trusts fully (WAILING NOISES)#sqh having a tantrum but running away because for the first time he was honest about his needs + his dissatisfaction with catering to other #how that reflects his narrative compulsions and how he felt forced to warp more creative story paths for the sake of survival as a writer #how sqq's restoration of much of his original intent--as well as mobei-jun's acceptance of his needs--helps airplane begin to heal #how his happiness begins; how just like sqq he wanders in such confusion and denial before he's forced to realize what truly matters to him #SHREK VOICE: STORIES HAVE. L A Y E R S #it feels like modern day shakespeare and when i say that i don't mean it in a hollow elevating sense i mean it more like #mxtx just hits that perfect balance of poignance but also hilarious concentric circles of botched communication and brainworms #okay but real talk for a minute? .........;-;#the way lbh constantly struggles with such a crushing feeling that he'll be abandoned over any little mishap/thing/problem #really hit me where it hurts??? if only because its so clearly an anxiety that stems from original goods' upbringing #the way it becomes even more heartrending when you think back to all the sect leaders clamoring that he should have been killed as an infan #that he should have been aborted as a fetus--insisting right in front of him that his birth was a mistake and a disgrace #over having demon blood in his veins. like my god that scene is so viscerally upsetting i struggle to read it #the way its so easy to see the demons as a manifestation of otherness in precipitated form #how both sqq and sqh are influenced by human rhetoric without evening meaning to--assuming the worst against their better judgment #how both sqq and sqh both struggle with their own otherness in different ways and only find solace when they begin to accept who they are #how their lovers (lbh and mbj respectively) both are willing to navigate those confusing waters with them #how both demons love them as they are--accept them as they are despite how difficult forgiveness of perceived betrayal is for them #ty mxtx for changing my brain chemistry #as i get older i have such a fondness for the messiness of thematic queer self-discovery and growth into self-acceptance #that and how youth can so easily be defined by perfectionistic self-harm and the violence of repression

230 notes · View notes

isa-ah · 2 months

Text

cmon slip! this poor guy couldn’t hurt a fly on his own! <- that friend who can never just walk away from a stray. ever.

#mp100 #abot #a breach of trust #makeshift #gimcrack #slipshod #sorry i turned your old man into a blue fetus it just felt right for post exorcism makeshift

171 notes · View notes

sunshineandlyrics · 4 months

Text

🥹 Sweet, sweet Louis 2012 / 2024

#did I get the fetus year right #his sweet face #then and now #fetus Louis #Louis Tomlinson #2 February 2024 #FITFWT Sydney #Louis at the dentist #mine

162 notes · View notes

isawthismeme · 15 days

Text

88 notes · View notes

corleonies · 2 months

Text

Kay's abortion is what cemented her as a great character because even though maybe there was no intention behind it and the overwhelming male response to that scene is anger, it gives a female character agency for the first time in those movies and it's a great commentary on what it meant to be a woman in that context and time.

Everything leading up to that scene: Kay being frustrated with Michael not keeping up the promise of legitimizing the business, the shooting that put her and her kids in danger, (deleted scenes of Anthony trying to get close to mobsters his father received at home and Kay being distressed and taking him away), Michael concerned about the gender of a fetus when hearing his wife had a miscarriage because what is a baby girl worth in this world?, not talking to his wife when arriving home, taking her to court with him expecting her to be dumb or submissive enough to not care about how things went and what happened behind the scenes.

Then, the abortion scene when she tells him she got a SON killed because she would not put more children into the world to be turned into monsters. "Look what happened to our son" because that's what is meant to happen to boys in that world. Girls are expandable and boys are conditioned.

Kay was right. Kay got herself out and gave her children a real childhood, real chances to be something they wanted, away from the horrors of the life their father lived in. Kay saved herself and her children, but Michael pulls them back into danger anyway because that's the life.

He says he was a lot like Anthony, because once he wanted nothing to do with the family business. In a way, Mary was a lot like her mother too, because she remains close to that world out of love. But Michael never gets away like Tony did, Mary never leaves like Kay.

Mary takes a bullet meant for her father. She pays for her father's sins. What is a baby girl worth in this world?

#the godfather #the godfather part ii #kay adams #kay corleone #michael corleone #mary corleone #anthony corleone #people talk about how kay got His son killed #as if a fetus was a child and as if the baby that would be born would be only his #but in the end. michael got their daughter killed #kay was right #siri play it's a man's man's man's world by james brown

38 notes · View notes

skylarbee · 8 months

Text

milex and kylie minogue

i feel like the fandom doesn't talk enough about this video - the way miles stares down that interviewer has me laughing so hard. he's so serious about that question

#'yeah you are john 😏' PLEASE #fetus miles was the cutest thing on earth but if he stared at me that way i would've felt mad intimidated ngl #asking the important questions #i feel there's a reason why the video was cut there #John better have given the right answer cause protective bf miles™ was about to throw hands #he absolutely destroyed that spoon when john started talking about the monkeys #alex's face at the end hahahaha #miles kane #alex turner #milex #tlsp #the last shadow puppets #taotu era #tlsp interview #milex and

71 notes · View notes

silvermoon424 · 8 months

Text

youtube

Cynical Reviews just dropped a video on an anti-choice propaganda film called "Unplanned" and I cannot believe the balls they had to blatantly lie like this. Actually, I can, because pro-lifers will eat up any anti-abortion propaganda you put in front of them.

I love how this movie deifies the protestors who stand outside of Planned Parenthood and scream "WHORE!!! MURDERER!!!" at teenage girls who are just there for a pap smear or whatever. All while making PP staff look like heartless monsters who laugh about dead babies and force abortions on unwilling girls. I honestly have nothing but disgust for propaganda like this.

#I know some dumbass conservatives are gonna reply and be like 'IT'S NOT PROPAGANDA IT'S THE TRUTH'#pro-life people are really easy to manipulate because they're entirely driven by faith and emotion #and normally I'll defend the merits of faith and emotion but their problem is that they think their beliefs should be forced on everyone #it is a really hard topic to discuss because they literally WILL NOT budge from 'this bean-sized fetus is just as valuable as a newborn'#I know because I used to be like this and it was only when I became more and more of a leftist did I question my beliefs #I also went to Catholic school so the anti-abortion propaganda was INTENSE and I'm not surprised most of my peers probably still believe it #abortion #pro choice #reproductive rights #reproductive justice #Youtube

70 notes · View notes

colorspoem · 1 year

Text

⟣ᩨ ｡✱ ᥬ♥︎ 🍝𓋼 𝗵ᦕᩨ𝕝𝕝𝗈ᩚ̼ ⟬✾︴▓⃞👘𓆇｡䕽ଽ ◊◞ ᘚ𝕖ືω͡ ρ✼᥍̼𝘁 ￣￣🧀❔// 𝕷𝕚𝐤ᩚ𝗲 ★ 𝖗̆𝐞𝗯𝗹𝗼̼ᩧ❡ ȣ ☨˚ꔛ彡🦔ͼ𝗼𝗹𝗈ຼ𝖗ຣᩚ..𝕡ܶ𝐨𝗲𑄚 ⚋⚋§፨⌘ ꒦ ༒ 🀄

213 notes · View notes

linktwinmaniac · 17 days

Text

Is the moderate pro-life view really incoherent?

I write this open email to Matthew Scarfone as a response to his article If you’re pro-life, you might already be pro-choice.

Dear Prof. Scarfone,

I’m T́ristanaz Ĺaihnazrijaz, a maths student at the Distance University in Hagen with a great interest in philosophy, which stems in part from my delving into the groundwork of mathematics. I came upon your aforementioned article on The Conversation and found it to provide food for thought. Specifically, I believe to have found a flaw in your argument against the moderate pro-life position. First off, I’m a moderate but vehement pro-lifer myself, who acknowledges the fact that unborn human beings are obviously human beings and that therefore, aborting them for no very good reason is murder. I think such very good reasons exhaust themselves in the following list: rape, threat to the mother’s life, and danger to the mother’s health or that of the fetus (e.g. genetic defects of the latter). I am instinctively taken aback both by the extreme pro-life position and the extreme pro-choice view. Therefore, your article provided my instinct’s deeming with a noteworthy challenge.

You wrote that moderate pro-lifers base their view on three assumptions: 1. that a human fetus is (quite obviously by definition) a human and therefore has a right to the continuation of their life, 2. that this right trump (subjunctive) the mother’s right to bodily autonomy, 3. except in the case of rape. You rightly pointed out that points (2.) and (3.) contradict each other. Thence, you concluded that the moderate pro-life view be incoherent. But here lies your mistake; for moderate pro-lifers like myself don’t claim either (2.) or (3.). We do, of course, accept (1.) and draw attention to the fact that if someone refuses to acknowledge the humanity of an unborn baby because such acknowledgement would bear uncomfortable consequences for them, they are no different from an Ancient Roman who refuses to recognize the humanness of slaves out of fear that such recognition would make the Roman economy collapse.

The right to continuation of one’s physical life and the right to bodily autonomy are both ground rights (unlike the right to property, for example, which is more of a privilege, I believe) and therefore cannot be trumped by each other or anything else. Fundamental rights are untrumpable. Therefore, weighing them against each other, as is done in (2.), is a forbidden move, to borrow Chess parlance. Mr. Spock is wrong to claim that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. In truth, each one’s ground rights are not outweighed by anything. For instance, nobody has the right to do experiments on you without your consent even if they’d reap huge benefits for the whole rest of humankind.

Consider the following hypothetical: A ruthless doctor abducts Bob and does experiments on him because Bob’s body has some unusual features that make him a perfect guinea pig. As a result of an experiment gone wrong, Bob loses both his kidneys. The doctor wants to not lose his experimentation subject, so he abducts Alice and transplants one of her kidneys into Bob’s body without her consent. But a dogged sleuth by the family name “Di” unmasks the villain. The police free Alice and Bob from the doctor’s grasp and put the culprit in jail. Alice now wants her kidney back. But Bob would die without her kidney. So, does she still have the right to get her kidney back?

Of course she does.

So does her right to bodily autonomy outweigh Bob’s right to continuation of his bodily life?

No.

Then why does Alice have the right to retrieve her kidney?

Because it was taken from her without her consent, thereby violating her utter right to bodily autonomy.

But that would take Bob’s life.

True, but is that Alice’s fault?

No.

Then why should she have to accept a violation to one of her ground rights because of someone else’s (the doctor’s) crime?

Right, she shouldn’t.

Exactly; nothing excuses violating a fundamental right, not even guarding another ground right. In particular, this applies to abortion. The rape victim is like Alice, the unborn baby like Bob, and the rapist like the doctor. If Alice gets her kidney back and Bob dies as a result, is it murder?

Yes.

And who’s the murderer?

Clearly the one responsible for Bob’s plight: the doctor.

And so it is in the case of aborting a rape fetus: It does constitute murder, and the murderer isn’t Alice, but rather the rapist. The fetus has no right to be carried to term by the raped woman for a similar reason that tests on non-human animals which endanger the latter’s life or health are probably wrong: Non-human animals’ right to life and health clearly doesn’t outweigh humans’, but it’s morally forbidden to violate their fundamental rights to save the humans’. Simply put: If a human has cancer, that’s their problem with their egoistic cells. What’s the poor mice’s fault?

None. But a case could be made that the mouse soul freely chose to incarnate in a mouse body, knowing that the latter would support only cognition not sophisticated enough to think much about right or wrong. Therefore, it have (subjunctive) forfeited the absoluteness of its right to life and health. So it be morally allowed to sacrifice the mouse’s life or health for good reasons, e.g. to save people who can think about right and wrong and have chosen to fight for the former.

Yeah, maybe, but animals as highly feelingful and thoughtful as coleoid cephalopods, primates, and corvids remain off-limits. For the same reason, burking is wrong. Of course, if any animal endangers an innocent human, it’s right to kill the animal to shield the human, because here, the animal tries to infringe on the humans’ right. The same is true of humans endangering innocent humans: You have the right to kill someone who tries to kill or seriously hurt you for no good reason. Anyway, just like it’s wrong to sacrifice one human’s life for the sake of humanity if that human refuses, so it’s wrong to sacrifice a raped woman’s right to bodily autonomy for the baby’s sake.

That explains why a woman has the right to kill her unborn rape baby. But why may she abort if her life or health is in danger?

For a very similar reason: Her absolute right to life and health must not be sacrificed against her will for anything else, including saving the life of her fetus.

Alright. But why may she abort a not yet too old (!) fetus if the latter suffers from genetic defects?

Because she isn’t forced to commit the baby to a life of misery. For the same reason, family members who have a good relationship with a patient on life support who can no longer clearly think can decide whether to continue life support or not.

That’s all nice and well, but it doesn’t explain why a mother does not have a right to kill her unborn baby under all circumstances. So, why doesn’t she?

Because by willingly having sex, she freely gives up part of her right to bodily autonomy to any potential babies resulting from the sex. You see, nobody can take your ground rights away … nobody but you, that is. You can relinquish your fundamental rights, and you can also forfeit them. A kidney giver freely relinquishes their utter right in one of their kidneys. And a serial killer forfeits their right to continuation of their life. Alice can rightfully demand her kidney back from Bob because it was robbed from her. However, if she freely gives her kidney to Bob, she obviously has no right to later change her mind and demand it back. A woman who’s gotten pregnant from consensual sex or through another action she took part in out of her own freewill is exactly like a kidney donor, and her unborn baby is exactly like the kidney recipient.

As we’ve seen, it is sometimes, but only sometimes, okay to let an unborn human being die, but the same is true of born and even grownup humans. In accordance with human self-worth, we haven’t treated unborn humans differently from born ones. Yes, a raped woman has the right to let her unborn baby die, but you likewise have the right to refuse to donate blood even if someone would die without receiving some of your blood. However, if the woman has had the chance to abort her rape baby for a long enough while but hasn’t made use of it, this also constitutes a relinquishment of her right to bodily autonomy of her own accord. For instance, if she had the chance to abort from the day of her rape up until, say, eight months later, but hasn’t, she has no right to change her mind that late and kill and eight-months-old unborn baby. Why? Because by freely choosing to not abort for eight (the number is just an example) months, which is more than enough time to make one’s mind up, she has given her right to bodily autonomy up as far as carrying the baby to term goes. By the way, it’s crystal clear that an e.g. eight-month-old unborn baby is a human being, who can feel stuff and move like a born baby; after all, some babies are born younger. Are these no humans, either? Or does sliding through a woman’s vagina magically turn a non-person into a person? On a funny note … if so, does a man’s tarse that had been in a woman’s sheath become a person once he pulls it out 😉?

I believe to have thus laid bare the straw man argument in your article. Another important thing I have done is to point out a third rightful reason for abortion: genetic defects of the fetus. On the other hand, you may find one of the exceptions you mentioned conspicuously absent from my account: incest. Why is that? Because incest alone does not provide any grounds on which to kill a human being. The unborn baby has resulted from the sexual intercourse of, say, sister and brother. So what? As long the sex was consensual and the baby doesn’t suffer genetic illnesses due to the incest, there’s no reason to slay it.

Indeed, I strongly support the right of siblings to have romantic and sexual relationships with each other and have children together.

But doesn’t that lead to genetic defects?

Firstly, inbreeding does not create harmful alleles, but only raises the likelihood that recessive alleles, both good ones and bad ones, be expressed. It thereby raises the risk for the children to have harmful recessive traits, but also the opportunity for them to have helpful recessive traits. Yet even the former effect has its good side, though, as it cleanses the population of harmful recessive alleles through genetic purging: It exposes them to natural selection. Species like the fish Pelvicachromis taeniatus bear witness to the useful sides of sibcest (sibling incest).

But humans aren’t fish.

As a matter of fact, we are; J we evolved from fish and therefore are fish. Indeed, we’re rooted deeply in the fish family tree, deeper than sharks and rays, in fact. On a funny note: You can point out that mammals are fish whenever some smart aleck claims that whales aren’t fish, but mammals 😉.

Secondly, in today’s world, sibling couples can let their unborn embryos undergo genetic screening and abort the sick ones among them. Or rather, they could, were it not for the incest taboo or even incest prohibition, which prevents them from accessing said treatment lest they be shunned by society or thrown into jail. So it’s ironically not incest, but the incest taboo and prohibition, which are responsible for genetically ill children being born of incestuous unions.

Thirdly, the eugenic argument against incest is as unacceptable as any other eugenic argument. By its logic, the state should forbid any couple who have a higher risk of begetting ill children from having them.

Fourthly, the incest taboo and prohibition apply even to non-begetting sex on the one hand while on the other hand – please correct me if I be wrong – not forbidding a sister from conceiving from her brother through artificial insemination. Absolutely nobody is harmed in the least if a brother has a vasectomy before having sex with his sister, for example.

Anyway, incest poses no public health risk and no health risk to people who have nothing to do with the incestuous couple, as it causes no infectious diseases. By contrast, promiscuity and certain disgusting sexually motivated acts (be they opposite-sex or same-sex) do spread dangerous pathogens throughout society, such as HIV. Thereby, they also affect people not involved in any way in the sex, for example patients who receive blood from donors infected with HIV due to the latter’s promiscuous habits. So there is a case to be made for outlawing promiscuity and literally dirty pseudo-sex, since it endangers the health of third parties and society as a whole.

I believe to have thus thoroughly debunked the eugenic argument against sibcest.

As for other arguments against it, I can’t find any sound ones. If a brother rapes his sister? Well, that’s rape, and this is why it’s wrong. A woman raped by her brother is no more a victim of incest than a boy raped by a man is a victim of homosexuality or, indeed, a woman raped by a man is a victim of heterosexuality.

Sister and brother who make love with each other in complete consent and let their embryos undergo genetic screening harm no-one and are therefore fully innocent. Therefore, sibling incest in and of itself is neither wrong nor immoral nor unethical nor anything of the sort. I’m appalled and shocked by the fact that many supposedly enlightened jurisdictions, including Canada, most of the U.S., and much of Europe, still prohibit sibcest, in some case with extreme punishments worse than ones meant for serious crimes. And that in the Twenty-First Yearhundred!

I’m strongly against sibcestophobia and homophobia, but what truly disgusts me is the incoherence and hypocrisy inherent in the view that same-sex sex be okay whereas sibling sex be not. What disgusts me even more is the perversion (in the literal sense of “wrong-way-round-ness”) of the opinion that incest or homosexual intercourse be wrong whereas adultery should not be forbidden. Why? Because incest and same-sex sex in themselves are victimless whereas adultery has a victim: the cheated spouse. Adultery is a type of breaking one’s promise and ought therefore to be forbidden and punished. And it’s a dangerous type of breaking one’s promise at that, as the adulterer can infect their spouse with HIV and other nasty buggers. The cheater endangers their spouse’s health and life without the latter’s knowledge and accordingly ought to be punished severely. By contrast, little is wrong with an open marriage, for there, the spouses haven’t promised each other to have no romantic or sexual relations with others and accept the associated risks. Only if there be an infectious danger to public health should open relationships be outlawed. By “marriage”, I mean the state of two or more people being in a romantic and sexual relationship with each other which they mean to last. I don’t mean the IMHO hocus-pocus involving priests or registrars. Spouses don’t get married; they marry one another. Something akin to adultery in wrongness is plagiarism (not to be confused with refusing to bow to copyright or patent), which is the fraudulent misattribution of others’ intellectual achievements to oneself and thereby a form of lying. Why akin? Because both are instances of dishonesty, and dishonesty is one of the worst things, as already Immanuel Kant realized.

Speaking of marriage … just as sibling marriage is victimless and not immoral in any way, so are same-sex marriage and marriage between more than two people. Hence, one shouldn’t discriminate against marriages based on relatedness, gender, or number.

Coming back to our topic: It seems that our gut feeling has been right after all in telling us that killing an unborn human for no good reason is murder, but that forcing a woman to carry a rape child to term is an equally egregious rights violation. Well, at least my gut feeling has always told me that, and I venture to say my gut is quite healthy 😉. You have shown that some people’s rational justification for their right instinctive judgment is wrong, though.

So … am I right that you have made a straw man argument against the moderate pro-life view? Have I shown that the moderate pro-life position is coherent and, indeed, right after all?

Sincerely yours,

T́ristanaz Ĺaihnazrijaz, ðe Liŋk Twin Maniac (L™)

P.S.: I’m surprised it’s the left which usually advocates abortion rights and the right which speaks for baby rights. Why? Because normally, it’s the left-winger who speaks for equality and the rights of everyone whereas the right-winger is more prone to supremacism and, at the extremist fringe, to endorsing dehumanization. The left acknowledges that race, ethnicity, gender, culture, religion, sexual orientation, wealth and so on are no valid grounds on which to discriminate against people. So why age (bornness vs. unbornness)?

I vehemently defend living being rights. I acknowledge that all living beings, from bacteria and archaea through plants and non-human animals to humans, transhumans, superhuman AGIs, and superhuman aliens, have inviolable dignity which can be damaged or forfeited only by their own freewilled choices. I admit that by choosing a primitive body not able to support the intelligence needed for ethics, lower life forms have probably forfeited some of their ground rights. I’ve always, since long before I went to school, spoken for the rights of animals and even plants (I always opposed cutting trees down). I’m aware that damaging anything good or beautiful, even if it’s not alive, e.g. a fair jewel, for no good reason is wrong. I realize that bullfighting, butchering whales for fun, pure sports hunting, and all other forms of blood sport are among the most perverse activities imaginable. I’m appalled by such monstrous crimes as eating live octopuses, who are highly feelingful and smart beings, and cutting fins off living sharks. I’m aware of the realness of manmade global warming and know that fighting it is one of the weightiest things we have to do. I’m an enthusiastic pro-vaxxer but grudgingly admit that everyone has the right to refuse to get vaccinated based on their right to bodily autonomy. In fact, I believe the whole population ought to be regularly vaccinated against the deadliest non-prionic infectious disease I’m aware of: rabies. I’m for women’s rights, children’s rights (born and unborn alike), sibcest rights, polygamy rights, and LGBTIAQ+ rights. I’m against acephobia, sibcestophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism. I’m spellbound by Darwinian evolution (evolution by random variation and natural selection) and reject creationism and theistic evolution. I’m aware of the soul and reject physicalism. I believe that humankind is by far the most advanced species currently on Earth, but only by chance, and that species far more sophisticated are possible. I’ve shown that copyright, patent, and other kinds of CoPaKIP (copyright-or-patent-kind intellectual property) violate the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of science and art, and free unfolding of one’s personality and that they’re based on ethical and metaphysical errors. A whole chapter of my mythical saga True Twin Telepaths Go Trick-or-Treating outlines some of my arguments, and I have an upcoming book about the matter going into far more detail. I believe in the universal right to free healthcare and free education (including higher). I’m currently mostly sympathetic to moderate socialism and critical of rampant capitalism, though I recognize the worth of competition and that capitalism has its good sides, such as Elon Musk’s space program. (As for CoPaKIP, it violates both capitalist and socialist principles, as I show in the aforesaid myth.) I’m against imperialism, oppression, and supremacism and for freedom, multiculturalism, and openness. I’m against drugs of almost all sorts (coffee is the only exception I’m thinking of right now), including nicotine and alcohol, though I’m more strongly against marihuana and far more strongly against the harder drugs. I’m also against gambling. I’m strongly against sending the seeds of life (directed panspermia) to objects (e.g. planets and star-forming clouds) that can or will be able to bring forth life of their own, as that would prevent new, original life from arising by itself. Seeding an uninhabited but habitable world or a nebula that’s likely to become one is like putting a foreign embryo into a woman’s womb before she has a chance to beget her own. One of the things most important to me is saving species, including alligator gars, coelacanths, and Venus flytraps, from extinction, protecting the environment, and renaturation.

And last and perhaps greatest … I agree with Stephen Hawking that we must NOT send signals willy-nilly into space without knowing what creeps and crawls around out there. 😰

So I find myself in the rather awkward position of being broadly allied on the issue of abortion with those most of whose other views I oppose. In fact, I don’t get the logic behind the definitions of leftwing and rightwing. As said, I’d classify pro-life as leftist and pro-choice as rightist. Likewise, the right rightfully leans away from living on debt. Then why does it embrace making the worst debt of all: over-exploiting the planet? Often, I just memorize which positions are ascribed to which of the two wings. But it matters little, for as they look in part like jumbled assortments of views to me, I don’t count myself among either.

P.P.S.: Please address me with the vocative (calling case), “Tristan” or “Mr. Laihnazrii”, rather than the nominative (who-case), “Tristanaz” or “Mr. Laihnazrijaz��. Please say or write e.g. “Tristanaz is moderately pro-life” (nominative), “Tristan, how are you?” (vocative), “She heard Tristanan” (accusative, whon-case), “Can I help Tristanai?” (dative, whom-case), “Tristanis/Tristanas arguments are sound” (genitive/possessive, whose-case), and “You can hone your philosophizing skills with Tristanoo” (instrumental, tool case, with-whom-case).

#pro life #pro choice #abortion #human rights #reproductive rights #reproductive freedom #reproductive justice #reproductive health #women's rights #fetus rights #baby rights #ground rights #fundamental rights #animal testing #dignity #incest rights #sibcest rights #sibling marriage #sibcestophobia

2 notes · View notes

roxyandelsewhere · 10 months

Text

Angels’ trueforms in their most memorable moments [26/?] - Nephilim fetus: regular nephil, sired by a regular angel (above) and Jack, sired by Lucifer (below)

inprnt | society6 | redbubble | teepublic | ko-fi

#NEW ONE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AGES!!! I TOLD YALL I WASN'T DONE WITH THIS!!!#SO sorry it took so long. i still can't control my artblocks. but i've had this idea for so long #spn #spnart #spn art #mine.caro #ok so. explanation time. cracking my knuckles. i haven't done this in so long ahhhh #so i HAD to do nephilim eventually. of course. and the key thing about them is they're the children of angels and humans #and i figured i'd start with a fetus bc that's the nephil version of the angel factory settings. and that needed a shape like the AFS did #it felt right to go with a sphere. and after the nephil is born and becomes a more distinct individual etc the spheres unravel in different #ways. some open up like pillbugs (woodlouse? i never know the right name). others sprout like seeds. others spiral out. the possibilities #are endless hehe. and the sphere had to have a mix of angel trueform and human soul. which i've been coding so far as the black and white #trueforms and collages. so that was settled. but that couldn't be it bc it's not just one and the other. they're integrated in one thing #so. for the regular nephil i filled out some cells in black like angel trueforms and others with collages. in the trueforms cells #and it's Earthly Things like plants and body parts and fruits and animals water and the sky and rocks etc. and a bigger solid collage block #that's just body parts. so specifically human stuff. AND THEN i took that sphere (well circle) and cut it up and kintsugi'ed it with #angel grace. feels like a way to go to represent nephil. and then i added the angel wheels to look like a sort of proto version of AFS #and that's regular nephil. for jack he had to be different bc lucifer nephil is thee antichrist. it's different. so i followed the samelogi #but based on the lucifer trueform instead of AFS. so i painted the solid black with alcohol-based markers so i could smudge it with alcohol #and then added the collage bits (more from a fitness magazine than a fashion magazine i used for the other one. gets a more aggressive vibe #i think. more flexed muscles) and painted the chaotic smoke cloud over it. and then i did the same kintsugi process. i was gonna do it in #silver but figured it made no sense. it should be the same. and the black and gold look cool #and what else. regular nephil has a rosary-like umbilical cord! emerging from one of the poles of the sphere so to speak #and jack has none :// partly bc i forgot at first kfjg but then i didn't go back to add it bc i feel that matches fetus jack's situation #considering it's an angel grace umbilical cord #and i think that's it!#these aren't up on the stores yet but im gonna add them now #hope they're worth the wait. if anyone was waiting for more #Trueforms

65 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 2 years

Text

At the beginning of July, Nancy Davis started feeling nauseous. The Baton Rouge resident considered COVID-19 or the flu, then decided to take a pregnancy test just in case. She saw the two blue lines denoting a positive test and ran to the living room to tell her boyfriend. They were both elated.

But their happiness was short-lived. At the first ultrasound, at Woman’s Hospital, the largest birthing center in Louisiana, the technician looked troubled and left the room. A woman in a white coat entered. Davis knew that wasn’t good.

The doctor pointed to the top of the head. There was no skull, she told Davis, an unsurvivable condition. The doctor tried to comfort her, saying this was one of the conditions that qualifies as an exception under the state’s abortion laws. Davis, about 10 weeks into her pregnancy, was still heartbroken.

“There was nothing I would have preferred more than to have this baby,” said Davis, 36. Instead, she prepared herself to pay an estimated $5,000 for an abortion at the hospital.

But that’s not what happened. Even after doctors at the hospital said they would provide an abortion once she got the diagnosis of acrania, a rare and fatal condition, from a specialist, the hospital called to tell her it would not be able to do it, she said. The hospital directed her to a Florida abortion clinic instead, or to carry the baby to term.

'MEDICALLY FUTILE'

Davis' predicament illustrates the gray area in Louisiana's new abortion law and the administrative regulations that attempt to explain it to medical professionals and the public. They all but forbid abortion, except to save the life of the mother or when the fetus is "medically futile," according to a list of conditions issued by the state.

Acrania does not appear on the state’s list of accepted conditions for abortion. But the state also has a broad exception for any “profound and irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly existing in the unborn child that is incompatible with sustaining life after birth in reasonable medical judgment.”

Two physicians must sign off on the anomaly. But Woman’s still said it would not perform the abortion.

“In the absence of additional guidance, we must look at each patient’s individual circumstances and remain in compliance with all current state laws to the best of our ability,” said Caroline Isemann, a hospital spokesperson, in a statement.

That's not how some doctors have interpreted the law.

'THEY JUST WON'T FUNCTION'

“Acrania, to me, is synonymous with anencephaly, and it’s on the list,” said Dr. Cecilia Gambala, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Tulane University School of Medicine, referring to another brain and spine defect. “There is no skull.”

Gambala said that even if hospital attorneys were uncomfortable with giving the go-ahead for an abortion based on the acrania diagnosis, they could use the broad exception that the state allows for when a fetus is incompatible with life. And acrania, in Gambala's opinion, meets that description.

"Babies can be born alive, they just won't function," Gambala said. "Their heart might be beating, they can breathe, but they have no brain tissue to actually develop as far as comprehending what's happening or reacting to anything."

GUIDANCE NEEDED

Cases like this will become more common until there is more clarity surrounding the law, whether from legislation, additional guidance from the state Health Department or litigation, said Matthew Brown, a New Orleans-based attorney specializing in health care law.

“The problem is very specific,” Brown said. “And that’s why the law doesn’t address it.”

Brown said the hospital may view the fetus as currently viable because acrania is not immediately fatal and there is still a heartbeat. It also doesn’t immediately endanger the life of the mother, even though the health risks and psychological risks are significant as the pregnancy continues.

Other hospitals may see the situation differently. Until there is more clarity, scenarios like this will continue to play out, he said.

"Any pregnant woman at this point, even the ones [who] are hoping for a healthy child and planning to give birth, is facing additional uncertainty about how they're going to be cared for under bad circumstances because of this law," Brown said.

After seeing a maternal fetal medicine specialist, Davis starting researching the condition on her own. She found devastating images of infants and fetuses who looked like they were missing parts of their heads. She read that babies with acrania are stillborn or die shortly after birth, just like her doctors told her.

“I haven’t run across a case where these babies live,” Davis said.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT

The nearest abortion clinic that can take Davis is an eight-hour drive, and would require a week's stay because she needs a consultation before the procedure.

“I can’t just get up and shoot out; I have kids,” said Davis, who has a 13-year-old and a 1-year-old and no transportation, after a hit-and-run wreck totaled her car a few months back.

Florida also bans abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, and Davis is now nearing 14 weeks. The next-closest state, North Carolina, is a 15-hour drive.

In desperation, Davis visited Care Pregnancy Clinic, a pregnancy crisis center that discourages abortions, on Flannery Road. Staff gave her information on how to bury the baby and said their prayers were with her.

“It makes me feel horrible, like I’m alone in this,” Davis said. “It makes me feel like they just threw me to the wolves.”

After being told to go to Florida, Davis said she wanted other people to know how laws decided in the Louisiana Legislature play out in real life.

“I never in a million years thought it would affect me like this,” she said. “It seems like Louisiana is the hardest place right now to get that done. They don't even wanna say that word.”

492 notes · View notes