#he also doesn’t believe in exceptions for rape incest or to save the life of the mother | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

songofclarity · 4 years

Text

The theory that Nie HuaiSang pushed Mo XuanYu to suicide, especially the theory that he killed Mo XuanYu as some kind of eye-for-an-eye revenge against Jin GuangYao for killing Nie MingJue, doesn't make any sense to me because Jin GuangYao never wanted Mo XuanYu alive to begin with. Jin GuangYao was afraid of Mo XuanYu before they even met. In fact, he was likely more afraid of Mo XuanYu than he had ever been afraid of Nie MingJue!

[Jin GuangYao,] “Do you think that I’m in a steady position, here at the LanlingJin Sect? Do you think that I can rise into power the moment Jin ZiXuan dies? Jin GuangShan would rather bring another illegitimate child back than want me to succeed him! You think that I should be afraid of nothing? Well I’m afraid of everything, even other people!” (Ch. 49, ERS)

So Nie HuaiSang getting rid of Mo XuanYu would have done Jin GuangYao a favor. I just can't fathom Nie HuaiSang doing Jin GuangYao's dirty work for him at any point in time after Nie MingJue’s death. After all, Jin GuangYao had done a fine job getting started destroying Mo XuanYu’s life without anyone else’s help.

However, before Mo XuanYu [could] achieve success in cultivation and inherit his father’s position, he was driven back.

On top of that, he was driven back shamefully.

Like adding frost to snow, aside from the event itself, when Mo XuanYu returned, he often behaved in a crazy manner, almost as if his life was scared out of him. (Ch. 2, ERS)

Jin GuangYao was already playing with the dangers of incest, but now he’s going to make it work for his benefit. Claiming Mo XuanYu was toying with incest was possibly the one and only thing Jin GuangShan could not have tolerated. Mo XuanYu could have had anyone he wanted! Jin GuangShan knows it best! But his own half-brother? Absolutely not. Mo XuanYu was so psychologically damaged by whatever happened to him that he can’t defend himself. And to the rest of the family, Jin GuangYao is nothing but the victim of Mo XuanYu’s perversion. Jin GuangYao becomes someone they defend from Mo XuanYu.

[Jin Chan, Jin Ling’s cousin], “Mo XuanYu, you still have the face to return?” (Ch. 47, ERS)

It’s a win-win for innocent A-Yao. But Mo XuanYu could always come back if he’s alive. Reputations can be repaired, especially if they were falsely damaged. Mo XuanYu dead? That would be much better, but it’s not a pressing matter once Jin GuangShan is dead and Jin GuangYao is Chief Cultivator.

But to Nie HuaiSang, Mo XuanYu is far more valuable alive. We only get a few hints of what Nie HuaiSang is thinking, and here’s one of them:

[Sisi,] “But after my savior heard about what happened to me, he decided not to let that pretentious, immoral man continue to fool the world.” (Ch. 85)

Mo XuanYu was just another one of Jin GuangYao’s victims. He was a witness to Jin GuangYao's crimes just like Sisi and Bicao. If Nie HuaiSang went to talk to Mo XuanYu as is commonly believed, the evidence points to him trying to get the dirt on Jin GuangYao. Sisi told Nie HuaiSang about the rape-murder of Jin GuangShan. Bicao revealed Jin GuangYao’s incestual relationship with Qin Su. Mo XuanYu, as well, can reveal Jin GuangYao's ties to practicing demonic cultivation.

This is important because the lack of this information drives part of the story. No one knew Jin GuangYao had a hand in demonic cultivation or the Stygian Tiger Seal until the end at Guanyin Temple. Because no one knew this, there were no other suspects except the Yiling Patriarch wrecking havoc at the Burial Mounds before the second siege, and the cultivation world moved just as Jin GaungYao wanted it to move. Jin GuangYao was able to continue pulling strings from the shadows with Su She.

Xue Yang might have been a slim follow-up after Mo XuanYu to pin Jin GuangYao’s connections down, but even Nie HuaiSang’s role with Yi City is tenuous at best. And then Lan WangJi both killed that evidence and Su She whisked it away via teleportation. Jin GuangYao had many crimes, but the malicious use of demonic cultivation he neatly evaded, just as he evaded having to admit to murdering Nie MingJue.

Again, Mo XuanYu was more more valuable to Nie HuaiSang alive than dead.

Let’s still go ahead with the idea that Nie HuaiSang went to Mo XuanYu to ask questions. What happened to Mo XuanYu at Koi Tower? What did Jin GuangYao do that drove Mo XuanYu insane? What demonic cultivation did Mo XuanYu learn from Jin GuangYao? Where is the entrance to Jin GuangYao's treasure room? How does one get into the treasure room?

Don’t forget that Nie HuaiSang is still looking for the rest of Nie MingJue's body at this point. All he has is an arm. Might Jin GuangYao be keeping Nie MingJue's body close to home? Is that why Nie HuaiSang can’t find him? And he’ll find out not much later that yes, he was partially correct. Nie HuaiSang’s reaction in the treasure room could very well be half and half. Half of him suspected as much, but it doesn't change how shocking or disgusting the reality of it is to the other half. The best lies are based on truth, and Nie HuaiSang showing a weak constitution when faced with horrible news and frightening encounters might not have been completely fake.

(Nie HuaiSang was afraid but he didn’t let fear stop him. It’s the one trait he shares with Jin GuangYao, although their means and ends are quite different.)

Nie MingJue’s head was likely in the treasure room when Mo XuanYu was reading Jin GuangYao’s demonic cultivation collection all those years ago. Mo XuanYu could have told Nie HuaiSang of this, except Mo XuanYu might not have been in his right mind to be telling anyone anything of value.

Worse case scenario here is that Nie HuaiSang, as a willing conversationalist about demonic cultivation, stirred Mo XuanYu up from whatever abused docility he'd succumbed to for years. Mo XuanYu was kept locked up and abused and treated like an animal. Now here is someone willing to talk to him like a real person. Just as Nie HuaiSang saved Sisi from her imprisonment, he could have very well have saved Mo XuanYu from his, but the results were wildly different.

Any hints or reveals that Nie HuaiSang is out for vengeance could stir such wishes in Mo XuanYu in turn, his own trauma provoked, his own need for justice inspired. Mo XuanYu moves forward with his revenge just as Nie HuaiSang is trying to move forward with his.

Perhaps Nie HuaiSang name drops Wei WuXian or perhaps he doesn’t, it doesn’t really matter. Mo XuanYu would already have known who is the Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation. Mo XuanYu already knows what evil spirit he needs to call upon for help. Demonic cultivation was likely the only thing he had left to make him feel empowered, and so Wei WuXian is the one who will take care to right all wrongs when no one else will.

Sadly, Jin GuangYao is not on the list of people Mo XuanYu wants revenge on -- because Jin GuangYao is already experienced at making himself look innocent. Mo XuanYu would have had no idea how wronged he was by his half-brother. So Mo XuanYu only wants the death of his immediate family. His immediate abusers.

But Mo XuanYu is missing something: knowing he needs to convey his wishes to Wei WuXian. Without it, Mo XuanYu’s sacrifice is in vain and the both of them die. Or that would have been their fate if Wei WuXian had not figured it out for himself in time.

We already know Jin GuangYao can put an extra piece into a cultivation technique, such as the Collection of Turmoil into Cleansing. It stands to reason that he is just as able to take a piece out of a cultivation technique.

After all, Mo XuanYu got the technique from him. The gap of this knowledge is thus a ticking time bomb just waiting for Mo XuanYu to give it a try and cut the wrong wire. Jin GuangYao also immediately knows and is quite happy to tell everyone the details of what Mo XuanYu did, despite finding out this is Wei WuXian in front of him barely thirty minutes ago and Mo XuanYu was banished years ago:

Jin GuangYao continued, “I’m sure that none of you know this, but back when XuanYu was still at Koi Tower, he had seen a copy of the YiLing Patriarch’s manuscript at my place. The manuscript recorded a dark technique that ‘sacrificed’ one’s body. With the price being the soul and the body, one could summon a powerful spirit to seek revenge in place of themself. Sect Leader Jiang wouldn’t be able to test it even if he hit him with a hundred more strikes. It’s because the person who used the technique sacrificed their body willingly. It doesn’t count as a possession at all!” [Ch. 50, ERS]

“I’m sure that none of you know this,” Jin GuangYao says, because this was all a plot of his own secret design. It benefits him now to reveal the truth of Mo XuanYu’s demise just as it doesn’t benefit him to ever reveal the truth of Nie MingJue.

But Mo XuanYu was as much a victim of Jin GuangYao as Nie MingJue. Jin GuangYao made sure they destroyed themselves on their own time rather than holding the blade himself.

Nie HuaiSang might not have been a holy avenger and mistakes were very likely made, but there is a lack of motive and evidence here that he ever wanted or sought Mo XuanYu’s death. Too much damage had already happened by the time Nie HuaiSang arrived on the scene. I can picture him throwing up his arms in despair and letting Nie MingJue’s arm go free onto this already crazy crime scene. Imagine the struggle the whole Lan Sect had had with the arm and now imagine Nie HuaiSang trying to manage it all on his own. He was not having a good time!

Mo Village was already a crime scene and now here was one more piece of evidence. The Lans knew inquiry whereas Nie HuaiSang did not. Let the Lans take the arm and find the rest of Nie MingJue for him. Let Nie HuaiSang continue to play innocent in front of Jin GuangYao. Let the arm claim more of Lan XiChen’s attention than Jin GuangYao.

But then Wei WuXian survived his resurrection trial and was taken in by Lan WangJi.

The next time Nie HuaiSang sees Mo XuanYu is at the Stone Castles, and by seeing Mo XuanYu, he knows immediately that the sacrifice worked.

But just because he knows and he saw doesn’t mean it was Nie HuaiSang’s doing, especially when Jin GuangYao’s bloody fingerprints were already encircling Mo XuanYu’s neck.

#nie huaisang #jin guangyao #mo xuanyu #nhs vs jgy #mdzs thoughts #thinking maybe nhs shouldn't be blindly accused of 1st degree murder #just for consideration lol #saying nhs killed mxy is so weird to me #nhs becoming jgy to defeat jgy feels uninspired #nhs is that meme where the man is like #do you think a depressed person could make this??#jgy was afraid and wanted power #nhs was afraid but he wanted justice #they are not the same person #you can tell how much i'm procrastinating irl #by how long these spur of the moment posts are lol

310 notes · View notes

by-mana · 3 years

Text

Commissions Redux

Hi Folks!

This has been copied from my main blog and cleaned up a bit, since I’m trying to separate the fan stuff from the main to keep something like a semblance of an order. Commissions are therefore moved from Mana-chan’s Corner to here. They are still open and perfectly free, just read the rules, please. In case you wish to support me, you can do either of these things:

» Leave a Tip

» Buy Me a Coffee

As I am currently jobless (thank you Corona) every bit is appreciated.

» Full Update

For a long time I didn’t take any commissions because the fandoms and pairings I have inspiration for is a limited fraction of my active fandoms (i.e. the fandoms I engage with via reading fic, commenting, enjoying content, reblogging, etc.) and I didn’t want to disappoint.

Recently, in an unexpected strike of utter genius (which only took me like... 5 years to work out), I had the epiphany to compile a list of fandoms+pairings I’d be more than happy to write as you desire.

» Commission Rules/FAQ. Please read before commissioning.

» For full list of available fandoms/genres click below.

» Fandoms

» The Untamed | Mo Dao Zu Shi

The most recent fandom, also the one that currently dominates my mind.

Including: CQL, Novel, Movies. I haven’t read a lot of the source material, but I’m intending to and I already did some research. For now I think I prefer a mix of canons.

» Pairings

» Lan Wangji/Wei Wuxian

» Jiang Cheng & Wei Wuxian (mostly gen, but I believe I could do something sexual/romantic as well, but please ask first if you have any specific ideas)

» Jiang Cheng/Wen Qing (please read the rules)

» Jiang Cheng/Wen Ning (tentative)

» Nie Mingjue/Wei Wuxian

» Nie Mingjue/Lan Xichen (tentative, though I mostly see myself as writing them on the side)

» Any version of the 3zun (same as above)

» Lan Xichen/Wei Wuxian

» Jin Zixuan/Wei Wuxian

» Specific Canons / Prompts

The Untamed basically exploded over my head and didn’t leave me alone. In the past few months a few plotbunnies developed which I’d all love to write at one point. You can chose to prompt me either of these or pick any general prompt, or anything you’d like to read, as long as it aligns with what I can write.

» The First Witness

Genre: Case Fic, Modern AU, Canon retell, Drama, Tragedy, Romance, M/M

Pairings: WWX/LWJ

Includes: Forensic Medical Examiner Wei Wuxian, Inspector Lan Wangji, Single Dad Wei Wuxian, Wei Sizhui / Wen Yuan, the dead ones are dead, Badass Grandmother Baoshan Sanren, Yunmeng Bros Reconciliation, Businessman Jiang Cheng, Murder Mystery, Pining, Getting Together, HIV positive character, past off-screen rape (mentioned only). It’s basically what it says, a canon retell wrapped in a modern day case fic. It was the first thing that I had inspiration for.

» Nurse Wei Wuxian slice of life Modern AU

Genre: Modern AU, slice of life, recovery, drama, tragedy, adoption, M/M, hurt & comfort, getting together, romance, fluff

Pairings: WWX/LWJ

Includes: pediatric nurse Wei Wuxian, pediatric nurse MianMian, elementary school teacher Lan Wangji, pediatrician Lan Xichen, intense care nurse Jiang Yanli, intense care doctor Wen Qing, teacher’s aide Wen Ning, Yunmeng reconciliation, only some are dead, Wen family+WWX living together.

Premise: Former convict Wei Wuxian, fresh out of nursing school, applies for a job at Dr. Lan Xichen’s pediatric practice. Lan Xichen (who sometimes takes pro bono foster children abuse cases) isn’t quite sold on the idea of a former felon turned nurse attending to already traumatized children, but upon interview decides to give WWX a chance. Not only does he never regret it, it turns out it’s to be the best decision he’s ever made, not only in regards to his practice. Meddling ensues, love blossoms, truths are revealed, happy end. Probably the fluffiest story on the list.

» ABO Yunmeng Shuanjie Fake Marriage AU

Not what you think. Does not involve pseudo-incest (at least not for a long time, haven’t decided on the end results yet). First ABO I’ve ever considered writing, but all the more exciting, since I know now what I want of it.

Pairing: WWX/LWJ (temporal, non-endgame - so far, platonic), WWX & JC (gen, ruling partners)

Includes: fake marriage, extra marital affair, male pregnancy, abo (mostly non-traditional, I think?), not actual pseudo incest, adoption, canon divergence, not everybody dies, Wen Chao being a monster, sexual assault (interrupted), golden core loss, NO golden core transfer, misunderstandings, complicated political situations, the Wens are saved and live in Lotus Pier, a-Yuan is still adopted, “sometimes love is not enough”

Premise: shortly after concluding the studies at Cloud Recesses LWJ starts courting WWX. Engagement is discussed between the two clans, but the Wen indoctrination and the burning of the Cloud Recesses gets in between. When LWJ refuses to lie in order to save WWX from Wen Chao’s assault, JC steps in and pretends to be the one engaged to WWX to save his brother from a forced bond. To prevent this from being debunked and to ensure a future marriage (which will now be more challenging to achieve, given the state of Cloud Recesses), LWJ and WWX mate and bond in the Xuanwu cave. Then Lotus Pier is sacked, JC loses his golden core, the Jiangs are dead and the Yunmeng siblings flee for their lives, find refuge in Yiling, etc. Plays out as in canon except they find out WWX is pregnant and transferring the golden core would cause an abortion. WWX still says do it, but changes his mind in the last minute, leading to JC finding out about his plan upon waking up and remaining coreless. They flee to Meishan and marry to protect WWX’s reputation (since a marriage would now be impossible for a long time on both sides - Gusu and Yunmeng, AND JC needs WWX more than ever and WWX is not abandoning his little brother) Sunshot happens, WWX invents the control tower & still saves the Sunshot campaign. The sixteen years that follow are utter chaos.

» Nie Mingjue/Wei Wuxian arranged marriage AU

You know what this is inspired by.

Pairing: Nie Mingjue/Wei Wuxian, Lan Wangji/Wei Wuxian (unfullfilled, for a long time)

Includes: arranged marriage, some characters die, Nie Mingjue dies but later, revenge, wwx adopts a-yuan, canon divergence, slow burn, learning to love, the Wens live, political intrigues, wwx and nhs teaming up against jgy

Premise: To save the Wens and himself from qi deviation Wei Wuxian marries Nie Mingjue (in spite of being in love with LWJ). Slowly some truths are revealed and feelings blossom but some tragedies cannot be prevented. NMJ realizes the feelings that are between WWX and LWJ, but they both marry regardless. Later WWX realizes that NMJ is similarly in love with Lan Xichen. With time they learn to love and respect each other, NMJ learns about what WWX did for JC, WWX learns clarity to play for NMJ when JGY nearly succeeds killing him (WWX suspects but he has no proof). NMJ still dies (disappears) and widower WWX spends the next decade or so seeking revenge and searching for his husband’s body so that he can rest in peace. It’s all very bittersweet, but there’s a happy ending.

» Hakuouki + Extended Universe

The longest active and steadiest fandom. I know exactly what I’ll write and what not.

Including characters from: Urakata, Toki no Kizuna, the most recent overhauls (Kyoto Winds, Edo Blossoms). I’ve seen all three anime seasons, played a few routes of Kyoto Winds and read some walkthroughs. I’m not completely done with all of them, but I’ll take the time to research if the commission demands it.

» Pairings

» Harada Sanosuke/Nagakura Shinpachi (I lovingly refer to them as my naval battle cruiser)

» Harada Sanosuke/Shiranui Kyou

» Shiranui Kyou/Takasugi Shinsaku

» Kondou Isami/Hijikata Toushizou (tentative)

» Hijikata Toushizou/Saitou Hajime (tentative)

» Nagakura Shinpachi/Saitou Hajime

» Saitou Hajime/Toudou Heisuke

» Yukimura Chizuru/Sen-hime

» Ibuki Ryuunosuke/Kosuzu (please read the rules)

» Specific Canons / Prompts:

I’ve had a number of inspirations for this, which I’ve never written, but would love to delve into. You can chose to prompt me either of these or, of course, pick a general prompt.

» Fabulous Family Series

The one in progress, you can check it out on AO3. You can prompt me in this, if there’s something you’d like to read.

Pairings (current and planned): Harada/Nagakura, Kondou/Hijikata, Okita/Chizuru (casual), Heisuke/Saitou, Takasugi/Shiranui, Chizuru/Sen-chan, Ibuki/Kosuzu, Ibuki->Saitou (one-sided crush), Saitou/Chizuru (temporal)

Tags: adoption, modern AU, lgbtq+ issues, M/M, genderfluid character, disabled character (future), teenage pregnancy (future), slice of life, sexual assault (future), child abuse (future reveal), romance, ace/aro character, casual sex, underage sex,

» Gender Swap AU

Main Ship: Harada/Nagakura

Side Ship: Ibuki/Kosuzu

Summary: Sannan secretly tests a version of his experimental Ochimizu on a few of the captains. The result is that the new day dawns with some drastic changes to their bodies that have nothing to do with white hair, glowing eyes or bloodthirst, but with a whole other set of complications.

Premise: Original story was supposed to be about Shinpachi developing and unexpected attraction to Sano, them “experimenting” together and Sano falling pregnant. While the others manage to turn back to their original bodies, Sano doesn’t and it is all very complicated. Eventually he does (after giving birth), but instead of it being a good thing it just makes things more complicated. In the end, he choses to live in a female body instead of death and marries Shinpachi. Would include trans issues, gender dysphoria, friendship vs. love, the nature of attraction, respect, feminism and female issues. I wanted to write it as a multi-chapter, but never got around to it. But I’d love to put it out there in any form I can.

» Prince of Tennis

Tentatively putting this down as one of my oldest fandoms. I never wrote for it as cosistently as with other fandoms, but a few years back I rp-ed it for quite a while and could probably still write for it, if the pairing’s right.

Including: ShinTeniPuri characters up to Pirates and Black Holes (I haven’t read much further, but I’ll probably catch up at one point? I always do.)

» Pairings / Characters (mostly Shitenhouji and Higa centric)

» Oshitari Kenya/Shiraishi Kuranosuke

» Oshitari Kenya/Chitose Senri

» Oshitari Kenya & Oshitari Yuushi (gen, ask me about cest)

» Shishido Ryou/Oishi Shuuichirou

» Oshitari Yuushi/Kikumaru Eiji

» Oshitari Yuushi/Hirakoba Rin (this relates to that rp)

» Kai Yuujirou & Hirakoba Rin (both gen and slash)

» Kite Eishirou/Hirakoba Rin

» Watanabe Osamu/Sakaki Tarou

» Higa gen

» Shitenhouji gen and casual relationships (ask me about specific ones)

» Hara Tetsuya/Taira Yoshiyuki

» Mori Juuzaburou & Hara Tetsuya (mostly gen, but I probs could do casual slash as well)

» Ochi Tsukimitsu/Mori Juuzaburou

» Marui Bunta/Hara Tetsuya (you will never get this, but it derives from that rp I did and would still def write it if people are interested)

» Tango Pair (Sanada Genichirou/Atobe Keigo)

» Specific Canons / Prompts

Most of what I had in my head has faded but a few things remained. Of course you can also come with your own prompt at me.

» College AU, future fic

Premise: Everyone has grown up and moved on. The Oshitari cousins are now rooming together, both studying medicine at Tokyo University. They’re upper neighbors with Shishido Ryou (paedagogy) and Oishi Shuuichirou (medicine), who both miss their doubles partners, but have seemingly moved on from their middle school days and broken hearts. No such thing can be said about Kenya, who can’t get over his break up with Shiraishi following their graduation, or Yuushi, who seems to hold secrets of his own.

I haven’t developed much for this, most of it are scattered ideas, but I’d love to explore it. I’ve thought of some pairings for it, but none of them final. It would also leave a lot of room for casual stuff or one-night stands. It’s actually an ideal prompt premise, from that standpoint.

Pairings (at start, no necessarily final): Oshitari Kenya/Shiraishi Kuranosuke (past), Oishi Shuuichirou/Shishido Ryou (current), Oishi Shuuichirou/Kikumaru Eiji (past), Shishido Ryou/Ootori Choutarou (past), Oshitari Yuushi/Kikumaru Eiji (current, secret),

» It takes two to Tango / Tango towards Destruction

An old fic that was supposed to be a series which I never finished, but could pick it up and remaster it. It’d be a nostalgia project.

Pairing: Tango Pair

Premise: Atobe’s father finds out about him and Sanada dating and threatens to disown him if they don’t break up. In the original Atobe runs away, but I’m thinking now he simply might not take it seriously enough and then it would escalate. He ends up moving in with the Sanada family. Your typical rich boy loses everything and struggles through poverty, finding meaning, building a life for himself, coming off age.

» One Piece

A fandom older than even TeniPuri it’s been with me the longest. Unfortunately it doesn’t inspire me anymore the way it used to, but I’d still be able to write some things for it, if the right muse struck me. I kinda want to. Nostalgia, you know.

» Pairings

» Zoro/Sanji

» Ace/Zoro

» Ace/Sanji

» Luffy/Law (tentative, like, I ship them hard but I don’t know if I’d be able to write something for them? Oh but I’d like to try)

» Mihawk/Shanks

» Mihawk & Zoro & Perona family dynamics

» Zeff & Sanji adopted family dynamics

» Usopp & Yasopp gen

» Izo? I’d like to try an Izo.

» Canons

» Canonverse

Set in the original canon of the fandom.

Including (not limited to): backstory - past canon, present canon, future fic (please specify), canon divergence

» Modern AU

Including (not limited to): no powers, modern with magic (potential, please ask), slice of life, mystery, case fic, ‘job AU’ (coffee shop, doctors, idols, etc., please specify/ask)

» Sci-fi AU

Including: original sci-fi canon, Star Trek, Star Wars, Firefly, Cowboy Bebop, Dune (tentative), Hyperion (tentative), for everything else ask. I know a lot of sci-fi, but not enough lore for each of them to set a story in. I might be interested but it'd necessitate research.

» High Fantasy AU

Including (not limited to): original fantasy canon, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Witcher, but overall I’d prefer if you ask about this. I haven’t read/seen a lot of the most recent and popular franchises (mostly because I’m writing my own high fantasy and don’t want it to be too influenced by other things, and someone already told me it sounds like Game of Thrones, so that one’s a big no. Sorry...)

» No Powers, other than modern AU

Including (not limited to): everything that doesn’t fall under the modern AU list, but has no powers in it, i.e. historical AU (specify time & culture), future AU (near & far), cyberpunk dystopia (possibly), post-apocalyptic (possibly). I don’t write zombies.

» Superpowers / Hero AU

Including (not limited to): X-Men, Avengers, Wildstorm Universe, original superhero canon

» Genres

I do mostly serious stuff, like drama, tragedy, intrigues, arranged marriage, tragic backstory, etc. I like to put my characters through a lot of suffering. I always joke that it’s very easy to spot my favorite character by the amount of torture I put them through. I feel that it makes the happy ending weigh even more. Sometimes I even prefer a bad ending, if it gives the story more meaning (I mean, imagine LotR trilogy have a happy ending. It would totally take away all the development and the lessons the characters went through.) I wish I could write light stuff but so far I have not succeeded. I use a lot of sarcasm and irony though?

My shorter fics tend to be fluffy and sweet rather than funny, if full of playful banter and teasing. Relationships are usually depicted in a naturalistic rather than romantic way (I’m ace/aro myself, and I have lots of opinions about the nature of love and attraction, and how a functioning relationship ideally looks like and it tends to seep into my writing). Instead of traditional romance I like to write a non-traditional one. Slow burn, instead of love on first sight. Learning to love instead of falling hard. But it also depends on the pairing. I can write most things if I put my mind to it, so don’t hesitate to prompt me and I’ll let you know whether it works for me or not.

I’m not shy of dealing with child abuse, assault, suicidal ideation, trauma, disability and other difficult topics in my writing, so if you wanna request any of these or something similar I’m a-okay with it, as long as you discuss it with me. I’m not knowledgeable in everything so it’s likely I’ll need to do research, but I’m more than alright with it. Honestly, it’s very probable that I’d love to try.

» Kinks

I’m okay with most stuff. Where I draw the line is the really hardcore stuff like scat and kinks involving feces, some forms of humiliation, zoophilia, necrophilia, mutilation, stuff like that.

I’m alright with both dub-con & non-con (although I refuse to depict is as normalized, or glorified), bondage, s&m, dom/sub, light bdsm (ask me about the harder stuff. I’m not against it, I’m just not always in the mood or right mindset for writing it), omorashi (tentative, ask me), daddy kink, breath play, age play, spanking, verbal humiliation, dirty talk, edging, come eating, orgasm denial,... all the good stuff.

#commission me #fandoms #genres

4 notes · View notes

thisbibliomaniac · 4 years

Note

I didn’t know there was a difference between being prolife and against abortion. Would you be willing to explain this for me?

Absolutely, although I have no doubt there's going to be a lot of backlash lol.

I don't think the main difference tends to lie with the average prolifer. Most of them are against abortion for moral / religious reasons, but don't tend to think about it beyond that. I certainly never did. We gave all our change to the pregnancy centers around Sanctity of Life Sunday, and let that be that. I think most prolifers believe abortion is morally wrong. I think most of them do what they think they need to do to stop it. They give to pregnancy centers. Some of them go to clinics to offer alternatives to the abortion minded. Here's where the differences tend to come in;

- The Prolife Movement (PLM) tends to be against abolishing abortion. Please note when I talk about the PLM, I don't mean the average individual. I mean the movement as a whole, starting with its leaders. When an abolitionist bill, which could've completely abolished abortion in Texas at any stage was introduced, Republican prolife representative Jeff Leach killed it. Abby Johnson publicly speaks against abolishing abortion. It's relevant to mention here that Johnson charges $10k-$20k per speaking engagement. You can find that on her website. She doesn't profit when abortion is illegal. Many other prolife groups are directly responsible for bills of abolition being stopped, and I cannot remember them off the top of my head, but they're all brought up in Babies Are Still Murdered Here, which is on YouTube and deals with the PLM specifically.

- Abolitionists tend to be in favor of the total criminalization of abortion, and the PLM is not. In my personal opinion, that would look like the abortionist being charged as a hitman, the employees as accomplices, whoever drove the mother to the clinic knowing what she was going there for as an accomplice, and the mother as the murderer who hired a hitman to kill her baby. I didn't used to believe that. I used to believe that women were lied to, and they didn't know what abortion was. I don't believe that anymore. There's a quote from R. C. Sproul, saying that if we could only educate these women, they'd understand and they'd stop. That's a very old quote, and he changed his mind drastically as soon as the humanity of an unborn baby could no longer be denied, and abortion became more profitable than ever.

A big part of the reasons Roe v Wade went the way it did is because no woman had even been convicted of abortion, even when it had been illegal. The court rationalized that, if it had never been punished as murder, we can't continue to say that it is murder.

Women know. If you think women don't know, you're saying you think they're stupid. The women who come in past us often pull in with multiple born children in their cars. They know their baby is alive. They tell us they know their baby is alive. They go in anyway. One particular interaction stands out to me. A pastor friend called out to a women going into pretern, offering her help. She said, "are you going to pay my medical bills?" He said "yes." She laughed and went in anyway. We are actually prepared to pay for bills, provide for needs, and set up open and closed adoptions. Those offers are rarely taken up on.

- The PLM considers the mother a second victim, while we consider her the perpetrator. See reasons above, and also NotAVictim.com. Sandy is an old lady who comes out with us. She tells us she knows she killed her baby, and she regrets it every day.

- The PLM is in favor of incrementalism, while we only support total abolition. Most prolifers would argue that saving even one baby with something like a heartbeat bill, pain bill, or age ban is better than saving none at all. I struggled with coming to a decision on that for a long time, until I came to a realization; they weren't actually saving anyone. While it might be illegal to kill a baby past a certain age in Ohio, it's incredibly easy to move the ultrasound wand just slightly off place, and come up with a totally different image. Sarah Cleveland, ultrasound technician, demonstrates this in one of the Babies Are Murdered Here movies (both available on YouTube). The same goes for heartbeat and pain bills. One could assume that there may be abortionists with more integrity that wouldn't do something like that, but to make that assumption, one would need to forget that these are literal baby killers we're talking about. And even if you found some that wouldn't break the law, one who would is never far away.

Lakesha Wilson is an example of that. She was turned away by multiple clinics for being over the state limit, until she came to preterm, where they were willing to lie about the age of the baby on their forms. She and her baby died that day. You can search her name. She died in Cleveland.

So not only is incrementalism immoral because it's ageist, it doesn't actually do anyone any good. Do we believe that even saying one baby is worth our time? Absolutely. So we stand outside clinics and offer help and alternatives. And we see babies saved. Not enough. And fewer and fewer all of time. But we plead with every mother who walks in, because every single baby is worth saving. But we don't sacrifice the babies below the limit in favor of the ones above.

- PLM tends to make exceptions for rape and incest. Abolitionists believe the circumstances don't matter, the humanity of the baby matters. Prolifers who are against abortion in cases of rape and incest argue with those who are for it that it's such a small percentage (less than 1%) that it shouldn't be kept legal for those cases. That's how I used to think. Abolitionists, myself included now, believe that even one baby legally killed is too many.

- The names themselves. Prolife is passive. Nothing about what I believe or am doing is passive. I intend to be among those changing the laws, and changing history. I am an abortion Abolitionist.

I am not going to include any links here because I don't want everything I just wrote to crash with this post, but all of these sources are easily found!

Abolitionists- Jeff Durbin, Jon Speed, Sarah Cleveland, Sye Ten Bruggencate, C. R. Cali, Laura Klassen (I'm not 100% sure if Laura uses the Abolitionist label, but she's saying the same things)

Websites- freethestates.com, defytyrants.con, notavictim.com

Books- The Doctrine of Balaam by C. R. Cali, Gosnell by McElhinney and McAleer

Movies- 180 Movie, Babies Are Murdered Here, Babies Are Still Murdered Here. All free on YouTube. Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer. Not 100% accurate to events or the message of abolition, but good for exposing how easily a clinic can get away with the littlest, and the biggest things.

Other- The doctrine of the lesser magistrate, about the steps needing to be taken to outlaw abortion.

I hope this answers your question, and feel free to message me for further clarification, as this is an already long post and I won't be having discussions on it :)

*edited to add*

I don't have anything against individual prolifers. I think they've been lied to by their movement and don't know what they're supporting.

#this better post!!!#please tell me about any typos #my phone hates me #and changrs words after the fact

14 notes · View notes

notsimplysusurrus · 5 years

Text

youtube

So...I’m back on my bullshit, y’know, watching more documentaries about “father-daughter purity balls” and writing my feelings about them.

But this time, they interviewed frat boys, which tbh was much better than I imagined it would be. They were surprisingly sex-positive? One guy straight up was like “too many people put sex up on a pedestal, but it shouldn’t be”. I agree random, frat boy.

They have a chat with the despicable institutions known as “[crisis] pregnancy centres”. You don’t have to be a doctor/nurse to work there--only a “Bible-believing Xtian”. We love manipulating pregnant people into doing things they don’t want to do /s/. Moreover they, of course, offer abstinence-only sex education.

Wowza, people seriously talking about religious guilt in regards to sex (and in general). And he’s still an Xtian yet not shitty! That’s not to say I dislike all xtians but rather to say ive had enough bad experiences with them to be cautious. Good for you, mate. He said that Xtianity dampens a person’s ability to express themselves sexually--even if they are married (as in his, personal experience but I believe it). Xtian man strikes again, saying that saving yourself for marriage doesn’t make you better than anyone else. Again: good for you, mate.

An American Idol contestant is being interviewed on a radio show? She’s so pure uwu /s/. SHE SANG A SONG ABOUT PURITY. I fucking can’t. It’s called “Count Me Out” if you were wondering. This concept of “spiritual purity” after you’ve chosen to lose your virginity (and done so consensually) is so silly to me.

Damn one (1) queen points out that “saving yourself for someone special” is shit when you get married to someone you later find out isn’t all that special. Then they provide a quote that says “Evangelical Christians have the highest divorce rate out of any social group in the United States” (source provided: The Barna Research Group).

1996 - “The Silver Ring Thing” was founded

*TSRT is apparently a stupidass abstinence-only education program

*“gOd cReAtEd SeX aND MarRiaGE”

*“PRO VIRGINITY MUSIC AND SKITS” WHAT IS THIS? Every time I watch one of these videos, I feel more powerful as a non-married, non-virgin

*They claim “safe sex isn’t”....okay Karen AND the US Gov fucking aids in its funding im going to kms

*“Are you both virgins?”

“My religion is Catholic” --> this carries so much “I thought you were aMeRiCan” energy

*“a “women” [who they define as “women”] is supposed to bleed the first time they have sex” NOnoOnonononononnoNOoo. You might, but that’s not a given if you’re properly aroused STOP TEACHING YOUNG PEOPLE LIES

*This mans also claims, basically, that you’ll never bleed again after losing your virginity when you’re “supposed to” but that is NOT true--people with vaginas can bleed any time that penetration occurs. Again, it depends on how lubricated and/or aroused you are--not virginity (lube is your friend, trust me.)

*I’m going to punch him “spIriTUal HeALiNG maDe heR BLeEd on Her WedDinG niGhT”. NO, IT DIDN’T! She just wasn’t properly aroused and or lubricated (probably because your virgin so-called friend is ignorant asf). He also considers this “healing” IM GOING TO LOSE MY MIND

*...the story wasn’t really about his “friend”...it was about him...so he’s the dumbass here--USE FUCKING LUBE. ANd he shares this story with people???

2005 - ACLU sues TSRT bc it uses tax dollars to promote Xtianity

2006 - TSRT refuses to change and loses federal funding

Good for the ACLU. The US Gov is supposed to be secular (though it’s often not, and I recognise that).

Dr. Douglas Kirby “The Grandfather of Sex Education” appeareth and local fucker compares safe sex to drunk driving while wearing a seatbelt and smoking filtered ciggies. More at six. Dr. DK throws down about the merits of comprehensive sexual education.

Aforementioned fucker claims that his “research” on condoms revealed that they’re “not effective” (when used properly, they most definitely are btw--in regards both to pregnancy prevention and preventing STDs).

“When you’re using a condom you’re having unsafe sex. When you’re [practising] abstinence, you’re having safe sex.” -aforementioned fucker

Journal of Religion and Society (2005): “Higher rates of a belief in a Creator correlate with higher rates of STDs, teen pregnancy, and abortion.

A woman who had an abortion (unknowingly) makes the case that religious guilt often makes people feel bad about having an abortion. Also, her ex-boyfriend was a real wanker, so I wish Penny the best.

Annnd some of the frat boys end up being expectedly shitty later on -.- “no woman with my baby is getting an abortion”. Go fuck yourself.

Aforementioned fucker doesn’t believe there ought to be exceptions for abortions in the case of rape or incest. I’m...disappointed but not surprised.

Abortions used to be covered by Medicaid?? Why is the US so good at going back on decent decisions and being an asshole, instead? And the feminist writer who points this out is a whole ass comrade, talking about how the poor are being especially fucked over by anti-abortion legislation.

Dr. Claire Brindis points out that the “pro-life” movement is really hypocritical because it doesn’t support government programs that would aid poor, single mothers they so desperately want to keep from having abortions.

Ffs Teddy is complaining about being sleepy and ready to go to bed, so idk if we can finish this tonight. There’s less than 30 minutes left though! Maybe I can bribe him.

Dr. CB - some women tell me “the only way I could get out of a gang was by getting pregnant” oh deer, oh my. But also...that’s probably not the best environment for a child. DR. CB also says that CSA can cause [afab people] to engage in/want relationships with older men...so that explains a lot about me.

The United States has the highest rape rate among countries that repost such statistics - 4 times higher than Germany, 13 times higher than England, and 20 times higher than Japan.

Yikes, yikes, yikes. Feminist writer woman is back with straight facts: “age-appropriate sex education starting in kindergarten can protect children from sexual abuse bc if you’re not talking to [them] about what parts are private, [they aren’t able to tell an adult that they’re being abused because they don’t always realise what’s happening is abuse].”

Random aside: there is a stripper talking about how she was raised Catholic and now teaches pole dancing, and she’s...very talented. 10/10 do support. you go, gurl.

95% of young people have sex before marriage acc. to Dr. Douglas Kirby

Okay, the woman who teaches pole dancing is a straight queen, talking about how she wants her daughter to have safe sex if she’s going to with a guy or a girl, and I love this woman. Aforementioned fucker, on the other hand, says that he wouldn’t tell his daughter to use a condom bc it “wouldn’t protect her”. Again...incredibly disappointed but still not surprised.

My ex-stripper QUEEN SAID “MY FATHER DOES NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER MY PUSSY” What a goddamn queen?! Gods and she says that this whole purity ball bullshit is about male power. Be my friend. Realise how powerful you are! I love her.

Awww in the post-credit scenes, it says that the girl who I talked about having had an abortion feels much better about her decision now. Good for her!

Anyway, @ntis this is why not educating children and teens about sex is super no bueno.

#mod Fiver #original #antis and religious fundamentalisn #christianity tw #purity culture #rape mention #incest mention #csa mention #also just gotta say that Teddy has been a very good boy by staying awake for me this long #I'd say that M will be proud of us...but we were supposed to be asleep seven minutes ago oops #abortion dialogue

2 notes · View notes

janiedean · 6 years

Note

between jaime and theon, who do you think has the more well written redemption arc?

well, counting that imo both of them have arcs that are more identity than redemption in itself... if you want the short answer: theon, because while jaime’s deals with redemption... it’s more a reversed redemption arc, as in, it’s not about him redeeming himself, it’s about him realizing he’s always been a decent person all along. now, I had ranted about the subject already once so if you want the full version focused on jaime there’s the meta, but going into it again and comparing it with theon...

first thing we should probably take into account when comparing them: as someone else who sadly deleted since then, these books have exactly TWO instances of people doing a truly selfless heroic knightly grand gesture and those instances are a) theon saving jeynep, b) jaime going into the bear pit for brienne, which says a lot given that they’re perpetrated by two people that everyone in the narrative (and a lot of people outside) see as oathbreakers/assholes/people with no honor;

now, before we go back there... the thing is that while I think theon has an identity arc first and foremost (I mean he has chapter names corresponding to his identities let’s be real here), but it is more or less straight-up redemptive in the sense that it follows all the basic steps, ie theon does something wrong that he regrets more than just about anyone else at this point (betraying robb), realizes where he went wrong and what he wants from life and decides to be better than that. now mind that with theon it’s strongly interlinked with the identity arc, because he saves jeyne (his narrative redemptive moment) after realizing who he is and who he wants to be and what he wants from life, while his bad actions/betrayal were rooted in the fact that he had an identity crisis and was desperately trying to be what he thought his father wanted/didn’t want to deal with that situation/couldn’t admit to himself that he had with robb what he wanted from his family (acceptance/love/someone caring about him for himself/his personality, not his surname or his worth as a hostage or only surviving male son etc.). now, never mind the whole deal where (still imvho) theon and robb are foils in the sense that robb’s damning (narratively) moment was marrying jeynew while theon’s redemptive (narratively) was saving jeynep, he gains the narrative redemption the moment he does something selfless (ie saving jeyne as in someone no one gave a shit about) regardless of facing death because that’s what theon would have done (remember ‘theon greyjoy would have helped her but not reek?), when we can argue that his betrayal and previous fuck-ups weren’t exactly selfless but more desperate ways to assess who he thought he had to be. except that when he does that he fucks up, when he does what he really wanted to he does the heroic deed, therefore showing that he has the potential to be a more than decent person (which is most likely what robb saw in him), so his arc is both about finding his identity and redemption through accepting it;

so like... we can say that theon’s redemption arc, while tied to his identity arc, is pretty much straightforward;

now, the thing with jaime is: he doesn’t have a straight up redemption arc, because tbqh the only thing he’s done in these books that he should be redeemed from is pushing bran from the window (like guys the incest is nothing you need **redemption** from technically especially since it’s an abusive relationship where he’s not the abused part and I’ll die on that hill, killing aerys was just good sense and he wouldn’t have lied about tysha to tyrion if tywin hadn’t pushed him to do it by the way that’s abusive/manipulative as well and anything else is... about on par of what anyone else in these books has done). what jaime needs is to realize he’s his own person and not his sister and find his own way, and that realization comes through coming to terms with the fact that the person he is at the beginning of the books is not the person he wanted to be when he was young but he still has the potential to be that person and he actively strives for it and tries to do better, which.... isn’t exactly **redemption** clear-cut;

also the rest goes under the cut because this is long af sorry I have feelings on these two.

like, to make it extremely basic: jaime starts as a generally good person.

now, before anyone harps at me, I’ll take a break from the checklist to say that it’s the text specifying it - he’s the only one in the family who genuinely loves tyrion when no one else would, as genna lannister put it

"Jaime," she said, tugging on his ear, "sweetling, I have known you since you were a babe at Joanna's breast. You smile like Gerion and fight like Tyg, and there's some of Kevan in you, else you would not wear that cloak . . . but Tyrion is Tywin's son, not you. I said so once to your father's face, and he would not speak to me for half a year. Men are such thundering great fools. Even the sort who come along once in a thousand years."

he has the good qualities from all the other lannister uncles/relatives but nothing of his father (I mean she mentions his smile, his strive for honor and being a good fighter, that’s... positive qualities), he’s put at the opposite, or I mean, as tyrion once put it:

My brother, Jaime, thirsts for battle, not for power. He's run from every chance he's had to rule.

and this when it was made clear in book one from tyrion’s povs that his opinion of jaime and cersei was wildly different, which would be hard if they were the same person. also:

That boy had wanted to be Ser Arthur Dayne, but someplace along the way he had become the Smiling Knight instead.

like. that’s jaime thinking about what happened to him since he joined the kingsguard. seems to me like he has a clue that something went wrong there.

anyway, back to the point: jaime starts as a good person. and a good person who wants to do good things in life, as in, becoming arthur dayne, ie a knight without stain or honor, and we all know that technically knighthood = positive things;

what happens is that since he goes into the kingsguard his picture gets destroyed - he does it on cersei’s advice and that’s what kickstarts their relationship for good (because the first time they have sex is when she proposes it to him and he accepts both for that and because he wants that kingsguard place in his romanticized vision of it, and we could talk for an hour of the fact that cersei actually had hoped to marry rhaegar just before, so if it actually had happened he’d have ended up without his name/inheritance/position and without cersei but nvm that), then he takes his job and finds out the king is out of his mind, that he can’t protect anyone he should (rhaella), has to watch people get burned alive/strangled/raped in front of him, copes by dissociating (which is like, basic ptsd trauma symptom in war veterans and he was fifteen-seventeen at that point), his picture of honor/valor/knighthood gets destroyed apparently beyond repair, he kills aerys to save everyone else after being put in an impossible position (because he was the only kingsguard in the entire castle which was a fairly stupid decision if you ask me) and then everyone decides he has shit for honor and sees him as the worst without bothering to ask and at that point he says fuck it and embraces it;

as in: he turns into the smiling knight (as he put it) by giving in to cynicism/nihilism and only worries about cersei/his family and says fuck it to his romantic notions even if he desperately wants to believe it and actually if you read his povs, going beyond the part where he’s too world-weary for his own good..... like honestly jaime lannister has the emotional maturity of a seventeen-year old which is pretty much showing that he was so traumatized by what went on with aerys that he basically never moved on from that and coped with it by a) not thinking about it, b) being angry about it when he did, c) embracing what others thought of him like ‘well you think I’m that bad fine have it your way’, which is also... basically teenage angst level but again: he hasn’t moved on from that;

(this while being into a codependent toxic af relationship with cersei that about a) annihilates his sense of identity because he thinks he’s the same as her when he’s all the contrary and acts the contrary, b) is not sexually healthy because being like that with one person only and those premises is not healthy I mean guys fuck’s sake this guy is older than thirty and couldn’t process getting hard when seeing a naked woman, it’s a problem, c) doesn’t help him get out of his issues but actually makes them worse)

now, back to the matter: at his lowest narrative point he pushes bran from the window, except thatThe man looked over at the woman. “The things I do for love,” he said with loathing. He gave Bran a shove.now, everyone ignores that bran himself perceives that jaime said that with loathing, so he knows he’s doing something extremely shitty, but he’s embracing it as necessary in order to save his hide and cersei’s and also because he’s embraced this concept that whatever he does people will think him honorless so what’s the damned point?

then, after two other massive trauma episodes ie being imprisoned for an entire year and losing his sword hand ie his livelihood, he has to face what he wants and who he wants to be because the fact that he doesn’t have the hand a) takes his fighting skills away from him, b) takes what makes him cersei’s exact mirror, c) forces him to rely on other people in the immediate aftermath and the fact that throughout this whole thing he’s stuck with brienne ie someone who reminds him of the person he wanted to be and who actually manages to uphold those ideals and keeps on doing it regardless gives him a wake-up call and makes him realize that he actually... did still want to be the person he used to be;

so like..... the arc jaime is having right now isn’t 1) I’m a bad person, 2) I did something heinous, 3) I realized that and I repented, 4) I’m trying to atone for it, which is the technical redemption arc as it is and which is more true for theon than for him. the arc jaime is having is 1) I was a good person, 2) I turned into someone I didn’t want to be after traumatic events, 3) I did something awful also as the result of years spent not dealing with it and I regret it, 4) I lost a part of me that was to me 99% of what I thought I was good for, 5) I realized that I turned into someone I didn’t want to be, 6) I’m trying to do better and be that person;

btw, before the argument comes like BUT HE NEVER REPENTED:

If truth be told, Jaime had come to rue heaving Brandon Stark out that window. Cersei had given him no end of grief afterward, when the boy refused to die. "He was seven, Jaime," she'd berated him. "Even if he understood what he saw, we should have been able to frighten him into silence.""I didn't think you'd want—" (mind that here it’s even BEFORE the hand loss and his answer is that he acted based on what he thought she wanted, now I’m not saying she is to blame but that since he was acting thinking that he was doing what she wanted then he didn’t act doing what he would have done if it hadn’t factored into his decision)

"Well, he's beyond suspicion now." Robert's death still left a bitter taste in Jaime's mouth. It should have been me who killed him, not Cersei. "I only wished he'd died at my hands." When I still had two of them. "If I'd let kingslaying become a habit, as he liked to say, I could have taken you as my wife for all the world to see. I'm not ashamed of loving you, only of the things I've done to hide it. That boy at Winterfell . . .""Did I tell you to throw him out the window? If you'd gone hunting as I begged you, nothing would have happened. But no, you had to have me, you could not wait until we returned to the city."

I mean, he says he’s ashamed of it, not me. but like, that’s someone trying to do better than before and wanting to be a better person and going past his trauma (and actually he matures a lot in between asos and adwd so it’s obvious he’s somehow gotten unstuck from his aerys-related issues);

so like..... going back to the point: theon actually wants to actively do something to atone for his betrayal or wishes he could, and while saving jeyne is not what he probably thought as in ‘atoning for having betrayed robb’, it was narratively, because the pay-off is that he’s free of his abuser, knows who he is and who he wants to be and has solved his identity issues and can only go forward. on the other hand, jaime isn’t seeing his previous misdeeds as something he’s actively searching atonement for, and it’s less clear-cut because theon is moooreee or less a straight line, jaime’s having to deal with wanting to act in a certain way but circumstances throwing him back (ie he wants to try and have a relationship with tommen, cersei sends him away; he doesn’t want to break his vow to cat but has to go to riverrun anyway; he doesn’t want to raise arms against them so he bluffs with the trebuchet baby which makes everyone assume the worst of him and works because of that, but on the side he tries to do better see the deal with pia, sending brienne to look for sansa actively going against cersei’s orders, freeing tyrion AGAIN against cersei’s orders and telling him the truth about tysha and so on);

but at the end of it: 1. theon is a generally okay person who has postured a lot as a defense mechanism while being a hostage, starts with an identity crisis that leads to his wrong/bad actions that eventually contribute to causing robb’s death (admittedly I think that the red wedding was a go anyway bc it was tywin scheming it but theon fake killing robb’s brothers > robb sleeping with jeyne > perfect excuse for frey to defect) and to his own torture and abuse at ramsay’s hands, he has to work through his issues, deeply regrets his actions, realizes who he wants to be and eventually does something heroic the moment he comes to terms with it as his big narrative redemptive moment.2. jaime used to be a good person who after going through heavy trauma has stopped giving a fuck about his old dreams and embraced his worst sides also as a coping/defense mechanism [while being stuck in an abusive relationship that annihilates his sense of self], did something heinous at his lowest point, underwent even more trauma that forced him to reshape his entire life, met someone who showed him he could try to be the person he wanted to be/was before aerys, regrets his actions but doesn’t specifically look for redemption through them but actively searches it after (as in: he doesn’t want to be redeemed for trying to kill bran but he still upholds his vow to catelyn and tries to save at least her daughter by sending brienne ie the one true knight in the room after her, frees tyrion and comes clean with him etc) and tries to be a better person all along;

this also is symbolized by when they have their heroic moments as described above, because theon saving jeyne is at the end of his adwd arc, which works as a good bookend for his story and for his identity arc, while jaime jumping in the pit for brienne is in the middle of asos/in the middle of his asos arc, so while jeyne’s rescue is theon’s ending point/crowning achievement, jaime’s rescuing of brienne is his starting point. he doesn’t do it as the crowning achievement of his arc - hell, his arc isn’t even over within asos -, and while it’s not the first thing he does actively post-hand loss (he saves her from being raped and tells her about aerys), but it’s the first grand gesture he makes and he doesn’t even know why he does it but he feels like he has to and goes for it without even blinking twice, while theon does ponder it. like, theon’s redemption (narratively) has been earned and he knows he’s done that:

"Don't you call him that." Then the words came spilling out of Theon in a rush. He tried to tell her all of it, about Reek and the Dreadfort and Kyra and the keys, how Lord Ramsay never took anything but skin unless you begged for it. He told her how he'd saved the girl, leaping from the castle wall into the snow. "Weflew. Let Abel make a song of that, we flew." Then he had to say who Abel was, and talk about the washerwomen who weren't truly washerwomen. By then Theon knew how strange and incoherent all this sounded, yet somehow the words would not stop. He was cold and sick and tired... and weak, so weak, so very weak.

like.... theon says to let abel make a song of that. he knows he’s done something song-worthy. he’s 100% aware of it, post-fact. jaime really is not - he doesn’t think of his bear pit moment as a song-worthy moment (but brienne herself does:“Ser Jaime?” Even in soiled pink satin and torn lace, Brienne looked more like a man in a gown than a proper woman. “I am grateful, but … you were well away. Why come back?” vsthe griffins on his cloak rippled and blurred and changed to lions. Jaime! she wanted to cry, Jaime, come back for me!, but her tongue lay on the floor by the rose, drowned in blood.like, brienne ie the person he saved has definitely interiorized it as A Total Song-Worthy Moment)and the fact that he ended it with the whole I dreamed of you thing which is honestly not the least romantic thing he could have said doesn’t mean that he hasn’t... gone for it knowing what he was doing, differently from theon, and again: theon’s grand gesture is what seals his narrative redemption after he finds out who he really is, jaime’s is what kickstarts his own search for the person he used to be and that he wants to be again and that he actually forgot/thought he couldn’t be, which... is the exact contrary of male!cersei as he has thought until now.

so like... imo theon’s a straight-up redemption arc within an identity arc that deconstructs a bunch of tropes (traitor first and foremost), jaime is a reverse identity arc which includes redemptive themes but where the driving force isn’t his need for redemption, is the fact that he needs to reconcile the person he has the potential of being with a) growing the hell up, b) detaching himself from cersei, c) finding his sense of self, d) overcoming his trauma. and while theon has in common with him the part where he has to find himself and overcome trauma, I think that his arc is really more redemption-driven than jaime. theon wants to atone and finds out he can because of the person he actually is, jaime needs to realize he’s his own person and to do the things he wants to, not what others think of him.

so, to go back to my first point: for this whole heap of reasons, I think that as a redemption arc theon’s is better because it’s... a redemption arc in itself, while jaime’s is basically second coming of age with redemptive themes so I wouldn’t call it like that. I mean, I hate this whole discourse about IS HE ON A REDEMPTION ARC OR NOT bc to me he’s on a self-discovering arc that includes doing things that redeem his past actions, but he’s not actively looking for it in the usual terms. that said I need to specify a few things:

I personally think theon in himself is the best written and conceived character in these books but that jaime is right behind him and they’re technically martin’s greatest literary achievements as characters so it’s not like if I say that theon’s better written I think jaime’s is badly written, ALL THE CONTRARY;

I also think that theon beats jaime for originality and identity arc (not redemption bc jaime’s arc is not redemptive imo as stated), but jaime as a pov is tbqh really a gem when it comes to a) dealing with military-like ptsd symptoms, b) long-lasting emotional abuse, c) using sarcasm as a coping method/defense mechanism, d) lessons in How To Not Deal With Trauma (ie not thinking about it), because while ofc there are parts that are not realistic (ie: someone with jaime’s background should have had a nervous breakdown of horrid proportions a long time before the series started tbh) the fact that people tend to brush it off without realizing it just because he looks fine on the outside tbh says a lot about how people overlook trauma in men when they happen to not show it in the reader’s face/in someone’s face (no one can deny it with theon and sandor, because they show it physically, or tyrion because he talks about it and he’s aware of it, and whoever usually gives it to jaime only says ‘ah it starts after the hand loss). and it’s not george’s fault because imvho he wrote it perfectly given that jaime himself isn’t aware of it, but I just find it very telling;

I think both of them are really great narratives when it comes to exploring reaction to life-lasting trauma and abuse (except that for theon is straight-up physical, jaime is mental/emotional) and both arcs in that sense are written really well;

I also don’t know how fair it is to compare them for the same themes also because jaime’s a fairly reliable pov (sarcastic but reliable, he's not the lying to himself type) while theon’s wholly unreliable/has a journey towards reliable-ness more or less but idk if we’re there so that’s that to take into account too;

I also don’t think anyone in these books has a clear-cut anything arc because it’s all tropes deconstruction and nothing is ever played straight-up, so... again, that’s the opinion but I don’t think it says much as a whole because neither of them is a redemption arc that follows the tropes (I mean theon’s is straight-up but his kinda character - ie traitor who betrays the hero - is not usually given it, but I ranted about it in the above meta).

... this probably went way beyond your question, but here, have a rant.

#jaime lannister #theon greyjoy #asoiafmeta #janie writes meta #ch: jaime lannister #ch: theon greyjoy #abuse cw #trauma cw #ptsd cw #long post for ts #redemption arcs and whatnot #anti-lannincest #anti-jaime x cersei #hello I love these two assholes #Anonymous #ask post

80 notes · View notes

scottstiles · 6 years

Text

in the spirit of losing followers for no reason, and because the new year is almost upon us, and because i haven’t done so in awhile, here is a post about the weekly parsha (torah reading):

this week we read nitzavim, 4 parashot away from the end of the book. it’s a short chunk, but one that contains a fair amount of pretty well known phrases. so while i was studying last night/early this morning, with nobody to talk to about this (as usual, because who else the fuk is awake at that hour), i had some thoughts. (under the cut for sermon length ramblings)

one of the famous phrases in nitzavim is this one:

“i have set before you life and good, death and evil. (later on) i have given you life and death, the blessing and the curse. and you will choose life, so that you and your descendants may live.”

as i was reading it i was a bit struck by the fact that my memory bank knew this translation as “i have set before you life and death, good and evil, so you may choose life.” but in all my years of reading the hebrew i never realized just how wrong that translation is? because order is important. every word and its place in the torah has its own meaning and reason. why does the text say “life and good” and then “death and evil”? is life more important than being good? certainly one may think that death is preferable to being evil, but is it more important to be alive or to be good? that made me think of one of the most important commandments in the entire torah- choose life. also right here in the same paragraph. tradition tells us that there are only a few commandments that we are not actually required to violate, if it means saving a life. shabbat? not as important as life. keeping kosher? not important. fasting on yom kippur? definitely not as important. if someone’s life (or our own) is in danger we are obligated to break any commandment to save it. except three: idolatry (i.e. forced conversion), murder (for example someone holding a gun to your head telling you to kill someone else or they’ll kill you), and sexual immorality- incest/rape/bestiality/etc (all things directly connected to the ancient primitive polytheistic worship practices of the time). in those cases, death is preferable. so the order is clear- stay alive at all costs, except if the cost is the essence of your good humanity. and always, always, choose death over evil. life-->goodness-->death-->evil. traditionally we’re taught that the commandment to choose life is a direct result of all the other commandments- if you do these things you will live. because the things you’re commanded to do are for good, and blessings are the manifestation of your good actions in the world. and if you choose to do the opposite, the result is death/evil/curses. rejecting the goodness of this way of life is a slippery slope to the opposite end. now, if you’ve read this far, you might think (if you’re thinking hard)- this doesn’t sound like a very ‘religious’ thing? because it’s not. i think this concept is pretty universal and relates closely to the idea of karma (as i know it, which is to say not in great detail). do you think this makes sense? i’d love to hear your thoughts.

another great line in this parsha is this one:

“when someone hears the words of this oath (the law from god) and blesses themselves, saying “i will have peace if i follow the vision of my heart, so that the dry may be made moist.” what does the concept of dry/wet have to do with the temptations of the heart?

here are the rabbis interpretations of this incredibly difficult to translate verse:

'to fulfill the desires of my freethinking' (Ralbag); 'to add desire even when he is satisfied' (Rambam; Chizzkuni); 'to let his desires satisfy his craving' (Sforno)

this verse jumped out to me thanks to the ridiculous way my vocabulary has been enhanced by this website- how many of you “thirst” after celebrities? how many of us feel and ache/hole/hunger in the chest when we can’t satisfy our base urges and desires/habits? when we slake this kind of thirst, we allow the body to take over the mind. again, something i’m all too familiar with- the slippery slope of addiction. how can we avoid getting to the point where we believe that satisfying our desires are more important that being good people or following “the law”/morality? and can we come back from it? the following sentence tells us no. god will “blot out” such a person “from under the heavens.” BUT, elsewhere in the torah, and especially on the high holy days, we read over and over again that if we return- god is waiting to welcome us back. mixed messages.

because of its placement in the parsha, the previous description of the person “thirsting” after the desires of their heart is referring to a person who abandons god’s law to worship other deities instead, which is clarified then by this sentence:

“and they served foreign gods, and bowed down to them, gods they didn’t know, that were not their portion (given to them).”

these two words “chalak lahem” “their portion” is so huge. it’s not the only place in the torah where we read about the righteousness of other nations. what this phrase is saying is that god is our (the jewish people’s) portion, and that other people have their portion (i.e. other gods to worship- this doesn’t mean that god concedes to polytheism- rather it refers to their practices and beliefs, which they are absolutely allowed to have). the rabbis emphasize that non-jews are not required to follow the commandments of the torah (other than the 7 noahide laws) and therefore there is nothing wrong with that.. if you are not jewish. “abominable” practices and such as they are referred to in the torah are specifically referring to the ancient canaanite and other religions which practiced things like child sacrifice, and not to the later polytheistic religions such as in ancient greece and rome. according to judaism, all the righteous of every nation have a place in the world to come- not just jews. so here’s my question for any christian followers (or ppl who know anything about this)- why is it such a “thing” for christianity to say that if you don’t accept jesus you’re going to hell? because that sure as shit didn’t come from the bible i know...anyways, maybe that’s too controversial a question for this rant. point is- acceptance. people are different from you and it’s totally fine. you (jews) are the ones with a choice- and if you choose wrong, you’re at fault and have to accept the consequences of your choices.

another famous sentence from today’s parsha is this one:

“these commandments are not too difficult or too remote from you. it is not in the heavens. it is not over the seas. it is in your mouth and in your heart, that you may keep it.”

the phrase “lo bashamayim hi”- “it is not in heaven” has been used for ages by rabbinic leadership to justify the flexibility of jewish law (and i use justify in the most non-negative way possible, because that’s pretty much all rabbinic judaism is- a bunch of lawyers sitting around a huge table arguing). the law is not something disconnected from you. it is not esoteric and mysterious and incomprehensible. it is a daily job. it is woven thru every aspect of your being and in every moment of your life. why? because it is a way of life- it is the only way of life we should strive for. because it leads to all those good things. the word tzedakah is usually translated as charity, and as little kids in jewish day school we internalize this assumption because the concept of helping the less fortunate is pretty much the basis for most of our religious education (the tzedakah box from the jewish national fund sits on every teacher’s desk). but tzedakah doesn’t actually mean charity- the direct translation is “righteousness”. as in, doing the right thing. taking care of others is ipso facto doing the right thing, and so this word has taken on multiple meanings. but doing tzedakah isn’t just caring for others. it means keeping the commandments (of which there are hundreds about caring for others). by keeping all of the commandments we ensure that every person can live their best life. or that’s the goal, anyway. the law is not in the heavens. it’s for us to understand, and to do, and to manage and to deal with every single day. it’s not for god. it’s for us. for our benefit, not just god’s.

and then the torah goes and says this little gem:

“the hidden things are for god, and the revealed, are for us and our children (until) forever, to do all the things that this torah tells us.”

so there are hidden things now? this is not a surprise. but there’s a reason some things are hidden. the things we know, the things we learn, discover, realize, are meant for us to. this sentence makes me think of “all things in good time,” but also “there are things that we’re just never meant to know.” as someone whose “thirst” has always been oriented towards knowledge, this kind of annoys me. so you’re saying i CAN’T know everything? excuse me. “hidden things” can also be translated as “secret things.” so now god is keeping secrets? yes. what is life in this world without a little mystery? i like to think of science as the thing god keeps revealing to us little by little. every time we discover something new about the world, good things erupt from within it. every time new things are revealed, there are special people who can take it to a level that benefits humanity. so what are the “secret things” that are only for god? we don’t have a clear answer in this parsha, however the words “the hidden things are for god, and the revealed for us and our children until-” all have dots scattered along the top of the letters- something found only a few times in the torah. it’s not clear why, but supposedly this indicates a particularly troublesome or difficult sentence to understand. i would agree. it’s interesting to me that the dots stop at “until” and are not on top of the word “forever.” does this mean that there will one day come a time when the hidden things are also for us? who knows. the only connection i could make from this phrase is to certain practices that we’re commanded not to partake in, specifically witchcraft and necromancy, trying to connect to the dead, etc. it was always easy for me to see the connection between those practices and things that are “meant only for god” (not that i have a problem with other people doing it, but it’s still a struggle for me that the torah says it’s necessarily wrong or bad to do, since it’s something that has always interested me). the other story that comes to mind is that of the high priest Aaron’s sons, who brought a “strange fire” into the tabernacle, and went up in flames for it. it’s one of the most mysterious stories in the torah, and there’s still no reasonable explanation for what actually happened to them. bottom line, i guess? don’t do things where you have no idea what the outcome might be- if the outcome could potentially be really really really bad. i guess that’s enough to keep certain mysteries a mystery. and maybe i’m ok with that.

if you made it to the end of my sermon i applaud you. thanks for taking the time to slog through this former teacher’s quagmire of a mind, and feel free to share your thoughts. i’d love someone to talk to about jewishy stuff.

#personal #jewish things #torah torah torah!#death mention cw #religion #judaism #etc #torah with devorah #i'm still contemplating starting a vlog and calling it that XD

10 notes · View notes

soyosauce · 6 years

Text

Navigating Trauma In The Mardock Scramble

Mardock Scramble is an exploration and condemnation of the criminal justice system and social structures that perpetuate injustice and the violation of the victims it is supposed to protect.

Trigger warning: this content is graphic in it's depicts of heavy subject matter. Sexual assault, incest, prostitution of minors, and rape among them.

At a young age of 15, Rune Balot is a sexual assault survivor turned prostitute, who is then jailed. When Shell, an entertainment star turned casino owner offers to elevate her life to something she never dreamed she could have, so long as she follows his rules, she enters a lavish life that she ends up regretting, effectively trading one form of imprisonment for another.

We first see Rune in a limousine, careening through a futuristic city of roads that appear to be light bridges, projected ads on skyscrapers dot the surroundings. Dr. Easter, following the limousine, ostensibly to save a girl from the clutches of serial killer revealed to be Shell. The victim revealed to be Rune.

"We performed Q and A with your subconscious... though comatose, It was all perfectly legal I assure you. Do you want to live, do you want to exercise your rights, etc. When the question was posed your subconscious chose 09; Mardock Scramble 09. That's an emergency ordinance for the preservation of life using otherwise prohibited technology."

Shell tells Rune she hasn't followed the rules and will become another one of his blue diamonds, locking her in the limousine and blowing it up—killing her. Dr. Easter pulls her from the wreckage and, through advanced technology interfaces with her subconscious as she's comatose, asking if she wants to be saved using a precedent in the city in which experimental technology can be utilized, Mardock 09. Thus, she awakens to a new, synthetically crafted body with numerous enhancements, including armored skin and the ability to manipulate technology using something called Snark.

Dr. Easter devised this tech during a war. If he doesn't prove himself as a 09 caseworker, helping victims of crimes be heard and to get justice, he will be charged with crimes of human experimentation and jailed.

Shell, beyond being a serial killer, launders the money of a megacorporation through his casino that has a special exception from the government to use banned technology for "amusements and pleasure". If Rune gives her consent to allow the Doctor to be her caseworker he promises to keep her safe, convict Shell for her crimes, and garner a sizeable award for solving the case, to be shared 50/50. Rune could use to start a whole new life.

Along with this deal, Oeufcoque, a sentient, shape-changing... entity? Developed for space travel by Dr. Easter, would be paired with Rune as a protector. Oeufcoque is referred to as something called a "universal item": something that can take any shape. But who’s natural…configuration is in the form of a yellow mouse which has powerful olfactory senses, allowing him to be able to sense the emotions of others through smell. When held by Rune, Oeufcoque turns into "her heart’s desire". Most of the time he takes the form of a weapon, as Rune wants and craves protection and revenge. A theme explored throughout all three, one-hour long movies.

Oeufcoque believes that since they saved Rune, they have a responsibility to her. To help her find meaning in a new life, and to help her discover her purpose. This becomes Oeufcoque's purpose and the main vector for the exploration of Rune's past and struggles as she attempts to find a place in the world with a true ally, even as she also wrestles to shape what form and meaning her revenge on Shell would look like and feel like to her. Is it enough to have him locked up? Or will she use her new cybernetic body to exact pain and vengeance, perhaps becoming a criminal in the eyes of the law herself?

What makes this more complex is that Rune's voice could not be replicated. Instead, she utilizes technology around her to vocalize herself. Thus, her ability to speak to Oeufcoque directly using her Snark is the first time she's able to freely express her thoughts and opinions; free of the rules placed on her by society and Shell.

Rune is also given "the ability to resist"; self-defense techniques, the ability to use a gun. In fact, Dr. Easter insists that her subconscious made the decision. Taking the means of her resistance even if her waking mind is still coming to grips with her new life.

Shell had surgery as a child, indicated by a cybernetic implant on his head. When he feels "stressed" his implant instead floods him with euphoria that was supposed to prevent crime in the past, when this was all experimental. With a side effect of extensive memory loss, which… he then also modifies with designer drugs, he’s able to get rid of the “stress”, experience euphoria, and never remember his crimes.

"…to overcome this little ritual of mine. These beautiful blue diamonds let me climb the stairs of the greatness of the city; to rise above it all."

He represents privilege. His memories are extracted, recorded, and erased by doctors. His brain "would rot" if he didn't. He furthers his plan to claw more and more power and to kill at a whim doing as he pleases with this regime and considers all it, “just a dream”. A fog he can't access but is aware of. Allowing this other “version” of himself free reign.

"To me, it's all stuff that happened within a dream. Besides, new memories mean that everything is in place to make my deal...To humans memories are a precious, irreplaceable thing; I don't mind having mine emptied. I'll be filled later. A vessel meant to be filled with glory. That's me.”

Oeufcoque, it turns out, has also been abused. It's possible for his user to force their will on him, changing him into a weapon used to kill innocents instead of merely to protect themselves like his purpose. When a human does this it physically hurts Oeufcoque; it could even kill him. Shell has hired his abuser, Boiled, sending him after Rune when he learns she's alive and could provide testimony against him. This becomes a vector for exploring technology as a tool, whether it possesses sentience or not. Oeufcoque serves as something tangible that bleeds and hurts, an allegory for the pain others feel in the blind pursuit of vengeance and even cruelty for Rune and the audience.

The three movies follow the duo as they confront their trauma together, figure out what it means to support one another, and protect each other fiercely. Oeufcoque provides information while generally attempting to be non-judgmental giving Rune the information she needs to make her own decisions; all while she does not have a voice of her own. She “forgets what her voice even sounds like”, something she will have to rediscover throughout.

This is where Mardock Scramble really sings, in my opinion. This dynamic is used as an intersectional lens to explore hard subject matter that cyberpunk generally tends to avoid while claiming to be exploring the margins and disenfranchised. Rune's past and how she deals with her new-found autonomy in a foreign body is compelling and done well, as far as I can tell. All of the characters are more complex than is typical and provide a lens for looking at where society is failing.

Where things get significantly murky is regarding the team of mercenaries dispatched to kill Rune in the first movie. All obsessed with a different body part. Transplanting their victims onto their own bodies; there is horror aspect introduced. One transplants eyes onto his body, someone else transplanting the breasts of victims; another, most disturbingly, is looking for the perfect victim to kill and transplant their sex organ into his hand. Clearly used to show fetishization of the human form, as they seemingly only kill women and appropriate their bodies for their own, it is still jarring and disturbing, even if it's used a vector for Rune's empowerment in the long term. A major theme of the first movie. The subject matter doesn’t shy away from being transgressive and disgusting.

It explores privilege and how power structures in place preserve and amplify it; consent and the damage the patriarchy can have, especially women; prostitution, sex, nudity, incest, the male gaze, fetishization of the female form, and other difficult subject matter is interacted with and given varying degrees of nuance and time. As a man, it's hard for me to judge if it is all done well or is ultimately simply problematic. Based on the dialogue and the premise, it feels like the intention is good and it was certainly unlike anything I'd ever watched, especially in cyberpunk as mentioned previously. It is graphic in it's depiction of these things and does not shy away from the subject matter. It is trying to convey that these things are disturbing as Rune comes to grips with them. But it is, at times, hard to watch; with the later movies significantly toned down and exploring alternate subject matter, for the most part.

The animation is gorgeous, Rune is able to do very cool things; the fights are great. The music as well, is superb. Mardock Scramble, at the very least, has gone under the radar. I hope that despite the difficult and triggering subject matter more people end up being able to experience it and share their thoughts on it so there is a more nuanced take on it than I can provide. It may be problematic in some instances, but it is complex beyond simple shock value, especially in the latter two movies, and tackles themes often skirted.

If you buy the bluray you can also watch either the director's cut version or theatrical, the later of which has toned down all aspects of the sexual scenes, including the assault at the beginning.

#Mardock Scramble #post-cyberpunk #Rune Balot

7 notes · View notes

uhlexsuhmuhchel-blog · 4 years

Text

MWA 2

Alexa Bailey

ENGL 1120

Reflective Cover Letter

When it came to this sequence, I learned a lot about how to use different modes of communication and different media to present the points I wanted to make, including using online presentations, brochures and pamphlets, and blogs. I liked being able to use different forms of media to present these points because it can make a world of difference based on who the audience is and what points you want to make to each specific audience. For example, the online presentation may be better suited when it comes to an audience you might not physically have access to as you can upload the video to a website or online resource that gives both the audience and the creator access to the document, you could also use a blog when the audience is older and more tech-savvy. A brochure or pamphlet could be used when you need to get a fair amount of information out in a short amount of time and can be done in passing, not necessarily in a full-on presentation style.

When it comes to using the Student Learning Outcomes, I feel like I learned to both integrate other positions and perspectives in my writing but I also learned how to state my opposing opinion in a respectful way that shows both sides of the argument. I also used research to support the points I have made in all of the arguments I’ve made with my sequence 2 assignments whether it be the SWA 2.1 or the MWA and that has come a long way from what I knew when doing the first sequence for the course.

When it came to considering the sources I used, I made sure to see what the goal of the organization was when it came to presenting their points and information. The sources may have been biased in one way or another but not in a way that detracts from the information. I also made sure to use sources that support each other and don’t counteract each other, but in a way that was still suitable for the information given and for the seriousness of my assignment and subject. I also used a conventional medium to present my argument by using a blog and I used the same blog that I previously used for the class.

I was able to incorporate my research into my writing but I don’t know how effective it was, as I have always struggled to incorporate my research into writing. I also did find a bias when it came to the sources I used but they weren’t biased in a way that counteracted the points I was making or in a way that made my assignment or work any less important. I do believe that my personal experiences and beliefs did guide my research and the questions I asked but I believe that changing the way I researched would not have given me the same results and could have given me inaccurate information. I did not have a change of belief or opinion based on this assignment and the research I did, I do believe that this has just strengthened my opinion and the reasons for my personal beliefs, though again, I am biased when it comes to this topic, as anyone who does have an opinion on it seems to be whether they have positive opinions or negative opinions on the specific topic of healthcare or reproductive care and abortion.

Overall, for my research and the things I have received from doing this assignment, I believe I have learned a lot, though I am still struggling with incorporating my research into my writing and to adequately do so, I believe I need to work a bit harder on learning the techniques on writing research papers and forming the research into a well-done paper that gets my point across and the information across well. I think that this assignment did strengthen my skills in these somewhat, but not as effective as it could have and I do not believe that this is the best my work in this department could have been. I think that this is the most trouble I have faced with any of the assignments we have done in English 1120 throughout the semester based on a lack of knowledge on my part and a lack of information as well.

Alexa Bailey

ENG 1120

Abortion Access in the United States

When it comes to abortion access in the United States, while it is a right, there are still many issues with a woman’s access to abortions that can prevent her from receiving adequate healthcare or even an abortion, which can be a life-saving or life-changing operation. These operations can change a woman’s potential life path and the success she may face. There are currently laws even being put into place now and one that is very controversial is the Human Life Protection Act. This is a law that was passed in Alabama in May of 2019, that states that all unborn children are people and also bans abortion at any point during a pregnancy, the only exception to this is a detrimental health anomaly or if the pregnancy is to cause serious health risks to the woman carrying the fetus. Though these are steps in the right direction, the choice to abort should be offered no matter the case and this specific law doesn’t provide an exception to women if they were raped or victims of incest and at that point, the pregnancy would still have to be carried full term and couldn’t be aborted. This law also states that abortion is a felony when performed which is equivalent to rape or murder and those being caught performing abortions can face prison time anywhere from 10 to 99 years. (CNN, Michelle Lou)

When it comes down to the prospect of doctors being jailed for trying to provide patients with safe and adequate abortion services, there are surely going to be consequences. When it comes to access to safe abortions, a lack of safety can have dangerous and even deadly consequences. A statistic we can see parallels with is that there are higher death tolls when it comes to countries that have bans on abortion and this is seemingly due to the fact that women are being forced to take the matter into their own hands and are performing unsafe and harmful procedures on themselves because the laws in these countries are practically forcing them. One example of this is that in Africa, there are laws banning abortion for any reason or with few reasons justifying the laws. When it comes to unsafe abortions in Africa, between 2010 and 2014, 25% of abortions were considered unsafe and in 2012 alone, 7 out of every 1000 women had to be treated for complications and 1.6 million are treated for complications every year. (Sedgh, Gilda)

These statistics, while discussing complications in Africa can be used to look at some of the laws going into effect in the U.S., while also discussing that these issues can also end up affecting people here in New Mexico. Currently, New Mexico has seen a decline in clinics that perform abortions, going from 26 clinics to 20, then down to 9 abortion clinics, and 11 facilities in total that perform abortions. This has caused somewhat of a lack of access to abortion clinics. This could eventually cause maternal death cases, whereas we haven’t seen statistics stating that this may become an issue, with the current laws being put in place in other states, if our state were to adopt similar laws, this could become an issue. It has been noted in the Guttmacher Institute New Mexico State Facts, that some New Mexico residents have been forced to travel for an abortive procedure due to a lack of access here in the state. They also stated “In 2017, some 91% of New Mexico counties had no clinics that provided abortions, and 48% of New Mexico women lived in those counties.”, meaning that 48% of New Mexico women had to travel to receive an abortion, whether they traveled in state or out of state for these procedures. Though there are currently no bans in New Mexico on abortion, under the current administration, as a whole, abortion restrictions are more likely to occur, given that Trump is pro-life, he could start to make these changes, though he did say it comes back to the right of each individual state to decide, these changes have been made, especially when it comes to the reference of the laws being put in place in Alabama and the laws being introduced in Ohio and a few others.

I believe that these laws are dangerous and the rejection of these laws is absolutely vital to the safety of women in the United States and worldwide. There are many ways to get around these laws, but none of which are particularly safe, or legal when it comes to having to travel out of state or country, and none are affordable either. Not everyone can afford to travel out of state or country, take the time off work to leave and have a safe amount of recovery time based on what procedure is being performed. There are also countless issues with at-home abortions and unsafe abortions being performed as well.

When it comes to this graph provided by the Guttmacher Institute, the more restrictive the abortion laws in place, the less safe abortion procedures can get and this seems to be a direct correlation to at-home and under the table procedures being done.

Overall, there seems to be a large correlation to a lack of access to abortions and a death toll and complication rate, no matter where the abortion is being performed and introduction to new laws could influence this. When it comes to our current rights, states are introducing laws that are stripping women of this right and are causing deaths due to different reasons whether it be complications, abuse, or unsafe abortion procedures.

Work Cited

“Abortion in Africa.” Guttmacher Institute, 22 June 2018, www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/abortion-africa.

“Abortion Rates: Where and Why They're Falling.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2018-03-21/abortion-rates-where-and-why-theyre-falling.

Gould, Skye. “The Number of Abortion Clinics in the US Has Plunged in the Last Decade - Here's How Many Are in Each State.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 10 Feb. 2017, www.businessinsider.com/how-many-abortion-clinics-are-in-america-each-state-2017-2.

Lou, Michelle, and Cnn. “Alabama Doctors Who Perform Abortions Could Face up to 99 Years in Prison -- the Same as Rapists and Murderers.” CNN, CNN, 15 May 2019, web.archive.org/web/20190516062617/https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/15/us/alabama-abortion-law-felony-trnd/index.html.

Sedgh, Gilda et al. “Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: global, regional, and subregional levels and trends.” Lancet (London, England) vol. 388,10041 (2016): 258-67. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30380-4

0 notes

zalrb · 7 years

Note

What do you think are the most tragic love stories in tv shows and movies that you've seen?

OK, so, spoilers. I’ve mentioned all of these couples already so I’m sorry if it’s repetitive. And this isn’t in any particular order.

Jax and Tara, Sons of Anarchy

I mention them a lot but Jax and Tara had such an embedded love and an intense pull, it had been ten years since she left Charming but when she got back they were immediately drawn into each other.

Their relationship was a source of hope for Jax while also a source of conflict because it was the only other thing that he loved as much as his club while with Tara, her love for Jax was undeniable but it took her to really dark places yet provided a lot of good in her life like her two sons and the love of a man who would do anything for her, anything except leave his club. But when he finally puts her first, finally puts his family first, when he’s finally being just a husband and a father and they reconcile after the amount of damage they inflicted on each other, she’s brutally murdered:

Noah and Rosalee, Underground

It’s only the second season of Underground so the fate of their relationship hasn’t been decided yet but it’s tragic because well Underground is about enslavement and about the various avenues taken to dismantle it and the main characters were a group of enslaved people who ran away from their plantation. Noah was the ring leader, passionate and devoted and committed and he believed in Rosalee when she couldn’t even see her own strength. Throughout the period of them running from the law and slave catchers and just white civilians, they have these moments of respite where they can gaze at each other or touch one another but then they have to keep moving because they’re fighting for their lives. When they finally are like a step away from freedom, they can finally have a moment long enough to consummate their love.

However, Noah is recaptured almost immediately after they have sex and Rosalee spends a lot of time and makes a very risky plan to get him back and you think that she will succeed because Noah escapes

but then he’s once again recaptured and she doesn’t know if he’s alive or dead.

Alisha and Simon, Misfits

Alisha was originally very mean to Simon because he was an outcast and a loner and frankly, weird, but then Simon from the future comes to the present to save Alisha’s life because in the future Alisha dies and she ends up falling in love with Future Simon which helps her fall in love with Present Simon except Future Simon dies protecting Present Alisha while Future Alisha had already died so basically they were both doomed to die.

Jal and Chris, Skins UK

Jal and Chris are a relationship in which the “overachiever” and “screw-up” relationship works really well because Jal is supposed to be uptight and focused and she’s very critical while Chris parties and does way too many drugs so one day they decide to help each other, where Jal has to say “Yes” to things because all she does is say “no” and Chris has to stop saying yes or his tagline “fuck it”

and try so they actually nuance each other and they go through a lot, he deeply hurts her and she goes through some unexpected challenges but they manage to make it through and then he dies:

Naevia and Crixus, Spartacus

Crixus and Naevia are tragic in two parts. The first part is Spartacus: Blood and Sand (this is the Naevia I prefer, they changed actresses in Spartacus: Vengeance) so Lucretia who is the domina, mistress, of the household uses Crixus as her sex slave, he’s only supposed to belong to her but Crixus falls in love with Naevia who is Lucretia’s “most trusted” personal slave so there are moments for instance where Naevia has to watch Lucretia and Crixus have sex and stand guard in case Batiatus, Lucretia’s husband, comes home. If that isn’t enough Batiatus gives Naevia to Ashur who is Crixus’ enemy and Ashur rubs it in his face so Crixus goes ballistic which lets Lucretia know that Naevia and Crixus were together so Lucretia beats Naevia

and then sells her off to be a sex slave, she’s used as a “gift”, being dragged to different households for esteemed men to rape in order for the House of Batiatus to gain favour.

When Crixus and Naevia finally reunite (this is the new actress), they end up dying.

Spartacus and Sura, Spartacus

Spartacus defied a Roman and was condemned to slavery along as his wife (but separately), Batiatus trains him to be a gladiator and says that if he fights and wins in the arena, he will be reunited with Sura. However, Spartacus is disobedient and rebellious, he has no regards to actually “honour” his master, he just cares about Sura and that’s a problem because his fights in the arena are gaining favour for Batiatus so he needs him so Batiatus has her delivered to Spartacus but tells the man who drives her to slit her throat before entering the gates so Sura dies in Spartacus’ arms.

Pietros and Barca, Spartacus

Pietros is a soft, young slave and Barca is a formidable gladiator who only shows his softness with Pietros and Barca wants to wins enough money to buy him and Pietros freedom but Ashur owes Barca a lot of money that he won’t pay so Barca threatens to kill him so Ashur creates a series of events that end with Batiatus slitting Barca’s throat, they then tell Pietros that Barca bought hiss own freedom and left him behind so obviously Pietros is heartbroken but then because Barca isn’t around to protect him he is consistently raped and beaten by another gladiator so Pietro commits suicide.

Silas and Amara, The Vampire Diaries

They were barely onscreen together and their story is really short but it’s really sad and that Dobsley chemistry, man.

Cesare and Lucrezia, The Borgias

OK, Cesare and Lucrezia is an interesting case because it’s incest and I usually find the inclusion of incest in narratives gratuitous, like, why but the reason why Cesare and Lucrezia worked for me is because I thought the show did an excellent job in showing the shame and the guilt and the self-disgust that comes out of a dynamic like the one they have, Cesare is inwardly torn to shreds about how he feels for Lucrezia but it’s this overwhelming force that Lucrezia describes as, “a dark cloud descended upon me” and I find them tragic because who wants to feel this way? The situation is entirely fucked up and it affects them fundamentally:

Mickey and Ian, Shameless

No one dies, just, they don’t end up together and after all the shit they went through and everything they mean to each other, it’s just tragic that they’re not together.

Stefan and Elena, The Vampire Diaries

No explanation needed.

Buffy and Angel, Buffy The Vampire Slayer

I find it both beautiful and messed up that as long as Buffy and Angel love each other they can’t be together because the minute Angel experiences any form of true happiness, he loses his soul so they have to stay away from each other, it’s an inherently doomed relationship:

Robb and Talisa, Game of Thrones

I mean, *sigh* I have conflicting feelings about Talisa and Robb because Robb was my favourite character until Talisa because he was such an idiot and short-sighted and just, he was such a badass until he fucked up over her and that pissed me off but I still liked their scenes together and it did not need to go down the way it did.

That’s all for now.

59 notes · View notes

thecorteztwins · 7 years

Text

ROLEPLAY PREFERENCES SHEET!

PLEASE REPOST, DO NOT REBLOG! Feel free to add to any of your answers! The purpose is to tell your partners about the way you write! For the multiple choice ones, BOLD all that apply and, if you want, italicize if it’s a conditional answer!

– B A S I C S –

NAME: 90smun ARE YOU OVER 18? YES / No IS YOUR MUSE? Yes / No / Verse Dependent WHEN WAS YOUR BLOG ESTABLISHED? March 2015

– W R I T I N G –

ARE YOU SELECTIVE ABOUT WHO YOU WRITE WITH ON THIS BLOG? No (anyone) / Semi (most people) / YES (SOME PEOPLE) / Highly (few people) / Private (mutuals only)

ARE YOU SELECTIVE ABOUT WHO YOU FOLLOW ON THIS BLOG? No (anyone) / Semi (most people) / YES (SOME PEOPLE) / Highly (few people)

IF YOUR MUSE IS CANON, HOW MUCH TO YOU ADHERE TO CANON? Not at all / A little / Some / Mostly / Strictly / NA

WHAT POST LENGTHS DO YOU WRITE? One Liners / Single-Para / MULTI-PARA / NOVELLA

DO YOU USE ICONS AND/OR GIFS? No / Gifs / Icons / Gificons

DO YOU WRITE ON OTHER PLATFORMS? No / YES

WHAT LEVEL OF PLOTS DO YOU WRITE? Unplotted / OPEN-ENDED PLOTS (set up a meeting and see what happens) / SEMI-PLOTTED (ONE OR TWO STEPS AHEAD) / Fully Plotted Epics (plotted beginning, middle, and end)

HOW QUICKLY DO YOU USUALLY RESPOND TO THREADS? VERY SLOW (MORE THAN A MONTH) / Slow (3-4 Weeks) / Average (1-2 Weeks) / Fast (Less Than One Week) / Very Fast (Less Than Three Days)

WHAT TYPES OF THEMES DO YOU LIKE? (feel free to add!) Fluff / Angst / Smut / Action / Tragedy /Domestic / Family / Conversational / Hurt-Comfort Just...general, I guess? Like interacting in whatever way makes most sense for the characters and seeing what happens

WHAT GENRES DO YOU LIKE? (feel free to add!) High Fantasy / Supernatural / Science Fiction / Historical / Horror / Comedy / Romantic / Drama/ Action / Adventure / Espionage

ARE THERE ANY THEMES YOU’RE UNCOMFORTABLE WRITING ON YOUR BLOG? (not triggers) No / Yes There’s a lot of common tropes that I find sexist or otherwise problematic. I understand this is just fiction for fun, I’m not trying to police what anyone else does or implying they believe in the messages that I get from these tropes (ex: if you just love a villain enough, you can redeem them!) but for me personally, I don’t like to write it, since what I enjoy about the fantasy aspect of RP is that I get to escape the tropes I dislike in mainstream media. I also am uncomfy with writing with muses who come from or are inspired by Christianity. This includes angels, Biblical characters, and Christian demons. I specify Christian demons because there are a great many demons in a great many works that have nothing to do with Christianity (Buffy, Marvel, and any number of Japanese anime, for instance) I am alright talking about it, like I was just recently talking with another mun about one of my muses being an angel in her own guardian angel verse for her muse, but I do not want to actually write these things in RP. I was raised Christian and it just feels weird to me, despite being an atheist now. I am just fine with figures from most other pantheons, however.

DO YOU HAVE ANY TRIGGERS? HOW DO YOU REQUEST IT TAGGED? No / Yes It’s not a trigger, actually, I don’t have panic attacks or anything, I’d just prefer to be able to block it on my dash---incest, rape, and animal death/animal cruelty. I don’t need any fancy/specific tags for it, just tag it with something relevant or tell me your custom tag, and I’ll block it myself.

– S H I P P I N G –

WHAT TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS ARE YOU OPEN TO? Romantic / Platonic / Familial (CANON) / Familial (OCS)

WHAT TYPES OF PRE-ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIPS ARE YOU OPEN TO? Romantic / Platonic / Familial (CANON) / Familial (OCS)

DO YOU HAVE OTPS? No / chemistry only / Yes

DO YOU HAVE NOTPS? No / Yes Anne Marie and Magneto would be major NOPE NOPE NOPESVILLE for me. I realize that the “fanatically loyal female follower who is in love with the bad guy leader” is a super common trope in fiction (which is why it comes to my mind immediately for this question), but that’s NOT the case here. She sees him as a divine/religious figure, and her devotion is not sexual/romantic at all, it is purely about her desire to save mutantkind and the world from suffering, and her belief he will do that. Any kind of non-platonic dynamic between them would be dubcon (as she would not feel she could say no), inherently exploitative, AND SOMETHING SHE DOES NOT WANT. Besides the fact that’s NOT something I want to play, it’s not something I could ever see Magneto doing anyway.

WHAT IS YOUR MUSE’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION? Heterosexual (Fabian and Delgado) / Heteroflexible / Bisexual (Anne Marie, strong female preference)/ Homoflexible / Homosexual/ Pansexual / Demisexual / Sapiosexual / Asexual / Ambiguous (Chrome)

WHAT IS YOUR MUSE’S ROMANTIC ORIENTATION? Heteroromantic / Heteroflexible / Biromantic / Homoflexible/ Homoromantic / Panromantic / Demiromantic / Sapioromantic / Aromantic They all match their sexual orientation

ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WRITING SMUT? No / Selectively / Yes

HOW EARLY IN A RELATIONSHIP DO YOU SHIP ROMANTICALLY? Autoship / During Plotting / After A Couple IC Interactions / Several IC Interactions In / Slow Burn / Never {not open to romantic ships}

ARE YOU OPEN TO TOXIC SHIPS? No / SELECTIVELY / Yes / Never Tried It Anything with Fabian is going to be toxic tbh

ARE YOU OPEN TO PROBLEMATIC SHIPS? (canon history, age difference, complicated, etc.) No / SELECTIVELY / Yes *points to Fabian again* Darkshipping and the like is really not something I want or plan to do, but if something were to develop organically I might go with it. It really depends.

ARE YOU OPEN TO POLYSHIPPING? No / Selectively / Yes Anne Marie is fine with that. Chrome...has no opposition to it at all, but he doesn’t even want to deal with one person most of the time, let alone more than one. Delgado might agree to try it for a partner, but I’m not sure how comfy he’d really be with it. Fabian...Fabian wants a harem, as we all know, but of course how dare the girls not be totally all his :P Honestly, ships are super duper hard for this bunch, because they are devoted to the cause above all else. They are not just punch clock villains who see this simply as a job and can have a normal life outside it. It doesn’t work like that. Their relationships with people who are not Acolytes/Brotherhood/otherwise aligned with their cause are mostly going to be shallow, fleeting things, or tragically cut short/star-crossed. They simply cannot and will not be romantically involved, or often even friends with, someone who is not “one of them”. They do not ship with civilians/unaligned. They DEFINITELY do not ship with X-Men, Avengers, and other “heroes”. The exception to this is in AUs where they’re not Acolytes, so if you really want to ship (I’m not much of a shipper myself, but I’m open to discussing it) then an AU is your best bet.

ARE YOU AN EXCLUSIVE SHIPPER? No / Sometimes / Yes

DOES CRACK SHIPPING EVER HAPPEN? No / Yes

– T A G G I N G! –

tagged by: @apprcnticesuprcmc tagging: @avalanchiing, @wildtsukai, @welookoutforourown, @magnetician, @magnet-dad, @callmewiccan @kimikomasuda, @apocalyptus-secundus, @msgold63, @vulpanthropic, @monaluxsrpblog

#mun survey #rp survey

1 note · View note

moralitybug · 6 years

Text

/Doc./ “Heart Beat Debate”

So just yesterday I was sorting thorough some old documents I saved, & I came across one titled “Heart Beat Debate.” Looking into it, I realized that these were questions & answers I saved from a youtube thread, with a man who didn’t agree with my pro-life views or the pro-life video i commented on.

At some point, he came out & asked me 25+ questions on what/why I believed as a pro-lifer. So why don’t I put out the majority of the questions. It might promote understanding for both sides (The pro-life & pro-choice/abortive)...

Part 1

Do you believe that a person who supports capital punishment stands in opposition to the "*pro-life*" principle of the sanctity of human life? Why or why not?

1)capital punishment: Yes. When boiled down to the raw center of the pro-life view (so raw, it's no longer specific to abortion only), these two views do collide. Personal View: People adopt and prioritize more then on raw views. This is why we have pro-lifers who make exceptions for death, whether isn't in defense, capital punishment, war, or abortions (as well as pro-abortionists who don't always support abortion 100%). This doesn't mean those views are compatible, it just means that people are complicated.

Do you support exceptions for abortions done in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother? Why or why not?

3) Exceptions: Rape: Pro-life morals say no. I also say no. Rape is souly the fault of the rapist, not the fault of the mother (victim) or the unborn child. In fact, the child isn't even alive during the time of the rape, as conception (the earliest point to be considered alive) doesn't occur until hours after intercourse if it happens at all. Food for thought: If we are going to kill anyone (justly) why are we going for the child but letting the rapist get away? ...Incest is also a no, for the movement and for me. Like in the case of rape, no matter what the conditions that bring a child fourth, "a person's a person, no matter how small."... Incest also has the interesting factor that, it isn't uncommon for the perpetrators to use abortion (for or against the woman's will) to hide that they are being sexually abused. Pregnancy would be proof of incest, so they abort to not get caught and to continue the abuse.... Life of the mother is often said to be tricky, but when looking through the pro-life view, it really is not. Pro-life, as I said, means basically that we want life. We want the mother to life, and we want the baby to live. So if the unborn is being intentionally killed for the mother, that's as bad as if the mother was intentionally for the baby. So in this case, decisions must be made that are not intended to kill either, even though the risks of these procedures COULD cause death to the child. It's like swimming out to save a drowning woman/ not swimming out in time to save the baby VS. Swimming out to save the woman/ swimming out and drowning the baby. And the thing about these cases is, if the child is not intentionally killed, then it's not seen as abortion, even though, in the end, the child did die.

Do you understand the difference between an embryo, zygote, and a fetus?

4) EmZyFe: I do.

Do you understand the moral justification for euthanasia? Do you support a parents right to make health care decisions on behalf of their child, especially if that child is terminally ill? Do you believe that if a fetus is discovered to be non-viable (missing vital organs and/or exhibiting irregular development) the parent should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term, and the infant should be forced to endure a slow and painful death?

6) euthanasia: I can understand moral justifications, and I can also understand moral objections which, I side with... The movement & I support parent making decisions as long as it does intentionally lead to the child's death.

For this last question, I see a lot of presumption based on "force." As there are equally amounts of parents who chose to carry their pregnancies with these facts, and there are babies who don't experience a "slow, painful" as they live out their short days, I am inclined to neutralize the question by excluding the word "force." (Summarized) Should parents carry out a pregnancy when they know their baby is going to die (even if the death is painful)?

The Pro-life view says yes. Honoring the dignity of life, the view states that every person has the right to live (and not have their life stripped from them) until they come to a natural death. My personal opinion: If you are so worried about your child succumbing to death, then how does a forced death solve that problem? Honestly, as a woman who hopes to carry a child one day, I would find better piece of mind knowing that my body provided 9 months of pure love and life (that they couldn't sustain on their own). Then if they lived longer, they gain the benefits of, well, living. They lived in hope. Hope that they would live longer, stronger, and loved, VS. the loss of hope that caused the end of their live....

[Counter Question: Do you understand the moral objections to euthanasia? Do you support a parents right to make health care decisions on behalf of their born terminally ill child, especially if that decision leads to a slow and painful recovery?]

Do you understand the difference between fertilization, implantation, and conception?

8) fert/imp/conc: Yes, the differences and the similarities.

Given that certain behaviors such as smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol can greatly increase the likelihood of a miscarriage occurring (taking into special consideration miscarriages that occur after "conception" but before implantation) should it be illegal for women to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol if they are sexually active? Why or why not? If a woman who smokes cigarettes or drinks alcohol while pregnant miscarries, should she be charged with negligent homicide? How would the government legislate or enforce such a law? What about women who didn't or don't know that they are pregnant?

11) behaviors: This is a very "ethnics" evoking questions. Spurred from my inspired personal view, let's see if I can answer these. Illegal if sexually active? No, first off, because not all sexual activity, during all times of the month leads straight to pregnancy. There are more variables then that. As is for the next questions. There are certainly grounds for negligent homicide, but will the government do so, and enforce them? who knows. The main difference here between the argument we have been having in this questions is as different as miscarriage and abortions. In both cases a life is lost, one is intentional, one is not. As far as the pro-life core goes, as long as you register that in both cases, a life is lost, and that it's a tragedy (not a right, or a desired result, or meaningless/casual) then the Pro-life view prevails .

Are you familiar with the statistics behind the number of abortions performed annually, separated by term/gestation, age of mother, marital status of mother, and financial security of mother/family?

12) statistics: As my mind in particular has issues holding numbers, I would have to look them up to be exact (can do if need be). However, I can give you general fact implying what the #s would look like. (Maternal age is around college and early career developing ages. Marital status: more single women have abortions then single women who keep, but there is also a very large number of married women as they are starting their careers, some still young, or otherwise stressed.)

Are you familiar with the social factors that facilitate adolescent delinquency, drug use, and criminality and their correlation to poverty and unplanned, unwanted pregnancies?

13) social factors: I am. I can also explain how this is a cycle that does not end with abortion access.

[Counter Question: Are you familiar with social factors that facilitate success, and their correlation with underdog successes and abortion potential?]

Do you understand the significance of contraception and education in preventing unwanted pregnancies?

14) significance: I understand the importance of education, however I find contraception to be very troublesome as it often halts the education process. "Take a pill, that's all you need to know." Not how it works, not how you work (on and off the pill), not the risk factors or benefits, etc.

[Rewrite] Can you definitively determine when “life” begins? How do you define “life?” [Rewrite?]

16) life: I can. Life is present when the [7] scientific criteria for life is met. For a human being, this is generally at the time of conception. Not all pro-lifers know of this concept, but it is a persistent fact none the less. I will be stating these from the point of conception (scientists don't do this, but hey, if all the criteria apply at conception, then they apply until death.) 1) Composed of cell[s]. Yes. 2) Different levels of organization. Yes, you don't have to be mutli-cellular to achieve this. 3) Use energy. Mhmm 4) Grows. Yip. 5) Reproduce. actually, yes, even as a zygote. Obviously humans reproduce sexually.... 99% of the time. However, when at a cellular level, with as few as one cell, the unborn can potentially reproduce asexually... this leads to identical twins. 6)Respond to environment. Yip, it implants itself in the uterus when it encounters it. Another interesting fact is that, if a mother has a heart attack, it is not uncommon for the unborn to send stem-cells to heal her heart as early as implantation. 7) Respond to stimuli. An interesting fact as well is that the first thing a zygote does after it's conceived, is that it hardens it's cellular walls so that no more sperm can get in. (which could be devastating &/or fatal to this new life). It defines it's internal self (which it maintained there forth for the rest of it's life) from the outside world.... This is life.

Can you definitively determine when “personhood” begins? Are there any specific requirements for “personhood,” and if so, what are they? How does a zygote or embryo fulfill these requirements?

18) personhood: This is an interesting concept as well. Many describe it as a social construct, brought on by the gov, to determine who qualifies for gov benefits. Generally, (and according to the government, even in Roe vs. Wade) the rule is that personhood applies to any living human being. Considering, as I've shown, life begins at conception, personhood thus begins at conception. So that's a yes. There are many arguments to try and fight personhood within the womb, but that would take far to long to cover.

[Rewrite?] Can you definitively determine when “consciousness" or "*sentience*” begin? How do you prove “consciousness" or "*sentience*?” [Rewrite?] Can your definitions of “life,” “consciousness,” "*sentience*,” or “personhood” be applied to other animals?

19) consciousness: Not sure. as far as the pro-life movement and I are concerned, the unborn are living people... so consciousness is a speculation point, that doesn't change or determine the dignity of life or who gets it.

[Counter Question: Can you determine when "life" begins? Define what life is? Explain what/why personhood, consciousness, and sentience determines the presence or absence of life? How do you prove it?]

Do you eat meat?

20) animals: Some have all of these factors, some animals don't, all have life (except for pet rocks). Some humans have/had these factors, some don't/didn't... but animals are not people, and the qualities you have listed don't make a person. So yes, I do eat meat (one of my complexities that doesn't offend the Sanctity of Human Life). But I am not killing or eating people, (Mr. Gosnell)

[Counter Question: Do animals meet you're qualifications for human life? Is there a difference between animal life and human life? Do you eat meat, and is it because of your views on abortion?]

Is determining and mandating a particular life philosophy a legitimate role of government?

21) gov role: As I think about it, I have to say yes. Our gov is founded on determining and mandating philosophies (Remember the philosophies of life, liberty, & pursuit of happiness? They determine and mandate that.) As for the issue at hand, if the gov wanted to retract it's role, it would have to make abortion neither legal, not illegal. Neither supporting, nor disapproving anyone on their abortion stances.

Is determining and mandating a particular moral code, especially one informed by a specific religious ideology, a legitimate role of government? If the government were to pass such legislation, wouldn't it constitute as a violation of the 1st amendment rights of other people? Why should the moral convictions held by a single individual or specific religious group, be used by the government to determine the legality of the solicitation and provision of certain goods and services in such a way so as to place limitations upon all individuals to freely exercise ownership over their body and control all of it's functions, especially considering that morality is subjective?

22) moral code: I could go in so many different directions... First off, as I've portrayed this is more then religious/moral code.... But let's go this route... It sounds like you think the gov is picking and pulling laws only out of their religious censored brains. Yes and no. Gov is supposed to be uniting people of vastly different verities, so no matter what is passed to law, someone is going to be upset. So how does the gov decide on anything? It depend on who is voted in. If someone is voted in that's pro-abortion (regardless of if the voters voted religiously or not) then that person is allowed to assume that they may act in a pro-abortion manner, and vise versa an so forth. As for restricting, by law, something based on religion/morals... well, let's go this way. Mercy killings: morally sound in some religions, morally incorrect in others. So if the gov prohibits mercy killings, it follows X's religious moral, if it approves, it follows Y's religious moral. So if you take beliefs, moral, religion, etc. out of every federal decision you will either have a) a lawless land, OR b) laws that are in some way associated with some style of belief/religion. Because, furthermore, morals can reflect justice can reflect morals.... Lastly, as I explained, there are two lives/two bodies. Of a mother and child. In the case of abortion, to allow abortion is to allow ownership but also allow death. To deny abortion is to deny a portion of ownership but allow life.... I side with life, you sound like you side with ownership... aren't our moral codes funny?

[Counter Question: Do you believe that government is overreaching it's boundaries? Wouldn't government legal support of any view, even pro-abortion views, violate other people's beliefs, expressions (first amendment), and the bodily anonymity of the pre-born? Why/Why not? ]

In in-vitro fertilization eggs and sperm are harvested from parents, fertilized, and left to grow into blastocysts in a nutrient rich solution over a period of time. Often a single cell is then taken from the blastocyst to test for genetic abnormalities. Typically, the fertilized eggs that are not chosen for implantation are frozen for future use. If a fertilized egg is considered to be equivalent to a person, with full personhood rights, under what condition is it ever okay to amputate up to ⅛ of a person's physical body and detain them in a freezer for an indefinite amount of time without their consent?

23)in-vitro: It is never okay. Not in the case of adults, women, men, children... Not even in the case individuals conceived in in-vetro fertilization.

[Counter Question: Can YOU think of an example (aside from in-vetro) where it ever okay to amputate up to ⅛ of a person's physical body and detain them in a freezer for an indefinite amount of time without their consent?]

Do you feel that political grandstanding on issues that are certain to fail (ones that lack a necessary supermajority), especially ones that have been ruled on by the Supreme Court, a pragmatic use of taxpayer money?

24) grandstanding: I do, so I am confident that Roe vs. Wade is reaching it's end. If you recall, Roe vs. Wade was passed by the Supreme Court... relying heavily on the 14th amendment... And even Mizz.McCorvey ("Jane Roe") abandoned her stance on abortion... so there's a shake in that "supermajority."

[Counter Question: Do you feel that political grandstanding on issues that are certain to fail (ones that lack a necessary supermajority), especially ones that have been ruled on by the Supreme Court, a pragmatic use of taxpayer money? e.g. Roe vs. Wade]

e.g. Citizens United, Brown v. Board Taking into consideration the national debt, how do you rationalize and/or justify abandoning the principle of fiscal conservatism in favor of endorsing an ideological agenda, especially one based largely on religious conviction, that is often used by politicians to hijack government functioning and delay the legislative process thereby creating unnecessary political gridlock?

25)rationalize: There's not really a connection between most of the concepts you present... First off, the only intention of the pro-life movement when "hijacking" is to advance the recognition and care of life (man, woman, and child).... If the gridlock is so unnecessary, then why doesn't the abortion side give up? Probably because it endorses an ideological agenda based on belief too.... The unborn, as of present, have even less of a damaging effect on the national debt and tax issues then illegal immigrants do... and I'm rooting for reform in immigration, not the death of them.

[Counter Question: (Your question returned to you) Taking into consideration the national debt, how do you rationalize and/or justify abandoning the principle of fiscal conservatism in favor of endorsing an ideological agenda (specifically unobstructed abortion access), especially one based largely on beliefs, that is often used by politicians to hijack government functioning and delay the legislative process thereby creating unnecessary political gridlock?]

Do you believe that some of the more recent bills passed in State legislatures, such as Texas' mandatory sonogram law, are consistent with conservative principles of small and limited government? Do government mandated medical protocol exemplify government overreach or does the government have a legitimate role in micro-managing doctor-patient relationships through strict regulations?

26) medical gov: I'm going for gov overseeing medical regulations. It keeps facilities clean, doctors honest and patients informed.

[Counter Question: What are your true views on government and it's maintenance of our country? How does this change when the government is supporting pro-abortion legislation? How does it change when the government is supporting pro-life legislation? ]

Do you realize that the historical alternative to abortion was infanticide? Are you aware that prohibitory legislative policies are largely ineffective and strengthen the black market?

27) infanticide: infanticide is not nearly as historic as you portray. Not only is it still being done to post-born children around the world (and even occasionally within our boarders, despite legal abortions) it is also being done widely to pre-born children. Infant is a non-specific term, not commonly used for pre-borns, but not specific to newborns either. As for the laws and black market, you will have to be more clear.

Are you aware that in places where abortion services are outlawed or difficult to access the maternal mortality rate is substantially higher than in places where abortion services are legal and easily accessible? Do you understand the concepts of individual sovereignty, and self-ownership?

28) outlawed: I do. I also know that in these places you refer to, hospitals and other medical treatment is not easily accessible [in general]. A tragedy either way, this loss of life.

Does the 9th amendment, which guarantees individual rights not enumerated in the constitution, implicitly include the right of the individual to control the functions of their body through any means of the individuals choosing?

29) 9th amendment: I can understand the concepts, as well as their counterarguments (which I side with). No it wouldn't, because in the Declaration of Independence (written before the constitution) it is stated that all have the inalienable right to LIFE (notice how this comes first), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So this knocks the 9th amendment out, because this right is already enumerated.

0 notes

crisisshmrisis-blog · 7 years

Text

Moral Confusion in the Pro-life Camp: A Response

[A photo of tiny plastic babies/fetuses on a sidewalk]

This seems to be a photo from an anti-abortion protest, where they place flags (or in this case tiny plastic fetuses, I guess) that represent x number of fetuses aborted per year. It really just brings to mind those pictures and sculptures of fetuses created by pro-life groups that inaccurately portray what embryos and fetuses look like – like this one that seems to keep cropping up on Facebook (and apologies for linking to the Daily Mail): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2551660/Christian-mayor-inflames-Norway-abortion-debate-posting-picture-fake-12-week-foetus-palm-hand.html and http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/12weekfetus.asp.

It seems that pro-lifers are not-so pro-life. According to a recent Gallup poll, 46 percent of Americans identify as pro-life, but only 18 percent say that abortion should be “illegal in all” circumstances. So what accounts for this moral confusion?

We start off strong, with accurate references to a well-respected polling company. So 46% of Americans identify as pro-life (“with respect to the abortion issue” – so we’re ignoring end-of-life issues, the death penalty, etc. – things that any good pro-life Catholic should also be concerned withh). This question was asked directly after a question regarding the legality of abortion, in which case 50% of respondents said abortion should be “legal only under certain circumstances,” and 18% said that abortion should be “illegal in all circumstances.”

With this, Mr. Nicoll has implied that pro-life should equal a belief that abortion is illegal in all circumstances. Anyone who believes in exceptions is not truly pro-life.

There are a lot of talking points today about the exceptions for abortion – before a certain number of weeks, before the first trimester, in the case of rape or incest, if there’s some kind of horrific and/or painful condition the baby will be born with, or if the pregnancy would risk the mother’s life. I presume Mr. Nicoll is going to address these below. So here we go.

For one thing, the ease with which we rationalize morality down.

“Rationalizing morality down” is apparently a cause of moral confusion. I honestly had to Google this phrase because it isn’t quite clear. My best guess at Mr. Nicoll’s intention with this sentence is that we let us talk ourselves out of a hardline approach to abortion. And it’s easy, apparently.

It goes something like this: Imagine an exceptional circumstance to a moral issue and subject it to a moral calculus until what is morally prohibitive becomes morally acceptable, if not commendable.

“Imagine an exceptional circumstance to a moral issue” – okay, this seems feasible. Since we’re talking abortion, I’ll imagine a young girl about ten years old who has been raped by her father and is pregnant. There are definitely physical risks to someone so young carrying a pregnancy to term, and we’ll add in the probable mental health risks (especially if she’s grown up in a strict religious environment where she believes that she is at fault/her value as a human being is tied to her purity) which could lead to trauma down the road, if not being suicidal. Since I’m imagining an exceptional circumstance, let’s throw in some genetic predisposition to depression (which equals a risk of suicide) and horrific life circumstances where she has no family or societal supports for her pregnancy, childbearing, or child rearing. Let’s go, Mr. Nicoll.

“Subject it to a moral calculus” – I’m really not positive what this means, but I’ll imagine doing some calculations with my moral exceptional circumstance.

“Until what is morally prohibitive becomes morally acceptable, if not commendable.” Okay, so abortion is morally prohibitive. But in this circumstance, it becomes morally acceptable (for the imaginary reasons enumerated above). And then commendable. I think Mr. Nicoll is implying that I’m then going to apply this acceptability to all cases of abortion. But he doesn’t make that step (yet, at least.) Although maybe we did that with our calculus. Who knows? So right now, we’re at a point where we’ve moved from morally prohibitive to morally acceptable, under said exceptional circumstances. I feel okay with this right now.

In the abortion rights debate, those exceptions are rape, incest, and health of the mother—circumstances with high empathy quotients, especially when imagining a wife, daughter, sister, or oneself as a victim. People who poll pro-life, yet support some form of legalized abortion, have concluded it would be too difficult, unloving, or cruel for a woman to bear a child under those conditions.

Okay, here we’ve got three reasons to allow exceptions: rape, incest, and maternal health. Which apparently appeal to people due to their “high empathy quotients,” which I assume is a fancy way of saying that they inspire a lot of empathy (versus something like a gender-selective abortion). And these self-proclaimed pro-lifers fall for these traps of empathy. They let their feelings take over, which is foolish – that’s what I’m getting from this. They can’t imagine going through it themselves, or counseling a wife, daughter, family member, or friend through a pregnancy born of rape or incest (situations in which, I would imagine, the trauma continues for nine months or more), or a pregnancy where they might literally die.

Mr. Nicoll doesn’t seem to have much empathy for people in these situations. He has not yet offered a compelling argument for why they should be forced to continue with these pregnancies. Not only are we against abortions in these circumstances, we’re also looking down from our high horse at those who do have empathy and sympathy for people in said circumstances.

Often their reasoning follows an alluring Golden Rule logic: “loving neighbor as self” means sparing him from any consequence I would want [my wife, daughter, sister, myself] to be spared from.

“Consequence” seems like a harsh word to me. It seems to sort of imply that these women and children brought these unwanted pregnancies via incest or rape on themselves. Or maybe it’s a wanted pregnancy, but the mother, again I’m going to put this in italics, might literally die.

Further tipping the scale is that with a million abortions per year, nearly everyone knows a friend, neighbor, coworker, or family member who has had one. Thus, a person who deems abortion in the abstract as morally wrong, can be less inclined to be so when circumstances are real and close to home.

I can’t find any polls or statistics on this exactly, but I’d imagine most people aren’t casually bringing up their abortion with co-workers at the water cooler or with family over Thanksgiving dinner. Just because people are having abortions doesn’t mean they’re talking about it. Sure, you might know or be acquainted with someone who has had an abortion. But do you know about that person’s abortion? Probably not.

But say you do. And then when you look at the circumstances that are close to you and understandable in the context of your life (“real and close to home”), it makes sense. It seems acceptable. This is basically how human understanding works. It’s easy, easy, easy to form strong opinions in the safe vacuum of the abstract. But when we throw in the complications and messiness of real life, it gets harder to make black-and-white decisions. Isn’t there some kind of blessed, beautiful humanity in the people who can empathize with their fellow human being amidst their struggles?

But let’s examine the calculus.

Oh, Jesus H. Christ, now we have to do math again.

Consider the case of a child conceived in rape or incest. Is ending the life of the child a lesser evil than having the mother carry him/her to term? Granted, the post-traumatic consequences to the mother can be painful and prolonged, but the victimization of one person never justifies victimizing another who, in this case, happens to be the most vulnerable and voiceless person involved.

Okay, so Mr. Nicoll believes that life begins at conception. We’ve got one life in the uterus, and another life with the uterus carrying this other life.

“The post-traumatic consequences to the mother can be painful and prolonged, but…” I think both the pro-choice and the pro-life crowd can agree on this one. So why doesn’t the pro-life crowd put some effort into community mental health services, geared toward vulnerable women? And I don’t mean flinging diapers and prayers at vulnerable women. I mean some serious, licensed, accessible clinical therapy geared towards women who have experienced trauma surrounding pregnancy. If you’re going to legislate that a woman carry a pregnancy to term despite the ongoing trauma, and claim to care about both lives equally, then you’re just going to have to put your money where your mouth is.

“The victimization of one person never justifies victimizing another…” Well, Mr. Regis the-world-is-cut-and-dry Nicoll – here’s a quandary. If abortion victimizes the child for the benefit of the mother, and the birth of the child victimizes the mother at the benefit of child – where do we go from here? We seem to have hit a brick wall with our black and white moral compass.

Oh, you don’t see the birth of the child as the continued victimization of the mother. The “painful and prolonged” post-traumatic consequences aren’t continued victimization. Just a consequence for the mother to suffer. (And if you had to suffer these horrific post-traumatic consequences, Mr. Nicoll? I’m sure in the vacuum of the abstract, you say you would suffer them humbly and honorably for the sake of your child. But when it’s real life? I’m not making assumptions, but it would get a whole lot harder.)

How about maternal health? Is abortion justified to save the life of a mother?

So we have two lives here. If the mothers’ is at risk, it’s my understanding that the other life generally is too - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/. Medicine has advanced, and viability outside the womb has increased. But it’s not perfect – not perfectly advanced enough to match Mr. Nicoll’s cut-and-dry morality. So if the abortion is not justified, and the fetus is not viable, then we lose two lives? That seems unreasonable.

Ironically, in a book promoting legalized abortion, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, past president of Planned Parenthood admitted, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” And that was in 1967!

Preeclampsia affects about 3.4% of pregnant women in the U.S. (https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/preeclampsia/conditioninfo/Pages/risk.aspx). Not a large percentage, but you are the one who dragged us down this “exceptional circumstance” rabbit hole, Mr. Nicoll! The Mayo Clinic states that “if you have preeclampsia, the only cure is delivery of your baby.” Modern medicine is advancing. We are looking for ways to avoid even having preeclampsia in the first place. But it still can happen. And if it occurs before the fetus is viable? Well then, looks like Alan Guttmacher has his foot in his mouth.

The doctor would find no argument from former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop who once stated, “In my 36 years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life.”

I presume that C. Everett Koop, a pediatric surgeon, would not have been called in to situations where abortion was medically necessary. We’re talking low numbers anyway (“exceptional circumstances,” remember?), so maybe he never came across such a situation. But even if such a medically-necessary abortion took place in the same building as C. Everett Koop, he might not have known. He would only have been present in the case of fetal abnormalities or birth defects that he could correct or in cases where he could save the life of the child.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that abortion is necessary to preserve a mother’s life.

Alright, let’s go.

If a mother is willing, as nearly all mothers are, to assume some, if not significant, personal risk for the welfare of her post-partum child, how could she deny her enwombed child the same consideration? The child in both cases is a genetically complete and unique human being; they differ only in stage of development, as a newborn from a toddler, a toddler from a teen, a teen from an adult.

Oh, no we already talked about this. I’m miles ahead of you Mr. Nicoll. If the pregnancy is such a risk to the woman, and not viable yet for delivery, that baby is probably not going to make it either. Two lives versus one. Or we’re trading one life for one life. And if all lives are equal, well oh dear. Aren’t we at a brick wall again. If there is a case in this cut-and-dry, black-and-white world that you imagine, where a woman knows that if she continues with the pregnancy, she will die, but her child will live, guaranteed, sure, she may be more likely to “choose life,” as you call it (versus risking her life for a child who very well may not survive at all). But if we’re trading exactly one life for another, shouldn’t the person who is giving her life have a say? It’s a difficult moral quandary. But if you say no in all circumstances, then you’re sentencing a woman to death for the mere fact that she was unfortunate enough to wind up with a risky pregnancy. Which seems like a difficult moral quandary to me.

Then again, all this concern over “women’s health” neglects the very real and serious health consequences to women from abortion.

Oh no.

For example, an analysis of 22 studies, published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, involving over 800,000 participants found that post-abortion women had “moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems” that included substance abuse and suicidal behavior.

Correlation is not causation. Perhaps the reason that the woman felt she needed to have an abortion was her mental health status (hey, pro-lifers, put your money towards real, effective, accessible mental health services for women!), or other circumstances in her life that caused the substance abuse and suicidal behavior. These women likely had the substance abuse and suicidal behavior (or at least other circumstances leading to these situations) prior to the abortion. Sure, the surprise/unwanted pregnancy and abortion could exacerbate these. But I’m not going to believe that the abortion caused these problems, as you suggest, unless there is cold, hard data documenting the causation, not just correlation.

Concerning the physical consequences of abortion, the best documented ones include significant increased risks of premature birth in future pregnancies, uterine bleeding, and breast cancer.

Given that you cited Americans United for Life, I’m not going to believe you. Here’s an article that cites a real scientific study about how abortion does not cause premature birth in future pregnancies - https://www.babymed.com/abortion/modern-abortion-does-not-increase-risk-preterm-birth. And another article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15603101. Uterine bleeding also occurs after childbirth (http://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=postpartum-hemorrhage-90-P02486), but I don’t see you arguing against childbirth. And here’s what the American Cancer Society has to say about that breast cancer claim - https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/medical-treatments/abortion-and-breast-cancer-risk.html. (In short – “breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy…Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk…Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.)

Despite the medical facts concerning women’s health and the personhood of the child in utero, courts over the last four decades have denied the child its right to life, while declaring the woman’s right to abort “sacred ground.” So sacred, that her choice is to be free from restriction or personal consequence, even over the objections of the child’s father, and even if the cost of her choice must be borne by individuals and organizations against their religious beliefs.

“Courts…have denied the child its right to life.” What you’re doing here is villainizing the courts, despite a different foundational belief about what exactly an embryo or fetus is, and what right it might have. The courts who have made such decisions clearly do not see the fetus in utero as an individual human being with constitutional rights. If they did, they would probably make other decisions. So stop vilifying people for making decisions based on their belief system and educate them. And educated them with sources other than organizations with a pro-life bent. Because nobody is going to believe those.

“Personal consequence” has been addressed above, at least in terms of those exceptional circumstances. And, as a pro-life writer, I don’t think you should be referring to children as “consequences.” That sounds sort of punitive. And if you call them consequences, then definitely nobody is going to want them.

Regarding the child’s father – this does get tricky. If the courts don’t regard the fetus as an individual human being with rights, what rights does the father have to the growing thing that is inside the mother’s uterus? I do, personally believe, that if the father can demonstrate his willingness to care for the child and pay for the medical bills for the woman, there should be some sort of system set up for him to be able to have the rights to keep and raise his child. But while the fetus is growing in the mother’s uterus? It gets tricky and we’re weighing one person’s rights against another. It’s basically a landmine. If anyone has a good answer to this, let me know please and thank you.

Prior to Roe v. Wade abortion was legal in most states to save the mother’s life. Given the rare to non-existent instances in which that would be a legitimate concern and the fact that only about one percent of abortions involve rape and incest, according to the “pro-choice” Guttmacher Institute, the ruling should have had a negligible effect on abortion incidence. Instead, less than six years post-Roe, the number of abortions doubled from over 600,000 to over 1,200,000.

This is not them main point of study by the Guttmacher Institute says. The study simply cites the reasons that women have abortions, which are a lack of financial or social stability (the father being out of the picture, or barely in the picture) or obligations to children the woman already has. I’m not sure where the 600,000 number comes from. From a basic Google search, I cannot find anything and Mr. Nicoll does not link anything. I will note that any numbers about abortion from pre-Roe v. Wade have to be taken with a grain of salt. People who had abortions prior to its legalization were not exactly reportion their abortion to the CDC. So it’s hard to have accurate numbers.

It was the result of expanding the health “exception” to include any physical, psychological, emotional, familial, or stage of life consideration deemed pertinent to the mother’s well-being. Under that broad definition, the reasons women give to abort—again, according to the Guttmacher Institute—include: a baby would interfere with my education or employment or dramatically change my life; I don’t want people to know I had sex; I’m not ready for a (another) child; I’m not married; I can’t afford a baby.

Mr. Nicoll implies that the increase in abortions after Roe v. Wade have to do with the expansion of “exceptional circumstances.” That from abortions in the case of the risking of a mother’s life, we make abortion okay for someone who would be inconvenienced by a child. I’m not sure where Mr. Nicoll draws this conclusion. He offers no data to support this, and just seems to draw it from thin air.

It seems as though these women had abortions because of the reasons presented by their own lives and circumstances – not due to some kind of calculus they did on moral reasoning. Can’t have a child due to financial reasons, other familial obligations, or a lack of paternal or general familial support? These seem to be home-grown reasons – not calculated from a moral exceptionalism standpoint.

Speaking of a condition in his time, Blaise Pascal observed, “[You] make a rule of exception … from this exception you make a rule without exception, so that you do not even want the rule to be exceptional.” In our time, what was once intended to be an extraordinary procedure to save a woman’s life has become a billion-dollar industry to save her from any inconvenience.

Here we go again with math, with Blaise Pascal. And assuming that we make a general rule out of an extreme circumstance. As discussed above, I don’t think that’s what’s happened.

Given that the pro-life movement is primarily made up of Christians, double-mindedness in the camp can be placed squarely on the doorstep of the Church.

Again, making assumptions. The Church is to blame, because her people are the ones in the pro-life camp. Could it not be that our blessed and/or cursed humanity does not allow us humans to fall into your strict pro-life camp, Mr. Nicoll. Because the pro-lifers all fall under one umbrella, the umbrella is to blame?

It is not that Scripture and Church tradition have nothing to say in the matter. To the contrary, when the psalmist wrote, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me,” he was three millennia ahead of medical science in acknowledging when personhood begins.

“From the time my mother conceived me,” does not necessarily mean from the time that the sperm fertilized the egg. It really could be interpreted as from the time that my mother thought of having a child. Let’s not make assumptions here.

As to church tradition, the sentiments of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi notwithstanding, the Church has always held that abortion is murder. In the second century alone, there were over twenty admonitions against abortion (without reference to exceptions) by early church fathers—like this from Tertullian: “In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb…To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth.”

Okay, your beef is with the Catholic Church here. Yes, the Catholic Church is against abortion. This does not require argument.

The problem is that abortion, seldom (if ever) is given any airtime in churches. If the war on children is to end, that must change. The teachings of scripture and tradition must be placed front and center and made clear, not in a single sermon or sermon series, but throughout the church year from the pulpit, Sunday School curricula, and home study groups to remove the moral confusion that divides the pro-life camp and sustains a genocide claiming the lives of 56 million children worldwide, every year.

Oh no, abortion is not given sufficient airtime in churches. I feel like it really is, but I guess not. A priest telling a congregation that abortion is wrong is not going to convince people who feel real empathy and sympathy for their fellow human being that abortion should not happen in extreme circumstances. But if the Church were to provide funding for clinical therapy for women with pregnancy-related trauma and resources beyond diapers and baby formula for women who wanted to continue their pregnancy but lacked the support and finances? Goodness knows what could happen!

#crisis magazine #catholic #Regis Nicoll #abortion #guttmacher institute #prolife #pro-life #i'm not linking to the article itself bc it does not need the boost in Google searches

0 notes