#Fundamental right of health

[tin-can-iron-man]

I'm just gonna say it again real quick:

Yes!! Iron Man is a tragedy! It has and always has been since the very first appearance in 1963 which describes itself, Tony's life, and legacy, as such.

Tony causes most of his issues himself, he is his biggest villain, a majority of his rogues gallery are caricatures of the worst versions of himself brought to life (when they're not just being racist cuz...60s...). The worst thing about being Tony Stark is that he can't stop being Tony Stark (he tried!!) That is the point.

The majority of pain Tony goes through, is pain he inflicts on himself, whether intentionally or inadvertently. That is the point.

He is not A villain (at least. Not usually. There are...some rough moments and arcs that are. Not great. As there is with any character as old as he is). But he is his own main antagonist.

[uncanny-tranny]

If you truly want to do what's best for mentally ill people, you have to learn that you often won't be able to separate the "salvageable" parts of ourselves with our illnesses, and you can't pretend like we are sane people underneath the façade of insanity, like we can flip a switch and magically erase the differences that make us "disordered"

[jochona]

i will wash my hair tomorrow

[rowenabean]

.

[sendmyresignation]

one of the things about where are your boys tonight i really appreciated and, to me, seemed like the most significant thrust of the book (but never garnered much attention, imo), was the focus on the business side of things and particularly the way the many bands never saw long term success or stability or the way a lot of very young people were taken advantage of even after making their labels and handlers metric butt-tones of money and this really culminated with the discussion about paramores record deal and the inherently coercive nature of making a 14 year old sign a record deal (not even really mentioning that record deal was 20 fucking years lmao) and yet i still see people argue she was an industry plant or whatever. sorry ig one of my fatal flaws is i give child stars the benefit of the doubt considering the fundamental exploitation necessary for that position to exist or whatever

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 9, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

APR 10, 2024

Yesterday, former president Trump released a video celebrating state control over abortion; today, a judicial decision in Arizona illuminated just what such state control means. With the federal recognition of the constitutional right to abortion gone since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, old laws left on state books once again are becoming the law of the land.

In a 4–2 decision, the all-Republican Arizona Supreme Court today said it would not interfere with the authority of the state legislature to write abortion policy, letting the state revert to an 1864 law that bans abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger. “[P]hysicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman’s life, are illegal,” the decision read.

The court explained: “A policy matter of this gravity must ultimately be resolved by our citizens through the legislature or the initiative process…. We defer, as we are constitutionally obligated to do, to the legislature’s judgment, which is accountable to, and thus reflects, the mutable will of our citizens.”

The idea that abortion law must be controlled by state legislatures is in keeping with the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. But it’s an interesting spin to say that the new policy is protecting the will of the citizens. 

The Arizona law that will begin to be enforced in 14 days was written by a single man in 1864. 

In 1864, Arizona was not a state, women and minorities could not vote, and doctors were still sewing up wounds with horsehair and storing their unwashed medical instruments in velvet-lined cases. 

And, of course, the United States was in the midst of the Civil War.

In fact, the 1864 law soon to be in force again in Arizona to control women’s reproductive rights in the twenty-first century does not appear particularly concerned with women handling their own reproductive care in the nineteenth—it actually seems to ignore that practice entirely. The laws for Arizona Territory, chaotic and still at war in 1864, appear to reflect the need to rein in a lawless population of men. 

The 1864 Arizona criminal code talks about “miscarriage” in the context of other male misbehavior. It focuses at great length on dueling, for example—making illegal not only the act of dueling (punishable by three years in jail) but also having anything to do with a duel. And then, in the section that became the law now resurrected in Arizona, the law takes on the issue of poisoning. 

In that context, the context of punishing those who secretly administer poison to kill someone, it says that anyone who uses poison or instruments “with the intention to procure the miscarriage of any woman then being with child” would face two to five years in jail, “Provided, that no physician shall be affected by the last clause of this section, who in the discharge of his professional duties deems it necessary to produce the miscarriage of any woman in order to save her life.” 

The next section warns against cutting out tongues or eyes, slitting noses or lips, or “rendering…useless” someone’s arm or leg.

The law that Arizona will use to outlaw abortion care seemed designed to keep men in the chaos of the Civil War from inflicting damage on others—including pregnant women—rather than to police women’s reproductive care, which women largely handled on their own or through the help of doctors who used drugs and instruments to remove what they called dangerous blockages of women’s natural cycles in the four to five months before fetal movement became obvious.

Written to police the behavior of men, the code tells a larger story about power and control. 

The Arizona Territorial Legislature in 1864 had 18 men in the lower House of Representatives and 9 men in the upper house, the Council, for a total of 27 men. They met on September 26, 1864, in Prescott. The session ended about six weeks later, on November 10. 

The very first thing the legislators did was to authorize the governor to appoint a commissioner to prepare a code of laws for the territory. But William T. Howell, a judge who had arrived in the territory the previous December, had already written one, which the legislature promptly accepted as a blueprint.

Although they did discuss his laws, the members later thanked Judge Howell for “preparing his excellent and able Code of Laws” and, as a mark of their appreciation, provided that the laws would officially be called “The Howell Code.” (They also paid him a handsome $2,500, which was equivalent to at least three years’ salary for a workingman in that era.) Judge Howell wrote the territory’s criminal code essentially single-handedly.

The second thing the legislature did was to give a member of the House of Representatives a divorce from his wife. 

Then they established a county road near Prescott.

Then they gave a local army surgeon a divorce from his wife. 

In a total of 40 laws, the legislature incorporated a number of road companies, railway companies, ferry companies, and mining companies. They appropriated money for schools and incorporated the Arizona Historical Society.

These 27 men constructed a body of laws to bring order to the territory and to jump-start development. But their vision for the territory was a very particular one. 

The legislature provided that “[n]o black or mulatto, or Indian, Mongolian, or Asiatic, shall be permitted to [testify in court] against any white person,” thus making it impossible for them to protect their property, their families, or themselves from their white neighbors. It declared that “all marriages between a white person and a [Black person], shall…be absolutely void.”

And it defined the age of consent for sexual intercourse to be just ten years old (even if a younger child had “consented”). 

So, in 1864, a legislature of 27 white men created a body of laws that discriminated against Black people and people of color and considered girls as young as ten able to consent to sex, and they adopted a body of criminal laws written by one single man.

And in 2024, one of those laws is back in force in Arizona.

Now, though, women can vote.

Before the midterm elections, 61% of Arizona voters told AP VoteCast they believed abortion should be legal in most or all cases, while only 6% said it should be illegal in all cases. A campaign underway to place a constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights on November’s ballot needs to gather 383,923 verified signatures by July; a week ago the campaign announced it already had 500,000 signatures.

It seems likely that voters will turn out in November to elect lawmakers who will represent the actual will of the people in the twenty-first century. 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[linktwinmaniac]

Is the moderate pro-life view really incoherent?

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

Dear Prof. Scarfone,

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

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

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

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

Of course she does.

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

No.

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

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

But that would take Bob’s life.

True, but is that Alice’s fault?

No.

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

Right, she shouldn’t.

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

Yes.

And who’s the murderer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But doesn’t that lead to genetic defects?

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

But humans aren’t fish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,

T́ristanaz Ĺaihnazrijaz, ðe Liŋk Twin Maniac (L™)

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

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

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

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

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

[shivunin]

Yay, prompts! 💜 Number 21, for your worst liar OC and their LI? :3

21. "You're a terrible liar" for Cullen and Elowen (who is by far the worst liar of all my OCs). Thank you for the prompt!!!

Falsehoods

“I told you I’m fine,” the Inquisitor said from the other side of the door. 

Cullen narrowed his eyes at it, his arms crossed. 

“You did.”

“And it wasn’t even that bad. It just sounded bad because I’m…tired. That’s all.”

“Of course.”

A long, long pause. Cullen waited, peering at the door jamb and the smear of blood across the handle. 

“I do…I do need…maybe just a little help.” 

Her voice was defeated, but Cullen’s shoulders loosened in relief. They’d been on the road for a full hour after the skirmish. In that time, she’d said nothing about the wound taken across her back. They only knew anything had happened at all because she’d nearly fainted off her horse as they’d neared this town. Elowen had taken the proffered potion, had consented to share a saddle with Cullen so he could keep her upright, but when they’d actually reached the inn she’d turned stubborn. 

He supposed that his own stubbornness had, at last, paid off. 

“I’m coming in,” he told her, further smearing the blood on the handle when he pushed the door open. 

“It’s really not that bad,” she went on from behind the dressing screen, the words belied by the hiss she made a moment later, “It—it looks worse than it is, really.”

“You are a terrible liar,” he began, and stepped round the screen. 

The red templar she’d faced had wielded long, bladelike protrusions of red lyrium from its wrists. Cullen had seen it from a distance, too busy hacking at a behemoth on the other side of the clearing to offer her any aid. It had disappeared and reappeared over and over, and only the barrier she’d called up over her skin had prevented it from skewering her. At last, she’d called her spirit blade into existence and cleaved it in two, her form near-perfect, the move she’d used one that Cullen had taught her himself. He’d resolved to show his appreciation later, but he hadn’t realized—

Of course her opponent had scored its blows, and its blades had cut deep. Her back was in ribbons, despite the freshly-healed state of some of the wounds—owing, he was sure, to the healing potion Dorian had badgered her into drinking. 

“It’s worse than it looks,” she said again, but when she tried to turn and look at him she winced and faced the dressing table instead, “When I pulled off the tunic, it opened the wounds up again. That’s all. It’s—”

“Stop,” Cullen said quietly, and shed his gloves, “You don’t need to persuade me that you’re alright. I can see that you aren’t. Just—please. Let me help.” 

Elowen pressed a hand to her face and nodded silently. 

Cullen shed the rest of his armor onto a settee near the door, then returned to the supplies on the dressing table. There would be no getting around hurting her more in this; the goal was to minimize pain, not avoid it entirely. 

“This will sting,” he murmured. 

“I know,” she said, and her hands curled tightly around each other when he began to dab at the drying blood on her back. 

In a sense, she was right—it did look worse initially than it did after he cleaned it up. That it still looked awful afterward was…well. That was for both of them to bear in silence.

“How are you doing?” he asked after wringing the cloth out in the basin for the last time. She just shook her head, looking away from him. 

Maker, he hated this; he understood now why she’d been so upset at the Temple of Dumat. It was harder to see her hurt than it was to bear it himself. 

“Look at me,” he said, crouching beside her and setting one hand over hers, joined into one fist. She did at last, sniffing slightly, and he saw that her eyes were red-rimmed. 

“We’re almost done,” he said, “I am sorry.”

“Don’t,” she sucked in a breath, “Don’t apologize. You’re helping me even though it’s—I’m a fool. I should’ve told someone, done more than take the edge off. I should’ve—”

“Shh,” he said, and rose slightly to kiss her damp cheek, “I think you must be in enough pain already. You don’t need to add more.” 

Elowen nodded once, jerkily, and leaned forward to press her forehead to his. 

“I’m sorry I didn’t say anything.”

“You don’t need to apologize to me.”

“I’m sorry I lied.”

“Well,” Cullen said, “Fortunately for both of us, lying is one skill you have not yet mastered.”

Lavellan laughed, an uneven laugh, but lifted her head and pressed her lips to his forehead. 

“You should finish with the bandages,” she told him, uncurling her hands to take his in between them, “I can take it.”

“I know,” he said, and bent to press his lips to the knuckles of her hand, each kiss as full of the gentleness he wished he could offer her wounds, “Tell me if it hurts too much. Alright?”

“Yes,” Elowen said, and let go of his hands, “I will.”

“You promise?” he asked.

“I promise.”

[wizardlyghost]

few things make you distrust therapists like a parent who is a therapist

[katyspersonal]

warning for: "bad wording", "unasked opinion", "another coward hiding behind anon mask"

I think you should stop looking for an ideology/side to pick and consider trying to pick your own side, attempt learning to become your own person instead—give up on fitting into any cult anything? Honestly, why don't you try to build your own thing? You seem capable of building so much of theories, finding so much of little details not many could ever notice—why not use this skill to help yourself? I get it. Many humans do not like making efforts. I'm one of them. Sometimes becoming your own person = doing a lot of efforts, but it is not a hard work it is just making efforts, day by day, baby steps, it is possible, it is valid—even if right now it might seem as "not very likely" or "hopeless" or "meaningless" in your personal case. I do not judge you. I'm trying to tell you that creating your own identity, a personality is possible. Speaking from a lil anon experience, so far I haven't found any other solution except trying to learn how to rebuild yourself into yourself from a scratch and "broken remains". You can't get rid of every single shitty influence but you can take control of it, its traces and make something of your own. You can do anything, if you want...but you don't want it, do you? I do not know you (and you don't know me), all I got is an opinion to make out of your post, I bet it's mostly wrong, I should have stayed silent, heh. I think you'll be less miserable if you stop running away from yourself by seeking yourself in people, groups and fandoms. And I do not mean it in way like "quit social media they are evil they are brainwashing you into becoming something you are not", if anything I do not believe in "good" and "evil" nor in "black and white", because this life has much more of colors and hues in the store to offer. "Balancing it out" is what I was trying to tell. Please try to help yourself. I think you deserve to live and have good things in your life. My opinion matters very little because I'm just another coward, but I mean it.

Hey, this is actually a very good message. It took me some time to get to it because currently I genuinely am better off sinking in my special interest and drawing than tackle anything personal. But this is a good advice, especially for someone who had to judge my character off very limited information. (or maybe I am oversharing way more than I think I do...?)

The thing is... I DO have beliefs and ideals! It is aggressively affirming them where I fail at. Like you pointed out, I can see a lot of things no one else does and that's how I get into every character's head. But it is similar with people. Very often I will see where person is coming from, what events and information and trends made them come to this conclusion, what is their motivation, and like... You see, this is normally a deal-breaker for me. Just because I can understand why person thinks this way, see the logic and often even a valid fundament, this person passes for me - especially if I can not properly object them with logic and knowledge. I am not the type to have no logical counter-arguements and still pull the 'L + you are wrong + you are a bitch + bye' thing, because coming from emotions is not for me. For this same reason I often get trapped in abusive relationship - because when person is convincing and I have no counter-arguements for why I should not be treated this way besides crying and insulting... well, I can be convinced of deserving anything. Just ask my EX boyfriend hahaha (he healed and changed, don't worry).

This is the loop of autism. Not just any autism, but like, very pure form of it. The one that consistently pisses the allistics off enough to call us "robots" or "psychopaths". We do not 'just' understand things and not 'just' believe in things - we only do or think something if there is a reason. But at the same time, we won't "just know" a lot of things others do. There are only two things you can do - either 1) assume some unbreakable "rules" how society and people function and what is right and wrong end up being a rigid prick that judges everyone through the same lence and could never see things working unlike these "rules" or 2) say fuck it and use your own brain to navigate in the world, but you will constantly get lost. I think the latter is the lesser evil, because the former not only makes it more likely to get used as ideological soldier, but also will fuck over people that act and speak coming from different reasoning.

And you are right. I SHOULD make my own rules - not listen to some arrogant assholes claiming to be for peace and equality but We Know, and not listen to some conservatives who just can't accept that every generation will be different; but also not wander so aimlessly. I have a friend who is very similarly fucked up to me: hard autism, borderline personality disorder, burdening level of insightful, all that. And even he is self-sufficient enough to say 'Yes I see where you are coming from in your beliefs, but fuck you, that's a way of an idiot'. Another friend who has the exact same type of autist thinking as me ended up doing just what I mentioned - they set up the rules of what he believes in and refuses to budge on them no matter the stakes, even if they tend to hurt people because not even appealing to their compassion could make them budge. Like!!! you have to be literally dying for them to go easier, but even then they'll pick their principles back up and return to the discussion when you recovered.

Granted, recently I've been becoming more solid. Like recently I've blocked someone because they were using slurs in an arguement, and even before that I blocked someone I never even talked with because they were a tad too nationalist against Russians (all of them). It is just... not really like me? I tend to not mind free speech, but for some reason I've started to get more angry at such things? It is also the uh... Barb1e movie. Yeah don't laugh, trust me plenty of people ended up in existential crisis because of it. But it was something that followed when someone whose reasoning I was able to understand prior pulled the 'This movie hates men' when the movie gave men positive message that men should aspire to be self-sufficient and be themselves instead of stressing to fit into social expectations. This sort of (mis)interpretation just felt way too similar to """logic""" a certain asshole had calling me lesbophobic when I said to stop locking lesbians in stereotypes (I know you're lurking here, lil shit). It feels very obvious that anyone can be an idiot and it is not just privilege of the "woke SJWs" side but just a flaw of any human that makes their politics their personality, but sometimes it takes a certain event to make you truly SEE something, you know?

And in the end, by learning to assert my beliefs, by learning to be consistent and not just 'have' them, I will be playing this game too, no? ...somewhat. Currently I am more like Rom - I see everything but this is the reason I can't do shit. I want to be more like Djura, who knows what he thinks and will protect it, and you have to actually agree to his terms to not get shot by him! Both of these characters are 'open' and will work with people's autonomy: Rom by her barrier being penetrable if you have enough Insight, so you CAN learn horrors of the universe but only if you are looking for them so people that don't want that shit are spared, and Djura by not denying the hunt altogether but insisting that beasts that can't harm people are spared, as he tells us to go and be useful where we will be. But Djura has something Rom no longer does - personality! For me 'seeing where they come from' is a pass to forgive... literally everything? It can be a great power that will let me find what others can't and make friends no one else could, but it can also be a dangerous mindset that will trap me in abusive relationship or make me cause damage. The one thing Rom is not showing even to 99 Insight people is how there is a madman slowly destroying humanity with his ritual, isn't it so? Haha, yeah, you pointed out that I am very well-versed in analyzing fiction, but this shit legit helps me to navigate. I've been solving many conflicts and questions via "omg they're just like those characters for real". Autists interact with the world vicariously through fiction! My close friends also developed a habit of helping me by comparing the situation with something that happened in our Bloodb0rne headcanons. I am dead serious. x)

In the end, I am incapable of being ideological soldier, nor I can obey the rules based on "I am [demographic] and you are not so do what I say or you are a danger for our whole kind" (left) or "I am older/more educated and you don't know shit in life and if you don't agree with me you are just another woke zombie" (right). Of course I can't have a 'covenant' - I am an individualist! An individualist that can't assert their individuality, apparently. But there is a difference between wandering aimlessly or walking your own way..

______________________

Again, thank you for this ask.. You really should not be so hard on yourself - anons are only bad and cowardly if it is a prick being mean. Otherwise they're fine! And it was important for me to think about, too... I was not even really THINKING about how I have friends with similar thinking as me but they adapted and can be consistent and assertive. They can disagree very harshly, to the point of creating awkwardness between us until I either change my mind or admit that I have nothing to argue, and that's not emotional manipulation, but standing up.

[panicinthestudio]

Taliban further restricts women's rights, forcing aid groups to halt work in Afghanistan, December 26, 2022

This weekend, the Taliban ordered that women can no longer work for non-governmental organizations, including relief agencies. Any such group that continues to employ women will lose its license, according to the economic ministry. Vicki Aken of the International Rescue Committee and former Afghanistan Parliament member Fawzia Koofi joined Lisa Desjardins to discuss the latest.

PBS NewsHour  

[pepprs]

i will stop after this one i prommy but i am always so scared she will end up discovering my blog but you know what i fucking wish she would. i wish she would read all the shit ive been saying about her online for years and finally get it through her thick skull that the way things are is her fault too.

[pixesemma]

I dreamt of my former best friend today and woke up crying. She froze me out of her life 2 years ago and I still don't understand why. I can take emotional distance from anything else yet this creeps up on me once in a while to ruin my day.

[opens-up-4-nobody]

...

[genderqueerdykes]

yesterday when working with my case manager, she went through a long checklist of my comprehensive needs to refresh our treatment plan. as a part of the questions she was asking me, she asked for various areas of my financial struggles, including if i was able to afford social activities such as hanging out with friends, going to the movies, etc. as part of my necessary purchases. the question was specifically phrased as "Do you have enough money every month to be able to afford social activities?"

this was not proposed as a "luxury". the question was not phrased as "Do you have enough money every month to afford luxuries/luxury purchases?" this was listed with the necessities like food, housing, medical needs, transportation, bills, and clothing. this made me burst into tears when i realized it was considered a necessary part of everyone's mental and well being. my case manager told me that not a singular person on this planet deserves to have to "earn" the right to socialize, interact with leisure activities, or to do things that bring you personal fulfillment. your money does not, and should not entirely go toward survival and practicality. it will ruin your mental health.

to any poor person who has ever been told that they don't "need" or "deserve" social or leisure activities or that your money "needs" to go 100% toward survival: they are straight up lying to you. it is a fundamental part of your mental health. don't fucking listen to them.

[ujaglobaladvisory]

Right To Health In India: Constitutional Perspective

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services…”

Article 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights

Health is an essential prerequisite for human beings and plays a vital role in national development. The right to health is an essential right, without which one cannot exercise its basic human rights.

WHO has given a widely acceptable definition of “health” in the preamble of its constitution; according to the World Health Organization[1], “health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease.”

Through this definition, WHO has helped to move health thinking beyond a limited, biomedical, and pathology-based perspective to the more positive domain of “well-being.”. Also, by explicitly including the mental and social dimensions of wellbeing, WHO has fundamentally stretched the scope of health and, by extension, the role and responsibility of health professionals and their relationship to the larger society.

The Constitution of India is the supreme law of India; it aims to secure social, economic, and political justice. The Constitution of India does not categorically provide for the right to health as a fundamental right. The state is required under the Constitution to take action to enhance the quality of healthcare available to the public. The Directive Principles of State Policy are an expansion and elaboration of the preamble. Nonetheless, the state’s fundamental law protects individual liberties and advances the welfare of the country.

It is the duty of the state to provide an effective mechanism for the welfare of the public at large.

In spite of various health schemes and policies, the condition of healthcare is deteriorating beyond our control. The framers of the Indian Constitution have rightly mentioned various provisions regarding the health of the public. Additionally, the Supreme Court of India plays a vital role in safeguarding the general public’s health through a variety of rulings. The current issue shall be managed by the efficient application of laws passed in accordance with constitutional provisions. The fundamental right to health is not officially recognized by the Indian Constitution. However, a fundamental right to life and personal liberty is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In this article, “life” refers to a humane life, not just a life of survival or animal existence. Its definition is far broader and covers things like the right to a better standard of living, the workplace and leisure areas being hygienic, and more.

The Indian Constitution contains a number of provisions that address public health in general. To safeguard the general public’s health, the Indian Constitution’s founding fathers correctly included the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).

Everyone has the right to the best possible level of physical and mental health, which includes access to all medical services, hygienic surroundings, enough food, appropriate housing, safe working conditions, and a clean environment. This is known as the human right to health. As a result, access to the provision of healthcare must be guaranteed without prejudice.

“Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19–22 June 1946; signed on 22 July 1947 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100), and entered into force on 7 April 7, 1948″

Right To Health Under Fundamental Rights

Right to Health an integral part of right to life which is fundamental for all human beings under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has given identification to right to Health vide different techniques of interpretation. Right to Health is also one of the rights, which is implied under right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

Article 21-Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

Article 25 and Article 26

Article 51- A

Article 243-W

Article 23

Right To Health In International Human Rights Law

International human rights treaties recognizing the right to health:

The 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: art. 5 (e) (iv)

The 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: art. 12

The 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: arts. 11 (1) (f), 12 and 14 (2) (b)

The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child: art. 24

The 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families: arts. 28, 43 (e) and 45 ©

The 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: art. 25

Conclusion

The severe weaknesses in India’s healthcare system have been made clear by the pandemic.

The lack of legislation that upholds a fundamental right to health is a major contributing factor to India’s poor public health. In order to help India deal with the issues, it is necessary to establish the right to health as a fundamental right and to put it into practice within the parameters of legal mechanisms and the human rights principles of solidarity, proportionality, and transparency. Thus, it is imperative that the values of openness, proportionality, and solidarity be applied in the implementation of the right to health.

It is the need of the hour that the govt. should now focus on amendments to the current legislation and laws of India. The present health care services should be reviewed, and accordingly, new ones should be made with the involvement of the people.

Therefore, the importance of recognizing the right to health cannot be overstated. While it’s not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the World Health Organization considers health a fundamental human right. This implies that every individual, regardless of background, deserves access to the highest attainable standard of health. Despite the Supreme Court of India affirming the right to healthcare through various judgments, the state has not fully acknowledged its significance. The court’s broader interpretation of Article 21 has equated the right to health with the right to life, affirming its status as a fundamental right