七曜 － Shichi·yō

And from this I’ve always drawn two conclusions:

To always distrust Mr. Beast and his ilk who always want their acts of charity done on film, because the people who really want to do good and have no motives to do it besides the doing it never want recognition for it, and

I never guessed that in my adulthood, I’d be relating to Calvin’s parents as much as I do in this comic.

The guardian trying to find who’s responsible for increased transphobia in this country

She wants to learn photography. Do it stupid. Take a million photos. Don't think about why they're not good. Enjoy the process of taking photos.

Pick out tge ones you like the most and figure out why you like them. Is it because the subject is centered? Is it because you caught them doing something cool? Is it because the light made cool shadows?

I don't believe in any state's right to kill their citizens.

I don't believe in the death penalty.

I'm pro-abortion in the specific way that stems from a belief no one has the right to another person's body, even if it would save lives.

I mentioned Abby "PhilosophyTube" Thorn's "Abortion and Ben Shapiro" video before, but short version: say, hypothetically, the world's most gifted and important violinist is going to die due to needing a kidney transplant. By some weird fluke of medicine and genetics, your kidney is the only one that will work. There isn't time to find another rare donor. Your sacrifice will save this important, 'valuable' person's life... but you'll be on dialysis daily for the rest of your life.

Believing in absolute autonomy means no one can force you to agree to that. Even if it will result in someone's death, you cannot be compelled to give up your body for a righteous enough cause. In the same way, no one should be compelled to give up their body to a fetus, thus pro-abortion. (The reason you abstract it this way is to side-step the ingrained misogyny of "well you had sex so really this is your fault.")

Anyway. Eva Stratt is a much worse version of this. Grace was asked to sacrifice himself. He said no. She overruled him and in fact was always going to overrule him. The security people with the sedatives were ready to go before Grace even gave his answer. Making it a question was a polite fiction to spare Eva the trouble and trauma.

By doing it, she saves not just Earth but another populated planet altogether.

Grace said no. And he fought. He ran for his life. He was terrified. In the book, he calls it murder. In the film, he's begging them not to do it. In the book, the flashback happens as Grace-in-the-present wonders about how he must've known he could pull this mission off, he volunteered after all!

Then remembers: no he explicitly didn't.

In some way, it works better for me than Omelas. In that parable, the sacrificial child has no concept of why its happening. In PHM, Grace does know, and makes the informed decision to say no, and is overruled.

Does it stop being a fundamental, foundational wrong because it saves Erid and Earth?

How about the fact that Grace lives, does that make it less wrong?

Does the threshold change based on if Grace dies as expected or not?

Was it the only option or if they spent two weeks on the issue would they find a replacement and make up for lost time?

What projected death toll do you have to meet before Eva's decision becomes the Right Thing To Do?

Where do the scales tip?

Did the scales ever actually tip?

Other people may think they did. But for me and the absolutism I (try) to maintain about life and autonomy... I don't think they ever did. But I have to ask myself to really contend with that question.

And in the film, she did all that, and I still feel tremendous sympathy for her.