Roe vs Wade overturned

[Cloud_Strife]

Extremely limited, by the look of it.

Wafer thin, with the tensile strength of rice paper dipped in acid

 

[Sommerswerd]

This is kind of an insane idea, this is like saying a solution to slavery is the underground railroad

Its even worse than that. Its like saying that slavery is OK, because the underground railroad is possible for those who have a problem with slavery.

 

[Farm Boy]

So sure. Let's pass a national bill at 15 weeks.

 

[Lexicus]

Consider

You could also consider not posting inane victim-blaming garbage but here we are

 

[El_Machinae]

Consider managing in the current reality as it is,
rather than pining for what is no longer the legal reality:

(i) SCOTUS has ruled Roe v Wade invalid
(ii) Some US states have laws prohibiting abortion
(iii) Some woman in those states are pregnant now.
(iv) Some of those women definitely do not want a baby.

I identified four options:


(c) won't occur quickly enough for those women who are already pregnant.

I recommended (d), my recommendation being previously summarised in
a single word "Emigration".

Yet some posters here are annoyed about it.

I still think you said 'answer' not 'solution' and chose those words correctly.
As far as I can tell, any woman in (iv) right now only has the option of collecting resources to travel. Whether its her own resources or people who want to help her, travel is a strong option. Well, or criminal activity, which I won't comment on because that would be terrifically unique to the situation (and potentially against board rules).

With regards to people wanting to help, they definitely have a dilemma of assisting emigration or providing supports that won't capture this woman. We always stress between immediate assistance or effecting long-term change. Nevermind that the majority of people won't actually significantly help (there are a couple people on the board whose most effective contribution would be legit donations to advocacy groups, imo), because we live in a world of thoughts and prayers.

People will read-in condescension. But, obviously, they don't have an alternative suggestion for a person in that situation. And I think we'd obviously never secondguess a woman choosing 'travel' as her personal solution (it would not be a "singularly stupid idea"). Part of the pushback is because people are trying to marshal resources to effect change along another dimension. Doesn't help her (or might not: I guess retroactive pardons will be within the umbrella). We often have to choose between the present and the future. The only time it's easy is when helping people in the present creates compounding returns. Well, the calculation is easy, getting people to actually help is still hard.

 

[Farm Boy]

Not wanting to raise a baby, or not wanting to be pregnant? Oh, right. These people. Thoughts and prayers indeed.

 

[Gorbles]

But, obviously, they don't have an alternative suggestion for a person in that situation.

Why do we have to? I'm presuming the idea that we have to due to this being read-in as criticism.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Its even worse than that. Its like saying that slavery is OK, because the underground railroad is possible for those who have a problem with slavery.

likening abortion regulation to slavery is neither productive nor accurate.

 

[El_Machinae]

Why do we have to? I'm presuming the idea that we have to due to this being read-in as criticism.

As allies, it's on us to have a plan that we're backing, and it's our fault if we don't have a better option, not his. Also, I will point out again that if a woman were currently choosing that option, we would not be gainsaying her. In fact, if we knew her, we'd even be considering supporting the effort in material ways. In fact in fact, if someone were to be suggesting against moving, deriding it, or trying to inhibit it, I think we'd push back against them.

That said, people sometimes lock people in bad situations hoping that they will then contribute to the local changes that are deemed 'necessary'.

But, again, it's not 'the answer'. It's an answer. I don't see options for her other than criminal activity, moving, or changing her desire to carry the pregnancy.
People are reading in a strawman, where her option to move is read-in as a sufficiently fine option that us further worrying about it is pointless.

 

[Lexicus]

As allies, it's on us to have a plan that we're backing, and it's our fault if we don't have a better option, not his. Also, I will point out again that if a woman were currently choosing that option, we would not be gainsaying her. In fact, if we knew her, we'd even be considering supporting the effort in material ways. In fact in fact, if someone were to be suggesting against moving, deriding it, or trying to inhibit it, I think we'd push back against them.

That said, people sometimes lock people in bad situations hoping that they will then contribute to the local changes that are deemed 'necessary'.

But, again, it's not 'the answer'. It's an answer. I don't see options for her other than criminal activity, moving, or changing her desire to carry the pregnancy.
People are reading in a strawman, where her option to move is read-in as a sufficiently fine option that us further worrying about it is pointless.

The plan I'm backing is the destruction of the Republican Party and the end of the political influence of misogynist lunatics.

 

[El_Machinae]

The plan I'm backing is the destruction of the Republican Party and the end of the political influence of misogynist lunatics.

Yeah, I know. But this doesn't help the currently pregnant woman living in those states. I don't think you'd hinder a woman trying to flee from those states, either. It's hard calculating that emigration when it's degrading into negative-sum power struggle, but regardless of the calculation, I don't think you'd step in her way.

I was tongue-in-cheek (but only kinda), the honeypot of a Texas secession might create the situation where sufficient changes can be made. Without a specific target, it's all machetes-against-your-neighbor.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, I know. But this doesn't help the currently pregnant woman living in those states. I don't think you'd hinder a woman trying to flee from those states, either.

I think it's asinine to suggest that collective action to help women escape from these oppressive jurisdictions is a real solution to the problem. And I don't think that pushing back against that suggestion implies that I would not facilitate these escapes were I in a position to do so.

Again, to use the slavery analogy - if this were 1856, I would do everything in my power to assist people on the Underground Railroad. But I would push back just as hard against the suggestion that the Underground Railroad constitutes a solution to the problem of slavery, and would find it gross and offensive if someone acted like telling enslaved people to "just escape to the north" was any kind of meaningful contribution to the conversation. In both cases, the real solution is collective action to change the law.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think it's a strawman to suggest it was presented as a 'real solution'. At the individual level, it will be an option every woman will consider. I'd also consider it morally valuable if people participated in such a collective effort (I'd never deride it), as well. The calculation there is very hard if it's actually valuable.

Of course you're in position to facilitate those escapes, btw. It's just a function of priorities. My read on this is that most people won't help unless they know the person. Whether they're putting resources into a 'delayed but longer term' solution is a separate question.

 

[Lexicus]

I think it's a strawman to suggest it was presented as a 'real solution'.

I disagree and this gets back to what @Valka D'Ur said about tone.

Of course you're in position to facilitate those escapes, btw.

I think this is probably based on some false assumptions about my current situation. But yeah, I suppose it's a matter of priorities - like, you're right, I'm currently putting a higher priority on not being homeless than on donating to causes.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think this is probably based on some false assumptions about my current situation. But yeah, I suppose it's a matter of priorities - like, you're right, I'm currently putting a higher priority on not being homeless than on donating to causes.

Apologies and I am very much rooting for you. I will make two observations, though, just to not be demoralizing or to be misconstrued. (1) 'facilitate' doesn't assume 'donation' (2) I would put 'collecting personal resources' as a key step in 'helping others'. I am never going to be the one who derides the dilemma of helping people now vs. helping other people more later. I also prioritized not being homeless and even having a bit of a safety buffer.

The topic has drifted from the initial exchange, where you asked what a woman should do to opt out. Of the things I can think of, "move" is probably the most actionable option, and we both agreed that helping someone move is a viable path someone could take as a personal solution. In his next post, I think he laid out 3 other options to the concern. I think it's a bit of a distraction, because I'd prefer to talk about our onus.

I think people read-in it as being a singular suggestion. I am not even sure it was a 'suggestion'. But, for those who know it's insufficient, I think there's a onus to have a better plan. If EE is really so singularly stupid, expecting him to have a better idea is a bit weird.

 

[Lexicus]

Apologies and I am very much rooting for you. I will make two observations, though, just to not be demoralizing or to be misconstrued. (1) 'facilitate' doesn't assume 'donation' (2) I would put 'collecting personal resources' as a key step in 'helping others'. I am never going to be the one who derides the dilemma of helping people now vs. helping other people more later. I also prioritized not being homeless and even having a bit of a safety buffer.

The topic has drifted from the initial exchange, where you asked what a woman should do to opt out. Of the things I can think of, "move" is probably the most actionable option, and we both agreed that helping someone move is a viable path someone could take as a personal solution. In his next post, I think he laid out 3 other options to the concern. I think it's a bit of a distraction, because I'd prefer to talk about our onus.

I think people read-in it as being a singular suggestion. I am not even sure it was a 'suggestion'. But, for those who know it's insufficient, I think there's a onus to have a better plan. IF EE is really so singularly stupid, expecting him to have a better idea is a bit weird.

Okay, but the original context of that was comparing this to organ donation after death, which you can actually opt-out of in the UK by marking it on a form when you get your license or whatever (and which, to my knowledge, you have to opt-in to in the US). So the fact that "moving" is significantly more onerous than that only proves my original point.

 

[Farm Boy]

That spur was over whether or not the dead have rights. I think it is pretty well established that they do not. Nor do they have survivorship bias.

 

[Lexicus]

That spur was over whether or not the dead have rights. I think it is pretty well established that they do not. Nor do they have survivorship bias.

Okay, so it is lawful for the police to turn the corpse of a person who is not an organ donor over to the hospital for their organs to be harvested? If the answer is no, which to my knowledge it is in the US, then "the dead don't have rights" is a true-but-useless statement, because we are bound to act as though they do.

 

[Farm Boy]

That would depend. Living relatives would have that right here. For harvesting or autopsy for medical research. The dead have no say.

 

[Lexicus]

That would depend. Living relatives would have that right here. For harvesting or autopsy for medical research. The dead have no say.

I mean, this is just not true. A dead person who has no living relatives would still need to have consented to organ donation before you can harvest their organs.