Roe vs Wade overturned

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I think everyone knows that moving is not nearly as easy as opting out of an organ-donation assumption. As I said, I think it was presented a dry answer to the question. Once the strawmen start, it's impossible for someone being misconstrued to dig themselves out the hole.

Honestly, my main objection is to not having a better suggestion. My longer term suspicion is that violence will be required, unless the advocates are both more capable AND supported than I think they can be. And, once violence is on the table, it gets a bit weird when men will need to suppress women rather than just suppressing other men.

 

[Farm Boy]

Unless there was a public interest, and then the police will butcher and carve to the extent that they seek knowledge. The setting of the default is not done for the dead or by the dead. It is done according to the perceived benefit of the living.

It is still almost entirely irrelevant. But if you're trying to get clever with this particular choice regarding the desires of the living when it comes to the use for the bodies of the dead, then yes, this laughter is not entirely polite.

 

[Lexicus]

It is done according to the perceived benefit of the living.

This is expressly not true:

The United States' system for organ procurement operates under a model of expressed consent. This means that an individual will not be an organ donor unless he or she explicitly states otherwise. The desire to be a donor is typically noted on a driver's license, in an advance directive, or by a surrogate with decision-making responsibility. While maintaining the autonomy of potential donors, the expressed-consent model has not been shown to be effective in increasing the supply of organs to a level anywhere near that of the demand.

Presumed vs Expressed Consent in the US and Internationally

The shortage of organs available for transplant has been a serious and unchanging worldwide problem since such surgeries were first made feasible and safe several decades ago. Nations around the world have relied on different strategies to try to alleviate this problem with varying levels of...

journalofethics.ama-assn.org

You simply don't like the implication of the fact under the conditions of an abortion ban, a dead person has more right to bodily autonomy than a pregnant person.

Honestly, the comparison becomes even worse if we're saying that the interest of the relatives of a dead person in the dead person's bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life of a person who needs one of those organs to live.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, still wrong.

But easier than dealing with the people suggesting your hands might be useful.

 

[El_Machinae]

Look: poor people are equally free to sleep under a bridge as rich people, gay people can get hetro-married just as freely as straight people, and dead people can't choose to get abortions in anti-choice states either.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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



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.

Priorities... yeah, I get judgmental things shoved at me, in the line of "if you really cared, you'd donate $$$/attend rallies/volunteer... since you don't do those things, you don't really care."

I may not be able to do those things, but the internet has given me a far reach to advocate for disabled voters' rights. We're supposedly a protected demographic under the Charter of Rights, but there are plenty of ways in which the government still either discriminates against us, or allows others to. They think it doesn't matter because our demographic is not perceived as one that votes, or is even allowed to vote. Someone actually said to my face that "I didn't know that people like you could vote!"

There's nothing I can really physically do to help women in the matter of accessing the medical care they need, except write about it or talk to my own doctor (who is in a much better position than I am to be an advocate). I've written to politicians, I've explained stuff to people on comment boards, and corrected some monumentally bizarre notions people have about health care in this country. If it helps even one person, I will consider it a worthwhile effort.

 

[choxorn]

Farm Boy, are you ever going to actually contribute to this discussion, or are you just going to keep spamming inane nonsense and things about dead people and organ donation that are provably wrong with a simple Google search?

 

[Takhisis]

likening abortion regulation to slavery is neither productive nor accurate.

Why? They are both defended by the same political grouping and based on the same ‘for your own good’ paternalist nonsense.

 

[RobAnybody]

likening abortion regulation to slavery is neither productive nor accurate.

Absolutely true. It's more like Indentured Servitude for 18+ years. Kudos on nailing this topic.

 

[Farm Boy]

Farm Boy, are you ever going to actually contribute to this discussion, or are you just going to keep spamming inane nonsense and things about dead people and organ donation that are provably wrong with a simple Google search?

You can be wrong because you really wanna be, too.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Extremely limited, by the look of it.

Yes; of course my NOT being God, I have quite limited sympathy.

And there are an awful lot of people in difficult circumstances in this world for me to be sympathetic to.

And I tend to be more sympathetic to people that I have actually met.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yes; of course my NOT being God, I have quite limited sympathy.

And there are an awful lot of people in difficult circumstances in this world for me to be sympathetic to.

And I tend to be more sympathetic to people that I have actually met.

I have no idea why you're bringing religion into it. It doesn't take being a deity to possess the ability to feel sympathy, empathy, compassion, etc. You don't even have to be a believer.

So a woman has to be personally acquainted with you for you to have any sympathy for her? Wow.

 

[EnglishEdward]

So a woman has to be personally acquainted with you for you to have any sympathy for her?

That is not what I said.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

That is not what I said.

Actually yes it is lmao

 

[EnglishEdward]

There is a distinction between limited sympathy and no sympathy.

 

[Arakhor]

To paraphrase a famous quotation, it is better to remain silent and have people think you are cruel, than to speak up and remove all doubt.

 

[El_Machinae]

There is an incredible amount of Cruelty in the entire conversation. It is chock full of dilemmas, and then political battle lines that have to be fought as if completely entrenched, and collateral has to be disregarded for the greater good. Everybody on the actual front line was conscripted.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sure.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Absolutely true. It's more like Indentured Servitude for 18+ years. Kudos on nailing this topic.

that's closer to reality for men in some cases, but men are also denied the same degree of reproductive choice/control in this context.

women who are denied abortions can have it worse than that still. the servitude aspect is there, but also immediate health risk and less capability to actually do most of the "servitude" in a physical sense.

in both cases, there are a few extremely important distinctions from slavery though. unless you're one of those sorts who defines work as "wage slavery" and is loose with the definition.

Why? They are both defended by the same political grouping and based on the same ‘for your own good’ paternalist nonsense.

don't know what political grouping you're talking about. maybe one that's created conveniently to try to make people who disagree with you look bad? not many people who favor slavery today, and the logic that would justify abortion regulation (protecting individual rights of fetus/mother in differing capacities depending on specific policy) is in conflict with the logic that would justify slavery (denial of individual rights). i don't think quoted can reasonably be construed as a good faith representation of those who advocate some abortion regulation. i'll grant you states/countries going for a full ban are closer to what you say, though that still has some significant differences to slavery/indentured servitude.

 

[Traitorfish]

My single sentence summary is, apart from missing the "o" in de facto, correct.

Assuming one has agreed consent, when no one asked one for it, is a legal fiction.

If the state automatically owned your organs upon your death, then opting-out of the scheme would require the state to in some way lose, transfer or renounce its claim to ownership of your organs. In practice, this is not the case: you opt-out by simply informing the state of your desire to do so, and can do so at any time up to and including after your death. At no point does the state need to renounce their claim, to ownership, nor does the loss of this claim need to be confirmed by any court or authority; any claim they can make is simply rendered invalid by the act of refusing consent. This indicates that the state do not have, nor do they apparently seek to assert, any claim of ownership over your organs until the donation as been completed; this is the case whether or not we approve of the shift in the burden from the state to obtain consent for donation to the individual to refuse it. If you don't agree with this description, then where do you think I've missed the mark?