Red Mosquito

blueviper wrote:

B wrote:You can Uber to PA, but what about when Ohio goes Missouri on you?

The measure would target anyone even tangentially involved in an abortion performed on a Missouri resident, including the hotline staffers who make the appointments, the marketing representatives who advertise out-of-state clinics, and the Illinois and Kansas-based doctors who handle the procedure. Her amendment also would make it illegal to manufacture, transport, possess or distribute abortion pills in Missouri.

Luckily this was blocked in March.

Oh, we'll since the GOP just gives up immediately on this shit than all is well. Please carry on.

*then

You win a free abortion!

B wrote:"I'm sorry. Your baby has a lethal abnormality and if your uterus doesn't somehow rupture, the baby will die within hours of birth. I'm sure it's hard to hear that your dreams of parenthood are ending in death and suffering, but we've called an Uber for you. They'll let you choose the radio station on the way to an out of state medical facility you've never heard of until just now."

Consider an alternative:

"I'm a high-risk obstetrician in Ohio and medically induced pregnancy termination for lethal fetal anomalies is now illegal here. So that I never have to look someone in the eye and tell them they will be forced to carry to term a pregnancy that will end in in their child dying during birth, please donate to charities like the Brigid Alliance and the Haven Coalition that can provide the needed support and medical services that our state refuses to. I have and will continue to do so."

Wait, the doctor is saying that to the people who’s baby is going to die?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Wait, the doctor is saying that to the people who’s baby is going to die?

Unless "Lethal Fetal Anomalies" means something other than that the baby is going to die, yes.

I meant bi’s alternative statement

How's your centrist attempt to reason with these herd animals going, bi? Winning any hearts and minds?

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:"I'm sorry. Your baby has a lethal abnormality and if your uterus doesn't somehow rupture, the baby will die within hours of birth. I'm sure it's hard to hear that your dreams of parenthood are ending in death and suffering, but we've called an Uber for you. They'll let you choose the radio station on the way to an out of state medical facility you've never heard of until just now."

Consider an alternative:

"I'm a high-risk obstetrician in Ohio and medically induced pregnancy termination for lethal fetal anomalies is now illegal here. So that I never have to look someone in the eye and tell them they will be forced to carry to term a pregnancy that will end in in their child dying during birth, please donate to charities like the Brigid Alliance and the Haven Coalition that can provide the needed support and medical services that our state refuses to. I have and will continue to do so."

That hardly makes the post he DID make disingenuous. A charity that will help you obtain an abortion in another state is a shitty substitute for parents who just found out their [most likely] wanted child is not going to survive. At that point, every added bureaucratic hurdle is a painful abuse that the family need not be put through.

Hurdles that the State of Ohio will presumably fight with all the power of a state government because their law says you have to carry the doomed child to term (with all the risks to life, health, and mental well-being inherent in that) and watch it die after birth.

Great point my man, private charities are famous for being a perfect substitute for state power.

Great point my man, state power is famous for being used only to support the disadvantaged and downtrodden.

Oh man a long car ride for the miniscule amount of people this incredibly rare situation applies to is certainly comparable in importance and severity to granting more authority to a continent spanning unaccountable State with a monopoly on violence!

BurtReynolds wrote:Oh man a long car ride for the miniscule amount of people this incredibly rare situation applies to is certainly comparable in importance and severity to granting more authority to a continent spanning unaccountable State with a monopoly on violence!

Not sure I understand this argument. We went from “it’s a right that can’t be taken away by the state” to “not a right and can be banned by the state.” Which side are you on?

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Oh man a long car ride for the miniscule amount of people this incredibly rare situation applies to is certainly comparable in importance and severity to granting more authority to a continent spanning unaccountable State with a monopoly on violence!

Not sure I understand this argument. We went from “it’s a right that can’t be taken away by the state” to “not a right and can be banned by the state.” Which side are you on?

He wants fewer laws of the land, but is making sure to go out of his way that he doesn’t care about the actual issue.

spike wrote:

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Oh man a long car ride for the miniscule amount of people this incredibly rare situation applies to is certainly comparable in importance and severity to granting more authority to a continent spanning unaccountable State with a monopoly on violence!

Not sure I understand this argument. We went from “it’s a right that can’t be taken away by the state” to “not a right and can be banned by the state.” Which side are you on?

He wants fewer laws of the land, but is making sure to go out of his way that he doesn’t care about the actual issue.

This ruling will allow for more, stricter laws, no? Less freedom for women… Seems like Burt’s contrarian viewpoint radar malfunctioned this time.

BurtReynolds wrote:Oh man a long car ride for the miniscule amount of people this incredibly rare situation applies to is certainly comparable in importance and severity to granting more authority to a continent spanning unaccountable State with a monopoly on violence!

Sorry. I keep forgetting that this problem only affects families within 90 minutes of a clinic in a State that allows abortions.

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Oh man a long car ride for the miniscule amount of people this incredibly rare situation applies to is certainly comparable in importance and severity to granting more authority to a continent spanning unaccountable State with a monopoly on violence!

Not sure I understand this argument. We went from “it’s a right that can’t be taken away by the state” to “not a right and can be banned by the state.” Which side are you on?

Idk what side he's on re: abortion but I think he's mocking Mickey's favorable comparison of state power to private charities when in this instance it's state power that's stripping rights not adding to them.

Rob wrote:

spike wrote:

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Oh man a long car ride for the miniscule amount of people this incredibly rare situation applies to is certainly comparable in importance and severity to granting more authority to a continent spanning unaccountable State with a monopoly on violence!

Not sure I understand this argument. We went from “it’s a right that can’t be taken away by the state” to “not a right and can be banned by the state.” Which side are you on?

He wants fewer laws of the land, but is making sure to go out of his way that he doesn’t care about the actual issue.

This ruling will allow for more, stricter laws, no? Less freedom for women… Seems like Burt’s contrarian viewpoint radar malfunctioned this time.

First of all, Spike is a nihilist NPC with no thoughts or beliefs of his own. Don't listen to him. Don't interact with him. He's operating on purely reactive resentment. He's very sick. He's John Stewart snark without the insight or heart. He's Trevor Noah.


Let me explain:

The "states" are weaker and more accountable to the will of their voters. The State (US government) should be dismantled so that no one on either side can use it to force its agenda on other peoples in far away regions. Do you want to live in a place with people that share your values, or are you just another missionary imperialist insisting that the entire world adopt your worldview?

"B-but what about muh slavery!? Don't you know states had slavery once!" I hear someone screech like a buffoon.

If your state decides slavery is legal again, move somewhere else, or just go burn down the governor's mansion. You would almost certainly have the power to do that, unlike now, where you're at the mercy of an unapproachably vast state that hates you and actively works against your interests.

"But what about muh rights?!"

You don't have rights, you have power. The State has power. Weaken state power and seek your own power.

Once we have to reversed the trend toward increasingly large globalist government (which includes corporations), then we can work on dismantling nationalism, then regionalism, then the city-states and so on, until the individual is free at last!

btw none of this will work.

Just kidding. Go vote.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Rob wrote:

spike wrote:

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Oh man a long car ride for the miniscule amount of people this incredibly rare situation applies to is certainly comparable in importance and severity to granting more authority to a continent spanning unaccountable State with a monopoly on violence!

Not sure I understand this argument. We went from “it’s a right that can’t be taken away by the state” to “not a right and can be banned by the state.” Which side are you on?

He wants fewer laws of the land, but is making sure to go out of his way that he doesn’t care about the actual issue.

This ruling will allow for more, stricter laws, no? Less freedom for women… Seems like Burt’s contrarian viewpoint radar malfunctioned this time.

First of all, Spike is a nihilist NPC with no thoughts or beliefs of his own. Don't listen to him. Don't interact with him. He's operating on purely reactive resentment. He's very sick. He's John Stewart snark without the insight or heart. He's Trevor Noah.


Let me explain:

The "states" are weaker and more accountable to the will of their voters. The State (US government) should be dismantled so that no one on either side can use it to force its agenda on other peoples in far away regions. Do you want to live in a place with people that share your values, or are you just another missionary imperialist insisting that the entire world adopt your worldview?

"B-but what about muh slavery!? Don't you know states had slavery once!" I hear someone screech like a buffoon.

If your state decides slavery is legal again, move somewhere else, or just go burn down the governor's mansion. You would almost certainly have the power to do that, unlike now, where you're at the mercy of an unapproachably vast state that hates you and actively works against your interests.

"But what about muh rights?!"

You don't have rights, you have power. The State has power. Weaken state power and seek your own power.

Once we have to reversed the trend toward increasingly large globalist government (which includes corporations), then we can work on dismantling nationalism, then regionalism, then the city-states and so on, until the individual is free at last!

btw none of this will work.

Hmmm. I don’t know about all this. Seems people fought and got the federal gov to say states can’t impose their will on women when it comes to abortion. That was an exercise of power. Now that’s over and the state has more power.

Also, it’s Jon Stewart, not John, have some respect for a great man.