5 ms·

gross

olliej 4y ago
They're paying for travel to medical treatment, given warehouses are frequently a long way from hospitals that seems like a reasonable benefit?
- ThunderSizzle 4y ago
  I dont know of any medical treatment that kills a patient that's deemed acceptable except for abortion.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    Here's some medical ethics literature for you to expand what you know then: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3583709/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3583709/
  - olliej 4y ago
    Cool, if they were alive. But also entirely moot: Abortion is a woman's right, guaranteed by the constitution, so your opinion isn't relevant. Also not relevant to what I said: This is paying for travel for all medical procedures, obsessing over one that you don't like - solution: don't have one - is kind of pointless.
    - ryan93 4y ago
      Link to the section of the constitution that guarantees it?
      - runamok 4y ago
        Here we go... Not a constitutional scholar but I could roughly extend the 13th and 19th amendment to cover this. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.ht... The way I think about it is if I had a twin brother and he was dying and urgently needed a liver or a kidney and I could save his life by donating to him but it would clearly have lifelong consequences to me there would be no question that he had no right to my organs. To me it's a question of personhood. Until the fetus can survive on its own the mother's health and thus choice must take precedence. Furthermore, we as a society (in the US) are not even taking care of the children already living. If someday every kid in the Us is fed, educated and loved maybe we'll have discovered a safe and easy way to remove an unwanted fetus, grow it in an artificial womb find them a loving and supportive home and this whole controversy will go away. https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts Anyways this is clearly an argument that will change very few minds and that's fine.
        s__s 4y ago
        The twin analogy is extremely weak. In this case the twin’s unfortunate circumstance is no fault of your own. You didn’t actively make any decision to put them in their situation of urgently needing you to survive. You need to alter your analogy such that you made some conscious decision that you knew could injure your twin brother, rendering him in need of one of your kidneys to live. At that point you have to show why it’s moral for you to withhold the organ donation.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - jimmygrapes 4y ago
      > “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision....” - Justice Samuel Alito in an initial draft majority opinion This is gonna be fun.
      - olliej 4y ago
        Yup, a rapist, and a “judge” who’s repeatedly stated the Bible takes precedence over the constitution. Pretty on brand for them to come in targeting specific legislation.
        jimmygrapes 4y ago
        I generally don't keep track of responses to my comments because it can end up with bickering, but I made an exception for now because of how proliferate and egregiously ridiculous your posts are. That said, I wish to let you know that you desperately need to disconnect from whatever bubbles you're in, take a breath, and get back to reality. I haven't flagged you yet because I prefer honest and informed dialog, but you don't seem to be interested in those topics so I may have to adjust my take. For now, I'll just say: this isn't reddit.
        olliej 4y ago
        I also appreciate honest dialog, like the fact that every single survey has found that the majority of americans support women's rights. That a sitting member of the Supreme Court has a very plausible rape accusation that has been ignored, the another member of the Supreme Court has a track record of sexist treatment and harassment of court staff, and that one has written at length about how she would at best recuse herself if the law ever disagreed with her faith. Rulings like this clearly attack all women in America, which is over 50% of all Americans. They don't get to just ignore it. It was also realistically a planned ruling - from the GOP deliberating preventing the nomination of an SC under Obama (because it was a "lame duck" session, also "the replacement should also be conservative"), before placing their own appointment on the court, or when they then replaced RBG with a hyper conservative judge in a few weeks despite it being a lame duck session mere weeks prior to the election. The reality is one major american party has stated, very clearly, that its core principles are: removing women's bodily autonomy (check), removing LGBT rights (multiple states have even started passing legislation to explicitly allow bullying LGBT kids at school), suppressing votes of non-white americans (even republican judges, appointed by republican controlled state governments, in republican states have repeatedly declared numerous actions taken by the GOP to be unconstitutional). The fact that you're literally threatening to flag me, because you disagree with me politically, about a matter of whether all humans have rights no less, is quite revealing in of itself.
    - twoxproblematic 4y ago
  - HomeGear 4y ago
    To start, assisted suicide is legal in some states.
    - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
      Will Amazon seriously pay for one of their employees to commit assisted suicide? Goes to show how much they care, I guess?
      - olliej 4y ago
        The goal of safe abortion is to not kill the patient. All making it illegal does is return to how they were, with poor women dying, and rich women getting to have an abortion with no consequences. But none of that matters, because the purpose of this ruling has nothing to do with protecting children, and everything to do with controlling women. The single most effective thing you can do to reduce abortions, is comprehensive sex ed. Something that every conservative state fights tooth and nail, because it's more about forcing the religious belief of conservatives on children. These "pro-child" states also offer the least support to pregnant mothers, don't cover the costs of *natal checkups and care, don't cover any kind of support after child birth, and then systematically defund education. They are very clearly anti-women, not pro-child.
    - aaron695 4y ago

gross

They're paying for travel to medical treatment, given warehouses are frequently a long way from hospitals that seems like a reasonable benefit?

ThunderSizzle 4y ago
I dont know of any medical treatment that kills a patient that's deemed acceptable except for abortion.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  Here's some medical ethics literature for you to expand what you know then: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3583709/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3583709/
- olliej 4y ago
  Cool, if they were alive. But also entirely moot: Abortion is a woman's right, guaranteed by the constitution, so your opinion isn't relevant. Also not relevant to what I said: This is paying for travel for all medical procedures, obsessing over one that you don't like - solution: don't have one - is kind of pointless.
  - ryan93 4y ago
    Link to the section of the constitution that guarantees it?
    - runamok 4y ago
      Here we go... Not a constitutional scholar but I could roughly extend the 13th and 19th amendment to cover this. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.ht... The way I think about it is if I had a twin brother and he was dying and urgently needed a liver or a kidney and I could save his life by donating to him but it would clearly have lifelong consequences to me there would be no question that he had no right to my organs. To me it's a question of personhood. Until the fetus can survive on its own the mother's health and thus choice must take precedence. Furthermore, we as a society (in the US) are not even taking care of the children already living. If someday every kid in the Us is fed, educated and loved maybe we'll have discovered a safe and easy way to remove an unwanted fetus, grow it in an artificial womb find them a loving and supportive home and this whole controversy will go away. https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts Anyways this is clearly an argument that will change very few minds and that's fine.
      - s__s 4y ago
        The twin analogy is extremely weak. In this case the twin’s unfortunate circumstance is no fault of your own. You didn’t actively make any decision to put them in their situation of urgently needing you to survive. You need to alter your analogy such that you made some conscious decision that you knew could injure your twin brother, rendering him in need of one of your kidneys to live. At that point you have to show why it’s moral for you to withhold the organ donation.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jimmygrapes 4y ago
    > “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision....” - Justice Samuel Alito in an initial draft majority opinion This is gonna be fun.
    - olliej 4y ago
      Yup, a rapist, and a “judge” who’s repeatedly stated the Bible takes precedence over the constitution. Pretty on brand for them to come in targeting specific legislation.
      - jimmygrapes 4y ago
        I generally don't keep track of responses to my comments because it can end up with bickering, but I made an exception for now because of how proliferate and egregiously ridiculous your posts are. That said, I wish to let you know that you desperately need to disconnect from whatever bubbles you're in, take a breath, and get back to reality. I haven't flagged you yet because I prefer honest and informed dialog, but you don't seem to be interested in those topics so I may have to adjust my take. For now, I'll just say: this isn't reddit.
        olliej 4y ago
        I also appreciate honest dialog, like the fact that every single survey has found that the majority of americans support women's rights. That a sitting member of the Supreme Court has a very plausible rape accusation that has been ignored, the another member of the Supreme Court has a track record of sexist treatment and harassment of court staff, and that one has written at length about how she would at best recuse herself if the law ever disagreed with her faith. Rulings like this clearly attack all women in America, which is over 50% of all Americans. They don't get to just ignore it. It was also realistically a planned ruling - from the GOP deliberating preventing the nomination of an SC under Obama (because it was a "lame duck" session, also "the replacement should also be conservative"), before placing their own appointment on the court, or when they then replaced RBG with a hyper conservative judge in a few weeks despite it being a lame duck session mere weeks prior to the election. The reality is one major american party has stated, very clearly, that its core principles are: removing women's bodily autonomy (check), removing LGBT rights (multiple states have even started passing legislation to explicitly allow bullying LGBT kids at school), suppressing votes of non-white americans (even republican judges, appointed by republican controlled state governments, in republican states have repeatedly declared numerous actions taken by the GOP to be unconstitutional). The fact that you're literally threatening to flag me, because you disagree with me politically, about a matter of whether all humans have rights no less, is quite revealing in of itself.
  - twoxproblematic 4y ago
- HomeGear 4y ago
  To start, assisted suicide is legal in some states.
  - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
    Will Amazon seriously pay for one of their employees to commit assisted suicide? Goes to show how much they care, I guess?
    - olliej 4y ago
      The goal of safe abortion is to not kill the patient. All making it illegal does is return to how they were, with poor women dying, and rich women getting to have an abortion with no consequences. But none of that matters, because the purpose of this ruling has nothing to do with protecting children, and everything to do with controlling women. The single most effective thing you can do to reduce abortions, is comprehensive sex ed. Something that every conservative state fights tooth and nail, because it's more about forcing the religious belief of conservatives on children. These "pro-child" states also offer the least support to pregnant mothers, don't cover the costs of *natal checkups and care, don't cover any kind of support after child birth, and then systematically defund education. They are very clearly anti-women, not pro-child.
  - aaron695 4y ago