4 ms·

> So in practice access to it is not always that easy. Understood, but the solution cannot be "allow prescription drugs to be sold online". If access is not e

> So in practice access to it is not always that easy. Understood, but the solution cannot be "allow prescription drugs to be sold online". If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution.

altern8 3mo ago
Sure, but access is easy enough. Not worse than anything else than the government does. Much better than--let's say--getting an MRI. Looks like this thread has gotten the attention of weird activists that want to find injustice everywhere and jump to conclusion--as long as the conclusion is women oppressed and censored.
gpderetta 3mo ago
Agree about that. The question is whether all websites providing black-market potentially generous medications are being targeted or specifically just abortion pills. I genuinely do not know, this might be making the news but actually be part of a wide blockage.
loup-vaillant 3mo ago
> If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution. Indeed, access must be made easy. Abortion, through a pill or otherwise, should be accessible anywhere, freely, and any medical record should be kept absolutely secret, including from the family, especially if she’s underage. I don’t think that’s the direction they’re headed though. I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible.
- lelanthran 3mo ago
  > Indeed, access must be made easy. That is my point. If access is not easy, selling prescription drugs to anonymous buyers is not the solution - access must be made easy. > I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible. I don't think so. No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being. That choice must be totally theirs to make, not the states. I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action.
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - loup-vaillant 3mo ago
    > No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being. I feel you. But that right not to kill, conflicts with the autonomy of women. Which is more important? > I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action. France, and many other countries, makes it a crime (misdemeanour I think?) not to help people. If I see someone about to die, and I could prevent that, and I don’t, then I could go to jail. This is textbook compelled action, and I fully condone it. If you don’t help someone from immediate danger you’re trash, and you should pay the consequences.
    - lelanthran 3mo ago
      > I feel you. But that right not to kill, conflicts with the autonomy of women. Which is more important? The right to not kill, obviously. What kind of question is this? You want to judge someone for not being (in their minds) a murderer instead of a controller-of-other-people? > This is textbook compelled action, and I fully condone it. If you don’t help someone from immediate danger you’re trash, and you should pay the consequences. Sure, but we aren't talking about immediate danger. All those countries you list don't compel you to help someone who is in no immediate danger.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3mo ago
      Wouldn't selling pills online effectively remove the dilemma? The doctors can avoid killing and the women are free to go through abortion
      - loup-vaillant 3mo ago
        It would, but then there’s another dilemma: in a country where there’s a limit to how far into pregnancy you can abort, that pill could easily be used over that limit, and then you have to question whether the increased availability is worth a possible increase in late(er) abortions. I think I would prioritise availability, but not everyone would want to. (Now this is assuming an actual increase in late(er) abortions: I believe I have seen evidence that increased availability tend to lead to earlier abortions, not to mention safer. And we need to couple all that with regular contraceptives and sex education, so unwanted pregnancies don’t happen that often in the first place.)
ordu 3mo ago
> If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution. The only way is to make access easy. If you make it hard, then demand for black market drugs will drive supply. Which in turn would drive a repressive machine. Sites blocked, people convicted and so on. I don't know why anti-abortion activists are unable to understand it. The only working hypothesis they are actively resist any understanding. A dogmatic worldview can lead to such behavior.
- lelanthran 3mo ago
  > I don't know why anti-abortion activists are unable to understand it. The only working hypothesis they are actively resist any understanding. A dogmatic worldview can lead to such behavior. The pro-lifers don't have a monopoly on stupid people - see above where a pro-choicer is arguing that abortion 1 day before delivery should be legal.
  - ordu 3mo ago
    > The pro-lifers don't have a monopoly on stupid people Tu quoque[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque_defense
    - lelanthran 3mo ago
      You don't appear to know what that means :-/ There are two parties in this argument; you appear to belong to one party in this argument. 1. You propose that the other party in an argument are stupid people. 2. I point out that both parties are demonstrating an inability to reason. 3. You now claim that lack of reasoning from your party does not make the other party's argument stronger. 4. You completely missed my point that lack of reasoning from your party does not make your argument stronger. Your link is frequently posted by people who have no wish to argue rationally. At this point, it's almost like an indicator for a troll :-/
      - ordu 3mo ago
        > argue rationally. Argue rationally about what? I invite you to stop for a moment, reread our converstaion while asking a question: what about are we supposedly arguing. There was no rational arguments, you've changed topic from peculiarities of anti-abortion mind works to peculiarities of pro-abortion minds, which I'm not interested in, how you can imagine. It is not a rational debate, it is a rhetorical trick to lure me into a discussion I don't want to be a part of. > Your link is frequently posted by people who have no wish to argue rationally. I suppose it was LLM who told you that? I personally never saw that link posted. In these situations people mostly invoke "whataboutism", but I just thought it was not right, before we established beyond reasonable doubt that you are fighting a political debate. I mean, we see demagogy used, check. But your motives are still not clear enough to claim with certainty that you are caught up in political partisanship and it is the reason behind your behavior.

altern8 3mo ago

Sure, but access is easy enough. Not worse than anything else than the government does. Much better than--let's say--getting an MRI. Looks like this thread has gotten the attention of weird activists that want to find injustice everywhere and jump to conclusion--as long as the conclusion is women oppressed and censored.

gpderetta 3mo ago

Agree about that. The question is whether all websites providing black-market potentially generous medications are being targeted or specifically just abortion pills. I genuinely do not know, this might be making the news but actually be part of a wide blockage.

loup-vaillant 3mo ago

> If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution. Indeed, access must be made easy. Abortion, through a pill or otherwise, should be accessible anywhere, freely, and any medical record should be kept absolutely secret, including from the family, especially if she’s underage. I don’t think that’s the direction they’re headed though. I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible.

lelanthran 3mo ago
> Indeed, access must be made easy. That is my point. If access is not easy, selling prescription drugs to anonymous buyers is not the solution - access must be made easy. > I’m pretty sure in fact the whole point of allowing stuff like objection of conscience is to make abortion less accessible. I don't think so. No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being. That choice must be totally theirs to make, not the states. I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- loup-vaillant 3mo ago
  > No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being. I feel you. But that right not to kill, conflicts with the autonomy of women. Which is more important? > I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action. France, and many other countries, makes it a crime (misdemeanour I think?) not to help people. If I see someone about to die, and I could prevent that, and I don’t, then I could go to jail. This is textbook compelled action, and I fully condone it. If you don’t help someone from immediate danger you’re trash, and you should pay the consequences.
  - lelanthran 3mo ago
    > I feel you. But that right not to kill, conflicts with the autonomy of women. Which is more important? The right to not kill, obviously. What kind of question is this? You want to judge someone for not being (in their minds) a murderer instead of a controller-of-other-people? > This is textbook compelled action, and I fully condone it. If you don’t help someone from immediate danger you’re trash, and you should pay the consequences. Sure, but we aren't talking about immediate danger. All those countries you list don't compel you to help someone who is in no immediate danger.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3mo ago
    Wouldn't selling pills online effectively remove the dilemma? The doctors can avoid killing and the women are free to go through abortion
    - loup-vaillant 3mo ago
      It would, but then there’s another dilemma: in a country where there’s a limit to how far into pregnancy you can abort, that pill could easily be used over that limit, and then you have to question whether the increased availability is worth a possible increase in late(er) abortions. I think I would prioritise availability, but not everyone would want to. (Now this is assuming an actual increase in late(er) abortions: I believe I have seen evidence that increased availability tend to lead to earlier abortions, not to mention safer. And we need to couple all that with regular contraceptives and sex education, so unwanted pregnancies don’t happen that often in the first place.)

ordu 3mo ago

> If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution. The only way is to make access easy. If you make it hard, then demand for black market drugs will drive supply. Which in turn would drive a repressive machine. Sites blocked, people convicted and so on. I don't know why anti-abortion activists are unable to understand it. The only working hypothesis they are actively resist any understanding. A dogmatic worldview can lead to such behavior.

lelanthran 3mo ago
> I don't know why anti-abortion activists are unable to understand it. The only working hypothesis they are actively resist any understanding. A dogmatic worldview can lead to such behavior. The pro-lifers don't have a monopoly on stupid people - see above where a pro-choicer is arguing that abortion 1 day before delivery should be legal.
- ordu 3mo ago
  > The pro-lifers don't have a monopoly on stupid people Tu quoque[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque_defense
  - lelanthran 3mo ago
    You don't appear to know what that means :-/ There are two parties in this argument; you appear to belong to one party in this argument. 1. You propose that the other party in an argument are stupid people. 2. I point out that both parties are demonstrating an inability to reason. 3. You now claim that lack of reasoning from your party does not make the other party's argument stronger. 4. You completely missed my point that lack of reasoning from your party does not make your argument stronger. Your link is frequently posted by people who have no wish to argue rationally. At this point, it's almost like an indicator for a troll :-/
    - ordu 3mo ago
      > argue rationally. Argue rationally about what? I invite you to stop for a moment, reread our converstaion while asking a question: what about are we supposedly arguing. There was no rational arguments, you've changed topic from peculiarities of anti-abortion mind works to peculiarities of pro-abortion minds, which I'm not interested in, how you can imagine. It is not a rational debate, it is a rhetorical trick to lure me into a discussion I don't want to be a part of. > Your link is frequently posted by people who have no wish to argue rationally. I suppose it was LLM who told you that? I personally never saw that link posted. In these situations people mostly invoke "whataboutism", but I just thought it was not right, before we established beyond reasonable doubt that you are fighting a political debate. I mean, we see demagogy used, check. But your motives are still not clear enough to claim with certainty that you are caught up in political partisanship and it is the reason behind your behavior.