You are too good for this site for so many reasons Rachel Bronwyn.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:The assumption that option is readily available to the eleven-year-old is the problem.

Well, the assumption would either seem to be correct or incorrect. So at worst, someone might be accused of arriving at an erroneous assumption, but how does that then indicate mansplaining, male privilege, callous disregard and the litany of personalized attacks?

Surely they're all assumptions too? Only, they appear to be mean-spirited ones.

purplerat wrote:Are you suggesting that an 11 year child impregnated by a rapist living in a jurisdiction where abortion is banned shouldn't go elsewhere to seek an abortion?

Can we get some clarity here on what actually is the hypothetically correct scenario?

Laying aside of course that she shouldn't have been raped, shouldn't have been forbidden an abortion, shouldn't have been treated in this way, and that even were there political will to change the law that it would take too long to help this person... what is the least worst next step?

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:The assumption that option is readily available to the eleven-year-old is the problem.

I don't think anybody expects an eleven year old is going to up and peddle her bike across state lines for an abortion.

If her parents are unable or unwilling to do so that just adds to the tragedy.

Spearthrower wrote:

purplerat wrote:Are you suggesting that an 11 year child impregnated by a rapist living in a jurisdiction where abortion is banned shouldn't go elsewhere to seek an abortion?

Can we get some clarity here on what actually is the hypothetically correct scenario?

Laying aside of course that she shouldn't have been raped, shouldn't have been forbidden an abortion, shouldn't have been treated in this way, and that even were there political will to change the law that it would take too long to help this person... what is the least worst next step?

The risk of physical and psychological harm of an young child carrying a pregnancy to term would be significant. Not treating her condition immediately would be tantamount to denying child with cancer treatment because of the parent's religious beliefs.

purplerat wrote:Are you suggesting that an 11 year child impregnated by a rapist living in a jurisdiction where abortion is banned shouldn't go elsewhere to seek an abortion?

As Rachel said. The assumption that the option is readily available is the problem.

Imagine being a woman in Ohio and you hear, “Yea this law sucks, but you can always go out of state to get an abortion, what are the Christian Nazis going to do about it?”

It’d be frustrating. It’s not helpful. They most likely know they can go out of state to get the abortion. The issue isn’t what they can do. It’s their ability to do it without undue burden. It’s the fact that when a man says that saying it’s just accepting the facts that the man isn’t directly affected by said law. It’s callous.

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:Are you suggesting that an 11 year child impregnated by a rapist living in a jurisdiction where abortion is banned shouldn't go elsewhere to seek an abortion?

As Rachel said. The assumption that the option is readily available is the problem.

Imagine being a woman in Ohio and you hear, “Yea this law sucks, but you can always go out of state to get an abortion, what are the Christian Nazis going to do about it?”

It’d be frustrating. It’s not helpful. They most likely know they can go out of state to get the abortion. The issue isn’t what they can do. It’s their ability to do it without undue burden. It’s the fact that when a man says that saying it’s just accepting the facts that the man isn’t directly affected by said law. It’s callous.

This is way people are calling you dishonest.

The comment about going to another state was in regards to a very specific and extreme case. In fact the thread it was actually made in isn't even really about abortion.

An 11 year old being pregnant is a different situation from a typical pregnancy where a woman might want or need an abortion. I don't need to imagine being a woman or being pregnant. I simply need to think what I would do as a parent. If my kid was in need of immediate care I'd do whatever it took to help them.

Again, nobody is telling an 11 year old child that she herself should leave the state to get an abortion. You'd have to be a complete moron to think that's what's been suggested.

purplerat wrote:Are you suggesting that an 11 year child impregnated by a rapist living in a jurisdiction where abortion is banned shouldn't go elsewhere to seek an abortion?

and why nopt, do you want that kid to have to get a C section because her hips are not yet developed enough to give birth and then live with the burden of a kid young enough to be her brother?

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:Are you suggesting that an 11 year child impregnated by a rapist living in a jurisdiction where abortion is banned shouldn't go elsewhere to seek an abortion?

As Rachel said. The assumption that the option is readily available is the problem.

Imagine being a woman in Ohio and you hear, “Yea this law sucks, but you can always go out of state to get an abortion, what are the Christian Nazis going to do about it?”

It’d be frustrating. It’s not helpful. They most likely know they can go out of state to get the abortion. The issue isn’t what they can do. It’s their ability to do it without undue burden. It’s the fact that when a man says that saying it’s just accepting the facts that the man isn’t directly affected by said law. It’s callous.

This is way people are calling you dishonest.

The comment about going to another state was in regards to a very specific and extreme case. In fact the thread it was actually made in isn't even really about abortion.

An 11 year old being pregnant is a different situation from a typical pregnancy where a woman might want or need an abortion. I don't need to imagine being a woman or being pregnant. I simply need to think what I would do as a parent. If my kid was in need of immediate care I'd do whatever it took to help them.

Again, nobody is telling an 11 year old child that she herself should leave the state to get an abortion. You'd have to be a complete moron to think that's what's been suggested.

Except in post 45 of this thread the same poster defended his stance about going out of state.

So yes the case he was talking about was the 11 year old. But his posts here have made it known he also thinks that it’s valid for women. In post 45, I quote it above, he says it’s just facts.

My response to that kind of attitude is “no shit.” How does pointing out the obvious help anyone? It doesn’t. But it compounds the feelings of the victims of this law. As I said it’s overall insensitive.

And furthermore even many adult women don’t have the means to just go to another state to get an abortion. It’s not a valid option for plenty of adults. So they don’t have any valid options. They are forced to carry a child to term.

So asking, “what other choice do they have?” Is irrelevant. To many women there is no choice. There are no loopholes. These laws are just garbage.

purplerat wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:The assumption that option is readily available to the eleven-year-old is the problem.

I don't think anybody expects an eleven year old is going to up and peddle her bike across state lines for an abortion.

If her parents are unable or unwilling to do so that just adds to the tragedy.

The Ohio heartbeat law doesn't go into effect until July. Under current law she is absolutely allowed to have an abortion, assuming she isn't already at 20 weeks or more, and her parents consent. So it is available to her now, but if the parents refuse to abort, which they well could do, or they leave it too long she'll have to carry it to term unless her life is in danger.

So this whole discussion is insignificant sound and fury. She can get the abortion, she doesn't have to leave the state, and none of us have a clue whether or not her family wants to abort in the first place. The whole thread is just a virtue signalfest.

You're a woker man than I am, Gunga Will.

I’m not woke. I make mistakes. I say things I shouldn’t that are insensitive or misguided. I work in an environment surrounded by women. I pick up on things quickly of what they care about. These abortion laws have been a hot topic of discussion and satirization in my salon this past week.

I should mention at this juncture that there’s a certain amount of variation among women concerning what they care about.

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:Are you suggesting that an 11 year child impregnated by a rapist living in a jurisdiction where abortion is banned shouldn't go elsewhere to seek an abortion?

As Rachel said. The assumption that the option is readily available is the problem.

Imagine being a woman in Ohio and you hear, “Yea this law sucks, but you can always go out of state to get an abortion, what are the Christian Nazis going to do about it?”

It’d be frustrating. It’s not helpful. They most likely know they can go out of state to get the abortion. The issue isn’t what they can do. It’s their ability to do it without undue burden. It’s the fact that when a man says that saying it’s just accepting the facts that the man isn’t directly affected by said law. It’s callous.

This is way people are calling you dishonest.

The comment about going to another state was in regards to a very specific and extreme case. In fact the thread it was actually made in isn't even really about abortion.

An 11 year old being pregnant is a different situation from a typical pregnancy where a woman might want or need an abortion. I don't need to imagine being a woman or being pregnant. I simply need to think what I would do as a parent. If my kid was in need of immediate care I'd do whatever it took to help them.

Again, nobody is telling an 11 year old child that she herself should leave the state to get an abortion. You'd have to be a complete moron to think that's what's been suggested.

Except in post 45 of this thread the same poster defended his stance about going out of state.

So yes the case he was talking about was the 11 year old. But his posts here have made it known he also thinks that it’s valid for women. In post 45, I quote it above, he says it’s just facts.

My response to that kind of attitude is “no shit.” How does pointing out the obvious help anyone? It doesn’t. But it compounds the feelings of the victims of this law. As I said it’s overall insensitive.

And furthermore even many adult women don’t have the means to just go to another state to get an abortion. It’s not a valid option for plenty of adults. So they don’t have any valid options. They are forced to carry a child to term.

So asking, “what other choice do they have?” Is irrelevant. To many women there is no choice. There are no loopholes. These laws are just garbage.

It's clearly not obvious as you yourself have tried to argue that women who leave a state like Ohio or Georgia for an abortion could be prosecuted under those states respective laws for having an abortion elsewhere.

And unfortunately I do think there are likely to be many women (or parents as is the case in the aforementioned thread) who would be scared of going to another state for an abortion. The Georgia statute goes even further by legislating such fears into existence with their almost certainly unconstitutional threat of prosecuting women with conspiracy for leaving the state for an abortion.

I'm kind of at a loss for what your position even is here. On one hand you are arguing that women could very well be prosecuted for getting an abortion in another state then you turn around and say it's insensitive to suggest that they do so because it's "no shit"-obvious that they could get an abortion elsewhere presumably without being prosecuted. It's like you think there is a real serious legal question but don't think it should be discussed because it might offend somebody.

Fallible wrote:I should mention at this juncture that there’s a certain amount of variation among women concerning what they care about.

So that's why Mrs. Lak is so different from my ex. Who knew?

Fallible wrote:I should mention at this juncture that there’s a certain amount of variation among women concerning what they care about.

Are you sure, Fallible?

The male representative of What Women Think doesn't seem to concur.

Have you checked your script? I suggest getting on page quickly lest suspicion arise that you might be a sexist, racist, assholish, conservative with callous levels of disregard.

Don't forget insensitive.

willhud9 wrote:
As Rachel said. The assumption that the option is readily available is the problem.

And as I said: that would then infer a faulty assumption at best.

It wouldn't justify all the shit you've slung.

willhud9 wrote:Imagine being a woman in Ohio and you hear, “Yea this law sucks, but you can always go out of state to get an abortion, what are the Christian Nazis going to do about it?”

Ok, so I've imagined that.

Of course, I had to IMAGINE it because it didn't actually happen.

As far as anyone here knows - you included - there are no pregnant Ohio women here seeking an abortion.

You've attempted to take offense on their behalf, been fucking rude and vitriolic to people, cast aspersions on everyone and the site, and basically made this thread about you.

So imagine that same Ohia woman hearing you ranting all about how all the people who concur with her dilemma and express sympathy and frustration are all suddenly called all these terrible things.

Finally, I note you have once again quoted something that didn't actually get written. I hope your leaning on the report button results in the moderators noting how you repeatedly misrepresent people.

willhud9 wrote:It’d be frustrating. It’s not helpful. They most likely know they can go out of state to get the abortion. The issue isn’t what they can do. It’s their ability to do it without undue burden. It’s the fact that when a man says that saying it’s just accepting the facts that the man isn’t directly affected by said law. It’s callous.

[/quote]

We go from 'not being helpful' to callous in just one paragraph. That's your problem Will. You're working overtime to paint everyone as sexist (and racist ) when at the very best possible reading, they've just been 'not helpful'.

laklak wrote:Don't forget insensitive.

Sorry mate... I know you're sensitive about being called insensitive.

(hug)

The skin thins with age.

Spearthrower wrote:
Can we get some clarity here on what actually is the hypothetically correct scenario?

Laying aside of course that she shouldn't have been raped, shouldn't have been forbidden an abortion, shouldn't have been treated in this way, and that even were there political will to change the law that it would take too long to help this person... what is the least worst next step?

So really, Will doesn't have any answer to this... except to basically agree that this is what said women would need to do, with the only addition being that it's not helpful to tell this to a pregnant Georgian woman seeking an abortion, or an 11 year old rape victim.

Of course, no one here actually has said this to a pregnant Georgian woman seeking an abortion or an 11 year old rape victim.

So what's this all about? Looks like a case of putting other people down to boost one's own self-esteem.