A 45-year-old got pregnant in a state with a ban on abortions. She flew across the country to get one

[gbg3]

Lots of things to consider. She had the means and access to information.......lots of poor women in LA that don't have that ability.

“Because the situation is so fluid, it changes from day to day, that was really of paramount importance for me to be able to have a reliable source of information,” she said.


Driving to a neighboring state was not an option, as every state adjoining Louisiana has a similarly restrictive law that bans virtually all abortions. Victoria says she considered close states, like Florida, but she ultimately dismissed them because available appointments were farther out.


“Once I saw that Oregon was so, so protective of reproductive rights, I said, ‘Why would I think about going anywhere else?’” she said. “The second I got the definitive pregnancy result, I was like, ‘OK, let’s book a flight to Oregon. When can we do this?’”

I read it. That's ridiculous. There is no possible way she needed to travel that far. I notice it says "available appointments were farther out" as far as FL. I wonder what that means and why it said "farther out", lol? 48 hours? It's a dramatically ridiculous story. She should be here on DP along with other drama queens trying to tell obviously fake dramatic stories lately.

 

[uptower]

There's a lady at work that I continually buy coffee for, at my expense. One day I got her the wrong brew by mistake, and she called me a "d bag" - 80's slang for a feminine product. Ungrateful.

Is she the same liberal that you schooled/set straight/converted to Trumpism/proved creationism to the other day and is totally not made up at all?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I read it. That's ridiculous. There is no possible way she needed to travel that far. I notice it says "available appointments were farther out" as far as FL. I wonder what that means and why it said "farther out", lol? 48 hours? It's a dramatically ridiculous story. She should be here on DP along with other drama queens trying to tell obviously fake dramatic stories lately.

If you read it, you know why she chose Oregon.

Why is it bad or wrong to want help from a college friend who lives there?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Why are you assuming any of her reasoning had to do with money? The article didn't explicitly state her reasons but the clear implication was that it primarily involved her age and general health.

The simple point is that the additional effort and cost is entirely unnecessarily. It'd be like saying you have the right to own firearms but you can only buy them from a single store in Washington State.

Yes it did explicitly state her reasons: that she never wanted kids and she has a college friend in Oregon.

 

[Lursa]

I read it. That's ridiculous. There is no possible way she needed to travel that far. I notice it says "available appointments were farther out" as far as FL. I wonder what that means and why it said "farther out", lol? 48 hours? It's a dramatically ridiculous story. She should be here on DP along with other drama queens trying to tell obviously fake dramatic stories lately.

The bold means that she cant get an appt for an abortion in time before the FL time limit. By the time she could get in, she would be past their Dark Ages deadline, and they wouldnt do it.

So she had to go where she could get one. She also said she had someone she could stay with for free in OR. And to also give her moral support.

 

[Rickeroo]

Yeah, we got that. But you did proclaim your true status...are you ashamed to support it? If it's just about how 'you feel' about it, cool beans...except I'd guess you're voting according to your emotions as well. Not what the FF's hoped for, I'm sure.

While there are emotions involved in my decision making on policy (basically you could call them judgements), they are projected from within my own set of personal stadards. Simply put, if I view something as harmful to me personally, it also must be harmful to other people. See my signature for a sarcastic way of putting this. The emotions generated, if I see people accepting harm for others that I wouldn't want done to myself, are along the lines of disgust and disdain.

However, I'm gradually coming to an acceptance - it's been a slow process - that there are deep psycological reasons for people to express harm for others they wouldn't want for themselves. There's a lot of compensating and projection of self-loathing in today's abundant society. I'm actively trying to change my disdain to pity, since it's better for me.

 

[VySky]

In that case, a poor woman needs to be more aware of the increased cost. Donations can flow into PP which can potentially subsidize the cost.

So, she got to eliminate life in the end. Where's the beef?

 

[Lursa]

While there are emotions involved in my decision making on policy (basically you could call them judgements), they are projected from within my own set of personal stadards. Simply put, if I view something as harmful to me personally, it also must be harmful to other people. See my signature for a sarcastic way of putting this. The emotions generated, if I see people accepting harm for others that I wouldn't want done to myself, are along the lines of disgust and disdain.

However, I'm gradually coming to an acceptance - it's been a slow process - that there are deep psycological reasons for people to express harm for others they wouldn't want for themselves. There's a lot of compensating and projection of self-loathing in today's abundant society. I'm actively trying to change my disdain to pity, since it's better for me.

So ambiguous you couldnt even apply it directly to the issue of abortion. Noted, the lack of commitment to a position (or maybe the fear of articulating that commitment).

 

[Rickeroo]

So ambiguous you couldnt even apply it directly to the issue of abortion. Noted, the lack of commitment to a position.

My application of "The emotions generated, if I see people accepting harm for others that I wouldn't want done to myself, are along the lines of disgust and disdain" easily applies to my stance on abortion.

I apply that standard in a strict manner. I feel that if I relax that standard or I find myself rationalizing in order to make it 'good for thee but not for me', I would be hypocritical.

 

[Lursa]

My application of "The emotions generated, if I see people accepting harm for others that I wouldn't want done to myself, are along the lines of disgust and disdain" easily applies to my stance on abortion.

I apply that standard in a strict manner. I feel that if I relax that standard or I find myself rationalizing in order to make it 'good for thee but not for me', I would be hypocritical.

And that means nothing to those that know the woman is a person and when her consent to her life decisions are overridden, she suffers actual pain and loss and damage to her life every day, including risking her obligations to others. These are facts. Legal, medical, and practical.

The unborn is not a person, even if 'you choose' to personify it in your imagination. It suffers nothing, so even if you wanted to make a moral argument, intentionally causing pain and suffering to another (the woman) is certainly not the moral High Ground. That alone tips the 'moral balance.'

If you 'choose' to imagine your personal standard, you are welcome to it. I wrote that previously. But I dont see you able to justify forcing it on others that dont imagine it the same way, by law. Can you? Or is it just your personal belief and you dont care if it's imposed by law on women? (Your posts indicate that you care.)

 

[Rickeroo]

And that means nothing to those that know the woman is a person and when her consent to her life decisions are overridden, she suffers actual pain and loss and damage to her life every day, including risking her obligations to others. These are facts. Legal, medical, and practical.

The unborn is not a person, even if 'you choose' to personify it in your imagination. It suffers nothing, so even if you wanted to make a moral argument, intentionally causing pain and suffering to another (the woman) is certainly not the moral High Ground. That alone tips the 'moral balance.'

If you 'choose' to imagine your personal standard, you are welcome to it. I wrote that previously. But I dont see you able to justify forcing it on others that dont imagine it the same way, by law. Can you? Or is it just your personal belief and you dont care if it's imposed by law on women? (Your posts indicate that you care.)

In applying my High Ground algorithm to abortion, I'd accept being aborted myself if I were to have severe birth defects. I'd have to be able to say to myself, "I would not want to live this way". If the health of the mother was at great risk and I were healthy, I may not like to be aborted but at least I would understand the reasoning behind it. As for the myriad of convenience reasons (can't afford a child, not ready, unwanted, no reason at all, etc), I don't think those would justify putting me out of existence. I then transfer that concept onto other people, and judge them harshly if they don't use my reasoning on themselves.

 

[Lursa]

In applying my High Ground algorithm to abortion, I'd accept being aborted myself if I were to have severe birth defects. I'd have to be able to say to myself, "I would not want to live this way". If the health of the mother was at great risk and I were healthy, I may not like to be aborted but at least I would understand the reasoning behind it. As for the myriad of convenience reasons (can't afford a child, not ready, unwanted, no reason at all, etc), I don't think those would justify putting me out of existence. I then transfer that concept onto other people, and judge them harshly if they don't use my reasoning on themselves.

I see that you consider all the things in your life "conveniences," is that true? It's clearly implied in your post. If her life isnt in danger, it's merely convenient. So you consider your responsibilities to your family, keeping a job and putting a roof over their heads, staying off of public assistance, fulfilling your commitments and obligations to others in community, church, society, all as conveniences, correct?

That's fine...for you. But the rest of us value those things and feel it's important to fulfill our obligations and responsibilities to others. And not put them at risk if we can avoid it.

If a woman (and often her Dr) believe it's in her best interests and all those OTHERS she has responsibilities to and for...then again, she and all those others IMO come before some unborn that might miscarry or be born severely defective and never serve society at all. Again, when you balance things out, IMO the higher moral ground swings towards the woman and others, not a singular unborn.

 

[Rickeroo]

So you consider your responsibilities to your family, keeping a job and putting a roof over their heads, staying off of public assistance, fulfilling your commitments and obligations to others in community, church, society, all as conveniences, correct?

I wouldn't consider sacrificing my existence so that someone else could maintain a job, a roof over their head, etc, to be a fair (or understandable) trade, so I'd disapprove of the abortion. I'm wired in a certain way, but I think my algorithm works quite well for most liberal causes. For example, I'd outlaw slavery because I wouldn't want to be a slave.

I realizes that for certain political issues like abortion, the two sides want to apply a certain logic: "a woman's right" versus "God doesn't like it". I apply neither in making my decision about it, as I feel they don't have anything to do with the issue.

 

[Lursa]

I wouldn't consider sacrificing my existence so that someone else could maintain a job, a roof over their head, etc, to be a fair (or understandable) trade, so I'd disapprove of the abortion. I'm wired in a certain way, but I think my algorithm works quite well for most liberal causes. For example, I'd outlaw slavery because I wouldn't want to be a slave.

I realizes that for certain political issues like abortion, the two sides want to apply a certain logic: "a woman's right" versus "God doesn't like it". I apply neither in making my decision about it, as I feel they don't have anything to do with the issue.

You do consider sacrificing a woman's life and health and self-determination and living every day fulfilling her responsibilities and obligations to others without her consent as justifiable tho. That YOU are entitled, thru your vote, to take all those things from women. How do you justify taking all that away from an individual woman and instead, conferring it onto her unborn? Why is the unborn more deserving of those exact same things? Because they cannot be treated equally.

 

[Rickeroo]

You do consider sacrificing a woman's life and health and self-determination and living every day fulfilling her responsibilities and obligations to others without her consent as justifiable tho. That YOU are entitled, thru your vote, to take all those things from women. How do you justify taking all that away from an individual woman and instead, conferring it onto her unborn? Why is the unborn more deserving of those exact same things? Because they cannot be treated equally.

The algorithm doesn't weigh the mother's ability to go to work (fullfill responsibilities) against the fetus's future ability to go to work. The algorithm must take into account that whatever justifications the woman might employ, the fetus pays with their life.

As such, only dire circumstances would point the algorithm towards the woman's favor (mother's life in danger, etc). The algorithm would frown on justifications like loss of career and other social limitations a woman raising a child would experience.

 

[Lursa]

The algorithm doesn't weigh the mother's ability to go to work (fullfill responsibilities) against the fetus's future ability to go to work. The algorithm must take into account that whatever justifications the woman might employ, the fetus pays with their life.

Yup, and I weighed those and you just responded with more meaningless garbage, stating the obvious.

As such, only dire circumstances would point the algorithm towards the woman's favor (mother's life in danger, etc). The algorithm would frown on justifications like loss of career and other social limitations a woman raising a child would experience.

So again, I'll ask you, if you want me to continue to reduce it...why does the unborn's (non-existent) right to life supersede the woman's right to life? Every single pregnancy risks a woman's life...it cannot be predicted nor always prevented. Please justify and explain? It's an individual right...so each and every woman confronts it. How do you justify forcing women to relinquish their right to life? (Because if she has to remain pregnant against her will, she is relinquishing it and then just "hoping" it doesnt happen...the govt has forced this on her. Please justify.)

 

[Bodi]

Wouldn't it be easier to have risky sex in states that support the behavior?

It would be easier for pro-slavery men to accept that we live in the United States of America and that women have a right to bodily autonomy.

 

[Bodi]

It's not so much the abortion itself that got me here, abortions and other self-destructive, reaching behavoirs will continue and I can't do anything about it. It was the complaining and whining over a couple plane rides and paperwork.

Imagine some assholes made buying eyeglasses illegal and you needed them to work and you complained about having to take time off work and fly across the USA to a state that sells them and then you complained... but gee, I have to be able to see clearly! boo ****ing hoo... LOL

 

[NewfieMom]

Wouldn't it be easier to have risky sex in states that support the behavior?

It would be easier for women to refuse any sexual activity to men until they allow women to own their own bodies. "Lysistrata" revisited.

 

[Rickeroo]

So again, I'll ask you, if you want me to continue to reduce it...why does the unborn's (non-existent) right to life supersede the woman's right to life? Every single pregnancy risks a woman's life...it cannot be predicted nor always prevented. Please justify and explain? It's an individual right...so each and every woman confronts it. How do you justify forcing women to relinquish their right to life? (Because if she has to remain pregnant against her will, she is relinquishing it and then just "hoping" it doesnt happen...the govt has forced this on her. Please justify.)

I understand your frustration. You can think of my thought process as if I were a computer calculating the lesser of evils, the trolley problem. A train is going down the track. If you do nothing, it will kill 5 people standing on the track. If you switch the track, it veers off and only kills one person on that side track, leaving the 5 alive. You're correct in that every pregancy risks a woman's life. There is a chance of dying in childbirth.

For the trolley problem, of course I'd switch the tracks to kill the one person rather than the 5. We can split this excercise all kinds of ways, like what if there's a 20% chance changing tracks and hitting the one person causes a bizzare chain reaction that kills the other 5 anyway? Regardless of how many variables are input into the system, the basic premise remains that of choosing (or choosing to choose) the lesser of evils.

 

[Lursa]

I understand your frustration. You can think of my thought process as if I were a computer calculating the lesser of evils, the trolley problem. A train is going down the track. If you do nothing, it will kill 5 people standing on the track. If you switch the track, it veers off and only kills one person on that side track, leaving the 5 alive. You're correct in that every pregancy risks a woman's life. There is a chance of dying in childbirth.

LMAO, no your 'thought processes' are nothing like the accuracy and precision of a computer. They are based on your feelings and you cannot articulate any rational basis to choose one over the other, so all you had left is your argument of reductio ad absurdum.

Just because your 'computer' chooses to assign no value to anything but a physiological state (breathing, a heartbeat, etc) doesnt mean that most people dont. If you need to hide behind black and white to save your feelings,

Your computer also doesnt explain why its "programming" should be forced on anyone else by law

For the trolley problem, of course I'd switch the tracks to kill the one person rather than the 5. We can split this excercise all kinds of ways, like what if there's a 20% chance changing tracks and hitting the one person causes a bizzare chain reaction that kills the other 5 anyway? Regardless of how many variables are input into the system, the basic premise remains that of choosing (or choosing to choose) the lesser of evils.

Thank you for further reinforcing reductio ad absurdum Here's a cookie What's sad is I just imagine (unfortunately) you bursting with pride over what you think is a valid argument (beyond your feelings. It's fun to see someone with your views go to such lengths to avoid the usual emotional manipulation. It's just as obvious, but you've got your own signature move ).

 

[Hamish Howl]

Very simply, I have life, therefore everyone else has a right to life - even Blacks.

How generous of you.

 

[choiceone]

There's no doubt that in light of Roe, there's a bit more effort required for abortions. However, I still think her profit ratio, in the form of a vastly reduced decades-long burden, handily outweighs her expense. It's like winning the lottery, then complaining you've got to spend a couple of days taking planes and filling out paperwork.

Women can die in pregnancy and childbirth and are at risk of dying for a year after childbirth of pregnancy-related causes. They can become permanently blind, seriously diabetic, develop heart disease, become permanently or temporarily incontinent, or just have chronic pain. Pregnancy is an illness despite everything anyone says, because the normal immune system is partly shut down during pregnancy, and you can't take normal medical remedies because it might negatively impact the embryo. Pregnancy changes the body even in the "good" cases, and it takes work to get it back to a reasonably normal state. How dare you trivialize it.

 

[choiceone]

It's not so much the abortion itself that got me here, abortions and other self-destructive, reaching behavoirs will continue and I can't do anything about it. It was the complaining and whining over a couple plane rides and paperwork.

There's a lady at work that I continually buy coffee for, at my expense. One day I got her the wrong brew by mistake, and she called me a "d bag" - 80's slang for a feminine product. Ungrateful.

Abortion isn't self-destructive. It's very typically self-defense. For many women, it's having sex with men or being coerced into sex or forcibly raped that makes one self-destructive. Women should stop having sex with all men who haven't proven themselves to be pro-choice.

 

[choiceone]

How so? It merely frames the mother's pompous, entitled attitude. I understand she was at an advanced maternal age and had valid concerns for an abortion, but I find it disgusting that she had the gall to complain about the plane ride. That kid never grows up, and her plane ride was bad? I can't possibly express my distaste enough.

There is no kid. Before viability, there's only a mindless embryo/fetus that can't live if removed from her body, because the life it appears to be living is HERS, not ITS. This is a provable fact, because, if she dies, it dies, too, whereas if it dies and is removed, she will ordinarily not die but go right on with her own life.