General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAn (im?)modest proposal for resistance.
A friends righteous rant sparked this as a point of organizing resistance:
Revoke (or do not sign) organ donor cards, and instruct next of kin/medical POAs to not donate your organs after death.
(I hear the cries of knee-jerk outrage already.) Look, its simple. Women are going to die because of these abortion bans. Do not let their organs be harvested to save their murderers. Women will suffer, become disabled, lose their livelihoods, lose their opportunities for education or a career, or die because abortions are denied them, when they are unable to access abortion care hundreds of miles away. Ok, then, I guess organ transplantation should require medical tourism as well.
Nothing in this scheme says that a person should not live-donate a kidney, etc. to a person they know and trust. It just means that women and their allies are drying up the flow of organs to strangers who may be their oppressors. It means that women and their allies are taking back control over their bodies. Will people die? Yes. Thats the point. What, did you think this war wasnt going to have casualties? Besides the piled corpses of pregnant women? Decisions have consequences, and it is time for women to be fighting back ruthlessly.
After all, nobody is interested in even ending the filibuster for us, or expanding SCOTUS for us. Why, exactly, should we continue business as usual?
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)sounds ineffective and serious silly.
emulatorloo
(44,120 posts)the polls to vote in more Democrats to Congress.
Jirel
(2,018 posts)Like weve done EVERY election cycle, and yet we got Trump, a radical fascist SCOTUS, state GOP candidates ready to steal an election the moment they win, more extreme gerrymandering, worse voter disenfranchisement than ever, and still no chance of either enlarging SCOTUS, killing the filibuster, or otherwise turning things around in the near OR far term? You do know that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results, right?
As for nothing to do with each other, that is false. Womens lives have been taken hostage. Women can also take lives hostage. Business as usual and the expected urging to place nice and be civil are OVER as viable strategies.
emulatorloo
(44,120 posts)It will take a Dem majority to make progress, that means getting new voters and all our voters to the polls EVERY DAMN TiME.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)...that not donating organs relationship to the problem.
Saying "doing X doesn't help" doesn't render every goofy idea to be effective.
Texasgal
(17,045 posts)brooklynite
(94,527 posts)Do I need to explain how incredibly narrow-minded that is?
Or should I just assume you were ranting and skip over?
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)...even if you accept the logic of the proposal, then making abortion illegal will completely eliminate the supply of organs from women who would have otherwise died from pregnancy complications.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,333 posts)That is even more radical than giving up one's subscription to The Saturday Evening Post, or boycotting "Laugh In." I'm not sure people are that prepared for all-out revolution.
denbot
(9,899 posts)Sheeese
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Because someone benefiting from the food might be anti-choice.
Also, stop exhaling, so that your emitted carbon dioxide won't be used by plants to grow and produce food for people who are anti-choice.
"It just means that women and their allies are drying up the flow of organs to strangers who may be their oppressors."
So, wait a minute, the idea here is that there are currently people who are not getting organs because there aren't as many women dying from complications of pregnancy.
The basis of your idea is that if the number of women dying from complications of pregnancy is increased, then there might be an increase in donated organs.
Therefore, you want to reduce the number of women donating organs.
It should be obvious that, even if your assumptions and logic are correct, then the excess deaths from pregnancy complications that would have otherwise resulted in abortions is still going to result in an increased number of donor organs, unless you get 100% compliance (which is not obtainable).
But I sincerely doubt anyone is going to be saying "Hey, we have to make abortion legal, so that women who don't have abortions will donate their organs!"
Because making abortion legal to women who would have otherwise died in pregnancy and refused to donate their organs, would be a MORE effective method of reducing the number of donor organs from women who die in pregnancy because they can't get an abortion.
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)AOC has it right...at least debate the issue...and