That depends. She’s a trained obstetrician, she probably knows when moving the patient is better than not (and yes, anyone can sue you for $10k for helping someone over state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion). There’s also the possibility that it’s a ten or more hour drive to the nearest clinic, which comes with a significant time and gas money commitment that some people would find it difficult to impossible to make. I agree that performing medicine is not the most effective protest, but it’s totally the most effective way of making sure that your vulnerable patients get medical care.

Campaigning against abortion bans is great, but how many women will die before the next election? I don’t think I’d be willing to comply with the law and watch them as a doctor, and I hope most doctors would agree, because I’d personally far prefer to get treatment than follow the laws in an emergency.

The procedure is banned, nobody’s licensed to do it anymore. If you’ve trained as an obstetrician and midwife and can do a lifesaving procedure which has now been banned because politicians got worried that not enough people show up to church, I think it’s absolutely your right to get upset for being arrested for it. The other option is for someone who took the Hippocratic oath to sit and watch people needlessly die for politics.

I don’t think she’s surprised, because it’s not surprising, but it’s sure as hell upsetting.

Normally I’d agree

Rojas, known as “Dr. Maria,” is a nurse practitioner who has been a licensed midwife in the US since 2018; she previously worked as an obstetrician in Peru. She owns and, before her arrest, operated four health care clinics in the Houston area called Clínicas Latinoamericanas, which predominantly serve low-income Spanish-speaking patients.

Given that in other states, nps are qualified to provide abortions (and they can apparently own medical clinics in this one), this seems more like an issue caused by the laws in Texas than helped by them.

I’m less knowledgeable than the OOP about this. What’s the code you quoted do?

It can, but I’d still rather criminals walk free than people who didn’t do anything wrong be punished.

I guess it comes down to this: I think twelve randos are less likely to be racist than our legal system.

I mean more people generally walk away. When designing a legal system, you have to decide whether it’s better that guilty people go free or that innocent people are punished. I’m fully on the side of the former, and jury nullification is basically an extra release valve.

Luigi’s obviously a sensation right now, but jn is imo even better for situations like those sisters who lit their father on fire after he raped them for years (I don’t want to dig too deep because it’s depressing, so I don’t have a source, but this could just as easily be hypothetical). The legal system is not going to codify how much the victim must abuse you before your snapping is justified, because that’s impossible. The jury gets to decide on a case by case basis, whether the immolation was a crime or not.

In a perfect legal system, we might not need it, but not only is that impossible, the US has in some respects the farthest from a perfect system currently in place.

The common rebuttal to what I’ve said is that the justice system is rarely just. That may be the case but justice is not going to be improved by moving to a kangaroo court. We may as well throw defendants in the river and pronounce those who do not drown to be guilty.

I would agree with you if it worked the other way. If jurors could say: okay, he didn’t do the arson, but something’s off and he should go to jail anyway, that would not be a functional justice system. As it is, having jury nullification just makes it a looser system, nowhere near kangaroo court.

Cheese chips and guacamole could be okay, but if you can’t have any protein or carbohydrates, that would be difficult.

Older people grew up writing less than younger people have, because of texting, so they’re more accustomed to taking their time with the proprieties of grammar. Younger people began using grammar as a tone marker differently from how it had previously been used, so they tend to see a bigger difference between “no” and “No.” as an answer to a question than older people do. For younger people, the latter tends to seem more abrupt and final, which could come across rudely.

You don’t start hating your SO when you get married. You start hating your SO when you take them for granted and/or if you’re poorly matched. Being married is fucking awesome.

But yes, my husband and I both have pictures of each other sleeping on our phones.

Big difference between all (the comment I replied to) and most

Lucky the USA allows everyone to vote no matter what; doesn’t schedule it for a standard workday, meaning nobody has to choose between feeding their kids and voting; plans out enough polling stations so that people don’t have to wait for hours without access to food, water, or seating; doesn’t surprise deregister voters with little notice; and sends out absentee ballots reliably with sufficient time to return them…

US-American fascism isn’t new for Latin America. I’m not surprised that there are good people there who can recognize and name it. Kudos to him for stating it so plainly and not trying to soften it.

That said, I’m going nuts here- any ideas which miller?

I would be conflicted about a child with infantile tay-Sachs (there are probably other similar diseases, but I don’t know them). That’s a short, excruciating life, and I would not want to live it. But the idea of someone choosing euthanasia for someone else, even someone under their care, is pretty abhorrent to me. It seems too ripe for abuse, and the right to decide to end your own life should not be transferable. The ending of it can be, but only under circumstances determined by the person (so I could tell my husband that I don’t want to keep going if I can’t recognize my children, for example, and when I reach that point, he could kill me, but he can’t decide what the line is).

In the 1971 case of Arkell v Pressdram,[76] Arkell’s lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: “His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.” Private Eye responded: “We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.”[77] The plaintiff withdrew the threatened lawsuit.[78] The magazine has since used this exchange as a euphemism for a blunt and coarse dismissal, i.e.: “We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram”.[79][80] As with “tired and emotional” this usage has spread beyond the magazine.

For context, from the Wikipedia for private eye magazine

I’m also autistic and also don’t really feel anger. I feel disappointed and/or frustrated with how people act, and I can feel a complete lack of goodwill towards people (not my baseline, I generally want to help people if I can). There are certainly people who deserve negative consequences for their actions and I don’t feel any compassion for Assad, for example. I probably wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire, but I don’t feel angry with him (I might if I were Syrian and/or had more experience with the effects of his actions).

In my personal life, I don’t have any exes that I’m angry with (and I have some awful exes), it’s either confused, afraid of, pitying, neutral or positive.

Though tbh, I’m not sure if I just don’t recognize anger but do feel it. A coworker was sketchy about a tip we should have shared the other day, and I felt that it was wrong she pretended she hadn’t gotten a tip, and sad for her that she’d be deceptive about €0,65, but I wasn’t angry.

I do feel spiteful sometimes, which has got to be similar, but the only way I really express that is being extra polite to someone who’s being a dick so they feel guilty. It feels to me like I do that because I want them to be less rude in the future and I want to help induce the natural consequence of guilt that comes along with rudeness, but that could also just be my rationalizing it.

It’s actually a syllabic L, which is often spelled out as a schwa in pronunciation dictionaries.

If you speak German, an equivalent would be the -en on most unconjugated verbs. Haben is pronounced with a syllabic n (or m, depending on your accent), for example.

The difference is basically in length. A syllabic consonant is shorter than even a short vowel sound, and which vowel it uses depends on the language. It’s a schwa in English because that’s basically our default vowel, as you pointed out, but not every language uses a schwa as the syllabic consonant carrier: Serbo-Croatian uses [u].

There were already multiple patterns for words ending in “er” (both the doer words, like runner, and a series of words like butter, feather, sister), so it could be a conflation, but I think it’s more likely that it’s just a simplification. British has “er” and “re” endings for meter, depending on whether it’s a verb or a noun, and Americans just spell both “er” for simplicity’s sake.

So bad it’s good or nah?

If the beavers banded together and tried to exterminate humanity, they wouldn’t get as far as humanity would exterminating beaverkind. That’s domination: exerting your will on those around you to their detriment and not being deterred by their resistance, no?

I don’t think that’s a fun competition or nice thing to consider, but there are few animals that could come close to beating us in that regard. Ants, termites, and bees are the first that come to mind for me, but there are probably other possibilities.

Plants, fungi, and bacteria on the other hand… I don’t think we could really expect to win against the most ubiquitous examples of those.