Ohio Vote Results

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It’s clear the public is on democrats side on the issue. Pro-choice wins whenever it’s on the ballot even in red states. The trick is translating that into candidate elections. When people vote for candidates, they are thinking about many issues and abortion is just one.


You would think rhetoric along the lines of "this is an issue of freedom for a woman and mother, it is between her and her medical practitioner, not the state" would resonate with non-evangelical libertarians.


I think most rationale people realize that if the mother is seeking to terminate a pregnancy, there is no one to advocate for the developing-person-in-utero except the state. And the state has no tool to give it a voice except by laws.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It’s clear the public is on democrats side on the issue. Pro-choice wins whenever it’s on the ballot even in red states. The trick is translating that into candidate elections. When people vote for candidates, they are thinking about many issues and abortion is just one.


You would think rhetoric along the lines of "this is an issue of freedom for a woman and mother, it is between her and her medical practitioner, not the state" would resonate with non-evangelical libertarians.


I think most rationale people realize that if the mother is seeking to terminate a pregnancy, there is no one to advocate for the developing-person-in-utero except the state. And the state has no tool to give it a voice except by laws.


Actually, most rational people recognize that fetuses do not have personhood.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It’s clear the public is on democrats side on the issue. Pro-choice wins whenever it’s on the ballot even in red states. The trick is translating that into candidate elections. When people vote for candidates, they are thinking about many issues and abortion is just one.


You would think rhetoric along the lines of "this is an issue of freedom for a woman and mother, it is between her and her medical practitioner, not the state" would resonate with non-evangelical libertarians.


I think most rationale people realize that if the mother is seeking to terminate a pregnancy, there is no one to advocate for the developing-person-in-utero except the state. And the state has no tool to give it a voice except by laws.


LOL. Where are the rights for the developing-person-in-testes?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It’s clear the public is on democrats side on the issue. Pro-choice wins whenever it’s on the ballot even in red states. The trick is translating that into candidate elections. When people vote for candidates, they are thinking about many issues and abortion is just one.


You would think rhetoric along the lines of "this is an issue of freedom for a woman and mother, it is between her and her medical practitioner, not the state" would resonate with non-evangelical libertarians.


I think most rationale people realize that if the mother is seeking to terminate a pregnancy, there is no one to advocate for the developing-person-in-utero except the state. And the state has no tool to give it a voice except by laws.


Actually, most rational people recognize that fetuses do not have personhood.


Unfortunately, your statement can be misconstrued as being in favor of abortion any time prior to birth, which is just fodder for the right.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It’s clear the public is on democrats side on the issue. Pro-choice wins whenever it’s on the ballot even in red states. The trick is translating that into candidate elections. When people vote for candidates, they are thinking about many issues and abortion is just one.


You would think rhetoric along the lines of "this is an issue of freedom for a woman and mother, it is between her and her medical practitioner, not the state" would resonate with non-evangelical libertarians.


I think most rationale people realize that if the mother is seeking to terminate a pregnancy, there is no one to advocate for the developing-person-in-utero except the state. And the state has no tool to give it a voice except by laws.


LOL. Where are the rights for the developing-person-in-testes?


The same as for unfertilized eggs, one might think.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It’s clear the public is on democrats side on the issue. Pro-choice wins whenever it’s on the ballot even in red states. The trick is translating that into candidate elections. When people vote for candidates, they are thinking about many issues and abortion is just one.


You would think rhetoric along the lines of "this is an issue of freedom for a woman and mother, it is between her and her medical practitioner, not the state" would resonate with non-evangelical libertarians.


I think most rationale people realize that if the mother is seeking to terminate a pregnancy, there is no one to advocate for the developing-person-in-utero except the state. And the state has no tool to give it a voice except by laws.


I’m loving how out of touch and deluded you are. Mostly because it makes fighting for women’s rights easier. Carry on.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It’s clear the public is on democrats side on the issue. Pro-choice wins whenever it’s on the ballot even in red states. The trick is translating that into candidate elections. When people vote for candidates, they are thinking about many issues and abortion is just one.


You would think rhetoric along the lines of "this is an issue of freedom for a woman and mother, it is between her and her medical practitioner, not the state" would resonate with non-evangelical libertarians.


I think most rationale people realize that if the mother is seeking to terminate a pregnancy, there is no one to advocate for the developing-person-in-utero except the state. And the state has no tool to give it a voice except by laws.


I’m loving how out of touch and deluded you are. Mostly because it makes fighting for women’s rights easier. Carry on.


I think the lines drawn by the Roe v Wade decision were reasonable limitations. Is that “out of touch”? Those limitations are the state acting on behalf of the fetus. I disagree that this is an issue that can simply be left to the mother and her medical provider.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It’s clear the public is on democrats side on the issue. Pro-choice wins whenever it’s on the ballot even in red states. The trick is translating that into candidate elections. When people vote for candidates, they are thinking about many issues and abortion is just one.


You would think rhetoric along the lines of "this is an issue of freedom for a woman and mother, it is between her and her medical practitioner, not the state" would resonate with non-evangelical libertarians.


I think most rationale people realize that if the mother is seeking to terminate a pregnancy, there is no one to advocate for the developing-person-in-utero except the state. And the state has no tool to give it a voice except by laws.


I’m loving how out of touch and deluded you are. Mostly because it makes fighting for women’s rights easier. Carry on.


I think the lines drawn by the Roe v Wade decision were reasonable limitations. Is that “out of touch”? Those limitations are the state acting on behalf of the fetus. I disagree that this is an issue that can simply be left to the mother and her medical provider.


And there it is. You're placing a fetus in a position equivalent to the women, whose life it depends on. No thank you. THe woman is an EXISTING person who comes first. Always. If she CHOOSES to put herself second or sacrifice herself, that's her choice. You will have no say, nor will the state, in my -or my daughter's- medical decisions including whether to give birth. I'll never concede it. And if I have to be a one-issue voter the rest of my life, so be it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Abortion is “the dog that caught the car” issue for Republicans. They caught the car and overturned Roe. Now they have no idea what to do and they further can’t campaign on finally being able to catch that car. Oops.


It's worse than that. They've programmed their voters to be absolutists on this issue because it was never a reality until now. They've gerrymandered the heck out of their districts and therefore, are terrified of primary challenges in most cases. They'll have to come out unequivocally for an abortion ban, which will kill their chances with moderates and independents in the general. Their base is too big for the primary and too small for the general in many, many parts of the country. I don't envy the political consultant that has to navigate this minefield or walk back everything that has been said to date (and before it had real life consequences for voters).


+1 this


Once more:

If they were so gerrymandered, why did they choose a GOP governor?
Why did they choose a GOP Senator in their last Senatorial election?


You don’t know what gerrymander means. It has nothing to do with state-wide elections. Omg.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It’s clear the public is on democrats side on the issue. Pro-choice wins whenever it’s on the ballot even in red states. The trick is translating that into candidate elections. When people vote for candidates, they are thinking about many issues and abortion is just one.


You would think rhetoric along the lines of "this is an issue of freedom for a woman and mother, it is between her and her medical practitioner, not the state" would resonate with non-evangelical libertarians.


I think most rationale people realize that if the mother is seeking to terminate a pregnancy, there is no one to advocate for the developing-person-in-utero except the state. And the state has no tool to give it a voice except by laws.


I’m loving how out of touch and deluded you are. Mostly because it makes fighting for women’s rights easier. Carry on.


I think the lines drawn by the Roe v Wade decision were reasonable limitations. Is that “out of touch”? Those limitations are the state acting on behalf of the fetus. I disagree that this is an issue that can simply be left to the mother and her medical provider.


You may disagree, but it isn't your business. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. Don't tell other people what they can, or cannot do, with their bodies.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It’s clear the public is on democrats side on the issue. Pro-choice wins whenever it’s on the ballot even in red states. The trick is translating that into candidate elections. When people vote for candidates, they are thinking about many issues and abortion is just one.


You would think rhetoric along the lines of "this is an issue of freedom for a woman and mother, it is between her and her medical practitioner, not the state" would resonate with non-evangelical libertarians.


I think most rationale people realize that if the mother is seeking to terminate a pregnancy, there is no one to advocate for the developing-person-in-utero except the state. And the state has no tool to give it a voice except by laws.


Actually, most rational people recognize that fetuses do not have personhood.


Unfortunately, your statement can be misconstrued as being in favor of abortion any time prior to birth, which is just fodder for the right.


I find this argument specious. No provider will perform such an abortion when it is safer to the mother to delivery the baby— which has been documented on this forum ad infinitum. So just because it will be “fodder” for people arguing in bad faith (just like the whole “late term” and “partial birth” hysteria were in bad faith) doesn’t mean someone shouldn’t hold or state the view that fetuses aren’t people.

In other words, everyone can stop worrying about offending the rights fake sensibilities— they’ve already shown their true colors.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It’s clear the public is on democrats side on the issue. Pro-choice wins whenever it’s on the ballot even in red states. The trick is translating that into candidate elections. When people vote for candidates, they are thinking about many issues and abortion is just one.


You would think rhetoric along the lines of "this is an issue of freedom for a woman and mother, it is between her and her medical practitioner, not the state" would resonate with non-evangelical libertarians.


I think most rationale people realize that if the mother is seeking to terminate a pregnancy, there is no one to advocate for the developing-person-in-utero except the state. And the state has no tool to give it a voice except by laws.


Then how do you explain the fact that Ohio voters have paved the way for a constitutional amendment protecting pregnant people from exactly your argument?
Anonymous
By the way, I think fetal “personhood” is fine. I don’t think fetus’ are a special kind of person with a right to unfettered access to the body of another person who is unwilling to host them.

Case law on this kind of bodily autonomy for **men** is quite clear— they cannot even be compelled to donate a drop of blood to save a living child.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It’s clear the public is on democrats side on the issue. Pro-choice wins whenever it’s on the ballot even in red states. The trick is translating that into candidate elections. When people vote for candidates, they are thinking about many issues and abortion is just one.


You would think rhetoric along the lines of "this is an issue of freedom for a woman and mother, it is between her and her medical practitioner, not the state" would resonate with non-evangelical libertarians.


I think most rationale people realize that if the mother is seeking to terminate a pregnancy, there is no one to advocate for the developing-person-in-utero except the state. And the state has no tool to give it a voice except by laws.


The developing person isn't a person. problem solved.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It’s clear the public is on democrats side on the issue. Pro-choice wins whenever it’s on the ballot even in red states. The trick is translating that into candidate elections. When people vote for candidates, they are thinking about many issues and abortion is just one.


You would think rhetoric along the lines of "this is an issue of freedom for a woman and mother, it is between her and her medical practitioner, not the state" would resonate with non-evangelical libertarians.


I think most rationale people realize that if the mother is seeking to terminate a pregnancy, there is no one to advocate for the developing-person-in-utero except the state. And the state has no tool to give it a voice except by laws.


LOL. Where are the rights for the developing-person-in-testes?


The same as for unfertilized eggs, one might think.


Prediction: they regulate eggs before they come after sperm.
post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: