Ohio Vote Results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rational people have seen how much can go wrong with pregnancy, and how only doctors should be deciding with patients what is best.

“FIRST DO NO HARM”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just remember young people
Republicans think the state needs to be involved in your medical care.
You are your doctor can’t be trusted
The state needs to decide.

+1 And Ohio is the state where a lawmaker put forth an amendment that said an OB/Gyn would be subject to murder charges if he or she didn’t attempt to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy in the patient’s uterus, something which is medically impossible.
https://consultqd.clevelandclinic.org/new-ohio-bill-falsely-suggests-that-reimplantation-of-ectopic-pregnancy-is-possible/amp/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok. Someone up thread remarked that: “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.

As a non-evangelical libertarian, I agree that it is an issue of freedom for a woman, but that it is also an issue of a right to life for the fetus, and that a line must be drawn somewhere during the pregnancy when the fetus’s right to life takes precedence. I remarked that “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 later remarked that “I think the lines drawn by the Roe v Wade decision were reasonable limitations.” That’s it. I think the Roe decision was reasonable; it placed limitations on the right to an abortion. I think it’s appropriate for the state to say, after the second trimester, abortions should be limited except in very rare cases.

So all of that to say, as a non-evangelical libertarian, I think the issue is more nuanced than how it was presented by the upthread poster.

Why does a fetus have a greater right to life than a newborn? This position has never made sense to me. No American can be forced to donate their body to provide lifesaving care to a newborn, but a woman has to endanger her health and risk her to give live-providing care to a fetus? Why?

I’m sorry this doesn’t make sense to you.

[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.

This exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok. Someone up thread remarked that: “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.

As a non-evangelical libertarian, I agree that it is an issue of freedom for a woman, but that it is also an issue of a right to life for the fetus, and that a line must be drawn somewhere during the pregnancy when the fetus’s right to life takes precedence. I remarked that “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 later remarked that “I think the lines drawn by the Roe v Wade decision were reasonable limitations.” That’s it. I think the Roe decision was reasonable; it placed limitations on the right to an abortion. I think it’s appropriate for the state to say, after the second trimester, abortions should be limited except in very rare cases.

So all of that to say, as a non-evangelical libertarian, I think the issue is more nuanced than how it was presented by the upthread poster.

Why does a fetus have a greater right to life than a newborn? This position has never made sense to me. No American can be forced to donate their body to provide lifesaving care to a newborn, but a woman has to endanger her health and risk her to give live-providing care to a fetus? Why?

This is an excellent question.
Ultimately I think it involves men. A potential donor outside the womb might be male, and he must never be compelled or infringed.
But the life in the womb might also be male, and must take precedence.
It’s twisted but consistent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok. Someone up thread remarked that: “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.

As a non-evangelical libertarian, I agree that it is an issue of freedom for a woman, but that it is also an issue of a right to life for the fetus, and that a line must be drawn somewhere during the pregnancy when the fetus’s right to life takes precedence. I remarked that “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 later remarked that “I think the lines drawn by the Roe v Wade decision were reasonable limitations.” That’s it. I think the Roe decision was reasonable; it placed limitations on the right to an abortion. I think it’s appropriate for the state to say, after the second trimester, abortions should be limited except in very rare cases.

So all of that to say, as a non-evangelical libertarian, I think the issue is more nuanced than how it was presented by the upthread poster.

Why does a fetus have a greater right to life than a newborn? This position has never made sense to me. No American can be forced to donate their body to provide lifesaving care to a newborn, but a woman has to endanger her health and risk her to give live-providing care to a fetus? Why?

I’m sorry this doesn’t make sense to you.

Make it make sense, then. My corpse can’t be subject to organ donation without my prior consent, but in more than a dozen states an embryo gets to use all my organs even though I would choose otherwise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not on board with abortion up until the moment of birth?
You’re a forced birther!!!!’

Yawn. Old and tiresome "argument" that everyone knows is silly because there is no such thing as "abortion up until the moment of birth." Sorry, pal, that fake news doesn't work on people nowadays.

Really?
Up until what point should you legally be able to abort?

[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.

This exactly.

Nobody should legislate what is happening inside another person’s body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok. Someone up thread remarked that: “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.

As a non-evangelical libertarian, I agree that it is an issue of freedom for a woman, but that it is also an issue of a right to life for the fetus, and that a line must be drawn somewhere during the pregnancy when the fetus’s right to life takes precedence. I remarked that “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 later remarked that “I think the lines drawn by the Roe v Wade decision were reasonable limitations.” That’s it. I think the Roe decision was reasonable; it placed limitations on the right to an abortion. I think it’s appropriate for the state to say, after the second trimester, abortions should be limited except in very rare cases.

So all of that to say, as a non-evangelical libertarian, I think the issue is more nuanced than how it was presented by the upthread poster.

Why does a fetus have a greater right to life than a newborn? This position has never made sense to me. No American can be forced to donate their body to provide lifesaving care to a newborn, but a woman has to endanger her health and risk her to give live-providing care to a fetus? Why?

This is an excellent question.
Ultimately I think it involves men. A potential donor outside the womb might be male, and he must never be compelled or infringed.
But the life in the womb might also be male, and must take precedence.
It’s twisted but consistent.

That is actually the best explanation I’ve yet heard, thanks!

I have noticed the case law that makes it plain people can’t be compelled had to do with a man who refused to try to save his brothers child.

On the other hand kidney donation has dramatically fewer deaths (.003% for 10,000 for kidney donation vs approximately 3.3 per 10,000 for childbirth) and can’t be forced upon anyone. But again kidney donors could be male, and they have a right to bodily autonomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not on board with abortion up until the moment of birth?
You’re a forced birther!!!!’

Yawn. Old and tiresome "argument" that everyone knows is silly because there is no such thing as "abortion up until the moment of birth." Sorry, pal, that fake news doesn't work on people nowadays.

Really?
Up until what point should you legally be able to abort?

Until the moment her medical provider deems delivery a safer option for her health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not on board with abortion up until the moment of birth?
You’re a forced birther!!!!’

Yawn. Old and tiresome "argument" that everyone knows is silly because there is no such thing as "abortion up until the moment of birth." Sorry, pal, that fake news doesn't work on people nowadays.

Really?
Up until what point should you legally be able to abort?

Under what circumstance? We’ve been reading the news, have you? It’s seems like there are reasons doctors choose abortion for their patients at just about every point in pregnancy for reasons too numerous to list here. Do you want the hospital taking a pause for legal advice to weigh in, while your daughter is bleeding out? Or maybe one twin has died, but there might be time to save the other? Or there might be time to save the uterus and future fertility?
Actual reasonable, educated people don’t.
They understand that the room is crowded enough, and there isn’t room for the State.
Viability was fine with Roe, but since it’s off the table many Americans are re evaluating the situation. They are better educated, and understand laws might not be answer.
I’m mostly fine with up to viability without a doctor’s approval.
But I don’t feel strongly about it if left entirely to the mother and the Hippocratic oath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok. Someone up thread remarked that: “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.

As a non-evangelical libertarian, I agree that it is an issue of freedom for a woman, but that it is also an issue of a right to life for the fetus, and that a line must be drawn somewhere during the pregnancy when the fetus’s right to life takes precedence. I remarked that “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 later remarked that “I think the lines drawn by the Roe v Wade decision were reasonable limitations.” That’s it. I think the Roe decision was reasonable; it placed limitations on the right to an abortion. I think it’s appropriate for the state to say, after the second trimester, abortions should be limited except in very rare cases.

So all of that to say, as a non-evangelical libertarian, I think the issue is more nuanced than how it was presented by the upthread poster.

Why does a fetus have a greater right to life than a newborn? This position has never made sense to me. No American can be forced to donate their body to provide lifesaving care to a newborn, but a woman has to endanger her health and risk her to give live-providing care to a fetus? Why?

I’m sorry this doesn’t make sense to you.

Make it make sense, then. My corpse can’t be subject to organ donation without my prior consent, but in more than a dozen states an embryo gets to use all my organs even though I would choose otherwise?

I don’t know that you want it to make sense.

Let’s assume a rule like Roe applies, which I indicated I thought was reasonable, and which would allow for an abortion to save the life of the mother in the third trimester. The woman has the agency to make the decision to abort in the first / second trimester. After that, assuming there is no threat to the life of the mother, one might reasonably prioritize the life of the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Holy crap!! And classes don’t start for another two weeks! Go Gen Z!

[Anonymous]

This also happened in Ohio: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/11/15/1135882310/miscarriage-hemorrhage-abortion-law-ohio

Woman knew she was going to miscarry. Her OB said there was no heartbeat, and her hcg was dropping. She was waiting for it to start naturally. She started bleeding very heavily, as in filling up diapers, and went to the ER. They sent her home a few hours later, and told her they had to do their own hcg testing, and to come back in 2 days. The article said that she bled enough to get blood in her shoes while walking from the car to the front door of the home. She lost consciousness, and an ambulance took her back to the hospital. They finally gave her a D&C.

I would like to point out that a D&C for a missed miscarriage or a hemorrhage association with miscarriage is still an abortion. A miscarriage without complications is also an abortion. If I’m the one bleeding out, I don’t want lawmakers to weigh in on whether or not I should get treatment.

[Anonymous]

Ohio poster-
The 10 year old was a real wake up call.
Many thought that was a rare occurrence and then to find out that happens ( in OHIO) 40 -50 times A YEAR!
Everyone has had an education this year.