Ohio Vote Results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s things like this which make me feel *Democrats* aren’t doing enough. There should be a federal investigation, and a federal lawsuit/criminal charges, against this hospital for ignoring federal statute— the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

The Biden administration threatened to fine or strip Medicare funding from hospitals that did not provide emergency care. It’s time for them to follow through and not treat dying women as potential campaign ads.

[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.

This exactly.

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

Even up until the moment before natural birth?
As long as mom and doc agree.
Even up until the moment before natural birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you aware of a method of delivering the child which does not imperil the life of the mother? Again— kidney donation is a dramatically safer procedure than childbirth in the U.S. Requiring childbirth in a country with maternal mortality statistics like our own is an inherent admission that women have less a right to life than the fetuses they carry, and that’s pretty sick.

[Anonymous]

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.

This exactly.

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

Even up until the moment before natural birth?
As long as mom and doc agree.
Even up until the moment before natural birth.

That’s not a thing.

[Anonymous]

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.

This exactly.

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

Even up until the moment before natural birth?
As long as mom and doc agree.
Even up until the moment before natural birth.

Until the moment a doctor deems delivery safer for the pregnant person.

An article posted here the last time this fake argument came up cited that as the standard used by the physicians who provide the latest abortions in the U.S and said it would vary based on the patient and her condition which— get ready— is why these decisions should be made by doctors and not politicians or DCUM anti-choicers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you aware of a method of delivering the child which does not imperil the life of the mother? Again— kidney donation is a dramatically safer procedure than childbirth in the U.S. Requiring childbirth in a country with maternal mortality statistics like our own is an inherent admission that women have less a right to life than the fetuses they carry, and that’s pretty sick.

I made the concession that if a pregnant woman is that concerned, they have the first two trimesters to make this decision. Why, if that concerned with an otherwise healthy pregnancy, does the pregnant woman now need an abortion on the third trimester? At that point, my sympathy goes to the unborn child. Again, sorry this doesn’t make sense to you—as suspected, I do t think you want it to make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you aware of a method of delivering the child which does not imperil the life of the mother? Again— kidney donation is a dramatically safer procedure than childbirth in the U.S. Requiring childbirth in a country with maternal mortality statistics like our own is an inherent admission that women have less a right to life than the fetuses they carry, and that’s pretty sick.

I made the concession that if a pregnant woman is that concerned, they have the first two trimesters to make this decision. Why, if that concerned with an otherwise healthy pregnancy, does the pregnant woman now need an abortion on the third trimester? At that point, my sympathy goes to the unborn child. Again, sorry this doesn’t make sense to you—as suspected, I do t think you want it to make sense.

I am not the poster who said to make it make sense, because it’s logically flawed unless you are willing to concede that fetuses have a greater— not equal— right to life than the person carrying them. I think the poster who stipulated that’s because they may be male is likely on to something.

Medical decisions aren’t made based on who you sympathize with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you aware of a method of delivering the child which does not imperil the life of the mother? Again— kidney donation is a dramatically safer procedure than childbirth in the U.S. Requiring childbirth in a country with maternal mortality statistics like our own is an inherent admission that women have less a right to life than the fetuses they carry, and that’s pretty sick.

I made the concession that if a pregnant woman is that concerned, they have the first two trimesters to make this decision. Why, if that concerned with an otherwise healthy pregnancy, does the pregnant woman now need an abortion on the third trimester? At that point, my sympathy goes to the unborn child. Again, sorry this doesn’t make sense to you—as suspected, I do t think you want it to make sense.

I am not the poster who said to make it make sense, because it’s logically flawed unless you are willing to concede that fetuses have a greater— not equal— right to life than the person carrying them. I think the poster who stipulated that’s because they may be male is likely on to something.

Medical decisions aren’t made based on who you sympathize with.

I think what you’re proposing is that if a women even fears her life is in danger, she should be free to abort in the third trimester. I’m agreeing that if a doctor agrees, then so be it. However, if her doctor thinks this is a normal pregnancy, then the right to life precedes the right to, without reason, abort in the third trimester. That was basically Roe. If you’re trying to push further than Roe, you should concede that. I would wager, people are not on board with that.

[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.

No, not really. A developing person is,....not a person. THAT is pretty simple to understand for most people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you aware of a method of delivering the child which does not imperil the life of the mother? Again— kidney donation is a dramatically safer procedure than childbirth in the U.S. Requiring childbirth in a country with maternal mortality statistics like our own is an inherent admission that women have less a right to life than the fetuses they carry, and that’s pretty sick.

I made the concession that if a pregnant woman is that concerned, they have the first two trimesters to make this decision. Why, if that concerned with an otherwise healthy pregnancy, does the pregnant woman now need an abortion on the third trimester? At that point, my sympathy goes to the unborn child. Again, sorry this doesn’t make sense to you—as suspected, I do t think you want it to make sense.

I am not the poster who said to make it make sense, because it’s logically flawed unless you are willing to concede that fetuses have a greater— not equal— right to life than the person carrying them. I think the poster who stipulated that’s because they may be male is likely on to something.

Medical decisions aren’t made based on who you sympathize with.

I think what you’re proposing is that if a women even fears her life is in danger, she should be free to abort in the third trimester. I’m agreeing that if a doctor agrees, then so be it. However, if her doctor thinks this is a normal pregnancy, then the right to life precedes the right to, without reason, abort in the third trimester. That was basically Roe. If you’re trying to push further than Roe, you should concede that. I would wager, people are not on board with that.

Ok this “right to life” you speak of. Your position is, the fetus has it in that it can’t be aborted in the third trimester to avoid its mother taking a 4 in 10,000 chance of dying in childbirth.

But the fetus loses the right to life as soon as it’s born? Because its father can’t be compelled to take a .003 in 10,000 chance of dying to donate a kidney to save it if it is born without kidneys.

This is what doesn’t make sense.

[Anonymous]

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.

This exactly.

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

Even up until the moment before natural birth?
As long as mom and doc agree.
Even up until the moment before natural birth.

Do you honestly think there are women out there who carry a fetus to something after 6 months and say "nah, nevermind"????? No, either they terminate a pregnancy as early as they can or they want the baby and expect to carry it to term. After 6 months, people are painting rooms, buying furniture, stocking up on diapers and thinking of names. No one take a baby past viability and then wants to terminate. It just doesn't happen. It is a total red herring posited by people like you without actually thinking it through, nor can you cite any examples where this happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they want women to be in control of their own bodies.

Most of us want adults in control of their own bodies. That means responsibly using actual birth control, rather than abortion to avoid having a child. If you don’t know what you’re doing, perhaps use two methods of birth control.

So why do those who oppose abortion almost always oppose coverage of birth control?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
In which country is abortion legally permitted up until one minute before natural birth?

NONE. Yet Democrats demand that opportunity... to end the life one moment before natural birth.

How satanic is that?

Please cite an example where someone terminated a viable pregnancy at 8/9 months without the life of the mother or the viability of the fetus at stake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you aware of a method of delivering the child which does not imperil the life of the mother? Again— kidney donation is a dramatically safer procedure than childbirth in the U.S. Requiring childbirth in a country with maternal mortality statistics like our own is an inherent admission that women have less a right to life than the fetuses they carry, and that’s pretty sick.

I made the concession that if a pregnant woman is that concerned, they have the first two trimesters to make this decision. Why, if that concerned with an otherwise healthy pregnancy, does the pregnant woman now need an abortion on the third trimester? At that point, my sympathy goes to the unborn child. Again, sorry this doesn’t make sense to you—as suspected, I do t think you want it to make sense.

Tell me you’ve never been pregnant without telling me you’ve never been pregnant. 🙄 You cannot possibly believe a person just decides to abort a perfectly healthy baby on a whim in the third trimester, and that there are doctors willing to do this. Do you know how much a late term abortion costs (thousands), and how few providers even do this?

What if the baby has a medical issue that will not allow it to survive or have a very poor quality of life, but there is not an imminent threat to the mother’s life?

In addition, healthcare in this country is sh*t for poor and rural people, who may have wanted to have an abortion earlier but were not able to access a provider? Something that has been made catastrophically worse by Dobbs, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you aware of a method of delivering the child which does not imperil the life of the mother? Again— kidney donation is a dramatically safer procedure than childbirth in the U.S. Requiring childbirth in a country with maternal mortality statistics like our own is an inherent admission that women have less a right to life than the fetuses they carry, and that’s pretty sick.

I made the concession that if a pregnant woman is that concerned, they have the first two trimesters to make this decision. Why, if that concerned with an otherwise healthy pregnancy, does the pregnant woman now need an abortion on the third trimester? At that point, my sympathy goes to the unborn child. Again, sorry this doesn’t make sense to you—as suspected, I do t think you want it to make sense.

I am not the poster who said to make it make sense, because it’s logically flawed unless you are willing to concede that fetuses have a greater— not equal— right to life than the person carrying them. I think the poster who stipulated that’s because they may be male is likely on to something.

Medical decisions aren’t made based on who you sympathize with.

I think what you’re proposing is that if a women even fears her life is in danger, she should be free to abort in the third trimester. I’m agreeing that if a doctor agrees, then so be it. However, if her doctor thinks this is a normal pregnancy, then the right to life precedes the right to, without reason, abort in the third trimester. That was basically Roe. If you’re trying to push further than Roe, you should concede that. I would wager, people are not on board with that.

Ok this “right to life” you speak of. Your position is, the fetus has it in that it can’t be aborted in the third trimester to avoid its mother taking a 4 in 10,000 chance of dying in childbirth.

But the fetus loses the right to life as soon as it’s born? Because its father can’t be compelled to take a .003 in 10,000 chance of dying to donate a kidney to save it if it is born without kidneys.

This is what doesn’t make sense.

Again, really sorry it doesn’t make sense to you that a person that has agency for two trimesters, which she doesn’t exercise, might then give it up because there are competing interests at stake. Seems a solid balancing of interests. But you do you. And good luck with that in the ballot box (which, admittedly, is not really the option at the ballot box, but someone asked what a “non-evangelical libertarian” thought about it, and I gave my view).