Ohio Vote Results

[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:

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).

Your view is not libertarian, but you can continue to identify as such if it supports your identity.

A libertarian would say if medical ethics rather than statute governs life and death of a living baby, there’s no reason to make a separate law for fetuses.

[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?

This is really the heart of it, isn’t it. I gladly shared my body with my two children. But that was entirely my choice. As it should be.

[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.

Who gets to decide that? The state? Or the woman and her doctor?

[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?

This is really the heart of it, isn’t it. I gladly shared my body with my two children. But that was entirely my choice. As it should be.

This. And I believe most parents would willingly shoulder much greater risks and donate organs to their children and that’s why there’s no need for a law compelling them to do so. We trust people to make their own choices with their kidneys, we should trust people to make their own choices with their ovaries.

Because the quasi-libertarian doesn’t actually believe in a right to life. They believe in a right to control women after the second trimester of pregnancy.

[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:

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).

Your view is not libertarian, but you can continue to identify as such if it supports your identity.

A libertarian would say if medical ethics rather than statute governs life and death of a living baby, there’s no reason to make a separate law for fetuses.

I’m suggesting that the political process can resolve this rather difficult moral issue. I value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I recognize the rare competing interests here. Like I said, I thought Roe made a reasonable compromise, but I think you’re pushing further than that, and I don’t think the majority of America with that. I’ll concede that the majority of America is not with total bans.

[Anonymous]

There are, not the rare

[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.

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

Call her what you want. She’s still a human life.

[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:

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).

Your view is not libertarian, but you can continue to identify as such if it supports your identity.

A libertarian would say if medical ethics rather than statute governs life and death of a living baby, there’s no reason to make a separate law for fetuses.

I’m suggesting that the political process can resolve this rather difficult moral issue. I value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I recognize the rare competing interests here. Like I said, I thought Roe made a reasonable compromise, but I think you’re pushing further than that, and I don’t think the majority of America with that. I’ll concede that the majority of America is not with total bans.

I’m pushing both less and more than Roe.

“Abortion is not regulated but must fall within the medical guidelines and ethics of the state in which the practitioner is licensed”

I would even support a federal law that explicitly protects individuals from being compelled to have abortions, or to perform them, to protect the individual liberties of genuine conscientious objectors.

But what we’ve seen when states are unbound in their power to control women, is that they maximize that power and use it to abuse and victimize those women. I therefor do not believe those states should have the power to regulate medical care— they have shown they will abuse it.

And my position is the true libertarian position.

[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:

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).

First, I don’t think this happens. Nobody randomly decides to abort a healthy fetus in the third trimester unless there is serious threat to the mother. And likely not even then. Most common would be to deliver early.

Second, from a purely philosophical perspective (because this scenario doesn’t happen), I don’t think you get to talk about “competing interests” when you are talking about a person’s body. There are no competing interests. You are the only person who should have say over your body. Anything less than that is slavery.

[Anonymous]

Too bad our medical industry has become completely politically controlled.

[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:

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).

Your view is not libertarian, but you can continue to identify as such if it supports your identity.

A libertarian would say if medical ethics rather than statute governs life and death of a living baby, there’s no reason to make a separate law for fetuses.

I’m suggesting that the political process can resolve this rather difficult moral issue. I value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I recognize the rare competing interests here. Like I said, I thought Roe made a reasonable compromise, but I think you’re pushing further than that, and I don’t think the majority of America with that. I’ll concede that the majority of America is not with total bans.

It’s not a difficult moral issue. You have chosen to read only forced birther propaganda. You have ignored every last scrap and shred of evidence that women who are pregnant and don’t want to be pregnant try to get unpregnant ASAP. There’s no sitting around woolgathering and then changing their mind. There’s - or was, since abortion is fundamentally out of reach for millions of women in fascist states - women trying to look up where to go, saving up for childcare, gas money or bus fare, saving up for the procedure itself, saving up for hotel fare for waiting periods. If you don’t want to be pregnant, you get unpregnant as fast as you can.

And then there are the health abortions. Literally go read some later abortion stories, real ones, not whatever swill Life News has thrown at you that has you so befuddled, and then get back to us. If a woman is having an abortion past twenty weeks, thank your lucky gotdang stars that such a thing was ever visited upon you. And if it was and you chose to carry it till the end, peace be with you and your departed babe.

But stop talking out of arrogant ignorance and expecting people to think you’re rational. You’re not. You’re dumb. Go get smart.

[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.

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

Call her what you want. She’s still a human life.

Not if they are a "developing person" that is not viable outside the womb, they are not.

[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.

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

Call her what you want. She’s still a human life.

No, she’s not. A human can breathe and live on their own. A fetus is dependent on its mother for life. It cannot breathe and live on its own.

[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:

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).

Your view is not libertarian, but you can continue to identify as such if it supports your identity.

A libertarian would say if medical ethics rather than statute governs life and death of a living baby, there’s no reason to make a separate law for fetuses.

I’m suggesting that the political process can resolve this rather difficult moral issue. I value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I recognize the rare competing interests here. Like I said, I thought Roe made a reasonable compromise, but I think you’re pushing further than that, and I don’t think the majority of America with that. I’ll concede that the majority of America is not with total bans.

I’m pushing both less and more than Roe.

“Abortion is not regulated but must fall within the medical guidelines and ethics of the state in which the practitioner is licensed”

I would even support a federal law that explicitly protects individuals from being compelled to have abortions, or to perform them, to protect the individual liberties of genuine conscientious objectors.

But what we’ve seen when states are unbound in their power to control women, is that they maximize that power and use it to abuse and victimize those women. I therefor do not believe those states should have the power to regulate medical care— they have shown they will abuse it.

And my position is the true libertarian position.

This is excellent. Thank you for posting.

[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.

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

Call her what you want. She’s still a human life.

OK. No other category of human gets to live off the organs of another human without their ongoing consent. They certainly cannot reside in the body of another human against that human’s will. I don’t object to someone’s perspective that a fetus is a human—don’t necessarily agree but don’t object— I object to the idea that a fetus somehow has greater rights than a newborn, or an adult human. That is simply not a rational perspective.