Ohio Vote Results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think abortion should be legal. But, it is only "healthcare" in extremely rare cases.

I do not understand the activists who cannot see that. Abortion is abortion. I agree with Bill Clinton, it should be "legal and rare."

Unfortunately, ghouls have turned it into a routing procedure.

You are ignorant.
I’m embarrassed for you. There is literally no excuse for your ignorance. Shame on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think abortion should be legal. But, it is only "healthcare" in extremely rare cases.

I do not understand the activists who cannot see that. Abortion is abortion. I agree with Bill Clinton, it should be "legal and rare."

Unfortunately, ghouls have turned it into a routing procedure.

Would you say it’s healthcare when a ten year old is raped?

Healthcare when a woman is turned away from an ER while hemorrhaging from miscarriage?

Healthcare when a woman’s fallopian tubes are destroyed by the infection caused by her lack of care?

You may believe abortion is “not healthcare” but it’s clearly the case, as we’ve seen hundreds of times since Roe fell, that a lack of abortion is a healthcare crisis. Sick men who were willing to put us in this position have no place making further decisions around women’s health.

[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.

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

Well, we have this whole political system where we vote for people to legislate on our behalf that is playing out right now. If laws are enacted, the executive branch of the state administers them. Somewhere in that process the details of who makes that call and under what guidelines gets worked out.

You cannot legislate away inalienable rights. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think abortion should be legal. But, it is only "healthcare" in extremely rare cases.

I do not understand the activists who cannot see that. Abortion is abortion. I agree with Bill Clinton, it should be "legal and rare."

Unfortunately, ghouls have turned it into a routing procedure.

Not yo use a trite phrase, but tell me you don't know anything about women undergoing fertility treatments, without telling me you don't know anything about women undergoing fertility treatments.

And in those cases it is almost always a heartbreaking choice by the parents.

Politicians have no business in that doctor's office on that day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because pregnancy is God's righteous punishment for sex. Birth control and abortion both cheat the Lord of his due.

[Anonymous]

Chris Wallace to Pete Buttigieg: "Do you believe, at any point in pregnancy, whether it's at six weeks or eight weeks or 24 weeks or whenever, that there should be any limit on a woman's right to have an abortion?"

Buttigieg: "I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on where you draw the line that we've gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line, and I trust women to draw the line when it's their own health."

[Wallace pointed out that there are more than 6000 women who get third trimester abortions each year.]

Buttigieg: "That's right, representing one percent of cases. So let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, than almost by definition, you've been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."

[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.

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

Well, we have this whole political system where we vote for people to legislate on our behalf that is playing out right now. If laws are enacted, the executive branch of the state administers them. Somewhere in that process the details of who makes that call and under what guidelines gets worked out.

You cannot legislate away inalienable rights. Sorry.

Wishful thinking of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke notwithstanding, there is nothing natural or inalienable about rights. Rights are entirely manufactured and history is a relentless account of those rights being alienated in every conceivable way. Because rights are human creations, we have to demand them and demand that they be enforced.

[Anonymous]

I STILL don't understand why the GOP, which is normally so wary of and opposed to government overreach, is pushing for the biggest example of government overreach in my lifetime--letting the government make decisions for women about the most consequential situation in a woman's life--pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chris Wallace to Pete Buttigieg: "Do you believe, at any point in pregnancy, whether it's at six weeks or eight weeks or 24 weeks or whenever, that there should be any limit on a woman's right to have an abortion?"

Buttigieg: "I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on where you draw the line that we've gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line, and I trust women to draw the line when it's their own health."

[Wallace pointed out that there are more than 6000 women who get third trimester abortions each year.]

Buttigieg: "That's right, representing one percent of cases. So let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, than almost by definition, you've been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."

Why did it take 40 years and a gay man to concisely sum it up for the idiots? Oh well. God bless mayor Pete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think abortion should be legal. But, it is only "healthcare" in extremely rare cases.

I do not understand the activists who cannot see that. Abortion is abortion. I agree with Bill Clinton, it should be "legal and rare."

Unfortunately, ghouls have turned it into a routing procedure.

It’s so much more rare than it was when Clinton said that, but you still lie about it.

[Anonymous]

Ohio poster here:
I also saw a lot of sneering “abortion isn’t healthcare it’s murder!”
On Nextdoor.
Seems like a crazy stance but priests and pastors are drilling it hard on sundays around here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ohio poster here:
I also saw a lot of sneering “abortion isn’t healthcare it’s murder!”
On Nextdoor.
Seems like a crazy stance but priests and pastors are drilling it hard on sundays around here.

Clergy should stay out of politics. Period. It's appalling to me that they are allowed to mix politics with religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ohio poster here:
I also saw a lot of sneering “abortion isn’t healthcare it’s murder!”
On Nextdoor.
Seems like a crazy stance but priests and pastors are drilling it hard on sundays around here.

Clergy should stay out of politics. Period. It's appalling to me that they are allowed to mix politics with religion.

Omg it was all over around here. The Catholic Church printed leaflets for vote yes and handed out on Sunday.
I truly don’t understand how that’s allowed but it is.
- not a lawyer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ohio poster here:
I also saw a lot of sneering “abortion isn’t healthcare it’s murder!”
On Nextdoor.
Seems like a crazy stance but priests and pastors are drilling it hard on sundays around here.

I had a chat with my pastor about abortion, and he said he doesn't believe in it.

Then I said, "What would you do if the pregnancy was a risk to your wife's health?"

He paused for a bit, the replied, "I'd want her to have an abortion."

An abortion is an abortion irrespective of the reason for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ohio poster here:
I also saw a lot of sneering “abortion isn’t healthcare it’s murder!”
On Nextdoor.
Seems like a crazy stance but priests and pastors are drilling it hard on sundays around here.

Clergy should stay out of politics. Period. It's appalling to me that they are allowed to mix politics with religion.

Omg it was all over around here. The Catholic Church printed leaflets for vote yes and handed out on Sunday.
I truly don’t understand how that’s allowed but it is.
- not a lawyer

Catholics are one of the biggest hypocrites.

They want to force a woman to give birth because it's orally morally wrong to abort, but then they don't want higher taxes to support the baby that was forced to be born because those sluts should've kept their legs closed, and the baby is the mother's problem, not theirs.