Ohio Vote Results

[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.

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.

Good for you for trying reason with him. Your pastor’s definition of abortion is:
“Murder committed by a slut”

👆there’s the problem. Also: people need to stop allowing morons to advise them on spiritual matters. Don’t let dumb people get between you god.

[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.

I respectfully disagree. Clergy— genuinely ethical and principled clergy worried about their congregations— were absolutely instrumental in helping women secure abortions before they were legal. The Chicago Jane network got numerous referrals from clergy and clergy (respected in a way women just weren’t) got up in front of state legislatures to advocate for abortion.

[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.

I respectfully disagree. Clergy— genuinely ethical and principled clergy worried about their congregations— were absolutely instrumental in helping women secure abortions before they were legal. The Chicago Jane network got numerous referrals from clergy and clergy (respected in a way women just weren’t) got up in front of state legislatures to advocate for abortion.

Yep. But people need to wisely choose their spiritual advisors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I respectfully disagree. Clergy— genuinely ethical and principled clergy worried about their congregations— were absolutely instrumental in helping women secure abortions before they were legal. The Chicago Jane network got numerous referrals from clergy and clergy (respected in a way women just weren’t) got up in front of state legislatures to advocate for abortion.

Yep. But people need to wisely choose their spiritual advisors.

That’s totally true.

But anti-choice people wrap themselves in the blanket of “my pastor says” or “the bishops say” not realizing that within the lifetime of many people, clergy was working to secure abortion rights for women— even in the same denominations that shout about it now.

https://time.com/4758285/clergy-consultation-abortion/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

"Small government" is just a marketing thing for the GOP. The joke is that they want "government small enough to fit into your bedroom."

[Anonymous]

At least Catholics have been against abortion for a couple hundred years. McDonalds has been selling Happy Meals longer than the other Christian groups have been "pro-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: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.

Yes we demand that they be held and enforced but women will not be forced to give birth. No. You may force a few along the way but the fight is never over until you learn to stay away from our reproductive decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least Catholics have been against abortion for a couple hundred years. McDonalds has been selling Happy Meals longer than the other Christian groups have been "pro-life."

Well they managed to participate in overturning roe and now they are going pay on election day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least Catholics have been against abortion for a couple hundred years. McDonalds has been selling Happy Meals longer than the other Christian groups have been "pro-life."

True, the church has been consistent on the issue, but Catholic women are just as likely to get abortions as other American women.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/01/24/catholics-are-just-likely-get-abortion-other-us-women-why

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least Catholics have been against abortion for a couple hundred years. McDonalds has been selling Happy Meals longer than the other Christian groups have been "pro-life."

True, the church has been consistent on the issue, but Catholic women are just as likely to get abortions as other American women.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/01/24/catholics-are-just-likely-get-abortion-other-us-women-why

If course they are. Millions of Catholics just ignored all the nonsense about abortion and birth control and no fertility treatments and the rest of it while we sat in the pews. Just thought the church was hopelessly slow and behind and clueless on all these issues.

But now they actually participated in getting rie overturned and many no longer even sit in the pews. The churches are emptying out.

[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

I believe you. My Republican relatives in Ohio live in red Medina County and are huge Catholics. I was amazed to see that the "No" votes prevailed, even in Medina County (54.24% NO; 45.76% YES). So maybe on this specific issue, the Church is not as influential as it would like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I believe you. My Republican relatives in Ohio live in red Medina County and are huge Catholics. I was amazed to see that the "No" votes prevailed, even in Medina County (54.24% NO; 45.76% YES). So maybe on this specific issue, the Church is not as influential as it would like.

It is not. In the privacy of the voting booth, clueless guidance from the Catholic Church about private matters of human reproduction can be ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least Catholics have been against abortion for a couple hundred years. McDonalds has been selling Happy Meals longer than the other Christian groups have been "pro-life."

True, the church has been consistent on the issue, but Catholic women are just as likely to get abortions as other American women.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/01/24/catholics-are-just-likely-get-abortion-other-us-women-why

My parents tell me that during their mandatory pre-marital counseling, the priest directly told them to only have the number of children they could afford “in time and in money” to raise well. I think a lot of Catholic priests saw how damaging the no-birth-control stance was to families.

And yet the policies of the Vatican are not set by the parish priest who will see a family struggle week after week.

[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."

Excellent and mic drops. The end!

[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).

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.

Let’s think for a moment about why abortions in the third trimester are rare. Because it’s morally an appropriate place to draw a line. And if someone wants to cross that line and (i) the life of the mother isn’t in jeopardy but (ii) she found a doctor willing to do the procedure, I think it would be reasonable for there to be a law that generally says “don’t do that.”

Third trimester abortions are rare because they usually happen due to an unforeseen medical issue that threatens the life of the mother or the fetus.