Women who say they aren't voting on the single issue of abortion rights

[Anonymous]

It’s only morals that keep conservatives wanting to restrict abortions to fetuses that aren’t viable outside of the womb.

If they were more concerned about their own power they wouldn’t care how many future liberals were ended before they could even be born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Kamala Harris released an ad targeting conservative women. She is implying that we are being told by men how we should vote. And that the voting booth is the only place in America that we can choose. I find the ad offensive. She is acting as if we want to vote for her, but are being prevented from doing so by men in our lives. This is far from the case; we have made up our minds to vote against her based on her record.

Again, Harris didn’t put out this ad. And be glad that it’s never had to occur to you that there are women who need to worry about who they vote for because of their husbands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Kamala Harris released an ad targeting conservative women. She is implying that we are being told by men how we should vote. And that the voting booth is the only place in America that we can choose. I find the ad offensive. She is acting as if we want to vote for her, but are being prevented from doing so by men in our lives. This is far from the case; we have made up our minds to vote against her based on her record.

Again, Harris didn’t put out this ad. And be glad that it’s never had to occur to you that there are women who need to worry about who they vote for because of their husbands.

[/quote

Perhaps they shouldn't have expanded mail voting which makes it easy for others to know how you voted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do people still know who Julia Roberts is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The democrats haven’t shifted back to the safe, legal and rare perspective post Dobbs so I’m not sure what your point is.
Why would we shift back to that when women in the forced birther states can’t get abortions at all?

Seems like that is exactly when you would want to push for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I actually am in favor of widespread right to abortion in the first trimester, but far more limited rights to abortion around the time of viability, because at that point the child has a life that can survive independently.

This was the standard we all lived under for 50 years. If you liked it, you should vote against the man who messed it all up.

You got that right.

That’s not true, New York and Colorado passed laws throwing the trimester model out the window. Maybe you all should blame radicals who want to dismember babies in utero for the impetus to overturn Roe.

Did they have to oppose admitting privileges at hospitals? They could have done the John Roberts compromise of a 15 week ban.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do people still know who Julia Roberts is?

Sure. I’ve enjoyed some of her movies.

Her political opinions don’t move me but that goes for all actors .

[Anonymous]

A Republican group has spent $20 million supporting Trump. One of its ads has a woman saying "I've never voted for Trump. I'm pro-choice, and my positions are his positions."

What's notable is the group is named RGB PAC, arguing both Trump and RGB are against national bans on abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't speak for women because I am a man. However my guess is that some women who are not primarily driven by the abortion issue know that should their daughter be in a situation where she would need an abortion even if they live in a state with the most restrictive abortion laws they will find a WAY to get an abortion for their daughter should she desire one.

We Americans are individualists. We are conditioned to think about ourselves our family first and foremost. And with access to financial resources in this country anything is possible. This is an ultra capitalist free market country and the most restrictive laws are not going to stop people of means. There is a way. Money talks. These women (and their husbands) DGAF about others. Sadly that's how many of us think in this country. And to his credit Mr Trump knows this. He knows that Americans are inherently individualist and you can sell 300 million different messages to 300 millions people and they will pick and choose what benefits them. If what benefits them hurts others oh well too bad blame Lady Luck.

Yes, please do not ever speak for women. We have enough men pretending to be us as it is. I am not driven by the abortion issue, but I am certain that should my daughter be silly enough to get pregnant, that she would carry the baby to term. She is an adult, with choices, and for now her choice is to not get pregnant (okay, start with rape argument, when there are almost zero abortions done as a result of rape).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A Republican group has spent $20 million supporting Trump. One of its ads has a woman saying "I've never voted for Trump. I'm pro-choice, and my positions are his positions."

What's notable is the group is named RGB PAC, arguing both Trump and RGB are against national bans on abortion.

“This PAC supporting Trump is lying” would have been shorter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A Republican group has spent $20 million supporting Trump. One of its ads has a woman saying "I've never voted for Trump. I'm pro-choice, and my positions are his positions."

What's notable is the group is named RGB PAC, arguing both Trump and RGB are against national bans on abortion.

Orange Man has repeatedly said it’s a state issue.

Don’t know anything about this pac.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I actually am in favor of widespread right to abortion in the first trimester, but far more limited rights to abortion around the time of viability, because at that point the child has a life that can survive independently.

This was the standard we all lived under for 50 years. If you liked it, you should vote against the man who messed it all up.

You got that right.

That’s not true, New York and Colorado passed laws throwing the trimester model out the window. Maybe you all should blame radicals who want to dismember babies in utero for the impetus to overturn Roe.

Did they have to oppose admitting privileges at hospitals? They could have done the John Roberts compromise of a 15 week ban.

When do you find out about most anomalies? 18 weeks?

[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:Abortion numbers have actually increased since Dobbs. Funny how that works!

As a mom of two daughters, reproductive freedom is my top voting issue. Same with my first time presidential election voting daughter. We showed up and voted last week.

Nice to you know you're raising your daughter in fear of false dilemmas without the critical stamina to understand that women are in far worse danger of subjugation under the regime that is allowing men to invade their spaces, their jobs, their sports. You are not being a good role model for your daughter when you teach her that the most important issue for electing a president is how far along in pregnancy a woman can abort her child. Question: has Harris said how she will overturn the Scotus decision?

What a load of bologna. I am definitely raising my daughters and sons to be able to see through that kind of b*******.

Explain to your sons and daughters the critical importance of reproductive rights and explain to them how to fight and vote to get them.

Why do you keep saying reproductive rights when what you mean is abortion? You can turn yourself inside out all you want, you are still advocating for ending the lives of fetuses. These are not 'clumps of cells.' These are fully-formed, human beings, who, after about 12 weeks, have to be pulled apart and killed in utero.

Ok scoldylocks, I wouldn't even have kids to teach if it wasn't for IVF like millions of other moms. And darling, some of the embryos don't make it when you do IVF.

I've got this issue covered with my kids. I don't need any help from the likes of you.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I also had my children through IVF--actual IVF, not the IUI, as the Walzes did then lied about. In any event, it is a red herring to talk about "reproductive rights" and you know it. You are not voting about IVF, you are voting about abortion and cannot be honest with yourself. I am fully aware of how IVF works by the way. And you know what else, two of my IVF babies were born at 20 weeks. I held them for the 2 hours they lived and breathed outside of my uterus. Kissed them and told them how much I loved them. Are you the kind of person who calls those "clumps of cells?"

Well then from one IVF mom to another.... I don't know why you don't understand this..... but the destruction of Roe threatens IVF as a fertility treatment. If you want to fully protect access to IVF and some other fertility treatments...And yes also abortion, which is the flip side of fertility treatments, Daniel then we then we need to fight to get back the protections of Roe. Voting for Harris it's the beginning of this process.

Actually, as an"IVF mom" (though, I don't know identify myself that way), I am hopeful that the technology is as close as it sounds to not have to produce and discard embryos. I am a massive hypocrite, because the discarding of embryos bothers me. I did not discard any. We had multiple rounds--as I mentioned, two of them were delivered and died at 20 weeks, and the rest were used in multiple attempts. It would pain me to discard of them. Nonetheless, not a single state has taken a step to ban IVF, so again, red herring.

Did you really miss that the Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling in February declaring that embryos created through in IVF should be considered children?

Do you really not understand that this is not banning IVF?

Do you really not understand that the risk is not an IVF ban? The clinics that halted the procedure made that decision all by themselves to avoid the risks of facing catastrophic liabilities.

What do they procedurally do with all of the unused embryos (which are inherently necessary via this procedure)? You can't discard them. You can't keep them frozen forever. If you transport them across state lines for disposal, would they be charged with mass murder? It's not just legal liability, it's legal jeopardy.

+1. Ivf does not need to be banned in order to have no clinics actually offer the procedure. If you truly decide that an embryo or a fetus is a person then IVF is over.

Overturning roe pollutes a wide ranging array of women's healthcare issues. For example, it doesn't prohibit obstetricians from coming to your state, it just ends up having that effect. The risks of practicing medicine in an abortion ban state make it an undesirable location to practice that specialty.

It is safer to carry pregnancies in pro choice states.

Dobbs didn't outlaw IVF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is absolutely true that the eugenics movement was a liberal progressive movement (using today’s political terms), but there were plenty of conservatives who also actively promoted the movement. Although its roots were in the liberal progressives, and the thought leadership was in that group, it was enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. In other words, while it is true Sanger was a racist who specifically targeted Black women, she was hardly alone and had plenty of conservatives along with her.

In short, yes, we have a very ugly history of eugenics and yes, the abortion rights movement is part of that, but not just that movement.

I’m curious about the person who keeps saying that close to 100% of parents choose to terminate for genetic abnormalities in places like Iceland. Do you think that makes that termination morally and ethically right? There has been a lot in human history that was done universally that we now recognize as abhorrent. Personally I do not think it is a good thing for us as a society to eliminate all children with genetic abnormalities routinely.

I'm not concerned with other people's morals and ethics.

I have a dear friend with a severely disabled child whose disorder is rare enough to not be diagnosed in utero with routinely offered tests. The child will never develop cognitively, eat without a tube, talk, or walk unassisted. My friend, who is lucky enough to be UMC and highly educated, went to hell and back coping with this, and arranging the necessary medical and childcare support for the child. The family's financial position has been altered forever. The mother now also has significant depression due to this.

She is 100% clear that had she known ahead of time, she'd 100% terminate. And in fact when she had gathered enough courage to have another child, she had the pregnancy checked up and down, and was again 100% clear that in case of any issues, she'd terminate without a second thought.

So, the feelings of someone who is actually living through this situation is good enough for me. It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her, well, that's how your cookie crumbled, live with it! No termination for you!

It is interesting here that you do not once mention or appear to care about whether the disabled child values her own life. Your perspective is only that of the adult.

DP. I have a special needs child who routinely expresses that life isn’t enjoyable when you aren’t like anyone else, you can’t do what most other people can, and you feel inferior. We’ve done all the things: child sees a psychiatrist and a therapist and is medicated for depression. I do everything I can to boost child’s self esteem, but child is adamant that the world would be better off if there was a way to prevent special needs people from being born. It breaks my heart because dc’s life is actually pretty good and I don’t share their outlook — but I’m not living with the same challenges dc is.

People should only make decisions for themselves because, obviously, we are not all on the same page. We don’t all have the same spiritual beliefs, ethical concerns, life experience, world view, security, resources, support, resilience and perseverance. I trust women to make the right choices for themselves and their offspring.

Even if those choices mean no child like yours will be born?

The woman's child has depression, in addition to a disability, but still, depression. Last I checked, you can't check for depression in uetero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't speak for women because I am a man. However my guess is that some women who are not primarily driven by the abortion issue know that should their daughter be in a situation where she would need an abortion even if they live in a state with the most restrictive abortion laws they will find a WAY to get an abortion for their daughter should she desire one.

We Americans are individualists. We are conditioned to think about ourselves our family first and foremost. And with access to financial resources in this country anything is possible. This is an ultra capitalist free market country and the most restrictive laws are not going to stop people of means. There is a way. Money talks. These women (and their husbands) DGAF about others. Sadly that's how many of us think in this country. And to his credit Mr Trump knows this. He knows that Americans are inherently individualist and you can sell 300 million different messages to 300 millions people and they will pick and choose what benefits them. If what benefits them hurts others oh well too bad blame Lady Luck.

Yes, please do not ever speak for women. We have enough men pretending to be us as it is. I am not driven by the abortion issue, but I am certain that should my daughter be silly enough to get pregnant, that she would carry the baby to term. She is an adult, with choices, and for now her choice is to not get pregnant (okay, start with rape argument, when there are almost zero abortions done as a result of rape).

You can talk to my relative about the rape argument. She was raped and impregnated. The likes of you can stay far far away from her and her decisions regarding that pregnancy.