Reply to Ohio Vote Results

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Ohio Vote Results"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

I’m loving how out of touch and deluded you are. Mostly because it makes fighting for women’s rights easier. Carry on. [/quote]

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.  [b]I disagree that this is an issue that can simply be left to the mother and her medical provider.  [/b][/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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 [b]a line must be drawn somewhere during the pregnancy when the fetus’s right to life takes precedence. [/b] 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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

I’m sorry this doesn’t make sense to you.  [/quote]
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?[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics