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][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]

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.  [b]After that, assuming there is no threat to the life of the mother,[/b] one might reasonably prioritize the life of the child.[/quote]

Who gets to decide that?  The state?  Or the woman and her doctor?[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

You cannot legislate away inalienable rights.  Sorry.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/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