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.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope these voters show up in the Nov election.

They showed up in August. They’re showing up in November.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope these voters show up in the Nov election.

They showed up in August. They’re showing up in November.

Anonymous wrote:I hope these voters show up in the Nov election.

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.

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.

This exactly.

No, not really. A developing person is,....not a person. THAT is pretty simple to understand for most people.

Call her what you want. She’s still a human life.

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.

This exactly.

No, not really. A developing person is,....not a person. THAT is pretty simple to understand for most people.

Call her what you want. She’s still a human life.

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.”

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.”

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.

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?

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.