Regardless of your position on abortion, the question remains, "Why do we allow politicians and lawyers to make medical decisions about women and their bodies?" The consequences of the anti-abortion laws have far-reaching medical ramifications. BTW, most of the above are men, and judging by some of their comments; they have little to no understanding of the medical implications of these laws.
I have no objection to people who feel there is something morally wrong with abortion. But I have a massive problem with people who want to force their moral options on others. This fight over abortion is a fight to control women and force them to do men's bidding.
The problem, of course, is that if abortion is the murder of an innocent human being with rights, then the state has as much of an obligation to try and protect that life as it does trying to protect your life when someone tries to kill you.
I agree with you in large part. My support for abortion has a legal basis grounded in the 9th and 14th amendments to the constitution, but my legal analysis is no doubt affected by a libertarian streak, which manifests itself in my reflexive opposition to laws that restrict people’s personal autonomy when their actions do not directly infringe on someone else. This is why I think people should have more freedom to make medical decisions without state interference, full stop, to include the ability to obtain life ending drugs when terminally ill.
I am open to arguments that, at some point in a pregnancy, the state has an interest in restricting abortion based on the notion that the fetus obtains a sufficient level of personhood to merit protection. I’m not, however, familiar enough with how fetal development is measured to say when that is.
Yhe DCCC's ad about Gibbs is just laying out his closeness to Trump. It ends withe the line that Gibbs "is too conservative". There is no "vote for Gibbs" message here. The voters did not choose Gibbs because of this ad, they chose him because that's what they want. Don't blame the Ds, blame the R voters.
I really disagree with this way of looking at it. The only reason lots of those voters knew anything at all about Gibbs is because the DCCC ran ads telling them about him, knowing full well lots of those people would vote for him over Meijer. They did this because they wanted Gibbs to win, because they thought it would be easier to defeat him in the general election. The gambit worked; Gibbs won the primary. If Gibbs now manages to win in November, who will be responsible for this? The voters, of course. But also the Democratic group that made it happen. They will be materially complicit in the outcome.
The reason why I find this especially galling is that I actually believe what Democrats have been saying since January 6, 2021: Candidates like Gibbs are a fundamental threat to the functioning of liberal-democratic government. That means they should not be boosted at all. If, like Gibbs, they are very short on money and so have little chance of winning, that's good. Let them lose. Don't prop them up so they can win, so the Dems will maybe have an easier time of it later. That only makes sense if candidates like Gibbs *aren't* a fundamental threat to democracy. But if that's the case (it isn't), all the rhetoric along those lines is just the latest campaign BS. Reagan was bad, Bush was bad, McCain was Bad, Romney was bad, Trump was bad, Gibbs is bad, etc. Dems want to beat Republicans -- no kidding.
But again, I actually think Trump and Gibbs are in a different category of threat than the others, and the Dems should be acting accordingly. No boosting Gibbs. No boosting Mastriano. Etc.
I do agree that the Ds should not promote candidates like Gibbs and Mastriano. What I'm not sure about is how much they might have helped him. Would he have won without any interference from Democrats? A case could be made that Meijer would have lost no matter what. He voted to impeach, and that is a big no-no for Republicans. But even if the D ads had no effect, it is a dangerous game to play. We both agree on that.
Regardless of your position on abortion, the question remains, "Why do we allow politicians and lawyers to make medical decisions about women and their bodies?" The consequences of the anti-abortion laws have far-reaching medical ramifications. BTW, most of the above are men, and judging by some of their comments; they have little to no understanding of the medical implications of these laws.
I have no objection to people who feel there is something morally wrong with abortion. But I have a massive problem with people who want to force their moral options on others. This fight over abortion is a fight to control women and force them to do men's bidding.
The problem, of course, is that if abortion is the murder of an innocent human being with rights, then the state has as much of an obligation to try and protect that life as it does trying to protect your life when someone tries to kill you.
I agree with you in large part. My support for abortion has a legal basis grounded in the 9th and 14th amendments to the constitution, but my legal analysis is no doubt affected by a libertarian streak, which manifests itself in my reflexive opposition to laws that restrict people’s personal autonomy when their actions do not directly infringe on someone else. This is why I think people should have more freedom to make medical decisions without state interference, full stop, to include the ability to obtain life ending drugs when terminally ill.
I am open to arguments that, at some point in a pregnancy, the state has an interest in restricting abortion based on the notion that the fetus obtains a sufficient level of personhood to merit protection. I’m not, however, familiar enough with how fetal development is measured to say when that is.
Yhe DCCC's ad about Gibbs is just laying out his closeness to Trump. It ends withe the line that Gibbs "is too conservative". There is no "vote for Gibbs" message here. The voters did not choose Gibbs because of this ad, they chose him because that's what they want. Don't blame the Ds, blame the R voters.
I really disagree with this way of looking at it. The only reason lots of those voters knew anything at all about Gibbs is because the DCCC ran ads telling them about him, knowing full well lots of those people would vote for him over Meijer. They did this because they wanted Gibbs to win, because they thought it would be easier to defeat him in the general election. The gambit worked; Gibbs won the primary. If Gibbs now manages to win in November, who will be responsible for this? The voters, of course. But also the Democratic group that made it happen. They will be materially complicit in the outcome.
The reason why I find this especially galling is that I actually believe what Democrats have been saying since January 6, 2021: Candidates like Gibbs are a fundamental threat to the functioning of liberal-democratic government. That means they should not be boosted at all. If, like Gibbs, they are very short on money and so have little chance of winning, that's good. Let them lose. Don't prop them up so they can win, so the Dems will maybe have an easier time of it later. That only makes sense if candidates like Gibbs *aren't* a fundamental threat to democracy. But if that's the case (it isn't), all the rhetoric along those lines is just the latest campaign BS. Reagan was bad, Bush was bad, McCain was Bad, Romney was bad, Trump was bad, Gibbs is bad, etc. Dems want to beat Republicans -- no kidding.
But again, I actually think Trump and Gibbs are in a different category of threat than the others, and the Dems should be acting accordingly. No boosting Gibbs. No boosting Mastriano. Etc.
Thanks for hearing me out on this.
I do agree that the Ds should not promote candidates like Gibbs and Mastriano. What I'm not sure about is how much they might have helped him. Would he have won without any interference from Democrats? A case could be made that Meijer would have lost no matter what. He voted to impeach, and that is a big no-no for Republicans. But even if the D ads had no effect, it is a dangerous game to play. We both agree on that.
Good question.
I'm sure you've written on this, the threat to democracy Trump and Gibbs and others pose. Could you provide a link to it?