re: Imagine waking up this morning and still being a white male voting for Kamala

quote:

---

No, I'm voting Dem in part because an a-hole like Abbott wants to tell women what to do if they're raped or have a profound genetic issues with their pregnancies.

If it were my daughter or a female I knew and you ore Greg Abbott were trying to tell them what to do in those cases then I'd be a pretty pathetic man if I didn't stand up for them.

I'm just going to the OP. If you have a religious belief that requires you to subjugate women, go for it. I just don't think the "what kind of man are you" fits into that argument, and frankly it goes against it.

You're putting your religious beliefs ahead of your manhood. And that's fine.

---

I have to give it to them. The Democrats/medias brainwashing an amplification on this relatively irrelevant issue has been impressive.

First, we have laws in every state, blue or red, that makes it illegal for one human being to kill another (except in rare circumstances). It is likewise a crime for a person to kill an unborn fetus. It would also be a crime for a mother to kill a 2 year old child with a genetic defect. I'm sure (or at least hope) you would agree all of those are logical laws/positions. Thus, if one believes life begins at conception, then logic would dictate it should also be illegal for a person to kill that person...even if that person is in the very early stages of development....even if the act of termination is performed by a medical professional...and even if the decision to kill that person was made by the mother. The mantra of "my body, my choice" is also a bit of fallacy because the act of abortion does not just affect the mother's body. The body being aborted is that of the developing child.

Now, perhaps you believe that until a certain point a fetus is just a "clump of cells." Thus, destroying it is no different than what occurs millions of time every day when cells are destroyed via medication, radiation treatment, etc. If that is your personal belief then I can't argue with your logic. However, it also requires human beings to make a subjective metaphysical determination of when "life" begins. Certainly, I wouldn't think you would argue that the day before a child exits the mother it is not "alive" (absent it being a stillborn) and it does not becomes a "life" until the point in which it exits the mother.

Abortion is not, nor will ever be the singular issue that drives my voting decisions because in the grand scheme of society it is largely insignificant. But I don't interpret the "pro life" argument as one of "subjugating women". Rather, its one of seeking to protect a life from being terminated by another

quote:

---

ell women what to do if they're raped or have a profound genetic issues

---

These circumstances are EXCEEDINGLY rare in the universe of pregnancies in the US, and I'm very confident in stating that the vast majority of abortions a performed simply because the mother feels having the child is an unwanted inconvenience in their life (for a multitude of reasons). That being the case, it should be recognized that outside of rape, pregnancy is 100% preventable through abstinence if the desire to no become pregnant is paramount in a persons hierarchy. Regardless, I think most lawmakers recognize there may be reason to consider exceptions to laws banning abortions (rape, child cannot live outside of the mother, necessity to save the life of the mother, etc).

The good news though is that the Dobbs decision did NOT make abortion illegal. It simply held there is no constitutional right to an abortion...which is 100% accurate, despite what the illogical Roe decision crafted. That means the individual states are free to enact whatever laws they see fit on the issue and if your state law does not comport with your belief, you are free to move to a state that does. I can see why you may choose to not vote for someone like Gov. Abbott (though it is the Texas legislature that makes the laws...not the Governor), but it seems a bit illogical to allow your vote for President to hinge entirely on an issue that is not a federal issue.

quote:

---

But you’re still basing your vote in a federal election on an issue that is a states rights issue & is no longer a federal issue at all. That’s pretty dense honestly. You’re essentially deciding who to hire for your NFL team because you didn’t like the local High Schools hire.

---

Not quite, but then again, you seem to ignore the same ease in which the case was overturned still applies.

RvW was overturned because Trump picked three judges. Dobbs can be overtuned with a majority of judges who recognize the right. Hence, a federal issue. And it remained that way for fifty years.

Or were you preaching a few years ago that it would never become a state issue because of RvW?

Long term, yes, it might make strategic sense to keep it in states. Short term still unclear.

quote:

---

Abortion is not, nor will ever be the singular issue that drives my voting decisions because in the grand scheme of society it is largely insignificant. But I don't interpret the "pro life" argument as one of "subjugating women". Rather, its one of seeking to protect a life from being terminated by another

---

You interpretation doesn't matter. The practical impact of imposing restrictions upon womens' conduct subjugates them.

quote:

---

So it's kind of the opposite for me. How can a man not stand with women against this kind of stuff?

---

Women choose to have sex and get pregnant. The baby girl you rip from limb to limb in agonizing pain had no say.

quote:

---

So women who need abortions have nothing to protect them in Texas.

---

Texas law generally prohibits abortion, with some exceptions, including when a doctor believes it's necessary to save the pregnant patient's life or health.

Plan B is also legal and is covered by Medicaid.

or they may be things that shouldnt be protected on the federal level

shouldnt the states have the right to decide for themselves? dont these women have the ability to move?

so why dont we just have no states rights? your example is dumb AF