Originally Posted By: Salmo g.


OK, my analogy wasn't so good. My point was about some people deciding they should have power over other people, and limit their personal freedom. I like my personal freedom and sure as hell don't want others deciding what I can or cannot do. In turn, I have no interest in deciding what another person, including women, can or cannot do. That's a Golden Rule kind of thing to me. The issues about the timing of viability of a fetus is not relevant to me because it is superseded by the woman's personal freedom. Period, end of story, and I look no further. So I don't think this power belongs to any government, state or federal.


We agree that personal freedom should exist for everyone. For the sake of this discussion, viability is absolutely relevant and it’s astonishing that you are unable to connect the dots on this. It’s already established that women have autonomy over their bodies without being told what to do before 20 weeks. There is no viability at that point, therefore from a legal standpoint, it would be hard to argue rights for the fetus/human life. Viability indicates that a fetus is a human life at 20 weeks and can feel pain. This is where rights for that human life begins. Where is the personal freedom for this human life? It appears you think some people’s freedoms are more important than others.

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.


Good question. Reichert as a candidate for governor came up early in this thread. I posted what I thought was negative baggage for Furgison and Reichert. In Reichert's case it's his anti-abortion and anti gay marriage positions that disqualify him from my vote.


Perhaps you should reread where flatbrim addressed this point already on the third page. Reichert hasn’t really established himself as an anti-abortion candidate, simply in support of abortions up to 20 weeks and only after in cases of rape or incest. He said…

“Reichert voted multiple times in Congress, including in 2013, 2015, and 2017 to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks with exceptions for a mother’s health risk and in cases of rape and incest. However these would not ban abortions and just generally bring federal law in line with current Washington State law. I wouldn't exactly characterize this as anti-abortion since you can get one for any reason in the first 20 weeks then after that for health reasons, rape or incest. In fact I'd say this goes right along with him "supporting existing law" as he said he would.”

It looks like you need to think a little harder on this topic Salmo as your arguments fall short on addressing the issue. It’s obvious to everyone here you won’t vote for a Republican under any circumstances. Don’t portray yourself as being moderate at that point. As far as abortion goes, you need to provide more compelling arguments for your position because they have easily been refuted or you should be open to admit that your positions are not predicated on facts but rather personal feelings and bias.


Streamer
_________________________
“Obviously you don't care about democracy if you vote for Trump” - Salmo g.

Space Available! Say something idiotic today!