GOP Primary Megathread!

[derspiess]

I'm semi-intrigued, 'koot.  Do you think my views are devoid of principles, or are they just principles you don't like?

I don't know about your views in general - I do know that there is no way anyone could claim to hold to any kind of traditional conservative principles and yet still be even ambivalent about something like mandatory ultrasounds for women.

Why do you keep doing that?  It is not simply "mandatory ultrasounds for women".  Stop being misleading.  It's mandatory ultrasounds for women who want to have abortions.  Why can't you be honest and upfront about the actual issue?

And you do know that conservatism is opposed to abortion, right?

That is such a fundamental violation of basic human liberty that it cannot possibly be consistently supported on any kind of principle that gives even lip service to respect for human liberty.

That's your opinion.  I happen not to see it that way, at least not in such dire terms.

[derspiess]

I don't know about your views in general - I do know that there is no way anyone could claim to hold to any kind of traditional conservative principles and yet still be even ambivalent about something like mandatory ultrasounds for women. That is such a fundamental violation of basic human liberty that it cannot possibly be consistently supported on any kind of principle that gives even lip service to respect for human liberty.

Even someone who doesn't support the basic (original) conservative value of liberty should reject the proposition that unnecessary ultrasound procedures for no announced purpose was a wise policy for governments to introduce.  Besides the costs to the individual involved (a liberty issue), there are the costs to government and society:  the taxpayers will pick up the costs for a lot of these ultrasound procedures, plus the costs of enforcement, and will forgo whatever government services are abandoned to free up resources to track which women seeking abortions have, and have not, actually completed the requirement.  Fiscal conservatives like to talk cost-benefit (I certainly do), and yet this law proposes to impose significant costs for absolutely zero gain.  No matter where in the country such a thing was proposed, it seems to me impossible for an actual conservative (other than a social-engineer-"conservative") to not scoff at the 'wisdom" of such a law.

The claim of indifference to this law on the basis of "it doesn't affect me" seems so feeble and transparently disingenuous coming from a person who supports laws banning abortion, even though such a law would not affect him, his being unable to get pregnant, let alone get an abortion.  The "principal" at work here seems to be "I don't want to try to defend a law that I support even though I know it is absurd."

Okay, since it apparently means so much to you guys for me to form an opinion on the issue, I decided to give it a little thought and form one.  I stand in light opposition to the law.  I don't think it's going to end up making a noticeable difference in the number of abortions that take place, and I think it was a waste of political capital for the Virginia legislature's Republicans to try to push through such a law.

I know it won't please Berkut that I'm not jumping up & down screaming about how this is *the* human rights issue of the century.  And don't expect me to put together a march on Richmond to picket the state capitol building.

But I did it for you guys.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

[Viking]

Why do you keep doing that?  It is not simply "mandatory ultrasounds for women".  Stop being misleading.  It's mandatory ultrasounds for women who want to have abortions.  Why can't you be honest and upfront about the actual issue?

And you do know that conservatism is opposed to abortion, right?

Why is the woman's desire for an abortion relevant? is dildo rape a good thing to do to a woman if she wants an abortion? If you make some choice which my theology doesn't approve of do I get to insist you be dildo raped?

[Berkut]

I'm semi-intrigued, 'koot.  Do you think my views are devoid of principles, or are they just principles you don't like?

I don't know about your views in general - I do know that there is no way anyone could claim to hold to any kind of traditional conservative principles and yet still be even ambivalent about something like mandatory ultrasounds for women.

Why do you keep doing that?  It is not simply "mandatory ultrasounds for women".  Stop being misleading.  It's mandatory ultrasounds for women who want to have abortions.  Why can't you be honest and upfront about the actual issue?

I am being completely upfront about the actual issue. It doesn't matter one bit that it is only mandatory for women who want an abortion - liberty does not work that way. It is not ok to force women to have things shoved into them by state order if and only if they want to have some other perfectly legal procedure. It is misleading to suggest that the connection is meaningful and relevant.

I am literally flabbergasted that someone could actually argue that it is reasonable for the government to require someone to have an invasive medical procedure that everyone agrees is completely unnecessary for any medical reason. You say putting in those terms is misleading - honestly, throwing in the idea that the actual purpose is to shame the woman into NOT having another procedure just makes it worse, not better. That just means that the actual purpose, rather than being unstated, is in fact stated as "...in order to attempt to shame or harass the subject into not doing something that a minority of people wishes they were not allowed to do, but cannot manage to actually ban".

And you do know that conservatism is opposed to abortion, right?

No, actually that is not true. Many conservatives are opposed to abortion, but there is nothing about the principles of conservatism that makes it fundamental. More to the point however is that this is not about being pro or anti abortion, it is about being pro or anti making abortion illegal. I am against abortion, and in favor of it being legal and available. And that is a perfectly rational conservative position. I will also state that being against legal abortion can also be a perfectly sane and rational conservative position.

Being against legal abortion, and in favor of using the power of the state to compel behaviour you cannot successfully legislate via gross violations of individual privacy and liberty is not and cannot be a rational conservative position. There are principles that could motivate such a position, but they are not conservative principles - they are the same principles that motivate people to shoot abortion doctors. Oddly enough, while they are radical, they are a hell of a lot more consistent than your attempt to pound this square peg into this round hole of "Sure, it is a conservative principle that the state should force women to have unnecessary medical procedures!"

And even more to the point is that this isn't even about THAT- it is about using the power of the state to shame women into acting in a manner that some minority wishes, when they cannot muster the political support to enact the rules they really want. And the idea that THAT is a reasonable use of the power of the state to compel desired behavior of private citizens is completely antithetical to the actual fundamental principles of conservatism which is that the state should have as little power as possible, and very little indeed when it comes to the actions of private citizens where there is no compelling state interests at stake.

That is such a fundamental violation of basic human liberty that it cannot possibly be consistently supported on any kind of principle that gives even lip service to respect for human liberty.

That's your opinion.  I happen not to see it that way, at least not in such dire terms.

Of course not - you do not see it that way because you are not motivated by the very principles I am talking about - hence my point.

[CountDeMoney]

If you make some choice which my theology doesn't approve of do I get to insist you be dildo raped?

Relevant or not: HAWT.

[Berkut]

I don't know about your views in general - I do know that there is no way anyone could claim to hold to any kind of traditional conservative principles and yet still be even ambivalent about something like mandatory ultrasounds for women. That is such a fundamental violation of basic human liberty that it cannot possibly be consistently supported on any kind of principle that gives even lip service to respect for human liberty.

Even someone who doesn't support the basic (original) conservative value of liberty should reject the proposition that unnecessary ultrasound procedures for no announced purpose was a wise policy for governments to introduce.  Besides the costs to the individual involved (a liberty issue), there are the costs to government and society:  the taxpayers will pick up the costs for a lot of these ultrasound procedures, plus the costs of enforcement, and will forgo whatever government services are abandoned to free up resources to track which women seeking abortions have, and have not, actually completed the requirement.  Fiscal conservatives like to talk cost-benefit (I certainly do), and yet this law proposes to impose significant costs for absolutely zero gain.  No matter where in the country such a thing was proposed, it seems to me impossible for an actual conservative (other than a social-engineer-"conservative") to not scoff at the 'wisdom" of such a law.

The claim of indifference to this law on the basis of "it doesn't affect me" seems so feeble and transparently disingenuous coming from a person who supports laws banning abortion, even though such a law would not affect him, his being unable to get pregnant, let alone get an abortion.  The "principal" at work here seems to be "I don't want to try to defend a law that I support even though I know it is absurd."

Okay, since it apparently means so much to you guys for me to form an opinion on the issue, I decided to give it a little thought and form one.  I stand in light opposition to the law.  I don't think it's going to end up making a noticeable difference in the number of abortions that take place, and I think it was a waste of political capital for the Virginia legislature's Republicans to try to push through such a law.

This is not a stand on principle at all though - it is simply saying that it is a-ok for the state to force women to have doctors shove things into their vaginas, but it is a poor tactical move politically.

Presumably, if this is the logic forming your "opposition" you would be in favor if in fact the effect of the law was more profound (which by definition would make it's civil liberty encroachment even greater) or if the political cost was lower, or some combination of the two.

You are basically coming out and saying that the equivalent of "Black people really should ride in the back of the bus, but the law forcing them to do so is more trouble than keeping them back there is worth, so I am against it".

Ironically enough, your "conversion" makes it much MORE clear you are not actually motivated by principle, and in fact quite the opposite - principle takes a clear back seat to expediency.

I know it won't please Berkut that I'm not jumping up & down screaming about how this is *the* human rights issue of the century.  And don't expect me to put together a march on Richmond to picket the state capitol building.

No, I don't think this is THE human rights issue of the century, nor am I really that concerned about it - even if it became law, it would obviously be struck down the moment some doctors actually tried to force some woman to let him shove something up her vagina for no reason at all.

I think the entire issue is MUCH more interesting from the perspective that it illuminates just how devoid of basic understanding of simple liberty many, many people (such as yourself) actually are - another example of how most people pay no more than lip service to the idea that individual liberty is paramount, or even relevant, to political thought.

[garbon]

Seedy, where did you post go?

[CountDeMoney]

Seedy, where did you post go?

Which one?

[Jacob]

One guy may be concerned about gun rights but not care if the guy in the state over gets arrested for smoking dope.  Hell, he might even support it.  So one party picks up the the pot head and the other picks up the gun nut.  Their power is thus divided because neither is sympathetic to the others plight.  They are only concerned with themselves.

Not much money in liberty.  Strange one would support it out of crass self interest.

I dunno. Seems one of the defining principles of American Libertarianism is "I got mine, I ain't sharing and you can't make me because LIBERTY!"

[CountDeMoney]

I dunno. Seems one of the defining principles of American Libertarianism is "I got mine, I ain't sharing and you can't make me because LIBERTY!"

You forgot Freedom.

[derspiess]

Why is the woman's desire for an abortion relevant? is dildo rape a good thing to do to a woman if she wants an abortion?

No.

If you make some choice which my theology doesn't approve of do I get to insist you be dildo raped?

Why bring theology into this?

[Razgovory]

Why do you keep doing that?  It is not simply "mandatory ultrasounds for women".  Stop being misleading.  It's mandatory ultrasounds for women who want to have abortions.  Why can't you be honest and upfront about the actual issue?

And you do know that conservatism is opposed to abortion, right?

Why is the woman's desire for an abortion relevant? is dildo rape a good thing to do to a woman if she wants an abortion? If you make some choice which my theology doesn't approve of do I get to insist you be dildo raped?

Probably because it's part of the law.  These new ultra sound laws are absurd, but lets not get carried away.  The ultrasound stuff only occurs when a woman wants an abortion.  That is why the woman's desire for an abortion is relevant.  She isn't getting "Dildo raped" if she comes in for a broken leg or thoracic surgery.

[derspiess]

Berkut:  I'm done discussing this issue.  It doesn't hold my interest nearly as much as it apparently does yours, and you've gotten yourself way too worked up about it.  Not to mention that you insist on using misleading terms to try to paint me as some monster who agrees that the state should randomly violate women.

[Viking]

Why is the woman's desire for an abortion relevant? is dildo rape a good thing to do to a woman if she wants an abortion?

No.

If you make some choice which my theology doesn't approve of do I get to insist you be dildo raped?

Why bring theology into this?

Because you think that there is a material difference between forcing somebody to be vaginally probed for wanting an abortion and somebody being vaginally probed for wanting something which is not an abortion.

[Maximus]

Probably because it's part of the law.  These new ultra sound laws are absurd, but lets not get carried away.  The ultrasound stuff only occurs when a woman wants an abortion.  That is why the woman's desire for an abortion is relevant.  She isn't getting "Dildo raped" if she comes in for a broken leg or thoracic surgery.

I don't think anyone is questioning what the law is, but rather what it should be.