GOP Primary Megathread!

[DGuller]

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.

Oh, man, I have a feeling you're going to be penetrated harder and deeper for this than a Virginia woman getting an abortion. 

[derspiess]

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.

That didn't answer my question.

[Berkut]

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.

But you do agree that the state should violate women, or at least, that is the position you stated. Your revised "lightly against" position was that the state should not violate women, but not because violating women was wrong in principle, but because the violation won't work well enough to justify the political cost.

I don't know that that makes you a monster - that is your label, not mine - but it certainly does make you someone who does not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty. And I don't think anyone who categorically rejects the basic idea of individual liberty can make a credible claim that they are doing so because of their principled stand as a cosnervative, which has as one of its fundamental principles the idea that the state should not violate individual liberty without compelling cause.

I understand your reluctance to continue the debate - the fact that your debate tactics seem to amount to pretty transparent personal attacks rather than any attempt to address my argument makes it clear that, like state mandated vaginal probing, this strategy is neither effective or worth the cost to your credibility.

[Viking]

Because your theology makes 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.

That didn't answer my question.

fair enough, I inserted the bold bit in my quote above to make it clear.

[Barrister]

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.

But you do agree that the state should violate women, or at least, that is the position you stated. Your revised "lightly against" position was that the state should not violate women, but not because violating women was wrong in principle, but because the violation won't work well enough to justify the political cost.

I don't know that that makes you a monster - that is your label, not mine - but it certainly does make you someone who does not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty.

I dunno Berkut - this reminds me of the whole 'year separate and apart before getting a divorce' debate.

Just because someone takes a position that is different than yours does not mean they "[do] not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty".

[derspiess]

Because your theology makes 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.

That didn't answer my question.

fair enough, I inserted the bold bit in my quote above to make it clear.

That's incorrect.  My theology does not make me think that.  Leave my theology out of this.

Btw, didn't the Virginia bill get changed to where it requires an abdominal ultrasound rather than a pelvic ultrasound?  Kinda makes your and Berkut's 'vaginal probe' thing a moot point.

[Viking]

Because your theology makes 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.

That didn't answer my question.

fair enough, I inserted the bold bit in my quote above to make it clear.

That's incorrect.  My theology does not make me think that.  Leave my theology out of this.

Btw, didn't the Virginia bill get changed to where it requires an abdominal ultrasound rather than a pelvic ultrasound?  Kinda makes your and Berkut's 'vaginal probe' thing a moot point.

No. There are certain times in the pregnancy where only the vaginal ultrasound can "see" the zygote. So not all abortions would be examined by means of vaginal ultrasound.

If not your theology, what other reason do you have for granting civil rights based on a desire to recieve a certain medical procedure?

[Berkut]

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.

But you do agree that the state should violate women, or at least, that is the position you stated. Your revised "lightly against" position was that the state should not violate women, but not because violating women was wrong in principle, but because the violation won't work well enough to justify the political cost.

I don't know that that makes you a monster - that is your label, not mine - but it certainly does make you someone who does not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty.

I dunno Berkut - this reminds me of the whole 'year separate and apart before getting a divorce' debate.

Just because someone takes a position that is different than yours does not mean they "[do] not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty".

Nice strawman - but I never made such an argument then, and am not making said argument now.

If one takes a position that the state has the power to violate personal liberty on the basis of some minorities (or even majorities for that matter) opnion on how that private individual should act, then in fact that does mean they don't give a shit about the core principles of liberty.

In this case, it is a bit worse, IMO. For a couple reasons:

1. There case that there is a compelling state interest at stake is non-existent. There is not possible argument that there is a compelling state interest in forcing women to get unnecessary ultrasounds. While the case for compelling people to be married to one another is pretty fucking weak, at least there is a case there.
2. This is a much more personal violation of individual liberty, dealing with a strictly private medical matter that has zero impact on anyone, and includes an astounding physical action that literally allows the state to mandate that someone shove something into someone elses body.
3. While I think the argument that the state should have the power for force people to be married who do not want to be married is almost farcical in its hubris, at least that is the current law of the land, and changing it places the burden on those demanding the change. That is a burden that I think is trivially met, but at least you can argue that there is a conservative principle of "don't change stuff". In this case, there is no current law that demands that the state be allowed to vaginally probe women, so it is even more sad that people are arguing that such a law enshrining violation of women be created.

So in other words, you are right - there are some real similarities in the two arguments in kind. But the practical applications of those principles is considerably different.

On the other hand, there is a reason I did not include you in my list of principled languish posters, and your position that the state be allowed to force people to be married when they don't want to be does preclude you from any claim to having any kind of principle that includes a respect for individual liberty. You could still be principled I suppose, just not THAT principle.

[Berkut]

Btw, didn't the Virginia bill get changed to where it requires an abdominal ultrasound rather than a pelvic ultrasound?  Kinda makes your and Berkut's 'vaginal probe' thing a moot point.

Did it?

That is nice - it is like changing the law so Rosa Park can site in the back 2/3rds of the bus, rather than the back 1/3rd.

[derspiess]

No. There are certain times in the pregnancy where only the vaginal ultrasound can "see" the zygote. So not all abortions would be examined by means of vaginal ultrasound.

So they didn't change the Virginia law?

If not your theology, what other reason do you have for granting civil rights based on a desire to recieve a certain medical procedure?

Oh, cute-- the "When did you stop beating your wife"-type question

Anyway, to answer the question you should have asked, my opposition to abortion is not based upon my theology.  And no, I am not going to debate abortion on Languish.  That dead horse has been beaten enough.

[Barrister]

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.

But you do agree that the state should violate women, or at least, that is the position you stated. Your revised "lightly against" position was that the state should not violate women, but not because violating women was wrong in principle, but because the violation won't work well enough to justify the political cost.

I don't know that that makes you a monster - that is your label, not mine - but it certainly does make you someone who does not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty.

I dunno Berkut - this reminds me of the whole 'year separate and apart before getting a divorce' debate.

Just because someone takes a position that is different than yours does not mean they "[do] not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty".

Nice strawman - but I never made such an argument then, and am not making said argument now.

I could have sworn you said almost that exact same statement - that I obviously didn't care about personal liberties because I saw no problem with the state "forcing" two people to remain married for one year until they could get a divorce.

[Berkut]

Anyway, to answer the question you should have asked, my opposition to abortion is not based upon my theology. 

Indeed, I think many people who are opposed to abortion are opposed for non-religious reasons.

However, the set of people who are

A) Opposed to abortion,
B) Think it should be illegal,
C) Think that absent the ability to succeed at making B reality we should engage in making laws that make it more difficult in other ways, some of which are gross impositions on civil liberty or include the state expanding its power in order to meddle in places it has no business otherwise, and
D) Hold all these positions for non-religious reasons

is pretty damn small.

In fact, I cannot really imagine a rational and consistent non-theological principle that would result in holding positions A-C. The only consistent position that could rationally inform those is

D1) God says abortion is wrong, and any means necessary to stop/restrict or limit abortion are perfectly acceptable.

This is the idea that there is some greater principle involved that justifies trampling over minor principles like respect for individual liberty and such.

[derspiess]

Not gonna do it.

[garbon]

Anyway, to answer the question you should have asked, my opposition to abortion is not based upon my theology. 

Indeed, I think many people who are opposed to abortion are opposed for non-religious reasons.

However, the set of people who are

A) Opposed to abortion,
B) Think it should be illegal,
C) Think that absent the ability to succeed at making B reality we should engage in making laws that make it more difficult in other ways, some of which are gross impositions on civil liberty or include the state expanding its power in order to meddle in places it has no business otherwise, and
D) Hold all these positions for non-religious reasons

is pretty damn small.

In fact, I cannot really imagine a rational and consistent non-theological principle that would result in holding positions A-C. The only consistent position that could rationally inform those is

D1) God says abortion is wrong, and any means necessary to stop/restrict or limit abortion are perfectly acceptable.

This is the idea that there is some greater principle involved that justifies trampling over minor principles like respect for individual liberty and such.

Couldn't D1 just be replaced with "The state shouldn't sanction the killing of innocent people*, and any means necessary to stop/restrict or limit abortion are perfectly acceptable".

Doesn't seem like that has to be a particularly religious point of view.

[Berkut]

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.

But you do agree that the state should violate women, or at least, that is the position you stated. Your revised "lightly against" position was that the state should not violate women, but not because violating women was wrong in principle, but because the violation won't work well enough to justify the political cost.

I don't know that that makes you a monster - that is your label, not mine - but it certainly does make you someone who does not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty.

I dunno Berkut - this reminds me of the whole 'year separate and apart before getting a divorce' debate.

Just because someone takes a position that is different than yours does not mean they "[do] not give a shit about basic core principles of liberty".

Nice strawman - but I never made such an argument then, and am not making said argument now.

I could have sworn you said almost that exact same statement - that I obviously didn't care about personal liberties because I saw no problem with the state "forcing" two people to remain married for one year until they could get a divorce.

But that isn't the same as saying you don't care about personal liberty because you disagree with me. Hence the claim that I made that argument is in fact a strawman.

I do in fact believe you don't give a practical shit about personal liberty - because there is no way to reconcile giving a shit about personal liberty with the position that the state should have the power to compel people to be married who do not wish to be.

Not sure how I can make it more clear that there is a rather profound difference between "You do not care about personal liberty because you disagree with me" and "You do not care about personal liberty because you are willing to force people who do not want to be married to be married because you think they ought to be regardless of what they want".