GOP Primary Megathread!

[derspiess]

Sorry, Beeb.  He's yours now

[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.

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.

Sure - I think I mentioned before that that position is consistent, albeit rather radical.

It is the position that leads to people shooting abortion doctors. If you really believe that abortion is the mruder of a human being, then it is perfectly consistent to take very radical measures to stop it. Indeed, at that point shoving probes into women is a pretty minor means.

However, the set of people who feel that way for non-religious reasons seems to be virtually non-existent. I've never once heard of the radical pro-life crowd being composed of the non-religious. I suppose it is possible, but the reality is that it doesn't seem to happen.

[Berkut]

Sorry, Beeb.  He's yours now

This really is the most effective means you have of responding to me.

[Barrister]

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".

I think people can draw their own conclusions about how much (or how little) a difference there is between those two statements.  Res Ipsa Loquitor.

[Viking]

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?

I thought they repealed the whole ultrasound requirement, but after some checking it turns out they just removed the transvaginal ultrasound requirement. Now they are going to make women seeking early first tri-mester ultrasounds take pelvic ultrasounds which will see nothing.

This is less invasive, but still problematic. Religious motives are driving women to subject themselves to an unnecessary procedure.

[Maximus]

Whether or not there's a religious or theological motivation is really irrelevant and just serves to distract from the from the discussion of whether or not the infringement on personal liberties is justified.

[Eddie Teach]

It is the position that leads to people shooting abortion doctors. If you really believe that abortion is the mruder of a human being, then it is perfectly consistent to take very radical measures to stop it. Indeed, at that point shoving probes into women is a pretty minor means.

Meh. It's not only not happening to me, it literally can't happen to me.

[Berkut]

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".

I think people can draw their own conclusions about how much (or how little) a difference there is between those two statements.  Res Ipsa Loquitor.

True enough.

It is trivially easy to find many, many examples of people who disagree with me who I make no claims about their position on liberty to prove that in fact the claim that I have done so in your case for the rather idiotic reason you repeatedly claim even after I politely point out to you that you are incorrect about my motives is nothing more than a rather weak personal attack made in place of an actual argument.

[Berkut]

Whether or not there's a religious or theological motivation is really irrelevant and just serves to distract from the from the discussion of whether or not the infringement on personal liberties is justified.

Entirely true.

[Neil]

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:  Viking.

[grumbler]

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.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? 

By being gutless enough to abandon even the position that you were too gutless to take a position, you only make matters worse.  Having principles means that you stick to them even when they are unpopular (though you don't ever assume that they are the only possible principles).  The unprincipled change their positron whenever, as is the case with you in this post, changing positions is easier than standing your ground.

Go back to talking shit about women and their "whore pills.".  It can only improve your image after you shit your bed like this.

[DGuller]

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.

I've been with you so far, but I think you're reaching too far here.  If the important difference is A-C as opposed to A-B, then I don't see why religion has to explain it.  I don't see why you have to be religious to support gradually chipping away at the law you want overturned.  It may be repugnant, if those gradualist laws involve harassment like this Virginia law, but I don't see why it has to be religious in nature.

[Neil]

Whether or not there's a religious or theological motivation is really irrelevant and just serves to distract from the from the discussion of whether or not the infringement on personal liberties is justified.

And even that is an aside, as the real question is whether allow such a liberty is justified to begin with.

[grumbler]

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

And you do know that this is a fatuously erroneous assertion, right?  I am not "opposed" to abortion, and I am conservative.

[Jacob]

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.

In theory that may be possible, but it doesn't seem to be the case in reality.