2012 GOP, who's it going to be?

Valentine · 2012-01-23T21:23:34.000Z

Jason McCullough:

I think Santorum’s views are appalling, but they’re more respectable than the “pro-life unless I think it’s a good enough reason” crowd.

You think “Cherish your rape baby” is more respectable than making exceptions for the life of the mother or rape or incest?

Timex · 2012-01-23T21:29:25.000Z

Valentine:

You think “Cherish your rape baby” is more respectable than making exceptions for the life of the mother or rape or incest?

The cause of the pregnancy becomes somewhat moot when you analyze the underlying issue at hand.

At some point, the unborn child crosses some magical line, and becomes a human. At that point, it’s given protections under the law.

So, the key point of contention becomes where that line is drawn, and what separates a human from a non-human. The underlying cause of the entity’s creation doesn’t play into it. If at some point the entity isn’t a human, then the issue is moot. The woman can do what she likes. If the entity is a human, then again the issue is moot, because it cannot be held responsible for the actions of the criminal father.

Jason_McCullough · 2012-01-23T21:37:39.000Z

Yeah, if you really do think it’s murder, the equivalent of strangling a 5 year old, it’s pretty hard to figure out how it being a rape pregnancy somehow makes it ok.

John_Many_Jars · 2012-01-23T21:56:45.000Z

Santorum isn’t a hypocrite, he’s a bona fide religious zealot. He’s the blue-blazer equivalent of Sharia law.

I’d much rather have a hypocrite of the shiny mannikin (Romney) or neo-Nixon (Gingrich) variety in the White House than Rick Santorum. For now I’ll take the Obama variety, though.

Valentine · 2012-01-23T22:10:51.000Z

Jason McCullough:

Yeah, if you really do think it’s murder, the equivalent of strangling a 5 year old, it’s pretty hard to figure out how it being a rape pregnancy somehow makes it ok.

So you respect zealots more than reasonable people is what you’re saying.

I just…have no idea how to respond to that.

Valentine · 2012-01-23T22:11:45.000Z

Timex:

The cause of the pregnancy becomes somewhat moot when you analyze the underlying issue at hand.

At some point, the unborn child crosses some magical line, and becomes a human. At that point, it’s given protections under the law.

So, the key point of contention becomes where that line is drawn, and what separates a human from a non-human. The underlying cause of the entity’s creation doesn’t play into it. If at some point the entity isn’t a human, then the issue is moot. The woman can do what she likes. If the entity is a human, then again the issue is moot, because it cannot be held responsible for the actions of the criminal father.

Boom ignore

Jason_McCullough · 2012-01-23T22:32:07.000Z

Valentine:

So you respect zealots more than reasonable people is what you’re saying.

I just…have no idea how to respond to that.

“Respect” isn’t the right word; I think both are ridiculous hurtful opinions to try to enforce on anyone else. People who are pro-life except in case of rape, however, take that and then slather lying to themselves and you about why they have that opinion on top of it.

Valentine · 2012-01-23T23:14:48.000Z

Jason McCullough:

“Respect” isn’t the right word; I think both are ridiculous hurtful opinions to try to enforce on anyone else. People who are pro-life except in case of rape, however, take that and then slather lying to themselves and you about why they have that opinion on top of it.

I kinda understand what you’re saying but I think a person who’s thought through their beliefs enough that even they can see there are cracks in them is more respectable than a zealot like Santorum. Kinda in the way walking around with your eyes half open is better than completely shut.

Anders_Hallin · 2012-01-24T00:12:34.000Z

Timex:

The cause of the pregnancy becomes somewhat moot when you analyze the underlying issue at hand.

At some point, the unborn child crosses some magical line, and becomes a human. At that point, it’s given protections under the law.

So, the key point of contention becomes where that line is drawn, and what separates a human from a non-human. The underlying cause of the entity’s creation doesn’t play into it. If at some point the entity isn’t a human, then the issue is moot. The woman can do what she likes. If the entity is a human, then again the issue is moot, because it cannot be held responsible for the actions of the criminal father.

Of course, if you’re of a libertarian bent, you might then ask which other human gets the right to literally parasite of another person’s body for 9 months over the wishes of that person.

Timex · 2012-01-24T06:13:14.000Z

Anders Hallin:

Of course, if you’re of a libertarian bent, you might then ask which other human gets the right to literally parasite of another person’s body for 9 months over the wishes of that person.

It becomes an issue of minimizing the harm done at that point. The woman is put into a terrible position, but ultimately carrying the child through term constitutes less harm than actually killing the child.

Bear in mind here, since I guess Valentine just put me on ignore for my previous post (lol?), I’m merely presenting the most logical extrapolation from an assumption of human life at some particular point in fetal development.

This doesn’t constitute a defense of Santorum’s position, or really even a position on abortion at all. It’s merely pointing out that whether a pregnancy comes from a rape or incest doesn’t have any logical place in the discussion. The discussion is about when human life begins.

Rightbug · 2012-01-24T08:41:12.000Z

Mark Asher:

I’m still a bit puzzled why Perry immediately supported Gingrich after dropping out. He must have some kind of ax to grind with Romney.

This is the same thing we saw in 2008 – Romney’s opponents in the primary were all united in their hatred of him. It was the one thing everyone agreed on and it was assured that no one would pick him for VP.

It’s why he’s having trouble nailing down the nomination even though he’s the only semi-reasonable option they have.

Scuzz · 2012-01-24T08:57:49.000Z

Timex got put on ignore.
Timex got put on ignore.

Valentine is just so mean.

Valentine · 2012-01-24T13:02:43.000Z

Scuzz:

Timex got put on ignore.
Timex got put on ignore.

Valentine is just so mean.

It’s not about being “mean” it’s about not arguing with disingenuous people. Multiple, multiple times has Timex made a post defending something (usually something offensive or objectionable) then, after a bit of back and forth with a shifting opinion burst out with “well, it’s not MY opinion” and played the “devil’s advocate” card.
He seems to think there’s some value in being a living thought process, as if no one has really thought through their opinion and he’s providing a helpful service by arguing the other side.
I just don’t want to argue with someone who doesn’t actually have an opinion, just wants to shit on everyone else’s opinion from a wobbly perch.

Scuzz · 2012-01-24T13:49:35.000Z

Valentine:

It’s not about being “mean” it’s about not arguing with disingenuous people. Multiple, multiple times has Timex made a post defending something (usually something offensive or objectionable) then, after a bit of back and forth with a shifting opinion burst out with “well, it’s not MY opinion” and played the “devil’s advocate” card.
He seems to think there’s some value in being a living thought process, as if no one has really thought through their opinion and he’s providing a helpful service by arguing the other side.
I just don’t want to argue with someone who doesn’t actually have an opinion, just wants to shit on everyone else’s opinion from a wobbly perch.

Then just don’t respond to him. I have noticed here that there are some people who like the 25-50 word post, and others who like the 200-500 word post. And then there are those that reiterate everything as though each post is a new thought. It is just each persons individual style.

Valentine · 2012-01-24T13:54:49.000Z

Scuzz:

Then just don’t respond to him.

With him on ignore I won’t!

charmtrap · 2012-01-24T14:02:03.000Z

This here Twitter account is killing me today:

https://twitter.com/#!/GingrichIdeas

Use victory speech to talk about my Babylon 5 fan fiction.
Give poor children Etch A Sketches and say they’re iPads.
Pick up a hooker on the way to Florida, because apparently no one gives a shit.
Remind people that this debate is preempting Fear Factor, then dump a bucket of maggots on Mitt’s head.
Class action lawsuit against Science for failure to invent jetpacks.

Timex · 2012-01-24T14:02:35.000Z

Valentine didn’t really understand what my post said, which is why she said, “Bam ignore!” to me, but didn’t respond in quite the same manner when Jason agreed with what I was saying.

She thought that, somehow, my post was anti-abortion. In reality, it was just about eliminating superfluous, emotionally charged aspects of the argument.

Honestly, I don’t have any problem with her putting me on ignore though. It’s better than having her rage against my posts because she assumes they’re saying horrible things, due to her preconceptions of me as some kind of crazy right wing stereotype.

Anders_Hallin · 2012-01-24T14:17:48.000Z

Timex:

It becomes an issue of minimizing the harm done at that point. The woman is put into a terrible position, but ultimately carrying the child through term constitutes less harm than actually killing the child.

From the libertarian perspective, I’m pretty sure “less harm” is meaningless when you’re talking about infringing on a person’s rights. In other words, from a libertarian perspective, you can’t force a person to give blood, and you can’t force a person to carry a fetus to term.

Timex · 2012-01-24T14:54:53.000Z

Anders Hallin:

From the libertarian perspective, I’m pretty sure “less harm” is meaningless when you’re talking about infringing on a person’s rights. In other words, from a libertarian perspective, you can’t force a person to give blood, and you can’t force a person to carry a fetus to term.

Well, I’m not quite sure what specific “libertarian perspective” we’re talking about here. I’m assuming that you mean some extreme and dogmatic interpretation?

The case in question becomes somewhat problematic. Both individuals (again, assuming the child is a human for the sake of argument, since otherwise the argument is moot) have been put into this position without their consent. Both outcomes will involve infringing upon the liberty of one of them.

So, given that, I’d tend to think the purest libertarian view would attempt to minimize the overall damage to liberty, and suggest that the child should be allowed to live. The mother would suffer an infringement of her rights, but less so than the infringement suffered by the child if it were put to death.

Although, again it hinges upon the assumption that the child is a human. I think many libertarians aren’t actually anti-abortion, because they wouldn’t accept that assumption.

Anders_Hallin · 2012-01-24T15:54:30.000Z

Timex:

Well, I’m not quite sure what specific “libertarian perspective” we’re talking about here. I’m assuming that you mean some extreme and dogmatic interpretation?

No, I don’t think so. If the question is “in what situation is the state allowed to force a person to use their body to keep another person alive?” I am hard-pressed to see how a libertarian could come up with an answer other than “never.”

Of course, I’m being as cute as you here (presuming that you’re doing the “well, I don’t really hold these opinions, but…”-thing), since my reasons for being staunchly pro-choice is that it is the moral and just policy to have and the alternative (warning, graphic) is unacceptable and exceedingly cruel, and I’m shocked how many people seem so willing to put up moral tribunals to make sure only the “right” kind of abortions are performed. In addition, I don’t really care all that much about fetuses and think their main value is in the hopes and expectations the presumptive parents put in them. Lacking that element, I simply don’t have an emotional stake.