1761

Worth reading.

1762

Except that the alternative is the complete suppression of liberty of the child. In such a case, if you believe the fetus is a human child, the libertarianism could support carrying it to term, since doing so maximizes the overall liberty. It’s the same reason that a libertarian supports outlawing murder. While it may infringe upon the liberty of the murderer, it protects a greater amount of liberty by preventing the victim from losing ALL of their liberty.

In the first trimester, I am pro choice, because I would not equate an embryo to a human being. It has no functional nervous system, and thus is missing the primary aspect which I think defines a human being.

Once you hit the third trimester, you have a functioning nervous system, and things become a little bit more tricky. I generally feel that, when possible, we should avoid killing things and causing pain (my feelings in this regard extend to animals as well). I don’t take a hardline buddhist view here, and absolutely avoid it whenever possible, but at the same time I generally try to respect living things.

The other aspect of a late term abortion, to me, is that it seems as though it’s something that we can avoid. In cases like rape or incest, it seems as though such things can be dealt with in the first or second trimester.

Overall though, abortion isn’t really an issue that I vote on. I don’t feel like the status quo is enabling some kind of moral atrocity. As I said, I generally would want to prevent any animal capable of feeling pain from suffering, but this isn’t an issue which I consider primary for me. And my views based on it are not really in line with either side of the argument anyway.

1763

Gingrich is ahead now in a couple of national polls:

The Gallup daily tracking poll – a five-day rolling average – put Mr. Gingrich on top among Republican voters, 31 percent to Mr. Romney’s 27 percent, for the first time in well over a month on Tuesday. It’s a massive change from the 23-point lead Romney enjoyed just over a week ago.

A Rasmussen poll, meanwhile, also showed Gingrich way up nationally, with 35 percent among likely GOP voters to Romney’s 28 percent. “Support for Gingrich has jumped a total of 19 points in two surveys since early January, while Romney’s support has held steady in that same period,” the report says.

(In both polls, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are registering in the low double-digits.)

I don’t think there’s anything Romney can do besides run negative ads and attack Gingrich and hope that it works. If Gingrich wins in Florida it will be crazy time in the party establishment offices.

1764

Since I made a pledge to no longer get pulled into abortion threads, I’ll try to get this bck in a different direction:]

Does anyone thing Newt actually has a significant chance to win the nomination? I still think that, while he has hurt Romney, who appeared to have started an easy roll to the nomination, Gingrich will ultimately be weighed down by all of his baggage. I tend to think what we saw in SC (one state) was a lot of deep south conservatives, the most extreme segment (who are the ones who tend to vote in primaries,) showing that they just ain’t gonna vote for no New England yankee semi-liberal who is probably a Kennedy somewhere in his background. (I reserve the right to make fun of southerners since my parents are from the deep south and, while I lived all over the world as an Air Force kid, I did go to high school my last two years a few miles down the road from Denny Atkin in Y’all-ville, Mississippi. ;) )

I have to believe that the powers to be in the GOP have to be meeting somewhere, developing plans to derail Newt. They can’t want to go against Obama with someone whose closet holds more skeletons than Jeffrey Dahmer’s.

1765

Significant? Sure, but it’s still small. Maybe one in four.

1766

No, I’m pretty sure (someone can of course correct me here) that’s because libertarians generally believe in negative rights, rather than positive rights. That is, you have the right to not be murdered - you do not have the right to be kept alive. To be held alive by blood transfusions would be a positive right, and a libertarian would not be in favour of a regime that forced people to donate blood even though donating blood is a negligible loss of liberty compared to the positive effect it would have on the liberty of the person receiving the transfusion.

And my views based on it are not really in line with either side of the argument anyway.

I didn’t really read anything in what you wrote that would keep you from a strongly pro-choice position?

1767

But it’s a little different than just a blood transfusion in this case. I guess that in the case where you simply deliver the fetus, and it is not developmentally capable of life, then it’s similar. But in some cases, the fetus is actually killed directly by the doctor.

I think I understand what you’re saying here though. At the same time, I’m not sure it necessarily falls into the category of simply being a positive right. I think it’s probably closer to the situation of having the right to not be murdered, especially given the fact that the child did absolutely nothing to put itself into that situation.

Additionally, despite considering myself a libertarian, I would generally support keeping someone alive in a situation where the requirement is merely to give them blood transfusions for a few months. Perhaps it’s not because I think they have the “right” to them, but rather because I think it’s moral to try and keep other people alive if you can do so without compromising the liberty of everyone else to a significant degree.

I think it depends on what you would consider “strongly pro-choice”. Certainly, from the perspective of a religious right person, my views would be strongly pro-choice.

But some who would consider themselves strongly pro-choice may take issue with my reservations regarding late term abortions. Although, at the same time, I think virtually everyone shares those reservations to some extent. I don’t think anyone thinks that it’s ok for a woman to just have a late term abortion for fun, just because “hey, it’s her body!” Yet, in order to prevent a slide towards pro-life practices, I think some of the most hard-line pro-choice folks would resist accepting a definition of anything prior to birth as being defined as a human life. But to me, no magical transformation takes place that makes it non-human in the woman, and then human when it’s moved a few inches and is now outside.

So, maybe I’m pro-choice? Like I said, I think some of those reservations that I have would probably put me at odds with folks on both sides of the argument.

Then again, since it’s not an issue I vote based on, and I don’t crusade to change the status quo, I guess I’m kind of de-facto pro-choice from a practical standpoint.

1768

In the case of rape the woman did nothing to put herself into that situation. Hypotheticals based on libertarian rights are endless sinkhole of fun.

1769

I’m starting to, actually… and if you had told me I’d feel this way a month back I would have taken away your car keys until you sobered up.

Florida will tell, but I think the GOP primary-goers (hard-core conservatives) are excited about Gingrich in a way that they are not excited about Romney. If he can win Florida he’ll be halfway home. He needs money and some organization, but I think he can inherit some of the latter from Perry and Bachmann, and the former tends to follow success.

I’m not certain the Republican Ruling Cabal exists any more. They sold their soul to the Tea Party, kicked out all the moderates, and now the wingnut chickens are coming home to roost.

Ye gods but what a wonderful election season it would be if we ended up with a Gingrich/Perry vs. Obama/Clinton contest!

1770

Yes, which makes her suffering terrible. But, if you accept that the fetus is a child, then you are left with a decision where one of them is going to have their liberties violated, regardless of the decision. So you make the one which violates them to a lesser degree.

As I said though, to me the best decision in such a case would be to allow an abortion (if the woman chooses, of course, as that’s not necessarily a given), and just have it done prior to the embryo even becoming a fetus.

1771

Gringrich/Perry gets eaten alive and takes half of the GOP congress with it. The GOP simply won’t let it happen.

1772

What if the voters say different (I mean, for the GOP nomination, obviously)?

I could see this year’s convention being sort of a repeat of 1976 and Reagan vs. Ford.

1773

I think Gingrich has a chance. It’s the hardcore who come out to vote in primaries and more and more they seem energized more by Gingrich than Romney. No one really wants Romney. It’s kind of crazy because he really does seem like he’d run well against Obama. It’s really hard to imagine Gingrich beating Obama, though. He’s Goldwater in '64 or McGovern in '72 or Mondale in '84.

1774

I think most of Gingrich’s support comes from the fact that when he debates, his ego lets him speak with an air of authority, which is kind of what people want when things are crappy. Even when what he says is bullshit, the fact checkers don’t really come into play because the impression has already been made.

So, unless you have someone actually call him directly on his crap, right when he says them during a debate, and gives off the same degree of authority, then Gingrich will continue to “win” debates.

1775

No kidding re: no one calling him on his crap. As they pointed out on yesterday’s Daily Show, John King totally wiffed on the opportunity to do so when Newt got all OUTRAGED at the “open marriage” revelation. King could have called him on his rank hypocrisy in going after Clinton when he himself had been having an extramarital affair for a number of years, not to mention all his blather about “protecting the sanctity of marriage.”

1776

One theory I saw is that King expected him to do that, and was laying up an easy pitch for him.

1777

Ah, but libertarianism has no system for assigning different weight values to different kinds of rights! Hence the fun.

1778

Romney’s reaction to the State of the Union address was to say that Obama is stealing his ideas.

So am I wrong to think that this is going to backfire on Romney? Won’t Gingrich use that remark to say that Romney and Obama are both liberals and both have the same wrong ideas? Why would Romney want to identify with Obama in any way?

1779

One could argue that the 24 hour news channels would have more material to work with if the nomination fight is extended.

Btw, the game theorist Bruce Bueno de Mesquita thinks that Newt will win the nomination (but lose the election).

1780

Because doing that would be bias! Liberal bias

(click chart for context and source. X axis is “trust”)

The media has gotten so sensitive to the “biased” label they are absolutely falling over themselves to say nothing.

Meanwhile FOX is flip-flopping between “unbiased” and “biased to balance the scales of the left biased sources” and no one is calling them on it because then they’d look biased.