7 ms·

It's unfortunate that he believes the government should control a woman's uterus, which is an even more serious invasion of privacy and more likely to cause har

It's unfortunate that he believes the government should control a woman's uterus, which is an even more serious invasion of privacy and more likely to cause harm than this data collection.

zecho 13y ago
I'm unsure why exactly you're being down voted, but unless someone who down voted you comes forward, I'm guessing the answer is in part misogynistic and also in part myopia on the importance of data collection vs. women's reproductive rights. Regardless, it's an important point to make that politicians are complex creatures, just like the rest of us. It's best not to hold them in high regard as people and to instead focus on their policies.
- michaelwww 13y ago
  I'm guessing HN is over-whelmingly younger males, so reproductive rights are not a big issue. Someday some of them will have a daughter and they'll have a chance to rethink the issue.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    I have a daughter. That still doesn't make me willing to throw out a candidate for his/her potential to stop or slow a problem we are actually having because they hold a position that could never actually be applied in any case. Pretty much all politicians are awful right now so if you're not going to run yourself you're going to have to make compromises in who you vote for. Please make practical ones.
    - michaelwww 13y ago
      I never said I wouldn't vote for him. I said I find his views on reproductive rights unfortunate and inconsistent with his libertarian values. I'd hope his views on this issue would evolve the way Obama evolved on gay marriage. I'm more curious than anything. Do his libertarian values only apply to men? Or is he taking a hard line on abortion to get elected in Kentucky? Time will tell, but in the meantime I applaud his efforts to challenge the administration on drones and privacy.
- a-priori 13y ago
  I don't blame people for downvoting michaelwww because their comment is an ad hominem attack on Rand Paul. Paul's attitude on abortion has no bearing on the PRISM lawsuit.
  - zecho 13y ago
    Yes it does. It calls into question his motivations when it comes to civil liberties. He could build a much stronger coalition among civil libertarians if he were more consistent in his beliefs about the extent to which the government can monitor and control the people who give it power.
    - michaelwww 13y ago
      Exactly!
    - nsxwolf 13y ago
      If you honestly believe life begins at conception and should be protected, you believe the civil rights issue at hand is the right to life of the unborn, which may, in your moral estimation, supersede a woman's reproductive rights. A person acting against that belief in order to satisfy your own personal beliefs would be a hypocrite, no? My overall point is there is no conflict in accepting his good faith position that you agree with while rejecting his other good faith position you don't agree with.
    - nathan_long 13y ago
      >> It calls into question his motivations when it comes to civil liberties. Only if you accept a priori an answer to the core issue which is debated in the abortion issue: whether an unborn baby should be protected as a human life. Nobody argues that government is invasive if it forbids stabbing a toddler to death behind closed doors. People do argue that one may stab a fetus to death behind closed doors. The point of contention is not privacy, but the definition of human life. Pretending that the issue is already settled even as you argue for a particular policy is either naive or disingenuous.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  He's probably being downvoted because his comment is a useless sidetrack of the issue. It doesn't matter what Rand's position on Abortion is as he'll never have the required level of support to change it.
nhangen 13y ago
Because he believes that abortion is a state's rights issue, and furthermore, that at some point, the rights of the uterus should be superseded by the rights of the living. It's not really that hard to grasp is it? Regardless, that has nothing to do with this issue.
- justin66 13y ago
  > Regardless, that has nothing to do with this issue. It kind of does, since a few posts above started with the Libertarian plug. One typical response to that plug is to point out that libertarians often care only about liberty as it pertains to them personally. This is a fourteen-year-old's view of the world and it's one of the things that marginalizes libertarians as it is depressingly common among them.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    What is truly marginalizing is to infantilize an entire philosophical position without actually putting in some effort to try and understand it.
- michaelwww 13y ago
  "Paul may just have alienated a large chunk of the millennial base he has been trying to reach out to with his latest “fetal personhood” legislation, the Life at Conception Act, which would fully outlaw abortion in the United States." http://www.policymic.com/articles/30223/rand-paul-abortion-bill-life-at-conception-act-would-outlaw-abortion http://www.policymic.com/articles/30223/rand-paul-abortion-b...
seandhi 13y ago
I do not understand why it is so hard to support someone when you agree with them and fight them when you do not. That person X supports reprehensible policy Y does not mean that you cannot support him/her on Z.
x__ 13y ago
(straw man)
flyinRyan 13y ago
Thanks for helping make the US suck. Do you really think if someone like Rand or Ron were president they would overturn Roe vs. Wade? You irrelevant-one-issue voters have got to get your heads out of your collective asses.

It's unfortunate that he believes the government should control a woman's uterus, which is an even more serious invasion of privacy and more likely to cause harm than this data collection.

zecho 13y ago

I'm unsure why exactly you're being down voted, but unless someone who down voted you comes forward, I'm guessing the answer is in part misogynistic and also in part myopia on the importance of data collection vs. women's reproductive rights. Regardless, it's an important point to make that politicians are complex creatures, just like the rest of us. It's best not to hold them in high regard as people and to instead focus on their policies.

michaelwww 13y ago
I'm guessing HN is over-whelmingly younger males, so reproductive rights are not a big issue. Someday some of them will have a daughter and they'll have a chance to rethink the issue.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  I have a daughter. That still doesn't make me willing to throw out a candidate for his/her potential to stop or slow a problem we are actually having because they hold a position that could never actually be applied in any case. Pretty much all politicians are awful right now so if you're not going to run yourself you're going to have to make compromises in who you vote for. Please make practical ones.
  - michaelwww 13y ago
    I never said I wouldn't vote for him. I said I find his views on reproductive rights unfortunate and inconsistent with his libertarian values. I'd hope his views on this issue would evolve the way Obama evolved on gay marriage. I'm more curious than anything. Do his libertarian values only apply to men? Or is he taking a hard line on abortion to get elected in Kentucky? Time will tell, but in the meantime I applaud his efforts to challenge the administration on drones and privacy.
a-priori 13y ago
I don't blame people for downvoting michaelwww because their comment is an ad hominem attack on Rand Paul. Paul's attitude on abortion has no bearing on the PRISM lawsuit.
- zecho 13y ago
  Yes it does. It calls into question his motivations when it comes to civil liberties. He could build a much stronger coalition among civil libertarians if he were more consistent in his beliefs about the extent to which the government can monitor and control the people who give it power.
  - michaelwww 13y ago
    Exactly!
  - nsxwolf 13y ago
    If you honestly believe life begins at conception and should be protected, you believe the civil rights issue at hand is the right to life of the unborn, which may, in your moral estimation, supersede a woman's reproductive rights. A person acting against that belief in order to satisfy your own personal beliefs would be a hypocrite, no? My overall point is there is no conflict in accepting his good faith position that you agree with while rejecting his other good faith position you don't agree with.
  - nathan_long 13y ago
    >> It calls into question his motivations when it comes to civil liberties. Only if you accept a priori an answer to the core issue which is debated in the abortion issue: whether an unborn baby should be protected as a human life. Nobody argues that government is invasive if it forbids stabbing a toddler to death behind closed doors. People do argue that one may stab a fetus to death behind closed doors. The point of contention is not privacy, but the definition of human life. Pretending that the issue is already settled even as you argue for a particular policy is either naive or disingenuous.
flyinRyan 13y ago
He's probably being downvoted because his comment is a useless sidetrack of the issue. It doesn't matter what Rand's position on Abortion is as he'll never have the required level of support to change it.

nhangen 13y ago

Because he believes that abortion is a state's rights issue, and furthermore, that at some point, the rights of the uterus should be superseded by the rights of the living. It's not really that hard to grasp is it? Regardless, that has nothing to do with this issue.

justin66 13y ago
> Regardless, that has nothing to do with this issue. It kind of does, since a few posts above started with the Libertarian plug. One typical response to that plug is to point out that libertarians often care only about liberty as it pertains to them personally. This is a fourteen-year-old's view of the world and it's one of the things that marginalizes libertarians as it is depressingly common among them.
- dnautics 13y ago
  What is truly marginalizing is to infantilize an entire philosophical position without actually putting in some effort to try and understand it.
michaelwww 13y ago
"Paul may just have alienated a large chunk of the millennial base he has been trying to reach out to with his latest “fetal personhood” legislation, the Life at Conception Act, which would fully outlaw abortion in the United States." http://www.policymic.com/articles/30223/rand-paul-abortion-bill-life-at-conception-act-would-outlaw-abortion http://www.policymic.com/articles/30223/rand-paul-abortion-b...

seandhi 13y ago

I do not understand why it is so hard to support someone when you agree with them and fight them when you do not. That person X supports reprehensible policy Y does not mean that you cannot support him/her on Z.

x__ 13y ago

(straw man)

flyinRyan 13y ago

Thanks for helping make the US suck. Do you really think if someone like Rand or Ron were president they would overturn Roe vs. Wade? You irrelevant-one-issue voters have got to get your heads out of your collective asses.