Interesting Logic Question:
 

Liberals think that gun bans will reduce the rate of violent crime.
Conservatives think that abortion bans will reduce the rate of abortion.

Liberals think that the freedom of choice is best and efforts to reduce the abortion rate should be chaging minds and behaviors.

Conservatives think that freedom of choice is best with regards to gun ownership and efforts to reduce gun violence should be changing minds and behaviors.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

what was the question?

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

And the conservatives are right again...
The cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest violent crime rates.

Here is an interesting and informative site:
http://jpfo.org/

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

lol

Looks like the conservative view on both counts saves lives.

"And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives."

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

Why do both sides think that prohibition ends a human condition?

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

The difference: abortion is killing. Guns are an object.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

'Why prohibit murder then?

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

Guns are inanimate objects.
Abortion is an action.

There is no "right" to abort a baby in the constitution.
There is a right to bear arms in the constitution.

Guns can kill people but also save lives.
Abortion kills human life, unless the mother is in danger.


The counter to that is they are complete apples and oranges issues. Abortion is murder. If we use that line of thinking we should let people have "freedom of choice" to murder and rape people.

Guns are not a "freedom of choice" issue, guns are a right to protect oneself.


The argument that "abortions will happen anyway" is an insane argument because laws ARE broken all the time, but that's why we have prisons... and courts... and judges... and juries.

You can't say let's not pass laws on rape, child molestation, and murder because people will break them, that's insane.

Now here's where gun control is different, when people break gun control laws, there are criminals WITH dangerous weapons, and a law-abiding population WITHOUT dangerous weapons. There in lies the problem.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

Laws against abortion are not comparable to prohibition. You know that's as dishonest an argument as any. Prohibition is of objects like drugs, guns, etc...

...abortion is an act like murder, rape, child molestation. etc

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

So much for logic...

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

ha ha ha

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

So, here's the problem. Essentially the position that advocates banning abortion supports the GOVERNMENT seizing a woman's body and FORCING her to give birth against her will.

While I hate abortion as much as the next guy... a woman's body is her body. A GOVERNMENT that can force a woman to give birth... can force a woman to abort.

Leave the choice in the hands of individual women. Not coming at this as a "liberal". I'm coming at this as more of a Libertarian.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

I feel your pain. But again... it's her body. Neither me, nor you, nor the GOVERNMENT can seize her and control what she wishes to do with her body. She's secure in her person, property, papers, and effects.

I think it's best to leave the control ploys and leave the choice up to individual women. Then I believe that as husbands, boyfriends, politicians, preachers, Christians, we should try to address those issues that might cause a woman to consider an abortion.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

That argument makes me feel pukey!

That little tiny baby has a body too and does not wish to be murdered!!

If that woman does not want a baby or if pregnancy is a big problem to her,
why doesn't she just go have herself fixed so she can never have the option to murder or not? I can agree wholeheartedly with that choice.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

I have libertarian views, but I don't advocate a baby being forced to be killed against it's will.

A woman has to be forced to give birth to a killed fetus too. Some things are just nature whether people like it or not.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

That baby got in there somehow. She made choices. Now, she has to choose to kill it and give birth to a dead baby or give birth to a live baby. But she MUST give birth. That is because of choices SHE made.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

I think there is a misunderstanding here. These activists aren't against "guns". They are for mandatory safety courses for people, not guns. They are for more thorough background checks on people, not guns. They want stricter negligence penalties on people, not guns.

Some want to "ban" people from acquiring weapons they have no serious use for. Eh... I'm willing to entertain the notion of banning certain magazines or type of weapon. But I think the ban should expire in 5-10 years, after a national study on as to it's effectiveness. Please note... I'd rather not. But it's a political compromise. Why? Because I want something too; I want something that I know will never happen unless we give a little. I want to see the following:

- Schools, churches, businesses, and agencies able to opt out of being “gun free zones” so that they can allow “staff” with concealed weapons permits to carry.
- Better security and screening to enter schools.
- And escape doors in every classroom. In our security briefings one thing brought up was if an intruder were to go room to room breaching doors, the occupants of every room (or classroom in a school) are sitting ducks. There should be a way of escape. That way if an intruder does happen to get beyond security and start to open fire, rooms can lock down and begin evacuation.

We armed pilots and enhanced screening at airports… and we’ve not had another hijacking. Arm teachers and enhance security in schools and maybe we’ll not see anything of this magnitude again.

And… if we allow the ban to expire in 5 to 10 years, we’ll have a study on if the ban worked (which I predict it will be proven to have had little effect) , we can celebrate having not only worked together to make the country safer… but we will have expanded gun rights significantly.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

I could too. But some women might not want to be "fixed". Why are we treating them like pets to "fix" and control with regards to their person? Sure, I don't agree with abortion. But I am also leery of allowing the GOVERNMENT to FORCE a woman to give birth against her will. For better or for worse... it's her body.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

There are varying degrees for gun laws and everybody has different ideas where the lines should be drawn. There are already some laws and waiting periods.

There are varying degrees for abortion laws too.

But banning guns and banning abortion are apples and oranges IMO.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

When did our GOVERNMENT EVER FORCE anyone to give birth?

Prior history of Roe v Wade

In June 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found the unauthorized site had been closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.[8] (McCorvey would give birth before the case was decided.)

In 1970, Coffee and Weddington filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Texas on behalf of McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, representing the State of Texas. McCorvey was no longer claiming her pregnancy was the result of rape, and later acknowledged that she had lied about having been raped.[9][10] "Rape" is not mentioned in the judicial opinions in this case.[11]

The district court ruled in McCorvey's favor on the legal merits of her case, and declined to grant an injunction against the enforcement of the laws barring abortion.[11] The district court's decision was based upon the 9th Amendment, and the court relied upon a concurring opinion by Justice Arthur Goldberg in the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut,[12] finding in the decision for a right to privacy.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

It all started with deception by a woman and her friends. So all the babies that have been murdered. Their blood cries out to God and they will be avenged by Him. All the people that are unrepentant, women, doctors, nurses, lawyers, judges, politicians, etc. They will be held accountable.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

If you were a libertarian you wouldn't support gun control. From what I've seen you're mostly liberal.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

Nobody seizes anything. Nobody makes her do anything against her will. Women have been killing their babies for centuries. But to give approval of the heinous act and make it legal is immoral. And what of the baby's body? What about the poor child being cut to pieces, or salted to death? What about the freedoms and liberties of the child? It's a blight on our society. It's not a liberty issue---it's a fundamental right to life issue.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

Or give the baby up for adoption. Millions of couples would love to adopt an unwanted child. My sister has three adopted children.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

Why are we treating a baby like a piece of meat? For better or worse---it's his/her body.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

Nailed it

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

Well for cannibals...

And don't forget the chinese like their baby-flavored lotion because it makes them look younger.

Then I think to myself, what a wonderful world!

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

No one is treating them like pets. They should care more about
the choices they make and the consequences of those choices.
Don't allow yourself to become pregnant if you know you will
kill that baby later! If they don't want the child, please don't
murder it, give it to someone who will love and cherish it.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

You're not getting it. Politics is the art of compromise. The reason why nothing is really getting done on anything is because there are so many idiots in power that don't know what compromise means. Most Liberals will not support the notion of arming teachers. So... we toss them a bone... an assult weapons ban that will expire in 5-10 years, after a national study on it's effectiveness... if they allow schools to opt into something like the "Guardian" program that allows teachers to carry. Guess what... we work on building a more conservative political environment during that time. We also demonstrate though the national study that the assult weapons ban wasn't actually all that effective. Then... the ban expires.

Guess what... now we have teachers and staff able to carry guns in areas currently listed as "gun free zones"... and the ban is expired. We just advanced gun rights... we didn't curtail them. We simply made a political compromise to set the stage for what we want.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

I agree in principle.

However, it's not the GOVERNMENT'S business if a woman allows herself to get pregnant or not. It's also not the GOVERNMENT'S business as to if a woman is even pregnant. It's not the GOVERNMENT'S business if anyone is having sex or not. It's not the GOVERNMENT'S place.

Why do we think the GOVERNMENT can force a woman to give birth if she doesn't want to? As terrible as abortion is... that's some pretty serious power given to GOVERNMENT.

Now... I'm all for ministries that work on giving women prolife options and education. I think that is important. I also think churches and charities should arise to the occasion and address the issues that women face in crisis pregnancies to discourage abortion. But the moment the GOVERNMENT calls the shots on something so deeply personal as one's sovereignty over their own body... I get a bit cautious.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

Okay... let's say they ban abortions tomorrow. And a woman wants an abortion for personal reasons which she doesn't wish to disclose. What happens?

Let's say that woman is denied an abortion. So she procures one illegally. What happens?

P.S.
Many immoral things are "legal". Legality has NOTHING to do with morality.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

Those are all GREAT ideas that I support Deacon. However... notice something... everything is being stated in terms of what she should be forced to do. She should be denied an abortion and forced to give birth by the GOVERNMENT. She should want her child. She should put her child up for adoption if she doesn't want it.

Notice every position is another dimension of "control" of another. Dude... if a woman simply doesn't want to give birth... and doesn't want to discuss why... what do we do... do we force her to?

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

For me the issue is sovereignty of a woman. Being the vessel that gives birth... if she is to have absolute sovereignty over her own body... she should be invested with the power to choose. HOWEVER, I advocate that women make wise choices before pregnancy. And should a woman become pregnant (yes, it's planet earth, we're all human, it's going to happen)... I advocate that she keep it or have it and put it up for adoption. If she chooses an abortion... it's all on her. She'll answer to God for it.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

Then maybe you should be fighting against mandatory vaccinations. I just quit nursing school over them trying to force me to get a flu shot that they said became mandatory in the middle of the semester. This was not mandatory when I signed up. Right now, I am trying to get my money back.

I think the debate becomes strange when abortion rights people talk about her own body, as if her body is the only one in question. Unfortunately, there are TWO bodies involved, intertwined in a way that she does not want but should have thought of before she engaged in intercourse. Of course, in instances of rape etc, she did NOT have a choice, but I would argue she does not have a right to kill another human being over her unfortunate circumstances.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

I really don't know where you are going with this. What happens? Um, she kills her kid, right? If she gets caught, she goes to jail. Or maybe she dies from bleeding to death because of an illegal choice she made.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

The government isn't forcing her to give birth. Nature is. She will either give birth to a dead baby or a live one.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

Nature has mandated that the woman does not have sovereignty. To say otherwise is to fight against nature.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

It is an unfortunate combination. Because, in order to attempt to protect the rights of the unborn child, you have to override a pregnant woman's sovereignty over her own body. Essentially... the GOVERNMENT would be forcing her to give birth against her wishes. And if we are to protect the sovereign right of pregnant women over their own bodies, we have to compromise the rights of the unborn child.

There is no way out of it. Either way... someone's rights and sovereignty over their person will be violated.

Therefore... we have to land somewhere. Someone's rights and sovereignty must be acknowledge and at the end of the day... someone has to have the final say. For those of a more libertarian stripe... many feel that the buck stops with mom. She has the ultimate authority over both her body... and her young. My mom used to get very angry and say, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out." Yes, a very rustic perspective... but mom saw it that way. And if I messed up enough... she'd beat me within an inch of my life. She used to say, "Every parent should be issued a single bullet when their child is born... and the doctor should say, 'Use it wisely.'" She wasn't a murderous woman. But she had an old school perspective that clearly defined that she viewed herself as the ultimate authority with regards to me... and my existence.

I think my mom drew her logic from Deuteronomy 21:18-21:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (ESV)
18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

In my opinion, by given women the power to choose... we respect a mother's sovereign right over her body... and her progeny. That DOESN'T mean that I like abortion. I HATE abortion. But I can't see the GOVERNMENT essentially forcing a woman to give birth against her wishes.

Re: Interesting Logic Question:
 

I'm curious, how long? What's the charge?