Interesting Logic Question:

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

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.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

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.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

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

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

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.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Lacey

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.

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

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

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

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Cindy

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.

Nailed it

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

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

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!

[MawMaw]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

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.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

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

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.