How many gun control supporters also support abortion?

Just wondering how many of you ultra-caring individuals who would impose restrictions on the rights of gun owners out of greater sympathy for the children of Newtown that we, gun control opponents, possess, also support the "right" of women to kill their unborn children under the absolutely ridiculous and disingenuous excuse that it is not a baby until it is born.

 

You assume that gun owners are all right wing I think. I do support a woman's right to choose what happens with her body, as well as choosing what weapons to arm herself with.

 

As do I! I support her right to choose what happens to her body right up until she has chosen. Once she has chosen to conceive, someone else's body is involved and she doesn't have any more choices that infringe upon someone else's body. I will say this---I know what a baby looks like, and that is it! Anyone who sees something else must think the rest of us are fools. We are not.

Assuming is a bad thing (and I will avoid the colloquialism). I do not believe that all gun control opponents are right wingers. I hold many viewpoints which many others would call, and have called liberal. One called be a socialist recently. But I know what I see, and I am looking at an ultrasound of a baby and I can assure you, it IS a BABY. It is not fetal tissue, nor does it fit any other dehumanizing description that placates your conscience, if you have one. It is a baby.

If you want to know why all of these young people grow up with no respect for the value of human life, it is because they see people looking at these babies and making ridiculous excuses for killing them for their own convenience. They are thus taught that it is alright to make specious excuses for killing others for their own convenience. Why shouldn't they, you do it!

 

Probably a similar number to those people who support unrestricted gun possession on the principal of individual freedom but also support strict anti-drug laws.

I fear both numbers are higher than the number of people who come to independent conclusions on each individual issue on the basis of a rational assessment of all the relevant facts.

 

This is a well-reasoned response (something I was not expecting). I expect that we could far better use the resources that we spend every year on the "war on drugs". Only "problem" is that so many police departments and prosecutorial agencies live on that money. And yes, I have been a member of both genres of agencies.

I believe that your response was implicit in my previous post, e.g. that none of us should/would be right-wingers or left-wingers if we are actually considering each issue intelligently.

 

I support legal , unregistered, ownership of firearms, including semi-automatic rifles and large magazines. I am pro choice, and would like to see the war on drugs ended.

I think there is more diversity on various issues by those on the right whereas those on the left tend to agree on most every issue. However, the major media would have you believe that when someone disagrees with any leftist position they must be a racist, tea-party, neanderthal.

 

I agree with pretty much everything this person has said. It follows my views for the most part.

 

People must be responisble for their own actions. The test that "Do you know what you're doing is wrong" must be applied to all things people do.

When does an unborn human "become" a real human being with rights? Obama & Co. say they arn't until after the umbilical cord is cut, regardless of age and viabillity. Unborn children are considered to be like slaves in pre-Civil War days by most pro-choicers. Unborn babies are the property of the mother---like a slave to its master. A master my treat their slaves as they please, beating them to death if neccessay. A mom can do the same thing with her unwanted clump of cells.

As you can guess, I am pro-gun rights, pro-life and pro-death penalty for all convicted repeat violent felons.

 

Bunch of bull. I have no idea where you got that "more diversity on the right" thing (I'm thinking from your a$$) but I spit coffee out my nose when I read that. I've always said (and never been proven wrong), "You show me a racist, tea-party, right-wing Neanderthal and I'll tell you how that knuckle-dragger thinks, votes, and feels on any topic under the sun." Be that as it is, you can also say pretty much the same thing about the left. That's the definition of "extremist". It's moderates such as myself that aren't so predictable. We reason our way through an issue (alike either extreme) and use a combination of head and heart to form our opinions, not just one or the other like a wingnut.

 

Now why would you have seized upon that one thing that the poster said and ignored all of the very reasonable things that he said?

 

For what it is worth, to the medical community, a fetus is only a baby when it is in front of the parents. At all other times, it is considered a fetus and not a human being yet.

 

He had two short paragraphs. The first was reasonable, the second made me choke. You tell me: why would I comment on the first one?

Damn, you knucks are predictable!

 

Could not have said it better myself.

 

Perhaps you wouldn't comment on the first because it gives the lie to your stereotype of "the right".

In my experience both in people that I talk to and know, the doctrinaire support of every issue by left-leaning politicians, and posts I see here, my second paragraph is supported. Mot withstanding your rude comment and you dificulty with beverages.

 

Thin skin, huh?

 

Probably because it's a waste of time posting "I agree", and wading through such posts, when the point of the board is to share varying ideas...?

 

I would impose reasonable restrictions regarding the process for obtaining firearms, and support only early-term abortions in cases of rape, incest or potential medical complication to the mother.

Does that answer your loaded question?

 

I didn't realize women could CHOOSE when to conceive and when not to any more than we men can CHOOSE to fertilize an egg...
Seems funny that women don't have the right to make choices that infringe on someone else's body, but anti-choice folks do...

 

If you find that question loaded, then you must have something to hide. You gave a more reasonable answer than I expected, given your previous threads, but I know from those previous threads that the restrictions on obtaining firearms that you propose are not reasonable. They are ill-conceived and the only good that they have the potential for is to make you feel the moral superiority of believing that you have actually done something about the problem, while restricting only the rights that other people wish to exercise. So you get the best of both worlds, while the people out there in dangerous places suffer the consequences. The greatest ill that your proposals engender is that they create the illusion that something has been done about the problem, when it has not, and that they delay meaningful measures by years, while these paintbrush measures are relied upon.

I believe that your position on abortion is reasonable. Although abortions in those cases still result in the deaths of children, taking one life in defense of another is a legally and, I believe, morally justifiable thing. It does not assuage the conscience, and it should weigh heavily upon those who must do it. Unfortunately, there are those who do this for no good reason whose consciences do not bother them whatsoever.

 

You do know, they found out what causes that---(conception)?

You are a sick and dangerous individual and you persist in your myopia because it assists you in arriving at the conclusions that you seek. It's called convenient myopia or, in some settings, idiopathic myopia.

 

One thing you may want to think about when it comes to abortion, if a parent is willing to abort a pregnancy, are they really fit parents to begin with? I understand that if you are reasponsible enough to go in, you should be reasponsible for what comes out, but you need to stop and think, how will this child's life be living with parents that didn't want him/her but didn't have the choice but to keep him/her?

 

I am pro gun, I own a firearm and have lived in a firearm family (From Shotguns and pistols to semi auto hi capacity weapons) I think everyone should at least fire a weapon once in their life but wouldnt force anyone to.

I am pro-choice because some people whoa re unfit to be parents (and know it have a choice) Just like people who are fit but have the possibility of death to the mother/wife/spouse have the option). People who know they cannot afford to take care of themselves and know they would have to leech of a system to survive who do not want to do that or put their child up for adoption because there are already too many kids in the system. They have the choice and option. I agree once they make a decision to have/not have they should be with that decision but not forced to the decision.

Side Note:
I do beleive in the Death Penalty for 3 time aggressive/violent offenders and lifers. But there needs to be a job for those who come out and to get their time away from re-commiting a crime. Manual labor for the city they live in to paperwork at certain places that would be good for someone to try and change their lives.

 

That is an interesting question. I believe that I would be a fit parent, as well as my girl friend, but we would get an abortion right now if she became pregnant. Why? Because I have not even got my foot in any door for a long term stable career, and she is still in medical school. I am treading water while I am going through the hiring process for a law enforcement agency and she is finishing up her second year of medical school. Neither of us would be able to support a child right now, but we will definitely be able to in three to seven years. Now is not a good time, for either of us or for the child, for a long term, stable, and healthy relationship to bring a kid into the world. We also practice safe sex, using birth control and condoms.

There is a time and place for kids, and being in an unstable situation without the foundation to properly raise the child is not it. I can't speak for other peoples situations so I choose to let them have the choice on weather it is good for them or not.

Do not construe that I am for using abortions as a form of long term birth control. There are ways that a society can still let a person have the right to choose to have an abortion and still make abortions an undesirable situation like price control or education methods even before conception. I don't prescribe to the notion that only rape victims, incest, and maternal danger are the ONLY applicable situations for an abortion, just that a woman has a right to choose what happens to her body. I also hold the belief that a woman has more right to say what happens in that situation than a man because for most situations, the child stays with the mother for more than 51% of the time.

 

Addressing the original poster. I think the problem with you comparing abortion to gun control, you are not comparing two similar situations. The 2nd amendment protects firearm ownership, there is no similar guarantee for abortion. What you are trying to do is vilify persons who support abortion yet support gun control by implying that abortions kill just as guns do. I find that to be pretty silly because you are basically saying by that comparison that abortion kills as do guns, and therefore the second amendment is your constitutional right to kill. If you want to go down that route that is fine, but I don't think you are going to get much support beyond the activists and the NRA.

 

for me its not a matter of what the debaters on this forum think, in relationship of these two issues together.

watch the hearings in the hall of governance all across america, and in the halls on capital hill.

our elected officials including the most fanatically pro abortion president yet. are attempting to enforce. gun control using the murders of children in newtown as an emotional call to action. and the call for the establishment of restrictive gun control laws, or gun bans, are from people, who have consistently and publicly supported abortion rights in office. also, this call for gun control, is almost exclusively made by members of the democrat party. which has in its party platform, the intent to protect a womans right to abortion.

is this a contraindication??

it seems the democrat's currently in power, will only stir themselves to protect children, when those children are not inside of the womb. (further contradiction, they work at gun control laws that have the effect of disarming those who have the ability, and the will, to protect children from madmen)

you see. the democrat leadership work to enact laws that deny the responsible adults in schools the arms they may need to protect the children in there charge. from armed madmen. (gun free zones) they attempt to keep the arms the citizenry may use to protect there own children. (gun control laws, and bans imposed on citizens) then they use the needless* deaths of children and adults. at the newtown school, in an attempt to impose more gun bans, and bun control laws. (when there own anti gun philosophy is by and large, the cause for the scale of that massacre)

the democratic party elite ignores the constitution when they promote gun control, yet, when any law restricting abortion in some way is enacted, the usual suspects, pop up with a weak constitutional defense of the right to abortion.




*needless deaths at newtown,? yes, the courageous staff at that school did not run, they stood up to the madman. and were murdered, because all they had to lawfully stand up to a madman with, was there bare hands.if i trust a teacher with my child's entire future. with proper training, and safeguards, would i not trust them with the appropriate arms necessary to protect my children from a madmen as well.