How many gun control supporters also support abortion?

logician, i'm not catholic, not all Christians are. i have used contraception. as has my wife.
i'm sorry, let me explain this, i was not saying anything about sex AND religion, i was only talking about sex, and the natural consequence of it.

however, unrestrained libertine behavior, is unchristian. (in that the bible has within it a moral code) and it dose have natural consequence.
that of the spread of venereal diseases, and the impregnation of women. this behavioral is also disproportionately unfair to women, in that, they are severely impacted by, cervical cancer, chlamydia. and possibly other venereal diseases. and some times, the male participant takes steps to insure that he is not to be found, if the woman turns up pregnant.

and these consequence happens regardless of the use of contraception. (note, my wife was on the pill, when she conceived my youngest daughter)

also, i seem to remember, that we had a discussion about your use of straw man arguments? your assertion of this is a "straw man" it is not representative of the argument put forth by the "atypical" pro life Christian. and dose not resemble in any way, the argument i made (IE A logician still engages in common logical fallacy?)

all christian pro life individuals i know (including myself) argue against abortion because. by the application of reason and conscience, they know a baby in the womb is a "minor child". an "individuel", and a "human being" from the moment of conception. and deserves to be treated as such under the law. [/B.

nothing sexist about it. just that, I was assuming you were smart enough to know that a baby needs a father (or at least a sperm donation from a man). in the interest of brevity, i did not mention the obvious. because we are talking about the procedure of "abortion" which is not a procedure that is preformed on a man.

religious morality is not the only issue. i can make a reasoned scientific argument against abortion

if at any time after right after conception, you were able to safely procure a DNA sample of a fetus, it would match that individuel on trough to old age 100% and, it would be unique to that individuel throughout life. and is the unique blueprint for the design of an individuel.

and a judicial argument,

is it not better, lest we put ourselves in the place of some God, granting ourselves power over life and death. that when called upon to decided when life begins, if one is to err, to at least err on the side of protecting an Innocent life, rather than taking an innocent life.

hers the point,

IF a fetus "is" a individuel, a minor child, and a human being, from the moment of its DNA coming into existence, then, does it not enjoy ALL the protections available to any dependent, minor individuel under the law?

contradictions are not good for the execution of just laws. let me know what you think of this.

in California. a mother can be tried for assaulting her child, by taking drugs when it is in the womb, however, she can avoid legal consequence, by simply killing it legally, in an abortion clinic.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Indigo Montoya, princes bride

and very lucky for Joel, that his mom was pro life, he is now allowed to exists. if he had been aborted, the world would be short one brilliant guitarist.

we have the right to follow a religion, or not.
we do not have the ability to act in the capacity of God​

 

and how many women have successful pregnancy, as opposed to die in childbirth? (i would say pregnancy is a much greater danger to the life of the fetus, than it is to the mother, especially with legal abortion

and again, you make it sound like this is not a natural circumstance, and a danger, that has existed from the beginning of mankind.

my thought, the time for a man, and a women act on this thought. is before they have intimate relations, rather than after they create a baby.
of course there are times where a pregnancy is a real danger to the life of the mother (and the child), a real danger to the life of the mother, however, that is a discussion the parents need to have with there doctor when there are no good choices, adults, weighing all options, must make the best choice available.

and at a time that medical science has advanced to the point that death in childbirth of either the mother or the child, is exceedingly rare in a civilized nation. the civilized nations make the womb, a dangerous place to be for a baby. "by choice"?

and some ways individuals deal with the consequence of there actions can impact very negatively on other Innocent individuals. is that allowable?

if a fetus is a dependent minor child, should that innocent being pay with its life, as a palliative to keep the consequence of its existence from effecting its progenitors?

and the world would be missing a brilliant guitarist. and i'm sorry, my life for one would have been diminished. had he not existed. because i know his presence in my life, as my friend, has been significant.

just as i feel my life was diminished by the passing my first child my family's little visitor, (that is, my son or daughter) your words are harsh, and little use in the grief of someone who has experienced a miscarriage. sort of like saying "get over it was but an insignificant dream", (what was, the death of a significant blessing)

if a fetus, is "a dependent minor child", is it allowable to kill it an any time in its existence?

if a "fetus is a dependent minor child" for what causes should it be legal to kill it?

for my wife, it wasn't just a choice to face the natural dangers of pregnancy, it was the choice to face a critical pregnancy.

if a fetus, is a dependent minor child, under what rational, should another being have a Choice, to kill it at will?

"my right to chose"
is a sentence fragment, in lacking a subject, bereft of meaning
however if one says,
"my right to chose to abort a baby"
"the meaning becomes all to clear"​

 

I'm not sure I asked what flavor of Christianity you adhere to.
The only reason it's relevent is that religious values of one particular group should not be mandated through legislation, as it promotes that religious group above all others.

Every religious text has a "moral code". So what?

The tendancy of some men to avoid their responsibilities is the real issue then.

You saying it's a straw man doesn't make it so.. unless you can illustrate how I've misrepresented the position of the atypical pro-life Christian, my understanding is as previously posted.

You seem to be confusing your chosen definition for absolute knowledge. Pity you (in general terms) don't have the same level of care for those who have already been born.

So you're saying that an unwanted pregnancy is the result of a woman's decision to engage in sex (thereby placing blame on her) but choose not to mention that a man has also made the same decision because it's obvious a man was involved... It's equally obvious a woman is involved, so why the disparity?

And this gives you the authority to make sweeping decisions regarding the lives of others without familiarizing yourself with their individual circumstances?

For someone with a pro-gun viewpoint, this seems particularly hypocritical.

That's a massive "if", given that SCOTUS has already ruled on this.

Can you provide an instance of a woman being charged in this way during her first trimester?

Your double standards are a brilliant example.

Then stop trying to remove that right by having the dogma of ONE religion legislated.

 

i'm not in a christian denomination that has an opinion about the use of contraception, therefore, your statement is not relevant to me. relevant to a catholic. wich is just one of many denominations.

(you misspelled relevant)
i see so we should not have anything in our law anything like any of the "ten commandments". because that would be mandating one religious value above another. and tell me, is this equity of values an absolute? in that case, what dose one do with the religious values of a human sacrificial cult, or a headhunting animist?

um, i was agreeing with you, that a libertine lifestyle is unchristian, beyond that, i have no idea why we are talking about this, you tell me, you brought up religion. not me

one issue among many. are you mad that i give the men a free pass, my apologies, rest assured sir, i have daughters, believe me, no man will get a free pass...

it may have been i erred slightly, its confusing, as somewhere we got talking about contraception, which i never mentioned, (you did), and connected it to abortion, another thing i did not do, (you did) and then you made the point that the argument was my being against contraception and abortion promoting a libertine lifestyle,(its possible,) but it is not in any way on topic (but you did bring it up) and religion was mentioned (not by me) so, was any of this related to the argument i was making?...... nope nothing about contraception, (which is what you do before pregnancy) i was talking about abortion (what is done after pregnancy) somewhere you seemed to get confused in your argument, that's OK, its so irrelevant to the conversation, i was confused reading it.

hmm, nope, not confusing it at all, my absolute knowledge based on my study of life, and on the experience of witnessing the birth process of my two daughters, this tells me that they were my girls, when they were conceived

you seem to be confusing your opinion for absolute knowledge....in doing this, you ignore the work done by millions of followers of Christ, who do not do what they do to gain notoriety (as such are not seen on TV), these people i talk about, all these unsung heroes, are part of the solution to the worlds ills, the Christians join those of all faiths, and some, of non faith. and these people you don't recognize as existing. there kinda like the air. you don't see them, but, you surly would notice if they disappeared.

only thing you need to be concerned about in all of this, is what YOU do, not what you think others do not do​

it may be i erred, i am speaking on abortion, abortion is the topic, and men do not figure highly in my mind in the debate because, they have no say in weather there baby is aborted, (you know, a woman's right to chose, means the papa has no input) and men do not have to get abortions as a result of a libertine sexual lifestyle, they do often have to get lots of shots. i wold say, an honest mistake, you should have put in perspective.

only question i have now is why do you continually debate me on what i haven't said?

missing in your equation is my absolute surety, based on my life (as noted above) that a fetus, is a baby. from the moment of conception.

well, this is a non sequitur. ohh wait, you had to call me a hypocrite, and you think all gun owners sit around waiting for Innocent baby's to shoot. only that's not the truth.

nope, supreme court actually never ruled directly on weather a fetus was a baby from conception, they did talk about "viability" wich is anouther way to scirt the issue, that is, if it cant survive outside the womb. but they avioded the issue of the fetus being an individual, they just allowed one to kill "whatever" it was it for reasons of privacy.

and on supreme court decisions, i'm willing to admit they are sometimes egregiously wrong with disastrous consequences
"beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
theirs part of another famous supreme court ruling of world changing consequence, and in this one. in short the supreme court is not my god, is it yours?

nope, so i'm likely wrong in this.

double standards? all i am saying is that i know a fetus is a minor child, and should be treated such before the law.

"hay, stop trying to force your christian dogma down my throat i don't care if the bible says thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not lie. i want to kill steal and lie!"

in short, not religions dogma, its the conscience of a free people. who often have to decied where athoraty must draw the line.
one line. i can think of no circumstance where killing a baby is right. and if i know a fetus is a baby, then should i agree with the laws in my country that allow abortions,

should i feel sorry
for being logically consistent with what i know to be true.
a fetus is a minor child and deserves the rights implied in that
and thou shall not murder​

 

Just because something is natural and has risks attached to it does not mean women should be forced to suffer them.

Pregnancy carries with it the risk to health and life all the time. Pregnancy can go horribly wrong at any time and it should always be up to the woman whether or not she wishes to put her health and life at risk. Also consent to sex is not an automatic consent to pregnancy, it never has been and it never will be.

I don't know what babies you are talking about. Also I could seriously care less about what is or is not dangerous for the fetus. It is only the woman's life and health that I care about as she is the only thinking, feeling and independent entity here that is even capable of making decisions regarding this situation. Whether or not the fetus lives or dies is irrelevant to me as it will never be aware of it's existence or non-existence, it will suffer none the more for being aborted and will never be aware of it. The woman however may suffer from a variety of problems and only she can decide what is best for herself.

What 'innocent' individuals are you talking about in this situation? The only innocent people I can think of in pregnancy is the woman. So yes, sometimes her decision will negatively impact her life if she regrets it but most women only report feeling relief after having an abortion.

A fetus is neither innocent, nor is it a minor, nor is it a child. It certainly has the potential to be these things but it certainly is not now, whether it lives or dies really has no bearing on society as a whole, this has been proven with the millions of abortions performed in civilized society and the fact that society has not collapsed because of it.

If he had been aborted you would not have known him at any point in your life nor you would have had these experiences. You can sit here all day and play with the what ifs if you want, but I will take a pass on that.

I'm sorry you experienced and are grieving a miscarriage however your experience with that should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not a woman chooses to have an abortion or not. If you want to strip women of the medical authority they have over their bodies simply based on your personal experience and grief you most certainly must come up with a better reason than that as that simply will not cut it. Everyone has different experiences in life and people's personal (as well as anecdotal) experiences should have no bearing on what others choose for themselves. Clearly people have had bad experiences with guns, perhaps lost a child or other family member to someone who used a firearm, that does not mean that all firearms should be banned because that one person had a terrible experience with one.

Also you're the one who brought up all the 'it happens it's natural' bit in the beginning there. If you expect women to accept their natural injuries/deaths in childbirth why is it so hard for you to accept a natural miscarriage? Perhaps you should rethink your opinion on the 'it's just nature' bit then?

Pregnancy carries with it the risk of injury to life and health of the woman, therefore she should always be free to opt out of that risk and instead choose the less risky path of having an abortion.

And it was still a choice. If she needed a life saving abortion would you have hesitated to give the go ahead to save her life?

I really don't know how many times you want me to answer this question as it will always be the same.

Pregnancy carries with it the risk of injury to life and health of the woman, therefore she should always be free to opt out of that risk and instead choose the less risky path of having an abortion.

Also if you are going to pick on grammar I would recommend you properly capitalize the first letter of each of your sentences first as that is a very incorrect grammatical error to make and certainly not a hard one to remember.

 

Can an abortion defend innocent life? Can an abortion be used to protect and preserve freedom so that your children will be able enjoy the same right to vote that you do?

What are the chances that a gun will be used to kill someone? What are the chances that an abortion will kill someone?

 

I am against gun control (even background checks), but I support the freedom to abortion.

 

I think you missed my point. My point is that the entire gun control debate is being carried by the left wing in "honor" of children. Yet they are the ones that demand abortion is woman's right issue. That, in it's finest, is called hypocrisy. I want every brainwashed idiot to read this that I can get . So i stated my points of view so that liberals would not accuse me of being some stupid conservative. Because my views are entirely my own. One day people will be able to think for themselves, and not rely on talking points to rule their own mind.

 

What about requiring background checks and fingerprinting for women before they could be allowed to get an abortion?

Why is it harder to buy a gun than it is for a pregnant woman to abort her unborn child ???

How do we know these pregnant women are mentally stable?

Imagine all the outrage from progressives if we applied the same laws that apply to guns on women who get abortions. We would never hear the end of it.

 

I'm not sure that all of your assumptions are valid, but part of the reason that I am not sure is that you refer to "atypical" conservative values and then, it appears, frame what you consider typical conservative values. The further problem is that I there are no typicals here.

Large segments of conservatives do not have a problem with contraceptives, that is, prevention of pregnancy, but only with abortion, the "termination" of a living being. It has nothing to do with "libertine" behavior or unrestrained sex. Large segments of the conservative community, if such a thing even exists, do not care to legislate how often their neighbors have or do not have sex. Likewise, no one blames the woman for getting pregnant. And I don't think either party thinks, when they have sex, that there is any chance that the male will become pregnant.

There are no sinister undercurrents as you imagine. It is nothing more than the recognition that a fetus is a human being and we properly abhor the killing of human beings and, because of that, attach very strong consequences to it, which those who advocate killing them seek to avoid with clearly specious arguments that what we all clearly see as humans are really NOT humans. We just, as the song says, "believe our lying eyes!" You just cannot tell us that we are not seeing what we see, Not if you wish to preserve ANY level of credibility.

 

So we have the right to protect ourselves, but we will not protect fetuses. You are safe, however, as fetuses, like infants, are unable to hold up their weapons.

 

Abortion itself is self-defense. Foresight of consequences is not tacit consent to those consequences, etc.

 

Similarly, I disagree with your assumption that abortion represents "the "termination" of a living being"... particularly as the Bible clearly highlights that a person is only considered "living" after drawing breath.

As much as I appreciate your belief that conservative values "abhor the killing of human beings", I don't believe the pro-gun, pro-death penalty, anti-health, "screw the poor, I got mine!" values of the GOP supported by conservative voters are in adherence with your stance.

 

Why? Is there a chance they will use their abortion to slaughter a schoolyard full of kids, or sell it to a gangbanger to perform drive-bys? Maybe you think they'll use it to break into your house or rob a liquor store?

False analogy, much?

Because one murders people who are actually alive, and the other is none of your business unless you're the one getting the abortion.

Are you saying unstable women should be forced to have and raise kids, or that only unstable women should be able to get abortions because stable women can't make decisions about their lives as well as you can?

You mean, having to go to an "abortion show" or to a private abortionist in order to get one without any significant controls...?

 

Re-read that gobbledy-gook you just posted and flush out your brain. There may well be some serviceable remnants left, but I can tell you that most of the files are corrupt!

 

There is no assumption involved in this. We all know what babies look like and that's it. Besides, I didn't know that you were such a bible-thumper. Further, I believe that you paint with a very broad brush, with all of that diatribe versus conservatives. Some of that is me, but most of it is not. Please advise which of them you believe to be most important to adherence to my stance. It doesn't take many of them to look at an ultra-sound and see a baby in there. And I was unaware that it made a difference where humans got their oxygen from. So, now we can just light up all of those non-humans that we see in public with their oxygen tanks in the grocery basket?

- - - Updated - - -

Besides, I believe that the "drawing breath" passage was a metaphorical reference!

 

That's your perspective and I respect that - but you've got to understand that your criticism isn't self-evident to the rest of us, you're going to have to explain what exactly you think is wrong with my perspective, if you want to influence it.

[hr][/hr]


That said, perhaps I was a little too forward. Basically, what I think is that in a state of nature, before society, before contracts - there are no natural obligations. You're not obligated to leave your little island of isolation to solve poverty in Africa, you're not obligated to submit to the will of anyone else, because you haven't consented to any conditions yet.

I guess my question to those who disagree with this is: where do these natural obligations you propose come from? From the individual? Well, no - in the state of nature the individual has made no commitments yet. From God? Well, I guess the question then becomes why do I have the obligation to do what God wants, and where does that come from?

[hr][/hr]

Premise 1

Let's try to separate out these premises a bit. Assuming for the moment that there are no natural obligations, how can they be created?

The left/society generally would probably insist on the social contract being included here. For the purpose of this discussion I'll leave my criticism of this concept out, although if you think it contributes to your position feel free to throw it back in. I do not acknowledge the social contract because I feel it's not so much the individual giving up some of his rights to protect the remainder, as it is 'the mob' forcing individuals to give a lot of their rights to loosely protect the small remainder.

The other obvious source of obligation is consent, and it's the one relevant to the discussion here. I borrow pretty heavily from Judith Thomson here, because although her work has been very widely distributed, I think it's pretty on the dot.

[hr][/hr]

Premise 2

Thomson gives the example of a violinist who needs a constant dialysis from a like-blood typed person to stay alive. Let's contrast two situations and see if we can spot the difference:

• You are kidnapped and wake up beside the violinist already hooked up to the dialysis machine, do you have the obligation to remain on it for the rest of your life?
• You consent to be hooked up to the machine for the rest of your life, do you have an obligation to stay hooked up to the machine?

It seems obvious that in the first instance you do not have an obligation to remain hooked up to the machine. As regrettable as the man's death might be, you have your own life to live, and never signed up for this.

The second is a little more interesting. If you've already created the obligation to remain on the dialysis machine, you're neglecting that obligation by leaving. Whether you value your word or not is another (subjective) matter, but one that I'll address if you want me to. For now we'll accept it for the sake of argument.

[hr][/hr]

So, how does this apply to abortion? Well, you could argue that the violinist is analogous to a fetus. Both require something from you to survive - the violinist requires your blood, the fetus requires your nutrition and the shelter of your womb, etc.

If consent is what generates the obligation to continue providing these needed things (blood in the case of the violinist, pregnancy in the case of the fetus), then the question then moves to - is pregnancy consensual?

[hr][/hr]

Premises 3 and 3.1

Thomson provides an example to clarify this, but I'll modify it a little because I think this way of putting it gets the point across a little better. You're free to read her thoughts here.

You live in a poor neighborhood, let's say Detroit (who doesn't love to rip Detroit?) - you know home invasion is common in your area. You have a lot of valued possessions, and you're given two choices:

• Move to crime-free New Hampshire
• Put up protection around your house to prevent a break-in.

Clearly the former decision eliminates the threat, but you decide that this is your life/property and you're going to live here, in Detroit (for some reason). You put up strong criminal-proof mesh on all your windows, and buy a solid, steel-reinforced door. The security agency you got this stuff from rates your security as 97%.

You go on like this for several weeks without incident, but on one night a criminal brings succeeds in silently breaking open a window with a crowbar.

If you kill the intruder, have you committed murder? I think that the answer is clearly no. While you may have foreseen the consequence that your property would be stolen (you saw the 97% figure), you never actually consented to being robbed, nor can your foresight of the consequence be taken as tacit consent to that consequence.

[hr][/hr]

Conclusion

Thomson argues the same for contraception and pregnancy - that abstinence (moving to New Hampshire) might completely eliminate the chance, but that you choose to have sex (stay in Detroit), and use contraception (put up security), cannot be taken as consent to a pregnancy (or to being burgled), and thus it's acceptable to kill the fetus (the intruder) in self-defense.

Hence, sexual activity isn't consent to pregnancy, and you're free to "disconnect yourself" from the fetus in the same way you're free to disconnect yourself from the violinist or kill the home invader.

You might disagree with this argument, and that's fine - but I'd be very interested why - I am by no means decided on this issue. If you could structure your response by criticizing each premise that'd be great, I'll give a formal argument below:

[hr][/hr]

1. An action is allowable in the case that there is no obligation otherwise.
2. Individual consent is the source of all obligation.
3. Pregnancy is in most cases non-consensual:
   1. Foresight of consequences cannot be taken as tacit consent to those consequences

Conclusion: Abortion is permissible on self defense grounds.

[hr][/hr]

So yeah, please do get back to me. This took an hour to write, so I'd appreciate a little something more than your first response. Why are the premises wrong?

Thanks

 

Pardon the interjection,

I see it just a bit different,

I see the fortified structure as analogous to keeping your clothes on, the shotgun is analogous to protected sexual activity and actually firing the shotgun as analogous to unprotected sexual activity. My reasoning for my final comment is that, just like firing the shotgun unprotected sexual activity has consequences. Just my 2 cents...that and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee.

Good post though.

 

I have not read your "argument", only the conclusion. To do so would violate the dignity with which the human race respects human life. Besides, I have learned long ago that lengthy convoluted arguments are only necessary to argue positions that lack merit. When your position has merit, the explanation of that merit is clean and easy and requires few words. Here they are: a fetus is a human child; we all know what they look like and that is it; it is not an intruder, it is innocent; if you require long arguments to justify taking his/her life, you are disingenuous (to yourself); the "rest of us" see it clearly;

One more thing: if you can do this to a fetus, why cannot I do it to you? If there is no sanctity to life and you can dismiss it with that ridiculous argument, then I can surely find an argument for taking yours.

 

I am saying that no one uses her abortion to kill a schoolyard full of kids, only the one that she aborts. I am also saying that women who would kills their children are, by definition, unstable, don't you think? Until political rectitude dictated otherwise and we began making these ridiculous arguments that fetuses were not human life, we used to put those who did that in prison.

 

I'm a philosophy buff - I need concise rational explanation rather than a short impression of the truth.

I'm not here to debate the value of rationality and reality, because to each his own, but I'll advise you that purposefully avoiding in-depth thought is rarely a path to the fulfillment of any values.

An action is allowable in the case that there is no obligation otherwise, individual consent is the only source of obligations, pregnancy is in most cases non-consensual because the foresight of the slim chance of the contraception breaking cannot be taken as tacit consent to the contraception breaking.

There, just a few words.

These are the sorts of things you discover if you don't skip to the last page of every book.

My position has room for a right to life. You don't take the death penalty or the shooting of a mugger in self-defense to be morally abhorrent, I'm saying that abortion is another exception in the same category as these.

 

Purposefully being mired in "in-depth thought" is nothing but avoiding reality. We are not talking about philosophy here. We are talking about real human beings, who are being killed daily while you are mired in this self-absorbed debate over their right to life. Let me put this on a plane that you might understand. Imagine, if you will, that they are living in a different dimension, where they are debating your right to life. And while they are doing so, a doctor comes around to kill you. Would you be esoterically thinking that it was necessary that they confirm, philosophically, whether right to life applies to you? Do you really think that you are so godlike that you are empowered to decide the right to life of others?

 

You're right, I have no right to decide the right to life of others - I guess the death penalty is off the table after all - same with self-defense. The military? Don't even get me started.

We decide all the time when our liberty outweighs the right to life of others. To arbitrarily exclude abortion as one of those exceptions, without any close examination whatsoever, is really silly.

 

You know it's a living person because it looks like a baby, and that's the only criteria required?!
"91.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation, and of the abortions performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation, 69.8% were performed at ≤ 8 weeks’ gestation."
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/

Prior to 13 weeks' gestation, the brain is not formed, the face is not formed, the fetus is around 2" long, and is still months away from being able to survive as a separate entity... Saying this is the equivalent of a living baby is a huge stretch.

Your ability and willingness to interpret the Bible to suit whatever personal beliefs you wish to enforce on the rest of society is a large part of the problem with legislating your religious beliefs.

 

A) you have yet to illustrate that the fetus is a living child.
B) would it be more reasonable for a woman to be forced to raise a child she will resent?
C) referring to "the good old days" is a logical fallacy referred to as "appeal to tradition"... It would be the same as me claiming that we should be able to set people on fire because we used to do it to witches.