For those who suggest that unrestricted access to abortion is a right, I’d offer this compromise. (If I had any power to do so)
I would agree to increase access to abortion pre viability, to allow exception for rape, incest, and life of the mother through 8 months, and to leave government funding for PP alone.
In exchange for...
No further restrictions on the right to bear arms, national reciprocity for CCL holders, and rolling back restrictions on ammunition capacity.
15 comments:
Not me, man. I'd take a total ban on all killing of babies in the womb in exchange for all my gun rights any day.
I have no problem with that position.
I may decide to post Feo's comment here as an exception. His inability to communicate with civility is definitely a factor. But, for now I'll summarize his position.
He doesn't want to do anything different to reduce abortions, but wants to impose significantly higher restrictions on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
I'll point out the stats.
881,000 Dead children in 2017 from abortion
92% of those are due to some form of inconvenience to the mother.
40,000 people died from gun related causes in 2017, the majority of those to suicide.
When you get abortions down to 40,000 per year, then you might be on to something.
Personally, I don't see giving up one God-given right to preserve another God-given right as a legitimate choice. Here, you're pitting the right to life against the right to protect life, which seems rather contradictory.
Worse, I think such thought experiments feeds into the leftist narrative that clearly wants to do away with both rights. I would, however, be interested in hearing one of them respond to the choice. It would be interesting to see just how corrupt they are.
In the meantime, the troll is still trying to pretend I believe DNA makes one a person, thus meaning a strand of hair is a person because of the DNA within it is human DNA. He does this purposely ignoring that my mention of DNA was in regards to the unborn having DNA that is distinct from its mother's which makes it a separate person and not a part of the woman's body.
In two threads involving the troll and myself, as well as one between Dan and me, where the subject is the press as the enemy of the people, we see both of these guys distorting my words in very much the same way the liberal press contorts everything related to Trump and the right-wing. More detail on this to come at my place. This ends my off topic remarks.
Art, you make an interesting point. Does the enumerated right to life supersede the mysterious right to end life found in Roe?
It's not "mysterious", of course. It's non-existent. But so long as those who know better continue to act as if they don't, the lives of tge innocent will always be at risk.
I decided not to post Feo’s comment because it and subsequent comments were increasingly absurd. I’ll point out that he wants to ban private ownership of, and restrict “semi automatic” weapons to “special” governmental law enforcement groups. In other words, he wants to give Trump a tremendous firepower advantage over innocent, law abiding citizens.
What’s the number 99.7% of gun owners never use their guns illegally? Of course taking away their constitutional rights is going to solve the problem.
This concept that those who have done nothing, those who are innocent, are the ones who face the consequences for the actions of others seems like a strange ethic to live by.
It's clear those like the troll don't think through their positions. The founders didn't think the people should be outgunned by the government. The grabbers would insure that the always are and to the ultimate degree.
It’s fascinating to me that they’re prepared to immediately enact this draconian ban on law abiding firearms owners and to make sure that the Trump administration is one of the only entities with semi automatic firearms.
Except, of course, the criminals. They’ll still have them.
“Every person bears the image of God. Every life has immeasurable value, and is beloved.
Anything that destroys life or squashes people’s dignity or denies their humanity crushes God’s image. And I’m sure God takes that personally.”
I agree with this, although I suspect the person who said it is pro-abortion.
The person you're quoting also tweeted the following in Jan of '18:
"I am pro-life. And being FOR life means...
eradicating abortion
welcoming immigrants
ending gun violence
opposing war
supporting black lives (I wonder how he feels about brown lives, yellow lives, etc.)
and abolishing the death penalty."
This dude is a bit of a trip. He seems to be seriously pro-life as far as life beginning at conception and should be protected. I've could find nothing that suggests he supports abortion in any way to any degree...so that's good. He insists that if we're truly anti-abortion, we must be prepared to adopt. But I can't find anything that speaks to how many he's adopted. He "lives simply" to a degree Dan only wishes he could, so I don't see how he could support any kids. I've seen where he's helped other adopt the kids of single women and girls. From what I could find and read about him, he seems to be one I would alternately hug and then slap. Definitely a lefty with good intentions.
I could be wrong, but I know the person who posted it is pro abortion.
It seems strange to see folx who make arguments like
It’s not human
It’s only a clump of cells
It’s just one more medical procedure
It’s a woman’s body to do with what she wants (ignoring the fact that the state isn’t true)
It’s a parasite
It (abortion) is better than...
ate also insistent that abortion should be
rare
eradicated
minimized
If abortion is such a good, healthy, positive, helpful thing that doesn’t negatively affect actual humans why get rid of it? Why go to such lengths to fight being referred to as pro-abortion?
“Think about it—If abortion is a simple medical procedure to remove unwanted tissue, as Planned Parenthood wants the public to believe, then showing an abortion should be no different than any operation you might see depicted in a hospital drama on network television. But if abortion is the brutal, calculated murder of innocent children, then of course the dramatization of such butchery should get an R-rating!
Furthermore—and this has been pointed out elsewhere—the fact that Unplanned has an R-rating means that a 15-year-old girl can get an abortion without her parents' consent, but that same teenage girl cannot see a film about abortion unless her parents are with her. This exposes the seared conscience of our culture. The R-rating was a gift, but it was poorly utilized by the film's promotional team.”
I’m sure the fact that the unplanned movie has more Twitter followers than PP, is a coincidence. Of course, I suspect that a lot of those followers were in response to Twitters shenanigans.
Post a Comment