I’m anti-abortion. I’m also pro-choice. (As much as I hate the idea of terminating a pregnancy, ending a potential life, I hate the idea of telling people what to do with their bodies — or what’s in their bodies — a little bit more.) Of course, I’m pro-gun. Go figure. But before you do, check out the opinion of this clip’s host, who believes the New Testament preaches pacifism, equating turning the other cheek with allowing yourself to be slaughtered. And misrepresents everything else besides. So let’s straighten this out. How do you reconcile your position on abortion with your position on guns?

548 Responses to Question of the Day: Pro-Life ≠ Pro-gun?

  1. Simple – I don’t like when people meddle in my affairs, including what I can and cannot do with my body, which includes defending it. Don’t nose around in my business, and I’ll extend you the same courtesy.

    • Agree on this thought of not meddling in the affairs of others on abortion, unless maybe it is habitual. It may be in your religion to not murder a defenseless human that wouldn’t know that they were brought into the world carelessly or criminally and I respect that, but does your belief or religion really have borders? You can’t be held accountable for the actions of others, right? Let’s say that all of the USA totally bans abortions, how does that fix the problem outside of your border? Wouldn’t you still somehow feel responsible for the aborted babies outside of your area of influence?

      • Declare thermonuclear war, take over control of the remainder of the planet, in order to serve an invisible space alien. Huh?

    • Women are always complaining that someone is trying to take away their rights concerning their bodies but they would never give the same consideration to the human they happen to be carrying,at what point in time does a human have the right to do what they will concerning their own bodies? I’m sure if a baby could talk,it would say,”please mommy,don’t kill me,I have a right to do what I will with my own body just like you,mommy”.I can see the day when liberals would dictate how long a human is allowed to live,that mother fucker is 80,it’s time to put him down.

      • And what right does any living being have to make on the body of another living being? There’s no right to care, and there’s no right to someone’s blood, tissue, and food.

        • Yeah… except that relationship of dependency was created by the voluntary actions of the mother, baring rape. She created that child and made it dependent on her. It’s her fault and should be her responsibility to see that pregnancy to term instead of killing a person because of your mistake.

    • The only 4 possibilities.

      1. The fetus is a person, and we know that.
      2. The fetus is a person, but we don’t know that.
      3. The fetus isn’t a person, but we don’t know that.
      4. The fetus isn’t a person, and we know that.

      What is abortion in each of these four cases?

      In Case 1, where the fetus is a person and you know that, abortion is murder. First-degree murder, in fact. You deliberately kill an innocent human being.

      In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you don’t know that, abortion is manslaughter. It’s like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street at night or shooting toxic chemicals into a building that you’re not sure is fully evacuated. You’re not sure there is a person there, but you’re not sure there isn’t either, and it just so happens that there is a person there, and you kill him. You cannot plead ignorance. True, you didn’t know there was a person there, but you didn’t know there wasn’t either, so your act was literally the height of irresponsibility. This is the act Roe allowed.

      In Case 3, the fetus isn’t a person, but you don’t know that. So abortion is just as irresponsible as it is in the previous case. You ran over the overcoat or fumigated the building without knowing that there were no persons there. You were lucky; there weren’t. But you didn’t care; you didn’t take care; you were just as irresponsible. You cannot legally be charged with manslaughter, since no man was slaughtered, but you can and should be charged with criminal negligence.

      Only in Case 4 is abortion a reasonable, permissible, and responsible choice. But note: What makes Case 4 permissible is not merely the fact that the fetus is not a person but also your knowledge that it is not, your overcoming of skepticism. So skepticism counts not for abortion but against it. Only if you are not a skeptic, only if you are a dogmatist, only if you are certain that there is no person in the fetus, no man in the coat, or no person in the building, may you abort, drive, or fumigate.

      From: The Apple Argument Against Abortion, by Peter Kreeft, http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_apple.htm

      • Your analysis presupposes equal probability of all 4 possibilities, which is not the case. It’s essentially the same flaw as in Pascal’s Wager.

        • Where exactly does the argument “presuppose equal probability of all 4 possibilities”? It does no such thing. You are simply pretending as much because in fact the reasoning of the argument isn’t logically contestable.

        • It implies it by claiming that since only one of the possibilities “favors” abortion, a skeptic must necessarily be opposed. But it’s not true if that one possibility has a higher likelihood than all three others combined.

        • It implies it by claiming that since only one of the possibilities “favors” abortion, a skeptic must necessarily be opposed.

          It doesn’t imply that at all. That is merely your inference. From my perspective, it is nothing more than a risk assessment. To determine a course of action, one must quantify the probability of occurrence of each of the four possibilities.

          But it’s not true if that one possibility has a higher likelihood than all three others combined.

          Agreed.

          The million-dollar question is: how would you quantify the probability of occurrence of each of the four possibilities, and what is the justification for that quantification?

        • >> From my perspective, it is nothing more than a risk assessment. To determine a course of action, one must quantify the probability of occurrence of each of the four possibilities.

          If that was the only suggestion here, sure. But the explicit claim that “skepticism counts not for abortion but against it” asserts that probabilities are not in favor of abortion.

          >> The million-dollar question is: how would you quantify the probability of occurrence of each of the four possibilities, and what is the justification for that quantification?

          Before we can quantify anything here at all, we need a clear definition of what exactly is a person.

        • Before we can quantify anything here at all, we need a clear definition of what exactly is a person.

          Indeed. And that the question “what is a person?” – much less, “when does one become a person?” – is not easily defined in anything near a consensus strongly favors a heavy weighting toward the two possibilities that include “and you do not know”.

        • “Not well defined” is not at all the same as “do not know”.

          For starters, it just means that the definition is subjective. Christians believe in that whole ensoulment business, for example, and so for them it’s a person when it has a soul. Obviously, as an atheist, I must reject such a definition.

          But furthermore, the lack of a clear generic boundary does not prevent me from being able to clearly categorize specific cases one way or the other. For example, I can definitively state that by my definition of “person”, vague as it may be, a fertilized egg is definitely not a person, and neither is any stage of development where brain is not there.

          Even when fetus has a brain, if it is only developed to the level of complexity that is below that of animals that we do not normally consider “persons”, that is still not a person (but this gets into murky territory because I personally do not have a clear answer on the personhood of all animals, either; I’m pretty certain that a fish is not a person, for example, and pretty certain that great apes are, but the in-between is uncertain).

        • But you jumped straight-away to “when does one become a person?”, without addressing the first question: “what is a person?”

          (I’m ignoring the “ensoulment” argument because I’ve not made it. Even Christians will disagree on that point. Not that it matters, but in my case, I believe that there is no separate point of “ensoulment”. Once it is a unique human life, then it is fully human, body, spirit, and soul. Regardless, it is a non-issue, because a concept as “ensoulment” cannot be quantified, observed, tested, or falsified. So, it doesn’t serve our purposes here.)

          So: what is a person? Is it a human with consciousness? (I’ve heard that one before.) Something else?

        • I did, yes. Sometimes “I know it when I see it” is a valid answer, at least for a subset of possibilities. It also allows us to “work back” from gut feel to definition, so to speak – if we can definitely agree that X is a person and Y is not, then we can then look at the traits that X possesses and Y doesn’t to try to narrow the definition down as much as possible.

          I would define a person as an entity that possesses consciousness and self-awareness. The problem, of course, is that you then need to define “consciousness” and “self-awareness”, and either one of those is fundamentally a philosophical definition outside of the realm of science. Sure, we have things such as mirror tests, but we pretty much just assert that they matter without any solid reason as to why, other than “it works on things we think are persons”, so it’s also recursive reasoning.

          I actually believe that it’s impossible to resolve this one way or another with rational thinking alone. You can pursue this chain of definitions for as long as you want, but it won’t end until at some point you will just assert an arbitrary definition as an axiom, with no proof or rationale. It’s the reason why I mentioned ensoulment – doing this is inherently easier for Christians (and religious people in general) because they already have such axioms very explicitly in form of their faith in God and certain moral norms that said God defined.

          For us materialists, though, adopting anything as an axiom requires an immense and painful mental effort, and so it’s not the readily available solution to this problem. With respect to consciousness and self-awareness, I am unwilling to do so based on our current limited knowledge. So the best I can do is define boundaries on either side – “this is definitely not conscious nor self-aware” and “this is definitely conscious and self-aware”. But in between, it’s a gray area.

          The majority of abortions, as well as the current legal limit set by Roe v. Wade, do fall on the other side of “definitely not conscious nor self-aware” boundary per my definition, though, so I don’t have a problem with them.

        • I would define a person as an entity that possesses consciousness and self-awareness. The problem, of course, is that you then need to define “consciousness” and “self-awareness”, and either one of those is fundamentally a philosophical definition outside of the realm of science.

          Not entirely. Insofar as science can observe consciousness and self-awareness, though, even newborns are considered not to have developed (or to be able to express) either one. So, I would agree that going by those criteria alone is problematic.

          For us materialists, though, adopting anything as an axiom requires an immense and painful mental effort, and so it’s not the readily available solution to this problem.

          Of course, when a possible outcome of the course of action being considered is that the life of an innocent person is taken, unjustly, the effort required to answer the question – no matter how immense and painful – is absolutely warranted.

          With respect to consciousness and self-awareness, I am unwilling to do so based on our current limited knowledge. So the best I can do is define boundaries on either side – “this is definitely not conscious nor self-aware” and “this is definitely conscious and self-aware”. But in between, it’s a gray area.

          And therein lies the problem – and why, in the risk assessment, the “it is/is not a person, and I do not know” events must be weighted the heaviest, perhaps even to the exclusion of the “it is/is not a person, and I do know” events, entirely. (At least, with respect to what is appropriate law – your own, personal evaluation to satisfy your own conscience can certainly factor in “I know it when I see it”.)

          The majority of abortions, as well as the current legal limit set by Roe v. Wade, do fall on the other side of “definitely not conscious nor self-aware” boundary per my definition, though, so I don’t have a problem with them.

          And there are those – me included – who would counter that, since we do not know for certain, then the correct course is to err on the side of the unborn, since any other course increases the likelihood of an unjust taking of a human life, to an unknowable extent. The danger of unjustly taking a person’s life far outweighs the danger of not taking the life of something that is not a person.

        • >> Of course, when a possible outcome of the course of action being considered is that the life of an innocent person is taken, unjustly, the effort required to answer the question – no matter how immense and painful – is absolutely warranted.

          >> And therein lies the problem – and why, in the risk assessment, the “it is/is not a person, and I do not know” events must be weighted the heaviest, perhaps even to the exclusion of the “it is/is not a person, and I do know” events, entirely.

          But if you are unwilling to set any lower boundary whatsoever, then you will have to ponder that same question every time you eat a steak, for example – what if the cow was a person? Or an omelet – what if the chicken was a person? Hell, what if the stalk of wheat that was used to made your bread was a person? I mean, how do you know that it wasn’t?

          It seems inconsistent to me to give the extreme level of skepticism to “it’s not a person” specifically for humans, but not for everyone else. Whatever the standard is, it must be universal and consistent.

        • But if you are unwilling to set any lower boundary whatsoever, then you will have to ponder that same question every time you eat a steak, for example – what if the cow was a person?

          Only a human can be a person. The definition of person is a human being regarded as an individual.

        • >> Only a human can be a person. The definition of person is a human being regarded as an individual.

          That is where we disagree. I don’t see any reason whatsoever to make this arbitrary distinction between humans and everyone else. To me, it’s not fundamentally any different then saying that e.g. only a white human being is an individual and a person (which was actually seriously promoted by some proponents of slavery, and is today promoted by white supremacists) – In both cases, the distinction is made solely on the basis of genetic makeup, and using arbitrary genes as markers, as well.

          Like I said earlier, I’m fairly sure that great apes have personhood, for example, and so possess the same natural rights – right to life (and self-defense) among them.

          I don’t know if you accept evolution or not, but if you do, I would be curious about where you would draw the line there with this approach. Were Neanderthals people? Was Homo Habilis? Australopithecus?

        • That is where we disagree. I don’t see any reason whatsoever to make this arbitrary distinction between humans and everyone else.

          I quoted the accepted definition of “person”. To use a different definition, you’d have to justify its use – and I’m not interested in pursuing a semantic argument that tangential. (From my perspective, I make no differentiation between “human being” and “person”.)

          I don’t know if you accept evolution or not, but if you do, I would be curious about where you would draw the line there with this approach. Were Neanderthals people? Was Homo Habilis? Australopithecus?

          I do not believe in speciation/macro-evolution. I believe homo sapiens has always been homo sapiens.

        • >> I quoted the accepted definition of “person”

          Accepted by whom? I don’t accept it, for example. Many other people do not, either:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood#Debates

          But we’ve got back to square one: until we have a common definition of “person”, there’s no point in debating this, and this definition is currently very subjective. We’re starting from fundamentally different premises, so it’s no surprise that we arrive at different conclusions.

        • We’re starting from fundamentally different premises, so it’s no surprise that we arrive at different conclusions.

          I accept that, and agree with it. I appreciate the civil discourse, based on a recognition that we come to different conclusions based on different premises, rather than on some moral shortcoming.

        • I appreciate the discourse as well. It’s a rarity to have an opponent that is capable of this level of comprehension of the deep philosophical issues inherent in discussions and rationalizations on such matters.

          More often than not, all you get is people on both sides so incapable of understanding the basis for other point of view even if they disagree with it, that they just declare people on the other side idiots for being unable to comprehend what to them feels like the most basic and natural thing, and a shouting match ensues. This describes 99% of political discussions, as well. These days, the discourse usually doesn’t even get more than one layer deep, and is stuck firmly at the “libtard” / “rethug” level.

        • Claiming that “since only one of the possibilities “favors” abortion, a skeptic must necessarily be opposed” in no way means that the “analysis presupposes equal probability of all 4 possibilities”, as you claimed. Either you are being deliberately intellectual dishonest or you are simply utterly confused.

      • “Only if you are not a skeptic, only if you are a dogmatist, only if you are certain that there is no person in the fetus, no man in the coat, or no person in the building, may you abort, drive, or fumigate.”

        Your argument presumes that the life of the fetus is necessarily inherently more valuable than all other considerations surrounding an abortion.

        This is an entirely subjective judgement which inherently cannot be supported with objective data. As someone who is pro-abortion, my subjective judgement is different. What you consider murder, I consider justifiable homicide.

        • Your rebuttal means that you believe that the life of someone else can be rightly and justifiably claimed as inherently be more valuable than yours, and that any claim to a right to life that you could make for yourself is always and everywhere entirely subjective and which inherently cannot be supported with objective data.

          Thus were someone to outright murder you or someone you cared about for any reason they wished, and then claimed it was “justifiable homicide”, you are stating that you believe that their claim would not be objectively wrong.

        • My rebuttal means that I believe that the life of any individual, including myself, can subjectively be claimed as inherently more (or less) valuable than the life of any other individual, because any claim to a right to life or, for that matter, the inherent value of human life, is always and everywhere entirely subjective and therefore inherently cannot be supported with objective data.

          Of course, by virtue of their inherently subjective nature, those claims-whatever they may be-aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, and outcome is ultimately determined by who has the bigger gun, either literally or figuratively, as the case may be.

          And no, I do not believe that if someone were to kill me-or anyone else-and then claim it as justifiable homicide that their claim could be objectively shown to be wrong; only that it could be shown to be subjectively wrong when examined within the context of the cultural norms of the society the murder took place in.

          So in essence, yes, your observation is entirely accurate.

  2. Simple. A criminal getting killed has made a personal decision to commit a crime. A baby getting aborted doesn’t get a say in the matter. While I’m not against abortion as a medical procedure (sometimes, it is a medically necessary act) I do despise people who use it as a convenient form of birth control rather than take responsibility for their own actions. To me, the same standard that applies to self defense shootings should be applied to abortions.

    Not your body, not your choice. HINT: The baby is NOT your body.

    • I can certainly respect that attitude. Unfortunately, a whole lot of people who insist on their RKBA feel it is up to them to inflict their own views (concerning abortion in particular, but not solely) on others. That, I cannot respect, your opinions on the constitution should be consistent. If you desire common sense abortion control laws, you have no standing to contest common sense gun control laws. Any variety of EITHER should be advanced only by constitutional amendment or STFU.

      • To someone who feels this way, abortion is murder. A self defense situation would be justified homicide. So it is not contradictory.

      • Unfortunately, a whole lot of people who insist on their RKBA feel it is up to them to inflict their own views (concerning abortion in particular, but not solely) on others.

        Those who decide to kill an unborn human being are “inflict[ing] their own views… on others” – namely, the human being being killed.

      • To be absolutely honest, there is no such thing as a constitutional right to abortion. The Roe v Wade case was decided on a legal fiction. There is, however, a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The demanding a constitutional amendment for one and not the other is not contradictory.

        • And, according to our constitution, the first role of government is to help secure the first and most important right we all have been accorded by our Creator, the one without which none of the others matter, the right to life.

        • No constitutional right t abortio? Maybe, maybe not, but that wasn’t the question. The question was “Pro-Life ≠ Pro-gun?”

          That’s a comparison of positions of absoute rights, aside from constitutional rights. We routinely argue that the Constitution codifies, not grants, rights. Natural rights transcend the Constitution.

          After all, rights in mere constitutional terms can appear and disappear based on a vote. Even the vote can be discounted if someone disagrees with the reasoning.

          If a natural right to abortion exists, and for the purpose of this post I’m neutral, it would exist regardless of any enumerated, fabricated or implied right in the Constitution. That is, constitutionality is not the relevant standard for comparing and reconciling one’s stands on abortion and firearms.

        • As there is no constitutionally protected right, common law holds sway. While I may have a “natural right” to walk around downtown Atlanta with my dick hanging out, I would expect to get run in rather fast.

          We, as a society, agree that murder is a bad thing. It violates the right of the victim to life. We, as a society, also get to decide what is and isn’t life. I, for one, prefer to err on the side of caution. Don’t forget, less than two centuries ago, I could shoot a black man in front of a peace officer in more than half the country and only be responsible for property damages to that man’s “owner”. To me, the old refrain of “a fetus is not a human being” rings awfully similar to “a negro is not a human being”.

        • “The demanding a constitutional amendment for one and not the other is not contradictory”

          Actually, yes it is. The SCOTUS ruled (I agree incorrectly) that such laws DID violate the constitution, and there is no other court to appeal that decision to. Meaning that precedent now makes the “right” a constitutional one, beyond the reach of congress or the states. It should not have happened, but it DID! Even more to the point, the question should always have been one for the states to decide, should never have been considered by SCOTUS or Congress, but it WAS. Which leaves us where we are now. Why, pray tell, do we NOT simply pass an amendment, given claims that 150% of Americans oppose abortion, or whatever? What stands in the way? I cannot imagine much of an opposition campaign. Who would fund it? But I suspect that such an amendment would go nowhere, because I suspect the claims about opponents are themselves lies. But I don’t KNOW, nobody does.

        • The courts also ruled that “Separate but Equal” was constitutional. Previous rulings can be overturned by passing new legislation and watching it go through the system again.

        • You neglected to mention, why not simply pass an amendment? Otherwise, the ruling you seek can be overturned by a new set of justices, a new law, and we have SCOTUS as our only legislative body, constantly changing its mind as a football of this fanatic group or that one. We’ve been promised how electing so-and-so would get the job done for 45 years, why not actually address it?

        • In Roe v. Wade, the SCOTUS did not decide anything other than which trimester a fetus was more than less likely to survive outside its mother.
          Technology has advanced quantum leaps since then.

          Either way, if it’s a made up monsrosity BUT A RIGHT invented to prevent a woman from havingbto seek less professional abortion services so she can kill her kid, that’s just another reason to stop regulating guns and gorcing people to obtain arms to protect themselves in less than savory places.
          If abortions are illegal, only abortions will have POS (D)emocrats.
          BAN ABORTION AND ITS FANS NOW

        • >> BAN ABORTION AND ITS FANS NOW

          How many abortion clinics are you planning to bomb this year?

        • I really had no plans, why? You advocating?

          Do you have a few picked out? I usually live by my own TERMS, but do tell. I might be swayed.

          It’s your story, I’ll let you tell it.

        • Well, you’re talking about “banning the fans of abortion”. I wasn’t sure what exactly you mean by it, but it was as good guess as any, since a few other people with similarly expressed views have taken that route.

          If that’s not the plan, then how do you “ban”?

      • The “constitution” has nothing whatsoever to do with it. And the involuntary government should have nothing at all to do with our personal lives or decisions period.

        And an abortion is not a “choice,” usually. It is a drastic (and dangerous) action taken because no rational choice was made to start with. It is very seldom truly medically necessary, but is the price paid (by the innocent baby), usually, for irresponsible behavior of the parents.

        • A baby inside the womb is a slave,if you have the right to murder another human being without any repercussions,then that human is indeed a slave.

        • Twist and turn, turn and twist, let me dream up more and more powerful words of hate, since that is what religion is all about, and seek to punish women for actions we ourselves may have taken part in. Why the hate? How is it *your* business? Why don’t you *mind* your own business?

        • Larry ypu’re the only one introducing religion into the conversation.

          Say right now that abortion is a good thing, go ahead, say abortion is a ‘good’ thing.

    • Abortion is the great evil of our day. It is no different than the Holocaust, in fact worse because the victims have no means to fight back. It is not a lump of tissue growing in a woman’s body, it is a person. That woman’s right to choose ended when she chose to conceive a baby. There is no moral equivalency between armed self defense and murder (abortion). Speaking as a very conservative Christian.

      • We need lots and lots and lots of more people in the world. I cannot wait for what is coming from South America and Africa in the next 30 years.
        Pulling out a collection cells from my own body is not any body’s business but my (or your) own business. I had an a abortion and I saw the 7 week old collection of cells and it certainly was not a person, so stop the nonsense.

        • First-world birth rates are in the toilet. This ain’t Africa, so you’re preaching from the wrong pulpit. In fact, people like you are advocating mass immigration and open borders because first-world birth rates are in the toilet.

        • I heard a story about a guy who got put through a wood-chipper. From looking at the results, everyone agreed that mess was not a person.

        • Sorry cowboy, the population of the USA has never decreased, and the birth rate has never not shown a population increase. But, you guys are correct, everybody should live by your rules because whatever you say is correct, just like the liberals. Wether or not a person decides to create another mouth to feed or not is the least of our problems. Nope, what I saw come out of my wife was not a child, not in any way human, and 100% our business, not yours, or your or the Muslim clubs business. you do as you like to your body, and I’ll do as I like to mine, jesus.

        • Sorry cowboy, the population of the USA has never decreased, and the birth rate has never not shown a population increase. But, you guys are correct, everybody should live by your rules because whatever you say is correct, just like the liberals. Wether or not a person decides to create another mouth to feed or not is the least of our problems. Nope, what I saw come out of my wife was not a child, not in any way human, and 100% our business, not yours, or your or the Muslim clubs business. you do as you like to your body, and I’ll do as I like to mine, jesus.

          What’s the big deal? We’re only justifying swamping your country with third-worlders with the low birth rates made possible in part by the mass baby slaughter we condone and advocate.

          That fella we murdered was not human. He was 100% our business, not yours or the Muslims. We’ll do as we like with our bodies (and the body, if you take my meaning), you do as like with yours (and yours).

          Very convincing stuff Jim.

        • Non-Hispanic Whites

          1. Lower birth rates. Non-Hispanic whites are having fewer children relative to other groups. Preliminary 2012 data show that non-Hispanic whites have a total fertility rate of 1.76 children per woman, compared to 1.90 for non-Hispanic blacks, 2.19 for Hispanics, and 1.77 for Asians.[7] Since 1990, rates for other races have been falling while the non-Hispanic white rate has been more or less stable, but the two largest groups, Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks, remain higher.[8] Since 1997, Asian fertility has been lower than that of non-Hispanic whites except during a Year of the Dragon (2000 and 2012), but the Asian population structure has relatively more women of childbearing age and fewer elderly than the white population does, leading to Asians having a higher crude birth rate and lower crude death rate than whites.

          Non-Hispanic whites are also the most vehement champions of Abortion. Coincidence?

          America’s Evolving Look: Census Shows White Deaths Outpace Births

          America’s Devolving Look: Census Shows White Deaths Outpace Births

          FIFT.

    • Do you hold the same views on removing a tick, tapeworm, or other parasite? Because until about 26 weeks when a fetus is cable of surviving on it’s own without feeding off a host (a woman), that’s literally what a fetus is – a parasite. Not to mention the fact that it’s been proven that abortion being legal is partially responsible for the massive decrease in crime rates we’ve had (who’d have guessed that unwanted and abused children are more likely to grow up to be criminals?!). Then there’s the morality aspect – instead of removing a non-sentient growth from a woman, you’d rather see a kid be beaten or neglected (which is usually what happens to unwanted children) or possibly end up homeless because the woman can’t afford to pay for a child. That’s why I do not use the term “pro-life” because that’s not what people like you stand for – you’re pro-BIRTH and don’t give a damn what happens after the woman’s been forced to push it out.

      • Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe there has ever been a case of a tick or a tapeworm growing into a fully developed adult human.

        So the notion that you might someday get beat up is justification for your execution?

        • I’m thinking there have been few instances of aborted fetuses growing into productive humans, either. What’s your point?

        • Yes, I know one abortion survivor who was going around speaking at pro-life rallies.

          Also, that kind of misses the point. I don’t know of any murdered children that have grown to adulthood either. There is under normal circumstances the assurance that a healthy fetus WILL be born and will grow to adulthood. No amount of nurturing will turn a tapeworm into a human.

        • I gathered that was what you were saying. What I was trying to get across was “so what?”. The procedure is legal, which I seem to never hear from your side, which seems like misdirection at best, deceit at the worst. Trying to pretend that it is a crime seems beneath the conversation.

        • Larry, why do you think the pro-life crowd tries so hard to get laws passed to restrict or ban abortions? Kind of a tacit admission that the procedure is currently legal, isn’t it.

        • Guv, why the continued use of the term “murder”, if you are not trying to pretend that a crime is being committed? A better question is why the continued push for more laws outlawing abortion when they are pretty consistently struck down?

        • Guv, why the continued use of the term “murder”, if you are not trying to pretend that a crime is being committed?

          You are committing the appeal to definition logical fallacy. Just because the term “murder” has a statutory definition does not exclude other, valid uses of the term “murder”, that refer to the generally accepted definition of the term, rather than a particular, statutory definition.

          You are attempting to stifle/control the discussion, by forcing others to use only the statutory meaning.

      • Stupid argument based on “I do what I want” philosophy. How do you sleep at night thinking there are millions of women infested with parasites that ‘might’ be wanted children.God you were right. We do NOT know what we are doing.

      • Do you hold the same views on removing a tick, tapeworm, or other parasite? Because until about 26 weeks when a fetus is cable of surviving on it’s own without feeding off a host (a woman), that’s literally what a fetus is – a parasite.

        Listen to yourself. This is where libertardianism or whatever your ideology is has gotten you. To the point of referring to a gestating human as a “parasite.”

        Time for a thorough, honest self-inventory, my friend.

        Not to mention the fact that it’s been proven that abortion being legal is partially responsible for the massive decrease in crime rates we’ve had

        Nonsense. This has been debunked (e.g., Steve Sailer, etc.). You didn’t know that because you don’t want to know.

        Then there’s the morality aspect – instead of removing a non-sentient growth from a woman, you’d rather see a kid be beaten or neglected (which is usually what happens to unwanted children) or possibly end up homeless because the woman can’t afford to pay for a child.

        Adoption. It’s amazing to me that you people live in a mental universe without adoption.

        That’s why I do not use the term “pro-life” because that’s not what people like you stand for – you’re pro-BIRTH and don’t give a damn what happens after the woman’s been forced to push it out.

        No, that’s what people like you tell yourselves.

        • Once again, I know several couples who have adopted. Korean kids, Chinese kids, African kids, not American Kids, because it is generally not possible to adopt those, unless you’ll take teenagers who are mentally or physically disabled. Doesn’t really matter, though, as the huge majority of the time the idea only lasts as long as it takes for the 13-year-old to approach delivery, by which time it’s all just beautiful, she’s going to keep her child, and *BINGO* her life is over.

          As soon as the child is delivered, it is too late, all the helpful adults just disappeared, she’s 13 and on her own, with an infant child. No doubt the child will grow up to be president.

        • Once again, I know several couples who have adopted. Korean kids, Chinese kids, African kids, not American Kids, because it is generally not possible to adopt those, unless you’ll take teenagers who are mentally or physically disabled.

          Thanks for making my argument for me. People can’t even find healthy native children to adopt, but you’re here advocating abortion.

          Doesn’t really matter, though, as the huge majority of the time the idea only lasts as long as it takes for the 13-year-old to approach delivery, by which time it’s all just beautiful, she’s going to keep her child, and *BINGO* her life is over.

          As soon as the child is delivered, it is too late, all the helpful adults just disappeared, she’s 13 and on her own, with an infant child. No doubt the child will grow up to be president.

          So, a mother deciding to keep and raise her child is a disaster. Gotcha.

        • Because a woman has gotten pregnant does not mean she has promised her next 9 months to be a cow bearing you a child to adopt. And a child left to raise a child alone, against her will, is a recipe for mass murder and worse, not an opportunity for another Einstein.

      • That’s basically my assessment, Publius.

        Abortion is, by definition, murder. From the instant a human ovum is fertilized, what you are dealing with is a human life; it’s not going to grow into a frog.

        I also have absolutely no problem with it whatsoever. In fact, it is my belief that children should be abortable up to and through childbirth. Until the child’s person is no longer contained-in part or in whole; in any way, shape, or form-within the mother’s body, the mother should have the option to terminate it.

        Why? Two reasons; one philosophical, one pragmatic. On a philosophical level, it is my belief that a person’s right to absolute control over biological processes going on within their own body outweighs an unborn child’s right to life. The fact that the child is a human life makes no difference to me; I value the woman’s ability to say “I changed my mind, sorry” more highly than I do the child’s existence.

        On a pragmatic level, I believe that if the mother is seeking an abortion, having one is the more preferable of two undesirable outcomes. Unborn is a better situation for everyone involved-often including the child-than unwanted.

        People that are pro-life (or pro-birth, that is indeed more accurate) too often fail to consider the ramifications of bringing this obviously-unwanted life into the world; they may be hell-bent on forcing the mother to keep someone alive in spite of the fact that they’re inside of her body, but once it’s born they’re often all too eager to say “well, it’s your problem now.”

        Who is going to pay to feed this child? To clothe it? Who is going to ensure that it gets sent to school? Or that it has a healthy family environment at home so it doesn’t grow up to be another statistic in a DGU post here on TTAG? Be realistic now. The socioeconomic class that most frequently seeks abortions (i.e. poor, single women) is not typically capable of properly caring for a child. In fact, the majority of women seeking abortions realize this, and it is often their motivation for having one.

        It is entirely possible that someone who is aborted as you read this post could have been the person to cure HIV or cancer. They could have made some important discovery in physics that led to a better understanding of dark matter or near-lightspeed, perhaps even faster-than-light travel. Who knows? Odds are that that’s not what would have happened. Odds are, they would have been born into a broken home where an additional mouth to feed was an unwelcome burden, or been put into a foster care system where they would not have been appreciably better off. In either case, they would most probably have ended up as a burden on the rest of society, with your tax dollars and mine funding their existence-very possibly for the rest of their lives.

        Adoption is not a panacea here, either; there are already some ±400,000 children in foster care in the United States, roughly 1/4 of which are available for adoption. The world is already full of people that nobody wants, the last thing we need is more. And I have ethical reservations about adoption for reasons that are not germane to this discussion anyhow.

        • The reason for the low adoption statistics is not a lack of demand. It is an absurd level of bureaucratic intervention in the process. A friend of mine went through the process of adopting their niece and nephew a year or so back. It was a legal nightmare where the children were put in a foster home for almost half a year rather than the custody of their blood relatives who make over $500,000 per year.

          I would be ok with “abortions of convenience” if there was some repercussions on the woman for her violation of the child’s right to life. A good compromise might be a mandatory hysterectomy for any woman who seeks a non-medically necessary abortion. If you can’t be trusted to use your reproductive rights responsibly, they should be taken away from you.

        • Oh there’s no question that the process of adoption, like basically everything else that involves government in any way, shape, or form, is an orgy of red tape and stupid. It’s the inevitable outcome of having large groups of people working together.

          I suspect very strongly, however, that even if there was a “free child adoption day” like animal rescue organizations sometimes do, where you could walk in, sign a piece of paper and walk out with a child (leash optional), that you wouldn’t manage to adopt out even 10% of the children in foster care. Babies, certainly, but not children of all ages. Much like older cats, nobody wants older children.

          Whatever the outcome of such a hypothetical, the remainder would be-indeed, the remainder are-a burden on society. The fact that their current situation is absolutely not their fault and that they had no say in the events that led up to their predicament changes nothing; they still cost the rest of us money by virtue of the foster care system being federally subsidized through social security. To the tune-by my math-of somewhere in the ballpark of $25-75 per taxpayer per year.

          Some random person’s life is not worth that to me. It’s just not. It’s not worth 10% of that; 1%; even 0.001%. My money belongs to me; I’m not interested in seeing it used to subsidize other peoples’ existence except on a case-by-case basis, whereupon the recipient of said subsidy, along with the amount and duration thereof, will be determined solely and completely by me.

          As you might infer, I have a problem with my tax money being used to pay for abortions, too. Either way, without a fundamental change in the adoption system, I believe that fewer abortions would lead to more foster children that the rest of us have to subsidize, and-I suspect-more abused and neglected children in general.

          With respect to abortions of convenience, although I wouldn’t support your proposal, I see the logic in it. The issue I see is that you seem to be presuming that if a woman becomes pregnant with a child that she does not want, that it is somehow due to her being irresponsible.

          While that is a very real possibility, it is not the only viable explanation, unless you want to contend that any form of sexual activity that could conceivably result in a pregnancy, no matter how small the odds are, is irresponsible if you don’t want a child. I find this position unreasonable. Contraceptives, even when used correctly, can and do fail, and sometimes they do so in ways that are not immediately obvious.

          That said, about half of the women in the U.S. that have an abortion are repeat customers. I think this is possibly representative of a larger sociological problem. It can’t be distilled down to “ban abortions, save lives” any more than the gun issue can be simplified to that extent. Unless you want to ban coat hangers…

          The question then is why are these women receiving multiple abortions? The sexual education program in public schools is absolutely abhorrent; that could be a causal factor. Maybe it’s a cultural thing. I couldn’t speculate at this point because I haven’t dug into it that much. I don’t see any more benefit to banning or regulating “abortions of convenience” than I do with applying the same logic to firearms, though.

        • ” A good compromise might be a mandatory hysterectomy for any woman who seeks a non-medically necessary abortion”

          I can certainly agree with that, and I could add the same requirement for any mother filing for AFDC, or any other welfare handouts. Some means of hinting to people that there is a benefit to behaving responsibly is desperately needed. The idea hints at a possible incentive for men to not get behind on their child support, as well! And I do not mean a free vasectomy, something more basic.

      • So by your logic it would be ok to kill a welfare leech who is a “parasite” on the state? Where do we draw the line? As I said above, I prefer to not declare people to be things so I can feel better about killing them.

        • Actually, in all seriousness, while I wouldn’t necessarily advocate murdering welfare leeches, I have no ethical objection whatsoever to removing any and all government support and leaving their fate up to the beneficence of members of their community and immediate social circle.

          In fact, I would argue that continuing to allow those people (as distinct from people that make appropriate use of the welfare system) to sponge off of society is nothing more than state-sanctioned theft and that it is inherently immoral.

      • Publius,

        “Because until about 26 weeks when a fetus is cable of surviving on it’s own without feeding off a host (a woman), that’s literally what a fetus is – a parasite.”

        Every full-term baby that is born is utterly and totally incapable of surviving on its own. Even more poignant, those full-term babies cannot survive without feeding off of their mother’s breast milk … literally feeding off of their host as you would put it. How is that not a parasite by your own definition?

        Let’s be honest: human beings are “parasites” (forgive the crudeness) until they are something like 14 to 20+ years old. Are they not worthy of rights? Why would you claim that self-sufficiency is a prerequisite for rights?

      • I’m sorry my friend, but your comments reveal an utter failure to understand basic mammalian biology. The human fetus, like that of all other mammals, and frankly all other forms of life, is designed to live in a certain environment, in this instance, the mother’s womb. When the fetus is forcibly and violently ejected from its intended environment which protects and futures it, it dies, much the same way that you would were you to be suddenly expelled beyond the nurturing confines of our earthly home into the reaches of space. Does this mean that you are not as yet a viable form of life?

        As to reducing potential crime by committing murder now… do you even hear yourself?

        Abortion, though for the time being legal, is the utterly selfish solution to an utterly irresponsible lifestyle lived without any regard for the consequences others must bear for a few moments of largely forgettable pleasure.

        Pathetic!

    • So the baby can pack up and take the placenta and stop impacting or demanding resources from the woman’s body. There’s no right to someone else’s body, period.

    • >> A criminal getting killed has made a personal decision to commit a crime

      Assuming, of course, that they’re actually guilty and it’s not a miscarriage of justice. And assuming that the crime in question is not a strict liability one.

  3. Simple: abortion is the taking of a human life. I am against the unjustified taking of human life; therefore, I am against abortion. Similarly, I am against violent criminals who threaten human life, and fully support the self-defense right of the would-be victim. If that self-defense requires the taking of the life of the violent assailant, then it is the violent assailant who bears the blame.

    The only difference is that abortion takes the life of an utterly defenseless human being.

    P.S. Robert, an unborn human is not “potential life”. At every stage of development past conception, it is biologically “life”, and genetically human. Gametes are “potential” life. The product of conception of gametes is human life.

    • “P.S. Robert, an unborn human is not “potential life”. At every stage of development past conception, it is biologically “life”, and genetically human. Gametes are “potential” life. The product of conception of gametes is human life.”

      Not under the laws of the United States, in case you hadn’t noticed. Pretending you are somehow a law unto yourself, then advocating for policy which can only concern you if you are a young woman, does not lend itself to demonstrating your ability to sensibly consider laws on other subjects.

      • Please quote the exact US statute which defines what is life and what is not.

        Currently we operate under a Supreme Court decision which addressed neither science nor morality, but, according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, simply chose not to get in the way of social engineering.

        • I can buy that! So, pass a constitutional amendment to change it! Simple, huh?

          Pretending there is no such law is akin to pretending that abortion is murder, which is punishable by life in prison, when we all know that abortion is legal, punishable not at all. Other than make-believe, that gives a very clear path to outlaw abortion, which nobody is interested in even beginning. After 45 years of bitching, absolutely NOBODY has an interest in the obvious solution. Because it would not pass, you are arguing for action which is against the will of the American people.

      • Not under the laws of the United States, in case you hadn’t noticed.

        I’m speaking in terms of scientific definitions.

        At one time, our own laws said that slaves weren’t persons, and the same has been true regarding certain subsets of human beings in Germany and elsewhere, throughout history.

        Pretending you are somehow a law unto yourself, then advocating for policy which can only concern you if you are a young woman, does not lend itself to demonstrating your ability to sensibly consider laws on other subjects.

        The law in question concerns the murdered unborn human being, first and foremost.

        • “I’m speaking in terms of scientific definitions.”

          Then it would be nice if you said as much. You seem to be stating absolutes, as if there were no difference. Your scientific definition is inarguably correct, and has no bearing whatsoever on the law, you are misleading people by intimating that it does. It is a good foundation for the beginning of a discussion, but it does not end the discussion, since the law is involved, as is the will of the majority.

        • “I’m speaking in terms of scientific definitions.”

          Then it would be nice if you said as much.

          I have consistently said as much.

          You seem to be stating absolutes, as if there were no difference.

          I have not addressed the law (likewise, I have not addressed questions of religious belief); in this discussion, I have only ever addressed the science. I am intentionally dealing with the objective, because the subjective is generally what leads to less-than-civil discourse.

          Your scientific definition is inarguably correct…

          I appreciate the honesty.

          …and has no bearing whatsoever on the law…

          I agree. The difference is that you seem to rely on extant law as some sort of crutch/bulwark, while I am asserting that the divergence between accepted science and extant law is problematic, and should be addressed.

          …you are misleading people by intimating that it does.

          If you have inferred such, then I have not communicated well. I have not implied that science has bearing on extant law – in fact, my intent is to demonstrate just the opposite: that extant law is out of alignment with accepted science.

          It is a good foundation for the beginning of a discussion, but it does not end the discussion, since the law is involved.

          Agreed. But the meaningful conversation is the one based on the premise that extant law is out of alignment with accepted science. That’s a conversation that I would like to have. Unfortunately, far too often, that conversation is bypassed, because too many people want to refute accepted science.

      • Rather common with the ‘religious’ on the board. First, they feel the need to inject irrelevancies such as abortion into the talking about guns. Views on abortion are no more germane to the topic of guns than “Ford v. Chevy”, or “Kirk v. Picard”.

        Then they want their own set of rules. Ones which are in contravention of the law, but, you know, “beliefs!” trump all. They are of course free not to have an abortion, not to get gay married, nobody is forcing them. But for some reason, they need to be able to tell others how to live their own lives.

        As always, you are all free to believe as you wish as long as those beliefs don’t interfere with the rest of us.

        • As always, you are all free to believe as you wish as long as those beliefs don’t interfere with the rest of us.

          But if your beliefs interfere with the right to life of an unborn human being, that’s a-okay, right?

        • Not my beliefs, the belief of the mother of the aborted is the one, and only one who gets to make that choice. I’m not pro-abortion, I’ve never met anyone who is. But it is a choice, and it will be made legally or illegally. So let it be legal and safe.

          Until you personally wish to feed, clothe, house and raise that child after it is born it’s none of your business what a woman does, whether or not you believe it to be alive. As an inconvenient truth of being mammals, the woman is in charge until the kid is born. Life’s imperfect, try to reconcile.

        • Not my beliefs, the belief of the mother of the aborted is the one, and only one who gets to make that choice.

          Indeed. The murdered human being gets no say in the matter.

          Until you personally wish to feed, clothe, house and raise that child after it is born it’s none of your business what a woman does, whether or not you believe it to be alive.

          Bullshit. You don’t get to decide when I do and do not get to advocate for the lives of the most innocent and defenseless among us.

          When life begins is not a matter of my belief. The science is clear.

          As an inconvenient truth of being mammals, the woman is in charge until the kid is born.

          And in what other areas of our lives should humans comport ourselves according to our most base instincts, and those of lesser animals? Though, maybe you’re on to something. Even the animals have enough respect for life not to kill their own unborn.

        • Indeed. The murdered human being gets no say in the matter.

          The mother gets to make the choice. Blabbering on about viability of a 16 week fetus as human is ridiculous.

          Bullshit. You don’t get to decide when I do and do not get to advocate for the lives of the most innocent and defenseless among us.

          When your advocacy threatens to turn the clock back 60 years and force women back into alleys and seedy hotels getting marginally safe abortions, yes I do.

          When life begins is not a matter of my belief. The science is clear.

          Alive and viable are two completely different word. As to the science, well, it may be clear to you.

          And in what other areas of our lives should humans comport ourselves according to our most base instincts, and those of lesser animals? Though, maybe you’re on to something. Even the animals have enough respect for life not to kill their own unborn.

          Are you really that completely unknowing of how nature actually works? Mammals across most all species routinely kill and (generally) eat their young. Primates routinely kill and eat, not to mention kidnap and rape. You might want to go learn a little about how absolutely violent the animal kingdom is, then realize we’re not so bad.

        • Indeed. The murdered human being gets no say in the matter.

          The mother gets to make the choice. Blabbering on about viability of a 16 week fetus as human is ridiculous.

          So, in a few years, when our medical advancements prove that a 16-week premature baby can survive outside the womb, you’ll change your view?

          Or, today, knowing that a 21-week premature baby can survive outside the womb, are you willing to say that abortion after that point is wrong?

          Bullshit. You don’t get to decide when I do and do not get to advocate for the lives of the most innocent and defenseless among us.

          When your advocacy threatens to turn the clock back 60 years and force women back into alleys and seedy hotels getting marginally safe abortions, yes I do.

          You do? Really? How very statist of you.

          Are there any other of my rights that you get to decide when and how I exercise?

          When life begins is not a matter of my belief. The science is clear.

          Alive and viable are two completely different word. As to the science, well, it may be clear to you.

          With respect to viability, the mother provides nothing more than environment and nutrition. Viability is a function of the health of the unique life form, developing under its own self-directed growth, in the womb.

          And in what other areas of our lives should humans comport ourselves according to our most base instincts, and those of lesser animals? Though, maybe you’re on to something. Even the animals have enough respect for life not to kill their own unborn.

          Are you really that completely unknowing of how nature actually works? Mammals across most all species routinely kill and (generally) eat their young. Primates routinely kill and eat, not to mention kidnap and rape.

          “Young” != “Unborn”. Nice try, though.

          You might want to go learn a little about how absolutely violent the animal kingdom is, then realize we’re not so bad.

          Perhaps you should consider such before suggesting that humans live according to the “laws of mammals”.

        • Exactly. That’s why I lost all respect for my parents once I realized that they don’t just believe in a 2,000 year old book of fairy tales, but support a theocratic government forcing everyone to obey their views. It’s hilarious to hear them scream about “Democrats taking away freedom” when the only freedom they believe in is the freedom to obey the Bible or get a bullet to the head.

        • Rather common with the ‘religious’ on the board. First, they feel the need to inject irrelevancies such as abortion into the talking about guns. Views on abortion are no more germane to the topic of guns than “Ford v. Chevy”, or “Kirk v. Picard”.

          Oh, I dunno. When lefties start boo-hooing about all the lives lost to “gun violence,” I feel perfectly on-topic in bringing up how they don’t even bat an eyelash for the millions of babies murdered in the womb down through the years. In point of fact, they celebrate the slaughter.

          Then they want their own set of rules. Ones which are in contravention of the law, but, you know, “beliefs!” trump all. They are of course free not to have an abortion, not to get gay married, nobody is forcing them. But for some reason, they need to be able to tell others how to live their own lives.

          This is the level of argumentation among the baby-killers: “duh, you’re free to not get an abortion, just like you’re free to murder anyone el- oh, well, let’s talk about something else, shall we?”

          As always, you are all free to believe as you wish as long as those beliefs don’t interfere with the rest of us.

          Not until the right to murder innocent people gains your respect. You obviously still hypocritically support laws against murder.

          (Where do they find these people?)

        • This is the level of argumentation among the baby-killers: “duh, you’re free to not get an abortion, just like you’re free to murder anyone el- oh, well, let’s talk about something else, shall we?”

          Stepped on my own #*(! there, but I think most readers will see what I was getting at.

        • So, in a few years, when our medical advancements prove that a 16-week premature baby can survive outside the womb, you’ll change your view?

          Or, today, knowing that a 21-week premature baby can survive outside the womb, are you willing to say that abortion after that point is wrong?

          There’s a whole lot more than feeding that goes on for those many weeks. I’d explain the science, but you’d just deny it.

          You do? Really? How very statist of you.

          Swing and a miss. You are the one who wants more rules and involvement, based on your religion. That’s what we call a theocracy.

          Are there any other of my rights that you get to decide when and how I exercise?

          Any of your religion that doesn’t mind it’s own business. Once again, it’s you who looking to control other people’s lives.

          With respect to viability, the mother provides nothing more than environment and nutrition. Viability is a function of the health of the unique life form, developing under its own self-directed growth, in the womb.

          Not even close, there a bunch of things that happen chemically, but this isn’t a white paper.

          “Young” != “Unborn”. Nice try, though.

          That’s because if a gerbil could get an abortion, it would. It wouldn’t carry those young that it would have to eat for a hundred reasons. Certainly the female primates wouldn’t carry to term, knowing that they were going to kill their baby because she got a new boyfriend. Not terribly practical.

          Perhaps you should consider such before suggesting that humans live according to the “laws of mammals”.

          Want to prevent abortions? Hang up a shingle, offer counseling. Otherwise, please quit trying to limit other people’s choices. Don’t want an abortion? Don’t avail yourself of one. Otherwise, it’s none of you, or your belief systems business what they do. Swing your arms as you will. Just keep it away from others’ noses.

        • There’s a whole lot more than feeding that goes on for those many weeks. I’d explain the science, but you’d just deny it.

          Did I claim otherwise? What science have I denied?

          Any of your religion that doesn’t mind it’s own business. Once again, it’s you who looking to control other people’s lives.

          Please quote the religious argument(s) I have made in this thread.

          Not even close, there a bunch of things that happen chemically, but this isn’t a white paper.

          The developing human creates its own protective enclosure inside the womb – an enclosure required to prevent the mother’s innate immune system from attacking the developing human. The developing human creates the placenta, to filter all of those chemical processes.

          That’s because if a gerbil could get an abortion, it would. It wouldn’t carry those young that it would have to eat for a hundred reasons. Certainly the female primates wouldn’t carry to term, knowing that they were going to kill their baby because she got a new boyfriend. Not terribly practical.

          Interesting hypothesis. Feel free to test it.

          Want to prevent abortions? Hang up a shingle, offer counseling. Otherwise, please quit trying to limit other people’s choices. Don’t want an abortion? Don’t avail yourself of one. Otherwise, it’s none of you, or your belief systems business what they do. Swing your arms as you will. Just keep it away from others’ noses.

          And what about the nose (or, more accurately, the neck, skull, and brains) of the unborn human being?

        • “But if your beliefs interfere with the right to life of an unborn human being, that’s a-okay, right?”

          Absolutely correct, because the law says so. Why don’t you change the law? Why won’t anyone answer that question?

        • Absolutely correct, because the law says so. Why don’t you change the law? Why won’t anyone answer that question?

          What law, exactly, needs to be changed?

          Until 1973, most states had enacted laws that protected the right to life of the unborn. Then, SCOTUS obviated those laws by fiat. As far as I know, there are no laws that legalize abortion, and there is nothing in the constitution that enumerates authority regarding abortion to the federal government.

          So, what law must change? What constitutional clause must be amended?

        • So, in a few years, when our medical advancements prove that a 16-week premature baby can survive outside “the womb, you’ll change your view?”

          I am ready to be convinced right now, in the context of a conversation about an upcoming vote on a constitutional amendment. Otherwise, the discussion is nonsense, we have established law, running off at the mouth won’t change that.

      • “Not under the laws of the United States,”

        So Statist then. Got it.

        Laws have no business trying to settle matters of morality. Or Ethics.

        Laws can only work when they reflect commonality of beliefs regarding “right and wrong.” We, as a society, value human life, for example. Therefore, we have a law punishing murder.

        In contrast, we, as a society, don’t have such a consensus on the rightness or wrongness of using chemicals like alcohol and marijuana for recreational purposes. And, as a Sociology 101 take-home independent study lesson, check out the total mess laws regarding such behaviors are…the mess such laws create is caused precisely because there is no common belief in the wrongness of those behaviors.

        So, it is actually completely irrelevant how “the law” defines life, because that definition does not reflect something already held in common belief. This is simply a slightly more complicated example of “legislation by fiat,” which is the type of thing we rail against here all the time…such as declaring several hundred thousand Connecticut residents as ‘felons’ for failing to fill out a form by a certain date.

        Short Version: I, and no free man, looks to “the law” to tell me what is right and wrong. We know that for ourselves. What you are describing is abdication of both “will” and “self” to The State.

        • Exactly. You should make the decision for yourself, and everybody else should make the decision for herself. And the law should have no part in it. Perfect. In fact, that is where we are, and where we should be.

        • So, to you it’s okay to say you get to choose, the woman gets to choose, but the fetus does not. Your argument is internally inconsistent. You contradict yourself…you are choosing who “Gets to choose” and who doesn’t.

          Further, you completely missed the point that you are using the LAW to define what is and is not a living human (not really a law but a court decision, but we’ll go with it), rather than a scientific definition.

          Hiding behind “the law” as your justification for allowing something is about as Statist as it comes. So, I guess you support MDA/Everytown, too, right?

          And, before you miss THAT point as well as the one I posted above, I’m not slamming your being “pro choice” or whatever, but rather your hiding behind “The Law” to justify it as if morality comes from “law.”

        • Trying once more. If you are not the father, the mother, or the fetus, I say it is none of your business. Show me why it is.

          BTW, I am not arguing who “gets to choose”, or whatever, that was defined by SCOTUS in 1973. Feel free to argue why you have veto rights over their decision.

        • >> If you are not the father, the mother, or the fetus, I say it is none of your business. Show me why it is.

          Ugh. This is so obviously flawed. Are you saying that if you’re on the street, and you’re seeing one person trying to kill another, it’s “none of your business”, and you should just walk past?

        • If you are not the father, the mother, or the fetus, I say it is none of your business.

          Careful, LarryinTX, your view is getting close to ageement with my own. 😀

        • “Careful, LarryinTX, your view is getting close to ageement with my own.”

          So, does no one in our society speak for those that cannot speak for themselves? In this discussion, that’s the fetus.

          What of people requiring medical care to stay alive? If such a person cannot speak for themselves (unconscious, for example), do they or do they not deserve an advocate? Or, do we simple relegate that decision to some third party on the basis of “social utility’ arguments?

          And, it does not have to complicated cases like vegetative states. Someone gets whacked in the head in a car wreck and no family steps forward immediately to speak for them….should we just pull the plug because

          (a) it is defined as ‘legal’ to do so (don’t laugh…it’s where we are headed with the spirit behind Obamacare)

          (b) a Dr. or lawyer on staff on the hospital just thinks it is ok

          (c) any number of other “justifiable” reasons.

          Walking this path is a dangerous one. I agree with as little .gov and interpersonal intrusion as possible. But, some decisions we, as a people, make have long reaching consequences.

          Accepting abortion for the reasons that are generally given for it being “okay” is pretty weak. Few of those reasons serve any larger purpose than selfishness, and I do have to wonder where the road of selfishness worship leads for a society.

          Well, I guess I can see some clues to that…all I have to do is look around.

    • If you do not adhere to a religion and live by the peaceful rules from a man in the sky, and that many die for every year, you are a piece of crap, so there. oh god Farago, why did you have to do this?

      • Look, you got your abortion in. You checked that box (literally), and you’re still not satisfied. Can’t you just say, from here on out, let’s work toward not having so many abortions that Planned Parenthoodlums have enough extra $ that they can give a few million $ to Hillary’s campaign?
        Please?
        Do it for the kids.

    • It’s not an independent life until it draws breath on its own. Until then, its a parasitic moocher that demands another’s body and resources. I don’t think anyone has a right to someone else’s body.

  4. While many people are both pro-life and pro-gun, absolutely by no means are all pro-gunners also pro-life and by no means are all pro-lifers also pro-gun.

    For the benefit of both issues, keep them separate!

    • If someone wants to be pro-choice and pro-gun, I’m not going to hold it against them. There’s too much at stake for 2A to be discriminatory. I don’t care if the person next to me in the range is gay & pro-choice. If he is willing to pick up a gun, learn how to use it, and support the 2nd, then he’s alright by me.

    • Very sensible, given they have nothing to do with each other. I have never understood why one group of people seems comfortable with infringement upon every facet of the constitution *except* RKBA, and another significant percentage of people staunchly defend every right, even imagined rights, *except* RKBA. It seems like a lot of people do not understand how terribly it degrades their arguments for an absolute wall in front of their own beliefs, if they happily disregard everyone else’s.

      • Why is it that smug religious people (like many here) just loooove telling others what they can and cannot do, but when the liberals do the same to them, they cry foul? The issues are different, but the attitudes aren’t. Hypocrites on both sides. I don’t know anymore which group acts more self-righteous.

        • I know, right? Being for the 2nd Amendment means being for the freedom to commit murder, too! Duh! Repeal all laws against homicide NOW!!! The Constitution demands it! Libertardian Asperger’s demands it!

          Where do they find you people?

        • Who said anything about murder? Murder is illegal, you know! What’s been said here is that my guns are none of your business, and what I decide to do with my body is none of your business, as well. Being able to understand one but not the other takes some serious history of brainwashing, probably continuing up to this past week sometime. Just sayin’.

        • Who said anything about murder? Murder is illegal, you know! What’s been said here is that my guns are none of your business, and what I decide to do with my body is none of your business, as well. Being able to understand one but not the other takes some serious history of brainwashing, probably continuing up to this past week sometime. Just sayin’.

          I feel like I’m in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

          I’m going to give you a pass, Larry, on account of diminished capacity.

      • So then you don’t believe any Jews were ever murdered by the Nazis, because under the laws of the Third Reich, killing Jews was not an illegal activity, or any slaves in the antebellum south were ever murdered or raped, because as property of another it was not illegal to kill or rape them?

  5. A gun is a tool to defend myself and others. I am blessed to have the ability and right to own one.

    A unborn baby has every right to defend itself but does not have the ability so they are slaughtered in the millions.

  6. Easy — “thou shalt not kill.” You shouldn’t be killing anyone, and most certainly not your innocent defenseless baby!

    My guns are not for killing. They are for protection. If I ever have to use one for protection, my goal will not be to kill, it will be to stop an attack that would otherwise result in the death or serious harm of me or mine.

    Perhaps another way to put it — pro-gun folks tend to be interested in protecting innocent life. And life doesn’t come much more innocent than a baby in its mother’s womb, so yeah, it’s not surprising that lots of us are interested in protecting it.

    • If you are talking about the Biblical commandment, in the original Hebrew a better translation would be “you shall not murder”. So in the original Hebrew it is making the same distinction you were talking about,the difference between killing and murder.

      • Beat me to it but, yeah, pretty big distinction that is often mistranslated! Also, my guns ARE for killing, if necessary.

    • The 6th Commandment is more accurately translated as “You shall not commit murder”. This Commandment refers to the taking of innocent human life. It does not prohibit all killing. The Bible is full of killing, and much of it was directly commanded by God Himself. The 6th Commandment does not prohibit capital punishment, killing in self defense, etc.

      I think it pretty clearly does prohibit abortion. Abortion is the willful taking of an innocent human life. As a biologist, I know damn well that a fetus is undeniable a human.

      Robert’s bullshit statement about it being the taking of “a potential human life”, and being personally “anti-abortion” sounds a lot like the reasoning of the Nazi’s who murdered his relatives, and enslaved his father. Those types of comments disgrace their memory. I am appalled to hear this type of language from Robert (but not at all surprised since he identifies as an Atheist, rather than an Orthodox Jew).

      It’s always the same. Dehumanize people. Pretend that they really aren’t really people, or that they were not “made in the image of God”. Then you can allow them to be killed, while not feeling as guilty about it. I’m sure there were a lot of Germans who were “personally anti-holocaust”, but lacked the integrity, or courage to ever say anything against it publically. The blood of the innocent cries out against them as well.

      • You have much to learn about Judaism. In a nutshell, there’s little problem with abortion as long as it’s necessary to save a mother’s life. The fetus is generally viewed as an “appendage”, and until the baby is born and takes it’s first breath, it has no soul and is not human. Alive (depending on the date), but not human.

        • It isn’t Judaism per se that means anything (or Roman Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, etc.) The opinions of Rabbis, Popes, and Church Councils are all subject to the TEXT that God actually revealed.

          The particular text that would seem most relevant to the issue of abortion probably isn’t the 6th Commandment, but rather Exodus 21: 22-25.

          “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” (NASB)

          This text indicates that the Law of lex talionis is in effect here (even though it seems more of a case of negligent manslaughter rather than intentional murder). The key point is that the unborn child is treated as a person. If the unborn child dies, then the man who caused his death paid for it with his own life. This text clearly infers us that the 6th Commandment applies to abortion.

          Furthermore, the Psalmist tells us that the Living God knew him, formed, and knit him together in his mother’s womb (Psalm 139).

          Apparently, the God of the Scriptures regards unborn children as “real people” (just like children, women, men, black people, native Americans, white people, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, homosexuals, heterosexuals, the disabled, the elderly, and everybody else).

          Adam became a living being when God breathed the breath of life into him. Everybody since (other than Eve) became a living being at fertilization.

          Even the Noahic covenant makes it clear that the Living God will require an accounting whenever innocent blood is shed.

          “Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
          By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.” (Gen. 9:5-7, NASB).

          This Law precedes the Mosaic covenant given at Sinai. It is absolutely universal in application. All the descendants of Noah (everyone according to Genesis) is bound by it.

        • Not human? As a Jew, I beg to differ and offer the following quote from the Jewish Virtual Library:

          “The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in halacha is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being – but not quite. In most circumstances, the fetus is treated like any other “person.” Generally, one may not deliberately harm a fetus, and sanctions are placed upon those that purposefully cause a woman to miscarry. However, when its life comes into direct conflict with an already born person, the autonomous person’s life takes precedence.

          It follows from this simple approach, that as a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth.”

          It certainly seems to me that the fetus is considered “human” but that it’s existence is subservient to the existence of the mother; hence the allowance for an abortion if the fetus is endangering the life of the mother.

        • God never revealed any text, it was all related as a child’s story by a man. Like, man climbs mountain, hangs for a while. Comes back with stone tablets “HUZZAH! It’s a miracle! It’s the Word of God!” People were pretty gullible back then, I guess. You’d think he would have mentioned the world wasn’t flat, among other things.

        • ” the TEXT that God actually revealed.”

          Written by men and delivered to men, by men, in order to scare men into behaving in a certain way, wasn’t it convenient that god came along just in time. Wonder where it went?

        • Look Larry, Art is a effen moron, who actually believes that shit. Read his posts, he’s an effen idiot with no proof of any of his statements Just another sheep, and you know what happens to sheep – they get sheared, screwed, or eaten. By the shepard.

  7. The pro/anti-abortion argument has nothing to do with privacy or a woman’s body, but the adamant refusal of some to acknowledge prenatal science. I can find no other reason why one would insist that a living human being is just a tumor, although Adolf Hitler used the same logic with the ‘Jewish problem’ so there is a precedent.

    Your rights stop when exercising them involves infringing on the rights of others. If you infringe on my rights, particularly my right to life, you will be resisted with lethal force. Unfortunately babies are not capable of lethal resistance, so they die.

    • The thing is, when is the life in the womb a baby per se? At the very beginning, it is a clump of cells, that grows more and more complex, eventually becoming an unborn person. To treat it as a person from the moment of conception is equally as unscientific as the claim that it is not a person until it is born, IMO.

      • So, in your humble opinion, at what point during the pregnancy does the fetus become human, and what part of his or her development is it that constitutes a transformation from a tumor to a human?

        • I can’t answer for the OP, but a very simple and effective test would be whether or not the clump of cells can survive if removed from the mother. You have every right to remove any part of your body you so choose, but if that part of your body manages to survive on it’s own it is no longer yours and you are now responsible for it’s well being. This is also the reason why third trimester abortions are mostly illegal and universally frowned upon. A six month old fetus has a decent chance of survival. Hell, my current girlfriend was born at 7 months. Other than very short toes and some weird allergies she is quite healthy.

        • …but a very simple and effective test would be whether or not the clump of cells can survive if removed from the mother…

          Even a full-term newborn cannot survive on its own outside the womb. Why should the right to life of a human being depend on the limitations of human technology?

          You have every right to remove any part of your body you so choose…

          A gestating human being is not “part of” the body of the mother.

          A six month old fetus has a decent chance of survival.

          The current record is 21 weeks, 5 days.

        • Piss on your humble opinion. Under the laws of the United States, after ruling by SCOTUS (that means final), life begins at the point (moment? Instant?) of live birth. Pretending that it is up to me, or you, or anyone else other than the pregnant woman who is involved, is misrepresentation of the facts. If you want to change the status quo, pass an amendment. Currently, two different subjects are being lied about, twisted and argued without anyone even considering the correct resolution; a constitutional amendment. Those are RKBA and abortion. Try to figure why no one is proposing an amendment concerning RKBA, because you will simultaneously figure out why nobody is proposing an amendment outlawing abortion. HINT: (since that seems to be a thing today), because the American people do not support it, it could never pass, would be a huge waste of time and money. So let’s lie about it, instead.

          Whether the fetus *can* survive outside the mother is subjective. Whether it is surviving outside the mother is not subjective.

        • Piss on your humble opinion. Under the laws of the United States, after ruling by SCOTUS (that means final), life begins at the point (moment? Instant?) of live birth.

          Piss on SCOTUS. They are wrong. Science, not SCOTUS, determines when life begins.

          But, feel free to stand on the unconstitutional, illogical, unscientific opinion of a few black-robed men, if it helps you sleep better at night.

          retending that it is up to me, or you, or anyone else other than the pregnant woman who is involved, is misrepresentation of the facts.

          Pretending that the unborn human being that gets killed isn’t involved is a misrepresentation of the facts.

          Currently, two different subjects are being lied about, twisted and argued without anyone considering the correct resolution; a constitutional amendment.

          Why is a constitutional amendment required? What in the constitution enumerated authority to the federal government to legalize the killing of human beings in the womb?

        • So Vhyrus, in 50 years when medical science has advanced to the point where a fertilized egg can be immediately removed from the womb and incubated in a lab will you then oppose any and all abortion?

          ‘Under the laws of the United States, after ruling by SCOTUS (that means final), life begins at the point (moment? Instant?) of live birth.’

          First Larry, the SCOTUS never ruled that life begins at live birth. And in the majority decision in Roe v Wade written by Chief Justice Blackmun he clearly stated that ‘if the humanity of the fetus can be established it will void this decision.’ So Roe v Wade is anything but ‘final’. Furthermore, the SCOTUS also ruled that blacks were not human and therefore could no more sue for their freedom than a horse could sue for his (see Dred Scott). So by your logic slavery should still be legal.

        • I’d say a major indicator is when it becomes sentient to pain. And just because it can be difficult to determine “when is a baby a baby?” doesn’t mean that claiming it is a human from conception is right either.

        • I’d say a major indicator is when it becomes sentient to pain.

          So, someone not sentient to pain is not human?

          And just because it can be difficult to determine “when is a baby a baby?” doesn’t mean that claiming it is a human from conception is right either.

          Biology, physiology, and genetics are clear. It is a unique life form at conception, and that life form is fully human.

          All arguments to the contrary involve something other than sound science.

        • At the point where it can live without being attached to a host, so about 26 weeks. Before that, it cannot breathe / eat and must leech nutrients via attaching itself to a host’s blood stream. Human’s by definition do not gain sustenance this way – parasistes do.

        • ‘…about 26 weeks. Before that, it cannot breathe / eat and must leech nutrients via attaching itself to a host’s blood stream.’

          And afterward it must leech nutrients by attaching itself to it’s mother’s mammary glands. Then it’s dependent on it’s parents to provide solid food, clothing and shelter. It’s not really human until it gets off it’s parents health insurance and that doesn’t happen until 26 years, not weeks.

        • @Gov

          Your question seems moot to me. In 50 years if medical technology has advanced to that level then surely contraception will have advanced as well and become that much more effective/available.

        • a very simple and effective test would be whether or not the clump of cells can survive if removed from the mother.

          Every person began as such a clump. So, everyone’s right to life is up for negotiation under this view.

          Put another way, going back in time and deleting the lil’ clump of cells that went on to become you wouldn’t be murder.

          Some people can’t survive on their own after being carried to full term. Is it okay to murder them, too?

        • Matt, the point is that recognizing the humanity of the fetus is a moral decision and it makes no sense for that decision to hinge on the current state of medical technology. The fetus 50 years from now is in no way different than the fetus of today. They’re either both human or they’re both not human. Hinging your argument on ‘viability’ is a flawed moral reasoning.

        • So, someone not sentient to pain is not human?

          That shouldn’t be the only variable, but just one of the major ones.

          Biology, physiology, and genetics are clear. It is a unique life form at conception, and that life form is fully human.

          All arguments to the contrary involve something other than sound science.

          They do not, because being “human” is not the same as being “a” human.

        • They do not, because being “human” is not the same as being “a” human.

          Please, cite the scientific differentiation between being human versus being a human.

        • Please, cite the scientific differentiation between being human versus being a human.

          “Human” can refer to any of the skin cells of the human body, which have the human DNA in them. One of the arguments by the pro-life people is that the life at the moment of conception is a human being, but being that said life form is just a small group of cells, that would mean then that the individual cells and tissues of the body would also have to be considered as human beings, and they are not.

          A human being is a complete human life form.

        • “Human” can refer to any of the skin cells of the human body, which have the human DNA in them.

          You’re the only one talking about skin cells and organs.

          One of the arguments by the pro-life people is that the life at the moment of conception is a human being, but being that said life form is just a small group of cells, that would mean then that the individual cells and tissues of the body would also have to be considered as human beings, and they are not.

          That might be one of the most absurd things I’ve ever read on TTAG. The fail of logic-leap is strong with this one. You have imputed your own fallacy that human skin cells and human organs are human life onto the scientifically sound fact that the entity developing in utero is a human being, to come up with a reductio ad absurdum conclusion of the pro-life position.

          A human being is a complete human life form.

          A “complete human life form” exists at every stage of development, past conception.

          (Is it Common Core? Surely Common Core must be to blame for the dearth of scientific knowledge here.)

        • You’re the only one talking about skin cells and organs.

          So what?

          That might be one of the most absurd things I’ve ever read on TTAG. The fail of logic-leap is strong with this one. You have imputed your own fallacy that human skin cells and human organs are human life onto the scientifically sound fact that the entity developing in utero is a human being, to come up with a reductio ad absurdum conclusion of the pro-life position.

          Human skin cells and human organs are human life. And it is not a scientifically sound fact that the entity developing in utero is a human being. It is developing into a human being and eventually becomes one, but is not one at the moment of conception.

          A “complete human life form” exists at every stage of development, past conception.

          (Is it Common Core? Surely Common Core must be to blame for the dearth of scientific knowledge here.)

          No it doesn’t. It isn’t complete until some time of development and growth has passed. When an acorn sprouts roots, it is not yet an oak tree.

        • Human skin cells and human organs are human life.

          No, they’re not. You asked for the biological definition of life. I gave it to you, and now you continue to ignore it.

          Skin cells are skin cells. They are not ” human life”.

          And it is not a scientifically sound fact that the entity developing in utero is a human being. It is developing into a human being and eventually becomes one, but is not one at the moment of conception.

          The embryo is fully, genetically human from the moment of conception. It meets all the criteria of life. By the time you even know it exists, it has already exhibited all of the criteria of life.

          Skin cells do not, and never will.

        • So as to avoid repeating myself as it is just a fundamental disagreement we have right now, I would say I have to agree to disagree with you. Thank you for the debate though, you have made me re-think some things on this subject.

        • “Piss on SCOTUS. They are wrong. Science, not SCOTUS, determines when life begins.

          But, feel free to stand on the unconstitutional, illogical, unscientific opinion of a few black-robed men, if it helps you sleep better at night.”

          Chip, I agree almost completely. The decision was based on an (I think) imagined “Right to privacy” which had never before been mentioned, SCOTUS was deliberately making law rather than interpreting it. If they had decided the case on its merits, someone could have written another law and taken care of it. But they ruled on this imagined constitutional right, and there is no one to appeal that decision to, except the American people at large. That appeal would be in the form of a constitutional amendment getting the federal government out of the equation, leave it to the states.

          Pretending than an amendment has nothing to do with any solution just prolongs the agony, which will be there forever as a reason to vote for someone or not, when no one, elected or not, can do anything about it without an AMENDMENT! 45 years of history, now, we should be able to figure it out, this will go on and on and on and on FOREVER, without an amendment, which your side will lose. I suspect that if the supremes had decided the other way, an amendment legalizing abortion would have passed by now.

      • The thing is, when is the life in the womb a baby per se?

        It is a “baby” at birth. That question is irrelevant. The relevant question is: when does it become a living human being. The answer, per biology, physiology, and genetics, is: at conception.

        t the very beginning, it is a clump of cells, that grows more and more complex, eventually becoming an unborn person.

        That “clump of cells” is a living human being, on the basis of sound science.

        To treat it as a person from the moment of conception is equally as unscientific as the claim that it is not a person until it is born, IMO.

        The concept of “personhood” is non-scientific, and thus the discussion of “personhood” is inherently unscientific. Generally speaking, the concept of “personhood” is only introduced as a means of denying basic human rights to some sub-set of human beings, on the basis of denying that they are “persons”.

        • It is a “baby” at birth. That question is irrelevant. The relevant question is: when does it become a living human being. The answer, per biology, physiology, and genetics, is: at conception.

          No it isn’t. It is no more a living human being at the moment of conception than the individual skin cells on your hand are a human being. Yes, it has human DNA, and is human life, but it is not a human being. A human being is an organism consisting of many organs, themselves made of tissues, the tissues made of cells. Human cells, tissue, and organs are not a human being.

          That “clump of cells” is a living human being, on the basis of sound science.

          It’s human life on the basis of science, not a human being.

          The concept of “personhood” is non-scientific, and thus the discussion of “personhood” is inherently unscientific. Generally speaking, the concept of “personhood” is only introduced as a means of denying basic human rights to some sub-set of human beings, on the basis of denying that they are “persons”.

          Personhood is not unscientific. It involves the question of when does the collection of cells/tissues/organs in the womb become an actual human being.

        • No it isn’t. It is no more a living human being at the moment of conception than the individual skin cells on your hand are a human being.

          Skin cells are human life? You just failed Biology 101. Try again.

          Yes, it has human DNA, and is human life, but it is not a human being. A human being is an organism consisting of many organs, themselves made of tissues, the tissues made of cells. Human cells, tissue, and organs are not a human being.

          All those organs, tissues, and cells are present, at some stage of development or another, in the unborn human being.

          It’s human life on the basis of science, not a human being.

          How does science differentiate between “human life” and “human being”?

          (PROTIP: it doesn’t. You’re simply conflating “personhood” with “human being”.)

          Personhood is not unscientific. It involves the question of when does the collection of cells/tissues/organs in the womb become an actual human being.

          Go back and pass Biology 101, and then you might be ready for the more advanced questions.

        • Skin cells are human life? You just failed Biology 101. Try again.

          How so? Each cell contains a copy of your DNA. So yes, they are human life.

          All those organs, tissues, and cells are present, at some stage of development or another, in the unborn human being.

          Exactly, they are present at some stage of development, not the whole stage of development.

          How does science differentiate between “human life” and “human being”?

          (PROTIP: it doesn’t. You’re simply conflating “personhood” with “human being”.)

          Because human life can be any human cells as those cells have human DNA. A cell is the most base form of life.

        • How so? Each cell contains a copy of your DNA. So yes, they are human life.

          They are human skin cells. They may even be living. But they are not human life. A human skin cell cannot become or beget a human, nor can a skin cell maintain its own self-directed growth.

          Exactly, they are present at some stage of development, not the whole stage of development.

          And when, precisely, does this “whole stage of development” exist?

          Because human life can be any human cells as those cells have human DNA. A cell is the most base form of life.

          You’ve already proven that you failed Biology 101. No need to double down on it.

        • They are human skin cells. They may even be living. But they are not human life. A human skin cell cannot become or beget a human, nor can a skin cell maintain its own self-directed growth.

          It can beget another cell though. That is how the body goes about repairing and replacing cells.

          And when, precisely, does this “whole stage of development” exist?

          When the human is fully adult and begins the process of decline instead of growth from aging.

          Because human life can be any human cells as those cells have human DNA. A cell is the most base form of life.

          You’ve already proven that you failed Biology 101. No need to double down on it.

          Cells are considered the most basic form of life.

        • They are human skin cells. They may even be living. But they are not human life. A human skin cell cannot become or beget a human, nor can a skin cell maintain its own self-directed growth.

          It can beget another cell though. That is how the body goes about repairing and replacing cells.

          If it can’t beget a human, then it’s not human life. See how that works?

          And when, precisely, does this “whole stage of development” exist?

          When the human is fully adult and begins the process of decline instead of growth from aging.

          The organs, tissues, and cells are present in the entity developing in utero, and they are present in an adult. Between those two stages of growth, those organs, tissues, and cells continue to develop. So, how does the “whole stage of development” factor in to determining whether something is human life or not?

          Because human life can be any human cells as those cells have human DNA. A cell is the most base form of life.

          You’ve already proven that you failed Biology 101. No need to double down on it.

          Cells are considered the most basic form of life.

          Just because a cell with human DNA is living does not make that cell human life.

        • If it can’t beget a human, then it’s not human life. See how that works?

          It doesn’t need to. No cell can beget another human on its own. That takes two cells (egg and sperm) to combine and start the process.

          The organs, tissues, and cells are present in the entity developing in utero, and they are present in an adult. Between those two stages of growth, those organs, tissues, and cells continue to develop. So, how does the “whole stage of development” factor in to determining whether something is human life or not?

          They are not present at the very beginning of the entity, only later on.

          Just because a cell with human DNA is living does not make that cell human life.

          How does it not? What is the difference between a group of human cells, such as some tissue, versus a group of human cells that have just started developing in the womb? How is one a person and not the other?

        • It doesn’t need to. No cell can beget another human on its own. That takes two cells (egg and sperm) to combine and start the process.

          No two cells can beget human life on their own – but two human lives can.

          They are not present at the very beginning of the entity, only later on.

          So, where on this continuum of development are sufficient organs, tissues, and cells present to cause the entity to comprise human life?

          How does it not? What is the difference between a group of human cells, such as some tissue, versus a group of human cells that have just started developing in the womb? How is one a person and not the other?

          “Some tissue” will only ever be “some tissue”, until it eventually dies. The entity developing in utero is a human being, and will only ever continue to advance into a more-developed human being, until death.

        • No two cells can beget human life on their own – but two human lives can.

          Human lives aren’t needed though, just the cells. Science already allows us to eliminate one part of the traditional biological way of reproduction (intercourse) by allowing a woman to have her eggs fertilized from frozen sperm. Eventually, it probably will get to where they could extract an egg from a woman, fertilize it via a sperm, and grow it in an artificial womb.

          So, where on this continuum of development are sufficient organs, tissues, and cells present to cause the entity to comprise human life?

          I’d say it’s human life all along, but to be a human being, I’d say when the brain is developed beyond a certain point.

          “Some tissue” will only ever be “some tissue”, until it eventually dies. The entity developing in utero is a human being, and will only ever continue to advance into a more-developed human being, until death.

          But at the particular moment, when it is a group of cells still and nothing more, it would be equivalent to tissue.

        • Human lives aren’t needed though, just the cells. Science already allows us to eliminate one part of the traditional biological way of reproduction (intercourse) by allowing a woman to have her eggs fertilized from frozen sperm. Eventually, it probably will get to where they could extract an egg from a woman, fertilize it via a sperm, and grow it in an artificial womb.

          Let me know when science can create a human egg and a human sperm, absent a human male and a human female.

          I’d say it’s human life all along, but to be a human being, I’d say when the brain is developed beyond a certain point.

          And what, exactly, is that certain point?

          But at the particular moment, when it is a group of cells still and nothing more, it would be equivalent to tissue.

          No. Because the skin cells are just happy, sitting there being skin cells, maybe dividing into a few more skin cells. But that other “group of cells” is busy undergoing self-directed development. (Psst: that one will be on the test; it’s one of the defining characteristics of life.)

        • Let me know when science can create a human egg and a human sperm, absent a human male and a human female.

          The point is that it is two cells that are used to create the new life.

          And what, exactly, is that certain point?

          That I cannot say. I would say that it is kind of like asking “when” does a boy turn into a man, in that there’s a certain point when it’s clearly a boy and then a certain point after when it’s clearly a man. Once the life is clearly a human and not just some clump of cells, where there is brain activity, movement and all of that, I’d say it is a human.

          No. Because the skin cells are just happy, sitting there being skin cells, maybe dividing into a few more skin cells. But that other “group of cells” is busy undergoing self-directed development. (Psst: that one will be on the test; it’s one of the defining characteristics of life.)

          I understand that, but at the moment they are being compared, when it is one group of cells compared to another, I do not really see how the fact that one is undergoing development makes it a human being while the other is not. Both are human life, and the one is developing into a human being.

      • “At the very beginning, it is a clump of cells”

        It’s a clump of cells with its own, unique DNA.

        From the very first division, it is its own life by any biological definition of the word.

        Arguments of ‘viability separate from the mother’ are non-starter straw men as well. Many parasites and other symbiotic life forms are also dependent on a given host for at least part of their life cycles, and we don’t hear a bunch of nonsense about them not being their own life form.

        • It is human life, yes, but that doesn’t make it a person. The skin cells on your hand, your tissues and organs, etc…are also human life. But that doesn’t make them a person. Part of being a person is the brain. If there’s no brain yet, then the life is not really a person.

        • It is human life, yes, but that doesn’t make it a person.

          Science does not define “person” or “personhood”.

          The skin cells on your hand, your tissues and organs, etc…are also human life.

          The skin cells on your hand are not human life. Your tissues and organs, etc. are not human life.

          But that doesn’t make them a person.

          Science does not define “person” or “personhood”.

          Part of being a person is the brain. If there’s no brain yet, then the life is not really a person.

          The brain and nervous system are among the first things to develop in the human. It starts developing at around 16 days, and by 8 weeks, the human can move appendages using the developed brain and nervous system.

        • The skin cells on your hand are not human life. Your tissues and organs, etc. are not human life.

          Yes they are.

          The brain and nervous system are among the first things to develop in the human. It starts developing at around 16 days, and by 8 weeks, the human can move appendages using the developed brain and nervous system.

          Eight weeks is a good bit of time from the moment of conception.

        • The skin cells on your hand are not human life. Your tissues and organs, etc. are not human life.

          Yes they are.

          No, they’re not. They may be living cells, but they are not human life. They, unlike the developing human being in utero at every stage of development, are not a unique life form.

          The brain and nervous system are among the first things to develop in the human. It starts developing at around 16 days, and by 8 weeks, the human can move appendages using the developed brain and nervous system.

          Eight weeks is a good bit of time from the moment of conception.

          What’s your point? I’m not the one claiming that the existence of a brain (of any particular developmental stage) is a scientifically sound criterion of human life.

        • No, they’re not. They may be living cells, but they are not human life. They, unlike the developing human being in utero at every stage of development, are not a unique life form.

          That doesn’t stop them from being human life. Cells are life forms, and they are human cells, so they are human life.

          What’s your point? I’m not the one claiming that the existence of a brain (of any particular developmental stage) is a scientifically sound criterion of human life.

          You were saying that the brain is among the first parts to develop and that at eight weeks, the fetus can move its limbs. I was pointing out that eight weeks is still a good bit of time from the moment of conception.

        • That doesn’t stop them from being human life. Cells are life forms, and they are human cells, so they are human life.

          No, they are living cells. They are not human life. There is a difference, that you’re very clearly missing.

          You were saying that the brain is among the first parts to develop and that at eight weeks, the fetus can move its limbs. I was pointing out that eight weeks is still a good bit of time from the moment of conception.

          I understand that. Why is it relevant? What argument of mine does it refute? What argument of yours does it further?

        • No, they are living cells. They are not human life. There is a difference, that you’re very clearly missing.

          How can they be living cells and not human life when they are human cells, with human DNA?

          I understand that. Why is it relevant? What argument of mine does it refute? What argument of yours does it further?

          It furthers my argument that the life in the womb is not yet a person until later on.

        • No, they are living cells. They are not human life. There is a difference, that you’re very clearly missing.

          How can they be living cells and not human life when they are human cells, with human DNA?

          Because that’s not the definition of human life. This is standard, non-controversial biology. Study some basic embryology.

          I understand that. Why is it relevant? What argument of mine does it refute? What argument of yours does it further?

          It furthers my argument that the life in the womb is not yet a person until later on.

          You’re welcome to believe that the embryo is not a human life, but your belief would be contrary to established science.

          Even so, if you believe that development of the brain is one of the “most important” criteria for determining if something is human life, and if you know that the brain and CNS are developed enough by 8 weeks for the developing human being to be able to move appendages, would you concede that human life begins at least no later than 8 weeks?

        • Whoops, I missed this:

          It furthers my argument that the life in the womb is not yet a person until later on.

          Who defines the criteria for “personhood” (it isn’t science), what are the criteria for “personhood”, and when are those criteria met?

        • “It furthers my argument that the life in the womb is not yet a person until later on.”

          That personhood is the criterion is something you (rhetorical you) made up. There’s nothing transcendentally “correct” about that being the definition of human life worthy of being saved.

          While you are busy arguing what’s a “person” or not, we are basically saying that’s morally irrelevant.

          As defined by genetics, a unique life, person or not, is formed at conception.

        • Because that’s not the definition of human life. This is standard, non-controversial biology. Study some basic embryology.

          What is the definition of human life then?

          You’re welcome to believe that the embryo is not a human life, but your belief would be contrary to established science.

          I do believe it’s a human life, but not a human being/person.

          Even so, if you believe that development of the brain is one of the “most important” criteria for determining if something is human life, and if you know that the brain and CNS are developed enough by 8 weeks for the developing human being to be able to move appendages, would you concede that human life begins at least no later than 8 weeks?

          Most likely yes.

          Who defines the criteria for “personhood” (it isn’t science), what are the criteria for “personhood”, and when are those criteria met?

          Hopefully non-biased scientists and medical professionals. The criteria as I’ve said would include things like the brain functioning and ability to feel pain. I would not go by viability, as there are some who argue that because technically human beings are born premature in comparison to other animals (this is because of the enormous heads that have to fit through a narrow birth canal, and is made up for by human’s tool use capability to care for the babies), that a baby can be regarded as not viable (i.e. not fully human) until a few weeks after birth.

        • What is the definition of human life then?

          Life is a characteristic of an entity that exhibits all or most of the following traits: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.

          The product of conception, at every stage of development, exhibits these traits. A clump of skin cells does not.

          I do believe it’s a human life, but not a human being/person.

          If it is genetically human, and it meets the definition of “life”, then it is a living human being. “Personhood” is a philosophical construct, that imparts certain characteristics upon a living human being, at a certain stage of development.

          …would you concede that human life begins at least no later than 8 weeks?

          Most likely yes.

          Then would you agree that abortion after 8 weeks is wrong?

          Hopefully non-biased scientists and medical professionals. The criteria as I’ve said would include things like the brain functioning and ability to feel pain.

          So (and I’m not being critical here; merely trying to understand your position), are you saying that you believe such criteria exist, but that you don’t know what they are? Or that such criteria could exist, but are not well-defined/well-established by the people that you listed? Or something else?

        • That personhood is the criterion is something you (rhetorical you) made up. There’s nothing transcendentally “correct” about that being the definition of human life worthy of being saved.

          I’d say it is more correct than just going by whether something is a life form or a life form developing into a more complex life form.

          While you are busy arguing what’s a “person” or not, we are basically saying that’s morally irrelevant.

          Would have to disagree that it’s morally irrelevant.

          As defined by genetics, a unique life, person or not, is formed at conception.

          I agree that a new life is formed at conception. But that doesn’t make it equivalent to a human being.

        • Life is a characteristic of an entity that exhibits all or most of the following traits: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.

          The product of conception, at every stage of development, exhibits these traits. A clump of skin cells does not.

          How do they not? They are cells, individual life forms unto themselves. They are alive, and hence life, and not dead.

          If it is genetically human, and it meets the definition of “life”, then it is a living human being. “Personhood” is a philosophical construct, that imparts certain characteristics upon a living human being, at a certain stage of development.

          But individual cells meet the definition of life and are genetically human too. But yet we wouldn’t consider them human beings.

          Then would you agree that abortion after 8 weeks is wrong?

          Yes.

          So (and I’m not being critical here; merely trying to understand your position), are you saying that you believe such criteria exist, but that you don’t know what they are? Or that such criteria could exist, but are not well-defined/well-established by the people that you listed? Or something else?

          That they exist but are not well-defined/well-established.

      • A human being begins his or her life as a “clump of cells”.
        That is how we all begin our lives.
        Or are you saying that in fact you were never conceived?
        Then how are you here now posting your comments if you were never conceived?

    • That may be what you wish to believe, but it is not the truth. Twist, turn, twist again, lie, cheat and steal. Sorry, didn’t change a thing. That decision is to be made by the woman who is involved, not by you or your preacher or even your god, tho it could show up and testify, I suppose. Does it speak English?

  8. I do not like abortion, but only feel late-term abortion should be outlawed with the exception of life and/or health of the mother, and possibly major complications of the baby.

    IMO, I’d flip the question and ask the pro-choice people, the, “NO ONE has ANY RIGHT to tell me what I CAN or CANNOT do with MY BODY” types why they are all about the right to one’s body when it comes to abortion, and usually also things like drugs and being LGBTQ, but yet when it comes to self-defense, they argue that guns should be banned or even that there is no right to self-defense altogether (like the U.N. holds).

    • …but only feel late-term abortion should be outlawed…

      Human beings have a heartbeat by about 21 days. Human beings are proven to be viable outside the womb as early as 21 weeks, 5 days of gestation. As prenatal knowledge, technology, and medicine continue to improve, viability will only be pushed earlier and earlier.

      Why should the right of a human being to live depend on the limitations of human scientific advances?

      • Viability is not what I go by, for the reasons that you state. I go by development of the brain, can the fetus feel pain, things like that.

        • “My buddy’s got this uncle who’s in a coma. Can’t feel a thing. So, I went and put a bullet in his head.”

        • If the part of their brain that makes them a person as we know is gone, i.e. no activity, then I’d be okay with euthanasia. If they have brain activity but are just in a coma but could wake up at some point, that is different.

        • If the part of their brain that makes them a person as we know is gone, i.e. no activity, then I’d be okay with euthanasia.

          At the very least, I respect your consistency, even if I disagree with your position.

        • If the part of their brain that makes them a person as we know is gone, i.e. no activity, then I’d be okay with euthanasia. If they have brain activity but are just in a coma but could wake up at some point, that is different.

          “The doctor said if all goes well, the fetus would go on to “wake up” and develop into a healthy adult. So, we terminated it.”

          “The doctor said if all goes well, Bob would “wake up” and be okay. So, we blew his brains out.”

        • “The doctor said if all goes well, the fetus would go on to “wake up” and develop into a healthy adult. So, we terminated it.”

          “The doctor said if all goes well, Bob would “wake up” and be okay. So, we blew his brains out.”

          Bob’s life can only be ended if his brain is gone, and there is no coming back.

    • “I do not like abortion, but only feel late-term abortion should be outlawed with the exception of life and/or health of the mother, and possibly major complications of the baby.”

      Kyle, seems like a sensible position at first, but you have to recall the bazonga that goes on in the legal and medical professions. When you begin defining “late-term”, “health of the mother”, and “major complications of the baby”, while discussing what we will put you in prison for, that is a little too general, if you get my drift. If you do NOT get my drift, it is probably because you could never be subject to such a law, since you could never be pregnant. Defining those parameters should be up to the person who will pay the price, whichever way the decision falls. Anyone who wishes to affect that decision needs to address the decision of *that* mother, not some congressman or judge. And that is precisely what SCOTUS said in Roe v Wade, there is no way for anyone to decide that for everyone, each pregnant woman must make that decision for herself, and for no one else. Men, in particular, who wish desperately to control the actions of others for no reason which they can define, have had fits ever since, apparently wishing for women to remain barefoot and pregnant, cooking dinner. I’m sure that is not the case, but I haven’t heard a valid proof of why not.

      • Men, in particular, who wish desperately to control the actions of others for no reason which they can define, have had fits ever since, apparently wishing for women to remain barefoot and pregnant, cooking dinner.

        The position is that an unborn human being is a living human being, and therefore abortion is unjustified homicide. It has nothing to do with the mother, and everything to do with the right to life of the unborn.

        But, by all means: have fun with the straw men.

        • Well, you seem to be having fun pretending that you are the arbiter for all human justice, why shouldn’t I? You have absolutely zero justification for attempting to inflict your personal will on 150 million women, why don’t you take care of your own pregnancy and let your neighbor do the same? Why is it your business? Straw man that!

      • That to me is the opposite extreme though, the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz cop-out. It should not just be up to the mother, as otherwise you could have women deciding to “abort” (i.e. murder) an unborn baby right before it is due to be born.

        • It is still her decision, and no one else’s. There will always be such a point, it has now been defined, leave it be or change it, but why just keep on bitching, without doing anything?

  9. “…How do you reconcile your position on abortion with your position on guns?”

    I don’t. They are two separate issues that don’t need to be reconciled with one another.

    My point of view is very similar on both issues, but that is different and independent of either issue.

  10. “How do you reconcile your position on abortion with your position on guns?”

    I reconcile it with the same position I have about the two-party political system here.

    Neither Dem or Repub party welcomes me in their tent.

    My ideal political candidate will have no problem with me keeping my weed in my gun safe.

    On abortion –

    I believe abortion is murder. That said, I’m not going to tell her what she can or cannot do to her body.

    *If* there is a God, she’ll pay for it in the afterlife (if there is one).

  11. I don’t feel like watching this pastor’s rant, but if he is against resisting lethal force, is he engaging in an anti-gun rant (the title says pro-gun rant, but how is he for pacifism and yet pro-gun?)

  12. Personally, I don’t see why people who are against abortion are not huge proponents of free birth control. After all, lots of birth control means less abortions 🙂
    I am pro choice. I want to be left the hell alone, so I extend that courtesy to others. I do have a problem with late term abortions that are not medically necessary. Ya should have made up your mind by then…

    • I am in favor of birth control and am not in favor of abortion. I favor pro-active planning and responsibility. To me abortion is like reproductive bankruptcy, for the vast majority of people that go through the process it is the only option simply because for a long time they made a myriad of bad and irresponsible decisions. Abortion is a way to make the problem disappear while failing to take any responsibility for themselves. If you look at the stats women who have an abortion will most likely have another one again. For me the greatest threat to the nation is the decline in personal responsibility and abortion represents a citadel of relational and reproductive irresponsibility and brokenness. There are legitimate uses, such as rape or danger to the mother (fun fact, Jewish women were required to have an abortion if the pregnancy or birth threatened their life), but those cases are incredibly rare. Birth control is either free or at very little cost and I cannot bring myself to respect someone that isn’t responsible enough to take a single pill every day.

      On the more philosophic side I feel the struggle for a better life could bring out good from the “unwanted” children. Think of all the stories of millionaires and philanthropists that started in poverty. If it saves just one child. I also disagree with the inherent racism of the strategy of Planned Parenthood designed by Margaret Sanger. The killing of near-term or even recorded cases of birthed healthy children being aborted is a crime in my eyes.

      • I agree, almost completely. But then, you did not voice support for a LAW, which would put people in prison or shoot them dead if they did not comply with *your* wishes. My *wishes* are nearly identical, but I somewhat violently oppose suggestions that the government should be involved, at all.

        • ” I somewhat violently oppose suggestions that the government should be involved, at all.”

          Yet you are quite comfortable using THE LAW to hide behind to justify the killing of a human being.

          Be consistent.

          Or admit your inconsistency by saying that Statist worship of “law” is okay when the law supports a position you agree with.

        • You can’t be that obtuse. There is no law to hide behind, as there is no law prohibiting abortion. Are you saying I’m hiding behind the absence of a law? Serious reaching going on, or keep playing with your straw man, or whatever the current jibe is. Your position is wrong, and you know it.

        • Wow..you really don’t see your own self-contradiction? And you have the nerve to call me obtuse?

          WHACK!

          That was the clue stick hitting you.

          The law you are hiding behind is that by your own admission, you assert that a fetus is not a “life” or a “person” or whatever on the basis of a court decision.

          In fact, you have repeatedly mentioned, even a reply to one of MY posts above, that the law is on your side regarding ‘right to choose.’

          I’ll be glad to post links to your comments above where you yourself claimed “the law” supports your position if you are too intellectually dishonest to own your own statements.

          Egads. I think I lost braincells on this one. PLEASE don’t do that again.

        • You know better, you are deliberately pretending not to. Laws prohibiting abortion are unconstitutional according to the SCOTUS ruling in Roe v Wade, 1973. Can you pretend that is not the truth?

          There is, therefore, no law prohibiting abortion. Can you pretend that is not correct?

          SCOTUS ruled in that case that human life begins at live birth. Can you pretend that is not correct?

          After lengthy discussion among themselves, SCOTUS ruled that it was not possible for anyone to decide whether abortion was in itself wrong, or evil, that was a decision for the mother, alone, to make. Are you pretending that is somehow not true?

          The way to change that, the ONLY way to actually CHANGE that, is a constitutional amendment either making abortion a federal crime in all cases, or getting the feds out of the question and leaving the decision to the states. Otherwise, your pretense that you have all the answers, and the authority from somewhere to enforce your personal law, is simply nonsense. The decision was made 45 years ago, it forces you to do exactly nothing, leaves you completely FREE (wonderful word) to mind your own business, but not to force your will on anyone else. If you try, you will find you have broken the law which you seem to disrespect, maybe a few years to study it would be helpful. Abortion decisions are made by the pregnant woman, not you. Not me. Not SCOTUS. One pregnancy, one decision. Really not tough, unless you are deliberately refusing to see the truth.

        • ” Laws prohibiting abortion are unconstitutional according to the SCOTUS ruling in Roe v Wade, 1973. Can you pretend that is not the truth?”

          What I know is that you are a Statist hypocrite. You are perfectly happy with the .gov … call it “the law” or SCOTUS ruling … defining what is right and wrong in the issue of abortion while trying to take a popular-for-this-site stance that you are ‘against government.’

          You try to claim that’s not true, but it’s all over this comment page. You are so blind to your own hypocrisy, and frankly I can’t help you see it beyond pointing it out to you.

          I’m not arguing for or against abortion in this comment. I’m simply pointing out, once again, that you reference the “authority” of the government to define the terms of the argument (when a fetus becomes human, whether abortion is right or not, etc), and further put opposing views down on the basis of that “authority,” and then try to claim you don’t want government involved.

          The inconsistency in your remarks is very clear to anyone objectively looking at the comments you make. You keep thinking I’m arguing ‘abortion’ with you; that just further shows you are completely missing the point.

          I’ll state it once again for clarity: You are contradicting yourself. Completely, and thoroughly. Again, I can include side-by-side statements you have made that contradict each other….statements akin “I don’t want government involved” levied against your above repeated assertion that since the SCOTUS ruled something, it must be right.

          But it won’t matter. If the truth of that inconsistency is so far over your head that you can’t see it now after having it referenced several times, one more won’t help.

    • “Personally, I don’t see why people who are against abortion are not huge proponents of free birth control. After all, lots of birth control means less abortions”

      You’re making the mistake of trying to inject logic into what is essentially a religious argument. This contradiction exists because of the fact that where you stand on the issue is highly influenced by your religious views. The Bible is all about promoting procreation and neither abortion or birth control jives with that. Some would even argue that birth control and abortion are morally equivalent.

        • I don’t know how old you are, Chip, but when I grew up, in VA, and in fact I *think* in federal law, birth control of any kind was illegal, except for the method approved by the Catholic church, which was approved because it did not work. When you say that is a straw man argument, I’m thinking you didn’t know that. In those days, condoms were sold in gas station bathrooms out of vending machines loudly proclaiming that they were “sold for the prevention of disease only”. Given the ability, birth control would be illegal and so would abortion, just as soon as the church could demand it of congress.

          And of course, there are over a billion Catholics in the world, and all are prohibited, still, from using effective birth control, so your “sees none” requires blinders to be accurate.

        • I don’t know how old you are, Chip, but when I grew up, in VA, and in fact I *think* in federal law, birth control of any kind was illegal…

          That is no longer the case. I’m not sure why it’s relevant.

          Given the ability, birth control would be illegal and so would abortion, just as soon as the church could demand it of congress.

          The only people talking about the possibility of outlawing birth control are pro-abortion advocates trying to use it as an argument in the abortion debate. That’s why it’s a straw man.

          For the record: I’m all in favor of birth control.

        • For the record: I’m all in favor of birth control.

          So, If you’re Catholic you’re in direct contravention of the Pope and the Bible. But that’d be ok, right?

        • “That is no longer the case. I’m not sure why it’s relevant.”

          I can help you with that. You are belittling the idea that birth control is not universally available, and you are wrong. It could be outlawed again tomorrow if the right church gains control of the legislative process. But you pretend that is not the case, and that you know everything about it.

    • ‘free birth control.’

      What is this ‘free birth control’ you speak of? Does it grow on trees in public parks? Does it rain down from the heavens? How is it free? Does it not need to be manufactured? Shipped? Sold by clerks at the local drug store? Do you expect other people to work a 40 hour week with no compensation so that you can have ‘free birth control’? How will those people feed their families without an income? Why should they labor for free when if you can’t even afford a box of rubbers you could simply abstain from sex? Isn’t that an easier solution?

    • Personally, I don’t see why people who are against abortion are not huge proponents of free birth control. After all, lots of birth control means less abortions 🙂

      Because “free” is a lie?

      And no, birth control is not the solution to abortion. Lots of people are too stupid to use birth control, and use abortion as birth control after the fact; far fewer people are too stupid to know they’re pregnant.

  13. Terminating a pregnancy early (or preventing one) is a woman exercising a liberty the government has no business in, for or against, economically or otherwise.

    Terminating a pregnancy late is the killing of an unwanted person. A viable person who has been deemed to not be a person, according to an SC decision. A person who is not a member of We The People and is afforded none of the rights or protections thereof. That is wrong.

    The point at which that state makes the transition is up to We The People. We The People have not been heard.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    I don’t see the conflict.

    • The amendment process awaits. That is the point where the question is, now, rally “we, the people” and you can get your way within a year. It has been 45 years now, and everything in the world has been tried, *EXCEPT* a constitutional amendment. Because it would not pass.

        • That would pretty much be up to people with your point of view, I’m quite happy with where we are. Try “Medical termination of a pregnancy after the 28th week shall be under the purview of the states.” Where now (you seem to be ignorant) it is not, the feds say it is determined by the woman involved, only. Got a better idea? Or do you think going around the constitution is a better idea, as people are trying to do with both abortion and gun control, as we speak.

        • Try “Medical termination of a pregnancy after the 28th week shall be under the purview of the states.”

          What’s wrong with what’s already there?

          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

          Unless you can show me where the constitution delegates power to the federal government regarding abortion?

        • The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

          Unless you can show me where the constitution delegates power to the federal government regarding abortion?”

          +1. There it is. The bottom line, as far as authority of the federal government is concerned in this matter. Just because it used one usurped, illegitimate authority of Judicial Review, doesn’t mean its over-reach on this other issue is any more valid. The federal government is trespassing.

      • “How Tyranny Came to America”
        By Joe Sobran
        http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml

        “Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.

        Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now.”

    • Terminating a pregnancy early (or preventing one) is a woman exercising a liberty the government has no business in, for or against, economically or otherwise.

      “Terminating an elderly dependent is a person exercising a liberty the gov’t has no business in, for or against, economically or otherwise.”

      Hi, just taking it out for a spin. Don’t really like how it handles.

    • I agree. A deep biblical study will reveal that there is a place for warriors. That being said, the Warriors are not allowed to take up a leadership role in spiritual matters. Look at King David. He really wanted to build a temple, and yet God told he that he had too much blood on his hands. So I carry a gun for self defense and the protection of innocent life, but I also know that by being willing to take a life, I consider myself ineligible to take a leadership role in the church.

    • and baby killing, and homosexuality, and adultery, and debauchery. . .

      And the Bible says that they are ALL wrong, not worth taking part in, detrimental here, detrimental to our relationship in toto with our CREATOR – HE WHO IS, WHOSE SON IS NAMED JESUS AND WHOSE SPIRIT IS CALLED “HOLY” (btw – because some of you are kind of f’d up about that).

        • The OT gives very specific instruction on the rules for selling your daughter as a sex-slave…

          “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.” (Exodus 21:7-11)

        • Yes, they didn’t have bankruptcy back in those days, but slavery was not quite the same thing you’re thinking of as slavery. Simply meant that you or a family member agreed to work off your debt. And no debt was considered too large to require more than 6 years of ‘slavery’. If you were dumb enough to lend someone that much money you were SOL.

        • >> lavery was not quite the same thing you’re thinking of as slavery. Simply meant that you or a family member agreed to work off your debt. And no debt was considered too large to require more than 6 years of ‘slavery’.

          It doesn’t say anything about the daughter consenting.

          And, oh look, scare quotes around slavery. I didn’t think I’d see it outside of Stormfront and similar neo-Confederate cesspits, but here we go.

          FYI, slavery is slavery regardless of whether it is for life or for one hour.

      • So…. Moses never received support from God in battle then? Huh. I guess you must be reading that new politically correct bible…

  14. “He (Jesus) said to them (the Diciples), ‘if you have two cloaks sell one and buy a sword’. They responded, ‘Lord we have two swords among us’ and he replied ‘that is enough’.”

    “If a thief breaks in during the night and is killed there is no bloodguilt for the family”.

    There is a difference between murder and killing in order to defend yourself and your family in the Bible. The message of ultimate pacifism is often a tool used by a particular individual to manipulate the congregation into giving that individual complete control, using the Bible to legitimize an illegitimate concentration of power.

  15. I don’t think there’s anything to reconcile, frankly. Being pro-life and pro-gun aren’t mutually exclusive. They cover completely different circumstances.

    If you are anti-abortion, you (generally) believe that abortion is the taking by force of an innocent life, and that it’s wrong. If you’re pro-gun, you (generally) believe that since the taking by force of an innocent life is wrong, you should be able to protect innocent lives with whatever means are best for the job–and oftentimes, that means is a gun.

    • Bit of a problem there, hopefully only with your terminology. Taking your post one step farther, you would come up with approval for someone using his firearm to defend a human life which is about to be aborted. Which would be not only sick, but punishable under the *actual* law.

      • Taking your post one step farther, you would come up with approval for someone using his firearm to defend a human life which is about to be aborted.

        How, exactly, would one do so?

        And how is opposing abortion somehow an implication of favoring vigilante justice?

        • >> How, exactly, would one do so?

          By shooting the doctor that’s trying to perform an abortion, for example. Just as you’d shoot a murderer who is aiming his weapon at a victim.

          >> And how is opposing abortion somehow an implication of favoring vigilante justice?

          Opposing abortion by itself is not. As Larry pointed out, it’s a logical consequence of adding that to a belief that it is moral to use lethal force in defense of others. At that point, the only question that remains is whether your desire to be moral overrides your desire to remain law-abiding or not. Different people answer that question differently depending on the issue at stake.

        • Chip, did you read the post directly above mine? It is not that long, or particularly confusing. It said, clearly, abortion is the taking of an innocent life, and that we have firearms, in part, to defend innocent life. As I said, the next step in that progression is advocating use of a firearm to stop an abortion would be a legitimate use. I do not think that is what was intended, which was what I said. You are not that thick, quit pretending.

        • As I said, the next step in that progression is advocating use of a firearm to stop an abortion would be a legitimate use.

          But: using the firearm to shoot whom? The mother? The abortion provider?

  16. ” I hate the idea of telling people what to do with their bodies — or what’s in their bodies”

    You missed a step, on both ends on purpose. You can’t ‘void’ personal responsibility and negate outcomes. You can say, “sure, kill the kid that you created on purpose, a human being that only exists by GOD, and your own invitation” but you can’t negate what that equals and that is a monster. You cannot say that you give a sh_t about my life or the life of my current or future progeny, if you can deal with your own in such a manner.

    It’s a matter of equality, you can equate abortion with normal, you just cannot any longer equate yourself with normal with me, because I refuse to be equated with that.

    Guns has nothing to do with right to life except as a means to shut up and shut down those who will keep you from yours (especially your a-hole neighbors that needed a job and gang up on you and call themselves “government” when they really mean they want you to give over unto them the power to F you with impunity).

    If you have a gun, you have greater possibility to determine who you get to argue (and possibly for how long) “Right to Life” with.

    BTW, I have a gun.

    • So you refuse to consider people who are pro-choice as fully human?

      Which natural rights you consider as not applying to them?

      • You deny choices have consequences, that intercourse is the best method for creating kids and so good that attempts to stop it are often thwarted by human’s ability to reproduce, that the purpose of intercourse (biologically) is to make a kid.

        Most importantly, you deny that a choice was already made IN MAKING A HUMAN BEING in normal course. that an abortion is an admission that the choice was BLOWN. If my saying have some personal responsibility and do right by yourself and the person you created at your invitation, by NOT killing it, makes me a usurper of individual liberty, THEN Y E S IT MAKES THE PERSON SEEKING OR PERFORMING AN ABORTION AND THE SUPPORTER OF SUCH THINGS “MONSTERS”. Further, as stated, if you don’t care for a child created by your own invitation, you cannot claim you have any care for me and mine. That’s strict logic.

      • I don’t expect anyone to listen. I expect you to shut up and let me ram it down your throat like the pro-abortion argument. The pro-abortion argument people are those who have moved “left”. Conservatives may have slid slight left as well. BUT YOU AND THEM CONSTITUTE THE ‘MOVING PARTY’.

        Abortion, killing kids has ALWAYS BEEN ABHORRED BY NORMAL SOCIETY, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN/DONE OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN ERADICATED OR AVOIDED UNTIL THEY HAVE GONE AWAY ON THEIR OWN.

        IF YOU NEED TO DEMAND MY TAX DOLLARS TO SUPPORT THAT EVIL THAT CAN’T EVEN SUPPORT ITSELF WITH THE MILLIONS IN CIGARETTE LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT MONEY AND THE MILLIONS PLANNED PARENTHOOD MAKES FROM SELLING BABY PARTS, THEN YES, I AM GONNA CRAM MY OPPINION DOWN YOUR THROAT, AND TELL MY GREAT GREAT GREAT GRANDKIDS TO DO THE SAME, YOU MONSTER.

        • >> Abortion, killing kids has ALWAYS BEEN ABHORRED BY NORMAL SOCIETY, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN/DONE OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN ERADICATED OR AVOIDED UNTIL THEY HAVE GONE AWAY ON THEIR OWN.

          Miscegenation was also “always abhorred” by “normal society” until mid-20th century. Does this mean that people who have decided that there’s nothing wrong with it have “moved left”?

        • Miscenegation has not been abhorred except as a matter of equality. Equality is a matter what you choose to be equated with. You’re less likely to equate yourself if you are forced to consider it. If abortion was carried on in secret, normal society wouldn’t have to consider whether it wanted to equate itself with it, and finally determine that prponents of abortion are pieces of sh_t.

        • >> Miscenegation has not been abhorred except as a matter of equality.

          Oh really? Did anti-miscegenation laws just magically appear on the books all by themselves?

          No. They were passed by politicians elected by bigots, because those bigots constituted the majority of the electorate, and they believed that a white woman having sex with a black man is gross, sinful, and “promotes communism”.

          If that sounds like something you might have heard recently, it’s because bigots don’t change, only the topics of their bigotry do.

          Here, have a look at these faces and these signs. Don’t turn away. Don’t wince. LOOK:

          http://cf.mp-cdn.net/4f/dc/d7b4853fb7f7bd540069228b0fe4-should-race-mixing-stop.jpg
          http://photos.ark-ives.com/general/1775_16r.jpg
          http://i.imgur.com/9KoOWjw.jpg

          Looks like a typical right-wing fundie crowd today, doesn’t it? Except for slight correction in signs. These days it’s “abortion is communism” or “gay marriage is communism” etc.

          You are them.

  17. There is nothing more innocent than the unborn, nor anything more deliberately guilty than a criminal who has taken up arms.
    They both deserve justice.

  18. the Hebrew text for the 6th commandment does not say: “Thou shall not KIll”, but “Thou Shall not MURDER.” The misconception comes from the translation in the King James Bible when at the time in English to murder and kill meant the same thing, in Hebrew they mean two different things. To murder is to take a life without justifisble cause. To kill simply means to end a life in any context.

  19. If you are anti-abortion yet pro-choice, you lack the courage of your convictions. Just call yourself pro-abortion.

    I could quote biblical scripture, but in the increasingly heathen culture I’ll boil it down to moral philosophy.

    If you find a clump of undeniably human cells on Mars, the entire world would celebrate the discovery of extraterrestrial life. Furthermore, many people would lobby governments to pass laws to help nurture and encourage it to thrive, as of it were a cluster of loudmouthed shnooks on a development project. You find the same thing in a womb, and you want to know how old it is so as to determine the right response? It’s human life, whether you find it viable or not, and it is by no means a mere growth in a host. It’s a separate and unique being, with its own DNA and, often, blood type who has never wronged anyone. And it has as much right to live and defend itself from being annihilated as I do.

    • “If you are anti-abortion yet pro-choice, you lack the courage of your convictions. Just call yourself pro-abortion.”

      Not only is that silly, but I’ll make my own decisions, you need not order me around.

      I am anti-abortion, think we should be doing many things to minimize it. Consider that a moral stance, held essentially by everyone, claiming there is such a thing as people who enjoy abortion demonstrates serious ignorance of the subject. I am pro-choice, because that refers to a legal question. It is perfectly legal, right now, to do a great number of things, spend huge amounts of money, to reduce the incidence of abortion, most of which is not being done, leaving only the attempt to punish people who need them. The question of changing public morals is not that of government, and if you think sending armed troops is the answer to questions of morality, you are over 1000 years behind the times.

      If some god wants abortion to stop, all it needs to do is wave its magic wand. Otherwise, it is the business of each pregnant woman, for her own case only, and no one else’s. You make a case for superstitious nonsense, but why is it your business?

      • It’s his business because of religion. They seem to forget all about personal liberties, and want to apply their ‘morality’ to everyone else.

        I am not in favor of abortion. But there is absolutely no way to ever allow a return to the days of sneaking around and having them. It’s really simple, it’s not their body, and they don’t get a say.

        As you observed, “God” could just snap his fingers and make it go away. Perhaps he’s too busy with a football game or something.

      • There is one and only one reason to be pro-life, and that is because the unborn child is a human being with an inalienable right to life. To claim that you believe it is wrong to murder an innocent human child, but that you also believe it is wrong to have any laws preventing someone who does not believe what you believe from murdering an innocent child is no different than saying that you personally oppose slavery, or the extermination of the Jews, but you don’t believe your views should impinge on the freedom of slave owners in the antebellum south, or the Third Reich from doing what they believe to be right for them. Brilliant.

  20. I wont tell anyone else what they can/cant do with themselves and their own and I expect others to extend that same courtesy to me.

    • PERFECT POINT
      Made, and missed, by you.
      If a person can kill their own kid, and another can help them do it, whether for $ or not, they cannot offer a guaranty of anything else to you worth contemplating. That’s strict logic.

  21. I don’t think these two positions are particularly hard to reconcile. Many people stress the need to protect INNOCENT life.

    In my case I really don’t like abortion, but the government telling women what to do with their bodies makes me nervous.

    The role of the government is to ensure the rights of citizens under our constitution. If you assume that citizens means fully formed people (I know that is a big assumption) then it becomes pretty simple. People have a right to defend themselves from violent attack and have the means to do so. All citizens, including women dealing with the stress of a pregnancy, have a right to privacy and deal make decisions about their bodies, although people of good will, will argue about how far that right goes. In any event if you focus on and care about rights it becomes pretty simple.

    • “but the government telling women what to do with their bodies makes me nervous. ”

      Ain’t nobody here trying to tell any woman what they can do with their body. We’re talking about what they do to the BABY’s body. Do whatever you want to your own body, but don’t cut, dissect, eviscerate, and murder the baby’s body — regardless of what stage of development it’s at.

  22. I believe life is precious and given by God. I believe unborn babies are babies and have rights even if they can’t speak. The logic that they only become a person when the emerge from the womb is beyond me. The death penalty and incarceration are punishments for those who commit crimes. If you imprison someone who is innocent, then it is kidnapping and a crime. If I kill someone in self-defense, it is not murder but homicide. The rule of law is what separates the two. It should always be a difficult decision to take a life even when it is justified. Convenient birth control does not meet that criteria for me.

  23. The government should stay out of my personal affairs regarding whether or not I want to have either a child or a gun. That’s the logical stance. I’ll add that it’s ironic that The Right wants to dictate that a poor, unwed mother have a baby, then in the same breath refuse to pay more in taxes to support that mandated baby and simply blame the mother for having kids when she can’t afford it. How does that reconcile? Plus, just to be logical and pragmatic, the last thing this world needs is another unwanted child. If you want to pay for all these unwanted children then by all means, please offer additional funds when you file your taxes this year, however I do not. To answer your question, to me it’s harder to reconcile the belief that the government should fully meddle in your private affairs regarding a child but not when it comes to guns. I would prefer that the government leave me alone and let me pursuit life, liberty and happiness entirely.

    • “I’ll add that it’s ironic that The Right wants to dictate that a poor, unwed mother have a baby, then in the same breath refuse to pay more in taxes to support that mandated baby and simply blame the mother for having kids when she can’t afford it.”

      At what point did a woman’s poor choice become MY responsibility? Here, let me reconcile it all for you: “The Right” (as you call it) believes in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. They believe that you, and you alone, are responsible for your actions.

      “To answer your question, to me it’s harder to reconcile the belief that the government should fully meddle in your private affairs regarding a child but not when it comes to guns. I would prefer that the government leave me alone and let me pursuit life, liberty and happiness entirely.”

      Okay, so — what if your pursuit of happiness involves screwing little three-year-old boys? Should the government leave you alone and let you pursue that? There are some folks who would think that no, you don’t have that right to violate those innocent kids, and as a society, we’re not going to let you. Perhaps you’d also call that “meddling in your private affairs regarding a child”.

      So — how is murdering a baby in its mother’s womb LESS of a crime, LESS horrific, than child molestation? Should you be as free to pursue child molestation as you appear to want to be free to pursue baby homicide? Or, more pertinently — should your neighbor be free to pursue child molestation? If you knew for a fact that your neighbor enjoyed engaging in child rape, and that it made him really happy, would you really be okay with just looking the other way and saying “hey, whatever floats your boat, it’s a free country”? Really?

      • Well said. The only thing I could add is that from an economic perspective it is well known that if you subsidize something you will get more of it. As a member of the ‘Right’ I want to discourage careless promiscuity, so why would I want to encourage it by paying for it?

        • What is it you are talking about paying for? I thought the question was one of prohibition or not, missed anybody paying for anything.

        • CB – ‘I’ll add that it’s ironic that The Right wants to dictate that a poor, unwed mother have a baby, then in the same breath refuse to pay more in taxes to support that mandated baby and simply blame the mother for having kids when she can’t afford it.’

        • No Willy J.P.
          Conservatives (the “Right”) demand that people exercise personal responsibility AHEAD OF TIME, most especially in matters so UNAVOIDABLY WEIGHTY. If we a did anything goes, we’d do my version.

        • And . . . Willy J.P.,
          If you cannot ask your friend, family, church, or community for help, you have no right to demand help from me (especially my tax dollars). If you haven’t (can’t) endeared yourself to those groups, you will only be a cause of ruin to me [J. M.Thomas R., TERMS, 2012].

      • “The Right” (as you call it) believes in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. They believe that you, and you alone, are responsible for your actions.”

        Now we’re getting somewhere! Exactly correct. And some women find themselves in a spot where their personal responsibility requires them to have an abortion, and you approve of that because she is taking responsibility. YOU have not stepped up to take responsibility for that child, it is HER responsibility and no one else’s, which means it is her decision and no one else’s, it is her business and no one else’s, abortion is legal, end of story, I am sure you agree.

        • Your argument only works if you believe homicide is acceptable behavior.

          Listen — there are PLENTY of people who end up way over their heads and unable to take care of their children, including after their birth. Should they just kill them? Would that be “taking care of the problem”? Would that be, indeed, “taking personal responsibility”?

          If a woman can’t support her newborn baby, should she just stuff it in a bag and throw it in the river? And should such behavior be “legal”? Or should she only kill it while it’s still in the womb, because somehow that makes a difference?

        • “abortion is legal, end of story, I am sure you agree.”

          Oh, I certainly agree that abortion is currently legal.

          I’m sure you also will agree that slavery was legal too… up until the point when humanity realized what an atrocious horrific plague they had brought upon their fellow man, and they rightly changed the laws and outlawed it.

          Just because something is ‘legal’ doesn’t make it right, or morally superior, or (for many of us) acceptable.

          One can only hope that there will be a similar awakening, and a reconciliation, for this subject, and at that point the laws can be changed.

        • Or in other words…

          “Now we’re getting somewhere! Exactly correct. And some women find themselves in a spot where their personal responsibility requires them to have to terminate the life of their newborn child, and you approve of that because she is taking responsibility. YOU have not stepped up to take responsibility for that child, it is HER responsibility and no one else’s, which means it is her decision and no one else’s, it is her business and no one else’s.”

      • “Okay, so — what if your pursuit of happiness involves screwing little three-year-old boys? Should the government leave you alone and let you pursue that?”

        In the past 10,000 years, plenty of governments have sanctioned exactly that. Or washed their hands of the question. Point is, if that is the law, so be it, why does it concern you? You also need to reconcile their laws concerning whacking pedophiles, before deciding upon your own actions. But that has zero to do with the situation being discussed here, Screwing little (or big, for that matter) 3-year-old boys is seriously illegal except for Catholic priests, who somehow get away with it regularly. OTOH, abortion is legal, so yes, the government should leave you alone and let you do that. I don’t know just how “pursuit of happiness” got into the equation anyway!

        • Actually, over 90% of the cases of abuse in the Catholic Church were committed against boys, and between 80-90% of those cases of sexual abuse were committed against pubescent boys, i.e. pederasty, not pedophilia.

          Or as Ann Coulter put it: “Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, an alternative view — adopted by the Boy Scouts — is that sodomites cause sodomy. (Assume all the usual disclaimers here about most gay men not molesting boys, most Muslims being peaceful, and so on.)

          It is a fact that the vast majority of the abuser priests — more than 90 percent — are accused of molesting teen-age boys. Indeed, the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the abuse prompted The New York Times to engage in its classic “Where’s Waldo” reporting style, in which the sex of the victims is studiedly hidden amid a torrent of genderless words, such as the “teen-ager,” the “former student,” the “victim” and the “accuser.”

          http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter032102.asp

          Of course that article was written before the Boy Scouts caved to the lunatic leftists and decided to let homosexual males take young boys out into the woods.

        • Of course Catholicism (or rather, clerical celibacy in general – there’s a similar problem in Orthodoxy among the episcopate, for example, as exemplified by the ongoing scandal in Russian Orthodox Church) doesn’t cause homosexuality. What it does is cause sexual frustration, which is released in whatever manner is ultimately available. Since most potential victims that priests can use in that manner are boys, they also constitute the majority of actual victims. This doesn’t mean that all those priests are homosexual, just as most prison rapes aren’t committed by homosexuals. When those same people get the opportunity to abuse girls, they do so as well.

        • Except that the same percentage of unmarried Catholic clergy have been credibly accused of sexual abuse as any other profession except for one, public school teachers, where it is 2-3x higher. And the psychotherapist where many (perhaps most) of these abusing priests were sent in Maryland reported that in 100% of the cases he treated, all those who had sexually abused boys had admitted to him to engaging in homosexual acts with other homosexual adult males.

        • Greater than 85% of the pedophilia in the Catholic Church came out of, or was associated with two diocese in PA, where homosexual priests flocked to in order to avoid it, and a simboiotic and sympathetic bishop turned a blind eye. In ALL cases it was a matter of abandonment of vocational vows, and a matter of previously known AND hidden homosexuality.

  24. Considering for thousand of years no one had any idea when cells became a “person”. I would respect pro-life people more if they also worried about the child after it was born, but that doesn’t seem to be a concern of most. If you want to think a person is a person at conception then perhaps you could just get an eviction notice for the child.

    • And the women I know who have had an abortion try to avoid having another one. I’m sure some use this as a form of birth control, but I would like to see some numbers on exactly how many are using it for that purpose.

      • This idea that people use abortions as a lazy form of birth control, or somehow blame the behavior of the woman for something that requires two people to do, is so Old Testament that it’s difficult to believe people in the 21st century still subscribe to it. No form of birth control is infallible so you can take all the precautions you want and still end up pregnant, but that’s beside the point. I would agree that from a purely logical standpoint, unless you’re willing to help support this kid through government programs and financial assistance for the rest of his or her life, then you should not be in favor of a big central government that forces its female citizens to carry all pregnancies to term. If you favor a big government that is personally involved in your family planning then perhaps a place like China might be a little more to your liking.

        • …unless you’re willing to help support this kid through government programs and financial assistance for the rest of his or her life, then you should not be in favor of a big central government that forces its female citizens to carry all pregnancies to term.

          Must I also assume personal, financial liability for the terminally ill and infirm, in order to oppose euthanasia?

          Or how about capital punishment? Should those who oppose capital punishment have to assume personal, financial responsibility for incarcerating would-be executed felons until they die naturally?

        • “Or how about capital punishment? Should those who oppose capital punishment have to assume personal, financial responsibility for incarcerating would-be executed felons until they die naturally?”

          Actually, yes. And yes to your other questions as well, particularly about abortion. I do not want MY tax dollars paying for YOUR actions to save your immortal soul, or whatever gibberish applies. If you want that, pay for it! I suspect after the funds of all volunteers are counted, you could prohibit 5, maybe 10 abortions.

        • We should all be willing to own the consequences and requirements of our beliefs, intended or not. This is the heart of purely logical reconciliation. The argument kind of reminds me of the child who becomes upset when he hears that the pound has to euthanize cute little puppies because there’s no home for them and no money for kibble. Everybody loves cute little puppies, they just don’t love them quite enough to help provide them a home, pay the vet bills and buy all that kibble. This is the problem with the Democrats – they want an ideal world where everyone is a millionaire, lives in castles and rides their unicorns to Disney World every day (and who wouldn’t?) but can’t be bothered with practical consideration of the cost that would require.

        • >> Must I also assume personal, financial liability for the terminally ill and infirm, in order to oppose euthanasia?

          Yes. And you should also be on the hook for any moral and physical suffering that you impose on them by preventing them from a dignified release from said suffering.

          >> Or how about capital punishment? Should those who oppose capital punishment have to assume personal, financial responsibility for incarcerating would-be executed felons until they die naturally?

          I don’t see why not, actually (and I oppose capital punishment).

          Of course, those who support capital punishment should then bear financial responsibility for the cost of due process (appeals etc) that is necessary to ensure that it’s not applied to a wrong person. And in the event that a miscarriage of justice is proven later, the cost of compensation to their family, though it beats me as to how you’d even put an estimate on that.

        • Conservatives do support “unwanted” and wanted children alike. Nobody beats Catholic Charities, the Red Cross, etc at doing so. Again your skipping a whole step. Conservatives just say, if you know you don’t want a child, or it’s likely you don’t / won’t want one, there’s an absolute way to prevent having one that doesn’t include you killing anyone. Quit purposefully ignoring that, wuit selling that ignorance to others.

      • “but I would like to see some numbers on exactly how many are using it for that purpose.”

        Yes, and I would also like to know where those numbers came from, since My guess would be out of somebody’s ass.

  25. The world can do without criminals, and the world can do without unwanted children. So I support self defense and I support abortion. Just don’t hand me that “right to choose” Madison Avenue doubletalk. Except for cases of rape, contraception failure and the like, the woman exercised her “right to choose” when she chose not to use protection.

    • Absolutely. Right up to the day when contraceptives were medically possible. And then up to the day when safe abortions were possible. At those points, her right to choose moved forward. Unless your head is in the sand.

    • ‘Except for cases of… contraception failure and the like…’

      Until a 100% fail proof means of contraception is invented (intentional) sexual intercourse will always be a gamble. If you can’t afford to lose your money, don’t go to the casino. If you can’t afford a child, don’t have sex. It’s really that simple. I have no sympathy or desire to bear the burden of the consequences of either the gambler or the pregnant mother. Yes, the mother has the choice of killing her own flesh and blood, but then the gambler has the choice to rob the casino. The law however only intervenes in the case of the robber.

      • If you can’t afford a child, don’t have sex. It’s really that simple.

        Telling people to avoid sex is like telling people not to eat or take a dump. It’s not natural and damn near impossible. Even Catholic priests who are sworn to celibacy have sex, albeit with the choirboys.

        • Fine, if you can’t control your urges and ole Harry Palmer just ain’t getting the job done, buy a box of rubbers and take your chances. But if you lose the bet pay up. Take responsibility for the son or daughter you created. Bad behavior is no excuse for REALLY bad behavior.

        • Okay, but one of your payment options should be paying for an abortion. Young lady wants a few hundred grand to spend on college, er, drugs, pony up your one grand for an abortion and call it a day. I know, just crushed a potential growth industry, too bad. But that is as far as your liability goes, under current law.

  26. Here’s a theoretical question. If you could see into the future and know that a woman was going to birth Obama, but was considering abortion, at that point would you be pro-life or pro-choice?

    • Yes, but I don’t have that power. We’ve killed 50+ million babies at this point and we still let a yahoo like Barry get through. Maybe one of those underprivileged single parent youths will kill the next O’Bama while robbing him for drug money.

  27. Carrying a gun is all about exercising good judgement and accepting personal responsibility.

    Aborting a child is all about exercising poor judgement and taking no personal responsibility.

    I wont comment on the mental gymnastics you have accomplished to square those in your head. I just hope before you draw your weapon, you figured out what innocent life looks like.

  28. I doubt I have anything to add to this conversation, but I’ll try anyway.

    You (and the above pastor? I didn’t bother listening honestly… :p) Are not guilty of this, but most people put these things together as some kind of false dichotomy or try and use it as a gotcha for character assassination. They don’t really try to understand someone else’s view, they are just in it to force their own opinions up front.

    Guns aren’t used in abortion, and abortion isn’t really a means of self defense. So why do people act like they are related? Honestly the closest thing I can come up with is the loss of human life, so why are abortions so entirely unregulated where homicides must usually be proven justified or you are a criminal. That’s the real disconnect in my mind, but obviously thoughts differ on that point.

      • Right!!!
        Abortion Doc has a license to carry, but doesn’t have to get a background check everytime he needs to buy a new pair of scissors to kill nearly 50% of EVERYONE WHO WALKS THROUGH HIS DOORS!!!!
        He can buy and sell the baby parts without going through a NICS check through his local FFL!
        He can collect money from the gov’t to subsidize his mass-killings. The poor gov’t can’t afford all the money that “Dr.” needs, so they have to rob “Big Tobacco”, after already collecting billions in taxes on them, by suing them for billions of dollars during the Clinton administration becase the ‘tobacco industry’s’ product “kills” some-of its users.

        You are not paying attention.

  29. A person who chooses to abort a baby, except for a few select reasons (for example: rape & life/death/medical), is a person who clearly should never be allowed to raise children. This is the crux of the problem, and why I generally take a Pro-choice stance. My thought is that you are likely such a crap person, there is no way you would be able to raise that child to be a decent person. So your abortion is better for society and me.

    So I choose to not meddle in the affairs of others, dictating what you may or may not do. I will, however, judge the ever loving sh!t out of you, and probably choose not to associate with you, if not treat you poorly.

    • While I agree with your sentiment, I must point out that abortion does not involve a scarlet letter, or anything, there are likely women in your life who have had one, but they are not advertising the fact.

    • A person who chooses to abort a baby, except for a few select reasons (for example: rape & life/death/medical), is a person who clearly should never be allowed to raise children. This is the crux of the problem, and why I generally take a Pro-choice stance. My thought is that you are likely such a crap person, there is no way you would be able to raise that child to be a decent person. So your abortion is better for society and me.

      Another person for whom the word “adoption does not exist.” They sprout like mushrooms.

  30. Let’s be honest, you aren’t pro-choice, you are pro-abortion. Do you know why Kermit Gosnell’s abortions were illegal? It was because he fully delivered babies before aborting them. Had he done the same thing in the womb or in partial birth it would have been peachy keen.

    • @td, I agree with your terminology. “Pro choice” is a marketing term designed to make people feel good about supporting abortion.

      I am pro abortion and I have no problem saying so in exactly those words.

    • Td, let’s be honest, you are not pro-life, any more than everybody else. You are anti-choice, because you think you should be able to make all choices for all women, since you are so wise and all women need your protection.

  31. I’m hardcore pro gun, or any weapons in general, as in they should be possessed by any taxpayer living outside a jail or a mental facility.

    I have ZERO problem with abortion.

    The whole pregnancy thingy is that we’re in pursuit of genetic immortality, which is our designated function through billions of years of selection on genetic coincidences that happened throughout the course. To say that in English, that means the fact that you are living today is because all your ancestors on the bloodline made the right choices for the optimal survival of the genetics inside of you.

    If a conceived baby inside of a womb will bring nothing but financial, societal, and emtional distress to the parents, how in the world do you think this pregnancy is helping the proliferation and advancement of their genetics? How is it helping any party involved but as a member of the labor force that’s gonna help the gobbermint out later? The correct course of action, for optimal results for the parents and the kids, is to get an abortion and get pregnant when they are ready.

    Before you say, “well you just killed the kid”. So what? If it gets in the way of genetic immortality the kid is by definition counter-productive to your life as a creature. We don’t live for the advancement of our genetics like it’s a cult. It’s because of that, that we are alive. Do not let a so-called civilized world fool you or veer you off the course of your survival. Do not think that somehow there is a right to living or a right to keep and bear arms. No there is not. Just because it’s written on paper it doesn’t make it a right. We need weapons because we wanna live, and anyone that gets in our way needs to be fought off. Parents who made poor choices or had contraception accidents may need to remove the kid for the optimal survival of their genes. Anyone saying people cannot choose to abort, is betraying the reason why they’re alive and typing on a keyboard.

    Before you say, the fetus is human and murder is wrong. I’m not gonna argue with you the wrong or right of murder. But this is a definition problem. By current medical standards the majority of the dead people are not dead at all. They can be perfectly repaired with a major change of parts and fluids. Yet they get a death certificate and anyone causing the “death” is pursued with “manslaughter” instead of assault only. There is a line, after which the fetus is a life that shall not be terminated. A mere heartbeat is not enough. To me it should be that the kid, if outside of a womb and without health complications, can survive on its own with only nutrition intake and minimal in-hospital care. But I’m not a doctor. The point I’m making, is that it’s the parents’ freedom on how to deal with the pregnancy while it’s still in progress before the baby fully becomes a human, for the optimal survival of their genetics.

    • Before you say, “well you just killed the kid”. So what? If it gets in the way of genetic immortality the kid is by definition counter-productive to your life as a creature.

      Channeling your inner Josef Mengele?

        • How bout this: Ends you agree with justify means you approve of?

          That’s what it boils down to, right?

        • Not exactly. Nobody, but nobody, gives a rat’s ass what I want. What we’re discussing is what is legal vs what is not. Nobody asked me before the decision was made.

        • “What we’re discussing is what is legal vs what is not. “

          Says the guy that claims he is against the government being involved…interesting.

          So, if the .gov, via court decision, deems a behavior “legal,” that’s okay government involvement, or, said another, a means that justifies an ends.

          A Statist looks to government for solutions to problems. That you can’t see the internal consistency of your own statement is, in a word, fascinating.

          But even at that, no, most of us were not discussing “legality.” The question in the article was about morality…can you be ‘pro life’ and ‘pro gun’ at the same time.

          That has precisely d1ck to do with legality. As in…none whatsoever. Well, except to one that is fundamentally Statist in worldview, where such questions of morality have to be determined by The State.

    • Death is visited upon the unborn, whose only “crime” is to be In utero, while their brothers rationalize their cavalier attitude toward human life based on convenience or economic projections. The heart of man is exceedingly wicked, and this rebellion and mockery is at the core of the human condition. Do not be fooled – the law of reaping and sowing is wholly immutable, and we will, all of us, give an account.

      • I wholly respect your idea and although i’m saying what I’m saying, never have I told anyone to get an abortion. My kids came as gifts better than the best as my wife and I did everything right.

    • James, pretty good! I bet that for a million years there were incidents of childbirth followed closely by the infant being pitched off a cliff. For exactly the reasons you suggest. And some of us might not be here, today, if those millions of kids had not been pitched off the cliff.

      • Pitching infants off a cliff is very different from terminating a pregnancy in progress. It depends on how you define a human. Like I said, i don’t think a fetus is a human up to a certain point. You are free to believe what you choose to, too.
        If you’re saying that, killing BORN infants can be convenient when the parents don’t want them but it’s wrong. Well, it bores into the realm of why murder is illegal: every human (born infants after pregnance are human without a doubt) wants protection from death and they pay taxmoney for that. I see no problem with it, either. But still, it’s a definition problem of whether that fetus is a human or not. And we can never agree on that

        • Pitching infants off a cliff is very different from terminating a pregnancy in progress.

          True. Pitching an infant off a cliff is honest.

        • Sure it is. The very term “abortion” is a euphemism. Call it what it is: fetal murder. That’s honest.

        • @JR
          If you think a fetus in a womb for 10 weeks is the same as a human being, then it is murder. To me it’s not a human yet, but we can never convince each other. Parents forced to give birth without the possiblity of fetus murder may not be in the best stage to provide all the support needed to raise a kid. Whether the kid will appreciate living in that hood or under parents who abhor his/her existence, we never know. What we do know is that raising a kid is expensive on all fronts, and it could prevent the already unready parents from venturing into careers they could’ve pursued. What you have is an eternal poor fate for the entire family in the name of anti fetus murder.

        • You are arguing a pro-abortion position when all I said was the terminology should be honest. Call it what it is…fetal murder.

          There, I did not use the term “human” and I made no value judgments about the life of the parents or the child after birth.

          I was just pointing out that the very term “abortion” is an attempt to hide what it really is. Redefinition of terms and use of euphemism is the halmark of progressive propaganda.

        • “Pitching infants off a cliff is very different from terminating a pregnancy in progress.”

          Yes. 500,000 years ago, one was possible and the other was not. That is what I was saying, before abortion was possible, something was done to prevent having another mouth to feed. Even today, the youngest or one of the wrong sex starves to death in a variety of countries all over the world, sometimes every year, since birth control is forbidden.

        • Larry, kid chucking will always be possible, cliff absence notwithstanding. Kid chuckers will be monsters wherever we find them in the universe, forever. Better to stop selling it while you’re behind.

  32. I am mostly pro life. I believe that a fetus has a right to life. Furthermore a fetus is an innocent life that should not be arbitrarily taken. The one very small exception I make is when there is a legitimate, serious risk to the mother’s life if the pregnancy is carried to term. I think the woman then has a very somber choice to make. But let me state clearly, I am absolutely against abortion as a form of last resort birth control, and that is what the overwhelming majority of abortions are.

    The RKBA or right to self defense are in no way comparable to the abortion question. A fetus is an innocent life that is not posing a risk to any other life in most cases. Even if it does, it is not imposing that risk out of malice, sloth, recklessness, or any other criminal reason. Furthermore a fetus has no agency; it is not in the mother’s womb by its own choice. In contrast, violent criminals pose a risk to innocent lives out of malice or a selfish desire to take what another has. They choose their actions and are liable to the consequences of them. A person has a right to self defense, and they have a right to possess the tools to defend themselves with. Put harshly, an innocent person who is attacked has the right to inflict the consequences of choosing a criminal action upon the attacker.

    • Your opinion will become important when it is time to vote on that constitutional amendment. Or to pull out your checkbook to pay for the effort.

      • First, this article asked for our opinions, so I don’t understand your hostility towards people expressing them. Second, why is it my responsibility to pay for other peoples’ babies? Nobody pays for mine except me. Third, sex has consequences. Frankly, its abhorrent when parents shift the consequences of their actions onto their progeny. Why should a child be killed because its parents don’t want it? That’s the great moral question that no pro choicer can answer. They only evade it.

        Lastly, what this piece and my post were really about was the supposed equivalence between pro life / pro choice political stances and pro gun / pro gun control political stances. I argued there is none, and that required me to explain my views on both issues. This isn’t an abortion debate and it was never intended to be.

        • I did not intend that response to be hostile, sorry if it sounded so. Just saying that the current situation is not to your liking, you should understand that bitching is not going to change it. Children are going to be “killed” because their parents don’t want them, because there is no one else, even you just asked why you should have to pay for children who are not your own!

  33. Well, I’m agnostic to the point the where most US folks would call me atheist. Much of what the Bible says seems… dated, to put it mildly. Some of the things are downright repulsive, even in the New Testament, say regarding slavery. And believable miracles and God’s influence seems to be in short supply nowadays. So no, I don’t feel I have to accept the Christian view on this.

    Science, despite all its failings, seems a much better guide in this. And a human embryo, while it might develop into a self-aware human, is not one. I don’t consider terminating a pregnancy in its embryonal stage an act of murder. Sure, treating is as a form of birth control is crazy, but that’s beside the point. A 6-week embryo is not a self-aware human. And as a man, I don’t think I have any moral right to pressure a woman into anything regarding this.

    I’ll admit I’m not happy about abortions. To me, an abortion is a sign that *something* has probably failed. Maybe contraception, maybe parenthood planning, maybe the relationship, or maybe the woman is a rape victim, or it might be something entirely different. But failures of all sorts are a fact of life and abortions are one of the sensible contingency plans for such situations.

    I own 5+ firearms, I’ve taken newbies to a range and I do try to make the world a gun-friendlier place. So I guess I’m another proof that people who are both pro-choice and pro-gun do exist. Trying to build a link between being pro-gun and being pro-life seems stupid and counterproductive to me.

    • Science, despite all its failings, seems a much better guide in this. And a human embryo, while it might develop into a self-aware human, is not one. I don’t consider terminating a pregnancy in its embryonal stage an act of murder. Sure, treating is as a form of birth control is crazy, but that’s beside the point. A 6-week embryo is not a self-aware human.

      Newborns aren’t even considered to be self-aware.

      • I would guess for several years. My first memories, scattered and indistinct, were not until around age 4, any decision making, closer to 8-10. But all that requires is time, so we protect newborns on with all the force we can muster. I think that’s a pretty good compromise.

      • And? Are you trying to argue that it should be OK to kill newborns?
        Or trying to insinuate that I am advocating for it?
        Something else?

        You know, this whole debate was bound to become an unpleasant one even become the first comment. Do you really have to add to that unpleasantness?

        • And? Are you trying to argue that it should be OK to kill newborns?
          Or trying to insinuate that I am advocating for it?
          Something else?

          I am merely pointing out that “self-awareness” is not a valid criterion to determine what is and is not human life.

          You seem to have taken the initiative to follow that criterion to its logical conclusion, and subsequently realized its horrific consequences.

        • @Chip Bennett: nope, I’m simply hoping that anyone reading this would try to see the meaning of my words instead of trying to misunderstand and/or misinterpret them.

          But in case you need the science… AFAIK there’s e.g. no meaningful neural migration and no meaningful synaptogenesis during the embryonic stage, meaning the brain that makes us, well, us, does not function that way yet in embryos. Sure, one might argue that a soul already does, but that’s leaving the science behind and going into religion. I see no reason to consider your religion, or anyone else’s, to be the true one, so I see no reason to force women to accept the teachings of some religions.

          Especially when the religion tries to selectively push some of its teachings while ignoring or even denying other parts of itself. Say, Matthew 5:34-37? So any member of armed forces who swears an oath commits an evil act? But okay, I’ll try to not bash religion too much, offending religious people rarely helps them get wiser.

        • AFAIK these e.g. no meaningful neural migration and no meaningful synaptogenesis during the embryonic stage, meaning the brain that makes us, well, us, does not function that way yet in embryos.

          Neuronal migration begins around 12 weeks, and synaptogenesis begins somewhere between weeks 15 and 20, and continues until postnatal adolescence. Regardless, neither is a criterion for determining if a life form is a human being.

          Sure, one might argue that a soul already does, but that’s leaving the science behind and going into religion.

          Why is it that it is primarily the people in favor of abortion who are erecting religious-argument straw men to demolish, and basically none of the people opposed to abortion are actually making religious arguments?

        • @Chip Bennett: okay, so what non-religious criteria are we to use to decide whether some biological matter is a human who should enjoy full legal protection?

          An embryo is not viable, can’t be grown into a child outside a woman using present-day technology, its brain is unable of self-consciousness or memories… It is not much more intelligent than a tumor but less capable of survival than many of those. Is it sensible to declare it a human with full rights?

          Sure, there comes a point where the fetus is sufficiently developed to deserve some form of legal protection. But I see little scientific reason to provide such legal protection to an embryo.

          And such legal protection should, fair’s fair, cut both ways. So what would we do about every pregnant woman who smokes or drinks or whatever while pregnant and miscarries in her sixth week, should an embryo be considered a fully protected human, even one dependent on her for his/her survival? Charge her with death by negligence? Murder?

        • Remember to charge the father, and the grandparents as well, with negligent homicide, they knew she was being bad and did not imprison her and force her to behave, as might happen in some other parts of the world.

  34. Abortion is a tough issue – there are good, passionate arguments on both sides.

    What always amuses me is that gun rights are NOT a tough issue. The anti-gun side pretty much believes a slew of propositions that are simply untrue. Example: you can go to the FBI UCR and CDC resources amd see the numbers – the other side essentially just thinks “guns are icky” and wants to enforce public policy based on that emotion.

  35. The pro life discussion and the pro choice discussion miss each other.
    One is saying the fetus needs protection from indiscriminate “it’s inconvenient right now” attitudes. The pro choice folks are saying I don’t want the government telling me what to do.
    I’m both.
    My good friend a staunch pro life person started to get it when I said, “right now you could get what you want. The govt banning abortions. The unintended consequences could be the govt telling this young mother she can only have one child or only a boy…etc.” China is a modern example. The slippery slope would have been started.

    It is ironic that “cultural bundling here” there are some folks who don’t want the gov to tell us what to do with our guns. Many of those folks want the govt to tell women what to do with their bodies. The pro choicers often want the government to confiscate guns or limit gun rights but want govt out of their reproductive rights.

    Every wedge issue is no one else’s business in my opinion. What would politics be like if our officials focused on the common good instead of things that are left to our own concience and religious beliefs? Don’t we fight against other religions who try to tell us their way is the way. Shouldn’t we ask our religious leaders why they tell us to focus on other’s sins when we have so much work to do in our own hearts and minds?

    It is my opinion thatwe should be taught about the Constitution more in schools so when we like or don’t like something we apply it to ourselves alone. That’s what makes our country great.

    • ‘…to tell women what to do with their bodies.’

      I couldn’t care less what a woman does with her body or any part of her body. The disagreement lies in the differing opinions on the humanity of the fetus. If the child is human it deserves every protection from the government that is granted other citizens. The entire argument hinges on science. But if you frame the argument that way, pro-choicers start foaming at the mouth and screaming about a woman’s right to choose. They’re not interested in the science. A child is not a part of a woman’s body even immediately after conception. By 18 days the child has it’s own heart pumping blood through his/her own circulatory system. It’s frequently even a different blood type than the mother’s. Anyone with an open mind that looks at the evidence will be pro-life. Cue the ad-hominem attacks.

      • If you are planning to counsel a woman on the course she might take, science is very important, possibly the only important thing. However, if you are suggesting words like “murder”, a legal term, then you need to consider the legal terminology, science is unimportant unless we are considering a new law, not discussing current events. Legally, abortion is not murder, it is a legal medical procedure. Hiding or denying that fact is simply lying in an attempt to get your own way. Suggesting a new law won’t get it, since the SCOTUS has ruled it is not the business of congress. I think their decision was based on absolutely nothing, and I am appalled by it, but it was made. That leaves any changes to the amendment process, which no one has begun despite 45 years of bitching. Time to drop it, shit or get off the pot.

        • ‘…science is unimportant unless we are considering a new law…
          a new law won’t get it, since the SCOTUS has ruled it is not the business of congress.’

          The whole pro-life movement is exactly about making a new law. As far as SCOTUS goes, Justice Blackmun wrote in the majority decision of Roe v Wade that if the humanity of the fetus could be established it would void their decision, so the very decision that made abortion legal tasked science to either confirm or deny the validity of the decision. The congress is free to pass any law they wish, SCOTUS can only strike it down or let it stand, thereby reversing the previous court ruling.

          I personally do not think it is the roll of the US congress to make such laws though. The only justification the constitution gives for such a law would be the commerce clause which has been bastardized beyond recognition, but it’s still a stretch to say that banning or restricting abortion is in the interest of regulating interstate trade. Leave it to the states as the 10th Amendment intended.

        • “The whole pro-life movement is exactly about making a new law”

          Exactly my point, and it has been for 45 years, with zero result except weakening the respect for the rule of law. Just like (here is RF’s original premise) people have been attempting to weasel their way around 2A for even longer. Whereas a frontal assault on the amendment process would have been over, one way or another, more than 30 years ago. Nobody has the stomach for attempting to modify 2A, and nobody wants to risk the loss which would be likely about abortion, either one. Instead, proponents for change in either subject want to drag it out forever, not least because there are plenty of people making money off the question.

        • ‘…with zero result except weakening the respect for the rule of law.’

          Why would I respect an immoral law? For 12 years the Nazi Party was law in Germany. Did they deserve respect? Would helping Jews escape the concentration camps be ‘weakening the respect for the rule of law’?

        • Willy JP
          SCOTUS can’t make law
          – fail

          They can only interpret as a protection to the Constitution, and settlement to diversity of parties /court decisions.
          The attempt of the court was to limit gov’ts role/power, not increase it.
          -again, fail

      • “If the child is human it deserves every protection from the government that is granted other citizens.”

        No other class or group of human being lives within the body of another human being. For me, this is an important consideration.

        I also disagree with your assessment that the issue is a difference in the estimation of the humanity of the fetus. I suspect that most people that are both pro-choice and unwilling to admit that it is a human life from the instance of conception are lying to themselves.

        The abortion of an otherwise viable, healthy fetus is murder. Pure and simple. And I say that as someone who is pro-choice. How, then, can I support the murder of innocent children? Simple. I don’t believe that the child’s life is the only thing of value at stake, nor do I believe that a child’s life is innately valuable enough on its own merits to necessarily outweigh various other factors (among them, as I said, the fact that the fetus is living inside someone else) that I think merit some consideration.

    • Here are a couple of questions for you.
      1. Was there ever a time in your entire life when you did not have an inalienable right to life?
      2. Where you conceived?

      If you were conceived, then what happened at your conception was, well, you.

      If you are going to claim that at your conception you were not, well, you, that in fact you were never conceived, well that raises some interesting questions, like how you can then even be here advocating for denying the right to life of unborn children.

  36. This article or even topic on TTAG is more loaded than an armed atom bomb. What the hell are you putting this up here for, TTAG?

    If I wanted to read a hugbox circlejerk or people calling each other names, I’d go to facebook.

      • Complaining to make a point that I don’t believe that TTAG should have this sort of content. There’s little journalistic quality to it, and is left more open as a forum post for what isn’t a forum.

        Otherwise, if left silent, we get a false representation of the people here who circlejerk around their standing of an “issue,” when really it’s not something that should be her to begin with considering the relevance it should have to what the blog (ostensibly) is about.

        But no, go ahead and yell at anonymous people over the internet while I voice my gripes about why we’re arguing to begin with.

        • Last I checked, we were free to skip any topic which did not interest us. Are you claiming you should have control over what content is offered to everyone? Make RF an offer. Otherwise, you are a guest, just like I am, try to behave.

    • If you are accessing a website for free and haven’t figured out its all about the clicks, you have no business on the internet.

  37. Of course pro-life != pro-gun. I assume that isn’t even a serious question.

    I’m very pro-gun, and technically I’m pro-choice. Meaning, I don’t think we should ban abortion. I think abortion is a nasty business. I think being pro-abortion is an even nastier business. We’re talking about people who know, or should know, that the only real argument for abortion is “pregnancy makes me look fat.” Adoption is the response to every other “advantage” abortion offers. Adoption obviates almost every valid argument in favor of abortion. The only real one left is the vanishingly small number of pregnancies that would offer genuinely unacceptable levels of risk to the mother.

    Then there’s Kant’s Imperative (AKA, “would it be okay if everyone did it? If not, why should we allow anyone to do it?”), which abortion fails, miserably (think human extinction).

    “Don’t tell me what to do with my body,” FFS, grow up, you morons. There’s now someone else’s body involved, understand?

    All of that said, I think we should let these wretched people kill their own babies, if that’s what they want to do. There’s almost certainly a eugenic effect.

    But before you do, check out the opinion of this clip’s host, who believes the New Testament preaches pacifism

    No thanks, I have no time for such idiocy. People who know nothing about the Bible shouldn’t be consulted as to its contents.

  38. I believe in protecting innocent life. Whether that is the elderly or an unborn child. The only exception that I believe in is if the mother’s life is in jeopardy.

    • So, using this argument, we certainly cannot disconnect life support to grandpa, even though his brain is dead, and no longer capable of cognitive thought, and simply exists due to extreme medical measures, as this would be “murder”? Having the potential parts of a living human does not necessarily make one a living person.

      • Using what argument? SCOTUS has held that laws against abortion are unconstitutional. How does this “argument” affect grandpa? This is silly. If you all wish to reargue Roe v Wade, look up a transcript and drive yourself crazy, you might learn something.

  39. I’m not against a woman’s right to choose. I’m against the fact that this is being pushed on minorities and the poor as a means of population control and roundabout eugenics.

    There’s a difference between abortion for medical need and abortion as a fashion statement.

    • I’m not against a woman’s right to choose. I’m against the fact that this is being pushed on minorities and the poor as a means of population control and roundabout eugenics.

      Interesting. What makes you think so? Do you believe in a lot of other government conspiracies?

      • He believes this because blacks use abortion as contraception waaaaaaay more than whites do. The black birth rate would get a serious bump if abortion were banned.

        Ergo, it’s the gov’t’s fault. Everything blacks do that can be criticized is someone else’s fault.

        • Well, yeah, but a suggestion of abortion being somehow “pushed” makes me wonder if anyone in an official capacity, ever, suggests abortion to anyone, black or otherwise, poor, rich, young, old, whatever. It has always been my *impression* that in order to find out any info concerning abortion, you had to seek it out. Is that wrong?

  40. I don’t know if the point has been made here, but here it is. My mom was an ER nurse for much of her career, where she was exposed to the after-effects of “back-alley” and “do-it-yourself” abortions. Like her, I am personally anti-abortion. If I knocked up my wife, then I would figure that this happened for a reason and prepare to be a father (it would really cut in to the firearms budget!). However when all abortions are illegal, people turn to often-dangerous back-alley abortions, as many still do, even with legalized abortion. We can’t pretend that it wouldn’t/doesn’t happen. Who knows how I’d feel about an abortion if the doctor told me that my wife’s life would be in jeopardy if she delivered the baby? So while personally against abortions, I can’t say I feel nobody ever should have an abortion. I do find abortion purely as birth control reprehensible. Regarding my right to self-defense and to KBA- abortion doesn’t even enter my thought process.

    • If you are selective, the guns you buy today will be worth more when the child reaches college age. “Honey, it’s an INVESTMENT, I tell you!

    • I don’t know if the point has been made here, but here it is. My mom was an ER nurse for much of her career, where she was exposed to the after-effects of “back-alley” and “do-it-yourself” abortions. […] when all abortions are illegal, people turn to often-dangerous back-alley abortions, as many still do, even with legalized abortion. We can’t pretend that it wouldn’t/doesn’t happen.

      This is like opposing laws against murder because the gov’t does such a nice job of running clean murder facilities. I mean, why leave it to the amateur murderers, right?

  41. Jesus Christ, Robert! What were you thinking? This is a gun blog. I don’t want to know who thinks God has given them the answers, or who thinks SCOTUS is the font of all knowledge, or who fumbles around in some indeterminate space between the two poles. Let’s talk about guns.

  42. Abortion is not an issue that will be determined by “first principles.” A “snowflake baby” is not equal to full human personhood in any sense. In a burning building, nobody (except a moral imbecile) is going to rescue a test-tube cart full of 200 “snowflake babies” before rescuing a single newborn infant.

    At the other end, there comes a time in a pregnancy when an unborn child is too much like a birthed child to be treated differently. Imagine a wife, seven months pregnant, finding out her husband has been cheating with his sister-in-law. That discovery might provoke her to try to abort (probably not, but it could happen). I’d hope that any civilized people would ‘draw the line’ at that point and protect the unborn child.

    As far as guns go, I don’t see much of an analogy, except that line-drawing can be difficult. For some reason, pro-life/pro-gun and pro-choice/anti-gun has been configured as a big aspect of the partisan divide. I don’t see any logical connection — merely contingency.

    The anti-abortion factionalism of the American Right does make some sense, because it follows their general authoritarianism. Ditto the Left and their civil-libertarian tendencies. Gun control inverts that traditional divide: the Left becomes authoritarian; the Right takes up the civil-liberty side.

    • “At the other end, there comes a time in a pregnancy when an unborn child is too much like a birthed child to be treated differently.”

      Commonly referred to by the term “birth”.

  43. Pro-Gun and Pro-Choice are not mutually exclusive positions.

    I support everyone’s Constitutionally protected and codified natural right to self defense. I also support your right to use birth control, or to choose abstinence. I support your right to abstain, if you so choose, from overindulging in recreational drugs and alcohol that often cloud a persons judgement when it comes to making these other choices.

    What I am not in favor of is your choice to dodge or cast aside responsibility for your actions. If you choose to be sexually active then you accept the responsibility of possible parenthood. This applies equally to both men and women. If you conceive a child/children, then you need to “cowboy up” and raise them, ideally together, but if that is not possible, then apart. This is no different from firearm responsibility. Once you pull the trigger, you are responsible for what happens next. Your mistakes do not justify ending another life simply because doing the right thing is inconvenient. Basic firearm safety 101: Keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction – Also applies to your second favorite toy.

    Those who defend abortion with the word choice are ignoring the real choices and redefining the word in much the same way that “assault weapon” has been redefined.

    In the instance of saving the life of the mother due to medical issues, I am not sure how a just society can value one life over the other, so that is a decision for the parents to make based on informed consent. I have as yet not heard a theological argument that cogently demonstrated otherwise.

    • If you choose to be sexually active then you accept the responsibility of possible parenthood.

      See kids? Jason is talking about when “my body, my choice” and “what I do with my body is my business” are actually relevant.

      Those who defend abortion with the word choice are ignoring the real choices and redefining the word in much the same way that “assault weapon” has been redefined.

      Bingo. You’d think libertarians would be more sensitive to using Orwellian language. Leftists get a pass, for obvious reasons (if they weren’t comfortable with Orwellian language they wouldn’t be leftists).

      • Bingo, exactly! Those are your beliefs, and it can be your *choice* to live *your* life in accordance with them. NO ONE has the authority to force you to do otherwise. It is NOT your choice to force others to live their lives by your beliefs, rather than their own.

  44. We’re also not supposed to grow food and raise cattle because God will provide.Try turning the other cheek to an empty stomach stupid liberals.

  45. Is it okay for me to wish that all the people who advocate for abortion had themselves been aborted? To think out loud that the world would be a better place without them?

    Seems like a solid chain of logic to me.

    What really boggles my mind is how there’s a shortage of babies available for adoption. A continual shortage, insofar as I’ve gleaned through osmosis.

    Forgot to mention that.

    If you desire common sense abortion control laws, you have no standing to contest common sense gun control laws. Any variety of EITHER should be advanced only by constitutional amendment or STFU.

    Nonsense. (I’d put more effort into my reply, but sometimes I prefer reciprocity)

    To someone who feels this way, abortion is murder. A self defense situation would be justified homicide. So it is not contradictory.

    This.

    To be absolutely honest, there is no such thing as a constitutional right to abortion. The Roe v Wade case was decided on a legal fiction. There is, however, a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The demanding a constitutional amendment for one and not the other is not contradictory.

    I’ve always preferred the term, “Constitutionally-protected right,” to make it clear that the right does not originate from the document, so much as it is being acknowledged and protected by the document.

    “P.S. Robert, an unborn human is not “potential life”. At every stage of development past conception, it is biologically “life”, and genetically human. Gametes are “potential” life. The product of conception of gametes is human life.”

    Not under the laws of the United States, in case you hadn’t noticed. Pretending you are somehow a law unto yourself, then advocating for policy which can only concern you if you are a young woman, does not lend itself to demonstrating your ability to sensibly consider laws on other subjects.

    What if every woman terminated every pregnancy. Would that be okay? I mean, you’ve made your stand, and it seems to be that you think “yes, human extinction is okay, if that’s what women decide.”

    Eff the laws of the United States.

    The idea that abortion law is only of concern to a young woman is risible. Children have two parents, not one.

    I will say this: the natural corollary of women having absolute control over their reproductive capacity is that men have zero legal responsibility concerning children. “Your body, your choice, your responsibility.” I absolutely think if we’re going to leave abortion solely up to the mother, as we do now, we should reform the law so that fathers are not financially or legally responsible for their children, if they choose not to be.

    Your body, your choice, your responsibility.
    All of the power, all of the responsibility.
    None of the power, none of the responsibility.

    ***

    Lol, “Liberty.”

    “I demand my right to not look fat in these jeans!”

    If you are anti-abortion yet pro-choice, you lack the courage of your convictions. Just call yourself pro-abortion.

    I suppose this is true. I don’t think the huge fight over abortion would be worth it. In fact, I think we’d lose, and wind up simply wasting all the capital invested. Our enemies would use it against us forever. Hell, Republicans do basically jack squat, have done jack squat, to hinder abortion, and they still act like we’re gonna “repeal Roe v Wade!!!”

    The government should stay out of my personal affairs regarding whether or not I want to have either a child or a gun. That’s the logical stance.

    You folks are nothing if not repetitive, I’ll give you that.

    “The gov’t should stay out of my decision to take innocent lives.”

    You can say that as many times as you like, it will never sound “logical” or like “your personal affair” to me.

    And then up to the day when safe abortions were possible.

    “Safe abortion,” lol. IF EVER THERE WAS AN OXYMORON, that’s got to be it right there. Like a safe bombing run. Yea, safe for the pilot

    • “Is it okay for me to wish that all the people who advocate for abortion had themselves been aborted? To think out loud that the world would be a better place without them?”

      Certainly it’s okay! Of course! Makes you a hateful POS, but it is certainly okay!

  46. I am pro-life and assert the government has no authority in matters of abortion. I don’t even believe that government should be able to prosecute murder cases where there isn’t a living victim with standing. The state is not alive so there can be no crime against it. If someone is accused of murder, there better be a living individual with relationship enough to prove standing bringing charges. Otherwise, government ought to keep out of it. If we have to have any government, it should be focused on international trade, interstate trade, and repelling invasion by actual foreign armies. Full stop; nothing more.

  47. I said this in a TL;DR-type comment, but I think it bears repeating, in a non TL;DR-type comment:

    The natural corollary of women having absolute control over their reproductive capacity is that men have zero legal responsibility concerning children. “Your body, your choice, your responsibility.” I absolutely think if we’re going to leave abortion solely up to the mother, as we do now, we should reform the law so that fathers are not financially or legally responsible for their children, if they choose not to be.

    Your body, your choice, your responsibility.
    All of the power, all of the responsibility.
    None of the power, none of the responsibility.

    Why are fathers legally on the hook, whether they like it or not, when they have no say over whether a child is aborted or given up for adoption? More to the point, why should men put up with this situation?

    • Because you *do* have a choice whether to get intimate with a woman or not?

      Your argument is like saying that when a friend invites you to a party and you both demolish the place while drunk, you don’t have to pay a dime because he had to know the risk was there and he’s the one who has full rights to that place.

      • Because you *do* have a choice whether to get intimate with a woman or not?

        Your argument is like saying that when a friend invites you to a party and you both demolish the place while drunk, you don’t have to pay a dime because he had to know the risk was there and he’s the one who has full rights to that place.

        So? It’s not “my” body so it’s not “my” choice, so it’s not “my” responsibility. You don’t own something, if someone else makes all the important decisions about it.

        And no, your analogy doesn’t hold. My argument is like saying my friend’s apartment is his apartment, and it’s his responsibility to pay the rent, because his name is on the lease and he can tell me to leave whenever he likes.

        • You mean, he can tell you to leave after you’ve wrecked the place *together*? So *he’s* the one who has to buy new furniture? You know, he’d have to pay the rent regardless of how the party ended up. But when the place gets wrecked, that’s *more* money than if he didn’t invite you.

          I mean, it is not like he wrecked it all himself while you were over, you both did your part. Shouldn’t it be fair that you split the cost?

    • JQP: As someone who is definitively pro-abortion, I don’t think men should have any legally-or-societally imposed responsibility to take care of their children.

      I consider both a woman’s ability to exercise absolute control over what takes place in her own body-up to and including the point where doing so involves the murder of another human being-and a man’s freedom to say “you know, I changed my mind, I don’t think I’m ready for kids. If you want to keep it, you’re on your own, I’m out” to be inviolate and more important than an unborn child’s life. I think the current system is broken.

      It’s not that the fetus isn’t human, or that it isn’t alive; it’s that the fact that it’s a living human is neither the only consideration nor, in my estimation, the most important.

      • That is at least consistent. In my mind, the decision to make the mother the sole arbiter on abortion is the same as making the decision to absolve fathers of legal responsibility for their children. They’re a package deal. To quote someone else on the thread, people who refuse to acknowledge this “lack the courage of their convictions.” The current status quo tramples half the populations’ rights.

        • You’re ignoring the question of time. The woman only has a short time window when it is (to some) morally acceptable to undergo an abortion. But if the guy changes his mind when she’s seven months pregnant, she’d be screwed.

          So what you’re saying is that you wish for a system that would push women towards early abortions, because every guy would know that if he walks out on a woman when she’s seven months pregnant is costs him nothing but a bit of bad rep, so every woman would know that an early abortion is the only sure way of preventing a guy leading her on for a while and then walking away without having to pay any of the subsequent costs, monetary and other.

          Would such a system help build the kind of society we might like?

        • You’re ignoring the question of time. The woman only has a short time window when it is (to some) morally acceptable to undergo an abortion. But if the guy changes his mind when she’s seven months pregnant, she’d be screwed.

          Power comes with responsibility. The alternative is to give fathers veto rights over abortions, and keep the child support laws as they are.

          Would such a system help build the kind of society we might like?

          Does infanticide? Or blatant discrimination against fathers? Seems to me you’ve already stated your preference for (selective) individual rights over societal outcomes.

    • Lots of wild and crazy loonyness going on, here, apparently all by men, who cannot be affected by any brilliant decisions we may make. An affected woman is totally free to allow any man she chooses to help her make the decision, or any woman for that matter. Generally, a man who wishes to dictate a decision should apply for that authority while on one knee. But if a woman does not wish a man’s voice to be heard in the decision, there may well be a reason, which she knows and you cannot even imagine. Who should decide whether that is the case in a particular instance? YOU? SCOTUS said the woman involved makes that decision, period. I think they were correct.

  48. I wonder how many men out there are married to or are dating a child murderer and don’t even know it,I also wonder how many men have been complicit in murdering their grandchild without their spouse knowing about it.

  49. Starting with the extremes:

    There are people who think a woman should not even have the right to take the morning after pill the day following a sexual assault, and there are people who think a woman should be free to have an elective abortion of a perfectly healthy baby at 39 weeks.

    Neither of these positions are defensible in my opinion.

    But i’ll not foolish enough to think i know where, if at all, a reasonable middle exists between the two extremes.

    • Starting with the extremes:

      There are people who think a woman should not even have the right to take the morning after pill the day following a sexual assault, and there are people who think a woman should be free to have an elective abortion of a perfectly healthy baby at 39 weeks.

      Neither of these positions are defensible in my opinion.

      But i’ll not foolish enough to think i know where, if at all, a reasonable middle exists between the two extremes.

      That is a perfectly reasonable position, except, work is only 3/4s done. When dealing with human lives, the moral choice is always to give the human life the benefit of the doubt.

      “Choice” (“Convenience” is a much better word for it) on one side, human life on the other. The humane choice is clear.

    • “But i’ll not foolish enough to think i know where, if at all, a reasonable middle exists between the two extremes.”

      Good plan! The reasonable middle may be different in every case! Maybe we should leave it up to the only person involved who can make a decision, in each individual case. Precisely the publicly explained reasoning of SCOTUS in Roe v Wade. Loudly ignored for 45 years now while loud screams of murder and other nonsense reverberate from the rooftops.

  50. Leftists buy into “stereotype threat” and “white privilege as the cause of black pathology,” and a great many other faith-based (but originating with men, so “definitely not religious”) bits of nonsense, but “life begins at conception” is just too “abstract” for them.

    Lovely people.

  51. “Life begins at conception” is E-X-A-C-T-L-Y the sort of “give the downtrodden the benefit of the doubt” that leftists favor all the time, in other circumstances.

    But giving a baby in the womb the benefit of the doubt and assuming it’s alive and a human being and a person (clearly the moral thing to do), well, no, leftists are vehemently opposed to that.

  52. “Death penalty is wrong, because the convicted man might be innocent.” (I happen to agree, by the way, I don’t trust the gov’t to tie their shoes, much less get executions right)

    “Abortion is a right, because 1st and 2nd trimester babies are never people.”

    Liberal “logic.”

  53. I mean, that’s how liberalism is supposed to work, right?

    “Well, we don’t rightly know when a fetus becomes a person, Joe,” says the heartless bastard.

    “Then we should go ahead and assume it begins from conception, Bob,” says the bleeding heart. “It’s the only way to be sure we aren’t murdering innocent, helpless human beings.”

    Right? What have I missed here?

    • Unless you don’t think the woman involved has any voice in the matter, you have missed EVERYTHING! Neither Joe nor Bob are pregnant, or ever have been, or ever will be, it is none of their business.

  54. That’s what’s so odd about this conversation. On one hand, I’m in favor of letting sleeping dogs lie. The status quo.* So I have no dog in this hunt, politically. On the other, abortion is so obviously vile and wrong. And the arguments for it reflect so poorly on the people using them.

    This topic obviously drives me up a wall. Not because I’m an anti-abortion activist (I absolutely am not, the issue’s way, way off my political radar), it’s just the moral dimension, and the absolute moral bankruptcy of the pro-abortion crowd.

    *Except men shouldn’t be on the hook (legally speaking; shaming and opprobrium are fine) for child support as long as fathers have no say-so over abortion. IMO this is non-negotiable and we should be hitting the left hard with this, or opposing abortion, one or the other (in fact I’d support a plebiscite where states could choose between the two, consistent possibilities).

    • Interesting. I don’t think men should be forced to pay child support, regardless. We’re all responsible for our own actions. Man had fun, woman got pregnant. Men SHOULD have fun, so should women. Women should not get pregnant. Particularly if they already have 4 children by 4 different fathers, but anyhow…

  55. Its simple in my view. I have a right to own a gun. Its my choice. A woman has a right to control her body. The choice is hers. Politicians should not be involved in either choice. As s liberterian, I love how both parties fight over these issues. Both are rights….one by Amendment one by court ruling. To each his own.

      • Also absolutely correct. Creating a blizzard of BS to complicate and hide the truth doesn’t actually change anything. Gun ownership and health decisions are none of the government’s business. What you really mean by “simple minded” is that you don’t agree, and everyone should do what you want, however tortured and opaque your reasoning.

  56. And this is why we can’t have nice things. OFWG determining the end all and be all. It is your right to have your beliefs. It is wrong to impose them on anyone else.

    I’ll take .25 on the Over 300.

    • It is your right to have your beliefs. It is wrong to impose them on anyone else.

      People who oppose abortion agree with you, 100%. Which is why we oppose forcing the belief in the right of abortion on the unborn human being killed in the process.

      • You are making the assumption that a human exists when 1 minute after spermatozoa and egg join…it does not.

        • Wrong. I am stating that, absent a definitive answer, the humane thing to do is to err on the side of caution when it comes to human lives.

          Any fully morally-developed human being will agree.

          The ape-level-morality of just saying “oh, go ahead and kill ’em, we’ll figure out the details later” is the alternative. The reigning one.

          My apologies to apes. Not sure they deserved that.

          Pro-abortionists are either lying, and saying they know when “life begins” or “personhood begins” or whatever, or they’re saying they don’t give a damn, and are okay with murdering helpless innocent people.

  57. I don’t even have to read the comments. I had to scroll FOREVER just to get to the comment box. This was a can of worms, and you just opened it. Why would you even go there?

  58. Good question, Robert. I’m with you. Not a fan of abortion, but absolutely opposed to the state deciding yea/nay for all women everywhere.
    What I find interesting are the word formulas used by each commenter to justify their position. “Constitutional, unconstitutional, human right, human life, ad nauseum.” It sounds like a bunch of prostitutes standing on opposite street corners calling the other whores immoral because they don’t approve of the details of the others services. Yet all are revealing their true colors by trying to put down the others to put themselves up all the while claiming the moral high ground. Pharisees come to mind while reading comments. It is mostly sound and fury in a teapot, but very entertaining if one can keep their sense of humor.
    Keep up the good work/fight.

    • Sometimes I am grumpy, too. This time, I agree completely. If our government has the authority to prohibit abortion, then, ipso facto, it has the authority to mandate abortion. That would, in fact, be a truly horrendous situation, especially if you believe that government is somehow pushing minority women to abort, now. It is not government’s business. Shaming, ostracizing, excommunication, fine. Legal punishment, absolutely not.

      • If our government has the authority to prohibit abortion, then, ipso facto, it has the authority to mandate abortion.

        Let’s see how that logical construct plays out, shall we?

        If our government has the authority to prohibit murder, then, ipso facto, it has the authority to mandate murder.

        If our government has the authority to prohibit rape, then, ipso facto, it has the authority to mandate rape.

        If our government has the authority to prohibit robbery, then, ipso facto, it has the authority to mandate robbery.

        If our government has the authority to prohibit drunk driving, then, ipso facto, it has the authority to mandate drunk driving.

        • The government already does three out of the four. The first two, murder and robbery, are obvious. The third, driving impaired, is mandated under the prescription drug cartel.

          I guess there is a weak argument for the fourth; rape. Body cavity searches?

  59. Then there’s the rampant nihilism of being pro-abortion: they’re all saying that they’d be okay with it if their parents had aborted them. Talk about your ringing endorsements of life.

    “I’m rrrrrrrreaaaaaallly glad my parents didn’t do it, but yeah, abortion is a right.”
    “I love being alive, but if someone else doesn’t make it through the gauntlet, hey, no skin off my nose.”
    “If my parents had aborted me, I’d be okay with that.”

    Just doesn’t have much of a ring.

      • Except that we now know for certain that babies can feel the pain of abortion in all of the third trimester and much if not most of the 2nd trimester. So you are simply a liar.

        • No, actually we do not know that, so YOU are a liar. Nanny-nanny boo-boo! Wow, did that ever contribute to the level of discussion.

    • I have met dozens of people, inside my family and not, who were either pro-choice or anti-choice, but I have never met anyone who was pro-abortion. Most who are anti-choice do absolutely nothing to prevent unwanted pregnancies, just claim some manner of moral high ground and demand people with guns prevent anyone from having an abortion, after which, fuck ’em. People who are pro-choice are often found in the forefront of efforts to provide reproductive system education and effective birth control to those who have no other access.

      How ’bout you? Is your total involvement to look down your nose and proclaim judgement on poor women in crisis, or have you ever, even once, done something to prevent a stranger from having an unwanted pregnancy, which may have ended in an abortion?

    • If my parents had aborted me, I’d be OK with that. Of course. Who wouldn’t? My bride wouldn’t like it, my kids and grandkids wouldn’t like it if you asked them now, and it would have been hugely illegal, but hey, since you brought it up.

  60. The legality of abortion does not bother me because I am just as pro-choice as I am pro-gun, but its “place” in society should be a cause for concern. We’ve seen the rise of Obamacare, popular support for an almighty state, rabid environmentalism (crude misanthropy wearing a “green” mask), and China’s one child policy all come to fruition. It’s not hard to imagine what abortion + state-dominated healthcare eventually results in when nobody stays vigilant, no tinfoil hat required there. I would also say “Don’t expect me to pay for your medical conditions unless I’m partially responsible for causing them,” but now I can’t because of Obamacare. Thanks progressives, you really know how to flaunt your allergic reactions to personal responsibility and financial preparedness.

    On an unrelated and much happier note, after years of renting countless makes and models at various ranges I tried out a Sig P226 in 9mm this morning and have decided that, when funds permit, a Mk25 will be my first handgun. Cheers everyone, and happy Clickbait Day : ).

    • Since we disagree on the social issue at hand, let’s talk about that P226 9MM. I picked up one of the Extreme models recently – it was some short run model that was just like the TACOPS without the beavertail, and I must say that I really like it. It’s accurate, soft shooting, the slide is back in battery quickly, and you can really feel what the pistol is doing. It’s much easier to grip than a Glock, and after shooting 1911’s for so long, I actually think I will be able to shoot the P226 with some level of competence once I get used to it. Shooting with the forgiving, short, crisp triggers on 1911’s is something I’m going to have to overcome – I’m a bit of a trigger slapper with other pistols. I don’t see how you could go wrong with a MK25.

      • I’ve fired more Glocks than I care to remember, and now I feel like a fool for doing so. After just three full mags through the Sig, I forgot Glock even existed, the grip just felt perfect. I now know a decocking lever is an absolute must on my carry/home defense handguns. It’s just that much more comforting to know I can carry with a round chambered and be ready to go with that crisp DA-SA trigger. Because we have a blatantly unconstitutional and time consuming handgun purchasing permit system here in NJ and obtaining a carry permit is impossible, I have some time to save up the cash before I leave this state for good come summer time. Wish me luck.

        • As my brother in arms behind enemy lines, best wishes on all of that in the Peoples Republic of New Jersey! Maybe Christie will stop all the empty, situationally expedient election talk and actually do something for law abiding gun owners in NJ so someone other than criminals can tote a gun there.

  61. I does make an interesting experiment, doesn’t it?

    “If abortion is okay, then if your mother had a time machine, she could go back in time to her first trimester and perform an abortion on herself, and you’d be okay with it.”

    “If abortion is okay, what’s wrong with a doctor performing abortions on pregnant women without their consent? I mean, sure, they’ve violated medical laws, but other than that no biggie, right? Sure, he’s taken ‘choice’ away from these women, but what’s that worth in civil court?”

    • Just keep your eyes closed, don’t let any of those nasty factoids in. No one ever said (in this country) that abortion is OK, what was ruled was that whether or not it is OK is beyond the ability of the court to decide, or anyone else except the woman directly involved. If she thinks it is not OK, then she cannot have an abortion. If she thinks it is OK, then she can. What any man thinks is irrelevant, every time, unless the woman involved grants him a say in the matter. You cannot force her to have an abortion, another man cannot prohibit it, and your constant attempts to hide that fact are getting close to deliberate lying.

      Your description of a doctor making a decision for a woman is punishable under the law. You making a decision for a woman is punishable under the law. A doctor following your directions while ignoring those of your daughter, for example, will likely land both you and the doctor in prison, for the MURDER you so like to keep bringing up, because that is what it would be, without the consent of the woman in question.

  62. I wonder if in all the 200+ comments, if anyone is saying..” gee, I think my opinon might be wrong, because of what so and so says, it make sense”…. Yeah.. I didnt think so…so really whats the point?.. People come together on like minded issues.. abortion isnt one of them.. Religion isnt either, so why do people insist on taking the bait and putting themselves thru it?

    • Great point. I find it interesting that some of the pro gun folks here take the exact same position on abortion that anti-gunners take on guns. I am right, you are wrong and I want to use the state to enforce my opinion on everyone. Remember, Man made laws are just opinions backed by force (guns).
      It is funny that Conservatives support nearly endless war (killing others) while calling abortion murder. Liberals support pro choice but call for the elimination of guns to prevent killing, including suicide.
      Great entertainment though.

        • I had to read that twice! That was a good quip! I must confess that I have questioned my disapproval of abortion specifically regarding the existence of our current Socialist in Chief, and on more than one occasion……

  63. Hiring another person to abort your baby is exactly the same as hiring a hit man to kill someone you want dead and is morally and biblically wrong. Defending my life and the lives of others with a gun is morally and biblically right.

    • “Exactly the same”? You can’t say that with a straight face. One is completely legal, the other will earn you and the killer life in prison, and you say they are exactly the same? Nobody can be that stupid.

      Morally and biblically wrong, just fine, your opinion, and who cares? But exactly the same is ridiculous, you’d have to be a moron to believe that.

  64. 1) That’s not the way these things work. Human nature is such that the number of people who can say “I was wrong” on a consistent basis (when it’s true) is vanishingly small. People tend to change their minds privately, and then pretend they were always in their current camp.

    2) Fence-sitters. Lots of people read up when their opinions are not strongly-held, or they haven’t paid close attention to a subject. Your argument might wind up being #3 out of the 15 it took to convert them. Not being the most recent doesn’t mean it’s unimportant.

    3) I like arguing.

    • Well put. Admitting one was wrong requires humility – our culture is very short on that character trait in recent years, with no end in sight. Some new brand of sociopathic, selfie fueled hedonistic humanism appears to be the highest concept now.

  65. Pro-Abortionists are basically equating babies to criminals, and taking a selective “tough on crime” approach. If the mother wants to be merciful, sure, she can choose to let the uninvited, trespassing little criminal live. If not, she gets to kill it with a doctor’s appointment.

    The rub is that every person who ever lived got here via the same criminal pathway. So the whole species has a criminal background.

    I don’t think that’s what’s meant by “original sin.”

    The other rub is that the baby actually was invited.

  66. Suffice to say my only agreement with lots of commenters is “I like guns”. Is that enough? Nope. Slowing(or stopping) the nearly unbridled murder of millions of babies IS. Margaret Sanger is laughing in hell…and the hildebeast has said Sanger is her “hero”…

    • What I’ve heard so far leads me to think the navy vessels were somehow disabled in open water and were rescued by Iranian boats, transferred back to US Navy ships without incident. The media seems to want to start a war over it. Men who go to sea have had a conscious responsibility to assist other men at sea, regardless of how their nations are getting along at the time, for several thousand years, I have heard nothing to make me think that was not what the Iranians did, or what the Navy boys accepted and expected.

  67. I have to ask RF: why do you keep circling back to this topic when you know it’s nothing but flamebait?

    Look at all the comments above. I don’t think even one out of ten has any, even tangential, reference to guns. Yet this is supposed to be a blog about guns.

    Side note: this sort of thing is exactly why GOP in its current shape is doomed to self-destruct. Too many diametrically opposing agendas that cannot be meaningfully reconciled. It’s like a married couple that fights all the time at home, and in a really bad way, too, but whenever they go out (= elections), they clench their teeth and hold their hands while pretending to be darlings. Such things end up in a messy (the longer it takes, the messier) divorce at best, and criminal charges at worst.

    • “I have to ask RF: why do you keep circling back to this topic when you know it’s nothing but flamebait?”

      I think you answered your own question. This topic is Farago’s version of click-bait since MDA hasn’t been making as much noise.

    • Side note: this sort of thing is exactly why GOP in its current shape is doomed to self-destruct. Too many diametrically opposing agendas that cannot be meaningfully reconciled. It’s like a married couple that fights all the time at home, and in a really bad way, too, but whenever they go out (= elections), they clench their teeth and hold their hands while pretending to be darlings. Such things end up in a messy (the longer it takes, the messier) divorce at best, and criminal charges at worst.

      That you think the GOP even approaches, much less exceeds, the Democrat party in this respect is laughable. The Democrats are an obvious circular firing squad.

      • I have not heard a Dem accusing another of not being a “real liberal”. Somebody is speaking of a secret agreement which denies conservativeness to people who don’t …. what? They’re not going to tell us, it’s a secret. Those people, in particular Bush, since he brought it up, will never get my vote, if I have to vote for Hillary. I’m tired of secret government lying to me, tell me what you plan to do.

  68. I’m honestly Pro- Thermonuclear War. I think it would be bad ass to live in a post apocalyptic world and consider myself a veteran of Nuclear War One.

  69. To answer the question as it was posed: I don’t see them as needing reconciliation – that would suggest that one view is incompatible with the other. On the contrary, I don’t see them as lacking biblical harmony (your mileage may vary). I don’t endorse the idea of terminating babies “In utero” – I see that as the shedding of innocent blood, making me pro-life on that subject, but also valuing human life overall, as man is an image bearer of God. I don’t see utilizing my firearm to protect myself, or others, from serious bodily harm or death from an act of violence as prohibited by scripture – I am not acting with force offensively, only defensively. In observing this, it’s important to identify where scripture is literal, proverbial, allegorical or symbolic, and why preference and conviction must not be elevated as doctrine. I like my guns – and I must make decisions on what actions I take in their use or not, all of which I will be held to account for in one way or another. And, I like my guns.

    • I don’t see much complication. Personal choice vs government control. If you select one in one case, common sense would make it seem you’d elect the same in the other. Most people, on both sides of the equation, apparently do not. I agree with RF, that seems interesting.

      • Remember when 300 was in the distance? Thread just blew past 400 in no time didn’t it! Wait until everyone’s home from work. 500? We could always just be purposely argumentative to move the needle.

        • For the sake of reducing the effort involved and recycling bits, I suggest that all pro-choice arguments from here on are shortened down to “+1”, and all pro-life are shortened to “-1”. RF can maintain a running tally.

          (Of course, if you want to argue why pro-choice gets a positive sign while pro-life is negative, you’re welcome to do so.)

        • I couldn’t help but observe that humanity having to even wrestle with the reality of this question, irrespective of either position, or consideration of it as a conundrum or as morally and legally settled, really is a scathing indictment on the state of mankind. This world is profoundly FUBAR.

  70. Another stupid, childish supposed conundrum that would simply cease to waste bandwidth were it not for an overgrown government. Governments that are not overgrown are definitionally incapable of determining whether someone is pregnant or not, as it is none of their business. Hence, they are incapable of determining if and when someone has transitioned from pregnant to not pregnant. Whether abortion is murder, a tragedy, a way to create stem cells or just another hobby, is utterly irrelevant. What’s important is making government smaller. Much, much smaller. As in, at most as involved in, and aware of, the goings on in a person’s life, as Jefferson’s government was in the goings on in the life of some trapper (Or Indian Squaw) in what was to later become the Wyoming territory.

    • If you deny that there exists a God given right to life, then you necessarily deny that there exists any such thing as an immaterial objective right to keep and bear arms.

      To that degree that you support any of the lunatic leftist agenda of miscreants like Hillary, Pelosi, Obama, Cuomo, Feinstein, and Boxer, is the degree you stand opposed to the principles of freedom and liberty and in fact support tyranny.

      How Tyranny Came to America
      By Joseph Sobran
      http://sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml

      “Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.

      Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now.”

      • I agree! Our disagreements result from us considering the wrong side of the equation! All those morons you mention support a woman’s right to choose for herself what to do about her pregnancy. Therefore, their steadfast refusal to allow me the same freedom of choice regarding my right to keep and bear arms is unforgivably hypocritical.

        Isn’t that better?

  71. So, in the end, if I were forced to choose between evils, would I prefer a “pro-life” / “anti-gun” candidate or a “pro-gun” / “pro-choice” candidate?

    The answer although bitter, is simple. I’d choose the “pro-gun” candidate, because right now we have neither, and “dead heroes don’t save anyone.” You have to be alive to advocate for the unborn, to adopt a child, or to do anything useful at all. As they say, “Don’t let perfection be the enemy of the good, or better”. It’s a war of attrition, and it’s incremental. I know it’s a Sophie’s choice, so to speak, but there you have it.

  72. Anyone who denies that there exists a God given right to life, necessarily denies that there exists any God given rights at all.

    Anyone who supports any of the lunatic leftist agenda of the likes of Hillary, or Feinstein, or Cuomo, or Obama, or Pelosi, is no supporter of the principles of freedom and liberty. In fact, they are supporters of tyranny.

    “How Tyranny Came to America”
    http://sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml

    “Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.

    Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now.”

    • >> Anyone who denies that there exists a God given right to life, necessarily denies that there exists any God given rights at all.

      First of all, yes, we do deny any “God given rights”, because there is no God as far as we’re concerned. Not everything is about Jesus, and US is not a Christian theocracy. Deal with it.

      As far as natural (inherent) right to life – being pro-choice does not deny such right in general. It denies the applicability of such right to unborn fetuses. For example, I deny that right on the ground that it – as well as other natural rights – belongs to persons, not merely to living things (otherwise we’d have to grant right-to-life to amoebae and bacteria), and a fetus is not a person.

      We can argue over the definition of what exactly makes a “person”, but any argument about “life on Mars” etc that doesn’t touch on this is basically irrelevant.

      • Funny how it is always those who scream and shriek the that “this isn’t about Jesus, or theocracy” are the very same ones who first mention those in an argument. That’s called a straw-man fallacy.

        But since you deny God exists, and are therefore a philosophical materialist, explain how things such as immaterial objective First Principles rights can possibly exist?

        • >> But since you deny God exists, and are therefore a philosophical materialist, explain how things such as immaterial objective First Principles rights can possibly exist?

          They cannot, naturally. Hence they’re subjective. Doesn’t make them any less natural or valuable in my book.

          Saying that some right is natural is basically saying that it is axiomatic – that it doesn’t require a justification, it just is. All ethical systems require such axioms at the base, since you cannot logically derive something from nothing. Religious systems postulate the existence of God with certain attributes as their axioms. But you can get rid of God, and remain just as consistent.

        • Max, it was you that brought up a “god given right to life”, in your first sentence, and I have heard many space cadets say that you cannot believe in a right of any kind if you do not believe in god, and other equivalent rubbish. Then attacking a response as “bringing up god” is kind of silly. If our rights relied on god, they would be completely worthless, because no such creature exists. They depend on men who are willing to fight for them, and always have. The use of superstitious nonsense to motivate others to risk their lives in your cause, or contribute their money to your purse, is as old as mankind. Probably the origin of religion.

      • But that is exactly what you are doing, attempting to derive something, even everything, from utterly nothing. Thus you must hold the statement “there exits a right to keep and bear arms” as inherently meaningless, for from nothing, nothing ever comes.

        • >> But that is exactly what you are doing, attempting to derive something, even everything, from utterly nothing.

          I am not attempting to derive it from something. I’m just accepting it (or rather the more fundamental right to life, from which follows right to self-defense, from which follows RKBA) as an axiom. Just as you are accepting the existence of God as an axiom. That’s what axioms are – they’re not derived, they’re just accepted.

          (If you don’t like this definition, then you’ll have to answer the question of what you derive the existence of God from.)

        • [I am not attempting to derive it from something. I’m just accepting it (or rather the more fundamental right to life, from which follows right to self-defense, from which follows RKBA) as an axiom.]
          …But you have all but stated that the claim that rights exist is equal to the claim that rights do not exist, because it’s all subjective, because immaterial objective First Principles do not exist. So a person who claims he has a right to take your life is no more right or wrong than your counter claim that he does not have that right.

          [Just as you are accepting the existence of God as an axiom. That’s what axioms are – they’re not derived, they’re just accepted.If you don’t like this definition, then you’ll have to answer the question of what you derive the existence of God from.]
          …Ok, sure:
          “Why the Ultimate Cause of Everything in Existence Must be God”
          Part 1. http://www.strangenotions.com/introducing-bernard-lonergans-philosophical-proof-for-god/

          Part 2. http://www.strangenotions.com/the-one-cause-behind-everything-else-in-reality/

          Part 3. http://www.strangenotions.com/why-the-ultimate-cause-of-everything-in-existence-must-be-god/

        • >> But you have all but stated that the claim that rights exists is equal to the claim that rights do not exist, because it’s all subjective, because immaterial objective First Principles do not exist.

          No, I haven’t. I’m not sure what you’re even arguing with right now, because with every new comment you’re inventing new and new strawmen that you proceed to debunk. All of these strawmen stem from your attempt to validate my statements against your axioms. Since my statements are based on a different set of axioms, this results in contradictions. If you’re unable to set your axioms aside for a moment and adopt a different set to understand your opponent, you shouldn’t even bother debating such things.

          >> So a person who claims he has a right to take your life is no more right or wrong than your counter claim that he does not have that right.

          There’s no such thing as “more right or wrong” in general, since all morality is inherently subjective. However, my morality, albeit subjective to me, offers a consistent scale that I use to assess such claims. According to that scale, I am right and he is wrong, and when I shoot him in self-defense, I won’t have any moral regrets over it. The subjectivity of morality just means that if he succeeds and I fail, he will similarly have no regrets, which is trivially verifiable and true.

          When enough people agree on some moral issues, there forms a consensus that may look like objective morality, because it’s so widespread. But it’s still subjective relative to those outside of it, and to the universe as a whole.

          >> …Ok, sure: “Why the Ultimate Cause of Everything in Existence Must be God”

          Just as all other “philosophical proofs” of that nature,it’s a mish-mash of circular reasoning, begging the question, and sophistry. I’m not even going to do a detailed refutal – if you are genuinely interested in this topic, go and read this article which catalogs historical “proofs” and their refutations, and see how a combination of the same applies here:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God

          Ultimately, it is not possible to proof the existence of God, at least not as an entity with the specific attributes (omnipotence etc) that monotheistic religions assert. If it were possible, we’d call it “knowledge” and not “faith”.

        • Part 1. http://www.strangenotions.com/introducing-bernard-lonergans-philosophical-proof-for-god/

          Part 2. http://www.strangenotions.com/the-one-cause-behind-everything-else-in-reality/

          Part 3. http://www.strangenotions.com/why-the-ultimate-cause-of-everything-in-existence-must-be-god/

          If god had been communicating with us for a million years by internet, these would be relevant. As is, each and every word of each one has been keyed in by a MAN, within the past 20 years, during which time god has been pretty difficult to photograph. They bear no witness whatsoever to the existence of any all-powerful sentient gas cloud.

  73. To be Pro-Life is to value and protect the INNOCENT life of a child who is utterly helpless.

    To be Pro-Gun is to value and protect the lives of INNOCENT human beings (me and my family) from being murdered by criminals.

    They are both Life issues.

  74. Children are terrible. The less of them, the better. Too any people in this world already and we haven’t even hit the stable capacity limit.

    • Said the white guy, who is part of a demographic that has a birth rate around 1.75, to his fellow whites, who are the only ones listening, while the rest of the world just goes right on breeding.

      Brilliant plan. Ever seen Idiocracy?

      • “White guy” is not a demographic that has reduced fertility rates. “Rich educated guy” is. Takes a couple of generations to kick in, but we’re observing this effect literally everywhere in the world. Hell, China of all places – that country that had to restrict the number of kids people have because they were breeding too fast! – not only has that effect, but has it so pronounced that they’ve relaxed the policy.

        So if you’re worried about being outbred? Work on reducing poverty and extending education to all those who you’re afraid will outbreed you.

        Of course, the way you worded the question asks for a counter one: why are you so worried about non-whites outbreeding whites? Is there something inherent about being white that you find so valuable that you want whites to always be a majority? Or are you worried about the effects of being a minority? If the latter, why would that be? Is that because minorities aren’t quite treated as first-class citizens in this country or something, by chance?

  75. Easy, frame it in terms or personal liberty. Don’t like abortions, don’t get one. Don’t like guns, don’t get one. In any case, don’t make laws regarding whether someone else can get them.

    Philosophically, abortion is killing babies, yes, but there exists unpleasant situations where that might literally be the most optimal choice. People from countries that were super poor understand this in a way that first-worlders don’t.

    • So to be philosophically consistent then, you in fact actually agree with the lunatic leftists in that even if there is a right to keep and bear arms, “there exists unpleasant situations where [denying the right to keep and bear arms] might literally be the most optimal choice” and thus according to you the same politicians who deny the right to life can also for the same exact reasons deny the right to keep and bear arms. Brilliant.

      And hey, if you don’t like laws denying those babies their right to life, or your right to keep and bear arms, just don’t live in a place where those rights are denied.

      • >> you in fact actually agree with the lunatic leftists in that even if there is a right to keep and bear arms, “there exists unpleasant situations where [denying the right to keep and bear arms] might literally be the most optimal choice”

        Unless you believe that jailed criminals should also have the right to keep and bear arms, you’re also agreeing to that statement.

        Any right is constrained by other rights. Where rights intersect, there is a conflict that has to be resolved one way or the other; and no matter how you resolve it, some right is going to be limited.

        • Apples and oranges. Someone who commits murder for example, has for himself voluntarily made the decision to abrogate his claims on his right to life. He himself has though a voluntary act of his own will discharged his rights.