Tina Dupuy: Pro-Lifers Should Be Anti-Gun

Tina Dupuy (courtesy caglecartoons.com)

“Former governor of Arkansas, presidential candidate and admitted statutory rapist Ted Nugent-apologist Mike Huckabee said he wouldn’t rule out using federal troops to stop women from exercising their constitutionally protected right to terminate their own pregnancies.,” Tina Dupuy writes at delewareonline.com. “Because nothing says freedom more than a martial-forced birth.” And she’s off! . . .

Pro-lifers seem to revel in lamenting the fates of unwanted children, but are not holding marches at the steps of the Supreme Court to humanize foster care, reform adoption laws or give public assistance to families in crisis. They’re not holding vigils and prayer circles to increase funding to house abused or neglected children.

Hypocrites! In fact, Dupuy reckons that anti-abortionists should be pro-gun control. Like this . . .

But let’s say I’ve misjudged the pro-life movement. Let’s say they’re not currently using an activist’s hoax in hopes of sparking a moral panic alleging Planned Parenthood sells body parts. Let’s pretend abortion clinics haven’t been under constant “pro-life” terrorist attacks or threats. Ignore all the bombings and harassment, and forget that Dr. George Tiller wasn’t shot in the head while attending church. Let’s just take them at their word – that they really believe every life is sacred and they really care about children.

Then I welcome pro-lifers to join the anti-gun movement. There’s not as much raucous slut-shaming – but there are a lot of actual children dying. Pro-lifers can be more than just pro-birth. If it really is a moral conviction that life is sacred, then get out of women’s birth canals and grow up.

Not the most gracious of invitations, methinks. Dupuy seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that gun rights advocates are pro-life. Not only do they consider firearms an excellent way to defend innocent life from criminals and government tyranny, but they have the facts to back up their belief. The lowest estimate of annual defensive gun uses in America is 55k. The highest? Over two million.

It’s time to branch out. Time to stop using junk science to scare women and time to start rallying against the real death industry in this country: Gun manufacturers. If pro-lifers are incensed and galvanized by the falsehood that Planned Parenthood profits off death as a non-profit organization, why aren’t they furious arms dealers are legally immune to lawsuits thanks to an act of Congress? Gun makers and dealers have no liability, all profit and don’t screen for cancer.

So in case no one has offered it before now, pro-lifers, you’re invited to champion for stricter gun laws. You’d be a welcome addition to those who know the Second Amendment states the militia is well-regulated and not wholly deregulated.

Again, with the charm offensive. And speaking of offensive, how many pro-life, pro-gun types buy into the Supreme Court-torpedoed fallacy that the Second Amendment only protects militias, who can have their gun rights infringed upon by the government? How hard would it have been for Dupy to talk to a pro-gunner? I guess reaching out has its limits for those who are just pretending.


  1. avatar William B. says:

    This has always been the stupidest argument of the left, or close to it, and asks me to view the life of an innocent child the same as that of a serial killer. For those of us who believe personhood begins early on (conception to end of the first trimester,same difference for this argument), abortion after that point is the killing of an innocent life, while shooting a bad guy hurts someone who’s guilty and far from innocent.

    And the left is hypocritical as heck, as they want abortions until the point of taking your baby home from the hospital, yet oppose the death penalty for admitted serial killers.

    It’s already been used here recently, but the tagline for this argument ought to be, “Yeah, good luck with that.”

    1. avatar LikeISeeIt says:

      “view the life of an innocent child the same as that of a serial killer”

      That’s just political theater though. In no way, to them, are those things actually the same.

      To the Left, it is the recidivist killer which is a precious thing .. to be cared for and quickly set back out amongst the people. This helps the Left form their scissors strategy of cutting the society apart from above and from below. They -want- high crime, which is one of the reasons they despise its direct cure: privately owned firearms.

      By contrast, for them, a baby in the womb is just a parasite curse from the despised God .. to be torn apart and put into cans of soda.

      Hardly equivalent.

      And for the Planned Parenthood/Margaret Sanger acolytes, if the baby would have been born Black, then so much the better, to them, that it never was born at all .. as they try to target black pregnancies specifically, while out of the other sides of their mouths proclaiming how “black lives matter”.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Well said.

      2. avatar Chris T from KY says:


    2. avatar AW says:

      Can we have it both ways? Before I give my comment, I’d like to clarify my position. I am pro-life and pro-choice. God gave to us free will, and with that is the free will to make good choices and do good and bad choices to do evil. God Himself gave the command for Adam and Eve not to eat of tree of good and evil, and yet allowed them to choose to do evil and bring death and sin into this world. That speaks volumes to me.

      I am also pro-gun. I own several and I have two CCL from two different states. But in the end I have free will to do good or evil with my gun. The best that the gun industry can do is education. Educate me as to how to use my gun, when to use my gun, how to carry my gun, the laws of different states etc…but in the end I have free will. So maybe in the end the best that pro-lifers can do is also education. Educate that pre-marital sex is wrong, educate on the use of contraception (although in her article Tina states that the pro-life movement is “strangely anti-birth control” which I find strange too if it’s true).

      In the end I have to agree with her statement: “Family planning, privacy and the right to keep personal decisions personal are at the core of what we know as choice.” What messed me up is her statement: “….the Second Amendment states the militia is well-regulated and not wholly deregulated.

      1. avatar MeRp says:

        Catholics, which form a significant portion of the ‘pro-life’ movement, are strictly against birth control as well. Most of the rest are not specifically against birth control, but would vastly prefer abstinence instead.

        The Catholic stance may seem odd from the sidelines, but it fits well within their dogma; essentially it comes down to something along the lines of the choice of having a baby is up to God, not the couple, so actively attempting to make it impossible to conceive while still having sex is akin to playing God.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          >> essentially it comes down to something along the lines of the choice of having a baby is up to God, not the couple, so actively attempting to make it impossible to conceive while still having sex is akin to playing God.

          It’s somewhat more complicated than that. So far as I know, Catholic dogma does not condemn “natural” birth control (i.e. trying to time it right wrt the woman’s cycle). The reasoning behind all this is so convoluted at this point that it’s probably not worth the bother trying to figure it all out; it’s just silly.

      2. avatar JJ48 says:

        While there are some who are opposed to any form of birth control, I think most are primarily against the morning after pill and similar, if there is any possibility that it could destroy the embryo after conception.

      3. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        “God Himself gave the command for Adam and Eve not to eat of tree of good and evil, and yet allowed them to choose to do evil and bring death and sin into this world. That speaks volumes to me.”

        I agree that free will is vitally important. However, free will is obviously not a pass to kill your neighbor without legal consequences. It’s just as obviously not a pass to smother a newborn in the crib. Sure, in anything approaching a free society one has the opportunity to do these things. But that doesn’t mean the acts should be accepted (or even tolerated). Now, go back one hour before birth and of course one must also consider the rights of the mother, who may need to kill her baby to protect her own life. In most circumstances I would consider that an act of cowardice, but I wouldn’t presume to tell anyone that they had no right to kill in order to protect their life. On the other hand, free will wouldn’t always be a pass to kill for lesser reasons, either.

  2. avatar APM mobile says:

    She is too stupid to waste the time on that you and I have just have:-(

  3. avatar Paul says:

    Government should stay out of bedrooms, gun cabinets, and doctors offices.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      And out of existence.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      When your doctor’s office is not being used as the site of a criminal conspiracy to commit murder, that can be arranged.

    3. avatar Grindstone says:

      All of this.

    4. avatar McCann says:

      So I should be allowed to steal so long as it’s done in a Doctor’s office?

      1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

        Up to the doctor, isn’t it?

    5. avatar neiowa says:

      Sure. Are you naive or simple minded?

      1. avatar McCann says:

        To whom are you responding?

    6. avatar Stuki Moi says:

      And, for the specific reason that all three are special cases of “Government Should Stay Out of [Fill in whatever you feel like]”

    7. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      Can they stay out of the kitchen? Can they stay out of the bathroom? Can they stay out of my car? Can they stay out of home schoolers? If I need them I will call. Just stay away.

  4. avatar Roy H says:

    Following their argument of “for the children”, pro-choicers should be pro-gun since they THINK guns kill children and they’re okay with infanticide anyway.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      BOOM! Nailed it.

  5. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    Planned Parenthood doesn’t screen for cancer.

    1. avatar Richard in WA says:

      PAP Smears aren’t cancer screening?

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        All I’ve heard about is how PP prevents breast cancer, but they don’t actually do mammograms. They just refer you to a doctor/clinic. I stand corrected on pap smears.

        Of course, now since everyone is mandated to have health insurance via Obamacare, everyone has insurance anyway.

        1. avatar Mark Lee says:

          Can we please NOT try and be experts with every “non-firearms rights” subject that comes up in the course of our firearms rights-related mission? Such behavior is akin to being a simpleton troll who can’t resist the temptation to open their yap every time the wind changes direction.

          Like I just did.

        2. avatar John J. Jones says:

          And it’s about time!

        3. avatar H says:

          Cervical Cancer.
          It’s not a rare disease.

    2. avatar Steve says:

      They also illegally sell the body parts of aborted babies: https://www.youtube.com/user/centerformedprogress

      Plus, there’s the horror story my buddy told me about the time he went there for a vasectomy. In a nutshell, they didn’t have a doctor perform the procedure, and they didn’t use enough anesthetic. He left with his balls in tact, thank God…

      1. avatar AndyNC says:

        Horrifying anecdotes aside, what Planned Parenthood is doing is perfectly legal. Stop relying on heavily edited video produced by an activist group to round out your world view – it’ll save you the embarrassment of being wrong.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Wait. You said it was legal. What does that have to do with it not being wrong?

          Don’t conflate morality with legality. Those are two very different things.

          “Stop relying on heavily edited video

          Do you have the unedited, raw footage that definitively leads to a different conclusion? If not, that statement is a Begging the Question fallacy.

          ” produced by an activist group”

          Ad hominem fallacy.

          0 for 2.

          Note: I’ve never seen the video in question nor am I stating an opinion specifically about it one way or another. Just pointing out that for the level of snark your comment contains, it is awfully weak (as in “illogical”).

        2. avatar Nick says:

          The center for medical progress (the activist group you’re referring to) released both the abridged versions that were bombshells, but also the extremely lengthy unedited versions they were cut from. If there was something in the unedited versions to prove your point, you would’ve announced it, unless you’re too much of a sheep to have bothered watching any of them.

        3. avatar AndyNC says:

          I said it was legal because OP asserted it was not. OP is wrong:

          What you’re doing is “changing the subject”. Not a proper fallacy you’ll find listed on the webpage where you recently found out about the other logical fallacies, but an irritating divergence nonetheless.

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “recently found out about the other logical fallacies, “

          Nice try. Been doing real logic … professionally…for decades, before fancy ‘web sites’ even existed.

          But see, you missed the crux of my argument. Your post was a weak, illogical attempt to discredit the anti-PP videos. I note you did not address that in this latest reply.

          You tried to insult and snark a person into submission to your BS and illogical nonsense and you got called on it and your reply is to fling more insults.

          As for your link, a quote:

          “Federal law regulates the use of fetal tissue for research or transplant, and as far as federal statutes go, this one is pretty clear. It’s a crime for anyone to buy or sell fetal tissue for profit.

          Now, as to whether PP is selling fetal tissue for profit or doing the other “Legal” activity may well remain up-in-the-air. All the facts are not in.

          So, your assertion that what they are doing is “legal” seems premature. Or just plain wrong. Time will tell.

  6. avatar Rabbi says:

    We r pro-life, but we choose the innocent victims’ lives over those of violent criminals

  7. avatar Steve says:

    The last few years, there’s been over 1 million abortions performed annually, versus roughly 10,000 annual firearms homicides. That’s what you call a “no-brainer.”

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      What is?

      1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        I think his point was counter to Tina Dupuy (whoever she is) that the leading numbers of death is not due to firearms, which she claims.

  8. avatar Richard in WA says:

    “If pro-lifers are incensed and galvanized by the falsehood that Planned Parenthood profits off death as a non-profit organization, why aren’t they furious arms dealers are legally immune to lawsuits thanks to an act of Congress? Gun makers and dealers have no liability, all profit and don’t screen for cancer.”

    This whole “arms dealers are immune from lawsuit” thing is getting tiring to me. It’s completely false, look way back into ancient history (last week) where Taurus was forced by a judge to recall 1 million pistols. If a company designs a defective product they can be sued. If someone uses a product to commit a crime, then they cannot be sued.

    People drink and drive, people die. Neither Budweiser nor BMW is responsible for that person’s actions. People build potato cannons from ABS pipe and Aquanet but neither the manufacturer or merchant is responsible for that person’s actions.

    Thusly, Glock is not responsible for the criminal use of their product. The fact that it took a specific piece of legislation to cover this is just to prevent frivolous lawsuits like suiting Lucky Gunner for selling ammo to Holmes.


    1. avatar MIkeP says:

      Yep, it’s the same immunity many other product manufacturers have. If a loved one is killed by a drunk driver, you can’t sue Ford/GM/Honda for the way they used the automobile… or Jim Beam for the fact that they guzzled a whole fifth before getting behind the wheel. Or Chevron for the gas they used. This would never end otherwise. They just want to single out gun manufacturers and strip them of this legal immunity for the misuse of a product for political reasons. But then I state the obvious…

  9. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    OWWWW… my head hurts. I was amazed it even said”pro life” instead of anti -gal or anti-abortion or the usual pro-baby murder claptrap. I hope it doesn’t come to me defending innocent life with my evil gun but IF it comes to that…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Correct terminology is “pro-choice” and “anti-choice”. Everybody is either pro-life or suicidal.

      1. avatar Paul G says:

        Actually, since the unborn is alive, pro-life or pro-murder seems accurate. It is a human being, not a choice

  10. avatar Belle says:

    No one forces you to get pregnant…rape pregnancies are EXTREMELY rare…and outside of that, you’re not being forced…so there is your choice. Have sex, it can lead to pregnancy. Don’t want to take the chance of getting pregnant, keep your legs closed. I’m pro life AND pro gun.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Rape pregnancies are rare because the rape kit administered by Emergency Rooms include the morning after pill. IOW, the pregnancy is aborted. As it should be, and which anti-choice people would like to end, forcing rape victims to raise a rapist’s child.

      1. avatar Paul G says:

        Rape pregnancies were rare long before the morning after pill. Abortions due to rape have always been a negligible amount of the total number of abortions.
        Repeating liberal talking points doesn’t give them veracity.

  11. avatar Alex says:

    I’m pro-choice in both regards. Sometimes you have to take a life to save a life.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      There is a difference between medical necessity and pure cold blooded convenience.

    2. avatar Cubbie says:

      But there’s a difference in the life taken. One is completely innocent, the other guilty.

  12. avatar Bob says:

    Wow, she is filled with a lot of hate. I am sure she would never agree to an intelligent, honest, respectful, and fair debate; therefore, I do not care about what she has to say.

  13. avatar Bob Watson says:

    Should it be Little Tina or Tiny Tina, maybe Little Tiny Pea Brained Tina? She is on to something, “the real death industry in this country”. It could be the automobile industry, according to the CDC, 33,804 deaths in crashes in 2012. Maybe it is the poisen industry with 38,851 deathis in the same year. No, it must be the evil hospital industry racking up 100,000 deaths per year due to “preventable medical errors”. Who will Little Tiny Pea
    Brained Tina go after next?

  14. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    ES&D, Tina.

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Actually, I think I’ll elaborate. This woman thinks that she’s so smart and snarky that she believes that my belief in personal responsibility is inconsistent with my rejection of the welfare state. There’s no reasoning with people like this, so… ES&D, Tina.

      1. avatar Paul G says:

        Yep. Equating morality with a need to subsidize other’s bad decisions.
        Of course, at the same time she ignores the relevant facts, such as the current degree of spending on the things she mentions, the waiting lists for adoption (people want those children), and of course that the majority of abortions are for convenience. Abortion because of hardship is rare. Oops.

  15. avatar Pete says:

    Pro-choice people should be pro gun. People who hang toilet paper rolls over-hand should be pro-gun. I’m totally not arbitrarily saying what someone else’ opinion of guns should be because toilet paper direction is still a matter of personal discretion. But according to my logic if you decide to be an overhand-TP person you should be pro-gun, assuming you’re reasonable, consistent and not a hypocrite or sociopath. People who own red cars should like the taste of cilantro.

    1. avatar dsreno says:

      I think you’re on to something! I’m pro-choice, pro-gun, and pro-over-hand. I also drive a non-red car, and dislike the taste of cilantro. Get out of my head, Charles!

  16. We support a woman’s Right To Choose ™, unless we disagree with her choice.

    1. avatar Bill Kohnke says:

      Using her false logic, all pro-abortionists should be pro-gun since anyone willing to kill an innocent unborn child, shouldn’t have a problem with killing anyone else.

      1. avatar steve says:

        spot on. If i could up vote your post I would!

  17. Abortion providers don’t kill children. Gun owners do.

  18. avatar Grindstone says:

    Pro-gun, pro-choice. Now eff off lady.

  19. avatar John says:

    Also most blaringly she is saying that abortion is constitutionally protected. Under which amendment? Because the 2nd amendment is quite specifically speaking to our rights to arms and to self protection, and yet there is no amendment that says you have the right to kill a baby.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      To find where the constitution protects abortion, you’d have to study Roe v. Wade, because the SCOTUS found it somewhere. Personally, while I am pro-choice, I thought (and think) that decision was pure BS, and the decision should be left to the states, with the Fed govt butting out completely.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        while I am pro-choice, I thought (and think) that decision was pure BS

        Oddly enough Ruth Bader Ginsburg agrees with you. She’s stated that Roe v. Wade is horrible law.

  20. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    The left has never been pro choice. I can’t choose the firearm I want. I can’t eat what I want. They want to tell me what is approved for my daughters home made brown bag lunch. They send their kids to private school but poor black kids can’t. No vouchers for the blacks. The law says you must use a condom or go to jail in LA county California?

    No, the left has never been pro choice. The left have always been anti freedom.

  21. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Sorry sweet thang. When I lawful self defend, I sight center mass and not much left to harvest. Sorry.

    1. avatar MIkeP says:

      You’ll never get that Lambo that way….

  22. avatar SmooglyBoogly says:

    She bears a striking resemblance to the female alien imposter from Mars Attack.

  23. avatar John J. Jones says:

    The government has no more business telling a woman whether she can have an abortion than it does telling me whether I can have a gun. Stay out of personal rights, and concentrate on collecting taxes and keeping us out of wars.

    1. avatar Cubbie says:

      Being able to kill your unborn child is hardly a personal right.

    2. avatar Nick says:

      The problem I, and many others have with that argument, is that igood the woman chooses to end a pregnancy, she is ending the life of another human. I can understand the arguments for emergency contraception and very early after conception, but as it progresses and viability becomes ever more likely, an abortion becomes a death sentence to the unborn child. Many in the pro choice crown support abortion anytime before birth. The baby could survive outside the womb, but they still belive it’s ok to abort.

      This is on top of PP’s sale of fetal organs, a direct violation to federal law which explicitly bans sale of ALL human organs. There’s a huge conflict of interest there. They provide contraception and abortion services.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        If anyone has evidence that ANY organs have actually been sold, by PP or anyone else, there should be a prosecution underway. Didn’t happen. Won’t happen. The government has no authority to ban abortion, at any stage. If someone wants to do that, the process is called a Constitutional Amendment, which I have not even heard anyone suggest, leading me to believe there is very little actual support for any such thing.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          It is proven fact, not disputed, that the sales have and are still occurring. The sticking point is that it is legal, so long as they arerecouping expenses, not profiting from the sale. In other words, creative accounting.

        2. avatar Paul G says:

          It does not need a constitutional amendment to safeguard the life of the unborn.

  24. avatar Bob says:

    This is a very foolish, but very effective, attempt to distract the pro-lifer from the true issue. Do you see what she has done? We are now (1) arguing how gun-control is pro-life, and (2) arguing how the two issues are related. She has stopped the pro-lifers from arguing about abortion and started us arguing about silly things that are only vaguely related to it. Don’t fall for this tactic!

    The proper response to this tactic should be, “Are you trying to start a discussion about gun-control? I want to discuss the millions of innocent babies that are killed in abortion clinics every year.”

  25. avatar Merits says:

    Crazy or dishonest. Either way, it’s no use having a dialogue with someone like that.

  26. avatar Tommycat says:

    Shouldn’t it be the other way around? I mean you can be Pro Choice for the defense of the mother, both from rape, and because of rape. You can be pro-life and pro-gun, because the benefits of defense of others and self from people who would do you harm. HOWEVER being pro-choice, but anti-gun is what doesn’t make sense. Sooo you want to ban guns, for the children, but it’s okay to Cuisinart them in the womb? That doesn’t make much sense to me.

  27. avatar Cubbie says:

    “Let’s pretend abortion clinics haven’t been under constant “pro-life” terrorist attacks or threats. Ignore all the bombings and harassment.”

    No need to pretend. There hasn’t been an anti-abortion violence epidemic. But I’m sure she considers the little old ladies praying in front of the clinics terrorists and harassers.

  28. avatar Hank Locker says:

    Pro choice in both respects. It sickens me to even see two completely different issues thrown into the same bucket.

    1. avatar Grindstone says:

      It makes great click-bait, though.

  29. avatar Martin says:

    While I do agree with the opinion that that Dupuy lady is a tool, I’m beginning to get tired of the abortion debates here.

    Yes, I’m both pro-gun and pro-choice, so the reason is that I’m feeling saddened by being reminded how many POTG are anti-choice. But I’m also beginning to think that the reason for another abortion-related article might have something to do with Farago’s own opinion, and I’m not exactly happy about the possibility that this web might drive a wedge between the pro-choice and the anti-abortion folks here.

  30. avatar gsnyder says:

    Is she out again? Off her meds.

  31. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

    I choose to own guns.
    My wife and I chose to have an abortion from unplanned/unwanted pregnancy (I saw what came out, and it was not even a polliwog)
    Government out of my choice have a kid or not, if I would like to own guns, and if I would like to belive in a religion or not – pro choice.

  32. avatar TwinReverb says:

    Pro-lifers don’t have to be anti-gun. The same God who destroyed whole civilizations because they sacrificed their children to Molech (which was their methodology for abortion), when He came in human form as Jesus, made sure His disciples were carrying swords when they left from the last supper and went to the Garden of Gethsemane.

    Besides, from a philosophical standpoint, we are against abortion because it’s murder of a baby that has done nothing wrong to deserve it. We’re not against shooting someone in self-defense who deserves it. A baby is innocent, an adult attacker is not.

  33. avatar H says:

    Pretend you did come from Mars.

    Notice that one group doesn’t want the Govt to tell them what to do with their bodies. The other group doesn’t want the Govt to tell them what to do with their guns.

    Both groups says life will be safe if you do what they say.

    Pro Gun people aren’t Pro gun violence. Pro Choice people aren’t baby killers. They both want the same right to choose.

    We think expanded gun laws lead to confiscation. Look at China where the Govt tells you how many children to have. Next step?

    This is where you can be Both. Pro Life & Pro Choice. Respecting the sanctity of life but not wanting the Govt telling you what to do with your body.

    Hard to get elected on an issue if their aren’t sides to take? Mr. or Mrs. Politician.

  34. avatar james says:

    guns should be handle with responsiblility, there should be strict gun laws to ensure safety.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Do tell how a law can ENSURE safety. For anything…not just guns.

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      Criminals don’t care about safety. They aren’t going to follow those laws or any laws they don’t like. Responsible law abiding gun owners are already practicing safety. With hundreds of thousands of laws on the books, making another one telling the american citizen to be safe is going to go unnoticed by the low information hermit who may not practice safe handling. Also – 500 accidental deaths per year is on par with death by lightening strikes. Safety is a non-issue.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      At last count, the nation has around 20,000 strict gun laws right now. How many more will it take to “assure safety”?

  35. avatar Anonymous says:

    “Because nothing says freedom more than a martial-forced birth.”

    Freedom for who? The mother or the baby? How about this:

    “Because nothing says freedom more than having your skull pierced by metal instruments,having your brain sucked out, and having your lifeless body sold to the organ harvesting business just before you were born.”


    It’s time to branch out. Time to stop using junk science to scare women and time to start rallying against the real death industry in this country: Gun manufacturers.

    So… 666,845 abortions in the US in 2015 so far (year isn’t even over) – (with metal instruments) performed by doctors.


    11,000 homicides (with a gun) performed by people.

    But yea – gun manufacturers are apparently the bad guys. Manufacturers who fabricate metal instruments for doctors who use those instruments to stab unborn babies and suck out their brains… NOT bad guys.

    Got it.

  36. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    If she is offering a ride in her birth canal. .

  37. avatar C.Rogers says:

    Quick! Someone excoriate me for feeling that abortion is wrong but not feeling like my opinion of what someone else does or thinks about it has anymore validity than what someone else thinks about my guns.
    Isn’t that freedom?

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      Cool, so if your neighbor, or maybe brother in law, beats or murders his wife, it isn’t yours to judge him, right?

      1. avatar C.Rogers says:

        Nope, I don’t agree with that either, but since its against the law….
        The contrasting question to yours is:
        Should a 13 year old girl, maybe your daughter or sister, pregnant as a result of a brutal gang rape be denied an abortion?

        1. avatar JJ48 says:

          As horrific as rape is, and as much as we need to care for and support its victims, may I ask how murdering an innocent child — who is as much a victim as his/her mother — in any way improves the situation?

        2. avatar Paul G says:

          Ya know, when people are misinformed enough to try and use rape to justify abortion, I think the easiest thing to do is call their bluff.
          Ok, let’s keep abortion legal, for rape only. Then we can lessen the number of abortions by two decimal places.
          That’s a great start.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Paul, what gives you the idea that decision is up to you? Or me? Or anyone besides the particular woman who is pregnant? Do you think someone should be able to tell you that you HAVE to own a gun, on penalty of prison? There are a whole bunch of things which government should butt out of.

        4. avatar Paul G says:

          Murder is murder. Most sexually active people are quite aware of the intention of sex. Willfully creating a life, and then murdering it, is despicabke, it should be criminal.
          We should ask the baby what it thinks about getting killed.

        5. avatar Paul G says:

          Your comparisons were inane. Owning guns versus sanctioning murder?
          When you let the government decide at what point a human life is valid enough to count, you have stepped into scary territory. I hear the Texas go is considering declaring all persons named Larry as less than human, open to post birth abortion. Watch out.

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      Nobody has the freedom to kill people… unless those people are babies. Then it’s okay. If you accidentally hit a pregnant lady with your car and her baby dies – you deserve manslaughter. However, if that same lady didn’t get hit by your car but made her way to the clinic to have the doctor kill her baby – that’s A okay.

      Is it just me – or is everybody F* insane?

  38. avatar DetroitMan says:

    “Time to stop using junk science to scare women…”

    Anyone else find it ironic that an anti gunner is accusing other people of using junk science to scare women?

  39. avatar David N says:

    Odd how the extremists at both ends try to tell you how to live in every aspect of your life?

    I figure that if they are so darned perfect, they should set the example instead of setting their jaws to flapping.

  40. avatar angryaz says:

    Abortion self selecting answer to liberal progressive dreams. I just don’t want to pay for their child killing ways.

  41. avatar J3W1 says:

    I like how she called video evidence of a Planned Parenthood director negotiating the sale of aborted fetus organs as an “activits’s hoax”. That’s when I stopped reading.

  42. avatar Owen says:

    I’m pro-responsibility. Make your choices and stand by the consequences, in this life or the next.

    1. avatar Publius says:

      I’m curious to know how you think it’s irresponsible to prevent the birth of an unwanted child that you can’t provide for.

      1. avatar Paul G says:

        Oops, I created a life! Better kill it. Ah, responsibility!.

  43. avatar Peter says:

    Because a pro gun person would never kill a newborn, nor any individual simply because it was “inconvenient”.

  44. avatar JJ48 says:

    “Former governor of Arkansas, presidential candidate and admitted statutory rapist Ted Nugent-apologist Mike Huckabee said he wouldn’t rule out using federal troops to stop women from exercising their constitutionally protected right to terminate their own pregnancies.”

    I keep hearing this sort of thing. Can someone please point out to me where, in the Constitution, is there a protected “right to terminate…pregnancies”?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I assume you know that there is a constitutional prohibition on using federal troops against any American citizen for any reason inside the U.S. I would think that any presidential candidate should know that as well.

      1. avatar JJ48 says:

        Well, thank you for addressing the part of the quote that I wasn’t asking about. I never asked about a woman’s constitutional right not to be threatened by federal troops, but rather about a supposed constitutionally protected right to have an abortion, as quoted. The question remains on the table, sir.

  45. avatar PeterW says:

    How would this nutcase know who is holding prayer circles and for what? Ridiculous non-argument; appeal to some other problem instead of supporting your case. Don’t look at the pile of dead babies over there, Those folks over there aren’t in a prayer circle! They must be CONSTANTLY BOMBING! I can’t recall how many years it has been since the last abortion clinic bomb went off.. what is that about ‘you keep using that word.. I think it means something else..’
    This garbage makes me crazy.
    I am pro-life, and I am anti-death penalty. I don’t think there is any hypocrisy there. I am pro 2A and think every American responsible enough to jump through the hoops necessary to own a gun should own one. Stronger gun laws only make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves against the lawless, of whom NO LAW CAN STOP.

  46. avatar Publius says:

    The amusing thing is that research has shown time after time that abortion being legal reduces crime. Yet religious nuts would rather have unwanted children being neglected and abused before turning to a life of crime than allow a woman to remove an unwanted parasitic organism from her body (and yes, until around 24 weeks when it’s capable of surviving on its own, it is a parasite). Then again, we have thousands of years of history showing that religion and logic rarely coincide.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Generally, it is a parasite until at least the day it turns 18, often much longer. I don’t think that is a good pro-choice argument.

    2. avatar DetroitMan says:

      What research? How do you prove that fetuses killed inside the womb have higher rates of criminality than those allowed to be born?

  47. avatar Danny says:

    There is a weird symmetry between the anti-abortion movement and the anti-gun movement.

    Both want “waiting periods” — the longer and more onerous, the better.

    Both try to single out commercial providers for special regulation and scrutiny (e.g., hospital-size corridors and hospital-admission privliges for abortionists; surveillance cameras and extreme zoning limits on gun shops).

    Both use “junk science” to argue that the targeted activity (abortion, gun ownership) results in increased harms (breast cancer, suicide).

    Both demean and belittle the consumers they target (women are irresponsible, abort for “convenience”, and want “sex without consequences” while gun-owners are paranoid, anti-social, and reckless around children).

    Both think that the Supreme Court overstepped by recognizing any constitutional protections whatsoever for their respective groups (Roe/Casey, McDonald/Heller).

    With no principle or even sense of principle, both advocate state/local control whenever it favors their cause, then switch to federal laws and regulations whenever they think they can “score” a political victory in Washington (background checks, partial-birth bans).

    Both claim to be concerned with unusual but “extreme” aspects of the “problem” they are addressing (e.g., partial birth abortion, high-capacity assault weapons) when their real agenda is complete elimination of the “problem” (eliminating all handguns and most long guns; eliminating all abortions and most birth control).

    Both rely on extreme set-ups and manipulations in “undercover video” stings to “expose” the people they are trying to take down (at gun shows, at Planned Parenthood clinics).

    Both fail to recognize that technology is making their agenda virtually impossible to enforce in a free and open society (RU-486; 3D Printers).

    Both fail to acknowledge that their agenda would require extreme and violent government action to fulfill (stopping 1 Million women from getting abortions in any given year; confiscating hundreds of millions of guns from civilian owners).

    Pro-lifers, and Gun-Grabbers have very similar statist/pro-big-government/police-empowerment agendas, and they want to take away individual freedoms that they see as doing tremendous harm to human life, thus amply justifying the exercise of power. I don’t know if they would ever work together, but an alliance would seem quite natural.

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      The great majority of abortions are for convenience. The morning after pill and other birth control methods all are marketed for exactly the reasons you are cling as false rhetoric. Either big pharmacy has terrible marketing or the reasoning is sound. Big pharmacy spends Los of bucks on marketing.

      1. avatar Danny says:

        A pill abortion is more “convenient” than a surgical abortion, but that is so in all contexts — theraputic abortion, post-rape abortion, post-incest abortion, and purely elective abortion. A fire extinguisher is more “convenient” than a bucket of water. That doesn’t mean fire extinguishers are just for “convenience.”

        But most abortions are elective, and most people who own a semi-auto AK rifle with a 100-round drum magazine and a paratrooper stock are never going to actually use that weapon to fend off a cat burglar.

        I do not allege that pro-lifers and anti-gunners have no facts on their side. Maybe suicides really did go down a lot in Australia after the gun-grab. Even if I have to admit that, I’m still pro-gun. Maybe a lot of abortions in the USA are gender-selection. Even if I have to admit that, I’m still pro-choice.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          Sorry, but no. Numerous polls, including by pro-abortion sources, make clear that the clear majority of abortions are sought for convenience.

        2. avatar Danny says:

          @ Paul G

          Taking as given that most abortions are elective (which you perjoratively call “convenience”) I remain pro-choice.

          And the chief point still stands: pro-lifers use the same dubious tactics as gun-grabbers, based on the same rationales.

        3. avatar Paul G says:

          Even though I have just shown otherwise. ..you are right, because. LOL.

      2. avatar Grindstone says:

        The great majority of abortions are for convenience.

        [Citation Needed]

        1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Because 1,000,000 women a year aren’t aborting almost immediately to save the life of the mother.

        2. avatar Paul G says:

          He just likes to play games. Since he has no rebuttal, he tries to derail you by asking you to treat a blog like an academic thesis.

        3. avatar Paul G says:

          If you disagree, your rebuttal should be the one with citations.

        4. avatar Grindstone says:

          He just likes to play games. Since he has no rebuttal, he tries to derail you by asking you to treat a blog like an academic thesis.

          Rich, coming from the one refusing to provide support for his claims.

          If you disagree, your rebuttal should be the one with citations.

          Not how it works, skippy. Your statements are bunk until you provide facts and data.

        5. avatar Paul G says:

          Sorry Jif, or is it Peter Pan, but that is not “how it works”. People discuss tbin

        6. avatar Paul G says:

          Sorry Jif, or is it Peter Pan, but that is not “how it works”. People discuss things every day without need for citations. Much deeper subjects than those here, in fact. If you disagree with someone, you state as such, and provide your reasons. Citations may he!p in that regard. They could also hurt, as some sources are bunk.
          Too often on these blogs, idiotic trolls act like two-year olds saying ” why”, substituting requests for citations for the word why. It is a poor substitute for being able to formulate thoughts into sentences and discuss things, but it does reveal the IQ of the troll.

        7. avatar Grindstone says:

          It’s really adorable how you truly believe that you don’t need to support your assertions and think people will just accept what you say as fact. Where have I seen that before? Oh, right! MDA! “THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ARE KILLED BY GUNS BOUGHT AT GUN SHOWS!!!!” Know what’s lacking? Proof. Same with your assertions, complete lack of proof. But you’re so ate up with your own self-importance that you don’t even realize that you need proof to back up your claims. Without proof, they are meaningless and can be dismissed just as easily as they are made. Of course, if one had any meaningful intelligence, one would realize this.

        8. avatar Paul G says:

          You are truly lacking in intelligence.
          The huge difference between press reports and persons engaging in relevant discussion is that lost on you?
          You have at least proven indisputably that you are a moron.

    2. avatar JJ48 says:

      “Pro-lifers…have…statist/pro-big-government/police-empowerment agendas”

      So, being against something that you believe to be LITERAL murder makes you statist, pro-big-government, and police-empowering. Got it. May I assume, then, that we should be supporting a removal of ALL laws against murder?

      1. avatar Danny says:

        It may be that expunging a blastocyst from your uterus with miso-mife is exactly the same thing as putting a loaded shotgun to a fifth-grader’s head and pulling the trigger. I disagree, but perhaps it is so.

        It may be that putting a Glock pistol with five loaded 20-round magazines in your bedroom dresser is no more within the contemplation of the Second Amendment than having a 55-gallon drum of VX nerve agent sitting in your garage. I disagree, but perhaps it is so.

        Be that as it may, the fact still stands: the tactics used by the gun-grabbers and the tactics used by the pro-lifers are highly symmetrical. (There are differences. It is not, for instance, common for anti-gunners to physically chain themselves to the doors of gun shops, or to assemble en mass outside a gun shop to hector customers with bloody pictures of shooting victims.)

        If abortion is “murder,” it is not amenable to the police response to any other kind of murder. The criminalization of abortion requires an intrusiveness and an aggressiveness from the government and its police agents that would make the War on Drugs look like a jay-walking public-awareness campaign.

      2. avatar Danny says:

        Is the ingestion of miso-mife by a woman who notices she is “late” the same thing as stabbing someone dead in the middle of the street? I don’t think so, but maybe. Pro-lifers seem to think so.

        Is keeping a Glock pistol at your bedside the same thing as keeping a cannister of VX nerve agent in your hall closet? I don’t think so, but maybe. Anti-gunners seem to think so.

        And so it should come as no surprise that their tactcs and their methods are highly symmetrical.

        If you think their tactics are okay, JJ48, then so be it. If you think their tactics are not okay, I tend to agree. But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Be consistent.

        1. avatar JJ48 says:

          So, what you’re essentially saying is, “Pro-lifers disagree with me, and anti-gunners disagree with me, so therefore their arguments are practically the same!”

          To start with, most of the “similarities” you list earlier are based on straw-man arguments and don’t accurately represent the pro-life stance.

          Secondly, you present two beliefs and claim that to be consistent one must either accept both or accept neither, while ignoring the fact that the similarities are superficial, at best. If I were to adopt your method of argument, I could claim that one must either accept or reject both the anti-gun and pro-gun positions! (Anti-gunners use social media to spread their views. So do pro-gunners. Anti-gunners sometimes use poor logic or grammar. Sometimes pro-gunners do, too. Anti-gunners believe they’re acting for the good of the people. So do pro-gunners.)

          Rather, it is the DIFFERENCES that one must look at to understand why pro-lifers are not all anti-gunners. The primary one that I can see is that pro-lifers, for the most part, believe that the unborn embryo is itself a human life, and that the act of abortion is, therefore, murder. To the best of my knowledge, no ant-gunner believes that the very act of gun ownership itself IS murder, however distasteful they may find it.

        2. avatar Danny says:

          @ JJ

          The examples I gave are much more particularized, and much more telling, than “both sides wear shoes on their feet.”

          Look: you are pro-gun, anti-abortion. Hence: when pro-lifers say “waiting period” you say yes, and when anti-gunners say “waiting period,” you say “no.”

          When pro-lifers say: “doctors should be made to warn women that abortion causes breast cancer,” you say “yes.” When anti-gunners say “doctors should warn gun owners that children play with unlocked guns” you say “no.”

          When pro-lifers say: “make abortion clinics be built like hospital wards” you say “yes.” When anti-gunners say “make gun shops videotape sales” you say “no.”

          When a covert video purports to show a seller at a gun show offering to a guy who loudly announces he could never pass an NICS background check, you question it. When a covert video purports to show a Planned Parenthood receptionist giving free advice to a man dressed like Huggy Bear, you nod along.

          And so it goes. Same tactics. Same methods. Different causes. Different oxes being gored. But ox-goring all around.

        3. avatar JJ48 says:

          Again, straw man arguments.

          “Hence: when pro-lifers say ‘waiting period’ you say yes, and when anti-gunners say ‘waiting period,’ you say ‘no’.”
          I must admit to being unfamiliar with the concept of “waiting periods” for abortions. Myself, and the pro-lifers I know, would say, “ban abortions completely”. However, even if pro-lifers did make such claims, I fail to see how supporting a waiting period for one thing automatically means supporting waiting periods for all things.

          “When pro-lifers say: ‘doctors should be made to warn women that abortion causes breast cancer,’ you say ‘yes.’ When anti-gunners say ‘doctors should warn gun owners that children play with unlocked guns’ you say ‘no.’”
          I know nothing of any correlation between abortions and breast cancer. Instead, I think doctors should refrain from performing abortions altogether, as using their art to take human lives would seem to violate the Hippocratic Oath. Additionally, while I wouldn’t suggest mandating warnings, I would point out that a doctor warning patients about potential dangers involved with an elective procedure within his area of expertise is very different from a doctor warning patients about non-medical areas of their life, and about things which they probably already know, anyway.

          “When pro-lifers say: ‘make abortion clinics be built like hospital wards’ you say ‘yes.’ When anti-gunners say ‘make gun shops videotape sales’ you say ‘no.’”
          I’m not sure what this (supposed) pro-lifer line even means. Personally, I would say, “do away with abortion clinics altogether”.

          “When a covert video purports to show a seller at a gun show offering to a guy who loudly announces he could never pass an NICS background check, you question it. When a covert video purports to show a Planned Parenthood receptionist giving free advice to a man dressed like Huggy Bear, you nod along.”
          First of all, I have never seen the PP video, and have heard claims both ways about it, so I reserve judgement until we get more information about it, as I would for any anti-gunner video for which we didn’t have all the facts.
          Secondly, and more importantly, whether a small subset of pro-lifers did or did not use dishonest methods in trying to persuade people that PP was bad is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether abortions should be legal (just as the aforementioned gun show video is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether guns should or should not be controlled).

          “And so it goes.”
          Yes, at 0/4 your arguments are, indeed, gone. You use straw-man arguments to misrepresent your opponents’ views, but even if the claimed views were accurate your arguments are still illogical, and the connections tenuous, at best. Again, any superficial similarities are greatly eclipsed by the differences. Pro-lifers, in general, believe that once conception occurs, the embryo is a human life, and therefore his/her right to life should be protected. Anti-gunners, in general, believe guns are bad and therefore gun owners’ right to keep and bear arms should be infringed upon. See the difference? One can consistently be pro-life and pro-gun, as both views can be pro-right.

        4. avatar Danny says:

          I take your response as sincere, which means you are ignorant of just about every specific controversy going on in the abortion debate today (e.g., TRAP laws). There is no sense discussing the subject with some one like you who is so completely uninformed on current developments. You think I am making “straw man” arguments because you simply have not read or watched news items on the current state of the abortion wars.

        5. avatar JJ48 says:

          And, as shown, your arguments are both irrational (they based on the false premise that all, or even most, pro-lifers’ views are those of a very vocal subset) and illogical (the conclusion doesn’t logically follow, even if those premises were true). Therefore, I agree that there is little sense in continuing the discussion. Good day.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email