1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is the difference between being pro-gun and pro-choice?

Discussion in 'Political Debates' started by tomspug, Feb 27, 2008.

  1. tomspug

    tomspug Absorbant

    Messages:
    4,247
    What is the difference between being pro-gun and pro-choice?

    Both arguments for these policies cite the Bill of Rights as the basis for their position. Pro-choice cites freedom of choice. Pro-gun cites right to bear arms.

    The counter-argument to these is similar as well. Pro-life argues that legalized abortion ends life and puts women at risk. Pro-gun control argues that legalized arms ends life and puts families at risk.

    One could argue that making guns illegal does not stop criminals from obtaining weapons, it only takes from normal citizens the option of protecting themselves. One could argue that making abortion illegal does not stop women from having them, it only forces them to find more dangerous means of aborting a child.

    I find it strange that one argument is seen as being leftist and the other as being on the right when BOTH arguments are technically libertarian views (civil liberties vs. government control).
     
  2. Zephyr

    Zephyr Moved on

    Messages:
    4,243
    Where in the bill of rights does it give a right to an abortion?
     
  3. tomspug

    tomspug Absorbant

    Messages:
    4,247
    I'm not trying to take a position. I'm merely stating the arguments of opposing sides. Pro-choice supporters believe that they are backed by the Bill of Rights. Roe v. Wade ruled that the right to abortion fell under the "right to privacy" in the Constitution. Currently, it is legal, as is the right to bear arms.

    If you want my personal opinion, I think this kind of thing should be decided by individual states, not the Supreme Court or Congress.
     
  4. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Superstylin' Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    38,328
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    The Tenth Amendment, IMO. Arguably, the Constitution does not provide the power to Congress to limit abortions, therefore the right to have them is retained by either the people or the states. If a state does not delegate itself the power to regulate, limit or prohibit abortions, then the right stays with the people.

    The Ninth Amendment would also apply if you consider abortion to be a right "retained by the people".

    The Fourteenth Amendment is also relevant, IMO, though it's not technically part of the Bill of Rights.
     
  5. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Messages:
    19,902
    Left/right is an measure of economic views, even though people tend to use it to mean liberal/conservative.

    I'm both pro-gun (that is, in favor of your right to bear arms although I don't own a gun myself) and pro-choice.
     
  6. Yeshua_Lives

    Yeshua_Lives Left the Forum

    Messages:
    317
    Pro Choice simply means that one is "For Choice".

    Pro Gun simply means that one is "For Gun" or right to own GUNS.
     
  7. Reverend Rick

    Reverend Rick Frubal Whore Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    20,908
    One gives you the power to end a life if your own life is in danger.

    The other gives women the right to end a life with no justification what so ever.
     
  8. Izdaari

    Izdaari Emergent Anglo-Catholic

    Messages:
    229
    I agree. Both are, at least in principle, libertarian issues.

    Where it gets tricky is the question of at what point does a fetus become a human life and deserve the same legal protections as a baby. That's not so clear, and results in some very principled libertarians (a minority of them, but still...) taking a pro-life position. Their libertarian principles haven't changed, only their understanding of at point a fetus becomes a baby.

    I personally think the Libertarian Party position is constitutionally correct: that there should be no federal involvement in abortion pro or con, and that it should be decided at the state level. If abortion is simply a medical procedure, there's no constitutional authority for the feds to mandate a right to it. Conversely, if it's murder, well, there is no federal law against murder. That has always been tried and punished at the state level.
     
    MysticSang'ha likes this.
  9. tomspug

    tomspug Absorbant

    Messages:
    4,247
    Exactly. And I think it is important to consider the argument of whether or not abortion is the ending of human life. It seems to me that a large amount of women who have abortions end up regretting it afterwards, but these kinds of discussions should be monitored at a STATE level. It should not be an issue we discuss when deciding a president.

    And Reverend, to be fair, some pro-choice supporters argue that making abortion completely illegal ALSO has the potential to put the potential mother's life at risk.
     
  10. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Superstylin' Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    38,328
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    I hope you're not suggesting that this is a good foundation for law. There are a number of legal activities that people tend to end up regretting afterwards. I think that if "things that a large number of people regret after doing them" were made generally illegal, Vegas would become a ghost town pretty quickly.
     
  11. Autodidact

    Autodidact Intentionally Blank

    Messages:
    23,259
    I am pro-abortion rights and think that Roe v Wade is bad law and there is little or no support for abortion rights in the Constitution. I think abortion proponents should make their case with the public and the legislatures, not in the courts via the constitution.

    Both arguments involve both a constitutional argument and a practical one. Neither relies solely on the constitution.
     
  12. tomspug

    tomspug Absorbant

    Messages:
    4,247
    No I wasn't. I think that people have the right to hurt themselves and their own bodies. Personally, though I think that the beginning of a heartbeat should be the beginning of life.
     
  13. DallasApple

    DallasApple Depends Upon My Mood..

    Messages:
    18,418
    Your right...its better to let someone swim in a rip tide legally..Hey if they drown?? It was their choice..Never make it illegal to swim in dangerous waters as it is in Lake Erie..

    Let the multitudes do as they please..Especially the young adults..Life is "free"...

    Blessings

    Dallas
     
  14. Draka

    Draka Cylon Skin Job

    Messages:
    16,346
    Religion:
    Spiritual
    Or:
    One gives you the ability to have a weapon in your house that your teenage child may eventually get ahold of and blow a hole in you and the rest of your family someday.

    The other gives women the ability to have a vital procedure that could indeed save their lives and still be able to retain the ability to have another child.


    Two sides to every coin Rick :tsk:...two sides.
     
  15. Draka

    Draka Cylon Skin Job

    Messages:
    16,346
    Religion:
    Spiritual

    So, at about 2 months gestation then right?
     
  16. Reverend Rick

    Reverend Rick Frubal Whore Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    20,908
    Not unless my child is a safe cracker.
     
  17. Zephyr

    Zephyr Moved on

    Messages:
    4,243
    How's this then:
    One gives you a tool that can be used to kill another person, for good or bad reasons.
    One let's you destroy something that may or may not be living depending on how you look at the situation.

    Personally I'm pro-gun and tricky pro-life (personally opposed, but it's not my business if other people get them).
     
  18. tomspug

    tomspug Absorbant

    Messages:
    4,247
    Sounds about right. Although I've heard that it can be as early as 3 weeks.
     
  19. tomspug

    tomspug Absorbant

    Messages:
    4,247
    But the arguments defending those rights are basically the same.
     
  20. Draka

    Draka Cylon Skin Job

    Messages:
    16,346
    Religion:
    Spiritual

    Well, I'll just tell you from my experience with 5 pregnancies now. Even in an ultrasound vitals can often not be found until at least 6 to 7 weeks along. Even at that point though, there is technically no heart formation yet. While they can see blood movement through one valve, it isn't really considered a heartbeat yet. Not until formation of the heart itself. Which takes a few more weeks to form.

    Regardless of biology though, it seems everyone's idea of when life starts is different. From conception to actual birth...everyone's opinions differ.
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted