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

[tomspug]

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.

Very true. Thus, my position that states should decide.

 

[Yerda]

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

Just felt like it?

 

[McBell]

I never did understand what is meant by "when life starts" when talking about a fetus.

 

[doppelganger]

I never did understand what is meant by "when life starts" when talking about a fetus.

It's rhetorical. It's supposed to stimulate a reaction in the lizard part of your brain. And for some, it does.

 

[McBell]

It's rhetorical. It's supposed to stimulate a reaction in the lizard part of your brain. And for some, it does.

How is it rhetorical when it seems the answer to said question is vital to the abortion debate?

Some even take it further to ask for a definition of the word 'life.'
To which the answer is almost always "human life."
which is rather asinine when you think about it because it is not like anyone in the debate is thinking of dogs or cats or frogs when debating abortion.

 

[DallasApple]

I'll tell you something that really twist my nerves..When a man and a woman concieve a child and they go full term have the baby and raise it its "we are pregnant" and "we are having a baby". and this is "our child".but if its mutually agreed upon and even in some cases at the insistance or pressure by the father to abort its "she had an abortion"with no justification whatsoever and no mention of the fathers involvment .Includign the fact he was there to get her pregnant..Obviously he didnt do a very good job either at preventing an unwanted preganancy..Go sit in an abortion clinic from 8 in the morning till closing time..most of the women in their have a "man" with them that I will guarantee you they are usually the father of the child HE helped concieve.You arent allowed by law to drive yourself home after you have one.Why is the woman made to be 100% the demon ???...I know a lot of women that have had abortions..The daddy's werent trying to stop her..In fact most of the women are heavily influenced on the decision based on what kind of support or reaction and or input they get from the father..

Anyway you can flippantly say there is absolutely no justification..Sure in a sense she is the one to have to lay there and do it and she can refuse..But to make it sound like a woman just wakes up one day and thinks..Hmmm..what shall I do today..Oh I KNOW! I'll go have an abortion that sounds like a great way to spend my day...Hey honey!!!Get dressed and come with me to abort MY fetus!Bring a picnic basket the weather is awesome..

Blessings

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

To add to that..I have an analogy..

If you go to rob a bank with someone..You wait in the car..your partner in the process of the hold up kills someone..They jump in the car and you speed away..By mans law in most states from what I understand you are no less "guilty" or no more "innocent" of the loss of life/murder even though you never pulled the trigger.And some would say that you are as guilty morally as well..

Blessings

Dallas

 

[doppelganger]

How is it rhetorical when it seems the answer to said question is vital to the abortion debate?

Because asking the question follows already "feeling" the answer to it. It's not really a question. That's why it's rhetorical.

 

[tomspug]

Because, you know, feelings are delusional and misleading. It's a good thing we have our intellect or we'd be chest-thumping neanderthals. Right, dopp?

 

[yossarian22]

Because, you know, feelings are delusional and misleading. It's a good thing we have our intellect or we'd be chest-thumping neanderthals. Right, dopp?

Emotions have the nasty tendency of impeding good judgment.
Rhetoric is the art of getting a person to ignore their intellect and react based on emotion.
Not saying emotions are totally useless, just that it is never wise to base a national policy off of them.

 

[doppelganger]

Because, you know, feelings are delusional and misleading.

Ummm . . . no.

Feelings are feelings. Some people feel a visceral reaction to the concept of abortion and some do not. The rationale one way or the other follows these feelings. There is no "logical solution" to differences that stem from aesthetic feelings.

So people feel very differently from one another about things, and so the reasons that are conjured up to fit those feelings will seem true or not true depending on the feelings.

Because you feel very threatened by me for some reason, you assume that what I wrote means that I seek to negate your feelings. I can assure you that I do not and cannot negate your feelings. You feel what you feel, and that's your prerogative. So relax, dude. :rainbow1:

 

[lilithu]

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

One involves firearms and the other involves foetuses. I've never met anyone who confused the two.

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.

Technically speaking, freedom of choice is not guaranteed in the Bill of Rights (altho I do think it's within the spirit of the Constitution). Roe v. Wade is based on right to privacy.

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.

Actually, the research shows that carrying the pregnancy to term puts women at greater risk than abortion does. Of course, women who want the pregnancies are quite willing to take that risk.

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).

I dunno. I'm very much a leftist and I have no problem with a moderate form of gun control while still preserving our right to bear arms, as well as a moderate form of abortion control while still preserving a woman's right to choose. The idea that either one of these issues should be all or nothing - absolutely illegal or anything goes - is preposterous.

I'll tell you something that really twist my nerves....Why is the woman made to be 100% the demon ???...I know a lot of women that have had abortions..The daddy's werent trying to stop her..In fact most of the women are heavily influenced on the decision based on what kind of support or reaction and or input they get from the father.

Thank you. :namaste

 

[DallasApple]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DallasApple
I'll tell you something that really twist my nerves....Why is the woman made to be 100% the demon ???...I know a lot of women that have had abortions..The daddy's werent trying to stop her..In fact most of the women are heavily influenced on the decision based on what kind of support or reaction and or input they get from the father.

Thank you. :namaste

Your quite welcome, my pleasure,and anytime..

Blessings

Dallas

 

[Autodidact]

Because, you know, feelings are delusional and misleading. It's a good thing we have our intellect or we'd be chest-thumping neanderthals. Right, dopp?

Well, it's not that feelings are delusional, they're just feelings. They're not conclusions, arguments, reason or result. They're data. I mean, I don't think people are deluded about what they feel, but it would be perilous to leap from feeling a certain way to believing that represents a truth outside of that feeling. Better to rely on evidence and logic for that.

 

[Smoke]

I'll tell you something that really twist my nerves..When a man and a woman concieve a child and they go full term have the baby and raise it its "we are pregnant" and "we are having a baby". and this is "our child".but if its mutually agreed upon and even in some cases at the insistance or pressure by the father to abort its "she had an abortion"with no justification whatsoever and no mention of the fathers involvment .

I know this isn't really your point, but it always grates on my nerves when people say "we're pregnant" anyway. It's really good that you share your lives so deeply and everything, but she's pregnant. Unless Daddy actually has a fetus inside him, he's not.

 

[DallasApple]

I know this isn't really your point, but it always grates on my nerves when people say "we're pregnant" anyway. It's really good that you share your lives so deeply and everything, but she's pregnant. Unless Daddy actually has a fetus inside him, he's not.

I think it sounds silly too.."we are having a baby" is how I grew up..that term "we are pregnant" wasnt around when I was carrying.But to each his own..

Blessings

Dallas

 

[Panda]

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).

Simple, I do not see a fetus as being a sentient being. I don't think hunting is wrong so I don't believe abortion is wrong.

 

[Draka]

Simple, I do not see a fetus as being a sentient being. I don't think hunting is wrong so I don't believe abortion is wrong.

I didn't realize that hunting and abortion went hand in hand. I've never seen them put together that way.

See, I am against hunting "for sport". The idea of going out and killing an innocent animal just living its life in the wild for "fun" just sickens me. Now, if you are honestly starving without that food, then it is excusable. However, the excuse that you hunt for "sport" but you still eat what you kill doesn't fly with me. You didn't need it, you are trying to justify your killing spree is all.

I am personally pro-life in my own life. I have never been in, and cannot fathom a situation that may arise in my life where I would consider having an abortion. I have lost children and couldn't personally make that call. HOWEVER, just because my life has been dealt certain circumstances doesn't mean that everyone has those same circumstances. I can realize that abortion may well be the best, or only, option available for some. I had a friend who once had an abortion while dealing with serious problems surrounding the pregnancy and her family. I have no idea what I may have done in her situation, and I may well have done exactly what she did if I led her life. That being said, I am quite adamently pro-choice when it comes to other people's lives. What I may be able to decide in my life just may not be possible for others. If more people could see that and hold that frame of mind, then there would be a lot less arguing and picketing and condescending remarks all around.

 

[tomspug]

Ummm . . . no.

Feelings are feelings. Some people feel a visceral reaction to the concept of abortion and some do not. The rationale one way or the other follows these feelings. There is no "logical solution" to differences that stem from aesthetic feelings.

So people feel very differently from one another about things, and so the reasons that are conjured up to fit those feelings will seem true or not true depending on the feelings.

Because you feel very threatened by me for some reason, you assume that what I wrote means that I seek to negate your feelings. I can assure you that I do not and cannot negate your feelings. You feel what you feel, and that's your prerogative. So relax, dude. :rainbow1:

The point I was making was that this is a moral issue. All laws are based on moral issues. While logic is helpful in interpreting the law, it is our moral convictions that create them. So looking at life from a completely logical perspective while belittling the moral issue is simply contrary to the very basis of our system of law.

If you want to argue about the value of life, then maybe we should start questioning whether ANY law is worth having.

(Also, I have nothing against you personally, so you don't need to worry about that. We just tend to clash on a lot of issues. I apologize for not elaborating earlier on this point. I realize that simple statements like that can be taken the wrong way. Sorry! )

 

[Panda]

I didn't realize that hunting and abortion went hand in hand. I've never seen them put together that way.

I meant it in the way that I don't see it as wrong in the sense that I consider neither to be killing a human. I don't think I am being very clear :S