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

[doppelganger]

The point I was making was that this is a moral issue.

Sure it is. But before it is a moral issue it is an aesthetic-feeling issue. This is why the moral "logic" of each side holds little or no sway with the other side. Each approaches the question through a different emotional state and very different sense of what they intuitively value.

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.

I'm not belittling moral reasoning. Just pointing out that it follows emotions and aesthetics, is much, much more malleable than it appears, and gets in the way of understanding and productive dialogue and constructive problem solving sometimes.

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

That would be an interesting discussion.

 

[Draka]

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

If that is how you view life, then there's nothing much I can say to that. I just have a different perspective on using hunting and abortion in the same breath. I find a big difference between the two when it comes to intent. Whereas a hunter will get up on a Saturday morning and, with intent to have fun and enjoy a "challenge", they get their gear together and go shoot something. A woman, and possibly her partner, don't get up one Saturday morning and think "Hmmm, what can we do for some good fun today? I know! l let's go abort the baby! That sounds fun." No one takes getting an abortion lightly. It's just not something someone wakes up and decides to do because being pregnant at the time is an "inconvenience" or it is something they enjoy doing.

Just my thoughts.

 

[tomspug]

That would be an interesting discussion.

No doubt.

I think what it boils down to is this: our government was formed, just like European governments, on the moral government of the Christian faith. While I'm not intimidated or threatened by efforts to question the necessity of continuing to adhere to Christian principles in law, has it not worked so well at maintaining our country thus far?

And if we were to reconstruct the law to escape its current religious underpinnings, at what cost would this kind of radical change be made? It could seriously impact the stability of our country if we were to elect say, Ron Paul as president, a man who has great ideas but no practical method of implementing them. In the same way he would desire to deconstruct our government bureaucracy, deconstructing our current moral system could create chaos.

 

[Autodidact]

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! )

Well, but isn't logic useful in determining your morals? I mean, your morality isn't just about what feels good, is it?

 

[Autodidact]

No doubt.

I think what it boils down to is this: our government was formed, just like European governments, on the moral government of the Christian faith.

This is simply false.

While I'm not intimidated or threatened by efforts to question the necessity of continuing to adhere to Christian principles in law, has it not worked so well at maintaining our country thus far?

This is based on a false assumption. Please name a single principle upon which our country was founded that is based on Christian, as opposed to Enlightenment, Jewish, Ecumenical or secular morals.

For example, it is not against the law to:
Worship Gods other than Yahweh.
Fail to worship Yahweh.
Make idols.
Use God's name in appropriately,
Work on the sabbath.
Fail to honor your parents
Covet.
Fail to love your neighbor.
Eat forbidden foods.
Or generally to violate "God's laws" unless such violation also violates more generally held principles, such as most societies have. It is ridiculous to appropriate a prohibition against murder as a Christian value; it is a universal value.

And if we were to reconstruct the law to escape its current religious underpinnings, at what cost would this kind of radical change be made?

Well since it doesn't have any, it wouldn't be a problem. You may be confusing the U.S. with Europe. To the extent that the religious right has managed to entangle the government with religion, untangling it would be a huge benefits.

 

[DallasApple]

Many times your morals are in direct conflict with what "feels good".Thats a battle.And yes most times for me any way my morals involve using logic....

Take drinking for instance..you KNOW logically you shouldnt drink too much..your morals may back that up with such things as not abusing your own body..or becoming unihibited and sayign or doing something that your morals tell you otherwise to do and "logically" you know there are consequenses for your health and so on.

But it "feels good" to drink for some.

Blessings

Dallas

 

[doppelganger]

"The government that governs least governs best"

By that standard, the best government would be no government (and hence no laws) at all. Isn't this the "conservative" ideal? If not, then why are some laws okay while others are not?

 

[DallasApple]

If that is how you view life, then there's nothing much I can say to that. I just have a different perspective on using hunting and abortion in the same breath. I find a big difference between the two when it comes to intent. Whereas a hunter will get up on a Saturday morning and, with intent to have fun and enjoy a "challenge", they get their gear together and go shoot something. A woman, and possibly her partner, don't get up one Saturday morning and think "Hmmm, what can we do for some good fun today? I know! l let's go abort the baby! That sounds fun." No one takes getting an abortion lightly. It's just not something someone wakes up and decides to do because being pregnant at the time is an "inconvenience" or it is something they enjoy doing.

Just my thoughts.

This is so true Draka..I havent met one woman that gets pregnant intetionally to go have an abortion for fun and sport..

A hunting will we go..a hunting we will go..hi ho the mario a hunting we will go...Is NOT running through her mind....

Unless he is talking about hunting and havign to kill an animal for survival. and thats his comparison.But still..I guess Im hard pressed to compare an unborn child to a deer moose or rabbit.

I will say she may be driven by some self preservation and survival thoughts.So is the man..

Blessings

Dallas

 

[Izdaari]

No doubt.

I think what it boils down to is this: our government was formed, just like European governments, on the moral government of the Christian faith. While I'm not intimidated or threatened by efforts to question the necessity of continuing to adhere to Christian principles in law, has it not worked so well at maintaining our country thus far?

And if we were to reconstruct the law to escape its current religious underpinnings, at what cost would this kind of radical change be made? It could seriously impact the stability of our country if we were to elect say, Ron Paul as president, a man who has great ideas but no practical method of implementing them. In the same way he would desire to deconstruct our government bureaucracy, deconstructing our current moral system could create chaos.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about Ron Paul: he's a Christian guy with conservative instincts even though he's a libertarian. He's both pro-life and pro-gun, and he's a very strict constitutionalist. I don't see him as being one to proceed precipitously to deconstruct our (IMO) grotesquely excessive bureaucracy, but rather one who would do so as fast as could be done without creating chaos. Subject of course to the limits of presidential power; a lot of cooperation from Congress would be necessary. But there is a reason I don't want Ron Paul to be President, as much as I like him otherwise: his (IMO) insanely non-interventionist foreign policy.

So far as deconstructing our moral system, I don't really see how government could do that at all, except very slowly by indoctrinating children in school to secular progressive values... oh wait, they are doing that, aren't they?

 

[Autodidact]

So far as deconstructing our moral system, I don't really see how government could do that at all, except very slowly by indoctrinating children in school to secular progressive values... oh wait, they are doing that, aren't they?

Because secularism and progressivism are immoral? That's going to take some argumentation to establish.
Are you clear on the difference between secular and atheist? They are not at all the same thing.

 

[Izdaari]

Because secularism and progressivism are immoral? That's going to take some argumentation to establish.

I know, and that would be off-topic for this thread. And I would probably not argue that they're immoral per se, merely that they differ from traditional American morality, so that establishing them as the norm represents a change. The merits of the change could be argued either way of course.

Are you clear on the difference between secular and atheist? They are not at all the same thing.

Right, I'm well aware that SP's aren't necessarily atheists. I'm using "secular progressive" in much the same way as Bill O'Reilly used it in Culture Warrior. SP's may be of any religion or none, but they are ideological liberals in the modern sense, in their assumptions at least, if not consciously in their politics, and want no religious involvement in public life. Theocrats would be on one extreme, SP's on the other. I'm somewhere in the middle: I want no officially established religion, but I think (for example) that it's perfectly fine to have a large cross on public property, as in that famous case in California.

 

[Autodidact]

I know, and that would be off-topic for this thread. And I would probably not argue that they're immoral per se, merely that they differ from traditional American morality, so that establishing them as the norm represents a change. The merits of the change could be argued either way of course.

Right, I'm well aware that SP's aren't necessarily atheists. I'm using "secular progressive" in much the same way as Bill O'Reilly used it in Culture Warrior. SP's may be of any religion or none, but they are ideological liberals in the modern sense, in their assumptions at least, if not consciously in their politics, and want no religious involvement in public life. Theocrats would be on one extreme, SP's on the other. I'm somewhere in the middle: I want no officially established religion, but I think (for example) that it's perfectly fine to have a large cross on public property, as in that famous case in California.

Actually, the opposite extreme would be mandated atheism, as under Communism. A secular political system is neutral as to individual morality.

 

[Fluffy]

Left position: Abortions don't kill the innocent, guns might
Right position: Abortions do kill the innocent, guns won't

I don't see any contradiction between holding any combination of these positions.

However, it is clear that neither "Abortions don't kill the innocent" nor "guns won't kill the innocent" do not equal "freedom of choice". That is an entirely other and separate justification for these positions which may or may not be used as justifications by those on the left and the right instead of or in addition to more "traditional" right and left arguments.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Emotions have the nasty tendency of impeding good judgment.

Exactly right! Tell me you know a thing about unemotional pregnant women. Otherwise you just made my point that having an abortion is not using good judgement unless you want to cite exceptions like medical reasons that would endanger the mother. I have yet to meet an unemotional pregnant women in my life.

Rhetoric is the art of getting a person to ignore their intellect and react based on emotion.

You make abortion sound like taking out the trash!

Not saying emotions are totally useless, just that it is never wise to base a national policy off of them.

Lets apply that logic and lack of compassion for other Liberal issues.

 

[Reverend Rick]

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.

I guess some killers are cold and calculating and lack any compassion or emotion. Tell me Dopp, your a lawyer, do not criminal attorneys say people who do not recognise right from wrong are insane?

 

[Reverend Rick]

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.

The second amendment has absolutly nothing to do with hunting or gun laws.

 

[Draka]

The second amendment has absolutly nothing to do with hunting or gun laws.

Did I say anything about the second amendment? No. I don't care if you hunt with a rifle, a bb gun, a slingshot, a bow and arrow or by flinging a rock really hard, killing for "sport" is still killing for fun. My post had to do with hunting and abortion being compared. Plain and simple.

 

[lilithu]

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.

Draka, unless you are vegetarian (and I forget if you are; if so, never mind), what difference does it make if someone hunts (even if they're not starving) because they like to hunt and then eats the food versus having one's meat raised on a factory farm and then herded through a slaughtering mechanism that is often inefficient and brutal? A skilled hunter will kill his or her prey with far less suffering what our current factory farms cause.

You realize that cats often hunt for fun, right?

 

[tomspug]

This is simply false. This is based on a false assumption. Please name a single principle upon which our country was founded that is based on Christian, as opposed to Enlightenment, Jewish, Ecumenical or secular morals.

For example, it is not against the law to:
Worship Gods other than Yahweh.
Fail to worship Yahweh.
Make idols.
Use God's name in appropriately,
Work on the sabbath.
Fail to honor your parents
Covet.
Fail to love your neighbor.
Eat forbidden foods.
Or generally to violate "God's laws" unless such violation also violates more generally held principles, such as most societies have. It is ridiculous to appropriate a prohibition against murder as a Christian value; it is a universal value.
Well since it doesn't have any, it wouldn't be a problem. You may be confusing the U.S. with Europe. To the extent that the religious right has managed to entangle the government with religion, untangling it would be a huge benefits.

It just so happens that what you call "universal" values also happen to be Christian values. Interesting coincidence. Also, I'm pretty sure there has never been a government that punishes people for not honoring your parents or coveting. "God's laws" impact the soul. Laws are meant to create order and are only applied to sins that injure others. This doesn't make them any less "Christian". The laws still maintain themselves within the Christian dichotomy.

Every value we consider "moral" in our culture is in the Bible. It's pretty hard to argue with that fact. I think it's simply an intelligent observation that our laws WERE and continue to BE within Christian values. If you refuse this, then I can only imagine that it is out of pure will rather than reason.

 

[yossarian22]

I could go back further than the bible tomspug. These values are fairly static throughout society. While the West has doubtlessly been heavily influenced by Christianity and the Bible, to say that the US is based solely off of Christian values is a bit disingenuous.

And pop into chat why don't ya?