Making guns illegal will mean only criminals carry guns, but making abortions illegal will stop them?
Now don't get me wrong, I AM a Liberal, but I am both pro-life and pro-responsible gun ownership. I COMPLETELY, 100% agree with the gun-owner creed
"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns"
You Republicans have that 100% right. Outlawing guns in the US will not prevent criminals from getting them one bit.
So why not apply that logic to abortion, too? Outlawing it will not prevent people from getting abortions on bit. So why shouldn't we work on making abortions rarer, whether they are legal or not?
I guess it all boils down to "why" you are pro-life. If you are pro-life because you actually care for the life of the fetus, then you are more worried about abortion being rare. If you are pro-life to punish the mothers who have abortions, you want it to be illegal.
- Anonymous1 decade agoBest Answer
I am old enough to remember when the so called Christian Right was very outspoken that a girl who had a child out of wedlock was a "fallen girl" and was someone to be looked down upon as the lowest form of life on earth.
The baby was her punishment from god for her bad behavior in their eyes.
The so called Christian Right has no credibility on the issue of abortion for that reason.
Of course now the so called Christian Right says that they are only concerned about the life of the baby.
By making the baby a punishment from god the so called Christian Right created the abortion industry and the political determination to keep abortion legal.
The so called Christian Right is a vicious bunch of thugs.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I am pro choice for the same reason that I'm pro second amendment. I find the consequences of those positions less disgusting and scary than a government that would usurp those rights by force. While I find the prospect of destroying a fetus in the womb reprehensible, I would not want to live in a nation where a woman is forced to have a baby at the point of a gun.
When it comes down to it, everyone has their own opinion on the value of a fetus at various stages of development. Some people believe that as soon as the gamete is formed there is a soul there too that needs protecting. Others believe that once a mother decides she doesn't want a baby that organism becomes a parasite feeding off her body. And, obviously, there is an entire spectrum in between. With such vastly dissenting opinions from anyone you meet, is it right to legislate one way or the other? What makes one opinion more valid than the next?
I applaud your for applying rational thought to the issue. And I believe that you are correct. Making abortion completely illegal will only result in increased hanger sales.
Kevin, why don't you ever choose a best answer? You always let it go into voting which is weak. Do you even read the answers you receive?
- 1 decade ago
I agree with you. And I think that is a big mistake the pro-lifers have made. They do focus more on outlawing abortion, rather than preventing abortion.
Some also feel the pill causes abortions - so they don't support all forms of birth control. They think it is okay for pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills and Plan B - just because THEY feel those are equal to abortions.
They want it all their way. They will not make any advancements in their cause that way.
Safe, legal and RARE is a good approach.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
It's difficult with abortion, science and religion and everyone's moral beliefs all seem to say different things, so it depends on what you follow. Making abortion illegal, in my opinion, not only like you said would not stop it from happening, but also be unfair on the people who have a justified reason for believing it is acceptable. What i'm saying is, trying to make it rarer or illegal will force people with those beliefs to follow the beliefs of people who do not see it acceptable for whatever reason. But if it stays legal, people who believe it as acceptable can have it done if they wish, and people who do not don't have to.
What i'm saying is I do not believe that people should be forced either way, that's just not considering what others believe. It's like forcing Muslims to follow the bible, it doesnt work in fairness.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- BarbaraLv 44 years ago
Obama is your man. One of the reasons he got Biden on his ticket (not to spite Hillary, lol) is that Biden has *very* strong pro-gun credentials. He even said if Obama wanted to take away Biden's two Berretta shotguns, he'd have to do it the hard way. The only other thing Obama disagrees with you on is healthcare. There isn't enough space to explain in detail why his plan is good, but suffice it to say that the current state of healthcare in this country is abysmal. It's bad enough that many people clog emergency rooms with last-minute fixes to health problems that could be solved much more cheaply with earlier intervention, but the worst part is that since HMOs aren't technically insurance companies, they are under NO legal obligation to actually pay your bills when you need the coverage. You pay, sometimes through the nose for a health plan, but when you need surgery or a visit to the ER they have absolute and final discretion to refuse to pay for it. Basically they steal all the money you pay them for benefits. Obama's health plan for America would stop that.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Its great to see than a fellow liberal can follow the logic behind the gun-owner creed.
And thank goodness that you were able to draw this parallel for the Y!A masses and get the attention it deserves.
For as long as society alienates the teenage mother, and for as long as the religious institution relies on abstinence-only education: then the youth of america will suffer. If you eliminate the option of a safe, humane, and legal abortion: dumpsters will fill with the bastard children of the youth who fear social persecution. The Black Market will profit from the nieve and desperate youth who are guilty of nothing more than human err. By teaching kids about safe sex (condoms! not abstinence!), by giving single mothers more options (birth control without church control!), and by allowing the unexpected to have a remedy (plan B), hell- even by reforming the adoption system and welfare system: the number of abortions would decrease, and that market would shrink.
With scientific evidence supporting that conscious life does not begin for some time, and that abortions (early-term) can be safe and humane... why are we still fighting this?
Science proved to us that the garden of eden never existed. Furthermore, modern science did not come about until ages and ages after the biblical texts. Yet there are still those masses, afraid of truth and change, who chose to deny reality in order to maintain control of their society. Same goes for sex education, abortion, stem cell research, patriarchy, homosexuality, you name it.
Pro-lifers are in denial of scientific evidence and realism/logic because it threatens their existing social structure. Therefore, they will ban or deny the truth.
Those who have concern for the well-being of their society can be pro-life, but you are correct: they will have their minds on the real solutions and not real delusion.
- NoraLv 51 decade ago
Very thought provoking comparison.
Oft times when something said by someone else actually sparks the need to respond in me, I find myself feeling passionate in a way that while emotionally powerful really is less than useful for communication purposes, the logic you presented here however has really set my mind to thinking along much more productive lines.
This really is a question of logic and intent - not something that seems to get much press time. Far more effective to spout slogans that can be interpreted how individuals see fir and create a political mob mentality than to actually examine motives and perspectives behind individual rationale.
Truth is while I could easily become absorbed in the passion inducing issues, the juxtaposition of illogic is fascinating.
I have to wonder if you haven't illuminated one of those hidden truth in life that goes unrecognized by so many due to the bright glow of dramatic public presentation for maximum impact.
Just because I too cannot resist the issue at hand:
The question of why is of the utmost importance here.
In analysis the gun ownership issue is attacked primarily on the footing of crime prevention - while there are some who would say differently mainstreamers on both sides of the issue generally site the surrounding outcomes of possession as the areas/issues of interest.
Abortion is a different issue, in this case it's the act itself that people cannot come to agreeable terms with.
Truth to tell, my opinion on each is irrelevant, however I can point out a glaring difference.
Gun issues are fairly easy to view in public.
Pregnancy termination is generally a 'hidden' issue until society forces it public. The immediate circle of impact for each issue is grossly disparate in society at large. Could this be an indicator of how each issue should be addressed?
- SesLv 61 decade ago
Hi. We are all human beings on the plant and I as a Pro-life human being cannot vote to make abortion legal due to the fact that it is against my being and my belief. I would never want to punish another but to be there to share other options if one would choose. PeaceSource(s): My belief/Religion
- BobLv 51 decade ago
Makes total sense. Only outlaws will have guns. But ordinary people aren't very effective at defending themselves with guns (and statistically hurt themselves and others with guns more often than they prevent crime), and outlaws would have fewer guns. You make finding guns hard, and fewer people will find them. So, take a middle road. Outlaw guns that no one could possibly need or be able to use, like assault rifles, and then make hand guns really hard to get with 6 month expensive training courses or something, so that maybe cabbies could have hand guns. Then, maybe only require registration for hunting weapons.
Let's just be sensible about this. The existence of guns is a danger, just like the existence of nuclear weapons or small pox is a danger. We should limit dangers, while taking freedoms into account. No one can make a claim that they have an inalienable right to a gun, any gun. They have a right to self defense, but they have no right to a tank. So, we should strike a balance. People really like hunting and feeling safe in their homes, so let them have rifles and shotguns, fine. But, why do you want everyone to have a hand gun, so that every fight is a fire fight?
- Smart KatLv 71 decade ago
I am in favor or legal early term abortions. BUT there is a serious flaw in your logic.
Would you use that same arguement for murder?
And outlawing abortion WOULD prevent many people from having abortions. But it wouldn't prevent ALL abortions, just like outlawing murder doesn't prevent all murders.
And most conservatives want to prosecute those performing the aboritons, not the women getting them. (except maybe late term abortions for trivial reasons.)