abortion, rape, and guns.

I fail to see the pragmatism in allowing rape and incest be excluded. All you will end up with are a bunch of rape allegations just so women can get their beloved abortions. They'll do it, too, and won't care one whit about innocent men going to prison.

 

yeah but you had to beg for it, as you are in a “may issue” jurisdiction. your local overlords could have turned you down for any reason.

 

if you are trying to force your penis into me? yes, i am taking your life.

 

Except that I commented on being able to CARRY a gun. A ten yr old in your state can carry concealed? Keep moving those goal posts.

 

Wrong again. The town I live in ONLY gives out LTCs.

 

not sure i saw your post in support of my 2nd amendment rights.

 

MA is a may issue state. are you saying your town automatically grants all qualified applicants? you did not have to write a letter justifying your request for a CHL?

 

i am not willing to force a sexual assault victim to retain the result of such brutality. i would hope she would find the strength to carry to term, but i will not force her to.

 

Age and training. Nothing about 5 yr olds.
I was merely asking your thoughts on age and training. Not 5 yr olds. That was your assumption.
I am not moving nothing, I made a simple statement to show I don't care about age.
But age and training.

 

Im a choice advocate. I dont think abortion should be restricted.

To be clear, i hate abortion. but thats my own moral position. i see no reason to make it illegal (though I will oppose all attempts to coerce me to participate in it by funding it- dont make it my business or I will support restricting it).

I also fully support people defending themselves with firearms, and I agree- opposing one and supporting the other is intellectually inconsistant.

From a moral perspective, killing a home invader who might kill you and killing a baby that you can't safely birth are similar enough. Inversely, so are shooting a burgler running away with your savings and killing a baby that is inconvenient.

I fully support initiatives to better promote adoption as an alternative for mothers who don't want a child. No child should be raised by someone who doesnt love them. But neither are they better off dead...

 

If one believes in freedom, and is not controlled by the dictates of a religion over their own common sense, pro-choice is the only rational thing. It's also rational to say that that choice must be made sooner in the pregnancy than later. And it makes sense to say that anyone- man or woman- has the right to defend themselves from anyone who intends to do them serious harm, including the right to a weapon enabling them to do so. This is not to say that carrying a weapon does not entail great responsibility- it does. And I do carry.

There are no good choices when it comes to abortion. Most women who have them give long and deep thought to the question, and the answer either way can be painful- and the pain is theirs, not some person who has no part in it except an opinion to dictate. But when some person who doesn't even know them and will bear none of the responsibilities or consequences of that decision wants to dictate it- they are over the line. It is the same way when the question is to pull the plug on a brain dead person, and some jerk on the other side of the nation files a motion to prevent it.... then walks away telling themselves how noble they are.
That's not noble; it's arrogance and ignorance.

 

fair points, but please consider fetal heartbeat at 3-4 weeks, detectable brain activity, grasping, yawning, thumb sucking at 10 weeks. at some point, you have a small human there, so the decision to kill it, sorry “abort,” is not only effecting the mother.

 

What's most striking to me is that many of those on the Left would rather an unborn baby be killed in the womb than allow a woman to shoot her would-be rapist.

 

3 - 4 weeks is silly - not even time to miss a period and start even thinking about being pregnant for many women at that point. And getting an abortion before you know you are pregnant is not a thing.

 

i’m sorry, i’m not in charge of biology. i’m just reporting the scientific facts.

 

But that's murder.

Not very pro-life.

 

It will prevent a fetus who will have to die.

Better to take a guilty life than take an innocent life.

 

Why would the fetus have to die?

I'm just wondering why it's okay to take a life if it's not okay to take any "life".

Is the death penalty okay? War?

What about a person on life support with no hope?

 

Pro-choicers tell us that the mother needs to abort, because it was rape.

 

I think the idea is it's a choice.

(I suppose what could be done in those cases is the mother has to have the baby, and then pro-lifers have to adopt it. How about that as a solution.)

Regardless, that doesn't answer my question in regard to pro-lifers.

Just seems like if you are pro-life, that's means you are pro-life. Not pro-life except in all these cases that suit me (which sounds a lot like various choices that people have to make in a complicated world).

 

don’t be ridiculous.

 

I don't even know what your 2nd amendment is.

 

That is exactly what I’m saying.

 

Unless a fetuses father was an alien, then that fetus is human. Original meaning of word: "of or belonging to man". It you go back to proto-Indo-European language where the world originated from it means "Earthling" which is curious.
The word "being" as in human being means to "exist". So a human being is someone who is of man and who exists. To say that a fetus is not a human being is a false statement. A fetus is an unborn human being according to the original meanings. I don't believe we need to "legally" define a fetus. Our ancient ancestors already did that. Contorting the meaning or pretending that we don't know for sure if a fetus is a "human being" is a devious way to further your your agenda.

 

Just because the terms are "accepted" by some, doesn't mean that the terms are correct. "Person" as used by our ancient ancestors means "human being". My last post explained what a human being is according to how the word was first used in its ancient form. I think since the meanings cannot be agreed upon, it is logical to use them as they were originally intended.