The main argument from those who favor abortion is that "a woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body." But ironically, the same people who favor abortion are usually in favor of more restrictions, or even a ban, on gun ownership. Why should people have the right to an abortion, but not the right to own guns? An abortion involves ending the life of an undeveloped human. A gun helps to give the owner the ability to kill someone else if the owner deems it necessary. So both abortion and gun ownership are about personal rights and the ability to kill. It would seem to me that the real reason women want abortions actually has little to do with personal rights. Anyone that sites "personal liberties" as a reason for abortion or gun control is a hypocrite is they support one but not the other. Women say they have "the right" to abortion because its "their body". This seems eerily similar to the argument slave owners used to justify their ownership of slaves, which was that they had "the right" to force other people to work for them because the slave was "their property". Just as with slavery, the supposed "right" to an abortion conveniently ignores the fact that there is another person involved. Another irony I was thinking about: women who favor abortion are more likely to be (or have been at one time) vegetarians than women who are against abortion. Why are the people who are against animal cruelty more likely to be in favor or killing an uborn fetus? So I have an idea. Why not promote the aborted fetus as a source of animal protein for human consumption? It could be a delicassy served in fine restaurants, or the centerpiece for a holiday feast! It might be somewhat awkward at first, but once people begin to warm up to the idea that it is just another form of meat, the concept should spread fast. Think about it. For every aborted fetus that replaces chicken or hamburger meat, one less animal has to die. The fetus is going to be killed on way or the other. Turning it into a food source is not going to change that. Of course, this new source of meat would need a scrumptious-sounding name; perhaps "fetusork","humicken", or "babeef" ?
You seem to know about as much about women who have abortions as you do about food preparation. This is a 12 week abortion, how many abortions will it take to make a meal for four? http://www.eileen.250x.com/Main/FET_DEV.PIC/12weeks.htm
I guess it's a good thing I'm pro-choice and A-okay with gun ownership and not a vegetarian. But then again I do tend to lean towards libertarian views anyways. Grannie's right. You really don't know much about women who have had or who support the right to abortion...
Very much agree with this. It is all too easy for the anti-abortion people to want to save lives by punishing mothers, but most of these same people are unwilling to fund any financial assistance for these babies once they grow older. And they care even less about the homeless dying in the streets. The truth is that political views really have little to do with any consistent ideology. It is all about the laws that are working within the particular social groups/regions in which we are raised. We all need to take a look around and see that there are other types of people leading a different way of life, and that what is practical for us is not necessarily going to work for others. If the different races were given the authority to make their own laws governing social policy that would only govern themselves, it is very likely that they would come to a very different consensus from what we think of as "wrong" or "right". Most black people are in favor of abortion, and in favor of restricting guns. I would go so far to say that they would likely be in favor of banning gun ownership only amongst their own race, if they were given such an option, and were unable to obtain the majority to force a gun ban on everyone else. Asians are pro-rights, while hispanics are pro-life. If given the option, I am sure they would be happy to consent to their social values being selectively impossed only on their own members. But of course, this would not be "politically correct". In a multicultural society, were the law must apply uniformly to all, these type of dilemas are common. Imagine if you were an immigrant in India and they made laws making hamburgers and steak illegal. Obviously it is an "evil" practice that should be punished. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2945020.stm (not everything is morally relative of course, such as murder or genital mutilation, but apparently americans can not even agree that mutilation of boys/ circumcision is wrong)
You must be joking. You want to herd individuals into groups based on their race and let those groups implement their own laws to govern their own people? You say "Most black people are in favor of abortion, and in favor of restricting guns." but provide no support for such an assertion and then proceed to suggest that blacks should segregate themselves and be enslaved to leaders of their own race so that their right to keep and bear arms can be violated. You rationalize this by making majority opinion the determining factor justifying the law apart from the proper moral foundation of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. So any INDIVIDUAL black person who dissents from the majority opinion of his group (which you have yet to establish in the first place) on owning a gun for protection has to surrender his autonomy and his rights to the group in the same fashion as the Germans under Hitler, the Russians under Stalin and the Japanese under Tojo.
Gun ownership has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. It might have more to do with the Democratic Parties stupidity regarding gun control. I am pro-lifer turned pro-choice by... well, life. This is me with an AR-15 I built. So it is possible to be a flag waving pro-choice socialist and still be in favor of firearms rights.
I could not have articulated it better myself. What is so wrong with forcing different races to submit the will of their own majorities that are more similar to eachother, rather than the combined will of all the other races, many of whom have very different world outlooks? Since you stress INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS so much, you must no doubt support abortion, gun ownership laws, the rights of people to freely move across borders, the right to use mildly addictive drugs, and so on. If you do not support any of these, by your own words, you want to enslave people of other races. "So any individual... person who dissents from the majority opinion of <the> group... has to surrender his autonomy and his rights to the group?" This is essentially what you said more or less. If this is not what you are saying, who are you to impose your own version of morality on other people, particularly people from a different race/culture ? There are plenty of socialist-leaning people who strongly support gun rights, this member among them. Peoples political ideas often do not fit neatly into two simple categories. And I am very open to the arguments both for, and against, abortion.
Well, I have to say I fit some of the criteria listed in the OP and here are my reasons. I oppose slavery - I believe women should be free to make their own choices with regard to their bodies. I support gun control - I am concerned that my family and I should have as much protection as possible from being shot. I'm not sure what that has to do with supporting a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue with a pregnancy. Having that right doesn't mean women can kill other people. I'm not a vegetarian.
I built one as well. Not as hard as you would think. I didn't build one with the "handle" top either. I like the mounting rail top better. Good looking gun, hope your heroes Obama, Pelosi, and Reid don't take it away from you.
What makes you think that? Besides we may all very well starve to death if we continue down this path. The rich are not required by law to keep their citizenship here so they can be robbed.
In the first minute or so you will get your answer. Palin? Launch codes? Hmmmm.... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R370YkYhV0w"]Christians Fundamentalists Creationists Bush -Bill Hicks - YouTube[/ame]
Interestingly enough, Palin isn't even in the presidential race, hmmmmmm......????? On the other hand, we have Joe Biden standing by to jump in there just as soon as Obama's cigarettes catch up to him and he keels over. YIKES!
Ron Paul has nearly as many supporters as Bachmann, but the media is intentionally ignoring him. In a Fox News online poll asking "Who won the Iowa GOP Presidential Debate?", Ron Paul got 60% of the votes, with the closest runner up, Gingrich, only getting 20% of the votes. Ron Paul has support from the overwhelming majority of voters who use the internet. The GOP leaders want to prevent any possibility of Ron Paul becoming too popular, despite the fact that he is a serious contender for the nomination.
