• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Pro Gun Control While Pro Abortion!!??

rhinefire

rhinefire

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
10,406
Reaction score
3,023
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
So people are killed by guns and so the left says remove all guns while they kill the unborn by abortion. Can anyone offer a rational here?
 
rhinefire said:
So people are killed by guns and so the left says remove all guns while they kill the unborn by abortion. Can anyone offer a rational here?
Click to expand...

I don't support removing all guns, but I do realize the difference in gun control and abortion.

Controlling guns is an attempt to stop people from killing other people - people who have lived outside the womb and formed realationships, had experiences, created memories, etc. People who support children, families, etc; People who have jobs which are important to society, etc.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy - an unborn fetus - which in most cases is not even fully formed. It has never even breathed air, let alone formed relationships, had experiences, created memories, etc. It is not even aware of it's own existence in most cases. The term 'unborn' is critical here. There is a vast difference between these two issues.
 
rhinefire said:
So people are killed by guns and so the left says remove all guns while they kill the unborn by abortion. Can anyone offer a rational here?
Click to expand...

Occam's Razor taken to idiocy level.

I'm neither left nor right over all but on some issues I am "left" while other issues I am "right". But I am all about Rights. Which is why I am pro-choice and anti-gun control.

Point of this is that just because someone leans more to one side than the other does not mean that they are completely on the side they lean more towards. That is why they call it "political lean".

In the case of gun control the "left" is actually the "right" while the "right" is actually the "left". This is of course based on the belief system of the "left" (liberal) being more about Rights and the "right" (conservative) being more about control. And yes, this belief system can be reversed and still be valid. Just depends on your POV.
 
rhinefire said:
So people are killed by guns and so the left says remove all guns while they kill the unborn by abortion. Can anyone offer a rational here?
Click to expand...
And yet, the opposite might also be asked. The right whine and scream about killing non-viable humans but think the more guns the better knowing full well that a certain percentage of very viable and active humans will be killed from guns. The more guns, the more deaths - if nothing else, from accidents. Irrational? Most would think so.
 
Last edited:
rhinefire said:
So people are killed by guns and so the left says remove all guns while they kill the unborn by abortion. Can anyone offer a rational here?
Click to expand...
Can you offer a rational why the right wants to protect the unborn and not living breathing children?
 
Moot said:
Can you offer a rational why the right wants to protect the unborn and not living breathing children?
Click to expand...

Please substantiate your claim, Moot.

Both children are living, but name someone on "the right" who wants the homicide of unborn children punished by law but also wants the homicide of born children to be legal.

Good luck with that.
 
Exactly the same rationale as being antiabortion and progun?
rhinefire said:
So people are killed by guns and so the left says remove all guns while they kill the unborn by abortion. Can anyone offer a rational here?
Click to expand...
 
JayDubya said:
Please substantiate your claim, Moot.

Both children are living, but name someone on "the right" who wants the homicide of unborn children punished by law but also wants the homicide of born children to be legal.

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Of course it's legal. Anything that kills a person is a homicide. It may not be murder, but it's a homicide. When children die from accidents - including gun accidents - it's homicide. Are you suggesting children don't die from accidents with guns? Would you like a very recent example?
 
Oh good. Semantics.

Very well. Let's be more clear, then.


Please substantiate your claim, Moot.

Both children are living, but name someone on "the right" who wants the aggressive homicide of unborn children punished by law but also wants to legalize the premeditated murder of born children.

Good luck with that.
 
JayDubya said:
Please substantiate your claim, Moot.

Both children are living, but name someone on "the right" who wants the homicide of unborn children punished by law but also wants the homicide of born children to be legal.

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Don't humans have to breath in your world, Jaydubya? Good luck living on this planet if you aren't.

Perhaps you have "potential life" confused with real life.
 
Moot said:
Don't humans have to breath in your world, Jaydubya?
Click to expand...

No, living human beings don't have to breathe at all points in their lifespan.

Also, you didn't answer the question. As a paleocon libertarian, I'm on "the right." I don't know anyone on "the right" who wants to legalize the murder of born children. Do you?
 
JayDubya said:
No, living human beings don't have to breathe at all points in their lifespan.

Also, you didn't answer the question. As a paleocon libertarian, I'm on "the right." I don't know anyone on "the right" who wants to legalize the murder of born children. Do you?
Click to expand...
It's impossible to legalize murder. By definition it's not murder if it's legal.


And it's not just semantics - it's a matter of the psychological impact of certain words. If you want to push your agenda then do it without the bleeding heartstrings attached.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It's impossible to legalize murder. By definition it's not murder if it's legal.
Click to expand...

More obnoxious semantics, albeit this time incorrect on your part.

Once you legalize it, it's no longer the criminal charge of murder. UNTIL YOU DO SO, it is. The process of making that crime no longer be a crime would be called "legalizing" that action.
 
JayDubya said:
More obnoxious semantics, albeit this time incorrect on your part.

Once you legalize it, it's no longer the criminal charge of murder. UNTIL YOU DO SO, it is. The process of making that crime no longer be a crime would be called "legalizing" that action.
Click to expand...
English is often an obnoxious language.


The rest is just you spouting nonsense, though. It's not murder until it's illegal and if it's legal it's not murder. That is a very distinct and easy line to see.

But, hey, if you want to get technical, almost all homicides between one person and another are just homicides until someone is convicted of murder. The Newtown shootings aren't even technically murder (or mass murder) as yet because no one has been convicted. The guy may end up pleading insanity and making it stick, in which case it wasn't murder. Who knows until the trial?
 
JayDubya said:
No, living human beings don't have to breathe at all points in their lifespan.

Also, you didn't answer the question. As a paleocon libertarian, I'm on "the right." I don't know anyone on "the right" who wants to legalize the murder of born children. Do you?
Click to expand...

Well, after that recent vote on gun control in congress I'd have to say there are quite a few on the right who don't seem to mind the murder of children.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The rest is just you spouting nonsense, though. It's not murder until it's illegal and if it's legal it's not murder. That is a very distinct and easy line to see.
Click to expand...

Which is why I don't call abortion "murder," just aggressive homicide. I completely realize the distinction. Outside of more layman uses, murder is a specific illegal action, codified in criminal law.

HOWEVER...

The process by which one might theoretically push for the elimination of murder statutes entirely or even just the process by which one might change the murder statutes such that it became legal to kill, say, anyone before the age of 1 year old... that act would currently be murder, and someone would be pushing for it to not be the criminal charge of murder...

Accurate verbs for that process would be words like "decriminalize" or "legalize." Agreed?

Now that we've established that you know my meaning and you know that I understand the technicalities involved, can you cease with these semantics games?



The Newtown shootings aren't even technically murder (or mass murder) as yet because no one has been convicted. The guy may end up pleading insanity and making it stick, in which case it wasn't murder. Who knows until the trial?
Click to expand...

What trial? Lanza killed himself.


Moot said:
Well, after that recent vote on gun control in congress I'd have to say there are quite a few on the right who don't seem to mind the murder of children.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Just... wow.
 
Knowledge=power said:
I don't support removing all guns, but I do realize the difference in gun control and abortion.

Controlling guns is an attempt to stop people from killing other people - people who have lived outside the womb and formed realationships, had experiences, created memories, etc. People who support children, families, etc; People who have jobs which are important to society, etc.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy - an unborn fetus - which in most cases is not even fully formed. It has never even breathed air, let alone formed relationships, had experiences, created memories, etc. It is not even aware of it's own existence in most cases. The term 'unborn' is critical here. There is a vast difference between these two issues.
Click to expand...

Not to be too technical, but I believe there are many studies that would suggest just the opposite. A fetus develops a strong bond/relationship with his/her mother during gestation, experiences many normal human feelings/emotions and can have memories and may react to activities/actions outside the womb during gestation. And to suggest that a fetus is unaware of it's own existence is utter nonsense, unless you believe that the second the child emerges some switch goes on and cognition suddenly starts.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Not to be too technical, but I believe there are many studies that would suggest just the opposite. A fetus develops a strong bond/relationship with his/her mother during gestation, experiences many normal human feelings/emotions and can have memories and may react to activities/actions outside the womb during gestation. And to suggest that a fetus is unaware of it's own existence is utter nonsense, unless you believe that the second the child emerges some switch goes on and cognition suddenly starts.
Click to expand...

Most abortions are not late term, and in the early stages of gestation the fetus is not fully developed. The distinction I made was between a fetus floating in amniotic fluid and a human being who has walked, talked, supported people, created memories, etc etc etc. There is a great difference between the two.
 
Knowledge=power said:
Most abortions are not late term, and in the early stages of gestation the fetus is not fully developed. The distinction I made was between a fetus floating in amniotic fluid and a human being who has walked, talked, supported people, created memories, etc etc etc. There is a great difference between the two.
Click to expand...

No, to be truthful, you implied that a fetus wasn't a valuable human being, or was somehow second class, because it had yet to breath, develop relationships, etc. and the unborn are, in effect, easily disposed of.
 
CanadaJohn said:
No, to be truthful, you implied that a fetus wasn't a valuable human being, or was somehow second class, because it had yet to breath, develop relationships, etc. and the unborn are, in effect, easily disposed of.
Click to expand...

I believe the value of an unborn fetus, while not unvaluable, is of less value than a contributing member of society with the aforementioned life experiences.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Not to be too technical, but I believe there are many studies that would suggest just the opposite. A fetus develops a strong bond/relationship with his/her mother during gestation, experiences many normal human feelings/emotions and can have memories and may react to activities/actions outside the womb during gestation. And to suggest that a fetus is unaware of it's own existence is utter nonsense, unless you believe that the second the child emerges some switch goes on and cognition suddenly starts.
Click to expand...

Of course self-awareness doesn't "switch on" at birth

Self-awareness doesn't occur until sometime after birth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom