Of Guns and Abortions

[SpringfieldSkins]

This is something I've been thinking about for most of the day, in light of the recent events in Colorado. I'm hoping that the wealth of opinions in the Tailgate can follow my string of thoughts and offer some input and discussion.

There has obviously been a lot of talk following the shooting in Colorado. The standard party lines have been drawn, pitting democrat against republican. The democrats hold the position of "gun control" to prevent homicides. The republicans hold the position of "gun freedom" as a given American right. I don't think I need to explain any further, as anyone who's been witness to the polarizing nature of our political system knows exactly where each party stands. We each hold our own positions in this subject.

The idea that gun control could save lives made me think of many an abortion argument. We all know the polarizing positions on each side. Republicans feel that a fetus is a human life and abortion is the same as homicide. Democrats don't believe that a fetus is life and a woman should be able to choose what she does with her body, and the unborn baby, before it exits her. Of course, shades of gray ensue.


What I find ironic is that democrats claim to be saving lives with gun control and republicans claim to be saving lives with abortion control. It's as if controlling what a law abiding citizen does with a gun or a fetus will save a life. Both ignore what unlawful citizens do with their lives. Both have an agenda that claims to be righteous.



Each party wants to save lives in one aspect but destroy lives in another. It's tough for somebody like myself to understand why the two opposing parties of this country could have opinions that are so far, yet so close, from each other.

I want to know how the Tailgate opines as it relates to both subjects, in the same light.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Each party wants to save lives in one aspect but destroy lives in another. It's tough for somebody like myself to understand why the two opposing parties of this country could have opinions that are so far, yet so close, from each other.

Is it really? I mean, that's basically humanity in a nutshell. We mix self-preservation and empathy in weird ways according to our own upbringing and culture.

In both of these cases we're only talking about theoretical lives, which really doesn't help matters at all.

[Jumbo]

Oh...yes...this should be productive and helpful as framed. But I don't blame you, Springfield, and am not slamming you or dismissing your genuine befuddlement.. I just figure this will be about as useful what's already been done here on these topics a thousand times before even when the OP is set up much less provocative. Those past threads usually offer a large slice of ugly/stupid (and often a ban or two) posts---and that's just going with either topic, let alone combining them .

Sorry to be a downer, but maybe if I say this stuff right up front at least maybe the early responders will try hard the first few pages to (somehow) to address your OP thoughtfully. You have my best wishes for good luck. That's a little selfish too on my part I guess. As staff, I admit I shuddered when i read this. :).

Now see? Optimism! While I was typing, EA starts it off with a reasonable and thoughtful post. :)

[Enter Apotheosis]

Oh...yes...this should be productive and helpful as framed. But I don't blame you, Springfield, and am not slamming you or dismissing your genuine befuddlement.. I just figure this will be about as useful what's already been done here on these topics a thousand times before even when the OP is set up much less provocative and those past threads usually offer a large slice of ugly/stupid (and often a ban or two) posts---and that's just going with either topic, let alone combining them .

Sorry to be a downer, but maybe if I say this stuff right up front at least the first few posters will try hard for the first few pages to attempt (somehow) to address your OP. You have my best wishes for good luck. That's a little selfish too on my part I guess. As staff, I admit I shuddered when i read this. :)..

So... which side are you saying is most like Hitler in this post? I can't tell.

[Jumbo]

So... which side are you saying is most like Hitler in this post? I can't tell.

See my edit and be glad I don't change it back now. :pfft:

[Enter Apotheosis]

See my edit and be glad I don't change it back now. :pfft:

I'm just thrilled I was able to sync up that post perfectly with your edit :ols:

[SpringfieldSkins]

Sorry Jumbo, I didn't mean to make your job harder intentionally. I realize that it is now, because of my befuddlement. My apologies.


I try to think independently of the parties. I saw a lot of gun control debate going on in that thread and one of my first thoughts was about how the people who were pro gun control were also pro abortion. It seems to be contradictory to me. Vice versa to me as well. The ones against gun control shouldn't be anti-abortion in my opinion. In my opinion you should be either for saving lives or for freedom.

It seems to me that the republicans have the upper hand here. They can claim that gun control hurts innocent people because it lets criminals have access to the deadliest of guns. The republicans can claim that they are saving lives by banning abortion. Democrats can claim that they are saving lives by controlling guns but what lives are they saving by allowing abortion? Republicans can claim the moral high ground on both arguments.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Democrats can claim that they are saving lives by controlling guns but what lives are they saving by allowing abortion? Republicans can claim the moral high ground on both arguments.

The pro-choice perspective is necessarily more nuanced than the other three because the 'benefit' of abortion comes from secondary and tertiary effects in most cases. That ripple effect is far less important to pro-life, pro-gun, and anti-gun views because those tend to have rather simplistic, straightforward roots.

This may not be a good thing to bring into the mix here (although it may be inevitable) but I should probably point out that things even back out on the directly saving lives front when it comes to the death penalty. ;)

[Toe Jam]

I'm one of those people who isn't quite sure what to think on either issue.

I don't own a gun, but that may change in light of recent events. But even though I don't currently own one, I don't think it's my place to tell other law abiding citizens that they can't have guns. I don't see why it's necessary to be able to own an AR-15 assault rifle though.

I would never ask my girlfriend to have an abortion, and not because of religious reasons. I believe in taking responsibility for my actions. If I accidentally knocked her up, I'd put my best foot forward and help raise the kid. But at the same time, I don't think it's my place to tell others they shouldn't be able to do so.

I think as a culture, we try to make everything black and white when there should be a middle ground to every issue. It's like we all want to be down with a particular group and therefore take sides on issues such as these. We have a gang mentality, if you will.

I'm as befuddled as you are OP.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The OP is looking for consistency between two massively polarizing topics which have both become co-opted by the two leading political parties, parties which routinely flip flop on any number of issues given the prevailing winds, and political contributions. The people who support these parties have been thoroughly indoctrinated to the point that a threat to the party is a threat to them and as such they respond accordingly, they choose to not see the inconsistencies between their values because the values are the values of the party not actual moral values, as such whether they know it or not in supporting partyline they have accepted the reality of their own cognitive dissonance.

As long as we continue on this current course it will not change, we who step back for a clear view will continue to see the inconsistencies therein and remain befuddled.

[Burgold]

It really boils down to how sacred is life. If you really believe all life is sacred... the you are opposed to abortion, capitol punishment, gun ownership, eating meat, eating vegetables that haven't fallen from the tree, etc.

We compromise daily on when we decide life is important and which lives deserve to be defended. Why did we save Kuwait and ignore Rwanda? Why do we still do so little in Darfur? Why are so many against Universal Healthcare which although it should cost us money would undoubtedly save lives? Why do we ignore to such a large degree the acidification of the oceans or the pollution we dump into the sky?

People are for saving lives and believing life is sacred if it holds little cost to them. Think of how many anti-abortion people flip flop when their own daughter gets pregnant? Think of how many anti-abortion people are opposed to welfare or school meal programs? Think of how many anti-gun people rush out to get a gun after being assaulted or mugged?

Truth is, most people are horribly inconsistant and that is based on their own self-interest. What they believe is based not on the good, but on the degree it will frustrate their own needs and wants. They get far nobler in their opinions when their position has little obvious intersection with their lives.

[skinsmarydu]

Some want the gov't so small it can get into my cooter. ****that.
*edit* Sorry Jumbo, I won't argue further. (or should it be "farther"?) lol

[endzone_dave]

The OP is looking for consistency between two massively polarizing topics which have both become co-opted by the two leading political parties, parties which routinely flip flop on any number of issues given the prevailing winds, andbpolitical contributions. The people who support these parties have been thoroughly indoctrinated to the point that a threat to the party is a threat to them and as such they respond accordingly, they choose to not see the inconsistencies between their values because the values are the values of the party not actual moral values, as such whether they know it or not in supporting partyline they have accepted the reality of their own cognitive dissonance.

As long asvwe continue on this current course we who step back for a clear view will continue to see the inconsistencies therein and remain befuddled.

Very well said.

[MissU28]

I watched Freakonomics the other day, and I found this clip about abortion very interesting. If you haven't read the book or seen the movie, basically the assertion is that when abortion was outlawed, crime rates 20 years later were at their highest (in the 80's) because women were having unwanted babies and not being great parents to the kids, leaving the kids to a life of crime. When Roe v. Wade was decided in the 70's, there was a sharp decrease in crime rates in the 90's...and the hypothesis is because those unwanted kids wouldn't be there to do the crimes 20 years later.

I know this doesn't correlate exactly with the subject at hand, but if you choose to believe this man's hypothesis, you could argue that abortion is also saving lives, at least indirectly. Here I am standing up for the democrats :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw

[twa]

you could also argue locking up more people saves lives...or simply shooting or executing them

but it is rather simplistic

[Destino]

I was hoping that this thread was about a new metal band named "of Guns and Abortion".

[tiger187126]

actually i watched a family guy the other day where louis tries to save a christian scientist's kid because his parents aren't getting him treatment. i grew up with a kid who was christian scientist, but it never got to a point where he was in mortal danger so it was never really an issue that his family practiced it.

that reminds me of this topic. the whole when life starts thing is for another day (hopefully never around here the way things get), but like someone said earlier a lot of our opinions on matters like this end up in some sort of compromise.

so while you may feel like an unborn child is a choice you have, once it's born would you feel that you can tell another person what they are allowed and not allowed to with that child?

it just feels like a grey area to me.

anyway, more towards the OP and guns:

people tend to make gun control over simplistic. they think that if you ban all guns, all gun crime/violent crime will just stop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Research_on_t he_efficacy_of_concealed_carry

(while we're at it here's a whole list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics)

as for whether it's a true correlation or not an actual cause/effect, when legal gun sales increase or CCW permits are issued crime does not increase and a drop in violent crime can be seen. in my eyes if you're a criminal and you know that anyone can be carrying a gun, you'd be less likely to try to mug/rape someone because you now might not have the element of threat of life by yourself, your victim might be better armed than you.

now i am of the mind that training should be federally mandated (and i'm not much for federal regulation) training for anyone who wants to carry a gun and i'm also for federally regulating some of the laws that apply to the use of a gun in self defense, especially when it occurs in your household. gun education would save countless lives as well.

but of course the government will use any buerocracy it can it intervene and that's why a lot of gun people support ultra lax gun laws. i mean in most states (like MD) you are at the mercy of some agency (in MD it's the state police) to tell you whether they think you deserve a gun or not.

[alexey]

Each party wants to save lives in one aspect but destroy lives in another. It's tough for somebody like myself to understand why the two opposing parties of this country could have opinions that are so far, yet so close, from each other.

I want to know how the Tailgate opines as it relates to both subjects, in the same light.
The issue is about who has control of violence. The gun control side essentially argues that the state ought to have a monopoly on violence. It is an argument about the muscle behind the rule of law.

Now, if the state is democratic and it has a monopoly or a near monopoly on violence, we can have conversations about executions, torture, abortion, and so on.

If the state is not dmocratic or it does not have a monopoly or a near monopoly on violence, we will not be having these conversations. We will be trying not to get killed.

[youngchew]

I think as a culture, we try to make everything black and white when there should be a middle ground to every issue. It's like we all want to be down with a particular group and therefore take sides on issues such as these. We have a gang mentality, if you will.
.

Good point, and I agree. EVerybody has to be put into a box and "choose a side." While I agree with just about everything he said, the OP said how democrats are all for gun control. But I definitely don't fit that mold.

I am a democrat, and an extremely liberal one at that. Yet I own two pistols (both have extended mags and hollow tip ammo), a shotgun, and have owned a heavy assault rifles in the past. And feel that if I ever want one again, I should be able to get one. :)

Just making a point that we're all unique and have mixed opinions on everything, and I totally agree with you that hardly anything controversial issues are black and white"

[aREDSKIN]

the op is looking for consistency between two massively polarizing topics which have both become co-opted by the two leading political parties, parties which routinely flip flop on any number of issues given the prevailing winds, and political contributions. The people who support these parties have been thoroughly indoctrinated to the point that a threat to the party is a threat to them and as such they respond accordingly, they choose to not see the inconsistencies between their values because the values are the values of the party not actual moral values, as such whether they know it or not in supporting partyline they have accepted the reality of their own cognitive dissonance.

As long as we continue on this current course it will not change, we who step back for a clear view will continue to see the inconsistencies therein and remain befuddled.

Yep. :yes:

[HeluCopter29]

I don't think this is ironic as the OP makes it out to be. For the simple reason that when Democrats support abortion rights, their supporting it because there is no life to be saved. If Democrats were talking about killing unborn babies, I think the irony would be much more prevalent.

[LadySkinsFan]

I think most here know that I'm a very liberal Democrat. That said, here are my perspectives on both gun control and abortion.

1. Gun control: We have enough laws on the books now for controlling the purchase of guns. They need to be enforced. And if someone uses their guns in an unlawful manner, there are laws for that too. And I am a gun owner, soon to purchase a shotgun for when I move to the country.
2. Abortion: Abortion is legal. It's part of a women's right to reproductive freedom against forced pregnancy whether the forceful agent is the state or an individual. I have had an abortion and I am very glad I was able to at the time when I had it. I've also carried a pregnancy to term, also at a time of my choosing, as a result of my Great Heterosexual experiment. Had I been brave enough to tell my family and society to go **** themselves and lived a homosexual life from the get go, I would not have had an abortion nor a child.

So the calls for more gun laws are pretty much self serving since we already have a ton of laws on the books.

And the calls for restricting women's access to abortion are pretty much self serving also, because if one doesn't like abortion, don't have one. It's between a woman and her doctor, and I don't want the state to interfere with a woman's medical decisions.

[aREDSKIN]

I think most here know that I'm a very liberal Democrat. That said, here are my perspectives on both gun control and abortion.

1. Gun control: We have enough laws on the books now for controlling the purchase of guns. They need to be enforced. And if someone uses their guns in an unlawful manner, there are laws for that too. And I am a gun owner, soon to purchase a shotgun for when I move to the country.
2. Abortion: Abortion is legal. It's part of a women's right to reproductive freedom against forced pregnancy whether the forceful agent is the state or an individual. I have had an abortion and I am very glad I was able to at the time when I had it. I've also carried a pregnancy to term, also at a time of my choosing, as a result of my Great Heterosexual experiment. Had I been brave enough to tell my family and society to go **** themselves and lived a homosexual life from the get go, I would not have had an abortion nor a child.

So the calls for more gun laws are pretty much self serving since we already have a ton of laws on the books.

And the calls for restricting women's access to abortion are pretty much self serving also, because if one doesn't like abortion, don't have one. It's between a woman and her doctor, and I don't want the state to interfere with a woman's medical decisions.


I understand your point of view. I don't subscribe to it in it's entirety. Much more based on your posts in total than what's allude to here but I find it ironic the last part of your post "I don't want the state to interfere with a woman's medical decisions" given the obamacare brouhaha.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I understand your point of view. I don't subscribe to it in it's entirety. Much more based on your posts in total than what's allude to here but I find it ironic the last part of your post "I don't want the state to interfere with a woman's medical decisions" given the obamacare brouhaha.

Yeah, that last part showed a bit ironic to me as well, it is the Left's version of what we hear from the Right..."Git yer gubernmint hands off mah medicare!" The Left seems to say "You can have no objection to the medical proceedures I'm forcing you to fund." just ironic is all.

[Voice_of_Reason]

I'm one of those people who isn't quite sure what to think on either issue.

I don't own a gun, but that may change in light of recent events. But even though I don't currently own one, I don't think it's my place to tell other law abiding citizens that they can't have guns. I don't see why it's necessary to be able to own an AR-15 assault rifle though.

I would never ask my girlfriend to have an abortion, and not because of religious reasons. I believe in taking responsibility for my actions. If I accidentally knocked her up, I'd put my best foot forward and help raise the kid. But at the same time, I don't think it's my place to tell others they shouldn't be able to do so.

I think as a culture, we try to make everything black and white when there should be a middle ground to every issue. It's like we all want to be down with a particular group and therefore take sides on issues such as these. We have a gang mentality, if you will.

I'm as befuddled as you are OP.

So you and I are pretty much in agreement here. I generally come down on the side of, "the less the government tells me what I can do, the better." Obviously, within reason. So, do I think you should be able to walk into any corner grocery and buy an assault rifle? No. Do I think that there should be a serious background check for people owning a deadly weapon? Yes. Do I think that if you want to own a weapon, have the appropriate license, training and reason, you should be able to? Yes. In a lot of places, it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun permit. That seems a bit out of whack.

I don't own a gun, and I don't want to. However, I also don't think my personal beliefs should be imposed on society at large.

On abortion, I personally am pro-life. This is not for religious reasons either. But I can't imagine asking a past girlfriend to have an abortion. (Married now, wanting kids, so situation is a little different. :) ) But I also don't think it's my, or the government's, position to tell a woman what they can/cannot do. Again, shades of grey. I do think that there's a line when you should not have an abortion. But in general, I don't want to impose my personal value judgments on others.

I do find it slightly fascinating that the Republican Party has taken a stance of "All Life is Sacred" which is the basis of the pro-life stance, yet are pro capitol punishment and anti-gun control. Each stance has extraordinarily powerful arguments, but when you take them all together, it's a bit of a confusing story.

And I'm a member of neither party. I think they're both all hosed up. For very different reasons.

[twa]

I do find it slightly fascinating that the Republican Party has taken a stance of "All Life is Sacred" which is the basis of the pro-life stance, yet are pro capitol punishment and anti-gun control. Each stance has extraordinarily powerful arguments, but when you take them all together, it's a bit of a confusing story.

.

Speaking for myself...you need to add innocent before Life and it removes the confusion

A murderer forfeits their life thru their deed and guns are for protection....and WAR (which is another matter)

There is no such a thing as a choice w/o consequences

[AsburySkinsFan]

Speaking for myself...you need to add innocent before Life and it removes the confusion

A murderer forfeits their life thru their deed and guns are for protection....and WAR (which is another matter)

There is no such a thing as a choice w/o consequences
What's even more interesting is the failure of the "eye for an eye" folks to recognize that those were a limitation of the level of justice that could be exacted upon an offender, much like Moses allowing divorce...because their hearts were hard. Those limit how just justice to equality, rather than like the story I heard this morning in church from our Ugandan missionaries who witnessed a man beaten to death for causing a minor fender bender. When we hear "eye for an eye" in the context of total injustice, it brings order. But, now we look at it through the lense of Christ and we realize that the Law of Moses was incomplete in that it isn't the fullness of righteousness but rather given to reign in those who were hard of heart and didn't know better. However, too often we look at the Law "eye for an eye" as God's demanded level of justice, when in Christ we see a very different image of the measure of grace and forgiveness God is willing to extend to us.

But....that's probably another thread.

[Wrong Direction]

I think it's very difficult to reconcile political positions of the major parties. I could give it a try, but as Jumbo points out that could start something I don't want to get into.

Speaking for myself, I just appreciate people who try to think through things in terms of what position they'd take and what the repercussions would be. As an example, a simplistic position on guns would be to ban and confiscate them all. However, next you have to think of the constitution, political reality, individual rights to protect one-self or one's home, etc.

What I've come to with position after position is the recognition that major issues don't have simple answers and the real positions of our leading political thinkers - if ever put on the record - are much deeper than the overly simplistic talking points and press releases out there for the masses. Pro Choice and Pro Life are about as accurately descriptive as calling the earth a blue planet, yet that's exactly what modern politics has reduced much of our political discussions to today.

[twa]

I don't want my right to defend my life(and that of others) to be infringed on,and I will gladly extend that same level of choice to abortion.

If I end a life w/o a credible risk to life I have made a choice that should be unacceptable ....I expect as much restraint from others

I'll bow out of this now

[China]

World maps of gun ownership, homicides by guns per 100,000 population and % homicides by guns:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

[Popeman38]

World maps of gun ownership, homicides by guns per 100,000 population and % homicides by guns:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-mapThat first map makes it look like 70-100% of the US population owns a gun.

[DjTj]

That first map makes it look like 70-100% of the US population owns a gun.It's like how 20% of Americans have 90% of the wealth. 20% of Americans probably own 90% of the guns.

[Jumbo]

Demographically, most gun owners are pro life. :)

The universe is magical. :D


I'm an outlier (in most everything). :pfft:

In fact, I want my body embalmed and encased in plexiglass, sitting atop the burial plot, with the word "Outlier" on a tallish tombstone. :cool:

[Kilmer17]

I dont think it's fair or appropriate to make assumption that because I feel one way about one issue, it would lead me to feel the same about another.

I believe abortions should remain legal, without any restrictions.

And I think the 2nd amendment makes it legal for me to own a gun. But not a military grade weapon.

Our Bill of Rights are not limitless. I see nothing wrong with limitting the type and kind of gun I can own, and that the debate should focus there, and not on whether I can own ANY gun.

This latest tragedy would not have been prevented, even with super strict gun laws. It just would have been limitted in its scope of terror.

[skinsmarydu]

Kilmer, I agree with everything you wrote. Wow.:D

[Jumbo]

Yup, a well designed stance in a well expressed post, K17.

[Larry]

Maybe a little OT for this thread, but a little on topic, too. I still recall what I think was the only time I ever heard Rush Limbaugh make what I considered to be a rational, logical, valid point. (And I used to be a very regular listener to his show, 10-15 years ago.)

At the time, Congress was discussing the Assault Weapons Ban. The NRA, and the GOP, were, predictably fighting it.

Rush observed that there seemed to be a lot of people who were loudly expressing the opinion that anybody who opposed the Assault Weapons Ban, on the grounds that it was the first step in a covert plan to take away all guns, was obviously so paranoid that not only should their entire "side" of the political discussion be ignored, but that all of them should be locked up, undergoing treatment.

And he stated that he wanted to address his next comment to those people. Those folks who believed that it was literally, delusionally, insane, to oppose banning assault weapons, based on the belief that the government wanted to take away all guns.

His comment to them was: How many of you are sworn to oppose any attempt to ban partial birth abortions, on the grounds that it's merely the first step in a plan to ban all abortions?

[Son of Gadsden]

I get the point of the post, and not to take my obvious bias and try to become a part of the irony...but I don't really feel that the comparison is accurate.

Gun control has never been proven to fix anything. New York, Massachusetts, and California have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, while Virginia notoriously has the most lenient. Virginia has a lower crime rate than all three. I'm not trying to argue here. I'm justifying my point on the OP.

Lack of gun control is not a direct form or proven reason for killing, tools of death have always been around...and the will to kill will always be greater than the means. Abortion is direct killing. Whether you believe the fetus is a human or not, it's being destroyed. Guns are used for defense in most cases statistically.

Like I said, I'm not trying to be a firearms homer, and I get the irony attempting to be portrayed, I just see the comparison as being inaccurate. But for those who are about to flame me, I'm pro life but also pro choice. I think you shouldn't get an abortion, but the government shouldn't have anything to do with it.