shape
carat
color
clarity

What if gun laws were like abortion laws?

Calliecake

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 7, 2014
Messages
9,288
I came accross this by Aaron Perry Zucker and found it interesting.

What if we treated every young man who wants to purchase a gun like every young woman who wants to have an abortion?

- Mandatory 48 hour waiting period

- Parential permission

- A note from his doctors proving he understands what he is about to do

- A video to watch about the effects of gun violence

- An ultrasound wand up the butt (just because)

- Lets close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a
strange room to get a gun

- Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and
beg him not to buy a gun.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,444


screen_shot_2015-12-04_at_5.png
 

packrat

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
10,614
None of which, of course, has an effect on those who go the illegal route.
 

monarch64

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
19,331
I like the concept of the last point. But the whole thing is flawed. It assumes that murder and abortion are the same thing and that's what I don't like about it. Still not fair to women. Still paints women as murderous horrible people and still assumes there is life from the point of conception. I see the point of it, I really do, but it doesn't sit well with me for those reasons. I want to like it and give it all the thumbs up, but I'm not feeling it.

Women choosing to terminate unwanted pregnancies are not the same as gun-buyers who could use those guns to murder actual people able to live outside their host.

Sorry if I'm taking this somewhere it wasn't intended or getting too literal, but that's just how it strikes me.
 

Niel

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
20,061
monarch64|1449281988|3957711 said:
I like the concept of the last point. But the whole thing is flawed. It assumes that murder and abortion are the same thing and that's what I don't like about it. Still not fair to women. Still paints women as murderous horrible people and still assumes there is life from the point of conception. I see the point of it, I really do, but it doesn't sit well with me for those reasons. I want to like it and give it all the thumbs up, but I'm not feeling it.

Women choosing to terminate unwanted pregnancies are not the same as gun-buyers who could use those guns to murder actual people able to live outside their host.

Sorry if I'm taking this somewhere it wasn't intended or getting too literal, but that's just how it strikes me.

I agree with what you say above.

I have some other issues with the comparison. For example, 48 hours to thing about buying a hunting rifle for deer hunting is not the same as making a 16 year old wait 48 hours with an unwanted fetus inside her.

Parental permission to own a shot gun is not the same as having to tell your mom you got raped and need to now take care of the resulting pregnancy.

What's interesting is this for guns seems ridiculous, obviously, and this is for an item. Yet this is acceptable to prevent a woman the right to her own body
 

Calliecake

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 7, 2014
Messages
9,288
I also found it extremely disturbing that after the attack last week (Planned Parenthood) the Republican Party presidential nominees were silent.
 

monarch64

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
19,331
Niel|1449282535|3957713 said:
monarch64|1449281988|3957711 said:
I like the concept of the last point. But the whole thing is flawed. It assumes that murder and abortion are the same thing and that's what I don't like about it. Still not fair to women. Still paints women as murderous horrible people and still assumes there is life from the point of conception. I see the point of it, I really do, but it doesn't sit well with me for those reasons. I want to like it and give it all the thumbs up, but I'm not feeling it.

Women choosing to terminate unwanted pregnancies are not the same as gun-buyers who could use those guns to murder actual people able to live outside their host.

Sorry if I'm taking this somewhere it wasn't intended or getting too literal, but that's just how it strikes me.

I agree with what you say above.

I have some other issues with the comparison. For example, 48 hours to thing about buying a hunting rifle for deer hunting is not the same as making a 16 year old wait 48 hours with an unwanted fetus inside her.

Parental permission to own a shot gun is not the same as having to tell your mom you got raped and need to now take care of the resulting pregnancy.

What's interesting is this for guns seems ridiculous, obviously, and this is for an item. Yet this is acceptable to prevent a woman the right to her own body

I agree with your points, too. I guess one could argue that deer season is a pretty short window of time...or something. :rolleyes:
 

junebug17

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
14,184
Niel|1449282535|3957713 said:
What's interesting is this for guns seems ridiculous, obviously, and this is for an item. Yet this is acceptable to prevent a woman the right to her own body

I agree Niel and in my opinion that's the point of the comparison. It's acceptable to shame, embarrass, and harass a woman in an attempt to try to change her mind about a procedure that she has a right to have according to the law but there would be an uproar if gun buyers were treated in the same way.

I didn't interpret this as painting women who seek abortions as murderers. I see it as the opposite.
 

Niel

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
20,061
junebug17|1449285057|3957736 said:
Niel|1449282535|3957713 said:
What's interesting is this for guns seems ridiculous, obviously, and this is for an item. Yet this is acceptable to prevent a woman the right to her own body

I agree Niel and in my opinion that's the point of the comparison. It's acceptable to shame, embarrass, and harass a woman in an attempt to try to change her mind about a procedure that she has a right to have according to the law but there would be an uproar if gun buyers were treated in the same way.

I didn't interpret this as painting women who seek abortions as murderers. I see it as the opposite.

Yeah, I'm sure that is the point.

I agree I do believe their point was not to claim abortions are murders. But the comparison is lacking when you consider, those who oppose abortions can take that comparison and say "see, you're equating gun violence to abortions, you consider them the same: murder"

When I don't think the author does.


The other issue is not everyone who buys a gun kills someone, so photos and shouting protestors could easily be rationalized away buy an individual buying a gun." I won't kill anyone, this doesn't apply to me" vs a woman going to get an abortion where clearly the hateful retoeic and graphic images are aimed directly at her.
 

junebug17

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
14,184
Niel|1449285547|3957741 said:
junebug17|1449285057|3957736 said:
Niel|1449282535|3957713 said:
What's interesting is this for guns seems ridiculous, obviously, and this is for an item. Yet this is acceptable to prevent a woman the right to her own body

I agree Niel and in my opinion that's the point of the comparison. It's acceptable to shame, embarrass, and harass a woman in an attempt to try to change her mind about a procedure that she has a right to have according to the law but there would be an uproar if gun buyers were treated in the same way.

I didn't interpret this as painting women who seek abortions as murderers. I see it as the opposite.

Yeah, I'm sure that is the point.

I agree I do believe their point was not to claim abortions are murders. But the comparison is lacking when you consider, those who oppose abortions can take that comparison and say "see, you're equating gun violence to abortions, you consider them the same: murder"

When I don't think the author does.


The other issue is not everyone who buys a gun kills someone, so photos and shouting protestors could easily be rationalized away buy an individual buying a gun." I won't kill anyone, this doesn't apply to me" vs a woman going to get an abortion where clearly the hateful retoeic and graphic images are aimed directly at her.

Yes, I understand your points and I know that some will argue that abortion definitely leads to a death but purchasing a gun won't. I don't have statistics but in some cases that gun might very well be used to kill someone. The mother of the mass murderer who committed the Sandy Hook massacre would have said the gun she was buying wouldn't be used to kill someone, and she would have been wrong.

I don't know, maybe I'm simplifying this, but would a gun buyer appreciate being harassed, yelled at, and cajoled not to buy a gun as he/she entered the store? There are people who are that strongly anti-gun.

Again, maybe I'm over-simplifying , but both abortions and buying guns are legal in this country. Why is it acceptable to make it really difficult and painful for one group, and not the other? I am not saying that gun buyers should be harassed. I'm saying women who are getting abortions should be left alone. A person's moral beliefs should not be used to intimidate any group of people who are engaging in a legal act.
 

Niel

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
20,061
junebug17|1449287454|3957758 said:
Niel|1449285547|3957741 said:
junebug17|1449285057|3957736 said:
Niel|1449282535|3957713 said:
What's interesting is this for guns seems ridiculous, obviously, and this is for an item. Yet this is acceptable to prevent a woman the right to her own body

I agree Niel and in my opinion that's the point of the comparison. It's acceptable to shame, embarrass, and harass a woman in an attempt to try to change her mind about a procedure that she has a right to have according to the law but there would be an uproar if gun buyers were treated in the same way.

I didn't interpret this as painting women who seek abortions as murderers. I see it as the opposite.

Yeah, I'm sure that is the point.

I agree I do believe their point was not to claim abortions are murders. But the comparison is lacking when you consider, those who oppose abortions can take that comparison and say "see, you're equating gun violence to abortions, you consider them the same: murder"

When I don't think the author does.


The other issue is not everyone who buys a gun kills someone, so photos and shouting protestors could easily be rationalized away buy an individual buying a gun." I won't kill anyone, this doesn't apply to me" vs a woman going to get an abortion where clearly the hateful retoeic and graphic images are aimed directly at her.

Yes, I understand your points and I know that some will argue that abortion definitely leads to a death but purchasing a gun won't. I don't have statistics but in some cases that gun might very well be used to kill someone. The mother of the mass murderer who committed the Sandy Hook massacre would have said the gun she was buying wouldn't be used to kill someone, and she would have been wrong.

I don't know, maybe I'm simplifying this, but would a gun buyer appreciate being harassed, yelled at, and cajoled not to buy a gun as he/she entered the store? There are people who are that strongly anti-gun.

Again, maybe I'm over-simplifying , but both abortions and buying guns are legal in this country. Why is it acceptable to make it really difficult and painful for one group, and not the other? I am not saying that gun buyers should be harassed. I'm saying women who are getting abortions should be left alone. A person's moral beliefs should not be used to intimidate any group of people who are engaging in a legal act.

I think we are basically in agreement. The only thing I might disagree with is that an abortion has no direct impact on a human being, but a gun could. So though yes both are a legal act, I think one should have more regulation than another.
 

azstonie

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
3,769
I have always operated under the assumption that the reason I do not *need* a gun is because I live in a society which employs a PROFESSIONAL police force to handle crime and criminals. Further, I should not * have* a gun. I don't have time to go to the range to practice with it. I don't believe the police force where I live should have to contend with amateurs getting in their way or endangering them either. Packrat, come on, JD does not want me armed, I know this.

I'm going to address packrat's comment above about the difficulty of getting guns out of the hands of the general public because its a constant in the last several decades of gun violence. No, it won't be a complete remediation of the problem in 1 day but that doesn't mean we throw up our hands, say its too hard, and let things continue on as they are. If getting gun control started will save 1 life, it was effort well spent.

Let's compare crime in this same way. Packie, your husband is a police officer, I believe. He is never going to arrest every criminal in your town in one shift, he is not going to stop all crime in your town in one shift, and he is not going to be able to keep all the criminals in jail. But he still gets up in the morning, puts on his uni, and goes to work and does his job. He doesn't throw in the towel because its difficult or imperfect or might not succeed in every way on every day.

Myself, I'm sick to death of hearing politicians say their thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families---while their hands are outstretched behind their backs to the NRA gun lobby. I'm sick of having 0 mental health resources and facilities while at the same time putting assault rifles in the hands of anyone with enough money to get one (Adam Lanza and New Town). I'm tired of reading about US citizens and people here on visitor visas heading off to be radicalized and trained and then WE LET THEM BACK IN THE USA? No. Other EU countries don't let them back in once they've been in the Middle East to get their 'training' and neither should we. You leave to get your ISIS training, you can't come back.

And anyone who wants to drag out the Constitution in support of the general citizenry with assault rifles and machine guns and private/personal arsenals can have an antique musket and that is all. They use it to bludgeon that burglar they are so afraid of.
 

Calliecake

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 7, 2014
Messages
9,288
junebug17|1449285057|3957736 said:
Niel|1449282535|3957713 said:
What's interesting is this for guns seems ridiculous, obviously, and this is for an item. Yet this is acceptable to prevent a woman the right to her own body

I agree Niel and in my opinion that's the point of the comparison. It's acceptable to shame, embarrass, and harass a woman in an attempt to try to change her mind about a procedure that she has a right to have according to the law but there would be an uproar if gun buyers were treated in the same way.

I didn't interpret this as painting women who seek abortions as murderers. I see it as the opposite.

I interpreted it the same way you did Junebug. We can issue a gun to someone who has been listed on a no fly list and our politicians find this acceptable yet look at what we put a young woman thru when she has made a decision to have an abortion, which is legal in this country.
 

junebug17

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
14,184
Niel|1449288611|3957765 said:
junebug17|1449287454|3957758 said:
Niel|1449285547|3957741 said:
junebug17|1449285057|3957736 said:
Niel|1449282535|3957713 said:
What's interesting is this for guns seems ridiculous, obviously, and this is for an item. Yet this is acceptable to prevent a woman the right to her own body

I agree Niel and in my opinion that's the point of the comparison. It's acceptable to shame, embarrass, and harass a woman in an attempt to try to change her mind about a procedure that she has a right to have according to the law but there would be an uproar if gun buyers were treated in the same way.

I didn't interpret this as painting women who seek abortions as murderers. I see it as the opposite.

Yeah, I'm sure that is the point.

I agree I do believe their point was not to claim abortions are murders. But the comparison is lacking when you consider, those who oppose abortions can take that comparison and say "see, you're equating gun violence to abortions, you consider them the same: murder"

When I don't think the author does.


The other issue is not everyone who buys a gun kills someone, so photos and shouting protestors could easily be rationalized away buy an individual buying a gun." I won't kill anyone, this doesn't apply to me" vs a woman going to get an abortion where clearly the hateful retoeic and graphic images are aimed directly at her.

Yes, I understand your points and I know that some will argue that abortion definitely leads to a death but purchasing a gun won't. I don't have statistics but in some cases that gun might very well be used to kill someone. The mother of the mass murderer who committed the Sandy Hook massacre would have said the gun she was buying wouldn't be used to kill someone, and she would have been wrong.

I don't know, maybe I'm simplifying this, but would a gun buyer appreciate being harassed, yelled at, and cajoled not to buy a gun as he/she entered the store? There are people who are that strongly anti-gun.

Again, maybe I'm over-simplifying , but both abortions and buying guns are legal in this country. Why is it acceptable to make it really difficult and painful for one group, and not the other? I am not saying that gun buyers should be harassed. I'm saying women who are getting abortions should be left alone. A person's moral beliefs should not be used to intimidate any group of people who are engaging in a legal act.

I think we are basically in agreement. The only thing I might disagree with is that an abortion has no direct impact on a human being, but a gun could. So though yes both are a legal act, I think one should have more regulation than another.

Oh, I agree with you!
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,320
Calliecake|1449290058|3957774 said:
junebug17|1449285057|3957736 said:
Niel|1449282535|3957713 said:
What's interesting is this for guns seems ridiculous, obviously, and this is for an item. Yet this is acceptable to prevent a woman the right to her own body

I agree Niel and in my opinion that's the point of the comparison. It's acceptable to shame, embarrass, and harass a woman in an attempt to try to change her mind about a procedure that she has a right to have according to the law but there would be an uproar if gun buyers were treated in the same way.

I didn't interpret this as painting women who seek abortions as murderers. I see it as the opposite.

I interpreted it the same way you did Junebug. We can issue a gun to someone who has been listed on a no fly list and our politicians find this acceptable yet look at what we put a young woman thru when she has made a decision to have an abortion, which is legal in this country.

Yes the whole thing is ludicrous and yet acceptable somehow. A woman not having the right to do with her body as she sees fit. Unbelievable. It is hard to believe that in this day and age we are still fighting against the same archaic and extreme ideas we were dealing with all those decades ago. I sure wish men could become pregnant and then we would see how fast these ideas would change. :nono: :nono: :nono:

azstonie said:
I have always operated under the assumption that the reason I do not *need* a gun is because I live in a society which employs a PROFESSIONAL police force to handle crime and criminals. Further, I should not * have* a gun. I don't have time to go to the range to practice with it. I don't believe the police force where I live should have to contend with amateurs getting in their way or endangering them either. Packrat, come on, JD does not want me armed, I know this.

I'm going to address packrat's comment above about the difficulty of getting guns out of the hands of the general public because its a constant in the last several decades of gun violence. No, it won't be a complete remediation of the problem in 1 day but that doesn't mean we throw up our hands, say its too hard, and let things continue on as they are. If getting gun control started will save 1 life, it was effort well spent.

Let's compare crime in this same way. Packie, your husband is a police officer, I believe. He is never going to arrest every criminal in your town in one shift, he is not going to stop all crime in your town in one shift, and he is not going to be able to keep all the criminals in jail. But he still gets up in the morning, puts on his uni, and goes to work and does his job. He doesn't throw in the towel because its difficult or imperfect or might not succeed in every way on every day.

Myself, I'm sick to death of hearing politicians say their thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families---while their hands are outstretched behind their backs to the NRA gun lobby. I'm sick of having 0 mental health resources and facilities while at the same time putting assault rifles in the hands of anyone with enough money to get one (Adam Lanza and New Town). I'm tired of reading about US citizens and people here on visitor visas heading off to be radicalized and trained and then WE LET THEM BACK IN THE USA? No. Other EU countries don't let them back in once they've been in the Middle East to get their 'training' and neither should we. You leave to get your ISIS training, you can't come back.

And anyone who wants to drag out the Constitution in support of the general citizenry with assault rifles and machine guns and private/personal arsenals can have an antique musket and that is all. They use it to bludgeon that burglar they are so afraid of.

And I am just going to +1 your post Kristie. Enough said. ::)
 

momhappy

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
4,660
I've seen this before (one of my friends posted it on her FB wall) and while I get the point, it means little to me in terms of an apples to apples comparison.
 

katharath

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,850
junebug17|1449285057|3957736 said:
I agree Niel and in my opinion that's the point of the comparison. It's acceptable to shame, embarrass, and harass a woman in an attempt to try to change her mind about a procedure that she has a right to have according to the law but there would be an uproar if gun buyers were treated in the same way.

This. Exactly. This is the point, and it's a VERY legitimate one. Particularly since we *just* had another mass shooting at a PP days ago...and people like to say there's no war on women. Right.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,308
Niel|1449288611|3957765 said:
I think we are basically in agreement. The only thing I might disagree with is that an abortion has no direct impact on a human being, but a gun could. So though yes both are a legal act, I think one should have more regulation than another.

Gun debate aside, I am kind of speechless reading this statement. It is a tragic & sad thought that having that procedure (whether I agree with it or not) doesn't impact the person having it (much less the life that might have been). I would argue the opposite, actually. Kinda backs up what I just posted in the SB thread.

Just curious, if it's not considered a life in utero, why does a murderer of a pregnant woman get charged with two counts?
 

Niel

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
20,061
JoCoJenn|1449347591|3957978 said:
Niel|1449288611|3957765 said:
I think we are basically in agreement. The only thing I might disagree with is that an abortion has no direct impact on a human being, but a gun could. So though yes both are a legal act, I think one should have more regulation than another.

Gun debate aside, I am kind of speechless reading this statement. It is a tragic & sad thought that having that procedure (whether I agree with it or not) doesn't impact the person having it (much less the life that might have been). Kinda backs up what I just posted in the SB thread.

Just curious, if it's not considered a life in utero, why does a murderer of a pregnant woman get charged with two counts?


An abortion is legally performed before the fetus is able to survive out of the mother. And thus, isn't the same as a living human being out in the world.

I would assume the distinction is obvious.

That's destroying the potential for life. Of course it's sad. But the potential for something cannot be compared to actuality.
 

packrat

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
10,614
JD can't be in every place at all times. Blocks and miles mean different things in different places b/c of many things-traffic/time of day/weather etc. We have a small department and a small town. Roughly 5 thousand people in town, and a Chief, two Sergeants, four officers (three of which are pretty new, and a fifth just started, but now one of the four is leaving, so back to the drawing board). We keep coverage 24/7/52. There are times there is only one officer on duty. They try to keep that limited to the times when "generally" things don't happen, like Sundays for instance. They are all considered on call 24/7/52 unless they're completely out of the area. If something happens and they're physically able to get there, they're required to do so. (Like the times JD's been on vacation but doing things at home and we've had crazy shit go down, or if we were in a town a reasonable distance away, we would be required to return) The police aren't ever going to be "just a phone call away" in reality. People *expect* them to be, but that's not the reality of the situation. We've not entered into Star Trek territory (much as I'd like to Make It So) where the officers can just beam from one end of town to a deadly accident on the other end of town or even out into the country where the Sheriff's department has jurisdiction if something goes down and they're needed. If something happens 8 miles away-that can at times be live or die. And we have one deputy on duty for the entire county. JD's been called out in the middle of the night to help w/accidents in the county b/c the deputy was clear on the other end of the county and technically JD would be closer, even taking the time to jump out of bed in the middle of the night and take off.

No, JD doesn't want anyone who doesn't take the time to learn their weapon and become familiar w/it, to carry. I have my carry license, and I don't carry for that reason. Nobody...mmmmm..I will amend that, b/c I know there are complete die-hard gun people who would disagree, and I disagree w/*them*...I will say..smart and responsible people do not want anyone to carry if they have not taken the time to learn their weapon, they are not familiar and comfortable w/it, they do not practice and train with it. It's like another limb/appendage to JD. He still has to adjust my stance and my hold. I want to become proficient so that muscle memory puts my body into the proper position automatically. Until then, I won't carry.

JD's concern is that gray area of time between when a call comes in and when he can get there. And if a call doesn't come in...he doesn't know there's anything occurring. if someone can't get to the phone, he won't know. That gray area is what keeps him up at night, makes him second guess himself. If someone has the means to defend themselves, it could mean the difference between living and dying during that gray area of time. We're spread out, here in the middle of nowhere. A lot of our towns don't have a police force so they rely on the deputies. We were coming back from the city and watched an accident a couple months ago where a car pulled out in front of a semi. Somehow, nobody in that car got hurt. But the only deputy was 15 miles away, and other than the fact that we happened to be right there, that deputy was the nearest law enforcement. It was close to five minutes before that town's "emergency response team" or whatever it would be called, got there-and that was only b/c some old farmer in the gas station lived there and knew there was such a team in that town, so he ran down the street to the building and they happened to be there. (it's a volunteer thing, not a job) And funnily enough, the driver of the semi happened to be on that emergency response team. It was a good 15 minutes before the deputy was able to get there and he was going over 100mph.

I am not one who thinks everyone should be armed. And I'm not one who thinks everyone should be armed at all times. I'm one who thinks that rather than going after someone's right and/or ability to defend themselves (or hunt or target shoot), we should go after that which one would need to defend *against*. Why take medication for a symptom of an illness rather than attacking the illness itself? That's my stance. Why go after me and my gun when the drug dealer/robber/rapist whatever, is coming into my home or attacking me in a parking lot or in a mall or at a theater? Why not go after the source?

I have no problem w/making it harder to buy firearms. I would gladly take classes on proper cleaning/handling/firing/technique etc--I can't ever seem to find the time to do it on my own, that would be a way to force people to acknowledge/accept/take responsibility for what they're wanting to learn to do. I spent two hours this morning at Tae Kwon Do class sweating my be-hind off-b/c it's something I *want* to learn to do. Last Saturday it was just me and my two kids at class! I turn myself into knots to change things during my week in order to be able to attend those classes. That black belt isn't going to be handed to me-I've got to work for each of these belts. And a gun shouldn't be handed to me either. But---every second of every minute of every hour of every day, somewhere, someone is being handed a gun they've not worked for. Again: 15 thousand dollars a month earned by one man for illegal firearms. That's where focus needs to be, those black belts being handed out like pez while I bust my butt and will spend another 18 months or so to get mine.
 

packrat

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
10,614
And yes, I agree things would be different if men could be pregnant, deal w/labor, have c sections...things would change overnight. When I've been sick JD would say I'm sorry honey I wish I could trade places with you. When I was pg, and in labor, and then later during my C sections, I'd ask JD if he wished he could do it himself, if he'd trade with me. He'd always give me a look and say Mmmmyeahno. "if a guy says he'd willingly put himself thru what a woman goes thru to have a baby, he's a big fat liar". I made him watch the video of the two guys who went thru the simulated labor pains. He was not amused and when asked, he said no he absolutely did not want to try it to understand what I went thru. :loopy: He does however, feel 100% of the decisions for a woman's body, including to terminate a pregnancy, should be made by the woman.
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,308
Niel|1449347864|3957979 said:
JoCoJenn|1449347591|3957978 said:
Niel|1449288611|3957765 said:
I think we are basically in agreement. The only thing I might disagree with is that an abortion has no direct impact on a human being, but a gun could. So though yes both are a legal act, I think one should have more regulation than another.

Gun debate aside, I am kind of speechless reading this statement. It is a tragic & sad thought that having that procedure (whether I agree with it or not) doesn't impact the person having it (much less the life that might have been). Kinda backs up what I just posted in the SB thread.

Just curious, if it's not considered a life in utero, why does a murderer of a pregnant woman get charged with two counts?


An abortion is legally performed before the fetus is able to survive out of the mother. And thus, isn't the same as a living human being out in the world.

I would assume the distinction is obvious.

That's destroying the potential for life. Of course it's sad. But the potential for something cannot be compared to actuality.

I meant charged with one count vs two counts ...again, personal position aside, I don't see how we can have it both ways (not viable if I want an abortion but viable enough to charge someone with a second count of murder). Like you said, potential life vs an actual life.
 

packrat

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
10,614
Gol darnit, I forgot to add something to my novel before.

We had part one of Intruder Training a couple weeks ago. The speaker said "Who are the first responders if there is an incident? No matter if it's a school or if it's out in public" Everyone's yelling out "Police, fire department, police, sheriff's office, police, ambulance, police, police, police" I did the tentative raise of the hand "Um-wouldn't it be..US? We're the ones IN the situation? So wouldn't WE be considered the ones that are first responders?" the whole time thinking ohhh gawd I hate this I'm going to look like such a dork. And, yes, when there is a situation, technically, the first responders are the common citizens who are already there.

The thing of it is, it's not fair. It's not. Officers understand that and they acknowledge that. It's not fair that they can't always get there in time. It's not fair that citizens have to rely on each other first and foremost in situations--whether it be you're in a store and someone keels over and needs CPR or whatever the case may be. But that's the reality of life.

I'm not saying everyone should have a gun to defend themselves or others in every situation. There are other things you can do. But understand that the first "help" you have available is yourself and the other people you have around you. NOT law enforcement.
 

katharath

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,850
JoCoJenn|1449348698|3957983 said:
Niel|1449347864|3957979 said:
JoCoJenn|1449347591|3957978 said:
Niel|1449288611|3957765 said:
I think we are basically in agreement. The only thing I might disagree with is that an abortion has no direct impact on a human being, but a gun could. So though yes both are a legal act, I think one should have more regulation than another.

Gun debate aside, I am kind of speechless reading this statement. It is a tragic & sad thought that having that procedure (whether I agree with it or not) doesn't impact the person having it (much less the life that might have been). Kinda backs up what I just posted in the SB thread.

Just curious, if it's not considered a life in utero, why does a murderer of a pregnant woman get charged with two counts?


An abortion is legally performed before the fetus is able to survive out of the mother. And thus, isn't the same as a living human being out in the world.

I would assume the distinction is obvious.

That's destroying the potential for life. Of course it's sad. But the potential for something cannot be compared to actuality.

I meant charged with one count vs two counts ...again, personal position aside, I don't see how we can have it both ways (not viable if I want an abortion but viable enough to charge someone with a second count of murder). Like you said, potential life vs an actual life.

There is a legal distinction. I'm quoting someone online here but don't have their real name:

"Read the Supreme Court decision, Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the decision. She explained why women have the right to choose.

There is no contradiction between giving women the right to choose and prohibiting that same choice to someone other than the pregnant woman.

The pregnant woman takes a risk to carry a child to term. She is the only one who faces the risk of pregnancy and childbirth and the challenge of possibly raising that child alone. She cannot be forced to sacrifice her life for the fetus. No third person faces that risk. That is why no third person has the right to make the decision as to whether the pregnant woman should carry the fetus to term and give birth or not."

Hence, a fictional "third person" who murders a pregnant woman can be prosecuted for the murder of a fetus.
 

iLander

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
6,731
Calliecake|1449280011|3957687 said:
I came accross this by Aaron Perry Zucker and found it interesting.

What if we treated every young man who wants to purchase a gun like every young woman who wants to have an abortion?

- Mandatory 48 hour waiting period

- Parential permission

- A note from his doctors proving he understands what he is about to do

- A video to watch about the effects of gun violence

- An ultrasound wand up the butt (just because)

- Lets close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a
strange room to get a gun

- Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and
beg him not to buy a gun.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I get your point, Calliecake. I love it.

Patriarchal bull$hit society . . . :nono:
 

ame

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
10,876
Calliecake|1449280011|3957687 said:
I came accross this by Aaron Perry Zucker and found it interesting.

What if we treated every young man who wants to purchase a gun like every young woman who wants to have an abortion?

- Mandatory 48 hour waiting period

- Parential permission

- A note from his doctors proving he understands what he is about to do

- A video to watch about the effects of gun violence

- An ultrasound wand up the butt (just because)

- Lets close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a
strange room to get a gun

- Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and
beg him not to buy a gun.
Do you ever watch the Amy Schumer show on Comedy Central? She did a GREAT job with that very topic though it was more in regards to birth control in general.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/whzt7k/inside-amy-schumer-birth-control
 

Niel

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
20,061
ame|1449362386|3958082 said:
Calliecake|1449280011|3957687 said:
I came accross this by Aaron Perry Zucker and found it interesting.

What if we treated every young man who wants to purchase a gun like every young woman who wants to have an abortion?

- Mandatory 48 hour waiting period

- Parential permission

- A note from his doctors proving he understands what he is about to do

- A video to watch about the effects of gun violence

- An ultrasound wand up the butt (just because)

- Lets close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a
strange room to get a gun

- Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and
beg him not to buy a gun.
Do you ever watch the Amy Schumer show on Comedy Central? She did a GREAT job with that very topic though it was more in regards to birth control in general.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/whzt7k/inside-amy-schumer-birth-control

She's my favorite
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top