It seems as though republicans will stand up for gun rights, yet will NOT stand up against abortion, as if fear of losing women voters. I believe there are many women voters who vote democrat, NOT because of abortion, but because of many other factors. We should stand up against abortion as MURDER, and be proud that we are SAVING CHILDREN'S LIVES. Why do they not bring up that obama voted to kill the kid even AFTER the birth if the woman wanted? This is insanity, and its sick that republicans play nice, while democrats throw everything radical in their faces. This is ridiculous. All they have to do is say nothing other than they want to save the lives of children because they care about kids. Throw the party of compassion crap right back in their faces. Seems too easy yet they seems they are afraid. so sad
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
This is the ultimate issue for conservatives...they are (generally) polite and play "nice" while leftists scream, beat bongos and act like asses. Most people without a dog in a fight will basically go along with them to get them to shut up, sadly.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
If they are going to stand up for only one, I prefer it this way around, much as I passionately hate the murder of the most innocent. The problem is that the other way around, we would soon find ourselves in a dictatorship in which the left will supply the dictator and we will be supplying the ship.
Actually I think you got it backwards. The GOP has been very clear that the right to life is a key issue in any republican campaign. Championing the right to life against abortion as a biblical truth is the only thing that keeps the christian voting block decidedly conservative. I don't really hear much noise by the GOP in terms of gun control. Seems like they're mostly letting the NRA do all the talking. I'm kind of wondering where the GOP's strict right to life voice is now. So unborn babies have the right to live. Innocent kids going to school; not so much.
The republicans dont even entertain the idea of gun bans, the do however try to side step women's issues, romney flip flopped on abortion, many republicans say its ok during rape and incest, which is just a way for liberals to get their foot in the door. Its simple, a baby shouldnt be killed, I dont see very many republicans taking a stand on this, even Mcain-a very liberal so called republican says "No" on passing gun control. This issue can easily be won by republicans yet they wont fight in fear of losing women voters, its silly. almost every mother wants their baby to live, the ones that want to kill their babies are democrat voters anyway(maybe not 100% but prolly 99%!!!!)
I don't think the pro-choice movement is only about killing babies. It is also about women saying that gov't shouldn't be able to reach into a woman's body.
You know, sort of like gov't should never be able to reach into our homes and take away our guns.
If you are against gov't overreach; than the right to choose shouldn't be an alien concept to 2nd amendment supporters.
You know, sort of like gov't should never be able to reach into our homes and take away our guns.
If you are against gov't overreach; than the right to choose shouldn't be an alien concept to 2nd amendment supporters.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
OK, how then do you justify giving that same woman the right to kill someone else's body and the right to have the option to walk away from a pregnancy with no consequences and no accountability to anyone else while making that decision, yet the right to use government as a bludgeon to control the next two decades of a man's life if she so chooses such that he never has an opportunity to wash his hands of the situation? The freedom over her own body argument falls apart pretty quickly. Even if you reject the personhood of the unborn, that still leaves the man who has absolutely no influence over a decision that will radically affect the rest of his life. It just doesn't wash.
IncendiaryGunner
Master
Because government does not grant rights - it may only infringe upon them.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
OK, if you can set aside splitting hairs over phraseology, this issue has nothing to do with respecting anyone's rights, but rather creating a situation in which one person can grossly infringe on the rights of two other people.
I'm not justifying any of it.
I personally think all babies are blessings. And any young woman who ever came to me and said they were pregnant and didn't know what to do. I would contend with them with every ounce of my being to have the baby. Even if they want to give it up for adoption immediately.
And a man actually does have influence. If he doesn't want to support his baby then he should stick to masturbation and/or abstinence.
That being said; I was only trying to communicate the essence of the pro-choice stance. Not defend its inherent rightness or wrongness.
IncendiaryGunner
Master
But it truly does have something to do with respecting rights...
The issue gets complex when you consider more than one being having rights in that specific situation.
It is just not a simple black and white issue, and the population is roughly split. When the population cannot agree, why should the government make laws?
If it were up to me I would personally choose against an abortion... but I do not believe it is my place to legislate my opinions and morals on other people in this specific set of circumstances.
On the other hand, exercising my right to own firearms does not infringe upon the rights of others. The second amendment issue is not nearly as complex - and the analogy does not hold up well to scrutiny.
Last edited:
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
This is analogous to saying that if a woman doesn't want to become pregnant, she should keep her legs together. My point is that after a bad decision is made which stands to profoundly impact the lives of both participants, why should one get to dictate how decades of the other's life is going to be while he gets no influence over much of his own life?
I find myself coming back to the point I could start screaming obscenities. What is not black and white, again, about one person not only making a decision for herself with no accountability for anyone, but also the life or death of a child, and at minimum two decades of a man's life, in which he has no choice whatsoever? If the worthless piece of s**t liberals want to cry about equality, let's have some equality.
IncendiaryGunner
Master
When a man engages in intercourse with a woman, a child may be created. If she births a child, she did not do that to him - they did that.
If a woman bears a child, a man already made his choice.
Don't want a child? Easy solution - abstain from having intercourse.
He decided for himself how those decades were going to be spent when he decided to become sexually active. She is not dictating to him. They mutually consented to having sex and therefore mutually acknowledged the possibility of pregnancy. When she became pregnant, he became a father. She didn't dictate. That's his sperm in her egg. It's their combined DNA that makes that new person. Of course he has a responsibility to help with the upbringing of the child.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
OK, you two seem to get the equal culpability. Why do you support an absolutely unequal apportionment of influence over one's destiny when the time comes to take responsibility?
IncendiaryGunner
Master
Last time I checked men do not get pregnant.
It is kind of hard to be completely equal in a situation in which significant biological differences serve as a barrier to equality.
I'm not even sure I understand the question. So let me just say this:
In the summer of 1995 I got a girl pregnant. I didn't love her and had no plans on ever committing to a relationship with her. Having the baby would have ended her career and probably mine too. She decided to have an abortion. I will always regret supporting her in that decision. If I could go back in time I would fight tooth and nail to have that baby.
I think a man steps up and takes responsibility for his actions. I didn't step up. And I see it every time I look into a mirror.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Physical equality and equality before the law are two entirely different things. My point is that you are taking two people who jointly made the same bad decision if this discussion is even happening and affording one of them all the choices with zero accountability and the other zero choice with all the accountability.
If we are going to step away from my position that abortion is murder and categorically unacceptable, let's explore the following potential solution:
1. The woman still has her choice to opt out clean with abortion.
2. Assuming that she chooses not to, then the man has his choice to opt out and simply walk away.
3. I would also provide for a binding agreement to be made in which they agree for the baby to be born with the woman walking away free after giving birth with no rights, privileges, or responsibilities pertaining to the baby.
4. Assuming that neither one wants to opt out, then it can be dealt with using the traditional terms.
Under a plan of this type, there are plenty of options without having one person dictate decades of another person's life while affording him no recourse about his own life. I don't really like this, but I also believe that equality either is or is not and that no one should be able to control the life of another person, especially in a situation of equal culpability. I would agree without reservation to having a man on the hook to provide for his child in a pre-Roe environment in which the mother was equally on the hook for their mutual decision. If we are going to have equality in our leftist, amoral paradise, let's have equality.
