Abortion's ironic effect upon the RKBA

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff Thomas

New member
[request ... please, let's keep the abortion debate (per se) on the sideline in this thread, as long as possible ... I really don't have strong feelings in that debate, other than to recognize the tragedy on both sides.]


This weekend I saw an old friend and his wife. We meet once each year in Tucson for a day or two of mountain climbing, hiking and such.

Last year I had begun to make my concerns about the RKBA clear to them, as diplomatically as possible. This year I took it a bit further, and nearly lost their friendship ... but for reasons that floored me.

I mentioned the Democrats' strong anti-self defense stands, and my friends replied that Bush / Cheney were too conservative for them. My friend's wife was becoming increasingly upset. They own at least one firearm, but give the subject little thought ... as they say, it's simply 'not their issue'.

Turns out that my friend's wife is strongly 'pro-choice' ... she used to counsel in an abortion clinic, and had received threats from 'pro-life' folks, etc. (I always find those reports quite ironic).

She asked me coldly 'Are they trying to take your guns away?' I responded that 'they' are, and gave various examples. She replied that if Bush / Cheney win, then women across the U.S. will have Big Brother telling them how and when to have babies. And, she said the RKBA is of no importance whatsoever, compared to the abortion debate.

We briefly discussed partial birth abortions (I thought they would certainly reject that abomination), and it became clear that 'pro-choice' people don't want to get near this subject, because they see it as the camel's nose getting into the tent. I found I could empathize with this perspective to some extent, considering the rampant incrementalism in the RKBA arena.


Yesterday I told my friend that it is a shame people can't simply leave each other alone. He agreed. He said that he wouldn't care about whether I had revolvers or machine guns, but he and his wife couldn't abide others dictating their family planning.

I wasn't at all surprised at the passion. I was surprised about the direct effect upon the RKBA, due to the alignments of the Democrats and Republicans.


Abortion is a tragedy, as is child abuse and unloved, unwanted children. Gun violence ... any violence, for that matter, is an equal tragedy. While the world is generally a much better place for our quality of life, there are still too many human tragedies to go around.


The point of all this, from my perspective, in our increasing inability to simply let each other live our lives without interference from others. Unfortunately, it seems there are people in our world who cannot abide any tragedy, and feel compelled to tell us how to live. At a time when we are exhorted to value diversity, instead we have very little left of a 'live and let live' philosophy in America ... if there ever was one.

So, the anti-self defense gun bigots take our guns. The moral custodians of our world want to do the family planning and regulate the drugs we can put into our bodies. The PETA types tell us we're simply 'custodians' for our pets. Gay couples insist that we embrace their lifestyle. And on, and on.

Like you, I suspect, I don't have an answer. But, I will say this ... if we keep forcing our values and beliefs on each other, and inflaming such passions, it will come to a bad end, IMHO. Freedom and personal responsibility combine into a messy philosophy ... always has been, always will be. But frankly, I haven't seen a better one.

Regards from AZ


[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited August 05, 2000).]
 

Keiller TN

New member
Aren't all laws based upon some moral code? We have a second amendment because life has value. Why does life have value? Answer that without any religious explaination. I don't think you can.
Your premise is that we can live and let live. This won't work, because always people will do things they think are ok that offend and hurt others. So what laws do we need and why?

------------------
"Unless the Lord builds the house, they labour in vain that build it:
except the Lord guards the city, the watchman stays awake in vain." (Psalm 127:1)


"Freedom is given to the human conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility."
(Alexander Solzhenitzyn)
 

Gorthaur

New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>the anti-self defense gun bigots take our guns. The moral custodians of our world want to do the family planning and regulate the drugs we can put into our bodies.... Gay couples insist that we embrace their lifestyle.[/quote]So, you don't want people telling you what guns you can have, or doing your "family planning" for you, but you want to tell people what gender their spouse can be. You're being inconsistent.

------------------
Support the US Olympic Shooting Team!
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
 

Jeff Thomas

New member
Keiller, offending others is one thing ... hurting them is an entirely different story. I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes (SCOTUS) who said 'your freedom to swing your fist ends at the other fellow's nose'. And, I don't agree at all that life can only be valued in a religious context ... I respect your right to life, and your fundamental right to protect life, regardless of my religion or yours.

Gorthaur, your reading of my note is interesting. I don't care who marries whom ... for that matter, you can marry one of each! By the same token, if I have a private club, I should be able to invite whomever I choose. My wife and I have a couple of gay friends, as well as at least one gay family member. I don't have a problem with the lifestyle, but I have a problem with being forced to associate with its adherents, fund its consequences, accept that violence against some people is more worthy of punishment than violence against others, etc.

I recognize laws are essentially a society's moral code ... but I think we've gone way beyond the basic of a common moral code (murder, rape, etc.). And, I see better than ever that we essentially have an escalation of 'busy bodies' within the U.S.

This thread is going to be fun ... ;)

Regards from AZ

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited August 05, 2000).]
 

johnbt

New member
"And, I see better than ever that we essentially have an escalation of 'busy bodies' within the U.S." Yup. If they would only go back to peeping through the curtains at their neighbors and stop meddling. John
 

Incursion

New member
I have to agree with Jeff. I'll use drugs as an example. If drugs were made legal, people would probably become addicted to certain drugs and exhaust all of their money on the drug. What will they do when they run out of money? They will most likely commit crimes to get money to buy their drugs. This affects other people besides the drug user. It's called a negative externality. Some would say that gun violence affects innocents, but it is a natural right as enumerated by the Constitution. Using drugs, as far as I know, is not a natural right. I'll touch a little on the abortion issue. In my opinion, when two people fornicate, they should know that one of the consequences might be the conception of a human being. They should be ready to take the responsibility of raising a child, but I can KIND OF understand the pro choice argument because of negative externalities. If they put the child up for adoption, the child would most likely put an economical burden on the rest of society. Money SHOULDN'T be an issue when a life is at stake, but in this society, sadly, money is everything. Pro choice does not necessarily mean pro abortion in my humble opinion.
 

Magoo1

New member
I'm Pro-Life, but I don't think we'll ever change abortion laws! So we need to change peoples hearts. This all fits in with RTKBA. The anti's want our guns cuz some kooks don't have respect for human life, and they go on shootin' spree's. No different than abortion. Don't want the kid, flush it down the toilet. Or wait till the last weeks of pregnacy and suck its brains out then flush it down the toilet. Same thing NO respect for human life. We have to change hearts not laws! They showed that picture on Drudge report of the baby ( still inside his mother ) being operated on. Its little hand was holding the surgeons finger. Don't tell me that thats not a life. Next it will be old people, then sickly people, then ...YOU!

------------------
Don't give up too much ground. You'll have none to Stand on...
-Magoo1-
 

Dave D

New member
Thoughtful posts all. I have no answers either, just a few thoughts.
I woke up the other morning at around 4:00, a good 2 hours before I usually wake up, and thought "what is it?". I wish I had written down what I was thinking then because it was clearer at the time.
It is a portion of life that has been entrusted to me for awhile, and I will defend it.
In this age of image and acting the reality is getting more obscured. The art of deception has been raised to a new level, a lot of people are losing their way.


[This message has been edited by Dave D (edited August 05, 2000).]
 

EnochGale

New member
This thread will become an absolute waste of time and devolve in the abortion and gaybashing wasteland that we all know and love.

The solution is to make the RKBA separate from the abortion and gay debate. It cannot be seen as the province of conservative crackpots.

Democrats and Republicans, conservative and liberals should value it.

Efforts have to be made to break the conservative linkage to RKBA.

Personally, I would be hard pressed to vote for a antigay bigot or President who seriously would attempt to take down Roe. V. Wade.

Even if he was pro-gun, I would vote against him.
 

B9mmHP

New member
Jeff Thomas- If you have a friend that doesn`t think the way you do, don`t debate politics or religion, if you want to keep them as a friend, it`s that simple.

[This message has been edited by B9mmHP (edited August 05, 2000).]
 

Dennis Olson

New member
Incursion, you said:

I'll use drugs as an example. If drugs were made legal, people would probably become addicted to certain drugs and exhaust all of their money on the drug. What will they do when they run out of money? They will most likely commit crimes to get money to buy their drugs. This affects other people besides the drug user.

May I rephrase that a bit....?

I'll use alcohol as an example. If alcohol was made legal, people would probably become addicted to it and exhaust all of their money on booze. What will they do when they run out of money? They will most likely commit crimes to get money to buy their booze. This affects other people besides the alcoholic..

Dude, prohibition is NEVER the answer. The war on drugs is the SINGLE largest contributor to the erosion of our civil rights (and the "criminalization" of many regular people) in our history. It has led to the seizure of legitimate earnings by ordinary people (who happened to have a few thousand in cash on them), the confiscation of cars, boats, homes, etc.

In many (most?) cases, the "perp was never tried, but his property was "arrested". Fascist, Gestapo tactics, no-knock warrants, etc, can ALL be laid at the feet of the "War on Drugs".

Methinks you should re-evaluate the objective reality of legalization. That is, unless you APPROVE of the terroristic tactics now being employed by alphabet agencies in our country, as well as the ever tightening surveillance of non-criminals.
 

proximo

Moderator
I'm pro-choice but I mostly agree with magoo1. Abortion should, in my opinion, be legal, safe... and rare... and getting more rare by the day. We can only get to that point when people's hearts are changed.

Passing laws that make it harder to have fringe abortions like partial-birth won't make a damn bit of difference to the overall rate of abortions so, if that's your issue, you're just pissing in the wind. Changing people's perception of abortion will make a difference, but that won't come from government meddling. Too much government meddling will just push us back to the bad old days of back-alley abortions because, people will still find a way to have abortions if you don't change their hearts.

Last year, Bush said publicly that while he didn't support abortion, he didn't think the political climate in America was such that it could be made illegal. That one comment proved to me that he was a smart man who deserved my vote. As long as women compose the majority of people in America, you can bet that abortion will be legal. So why waste time and political energy trying to outlaw it?

So, even though I'm a registered Democrat, Bush will get my vote this year. Not only because he's supportive of the 2nd Amendment but because he speaks common sense on the issue of abortion.
 

Incursion

New member
Dennis, to me alcohol is not really a drug because if you drink in moderation it is actually beneficial to your health. On the other hand cocaine, heroin, ecstacy, LSD, etc., have no benefit besides getting someone "high". Cocaine and heroin are chemically addictive. As far as I know ecstacy, alcohol, marijuana are not chemically addictive, but ecstacy severely affects your brain and so does marijuana.

I agree with you about how the various agencies abuse their powers, but this has nothing to do with legalizing drugs imho.

[This message has been edited by Incursion (edited August 05, 2000).]
 

Gorthaur

New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I don't have a problem with the lifestyle[/quote]I bet there's a "but" coming up...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>but[/quote]Yep, there it is. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I have a problem with being forced to associate with its adherents[/quote]Are you talking about the boy scouts? Fine, they're a private organization. So don't squawk when their priviledged status is taken away and they don't get preferential treatment to meet at schools and use national forest and park land. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>fund its consequences[/quote]You talking about AIDS? It's not just for gay men anymore. If nut cases like Jesse Helms hadn't blocked education and research, a lot fewer people would have HIV.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. We pay taxes. I pay a lot of tax. And I don't get a hell of a lot back for it. If you don't want to fund AIDS research, let us keep our money and we'll do it ourselves (which we are, to a large extent). <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> accept that violence against some people is more worthy of punishment than violence against others[/quote] I'm not convinced that "hate crimes" legislation will do any good. However, claiming that it means what you said is ignorant at best. Hate crimes are crimes that are intended to terrorize a group of people, not just the immediate victims. When someone burns down a black church, for instance, it's not just the crime of arson for burning that building. You do understand that, don't you?

------------------
Support the US Olympic Shooting Team!
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!

[This message has been edited by Gorthaur (edited August 05, 2000).]
 

ernest2

New member
The politicians are working the old divide and conquer trick on us yet again.

Here is the case of a gun owner voting for Gore and loss of our second ammendment rights in order to preserve what his wife considers more important, pro-choice.

And the worst rub here is that I believe that
the gun owner and pro-choice wife can safely
vote for Bush and preservse the right of self defense with no danger of loosing the right of abortion choice because I believe all that Bush will do is say abortion is bad and leave it at that. And Bush only says that so as not to loose the pro-life vote.

The real truth of the pro-choice--pro-live --
debate is that abortions should be infriquent
and legal.
One should not have an abortion
meerly because it is convient-- but some (in my opinion) valid reasons for abortion is lack of husband (lack of love between the couple involved) woman not in finicial position to properly raise child without support of not loving father.
I believe a child should be properly raised
by at least one loving parent in a finicial position to do so. Otherwise poverty relagates you to a live of hell on earth and childern badly brought up ending up as criminals and drug dealers and gang members.

I have meet some pro lifers who go on about charity and finicial aid to raise the child and they give you 20.oo to absolve
themselves and their point of view and expect that 20.oo to raise the child to the age of 18 .

They have feelings about pro-life that are well and good and that I can respect , but they do not follow through with the financial aid that their believes require.

This leads me to "think somewhat" that
the pro-lifers are the conservitive equivalent of the million moms mislead march.

They take a moral position-- the moral high ground-- with no money available to support & properly bring up the child; thus deligating the mother & child taking their
advise(which costs the pro-lifers nothing)
to a living nightmare of poverty,mom working all the time with no husband and no time to spend with her child.

And so they advocate something but dont put the funds for their advocacy where their
(for free) words are.

This is a complex issue, and I am sure that there are cases that they can quote where the mother could easily afford to raise the child but is too lazy to do so, and in this case I would wiegh in pro-life as in the former case I would wiegh in pro-choice.

So , I for one, have always been on both sides of the debate, depending on individual case circumstances, which is where all people who think with their brains and not their feelings should be.

Unfortunatly, brain usage amoung the American Public is on the decline, as evidenced by the current state of the nation.

The point was (in case you forgot) that the politicians are making fools of us yet again
by the old and always dependable divide & conqueer technique; and we keep falling for it ,over and over again because sheeple are too lazy to ferret out the truth and think for themselves and too easily taken in my politicians lieing campain promises.


And by the way, I care not weather you agree with or disagree with me one whit.

[This message has been edited by ernest2 (edited August 05, 2000).]
 

Gorthaur

New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Abortion should, in my opinion, be legal, safe... and rare... and getting more rare by the day.[/quote]Well said.

I'm hesitant to say let's drop all of the drug laws, since it doesn't seem to have worked well in places like Amsterdam. But I think there's a lot to be said for the idea that drug use should be "legal, safe... and rare... and getting more rare by the day."

------------------
Support the US Olympic Shooting Team!
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
 

MP Freeman

New member
I'm a devout christian and I know not everybody here on TFL is, and I respect that. We TFL people are united by a strong belief in RKBA. I have posted this elsewhere, that I support JPFO, and other groups, and I would also support any group calling itself

"GODLESS GAY PRO-CHOICE HEDONISTS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP"

Because groups like this only lobby congress on the issue of RKBA. Even though on religious grounds, I differ with the Jewish religion and especially a group of godless, gay, pro-choice people, never the less I support their right to RKBA and mine.


Now about abortion, I believe every human has the right to self defense. And one is truely noble to protect the lives of those who cannot protect their own. I believe RKBA is a tool to protect not only my life, but the lives of others. AND NO!!! I DO NOT AGREE WITH PEOPLE WHO SHOOT ABORTION CLINICS!!!!These people do too much harm to the pro_LIFE cause. Even those who threaten pro-choice people are doing great harm. It would be the same as if the pro-gun folks threatened HCI with violence. Even though HCI is putting people in a dangerous position where citizens will be harmed. People have a right to think for themselves. Even if they are wrong.

To truly get at the question of abortion and if the government should regulate or outlaw the procedure, we must ask what is happening during abortion. Is a mere chunk of alien tissue being removed from the body, or is a human life being destroyed without due process. If alien tissue is being destroyed, then the government has no right to regulate abortion. And if human life is being destroyed, then the government must fight to protect that life. The government is supposed to protect the lives, liberty and property of all the people, not just certain people. And that's about all government should do!!!! It's that simple and that difficult. If abortion is not ending life, then by no means should the government even mention regulation of a medical procedure. And I'll be the first to write my representative. On the other hand, At what time did I become human. From where do I derive my humanness? What makes humans, human? Why is life sacred?

As far as abortion being discussed, I think logical and reasonable adults should discuss the political topics of the day, in a polite manner. Abortion being discussed on TFL? Well it could be argued that it shouldn't, but I think all topics involved with the scope of the government's intrusion in our lives should be discussed. Because the bigger government gets the more it will be a real part of our daily lives. As if it's not already. The original post does make many valid points if abortion is only a medical procedure. And his friend makes the same arguments we pro-gun types do. Interesting post. I enjoyed reading it.

I pray nobody takes this post as a flame. I do not want to offend anyone on TFL. The cause is bigger and greater than for us to attack one another. Each one of us is needed. And I'll do my best to never offend and always be polite, as I should.

Thank you.

MP Freeman
 

Jeff Thomas

New member
Lots of interesting responses ... thanks.

Gorthaur, the sarcasm is unnecessary. And, I'll grant that you have a brain, assuming you'll grant the same respect to me ...

You're a bit sensitive on the gay point. Let's talk.

The Boy Scouts? Yes, that issue bothers me. I've heard this absurd argument before ... the Scouts use schools, churches, National Forest land, public roads ... therefore, they are essentially a 'public' / quasi-governmental entity, and should not be able to set membership / participation standards and requirements. From my perspective, that is a ridiculously high standard. Why not claim that any organization whose members breathe U.S. air must submit to a governmental test of their membership standards? You may see this argument as holding water ... I don't. Their standards of morality and spirituality are an integral part of Scouting. From my perspective, this 'public use' standard, proposed by some, would simply subject nearly every private group to more state control. What's next? ... my daughter's Girl Scout leader is a transvestite, and we're not allowed to pull her out of the troop even if we don't like the fact her leader dresses like a man? When the gay community takes these positions, they're not recognizing individuality and diversity ... they're requiring nearly a fascistic control over our freedom of association.

Live and let live ... the man is welcome to be gay, but some people will therefore choose not to associate with him. Just as some women choose not to associate with some men because they don't care for their behavior.

And, funding? Yes, I have a problem with government expenditures (read that as money coerced from each of us, essentially at gun point) for research, and the expenditures are out of proportion to the numbers of cases relative to other diseases. My understanding is that our expenditures regarding HIV are quite impressive compared to research on larger killers, such as cancer and heart disease. And, regardless of whether someone is gay or straight, the lifestyle factors are quite significant for this disease.

Hate crimes? ... yes, I understand what they are ... no need for the excessive diplomacy on your part. And, will you feel that a murdered straight friend deserves any less justice than a murdered gay friend? If I am murdered for money, the killer may go free after 7 or 8 years, but if I'm murdered because I am gay, then they'll throw the book at him? Sorry ... the concept is flawed, IMHO, not only from a standpoint of likely outcomes, but also from a perspective of obvious morality. Besides, if the gay / lesbian, African-American, Jewish, Latino, Scottish (?) communities want to perpetuate division and hatred, than this is a great strategy. Can you imagine the frustration and hatred that will be engendered by affording special status to one member of the community over another? This is simply bad policy.

If you see these positions as gay-bashing, then I would counter that gay-bashing must therefore be defined as one taking any position contrary to the gay movement. Re-examine your own positions ... I think you'll find they are certainly not based upon freedom and personal responsibility ... live and let live.


My point of this thread was to note the unfortunate impact of the positions our two political parties take, and how those can adversely and coincidentially affect the RKBA. Politicians, and the media, use 'wedge' issues to drive Americans apart, and that is a shame. I remember a country where the 'glue' was our common belief in liberty and personal responsibility. And, that meant we often had to bite our tongue when a neighbor had a different morality.

Sure, this is a little sentimental on my part, and America has never really quite lived up to those lofty images. But, I suppose I feel as though we're not even trying anymore. Many people are working hard to pass laws to further restrict the behavior of their neighbors in so many areas of life. I wonder where it ends.

Thanks. Regards from AZ

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited August 06, 2000).]
 

oberkommando

New member
Agree Jeff,Mp,Magoo,Dennis.

Until I find abortion somewhere in the first Ten Amemdments or main body it don't hold jack next to my RKBA. IMO and others Roe v. Wade should be thrown out of Federal law as fast as possible and left up to the states where it belongs.

I believe it's abortion fanatics that cause a diminishing value to be placed on children,(like the previous thread about why pediophiles get off easy, because the kid is closer to abortion legal age, ie younger, the less value life has) based on the time of pregnancy, depending on how old the kid is before terminating. Maybe we should just let them kill them after birth, who knows maybe a sudden fiscal impact will impair our ability to raise the kid. These kind of garbage laws are written by the same people that write stuff like the 1989 AWB in kalifornia, well if it looks evil it is, if it look nice its ok, and sb23 well on second thought if it has a flash suppressor (whats that? well we don't really know but it sounds good, let the poor bastard who gets arrested deal with it) lets ban it and also a bayonett mount it must be more lethal. ect..etc... If the liberal gun grabbers generally like it them I am generally against it. JMO.

Oh but how the liberals love to claim its for the children when they want to disarm us. Maybe their next line should be "Abortion, it's for the Children."

[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited August 06, 2000).]
 

Hal

New member
More guns, less crime.
More gays, less abortion?

If someone is going to do me harm, I really don't care if they sleep with(or want to sleep with) a super model, Bruce Willis, the family pet(unless it's MY family pet) or a household appliance. The same applies to someone that would restrict my rights in any form. This precept also follows the test of inverse logic. IE: If the above will help,,yada, yada,yada. Abortion is not about choice, it's about ONE person's choice. Huge difference. Next time a pro choicer starts in remind them that the decision is always a ONE choicer. The one that's reffered to as the one that couldn't keep it in his pants has no say in the matter. It always ends up with the same old saw from them with the "case of forced pregnancy". Yeah, well, my idea is to hack up the forcer and sell his body parts to pay for the kid. Makes one he11 of a lot more sense to me than to hack up the fetus.
On a lighter note, next time a hard core, militant born again starts in about sins against nature and such. Ask them what to make of a 30 something guy, no girfriend, always hangin with 12 guys, longish girlie kinda hair and wearing a robe? (It's not that I'm pro gay or anti born again-just a trouble maker ;))

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited August 06, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top