Abortion is one of those issues that doesn’t rise very high on my give-a-shit-o-meter. Bitter is a nominally pro-life person who recognizes the unintended consequences of making all abortion illegal, and I’m a nominally pro-choice person who think maybe there’s a point to be made by people who oppose late-term abortions. It all comes down to where you think the line should be for an unborn child to earn the full rights and protections of a human, and I don’t claim to have any special moral insight into that particular subject.
I’m generally OK with making it a crime to block access to health care facilities, as I would be for any protester who blocks public or private thoroughfares to block access to any private property, including gun stores and libraries.
But one thing I would never advocate is for such a petty, non-violent crime to earn anyone even a temporary ban on a person’s right to keep and bear arms, and that seems to be exactly what Harry Reid is planning to force a vote on in the Senate. This is shameful pandering. Reid should be ashamed of himself.
Heh, you guys sound like an interesting couple. Great to see people with different views getting along these days.
Our views actually aren’t that dissimilar. We both recognize the problem of extreme laws on either side, and the areas we normally come together on the issue center around accepting responsibility for your actions. (Obviously, such personal responsibility isn’t at issue in cases of rape and medical necessity. Thanks to jackasses like Todd Akin for making me have to spell out the glaringly obvious on this issue.)
I think one reason I fall more on the “pro-life” side than he does is that I don’t accept the excuse of “unintended consequences” argument of consensual sexual activity. I do realize that women bear a very unfair burden when it comes to said consequences since men can more easily walk away, but we also know that’s a consequence going into the act that makes babies. If it’s a consequence you don’t like, don’t engage in baby making activities.
I’d rather see a society where we end the problem of unintended pregnancies because at least then we’d be dealing with the real issue at hand.
I don’t know about your definition of “health care facility”, but it seems to be the opposite of mine. People go to get genuine care (and not death) under my definition.
The FACE Act should be repealed.
Actually, from a gun rights side, that could be huge long term win for us if something like that were passed. Given the language in both Heller and McDonald, I can’t see how a ban on ownership for a non-violent misdemeanor related to peaceful protest could possibly stand up to a serious, well crafted challenge in the courts. It would suck in the short term for a very small segment of the gun owning public, though.
What other Constitutional Rights can we strip whenever a bureaucrat puts a name on a list?
Peace protester? No more third Amendment for you – we are sending over an Infantry squad to live in your house.
Last night, in his perverted response to the terroristic murders in California, Obama decried that people on “no-fly” bureaucratic lists can still buy guns. So, it’s coming!!!
Reid should be ashamed of himself. Reid ashamed? When he dies ( not soon enough ) at hevens pearly gate he will stand and as St. Peter reads off the long list Reid will look him right in the eye and say “so what’s your point?”
More questions:
Does a President (think Hillary Clinton – force yourself) have unlimited power to secretly add individuals or groups (or individuals “suspected” of belonging to a group) to the List?
Also, what happens when someone is added to the List who resides in a state requiring gunowner licensing (i.e. CT) and is thus found to already own guns. According to Dems, that is intolerably dangerous. What happens then?
The law as proposed is full of “loopholes.” If someone on the list tries to buy a gun, all that happens is the sale is blocked? His residence, vehicle, and place of business should be searched for other guns, with no warrant required. If any are found, the owner should be detained until he gives satisfactory answers to any LE questions about their use or need (and no “lawyer” crap, of course). Let’s have a law with teeth!
So let’s just abandon any notion of due process of law?
There are plenty of other countries that already have the sort of authoritarian nonsense on the books, I get the feeling that you’d be much happier living elsewhere. I therefore kindly request that you take your statist claptrap and get the hell out of my country.
A new human life begins at conception. A simple medical fact. Your views on abortion should be informed by this truth.
A human fetus at early stages is not remarkably distinguishable from a chicken embryo. A fertilized zygote is not a human being in really any sense, it is something that will gestate into a human being. So I don’t view it as that simple, and the mother carrying it has rights to.
With the right application of technology, it’s possible for any cell, or groups of cells in your body to be grown into a duplicate version of you. So what then are the moral implications of taking a shower and killing all those potential yous.
But I get those who draw the line at conception. Absent some medical issue, left alone even a single fertilized cell will develop into a human being, and I get religious people who thinks that’s the right line to be drawn. Like I said, abortion doesn’t rise high on my give-a-shit-o-meter. That’s why I don’t have issues being in a coalition who think life begins at conception. I don’t think it’s that simple, but I also don’t agree with liberals that there are no moral implications to abortion at all. At some point you are dealing with a human being with rights.