if gun laws won't stop gun crime, how is outlawing abortions going to stop abortion

[TommyTooter]

in a brilliant ruling temporarily striking down an alabama law that would have forced all but two abortion clinics to close, judge myron thomson expose the double standards of conservative arguments against abortion.

http://mic.com/articles/95590/a-jud...rd-in-conservative-arguments-against-abortion

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

That analogy is such a terrible stretch it would be like my hand in Florida reaching the top of Mount Everest while I sit on my couch typing this.

 

[Evil Eye]

I agree with True Liberty that it's a bad analogy, but that aside - it won't.

It'd just make it rather dangerous since you wouldn't be able to trust whoever's doing it to be worth their salt. Numbers would probably drop though.

 

[+paradox]

explain how that's a bad analogy if it's true?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Trying to compare murdering a human being to what is a constitutional right that has been unconstitutionally regulated or suggested regulation by the judge is a hug stretch.

 

[+paradox]

the point is if gun laws don't solve gun killings/crimes then how would any other law against something would change how people would keep doing such events?

that's not a stretch, let alone a "huge stretch"...

it's called the truth...

 

[+paradox]

Trying to compare murdering a human being to what is a constitutional right that has been unconstitutionally regulated or suggested regulation by the judge is a hug stretch.

also, are you for or against abortion?

are you for or against the death penalty?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Against and for.

 

[+paradox]

okay, and another question, are you for or against food-stamps and helping the poor and the less fortunate?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

okay, and another question, are you for or against food-stamps and helping the poor and the less fortunate?

I think our debate on another subject answers this question.

 

[+paradox]

not really, you said the federal government shouldn't be involved in helping the poor and the less fortunate, that the states should... so if the states did their own food-stamps, you'd be for that or not?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

not really, you said the federal government shouldn't be involved in helping the poor and the less fortunate, that the states should... so if the states did their own food-stamps, you'd be for that or not?

I would not be for that but I would except it if thats what that individual states want. I might just then move to a state that depends on private charity then government handouts.

 

[+paradox]

what about the tax payers that aren't heartless and want to help others in need?

i've been working since the age of 16 (with my first official job at publix) and if i lose a job and can't find a job (due to any reason), i'd think i would have the right to get help...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

what about the tax payers that aren't heartless and want to help others in need?

Send a check to the government. Drop off a box of canned goods to a shelter or your local red cross. Just because you dont want government deciding on how your money should be used on humanitarian things does it mean they are heartless. I just have zero trust or belief they are doing any good with my money towards helping people.

i've been working since the age of 16 (with my first official job at publix) and if i lose a job and can't find a job (due to any reason), i'd think i would have the right to get help...

Ive been working since I was 12 and became homeless late into my 17th year. I could have gotten food stamps even went to get them I was so hungry and basically starving having no real meal for several days. But when I walked into that building I still remember all those people sitting there looking like defeated beaten down individuals like it was yesterday. I walked out and decided either I will do it on my own or die trying before I look like those sad individuals.

Does not mean I do not feel for these people I just prefer and believe in private charities over the government handling my money. If government screws up and has corruption problems with my money I cant do one damn thing about it. If a private charity screws up and has corruption problems I can find another one.

 

[Fatal Dawn]

The concern I have with private charity is how consistently and thoroughly you can apply it. There was a thread a while back where someone suggested the idea of privatizing welfare into a voluntary system: http://offtopix.com/showthread.php?tid=615&highlight=system

Though flawed, I'd personally rather fall back on a social safety net as opposed to the volition of some charitable individuals. Public or private charity, I think some government supervision is needed so we know where the money is actually going.

A recent story:

Harrisburg City Treasurer accused of stealing thousands from Lighten Up charity

Harrisburg's City Treasurer allegedly stole more than $8,400 from a charity to pay for his personal medical and college expenses, according to court documents released Tuesday.

Dauphin County District Attorney Ed Marsico Jr., announced two theft charges, one felony and one misdemeanor, against John R. Campbell, 26, at a news conference Tuesday morning. Campbell is expected to surrender to authorities in a day or so, Marsico said.

The investigation began last week when officials from the charity, Lighten Up Harrisburg, reported their suspicions to county investigators. The charity officials said they had reconciled their checkbook in July to present a ceremonial check to the city to pay for much needed streetlights. The process revealed the charity's balance was lower than it should have been.


Full Story: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/08/harrisburg_city_treasurer_accu.html

For the OP, I'm not sure I understand the comparison. On the pro-life side of abortion you have to remember that you are dealing with the rights of two individuals - one's right to life and the other's right to their body. Clearly there will be more legislation as the author cites in the article. If you're dealing with potential life, it makes sense that more regulations are needed.

With regards to gun-control, I don't hear those same rights argued in debates. People are concerned with their right to protect themselves, not the right to terminate the potential life of another individual. Although I see how, from both sides, you can argue that both are natural rights. In this I'm not referring to gun control specifically, but about the right of self protection. Like philosopher John Locke once wrote, it is a natural right; self preservation is the “the primary law of nature.” If you're on the pro-choice side, then self preservation is what is being argued for and closing down clinics infringes on that right.

 

[+paradox]

True liberty is all about protecting a future human being but as soon as it leaves the mother then you say screw them... lol... sounds legitimate...

 

[Sariki]

My opinion. Abortion I am for it. It's a persons body they have a right to do with it what they will. As for gun laws people are just plain idiots. Stricter gun laws will only make it worse not better.

Remember guns don't kill people stupid people WITH guns kill people.

 

[+paradox]

Remember guns don't kill people stupid people WITH guns kill people.

That is 100% accurate...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

True liberty is all about protecting a future human being but as soon as it leaves the mother then you say screw them... lol... sounds legitimate...

You could not be more wrong. I choose individuals to freely help people. Not a federal government under the power of a gun to force there version morality on me.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

My opinion. Abortion I am for it. It's a persons body they have a right to do with it what they will. As for gun laws people are just plain idiots. Stricter gun laws will only make it worse not better.

Remember guns don't kill people stupid people WITH guns kill people.

Its a persons body to do with as they please not another life inside there body or outside there body.