My Opinion

I have a question for the liberal world about guns and abortion 

How is it possible to be anti-gun and pro abortion simultaneously?

In both cases the rights of somebody are in question. In one case there is the possibility of ending a life. In the other case there is certainty. (The question of when there is life is a spurious technicality as the end result is not in doubt).

If it is bad to have a law against abortion, why is it good to have a law against guns?

There are about 32,000 Americans killed by guns esch year, including 11,000 murders. There are about 1,000,000 abortions each year and one point of view sees all those as murder.

If a women must have the right to choose, why not other Americans, most of whom are peaceful, harmless individuals?

I personally don’t see why people need a gun and I cannot accept abortion for the economic convenience of the mother which most are, but I do not support a law totally banning abortion.

Agree or disagree and why?


7 replies »

  1. I have a question for the Conservative world about abortion and guns. How can you conservatives force women to give birth regardless of the circumstances of conception, the future diseased life of the unborn or the life of the mother. Once born, you deny them Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, child nutrition, earned income tax credits, supplemental security income and temporary assistance for needy families and housing. If those poor babies manage to live through all of that, you support allowing suspected terrorists and any other deranged person to buy an assault rifle and blow them away in an act of terrorism. You are very sick people and you are all bought and paid for puppets of the NRA.


    • First, you incorrectly assume those receiving abortions are all poor. Second I for one would not make abortion illegal even though except for certain situation such as rape, I oppose the very idea, especially as a casual form of birth control. Responsible people have other options to avoid pregnancy … and it’s all free, remember.

      The program’s you cite have and continue to grow, not shrink and if you think that’s a good thing, we really don’t agree. It seems to me instead of growing welfare we should be striving to make it unnecessary, but then nobody would be dependent on what politicians promise and the cycle of voting for them broken.


      • I said what I said assuming you realize that wealthy women will get abortions regardless of the legality of the issue. As usual, the only people hurt by Republicans are those that are not wealthy and the only people helped by Republicans are those that are already incredibly wealthy. The programs cited are growing because 1) Republicans refused to support our president’s jobs initiatives during the past seven years – most notably the infrastructure repair efforts 2) Republicans refused to support an increase in the federal minimum wage 3) And all of the other Republican obstructionism solely for political reasons. Our president has done nothing to increase the programs cited.
        It seems to me that nearly all of the government paralysis we have been living with for 7 years would be cured by strict and short congressional term limits and presidential line-item veto power.


  2. What happened to your post “Second Amendment In Context”? It seems that you deleted it. I finally had a chance to make a comment and it is gone! Anyway, it appears to me that 2nd amendment gives a reason for the people of the United States to have the right to possess guns and then enumerates that right. Just because the reason may no longer be applicable, doesn’t mean that the right to guns is gone. To regulate guns the way the liberal demoncrats desire means that the 2nd amendment would need to be amended or another amendment added to change its original meeting. There is a constitutional process to do that so if and when the people of the United States through their lawfully elected representatives want to “take away our guns”, they can do it that. Until then the US Supreme Court must enjoin the US Congress and State legislatures from violating the 2nd amendment.


  3. Your comparison to abortion may have an even greater parallel to gun restrictions than you think. Does the second amendment restrict a state’s ability to ban guns? Assuming it was challenged to the Supreme Court, you would have Scalia, Thomas, and alito, all close to strict constitutionalists, joining the leftists on the court, led by Ginsberg and Breyer, probably also KAGAN … That the 2nd amendment applies to the federal government, not the state’s, and that this is an area where the tenth amendment may trump the 14th amendment… Using arguments comparable to those in the Windsor same gender marraige case. I expect we may also see another amendment to the constitution that clarifies where and when the 14th amendment applies to the states.

    If you go back to pre-roe, abortion all driven by state law … Maybe someday guns.

    I can’t predict the future… But I can see a shift, state by state.


What's your opinion on this post? Readers would like your point of view.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s