Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Whereas the result of an abundance of guns without checks on what type of personality is seeking weapons designed to kill humans as efficiently and massively as possible results in thousands of deaths every year.
Whereas the result of an abundance of abortions without checks on what type of personality is seeking abortion as "birth control" designed to kill humans as efficiently and massively as possible results in over 750,000 deaths every year.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
""birth control" designed to kill humans as efficiently and massively as possible results in over 750,000 deaths every year."
Seriously, mb?
You are drawing a parallel between gun ownership and abortion?
I really thought you were smarter than that.
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
750,000 fewer gun owners, what's not to like?
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
The point made is YOU Americans are the most violent and hypocritical people on the planet.
^^^^^
Welcome to the club
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
"I'm not part of your sterile stupid club ever ....."
So state the bozo with 26,000 posts.
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
Ok, Werner, point taken, I'm out.
But I too, chose not to be a member of any club that would have me.
Back on topic;
How 'bout that Hillary?
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
Apparently you fail to grasp that a fetus is not considered the legal equivalent to a born human. Therefore the "deaths" you lament are only a construct of your religious philosophy, which our founding fathers wanted to remain separate from the laws that govern our society. My atheist position is equally valid as your religious views, and both have no bearing on the constitution.
When a documented unstable person wants to amass an arsenal with the likelihood of turning it on people, we need to stop them from doing so. Preventing them from easily purchasing the guns is a no-brainer, except to those without brains and those who stand to gain from such sales.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
You are drawing a parallel between gun ownership and abortion?
I'm drawing a parallel between death you like and death you don't like.
I'm drawing a parallel between death as you see it and death as other see it.
I'm noting that you want to make certain things that "cause death" illegal, while other people want to make something else that "causes death" (and MUCH more of it) illegal.
Both side cherry pick what sorts of things they want to control. You want to control people. The right wants to control people. Both sides battle over who gets to control people in what ways. Both sides entirely miss the point.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
That's a bullsh#t, obfuscating, false equivalency explanation, mb.
Stick to one subject- abortion or gun rights.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
That's a bullsh#t, obfuscating, false equivalency explanation, mb.
That's you not being willing to accept some clarity.
The right believes that abortion is intentional murder of children.
You believe that the "epidemic of gun violence" consists of much intentional murder.
The right says that the "implement" is a pill or suction tube.
You believe that the "implement" is a gun.
The right believes that almost a million murders are committed every year.
You believe that the number is closer to 50,000 (talking about "murder," the number is actually about 16,000).
You would say that "everybody agrees that guns kill PEOPLE, while not everybody agrees that abortion kills PEOPLE."
However, NOT everybody agrees with you. In fact, MOST don't agree with you. You cherry pick your emphasis to make your preferred point. You treat all "homicides" as though they concern innocents, when much of the "gun violence" (even genuine murder) amounts to one evil person killing another evil person in (or resulting directly from) an evil context. "Good riddance" in many of these cases. And MOST people in this nation think that at least at SOME stage the fetus becomes a person that can be (and often is) murdered. Almost 2/3 of Americans think that abortion is morally wrong in most or all cases.
So, you don't have nearly the universal sympathy for all "gun violence" "victims" as you might think, and you have a huge consensus believing that abortion is morally wrong in most or all cases.
Furthermore, the tool does nothing by itself. People USE it beneficially, irresponsibly, or for evil. By itself, the gun is NO more "threatening" than is the "morning after" pill sitting in a vial. Some PERSON decides if and how to use the tool, and in many/most cases of the pill (or suction tube and/or forceps) almost 2/3 of Americans believe that a "homicide" has been committed.
The majority of Americans feel that a woman's rights to her own body trump whatever rights a fetus might have at this or that stage of development, so "pro-choice" has become the law of the land.
But while YOU want "common-sense restrictions" on a person's right to bear arms for self-defense, others want "common-sense restrictions" on the "right" to abortion-at-will. For example, can you REALLY sustain the claim that partial-birth abortion is LESS a murder than decapitating the same child five minutes after it has been "fully" born?
The left DEMANDS absolutely NO restrictions on ANY form of abortion, while it blithely states that "we all know" the "common sense restrictions" that the "evil right" resists regarding gun control.
There's no false equivalency here. Both sides want ALL that they want and NONE of what the other side wants. Both sides are ostensibly claiming to want to stop/reduce murders. Both sides have focused on the tool and on how they cast who counts as "innocent victims" of the "epidemic" of "murder" that is their chosen hobby horse. And both sides seek to employ "common-sense restrictions" to limit the RIGHTS of law-abiding citizens.
I'll grant you unrestricted abortion rights if you grant me unrestricted gun rights (according to the principle of self-defense as I've repeatedly explained it, which does NOT get American citizens the right to tanks, C4, or nukes).
The irony here is that the guns of the vast, vast, VAST majority of citizens are never going to hurt an innocent in any way, while the suction tubes and forceps employed in late-term and partial-birth abortions ARE every time going to be employed in the death of an innocent child.
Both the left and the right need to look to themselves for awhile and self-critically consider the consistency of their supposed "commitment" to the "salvation of innocents." Neither side has any moral high ground. Both are really just seeking "common sense" CONTROL. Control has ever been the goal.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Your wall of text does not distract from the fact that there is no equivalency between gun rights and abortion rights.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
The issue you brought up was constitutionality of the process of abortion vs gun ownership rights. I pointed out that as defined at this time, a fetus is not a legally defined person until it has been "born." Therefore, the millions of deaths you refer to never happened in the eyes of the law and our constitution. You are free to believe otherwise, but you cannot restrict a person's right to make that very personal and difficult decision based on a religious viewpoint to which you subscribe. Thankfully a large majority of the world does not share your opinion. And while many people find it morally wrong to abort under a widely varied set of circumstances, the majority of people believe that it should remain legal.
Guns on the other hand are inreasingly used by unstable & fanatical people to kill & maim people. I would be very interested to see the results of a poll asking if people find it morally wrong to allow disturbed people unfettered access to guns that might be ultimately used to kill others. Recent surveys have found the great majority of US citizens and even NRA members support some screening & restricted access to guns. There is no religious underpinning driving this issue and therefore is a matter our courts have freedom to judge.
If you believe so strongly in a higher power as defined by the bible, then you should be satisfied that the people who violate the teachings will be judged by god when their time comes and punished as it sees fit. It's really none of your business how I live my life as long as it doesn't impinge on your right to live free under our constitution.
We should continue this discussion over on the abortion thread instead.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
The issue you brought up was constitutionality of the process of abortion vs gun ownership rights. I pointed out that as defined at this time, a fetus is not a legally defined person until it has been "born."
First, I have been clear that I don't agree with the right on this point. I do not believe that a fetus is a person.
However, when a fetus becomes "viable" outside of the mother, the "line" of "personhood" becomes more and more arbitrary.
Your reference to "legally defined" missed my entire point. Everything I have argued so far concerns the "moral high ground" both sides appeal to in their legal arguments.
At present, you have the law on your side regarding the "morality" of abortion, while gun owners have the law on their side regarding the "morality" of pretty-much unrestricted gun-ownership and widespread carry.
YOU want to see gun rights restricted on the basis of "common sense" arguments.
The right wants to see abortion rights restricted on the basis of "common sense" arguments.
Both assert that the other's practice result in "too much murder." BOTH are wrong.
Both want to see the laws changed to restrict the core freedoms of the other's practice. BOTH are wrong.
Neither has any moral high ground upon which to change the law, and neither are consistent regarding all the "murder" and "violence" to which they refer.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
no equivalency between gun rights and abortion rights
You are employing a very narrow notion of "equivalency" that would disallow-in-principle all arguments-by-analogy. You are simply incorrect on this point.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
We should continue this discussion over on the abortion thread instead.
as it has nothing to do with this HILLARY thread then yes move the discussion
seems reasonable and not too hard to do
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
The difficulty we have between us I perceive is the ultimate derivation of our morality. Perhaps I'm wrong that you believe morality is originally defined by god. My position is that society determines morality without the need of a higher power to guide.
As such, I don't see an issue with abortion, since it doesn't end up with the deprivation of a person's rights. Guns in the hands of deranged people often end up causing death and deprivation of persons.
You tend to couch your argument in the right vs left dichotomy rather than allowing for a broader spectrum of views, which leads me to think your position is at least partially rooted in an appeal to emotion rather than logic.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
The difficulty we have between us I perceive is the ultimate derivation of our morality. Perhaps I'm wrong that you believe morality is originally defined by god. My position is that society determines morality without the need of a higher power to guide.
I agree that our moral foundations are different, however, not for the reasons you suggest. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you seem to be a moral relativist. Certainly saying that "society determines morality" smacks of cultural relativism. I don't agree with that "take" on morality because it perpetually gives the wrong answers (for example, that Hitler was "right" for Nazi Germany, as that society had embraced him).
But I don't think you need to appeal to "god" to give an account of objective moral facts.
As such, I don't see an issue with abortion, since it doesn't end up with the deprivation of a person's rights.
That's begging the question. The 2/3 of the people in this nation that think that abortion is mostly or always wrong would disagree with you. Even though they think that the rights of the woman trump the rights of the fetus, they DO think that a fetus is "some sort" of a "person" and has some (poorly defined) rights.
So, if, as you say, you believe that society defines morality, then you would need to agree that abortion is "wrong," just as 2/3 of society believes it is.
This reveals another problem with your view, which is that obviously (and in this very case) morality and legality can (and often do) come apart. It's not clear to me how your view can accommodate the frequent disconnects between morality and legality. And if legality is frequently disconnected from morality, I'd love to hear what legitimizes laws.
Guns in the hands of deranged people often end up causing death and deprivation of persons.
And my point has been that BOTH behaviors deprive persons of rights and even deprive persons of life itself. That the law at present doesn't agree that fetuses have rights does not mean that they don't. By resting everything about morality on the law (or "society," whatever that means), you actually give yourself no legitimacy to seek reform of bad laws.
At present, gun laws are not as you'd like them to be. You'd like to see reforms. But society has stated through its laws that at present guns are more or less in the right hands and are more or less accessible in appropriate ways.
If morality is defined by society, then it is not just legal but RIGHT that things be as they presently are. Thus, it would be wrong for you to seek reform. Indeed, there IS nothing to "reform," since things are as they should be, by definition. The mere fact that a subset of society thinks that things are not as they should be just indicates that the subset is wrong by definition.
Now, you'd like to see "reform" regarding guns, but you think that things are just as they should be regarding abortion.
My point is that you cherry-pick what is "right" and "just as it should be" based upon your particular perspectives. And for you, "people" have all and only the "rights" that society confers upon them.
I do not believe that you have thought through the implications (and baleful results) of such a view, and I am happy that our founders didn't share it.
You tend to couch your argument in the right vs left dichotomy rather than allowing for a broader spectrum of views, which leads me to think your position is at least partially rooted in an appeal to emotion rather than logic.
I don't see how you get "appeal to emotion" out of the above fact. I do tend to couch the issues as left vs. right because that is the most common divide, and it is certainly the divide most commonly seen on these threads.
I believe that the correct perspective is not even ON the left/right continuum, as classical liberalism is neither "left" nor "right." Its foundational metaphysics are significantly different from that shared by both the left and the right.
Until we got clear about the underlying metaphysics of the views, any talk of "broader spectrums" would be just groping around. For example, everybody on these threads talks of "rights." But we all mean wildly different things by that term! So, we talk past each other far more than is even recognized.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
You preach, not talk. Carry on.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!