• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abortion, Drugs & Guns: A Societal Liberal Bias

Why is the argument "if you outlaw them people will get them anyway" only applied to abortion and the liberalization of drug laws and not firearm ownership?
It's equally as true no more dangerous.

Everything you've pointed out is related to human behavior. I would say that if "ONE" could wiggle their nose, and control all human behavior, and...then what? Depends on who "ONE" is. We live in a world...where each of us are worlds unto our selves ...and who feel threatened by all of the other worlds...and would love to have something like a remote control apparatus that can be pointed at others in order to "change their behaviors". Not gonna happen.

Humanity is still relatively new in the greater scheme of things. It's obvious that our evolution hasn't been without unpleasant events and behaviors. The collateral damage has been substantial, but I haven't given up on the notion that a much higher degree of evolutionary civility will continue.

Yes, we clearly have social issues that have the potential to cause injury. However:

1) Most abortions don't cause injury to societies at large (and let's make it clear that we're talking about experiences among born persons). We're not seeing a decrease in population growth nor any indicators that lead us to believe that we're on the path to extinction...anytime soon. And we know that there can be beneficial effects from abortion despite the conflicting views on what they are. I believe that reproductive science will prevail. Abortions will eventually be rare.

2) The behaviors related to the consumption of drugs...have created casualties, but when we do a cost/benefit analysis we know that drugs have been way more beneficial. I don't know what the solution is, I'm just not that smart. I just believe that there is one...although not yet revealed.

3) Behaviors involving the misuse of firearms are substantially less than those who use them appropriately. Once again, I don't know what the solution is, I'm just not that smart. I just believe that there is one...although not yet revealed.

None of us like "loss"...but personally, I'm powerless over other people, places, and things for the most part. I do, however, expect that humanity will work together to substantially decrease unnecessary losses. I hope that, in some small way, that I've contributed to the cause.

The day we wake up and there are no problems...chances are we're dead. Life is about problem solving. Don't write us off so quickly. We'll get to the other side of being as self-destructive as we now are. We (those who are living now) may not live to see that day, but I believe it will happen.
 
When it comes to that particular argument, I don't think being inconsistent is a big deal.
It's an argument from practicality. All arguments from practicality stand relative to arguments from ethics.
If there's an overwhelming ethical imperative for someone about one of these issues, then the practicality of it can become less important due to the relative importance of the ethical stance.
Inconsistency is only a huge deal when one is inconsistent in their ethics. Being inconsistent about practical stances is just showing an understanding of their different factors, or possibly in one's view of how ethically important they are. And there's not anything hypocritical about that.
I think, also, they kind of exist in different places on the spectrum of personal rights. Again, I'm pro for all three, but I think it's easier to argue against guns from the perspective of how they can be used. For example..
I'm pro-choice due to personal rights, and there is never any situation in which a woman could possibly abort for any reason other than her personal rights, because the ZEF always exists in her body.
I'm pro-legalization, and although dosing someone is possible, it's possible with prescription/legal drugs too, thus rendering it irrelevant. Dosing someone is not unique to illegal drugs, so I can argue it from a pure personal rights perspective.
That's harder to do with guns, where it's irrefutable that they can be used to victimize someone and that they are uniquely deadly. Now, I think there are plenty of ways to mitigate this point as much as reality allows, and I don't think it's an overwhelmingly difficult argument to overcome as long as one's pro-gun position is well-rounded and comprehensive. BUT, I am just pointing out that it is different from the other two for this reason. For me, because of that, arguing pro-gun is not only about personal rights, but also about social culture and demonstrated models, which the other two aren't as much.
Because of that difference, issues of practicality can be given different weight, depending on a person's position.
Wow.
I'll read this several times, it's so dense.

One thing I disagree with, though, is that inconsistency only matters with ethics. I think inconsistency is the source of so much rancor and perceived unfairness that it leads to great division.

Guns and drugs aren't so far apart for the purposes of the OP.
The widespread use of drugs is often excused by the social conditions some abusers have to endure. Inner city, poverty, etc. The implication, probably more than an implication, is that these unfortunates are not totally to blame for their drug use (and the crime to which it leads). They're represented as "victims" of the drug culture.
I think you worded it better when you said guns "can be used to victimize someone and that they are uniquely deadly." The same case is made for drug users.
 
Wow.
I'll read this several times, it's so dense.

One thing I disagree with, though, is that inconsistency only matters with ethics. I think inconsistency is the source of so much rancor and perceived unfairness that it leads to great division.

Guns and drugs aren't so far apart for the purposes of the OP.
The widespread use of drugs is often excused by the social conditions some abusers have to endure. Inner city, poverty, etc. The implication, probably more than an implication, is that these unfortunates are not totally to blame for their drug use (and the crime to which it leads). They're represented as "victims" of the drug culture.
I think you worded it better when you said guns "can be used to victimize someone and that they are uniquely deadly." The same case is made for drug users.

Ethics is the paramount factor in any debate. The stronger the ethical imperative, the less practicality matters. Thus, inconsistencies in the amount of weight someone gives practicality across various issues is nothing but a reflection of the degree of ethical imperative they feel with the issue. It's not an inconsistency in and of itself.

I don't think the same can be said of illegal drugs. There are plenty of legal and prescription drugs that can cause just as much harm, and can also lead to crime. Also, we have demonstrated models in the real world of how looser drug laws can work in the favor of both discouraging and treating addiction, as well as mitigating drug-related crime.

Along those same lines, we have working models of how a strong gun culture built on responsibility and training can mitigate most of the harm there as well.
 
Wow.
I'll read this several times, it's so dense.

One thing I disagree with, though, is that inconsistency only matters with ethics. I think inconsistency is the source of so much rancor and perceived unfairness that it leads to great division.

Guns and drugs aren't so far apart for the purposes of the OP.
The widespread use of drugs is often excused by the social conditions some abusers have to endure. Inner city, poverty, etc. The implication, probably more than an implication, is that these unfortunates are not totally to blame for their drug use (and the crime to which it leads). They're represented as "victims" of the drug culture.
I think you worded it better when you said guns "can be used to victimize someone and that they are uniquely deadly." The same case is made for drug users.

I agree that was dense. I suggest line breaks between paragraphs. It helps those of us with vision problems.

My takeaway involves differentiating between morals and ethics:

Ethics are judgments of values whereas morals are judgments of actions, although it should be noted that the latter judgments are based on ethical values.

IOW, the statement "It is 'wrong' to take the property of another without their permission" (ie stealing) is an ethical statement. It makes no mention of circumstances. Basically, it is a philosophical stance

With morality on the other hand, it is not hard to think up examples where stealing might not be "wrong" (ie "immoral") such as a parent stealing to feed their starving child. This is because there are situations where an ethical principle (stealing is wrong) conflicts with another ethical principle (parents must support their children). In situations like this, where ethical principles come into conflict, at least one principle will have to be, at the very least, compromised in order to determine the morality of a proposed action.

IMO, it's widely recognized that it's not always possible to behave in a 10% ethically consistent manner and that the important thing is how we reconcile the ethical conflicts so that our actions are as moral as possible.
 
Why is the argument "if you outlaw them people will get them anyway" only applied to abortion and the liberalization of drug laws and not firearm ownership?
It's equally as true no more dangerous.

Sorry, I see no equivalency between abortion, drugs, and guns. To link the three in any way, to me, is to demean the well meaning positions of honest people troubled by the issues involved in each.
 
Sorry, I see no equivalency between abortion, drugs, and guns. To link the three in any way, to me, is to demean the well meaning positions of honest people troubled by the issues involved in each.
Actually, that claim demeans the well meaning positions of honest people troubled by the two issues you don't think are as important as the third.
I was assigning no comparative value to any of them so as not to consider any of them less important.

Do you have an order of importance?
 
Actually, that claim demeans the well meaning positions of honest people troubled by the two issues you don't think are as important as the third.
I was assigning no comparative value to any of them so as not to consider any of them less important.

Do you have an order of importance?

I wasn't talking about order or level of importance, simply that they are three totally different issues, not slightly connected, and well meaning people can have what you may call a liberal bias and a conservative bias depending on the actual issue. In other words, not ever issue of importance to society has cut-and-dried liberal or conservative constituencies.
 
Why is the argument "if you outlaw them people will get them anyway" only applied to abortion and the liberalization of drug laws and not firearm ownership?
It's equally as true no more dangerous.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens are a good thing. It is only in the hands of criminals that guns cause harm. And if guns are outlawed, and only outlaws have guns, then outlaws are given a strong advantage over honest citizens. In fact, this is the true motive of most gun control supporters—they are on the side of tyrants and criminals, who they wish to be able to prey with impunity upon an unarmed and defenseless populace.


Drug abuse is always harmful, regardless of the character of the person who does it. If drug abuse is illegal, then presumably, hopefully, fewer people will do it, and fewer people will be harmed. There is no benefit that a good person can gain from the “freedom” to abuse drugs, to protect himself from a bad person abusing drugs.

Every successful abortion results in the death of an innocent human being. Abortionists are murderers of the very most depraved sort, who prey on the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings. There are no lower depths of human savagery than to needlessly kill innocent children. If the practice is outlawed, then hopefully it would result in fewer children being killed, and those who commit these horrendous crimes being removed from free society, and thus prevented from committing any further such crimes. There is no such thing as a good person who would willingly have any part in abortion, and no benefit that a good person can gain from the “freedom” to murder innocent children. No good person would ever willingly have anything do to with the exercise of such a “freedom”. Only the very most evil of persons would have any part in it—exactly the sort of people who any sane and civilized society would most benefit from exterminating.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't talking about order or level of importance, simply that they are three totally different issues, not slightly connected, and well meaning people can have what you may call a liberal bias and a conservative bias depending on the actual issue. In other words, not ever issue of importance to society has cut-and-dried liberal or conservative constituencies.
Nor do I feel that the issues are related in any way either. However, the approach to a solution, or rather a resignation, could be similar.

In all three cases one could say that each of the behaviors is so prevalent that to end any of them would be impossible.
Abortion is anything-goes and the other two are permissible with limitations. jThe they're-gonna-do-it-anyway schtick could be appropriately applied to all of them but it's not.
 
Guns in the hands of honest citizens are a good thing. It is only in the hands of criminals that guns cause harm. And if guns are outlawed, and only outlaws have guns, then outlaws are given a strong advantage over honest citizens. In fact, this is the true motive of most gun control supporters—they are on the side of tyrants and criminals, who they wish to be able to prey with impunity upon an unarmed and defenseless populace.
Actually, that takes the comparison of left wing inconsistency a step further.

Many on the left will say words to the effect of "I too am uncomfortable with late term abortion and 13 year-olds getting abortions without parental permission, but we can't stop it because it could become a slippery slope toward limiting abortion rights for everyone".

Fair enough I guess. Societal freedom before the consideration of the individual, I get it.
Then why not the same reasoning for firearms?
 
Actually, that takes the comparison of left wing inconsistency a step further.

Many on the left will say words to the effect of "I too am uncomfortable with late term abortion and 13 year-olds getting abortions without parental permission, but we can't stop it because it could become a slippery slope toward limiting abortion rights for everyone".

Fair enough I guess. Societal freedom before the consideration of the individual, I get it.
Then why not the same reasoning for firearms?

Actually, Brooks, late term abortions at 13 or 103 are against the law...unless there is a significant issue with the fetus or the health or life of the woman (girl) is at stake.

That said, most people, with all kinds of political philosophies...don't agree with late term abortion. And I think that your assessment regarding beliefs about abortion, as it relates to "political persuasions" is an unnecessary finger pointing game.

Women's rights (regardless of what political party or what religion objects) are paramount regarding abortion issues because women, by circumstance of birth, must bear the physical and mental burdens associated with proliferation of our species...as is with most all other species in the animal kingdom.

Firearms issues is obviously not related to reproductive proliferation, but rather self-preservation, personal security, and property security.

There are unfortunate casualties related to firearms. In a perfect world, they might not happen. But humanity is where it is. It's working through its propensities to be violent.

Either humanity will figure out glitches it possesses and overcome all its shortcomings...or it won't. The costs will probably be as they always have been...high.

Until somebody or something figures out how to control individual minds and behaviors, including violent behaviors perpetrated against others, the instruments used to engage in violence...will always exist in one form of another. Humans started out using sticks and stones...and now, missiles and drones.

If every gun on the planet disappeared today...what would be the weapon of choice? Back to bows and arrows, slingshots, spears, flaming catapults?

The human mind is the apparatus to address, not the instruments it uses. We've tried coercive laws, education, and socialization techniques that aren't preventing "all persons" from acting out with violent behaviors. Not even the idea that a supernatural being that watches and judges the behaviors of every person, every second of the day, and will eternally punish those who engage in violent behaviors...has worked.

What do you think will work, Brooks?
 
Nor do I feel that the issues are related in any way either. However, the approach to a solution, or rather a resignation, could be similar.

In all three cases one could say that each of the behaviors is so prevalent that to end any of them would be impossible.
Abortion is anything-goes and the other two are permissible with limitations. jThe they're-gonna-do-it-anyway schtick could be appropriately applied to all of them but it's not.

Just to be clear, I consider myself a Canadian conservative - keep the government out of my wallet and out of my bedroom. That said, here's my "position" on the three issues and you can decide if they express a conservative, liberal, or whatever bias.

Abortion: I have a personal aversion to abortion, but then I'm a man so it's not relevant from a personal perspective. I also believe in personal choice, although I may actually hate the choice a woman makes, particularly if the choice of abortion is related to what I call a "lifestyle" choice - meaning, the woman nor the fetus she is carrying is in any physical or mental health danger when the abortion occurs.

Drugs: I haven't ever nor would I ever consider taking or trying illicit drugs. In fact, I'm opposed to most prescription drugs and lament the almost cavalier way that doctors prescribe drugs unnecessarily. A clear example is the ineffectiveness of many antibiotics now because of their overuse to assuage patient paranoia. Because I believe prescription drugs are abusive if overprescribed, I also feel that harder, illicit drugs are even more dangerous and abusive if overused or easily available. One simply has to look at the "outbreak" of department of health "safe injection sites" and like facilities to know that the drugs are dangerous. That, however, leaves me with the problem that I believe people should be free to kill themselves or destroy their lives if that's what they choose. That free choice thing again.

Guns: Have never owned a gun, never even held a gun, never been in the same room as a gun, at least not that I know of. I have no desire to own a gun or be around guns. But then, there are lots of things I enjoy that others do not. I don't believe guns are dangerous, I believe dangerous people with guns can be catastrophic but then dangerous people with a car can be catastrophic too. I don't believe in banning inanimate objects that people enjoy and use to benefit themselves in many ways but I sure do believe in punishing people severely for using inanimate objects in dangerous and/or deadly ways. I fully respect your right to own a gun, but be damn sure that if your child or my child gets access to your gun and kills himself or his friend simply because he was playing like daddy does, I'll have zero sympathy for you and I'll expect you spend a great part if not all of the rest of your life paying back society for your gross negligence.
 
Back
Top Bottom