• 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!

Is their a hypocrisy to be Pro-life & pro-gun?

Hdreamz

Active member
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
330
Reaction score
128
Location
London, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
In reference to the above question i mean in terms of the rights it bestows on the individual.

Such as the right to not be challenged by the state or citizenry on the purchase, usage and collection of firearms. Yet those individual rights to decide the usage of your own womb should be challenged by your community, church and government?

It seems hypocritical to me and though I admittedly didn't live in the U.S for any protracted time this is the one major issue in the country that seemed bizarre in its citizen backing groups. For instance most discussions with right leaning libertarians I have spoken to reveals they are nearly always pro-life when this seems to wildly contradict their regulation and government free ideology.


I am neutral on the issue of guns, owning them myself. But in the U.S this seems like more than just a tenuous link. Is their demographic data linking gun owners and more active religious individuals?
 

It seems that the reverse is also true: that those most against any gov't restriction on freedom to choose abortion are also for more gov't restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.
 

It is not hypocrisy to be a pro-life libertarian. It is kind of hard to have liberty if your moms decided to whisk your brains and suck you out with the vacuum cleaner.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It seems that the reverse is also true: that those most against any gov't restriction on freedom to choose abortion are also for more gov't restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I would likely agree with both generalisations.
 
Fisher said:
It is not hypocrisy to be a pro-life libertarian. It is kind of hard to have liberty if your moms decided to whisk your brains and suck you out with the vacuum cleaner.
Click to expand...

Just what threat to your liberty is posed by another choosing to terminate a pregnancy?
 
Fisher said:
It is not hypocrisy to be a pro-life libertarian. It is kind of hard to have liberty if your moms decided to whisk your brains and suck you out with the vacuum cleaner.
Click to expand...

I will be the first to admit that as to the constitution i am not an expert in most area's, in fact in very few area's of it i would consider myself distinguishably knowledgeable, but as far as I am aware the unborn fetus has no rights under the constitution.

And please refrain from vacuum cleaner jibes. Lets try and avoid an instant sentence to the basement.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Just what threat to your liberty is posed by another choosing to terminate a pregnancy?
Click to expand...

So freedom is only to be defended if it is your personal freedom? Good to see that the libertarians are all about getting their own Obamaphones too.
 

There is a difference between a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist even if they do overlap. An abortion is what it is whether the thread is here or in the basement.
 
No hypocrisy at all; the two points compliment each other well. They can use the guns to force all pregnancies to term, and the resulting poverty and disaffected youths give them more opportunities to use their guns.
 
Fisher said:
There is a difference between a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist even if they do overlap. An abortion is what it is whether the thread is here or in the basement.
Click to expand...

I agree there are differences... But their is a wild contradiction in the views held. To advocate gun rights and pro-life views you have to contradict your own rights as an individual, similarly with advocating gun control and pro-choice stances as ttwtt78640 mentions. I do not see how you can hold these matching views without hypocrisy of your own beliefs towards the rights of the individual, or the duties of the state.
 
Fisher said:
So freedom is only to be defended if it is your personal freedom? Good to see that the libertarians are all about getting their own Obamaphones too.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is the same concept as requiring standing in order to take legal action. If the actions of another infringe upon your freedom then you may seek remedy. How does it benefit you, or society, to require that all pregnancies be carried to term? Is it any benefit for a person already unable to support themselves to be forced to acquire a dependent? It amazes me that those that object to the state supporting others that have children also would require them to have as many as possible.
 
After standing comes a prioritization of rights.

Right to life, in the hierarchy, far outweighs a woman's "choice" to neglect her "self-created" situation. Snuffing out of another's life? One would consider it illogic to suggest that a strong and prudent society should not step in when atrocities in its own country are happening at the rate of over one million being served and severed annually.
 
ChunkySalsa said:
No hypocrisy at all; the two points compliment each other well. They can use the guns to force all pregnancies to term, and the resulting poverty and disaffected youths give them more opportunities to use their guns.
Click to expand...
Smoking waaaaay too much off that hyperbole pipe there.
 

At what point is one deemed to be a person with constitutional rights? I believe that point, per the SCOTUS, to be upon birth not upon some state of development inside the potential mother.
 
Just what is the wild contridiction, and just how wild is it?

If we throw out the Constitution, just look at it logically... a right to defend oneself, one's family, friends and property, perhaps even extending to defending one's country, are legitimate rights accorded all humans... Agree or disagree? So, the right of gun ownership is just one of the many ways in which many of us choose to go about fulfilling that right and obligation.

One is nowhere assumed, much less rightfully accorded, the right to summarily choose to end another's life. Most especially not an innocent's life.

Add back in the Constitution and you have even less right to do so.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
At what point is one deemed to be a person with constitutional rights? I believe that point, per the SCOTUS, to be upon birth not upon some state of development inside the potential mother.
Click to expand...
Currently that is what is held. A new biological actualtiy comes into being at conception, the point at which a totally new and unique life form, with completely separate, an individual DNA, begins its journey through the various stages of human life...undeniable... there is no longer a sperm, no longer an egg, but this new human developing, if unhindered, naturally towards life and then death...

The process we all, if allowed, naturally progress into and through. Scientific biological truth is entirely objective and reliable. All human zygotes, embryos and fetuses are human beings from the time of conception until the time of death.
 


There is no contradiction in universally promoting human rights by protecting our right to property, our right to life, and our right to self-defense.
 

So currently I am right. If that law (constitution?) is changed then we can discuss the ramifications of that change.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Just what threat to your liberty is posed by another choosing to terminate a pregnancy?
Click to expand...

I suppose the same threat that it would be if we could still kidnap and then buy and sell black folks.

I want the human rights of others' protected; it doesn't have an immediate component of self-interest, but in the big picture, it does help me to know that everyone is protected and we don't just prejudicially single out groups for abuse and slaughter, lest I ever fall in one of those groups in the future.
 

The odds of your falling into being pre-born are slim indeed.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
So currently I am right. If that law (constitution?) is changed then we can discuss the ramifications of that change.
Click to expand...
No, you are only currently what is in vogue... has nothing to do with the hypocrisy being alluded to in the OP.

Yes it is [currently] legal. No, there is no hypocrisy.
 

Choosing what you do to yourself has different ethical ramifications than choosing what you do to someone else. In an abortion, you are not just determining what is done to your body, but you are also determining what is done to another.
 
Speaking of hypocrisy, it's clearly evident with liberals who support capital punishment for the innocent unborn, but not for murderers or anyone else.
 
Logicman said:
Speaking of hypocrisy, it's clearly evident with liberals who support capital punishment for the innocent unborn, but not for murderers or anyone else.
Click to expand...

Gosh, you almost sound poetic. But your comment isn't true. And it's bad poetry on top of that.

Either you don't understand the law or you've chosen to knowingly created a conflict that you can't support if called upon to do so.
 
Removable Mind said:
Gosh, you almost sound poetic. But your comment isn't true. And it's bad poetry on top of that.

Either you don't understand the law or you've chosen to knowingly created a conflict that you can't support if called upon to do so.
Click to expand...

Nope. For a great number of the liberal minded, a death sentence for the innocent unborn is fine, and even promoted, but a death sentence for murders is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…