Pro-Life and Guns (1 Viewer)

[Nemi]

So hi. I was just wondering if any of you pro-lifers support gun ownership. Or, well, I don't necessarily mean support it, but do you mind if other civilians have guns at home? Do you own guns?

 

[Jerry]

So hi. I was just wondering if any of you pro-lifers support gun ownership. Or, well, I don't necessarily mean support it, but do you mind if other civilians have guns at home? Do you own guns?

If you are seeking to establish hypocrisy among PL for supporting the taking of a life through supporting gun ownership (a thing which implies gun use....unless your name is John Kerry), then please first read the 14 amendment <which establishes the legal fact that a life can be taken justly> and also the definition of Justifiable Homicide to the same end.

If that is not your intent, then I apologize for wasting you time.

 

[Nemi]

That wasn't exactly it, no. A lot of people own guns although some probably wouldn't ever use them. It just somehow makes them feel more safe. Also, a lot of people who are pro-choice wouldn't ever have an abortion if they did get pregnant. But they want to have to option, because it makes them feel more safe. I don't support gun ownership, yet I wouldn't blame a person who had to use her gun against, say, a rapist. I'm not saying everyone should think the same way, but sometimes an abortion may be the only solution for one person, and we shouldn't take away that only alternative.
Weird metaphor, perhaps. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Vincent]

So hi. I was just wondering if any of you pro-lifers support gun ownership. Or, well, I don't necessarily mean support it, but do you mind if other civilians have guns at home? Do you own guns?

I am pro-life, and I also support civililans owning firearms for personal defense.
I am saving up for a H&K USP 9mm handgun. They are a bit pricey:$600 or so, but very good guns.

About abortion, I think it should only be allowed in cases where the life of the mother is at stake.

 

[1069]

About abortion, I think it should only be allowed in cases where the life of the mother is at stake.

1. There can be no "mother" unless there is a child. A childless woman is not a "mother", even if she is a pregnant childless woman.

2. The life of the pregnant woman is always at stake.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I am pro-life, and I also support civililans owning firearms for personal defense.
I am saving up for a H&K USP 9mm handgun. They are a bit pricey:$600 or so, but very good guns.

About abortion, I think it should only be allowed in cases where the life of the mother is at stake.

Wow, what a coincidence! I'm pro-choice, AND I'm against the personal ownership of guns. I'm saving up for more books.

Nice ta meetcha.:mrgreen:

 

[Jerry]

I am pro-life, and I also support civililans owning firearms for personal defense.
I am saving up for a H&K USP 9mm handgun. They are a bit pricey:$600 or so, but very good guns.

About abortion, I think it should only be allowed in cases where the life of the mother is at stake.

Buy a Glock.

 

[Roberdorus]

1. There can be no "mother" unless there is a child. A childless woman is not a "mother", even if she is a pregnant childless woman.

This all depends on when you think life begins. I believe that at conception, something miraculous happens. To me, it sounds a lot more logical than saying that a baby who's just been born is a person, but five minutes ago it wasn't.

2. The life of the pregnant woman is always at stake.

I think we all know what he meant by "at stake", so let's not beat around the bush.

 

[Jerry]

1. There can be no "mother" unless there is a child. A childless woman is not a "mother", even if she is a pregnant childless woman.

2. The life of the pregnant woman is always at stake.

Oh good Science.....don't make me pull this thread over and bust a medical, legal and common dictionary over your post.

"Child" has pre-birth uses. A fetus is a "child". Legally a "child" is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries, thus a pregnant woman carries her "child"; her "unborn child", which makes her a “mother”.

...been around this argument many times....I have this chit on speed dial....

 

[1069]

I think we all know what he meant by "at stake", so let's not beat around the bush.

Even the most "normal", healthful, and complication-free pregnancy in the world is not without permanent, irreversible detrimental health consequences.

The maternal mortality rate of pregnancy and delivery is fourteen times greater than the mortality rate of first-trimester D&C; ten times greater than a late term abortion. *

Your delusions about fetuses notwithstanding, neither you nor the government have the right to prevent a woman from doing what is medically advisable or what is best for her health.
No woman should ever, under any circumstances, be forced to endure pregnancy and delivery against her will.

* Guttmacher Institute

 

[Roberdorus]

Even the most "normal", healthful, and complication-free pregnancy in the world is not without permanent, irreversible detrimental health consequences.

The maternal mortality rate of pregnancy and delivery is fourteen times greater than the mortality rate of first-trimester D&C; ten times greater than a late term abortion. *

This is all true, but, what he meant was that he supported abortion when the woman's life was in serious danger. He didn't mean that he supported abortion because of the certain risks that childbirth presents.

Your delusions about fetuses notwithstanding, neither you nor the government have the right to prevent a woman from doing what is medically advisable or what is best for her health.

I would say that if a woman doesn't know that having unprotected sex is dangerous to her health, then she shouldn't be making such serious decisions, like whether or not to have abortions, in the first place.

No woman should ever, under any circumstances, be forced to endure pregnancy and delivery against her will.

* Guttmacher Institute

That is such flawed logic. If after a woman makes the conscious decision to have unprotected sex, she decides that she doesn't want to have a baby, then, I'm sorry-- **** happens.

 

[1069]

That is such flawed logic. If after a woman makes the conscious decision to have unprotected sex, she decides that she doesn't want to have a baby, then, I'm sorry-- **** happens.

I'm not sure what you're "sorry" for.
Abortion is legal. It has been for longer than I've been alive. It always will be.
People who hold the opinion that you do ("childbirth and pregnancy is women's punishment for sex/ females who engage in sex deserve to lose their fundamental human right to bodily sovereignty") are irrelevant.
You lost.

I suppose you could be "sorry" that this type of talk is ugly, misogynistic, and hurtful, and therefore I find it bothersome and unpleasant.
So if you are apologizing for annoying me, then I accept your apology, I suppose, as long as you promise to refrain from such talk in the future.
If you won't promise that, however, then I don't accept your apology.

 

[Roberdorus]

I'm not sure what you're "sorry" for.
Abortion is legal. It has been for longer than I've been alive. It always will be.

Yes, and it's a serious problem that we're relying on nine people to decide when life begins. I find your pride in the fact that oligarchy has prevailed over democracy to be "annoying", although, I don't expect you to apologize for it.

People who hold the opinion that you do ("childbirth and pregnancy is women's punishment for sex/ females who engage in sex deserve to lose their fundamental human right to bodily sovereignty") are irrelevant.
You lost.

I find this entire argument to be irrelevant, and I don't consider pregnancy to be a punishment. I consider it to be a result of consumation.

I suppose you could be "sorry" that this type of talk is ugly, misogynistic, and hurtful, and therefore I find it bothersome and unpleasant.

I am not misogynistic, nor do I use baseless, generalized accusations as a way of dodging counterpoints.

So if you are apologizing for annoying me, then I accept your apology, I suppose, as long as you promise to refrain from such talk in the future.
If you won't promise that, however, then I don't accept your apology.

I am sorry that I annoyed you, and I'll try my best not to do it again. I just felt that your frequent, misguided, and redundant posts about abortion needed to be confronted.

 

[1069]

I find your pride in the fact that oligarchy has prevailed over democracy to be "annoying", although, I don't expect you to apologize for it.

Ah, but I've not proffered any apology; you did.

I am not misogynistic, nor do I use baseless, generalized accusations as a way of dodging counterpoints.

Well then, you're a master of deception. I'll admit you had me fooled.

I am sorry that I annoyed you, and I'll try my best not to do it again.

Okay.

 

[doughgirl]

“I was just wondering if any of you pro-lifers support gun ownership. Or, well, I don't necessarily mean support it, but do you mind if other civilians have guns at home? Do you own guns?”

I stand on the 2nd amendment, which says we can bear arms.

We have no guns in our home at the present time. But if illegal aliens keep coming over in the record numbers that they are….we will be forced to buy them.

I find it highly ironic that those who say they are pro-choice because our Constitution says taking a life is ok……..tosses out the 2nd amendment.

Roberdorus said, “Yes, and it's a serious problem that we're relying on nine people to decide when life begins. I find your pride in the fact that oligarchy has prevailed over democracy to be "annoying", although, I don't expect you to apologize for it.”

You got that right. And if we allowed states to vote on the issue and if we got a few more pro-life Supreme Court Justices on the bench…….abortion laws just might change.

Why do you think the Democrats got so concerned about who Bush was going to appoint?

Never say never.

Welcome Roberdorus……and good luck the majority here are pro-abortion. Hope you stick around.

 

[1069]

Never say never.

Never.
The repeal of Roe is about as likely as the reinstitution of slavery.
And with each passing year, each passing decade, the possibility of either becomes more remote, as the rest of civilization progresses and leaves ideological dinosaurs like you two in the dust.

 

[Roberdorus]

Never.

Hmm... When you'll lose your virginity?

The repeal of Roe is about as likely as the reinstitution of slavery.

Tell me, 1069, who approved the institution of slavery in the first place?

And with each passing year, each passing decade, the possibility of either becomes more remote, as the rest of civilization progresses and leaves ideological dinosaurs like you two in the dust.

We're so ideologically primitive and we need you to show us the light, 1069! You're clearly above the luxury of supporting your allegations with evidence, and for that I salute you.

 

[Hatuey]

I find it highly ironic that those who say they are pro-choice because our Constitution says taking a life is ok……..tosses out the 2nd amendment.

And considering your stance on gay marriage I find it even more ironic that you can defend the 2nd wich much gusto and then forget about the 14th amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But then again - Irony is in the eye of the beholder or is that beauty?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

...been around this argument many times....I have this chit on speed dial....

:rofl Good one, Jerry...speed dial, gotta remember that one. :2wave::mrgreen:

 

[doughgirl]

1069 said, “Never.
The repeal of Roe is about as likely as the reinstitution of slavery.
And with each passing year, each passing decade, the possibility of either becomes more remote, as the rest of civilization progresses and leaves ideological dinosaurs like you two in the dust.”

Well I think your right only because of people who have attitudes like yours. You liberals who think everything should be acceptable…….will drain our civilizations of anything good and moral. IMO its your side who is destroying our culture, families and country. And one day that same mentality will destroy the entire world. IMO most evils today can be traced to secular humanism, which already has taken over our government, education and more importantly the UNITED NATIONS.

Yup Marxist humanism has taken over and the goals are crystal clear. You can go back as far as recorded history will take you and find that human beings have always been aware that life is a battle between good and evil. That is quite evident today isn't it? And you are 100% correct, secular humanism is winning. Today people don’t worship God, they worship the ideals of the leading authorities of secular humanism. Dewey…….education, Darwin…..evolution, Sanger…….abortion, Kinsey…..sex
Goal = one world government, one religion; "I am God" (and God is not involved), one currency, one language, one set of rules for everyone. Its coming. Our politicians today have turned our country, (the most powerful country on earth) under the United Nations command. They are more interested in world government, world citizenship (illegal aliens) and especially socialism than America and what its always stood for. Let just see how far the Democrats in Washington will now take us down this road.

I know I am probably getting off topic but I will finish with this….The spirit of tolerance from the humanists side does not extend to all people, especially to those who hold tightly to a religious conviction. They look at the church and it doctrinal absolutes as the greatest enemy of mankind. Just look at how hostile posters on this thread are towards people of faith. It isn't just disagreement, its really a deep inner hatred that they feel.
The church is a deadly threat to humanism so it must be destroyed. That is the goal. And its happening all over the world. In Canada a preacher cant preach from the Bible about homosexuality, because the Bible has been classified as "hate literature." In Europe people are being jailed for just simply speaking out against homosexuality. It is illegal for a preacher to stand at the pulpit and say tht homosexuality is a sin. Is this free speech? You want examples I'd be happy to provide them.

So, so much for free speech, unless it aligns itself to the humanists way of thinking. And that freedom (free speech) is in jeopardy especially for the religious segment of society.

And now they want to take guns away from people........

See the pattern???????



1069 you happen to think as every passing year goes by that civilization just gets better and better. That everyone in the past who holds to those ideals are total losers.
Are we getting better? Technology might be better and faster…….but human beings, are we better?

I guess what you think is your “better” is 180 degree different than mine…….and so the struggle for good and evil continues. And yes, at this point your side is winning……

Until something else happens……..I won't even get into that one.

 

[ModerateDem]

1. There can be no "mother" unless there is a child. A childless woman is not a "mother", even if she is a pregnant childless woman.

2. The life of the pregnant woman is always at stake.

Thank you for splitting hairs and arguing semantics:sarcasticclap . whenever we need your services of taking things far beyond their intent we will give you a ring.:doh

 

[Felicity]

Well I think your right only because of people who have attitudes like yours. You liberals who think everything should be acceptable…….will drain our civilizations of anything good and moral. IMO its your side who is destroying our culture, families and country. And one day that same mentality will destroy the entire world. IMO most evils today can be traced to secular humanism, which already has taken over our government, education and more importantly the UNITED NATIONS.

Yup Marxist humanism has taken over and the goals are crystal clear. You can go back as far as recorded history will take you and find that human beings have always been aware that life is a battle between good and evil. That is quite evident today isn't it? And you are 100% correct, secular humanism is winning. Today people don’t worship God, they worship the ideals of the leading authorities of secular humanism. Dewey…….education, Darwin…..evolution, Sanger…….abortion, Kinsey…..sex
Goal = one world government, one religion; "I am God" (and God is not involved), one currency, one language, one set of rules for everyone. Its coming. Our politicians today have turned our country, (the most powerful country on earth) under the United Nations command. They are more interested in world government, world citizenship (illegal aliens) and especially socialism than America and what its always stood for. Let just see how far the Democrats in Washington will now take us down this road.

I know I am probably getting off topic but I will finish with this….The spirit of tolerance from the humanists side does not extend to all people, especially to those who hold tightly to a religious conviction. They look at the church and it doctrinal absolutes as the greatest enemy of mankind. Just look at how hostile posters on this thread are towards people of faith. It isn't just disagreement, its really a deep inner hatred that they feel.
The church is a deadly threat to humanism so it must be destroyed. That is the goal. And its happening all over the world. In Canada a preacher cant preach from the Bible about homosexuality, because the Bible has been classified as "hate literature." In Europe people are being jailed for just simply speaking out against homosexuality. It is illegal for a preacher to stand at the pulpit and say tht homosexuality is a sin. Is this free speech? You want examples I'd be happy to provide them.

So, so much for free speech, unless it aligns itself to the humanists way of thinking. And that freedom (free speech) is in jeopardy especially for the religious segment of society.

And now they want to take guns away from people........

See the pattern???????



1069 you happen to think as every passing year goes by that civilization just gets better and better. That everyone in the past who holds to those ideals are total losers.
Are we getting better? Technology might be better and faster…….but human beings, are we better?

I guess what you think is your “better” is 180 degree different than mine…….and so the struggle for good and evil continues. And yes, at this point your side is winning……

Until something else happens……..I won't even get into that one.

:applaud

I know which side I'm on!

 

[Stace]

Hmm... When you'll lose your virginity?

whenever we need your services of taking things far beyond their intent we will give you a ring.:doh

Moderator's Warning:

Completely inappropriate and unnecessary. Both of you need to knock it off. Consider this your unofficial warning.

 

[Roberdorus]

Moderator's Warning:

Completely inappropriate and unnecessary. Both of you need to knock it off. Consider this your unofficial warning.

OK, if you want to be completely biased and one-sided (the "ideological dinosaurs" slur hurt my feelings!) with your moderation, that's cool. At least have the spine to say that you're "pro-choice", and if liberals want to be facetious or cutting, it's fine, but if "pro-lifers" step one toe out of bounds, they will receive a "moderator's warning".

The only difference is that now I'll laugh at you for being a pansy, whereas, if you had stated your obvious intent with the warning, I would have laughed at you for being incapable of rational thought. :2razz:

 

[Stace]

OK, if you want to be completely biased and one-sided (the "ideological dinosaurs" slur hurt my feelings!) with your moderation, that's cool. At least have the spine to say that you're "pro-choice", and if liberals want to be facetious or cutting, it's fine, but if "pro-lifers" step one toe out of bounds, they will receive a "moderator's warning".

The only difference is that now I'll laugh at you for being a pansy, whereas, if you had stated your obvious intent with the warning, I would have laughed at you for being incapable of rational thought. :2razz:

I may be many things, but unfair isn't one of them. If something offends you, you are more than welcome to use the "report bad post" featurel that is, after all, what it's here for. I'm just as quick to warn a pro choicer as I am a pro lifer....though I do find it curious that you just made an assumption as to which side I'm on; unless, of course, you've gone and read some older threads, as I have stayed away from abortion debates for quite some time - they're old and tired and no one's got much of anything new to add.

Anyway, I suggest in the future, you refrain from the personal attacks. And if you have a problem with my mod actions, you need to take it up with me in private. In fact, those are both forum rules. I suggest you reread them to refresh your memory.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.