Would you support a compromise banning abortion and guns?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Genesis315
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Genesis315

Guest
Would you support a compromise banning abortion and guns? Please assume whatever legal and procedural acts were needed to accomplish this are guaranteed to be accomplished and that the laws would be enacted in good faith. I know there is a ton of technical ways to nitpick these issues into the ground in substance and process, but a poll can only capture so much, so try and stick with the “spirit” of the question. And since this is a discussion forum, please discuss 🙂
  • Yes, I want both abortion and guns banned
  • Yes, while gun ownership should be allowed, it would be worth sacrificing to ban abortion
  • Yes, while abortion should be allowed, it would be worth sacrificing to ban guns
  • No, I want both guns and abortion to be allowed
  • No, while I want abortion banned, it is not worth sacrificing the freedom to own guns
  • No, while I want guns banned, it is not worth sacrificing the freedom to have abortions
0 voters
 
Id say those who want an outright gun ban are a very small minority even among left leaning folks. It’s gun control they want not a ban.
 
If for some reason that was the proposal, I’d take it in a heartbeat.
 
I’m having trouble making my way past the disconnect. People don’t give up one right in order to better-secure another right for others. Independence was in 1776. Roe v Wade made up a pretend constitutional right out of whole cloth in 1973. So that was pretty much 200 years where the right to bear arms, and a child’s right to life, were both respected and recognized. It’s only been the last <50 years where it’s been challenged. But the two aren’t connected.

You might as well ask “would you support a compromise banning the freedom of the press and abortion” or “would you support a compromise between banning the ban on unreasonable searches and seizures and abortion” or “would you support a compromise between banning due process and abortion”.
 
midori said:
But the two aren’t connected.
Click to expand...
Yea, this is why I can’t vote for any of the options. One of the biggest issues I have with how legislation is passed in this country is the tacking on of unconnected issues to a bill, to obtain votes from other lawmakers.
 
As others have said, one has nothing to do with the other.

Why would anyone give up rights that they have to ban something that is inherently wrong?
 
That is true. I think it’s just a thought exercise. Obviously, it would never really work out this way.
 
In the ‘spirit’ of your poll, I answered. Could we substitute any other constitutionally guaranteed right for the one chosen here?
 
Interesting, that in ten replies, not a single person answered the OP question (Edit correction: one member already did answer) so I will answer: Yes, I would agree to banning both.

As for them being disconnected, that is true. But it is also often true in politics that unrelated issues become related when parties negotiate. “I will give on this if you will give on that.” The two issues do not have to be related to find yourself in a position similar to the OP.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify:
The hypothetical proposal is that one is contingent on the other?
To ban abortion or to ban guns, the other must go also?

This is a no brainer, as the right to own guns is not an absolute good, however the right to life is.

Observe: if the right to life isn’t affirmed, the right to own guns has no meaning. Eh?

Because, human rights are proper to living human beings, not cats, not trees, and not my deceased gramma.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it’s just the people I interact with or read on social media, but I see a lot of talk linking these issues–after say, children are killed with guns, someone will decry their availability in order to protect kids or reduce killing in general, while another person will accuse the person of hypocrisy for support of abortion or vice versa. I understand it is not that simple, and this was mostly a values/thought experiment. I was just curious how Catholics would see it.

Personally, I think it would probably be a net gain to the common good if both were suppressed, even with the difficulties of enforcement. I personally voted for the second “yes” as I don’t really have strong feelings on guns one way or the other.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Interesting, that in ten replies, not a single person answered the OP question. So I will be the first
Click to expand...
In your haste to congratulate yourself, you must have missed post #3 that said “I’d take it in a heartbeat.”
 
Genesis315 said:
Personally, I think it would probably be a net gain to the common good if both were suppressed, even with the difficulties of enforcement
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’d support banning almost anything if it meant banning abortion.
 
Xystus said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Interesting, that in ten replies, not a single person answered the OP question. So I will be the first
Click to expand...
In your haste to congratulate yourself, you must have missed post #3 that said “I’d take it in a heartbeat.”
Click to expand...
Sorry, you are right.
 
This country is never going to ban either one, so it may be time to think outside the “ban box” to address these issues.
 
Wow. Two of the topics I try my best to avoid because of the intransigence of most of the posters, all wrapped up in one juicy thread.

This will be my last post on this golden nugget of perpetual face-palming frustration. Have fun!
 
I personally don’t like guns. It would be awesome if they never existed, but that utopia is not the world that currently exists. That said, it is not intrinsically evil to merely own a gun. Also, other people like guns for self defense, hunting, target shooting, gun collecting, and so on, so gun control laws are merely a prudential weighing of the various costs and benefits.

If we outlawed the dismemberment of 1 million babies, at the minuscule cost (in comparison) of sacrificing gun ownership, who would not agree with that amazing compromise?
 
Last edited:
Pitcairn17 said:
I think something similar was tried before. I believe it was called “slavery.”
Click to expand...
Actually, the vote-- suffrage-- was tied to the ownership of property. It was thought that you wouldn’t be a good civic steward if you didn’t have skin in the game— people who were property owners were more likely to want to defend their property against government overreach, and were more likely to be educated, and so on and so on. In some states, free black men had the vote.

Suffrage was extended to non-property-owning white men in 1828, although it wasn’t until 1856 that all property-owning rules and most tax-paying requirements were dropped. (Jacksonian democracy.) During this time, many free black men lost their vote.

The 13th amendment abolished slavery. (1865)

It wasn’t until the 15th amendment that black males were given the right to vote. (1870)

The 19th amendment gave women the right to vote. (1920)

The Constitution was ratified in 1788, and the government began in 1789. So there were a little fewer than 70 years where the vote was limited based on property ownership-- but it was about 130 years before everyone had the vote, based on age, and ignoring race/gender/color/affluence. (Details varied on a state-by-state basis, of course.)
 
The constitutional right to bear arms and protect yourself vs. abortion/baby murder.

Give up your constitutional right to defend yourselves so that Lefties stop murdering babies.

No offense intended, but this is such a stupid and twisted poll. What a dumb conversation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top