R
rosejmj
Guest
I just don’t think that making a law banning either is going to change very much. A law won’t solve the root of the problem
- Status
B
Beryllos
Guest
Agreed.
By the way, I’m curious about your use of bold type and, previously, BOLD CAPITALS. Now, if you really want to be heard…
… SAY IT BIG!
By the way, I’m curious about your use of bold type and, previously, BOLD CAPITALS. Now, if you really want to be heard…
… SAY IT BIG!
C
CTBcin
Guest
This is a case that I don’t see happening, but an interesting hypothetical scenario nonetheless.
I voted that guns should not be banned, but it’s worth sacrificing to outlaw abortion. While I’m for gun rights ( up to a certain point), clearly abortion is the bigger moral issue in this case.
I voted that guns should not be banned, but it’s worth sacrificing to outlaw abortion. While I’m for gun rights ( up to a certain point), clearly abortion is the bigger moral issue in this case.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
I voted that I want both allowed or at least on the books, so to speak. I think an absolute ban on either guns or abortion is a bad idea. However, the poll itself is thought-provoking.
Last edited:
O
openmind77
Guest
Both these issues will be resolved for good when the Christ Returns.
The ‘pro-life’ people will finally have to shutup because the Christ will not allow them to harass and condemn poor desperate women.
The pro-choice will be able to relax because they will no longer have to fight to protect the rights of women because the Christ will do it for them.
And the women with the need to terminate the pregnancy will have someone who will listen to their problem and advise them on how best to handle it without judgment, condemnation or even worse - punishment/incarceration.
As for guns - no one will dare own, use or defend ‘gun rights’.
The ‘pro-life’ people will finally have to shutup because the Christ will not allow them to harass and condemn poor desperate women.
The pro-choice will be able to relax because they will no longer have to fight to protect the rights of women because the Christ will do it for them.
And the women with the need to terminate the pregnancy will have someone who will listen to their problem and advise them on how best to handle it without judgment, condemnation or even worse - punishment/incarceration.
As for guns - no one will dare own, use or defend ‘gun rights’.
F
fide
Guest
I appreciate the spirit of the question, but I have to join the other abstainers from actually voting. I would give up the right to bear arms IF (or better, as I’ve seen abbreviated elsewhere, “iff” which = “if and only if”) - if and only if the impossible caveat could be assured that Americans would NEVER NEED private ownership of guns to assure we would NEVER need to defend ourselves - and all liberties and rights, including the right to life - against an internal hostile take-over by socialists, communists, or some other radical secular ideology of dictatorship.
Without the right to bear arms, America could lose all personal freedoms to the “we know better than you what you need and ought to want” mob takeover, ending in dictatorship. As we see in other countries in history. The culture of death thrives on ignorance and weakness: “Those with the guns, rule.” And “Might makes right.” The first thing the “progressives” want and need, is a totally disarmed country, except their own police/army having all the guns.
Without the right to bear arms, America could lose all personal freedoms to the “we know better than you what you need and ought to want” mob takeover, ending in dictatorship. As we see in other countries in history. The culture of death thrives on ignorance and weakness: “Those with the guns, rule.” And “Might makes right.” The first thing the “progressives” want and need, is a totally disarmed country, except their own police/army having all the guns.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
That would be an interesting idea. I suspect there are still plenty who dislike abortion enough to be willing to sacrifice if it could be banned. I am surprised that there is such a high percentage of people that value guns over human life.
I would really relish such a bill if it were proposed, simply because of the hypocrisy it would expose in parts of both parties.
I would really relish such a bill if it were proposed, simply because of the hypocrisy it would expose in parts of both parties.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
Jesus said to suffer the little children to come to him. He will not be protect those who kill them.
F
fide
Guest
That sounds good, if you think you can trust your own life (no matter what the “law” says, no matter what “compromise” has been struck), into the hands of those who have no regard for the life of innocent babies. As Mother Teresa - now St. Teresa of Calcutta - once said, if the life of a child in his or her mother’s womb is not safe, no one is safe. In a country where innocent babies in the womb have no rights, no one has any rights - not to bear arms, not to vote, not to religious freedom, not to life itself. Dictatorship is where it is heading.
Last edited:
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
In hard times we do indeed need to face such questions.
We can hope and pray that the day will come that all freedoms and the rtight to life will be universally recognized. But in dark times such as these it may indeed be necessary to sacrifice one right for another.
M
McJenn929
Guest
In an ideal world, there would be no perceived need for either and both would be eradicated due to unnecessity. Unfortunately, they are both a result of other issues. How about a poll on how to best address the root causes? 
R
runningdude
Guest
The proposal is preposterous.
Owning a gun is not remotely equivalent to killing an unborn child. Banning one does nothing to address the other.
Owning a gun is not remotely equivalent to killing an unborn child. Banning one does nothing to address the other.
Last edited:
P
Peeps
Guest
In the U.S., murder of human beings is already “banned.” (“outlawed” would be a better word than “banned”)
What’s needed is not a “banning” or “outlawing” of abortion, but rather, a recognition that, according to scientific facts, a fertilized ovum/embryo/fetus is already a human being, and therefore, it is already against the law to kill him/her.
As long as people continue to say that the unborn human is NOT a human being (we just saw a story about that last week), there will be no bans on abortion. When people, including doctors and other scientists, state that the unborn human is “products of conception” or “tissue with the potential to become a human being,” then it makes no more sense to ban abortion than it does to ban the disposal of products of an amputation, etc.
I fear that this recognition of the humanity of an unborn human at all stages will not happen anytime soon because at this point in history, many people, including scientists, tend to use science to prove what they want to believe rather than proving what is actually factual.
Also, even when we know the truth; e.g., high blood pressure is correlated with incidence of stroke, we don’t use that information to make changes in our lives. Of course, the “correlation” of HBP with stroke is a rather “fuzzy” statement, and many of us gamble that the correlation is coincidental rather than causative, and we don’t make changes.
Finally, even when scientists speak up and try to warn people by presenting facts that seem to indicate a certain eventual event, many of us distrust them when they say things that would disrupt our personal lives and limit our choices, so we tend to dismiss what they say. In our defense, we recognize that scientists’ funding is tied to them producing results that are “politically relevant,” and so it is probably for the best that we distrust them.
Again, until we recognize the humanity of the unborn child, we will not see an end to legal abortion in this country. And even if abortion is “banned,” many people will continue to supply abortions because they refuse to accept that an unborn human is truly “human.”
The same thing happened with slavery. Slavery was banned in the U.S. by Pres. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, but even though the slave was assumed “human” by this document, many people in the U.S. refused (and still refuse) to accept the fact that the African is truly “human” rather than just a “lowly breed” of humans.
And with Jews–Hitler voiced what many Europeans already believed–that the Jews were not human at all, but vermin, and therefore, their destruction did not violate any moral code.
So the crux of the matter is the humanity of the unborn human, and banning abortion will not stop people from believing in the “non-humanity” of the unborn.
This has to change. Scientists have to be honest.
What’s needed is not a “banning” or “outlawing” of abortion, but rather, a recognition that, according to scientific facts, a fertilized ovum/embryo/fetus is already a human being, and therefore, it is already against the law to kill him/her.
As long as people continue to say that the unborn human is NOT a human being (we just saw a story about that last week), there will be no bans on abortion. When people, including doctors and other scientists, state that the unborn human is “products of conception” or “tissue with the potential to become a human being,” then it makes no more sense to ban abortion than it does to ban the disposal of products of an amputation, etc.
I fear that this recognition of the humanity of an unborn human at all stages will not happen anytime soon because at this point in history, many people, including scientists, tend to use science to prove what they want to believe rather than proving what is actually factual.
Also, even when we know the truth; e.g., high blood pressure is correlated with incidence of stroke, we don’t use that information to make changes in our lives. Of course, the “correlation” of HBP with stroke is a rather “fuzzy” statement, and many of us gamble that the correlation is coincidental rather than causative, and we don’t make changes.
Finally, even when scientists speak up and try to warn people by presenting facts that seem to indicate a certain eventual event, many of us distrust them when they say things that would disrupt our personal lives and limit our choices, so we tend to dismiss what they say. In our defense, we recognize that scientists’ funding is tied to them producing results that are “politically relevant,” and so it is probably for the best that we distrust them.
Again, until we recognize the humanity of the unborn child, we will not see an end to legal abortion in this country. And even if abortion is “banned,” many people will continue to supply abortions because they refuse to accept that an unborn human is truly “human.”
The same thing happened with slavery. Slavery was banned in the U.S. by Pres. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, but even though the slave was assumed “human” by this document, many people in the U.S. refused (and still refuse) to accept the fact that the African is truly “human” rather than just a “lowly breed” of humans.
And with Jews–Hitler voiced what many Europeans already believed–that the Jews were not human at all, but vermin, and therefore, their destruction did not violate any moral code.
So the crux of the matter is the humanity of the unborn human, and banning abortion will not stop people from believing in the “non-humanity” of the unborn.
This has to change. Scientists have to be honest.
Last edited:
O
openmind77
Guest
Jesus will protect everyone including the unwanted fetuses as well as the expectant mothers from harassment. I am not sure how he would save the fetuses, but I would suggest he transfer the unwanted fetuses from those pregnant mothers to the bodies of pro-life people. Then everyone will be happy.openmind77:
Jesus said to suffer the little children to come to him. He will not be protect those who kill them.
T
thistle
Guest
Something should be done. The US has only 4% of the world’s population but 40% of its guns.
Any wonder why gun homicide in the US is the highest in the world??
M
midori
Guest
But can you name three other major times in history where any right has been secured by eliminating a totally different right?
No one would ever make the argument, “In order to eliminate child abuse, you need to give up universal suffrage.”
Child abuse is already morally wrong. What, exactly, defines child abuse that’s technically illegal, varies depending on where you are. How people can be prosecuted or penalized or tried or convicted or incarcerated varies depending on where you are. Every child abuser will be accountable to God… but sometimes, it feels like a long wait.
Nonetheless, you don’t want to be in their shoes when it finally does happen.The change needs to happen more in people’s hearts. They need to recognize that a wrong thing is wrong, and understand how doing that wrong thing hurts others, hurts themselves both physically and spiritually, hurts society, hurts their relationship with God. Taking away someone’s right to vote isn’t going to change someone’s heart if they’re inclined to be violent towards children, just like taking away people’s guns aren’t going to change people’s hearts towards the unborn.
People do wrong things that are illegal all the time. Just because something is legal doesn’t necessarily make it a right thing. Just because there’s no one there to punish you for action x doesn’t mean action x is a righteous/just/wholesome/healthy/good thing to do.
People are still alive who saw what happened with the gun confiscations in Europe. We have a short memory, but hopefully not that short.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I think some of us are taking this thread more seriously than intended.
Yes, it is true that this is a choice that will never be presented to us in reality.
Yes, it is true that the two issues are not related, and so pairing them together like this wouldn’t make much sense (which is why it is a choice that will never be presented to us in reality).
I think the point is to gauge people’s willingness to compromise and make concessions. Since the stereotype is that pro-life people are also generally pro-gun ownership and that pro-choice people are generally pro-gun control, each of those “sides” would need to sacrifice one thing they hold dear in order to obtain a change that they really, really want to see.
Yes, it is true that this is a choice that will never be presented to us in reality.
Yes, it is true that the two issues are not related, and so pairing them together like this wouldn’t make much sense (which is why it is a choice that will never be presented to us in reality).
I think the point is to gauge people’s willingness to compromise and make concessions. Since the stereotype is that pro-life people are also generally pro-gun ownership and that pro-choice people are generally pro-gun control, each of those “sides” would need to sacrifice one thing they hold dear in order to obtain a change that they really, really want to see.
M
midori
Guest
I think that a better gauge of people’s willingness to compromise and make concessions would be to look at the root causes of abortion. So on one side, you’d have people who don’t have sex outside of marriage, so that you don’t end up with young moms without a support system for themselves and their children, and on the other side, you have people who would be willing to help out poor families with debt and underemployment who are nervous about their ability to support another child.
See, I’d totally get behind that kind of compromise!
P
phil19034
Guest
I’m sorry, but I haven’t seen a single post that values guns over human life.
I only see a number of people who value “the right to use force to defend human life” when needed.
I don’t own guns because I don’t like to kill anything, can’t stand the sight of blood, and I don’t think I have what it takes to pull the trigger against another human.
However, I strongly support the right to bear arms because without them, eventually the communists (or another extremest group) will take over and we will not just be fighting abortion, but will also be facing FORCED abortions, FORCED euthanasia, etc.
Guns keep the govt afraid of the people, like it’s supposed to be. Without guns, the govt (esp the bureaucracy) no longer has anything to fear from the public and can freely push evil agendas and even revoke our democratic principles if it serves their agenda.
The Second Amendment is primarily about protecting the people from the Federal Govt. It wasn’t primarily about hunting or crime prevention (though those both ARE secondary reasons)
God Bless
Last edited:
- Status