Would you support a compromise banning abortion and guns?

[goout]

pnewton:

openmind77:

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.

Jesus said to suffer the little children to come to him. He will not be protect those who kill them.

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.

Your posts seem to indicate that you believe in magic.
Do you think magic solves human problems?

 

[goout]

It is unfortunate this thread was made conflating two issues that ask for unique solutions.
And to add in the hypothetical proposition as well…these only lead to pointless arguments.

 

[Sbee0]

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.

Probably.

I think Catholics don’t necessarily identify themselves in boxes as “right” and “left” on issues. We see that a lot more with protestants.

 

[openmind77]

openmind77:

pnewton:

openmind77:

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.

Jesus said to suffer the little children to come to him. He will not be protect those who kill them.

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.

Your posts seem to indicate that you believe in magic.
Do you think magic solves human problems?

I believe the Christ when he returns will perform all sorts of miracles, yes. And it will solve our problems. Anyway he will also make sure people learn to mind their own business and not harass vulnerable, desperate women.

 

[goout]

Why would anyone want to harass vulnerable and desperate women?
At least from the Christian perspective, that’s an evil thing.

In the here and now that is given to us, we are Christ’s voice, hands, feet, and resource providers. We need to offer real solutions to real people and not throw our hands up because “injustice”. Injustices call for real responses.

 

[Aquinas11]

Banning guns is what precluded every mass genocide in history

1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929-1953, 20 million dissidents rounded up and murdered.

1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Christian Armenians rounded up and exterminated.

1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews and others rounded up and exterminated.

1935: China established gun control. From 1948-1952, 20 million political dissidents rounded up and exterminated.

1964: Guatemala established gun control. From 1981-1984, 100,000 Mayan Indians rounded up and exterminated.

1970: Uganda established gun control. From 1971-1979, 300,000 Christians rounded up and exterminated.

1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975-1977, 1 million educated people rounded up and exterminated.

In the 20th Century more than 56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated by people using gun control.

 

[pnewton]

I’m sorry, but I haven’t seen a single post that values guns over human life.

I was referring to the poll, where 30% would not give up their gun to save innocent lives. It is possible that this result is just a knee jerk reaction and does not indicate what people believe. But if that is the case, then such a thought experiment is useful in clarifying shortcomings.

 

[pnewton]

people learn to mind their own business and not harass vulnerable, desperate women.

I am afraid that you have a very distorted and untrue understanding of why people oppose abortion. All the vulnerable deserve to be protected, including those most vulnerable in the womb, and not just protection from hurt feelings, but from being sliced, diced and sucked up.

 

[hoping4more]

I said no, but because I would sense that even if that worked out in the short term eventually they would undo it, then we would have abortion legal again and no guns…

But if by some magical way you could ban both and things would generally keep going the way things are then yes, giving up guns is worth saving millions.

 

[hoping4more]

This is false.
It has a higher percentage among 1st world countries, but of course that statement alone, is misleading.

Generally speaking it comes down to two things, gangs and Americans tendency towards violence. South Carolina has a high rate of Domestic Violence but that is not because husbands(and baby daddys) have hands, it has to do with honor culture gone nuts and a world of other reasons.

Granted someone could say ‘well, take a way the guns and gangs and abusive men will commit less murder.’ That might be true, but it might mean people begin to use other means. Swizerland has an extremely high proportion of people with actual military weapons at home and they have an extremely low gun violence rate and the reason being; culture.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Makes about as much sense to me as linking a ban on abortion with a ban on peanut butter, or a ban on video games, or a ban on Ginsu knives. What does a “ban” mean anyway? Will the police, the National Guard, and the military still have guns? If so, then it’s not a “ban”.

 

[Elf01]

I was referring to the poll, where 30% would not give up their gun to save innocent lives. It is possible that this result is just a knee jerk reaction and does not indicate what people believe. But if that is the case, then such a thought experiment is useful in clarifying shortcomings.

It seems to be a common attitude and that attitude is the main reason I want the second amendment gone.

 

[runningdude]

I am surprised that there is such a high percentage of people that value guns over human life.

It is not that anyone “values guns” more than an unborn human life. It is rather that there is no rational comparison between owning guns and killing children.

Such a deal could only be offered in bad faith. No one is rejecting an honest offer to ban abortion, but rather rejecting a spurious hypothetical offer that has no chance of becoming reality.

 

[pnewton]

but rather rejecting a spurious hypothetical offer

It was clearly presented as a thought experiment.

 

[F_Marturana]

Since the stereotype is that pro-life people are also generally pro-gun ownership and that pro-choice people are generally pro-gun control,

It’s actually not a stereotype. That’s the way the two parties are arranged, a vote for prolife/ anti abortion candidate is also a vote for a pro gun candidate.

We’ve only got two parties.

Last November, I searched the republican candidate’s platform. Nothing about abortion or rights of the unborn. Yet a whole bunch of stuff about gun rights.

Who was the prolife candidate?

 

[Londoner]

That being so, is there any case for saying that people who don’t pay federal income tax should be denied the right to vote? I’m not even sure why the right to vote would be tied to paying taxes (of any kind) anyway. Of course, it may be that this approach is deeply rooted in the principles upon which America is founded, in which case my perspective would probably not apply. To my mind voting should be a right of all adult citizens (that is the case in the UK with certain exceptions, e.g. members of the royal family and the House of Lords may not vote). Having voting rights tied to income tax payments would exclude many already marginal members of society (such as homemakers, carers, the sick and disabled, the unemployed, and those on extremely low wages such as people in part-time work) from voting. It would also have a disproportionate impact on certain groups, e.g. women and black people, both of which groups have historically been excluded from voting.

 

[Canvas]

Oh, i agree with you fully. I do not believe that a person should be denied franchise based on the basis of tax payments or owning property or any other such obstacle. I was agreeing with you and was pointing out the fallacy advanced by some that many do not pay “their share” and thus have “no skin in the game” solely based on one tax. My basic point was although a significant portion of the populace pays no net federal income tax, almost everyone has some tax burden, and even minus the income tax, it can be a significant portion of one’s income.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

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.”

As much as the US Constituational Rights are to be admired, these are not in the same category as God’s teachings. Given the choice between a right ordained by God, i.e, the right not to be murdered before you are even born, and a right that is man-defined, the right to self-defence using a firearm, I think the priority should go to God’d law over man’s law.

But as I said, temporarirly, until a righteous government and state of laws can be re-established.

The people who went underground in Nazi Germany to fight the Nazis weren’t concerned about preserving all laws either. In fact they broke many of them (which is why it was so easy to sentence them when caught) They fought first and foremost against the greatest crimes of the government. The other laws were re-established when the Nazis were overthrown.

 

[runningdude]

It was a thought experiment using a real spurious “offer” used to mock Christians. As there is no logical connection between guns and abortion, there is no reason to affirm such an impossible and improbable compromise would be acceptable.

 

[Sbee0]

I think another thought experiment more in line with what it means to be pro life and is also usually boxed as left vs right could be capital punishment vs abortion. Ban one or the other, neither, or both?