Would you support a compromise banning abortion and guns?

[pnewton]

It was a thought experiment using a real spurious “offer” used to mock Christians.

That is an opinion, but I am not sure it is grounded in evidence. What in the OP came across as mockery? Or is this just a rash judgment, an assuming of ill intent? In any case, if one deemed it intellectually dishonest, no one was forced to answer. Yet 30% did, putting gun ownership as a more important issue than abortion. If there is an error in my reason, I am open to it being pointed out. But attacking the OP without evidence is not a response.

Oh, and the idea that they are not connected is simply not true. They are connected in stances of all politicians. They are connected in the teaching of the Church. They are both pro-life issues. Furthermore, they can be connected in any bill, which often connects extremely different topics for the purpose of compromise.

 

[yankeesouth]

If it’s the instrument that is at fault and abortion and gun control are connected then we should be calling for the control/banning of forceps, scalpels and any other instruments that are used to perform an abortion.

 

[yankeesouth]

I took it more as a take on the seamless garment ideology, otherwise known as ‘how liberals justify voting for pro abortion politicians’.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

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.

Oh, ok. But I think that’s the problem with these kinds of political polls.

Most people have nuanced views on political issues, which polls almost never highlight.

That’s why this polling world we live in is bad.

 

[on_the_hill]

I say we ban guns regardless of whatever else is going on. But I’m also kind of irrational about gun control. And I can live with that.

 

[yankeesouth]

which polls almost never highlight.

That’s why this polling world we live in is bad.

And they still don’t get it. Or they get it and refuse to acknowledge it. President Trump’s election was due in large part, I believe, by Pro Life. Sure there were liberals that identify as Catholic that spouted ‘never Trump’ but it was an easy choice for those that know ending abortion is the primary Pro Life position.

 

[midori]

President Trump’s election was due in large part, I believe, by Pro Life.

I think a large part of people’s willingness to hand over things to a non-politician was that people were tired of the empty promises of career politicians. Because if they solve problems for realz, then they perceive it as one less reason to vote for them or fundraise for the party. But if they run on the perpetual promises of “ending racism”, “solving inner-city poverty”, “ending abortion”, “ending gun violence”, or whatever, then they’ve got their voters and donation dollars locked up for the next 50 years… but at the end of that 50 years, what have they accomplished that merited staying in power for so long?

Recent case-in-point was all the Republicans who ran on the platform of “ending Obamacare”. “Give us the House.” And so voters gave them the House, and nothing happened. “Oh, we need the Senate, too.” And voters gave them the Senate, and nothing happened. “Oh, we can’t do it without the Presidency.” And they gave them the Presidency— but not Jeb Bush, who was the one who was supposed to end up with the nomination. And when the guy in the White House tried to repeal Obamacare… how much support did he get from his own party?

The details change, the parties change, but the story remains the same. It’s about power games, rather than actually making a difference, for a lot of career politicians. They may bluster and spout their rhetoric when the cameras are rolling, but there’s not a lot of difference between the career D’s and the career R’s.

 

[HarryStotle]

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.

It isn’t clear that in politics “unrelated issues” just happen to “become related” when negotiations occur. There would have to be some connection vis a vis the political views of the two parties that would make them take the opposite position on both of the issues being compromised upon. The connection between them may not be obvious, but the connection would be found in the relative political philosophies.

 

[yankeesouth]

It’s not about individual politicians anyway. It is about ideology. You can spin it all you want but the liberal left democratic party lays waste to all the life teachings of Jesus as depicted in the five Catholic non negotiables.

Our Lady said the final battle will be the attack on marriage and the family. The battle lines are pretty clear so as a Catholic you have to jump through some crazy hoops to justify voting for the pro abortion/infanticide, euthanasia, redefining marriage, gender ideology liberal political ideology.

I think all of these amazing abortion restriction laws around the country are due in large part to President Trump who laid down the gauntlet.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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.

It isn’t clear that in politics “unrelated issues” just happen to “become related” when negotiations occur. There would have to be some connection vis a vis the political views of the two parties that would make them take the opposite position on both of the issues being compromised upon. The connection between then may not be obvious, but the connection would be found in the relative political philosophies.

If you are referring to a connection that explains why a certain politician would promote two items that are otherwise unrelated, then sure. Politicians tend to follow their political philosophies when deciding what to promote. In the case in point, both banning abortion and protecting gun rights are in line with many right-wing philosophies. But the issues themselves - abortion and gun rights - have no inherent relation as, say, the farm bill has a close relationship with a food stamp program, because they both deal with food supplied by farmers, and farmers would naturally be interested in both of them. But it is also true that earmarks are often added to appropriations bills that have nothing to do with the particular appropriation, other than the fact that to get the bill to pass, legislators often strike a deal whereby they “sell” their vote in return for getting a favorite earmark included in the bill.

Although the hypothetical compromise posited by the OP is not an appropriations bill, it is still possible for such a combination bill to come up just so that both sides get something of what they want.

 

[pnewton]

That’s why this polling world we live in is bad.

Perhaps you are right and I read too much into that 30%. It could be that some of that was reactionary to the thought experiment. I like such questions though as a way of clarifying our values. Especially with an issue like abortion where the sides become entrenched in slogans and platforms, it is good to examine why abortion is opposed, or why abortion is accepted. I have to think if we were to do this as a nation we would see a drop in support for abortion among liberals and conservatives alike, though what form this would take legally might be unpredictable.

 

[runningdude]

What in the OP came across as mockery?

The OP may have presented it as an honest hypothetical offer, but it has been used mockingly by others for decades.

He is taking a spurious offer, and asking would you accept the offer of it weren’t spurious.

The people who think that killing a child is acceptable are not going to change their minds if people willingly give up up their guns. It is thus futile to discuss an impossible compromise.

Oh, and the idea that they are not connected is simply not true. They are connected in stances of all politicians. They are connected in the teaching of the Church.

They are not rationally connected. That dishonest politicians link the two issues is irrelevant.

They are both pro-life issues.

Owning a gun is not a prolife issue. A gun is a morally neutral tool. It can be used for good, evil, or indifferent purposes. Murder may be a prolife issue, but murder predates guns by 4000 years.

There is no moral use of abortion.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

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?

Personally I’m no supporter of capital punishment. I would prefer if it didn’t happen. But it is something I can agree to disagree on.

If you make a scale of the wrongness of different types of killing, the killing of innocents is always at the “extreme wrong” end. Especially if those innocents are children. The killing of a murderer who has had a fair trial and been able to put up a fair defence before a jury of his peers may still be on the “wrong” side of the balance but is far away from the “extreme wrong”. It is probably about as far as you can get to the “right” side on the scale of killing, if you assume there are situations where killing can be right.

 

[pnewton]

It is thus futile to discuss an impossible compromise.

What may be futile for you might have benefit for others. No one is forced to engage in such dialogue. But this takes the taco:

runningdude:

They are connected in the teaching of the Church.

They are not rationally connected.

Catholics should learn from the Church, not teach her. You may disagree with the rationale, but it is there for all who want to learn. Abortion is immoral because human life has an intrinsic value. This value is not eliminated by one becoming a gang member, as in the conversation above, or when when commits a heinous crime. This value is not eliminated because one does not speak English, or was born in another country. Your denial of this connection is not consistent with Catholicism.

 

[vz71]

Would you support a compromise banning abortion and guns?

After careful thought and consideration, I have the best answer for this.

Fish. The answer is fish.

Unless of course the point is not to bring in things that do not relate to each other.
If that is the case, I have no idea what the point is.

 

[CaptFun]

MayBE!

Ban all abortions and deny guns to fetuses. Except when they might need them for self defense.

No capital punishment for rape and incest … without a trial

… demonstrating that the person to be killed for it was the actual perp

… where an unborn child IS found guilty, his/her parents must also be punished.

The father for causing the initial problem, and the mother for harboring a criminal.

- watch a major party adopt this ^
nonsense and enshrine it in their platform some day.

 

[Cruciferi]

I agree. The answer is definitely fish. More specifically Alaskan Tilapia.