From the Abortion Ruling..

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rockstarartist

    I shoot like an android
    May 3, 2009
    110
    Baltimore City
    yes because

    all have the natural right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of happiness.

    liberty does not trump life, and the pursuit of happiness does not guarantee happiness nor does it trump another's liberty or life.

    only when one tries to deny another of their life and liberty do they forfeit their rights.

    I totally agree with you Kohburn! Innocent children should not be murdered, but I was talking about abortions here. Not a toddler playing with a toy on the sidewalk, or a fetus capable of living outside the mothers womb. So lets keep to the topic and not change other peoples words to change the topic.:party29:
     

    rockstarartist

    I shoot like an android
    May 3, 2009
    110
    Baltimore City
    The difference is that an abortion kills a human being who had committed no crime. Owning weapons by itself does not kill any other humans. And in the instances where a weapon is used to kill another human it is either a crime (murder, negligence, etc) or it is done in self-defense to prevent or stop a crime.

    Hi, Elliotte!

    But what if that "human being" endangers the host? What if that "human being" was conceived via violence? What is considered a human being? ( See my other long winded post. ;) ) I believe a woman needs to make that choice for herself.

    Lets also help your argument by keeping out the "committed no crime" part, because soldiers kill other soldiers that probably didn't commit a crime. I think the complicated part is defining that human being aspect, no?

    Owning a weapon does not kill other people, but it prepares you to kill other people in a time where you may be forced to defend yourself from an aggressor. So, you have the choice to use that firearm for defence.
     

    chilipeppermaniac

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Whoa Buddy! I am not condoning rampages and senseless killing. You are recontextualizing my words :)

    But.... Yes, you do have that choice don't you? But you don't do it, it is not nice. Your community won't like you doing that stuff, they may throw you in jail, or worse (depending on where you live) or maybe they won't do anything (again, depending on where you live.) We live our lives continually hoping that someone won't make that choice. But look at Orlando, Turkey, Paris, Boston, 911, etc. People make that choice, no matter the law.

    But is abortion really killing someone, willy-nilly? When are you classifying a fetus as a someone (or the emotionally charged word, Baby)? In the zygote stage? When its a Blastocyst? When its an Embryo? When its a fetus? When the fetus has a sex?

    When is the choice appropriate and right for you? When is it not for you? Can I truly understand the reasoning behind someone making the abortion choice? I don't know.

    But here is something, I have a hard time coming to grips over abortions after the fetus has existed for over 23 weeks. Why, because it can survive outside the mothers body... but again, should it be completely prevented? What if the woman's life is at risk, what if the fetus has complication that will prevent it from living outside the womb? I don't know, and I would rather a woman make that decision with her doctor and trusted companion than for me to force that decision. I am not qualified to make that choice for someone.

    I also believe that it is demeaning to women to generalize them all in a category that they are using abortion as a contraceptive and its like choosing a Big Mac with extra cheese at the local Mickey D's.

    Basically, what I am trying to say is that things are much more complicated, then "You are killing someone."

    I would also like to add that the 2nd amendment is in essence sanctioning the killing of someone. You bear arms to defend yourself, thereby you maybe killing someone... such a decision is not made lightly. I hope that I am never in a position to have to exercise that right, but I also hope that no one ever takes that right from me.

    Its all tough stuff...

    As I started out my previous response to you, Rock, I mean my replies in no means as an attack on you or your viewpoints. Mainly I am aiming to refute and present arguments for our 2A rights vs. issues such as mass murders, perversions against children, genocides, terrorism, etc which in the minds and hearts of many within civilized societies are horrific. I would have included abortions in the examples above, but it is different. Unlike these atrocities, it is ruled as legal. In addition, like another forum member wrote, we who do not think it should be, still have to pay for it with our taxes etc.

    In your post that elicited my initial reply, you said,
    "It is difficult to walk in the shoes of the other, our sensibilities have been our own since birth... we, unfortunately, cannot sense the sensations of another."

    I responded, but it was not in attempts to recontextualize your words, but instead it was to show that a case could be made up to fit any number of scenarios that would seem otherwise perfectly normal to those with demented minds like Hitler, Dahmer, Manson, etc. based on them claiming we cannot sense the sensations they do ...

    Therefore, I raised what would be to me a far fetched batch of examples of what might constitute " walking in someone else's shoes within parameters they may see as sensible to them" while contrasting it with behavior that civilized people view as OK so to speak.
    I agree with you to a point, that the 2A right MIGHT bring upon a scenario where a killing might possibly occur and you and me both would hate to be in the position to kill or be killed. But as our forefathers saw fit with foresight, they penned the Constitution to ensure our rights that were personal as well as collective National rights. In so doing, they had no knowledge of future men like Hitler, Stalin, Bloomberg etc, but they sure as heck knew that unless we had provision of the 2A, we might wind up like the Jews and other victims of abuses of power such as they embodied.


    Sorry we even have to discuss abortions and all it's ramifications, but sadly it is a fact. As for what one believes is a life, fetus, plasms whatever, I have held a 20 week old baby after it was born prematurely. To me, any abortion is killing, no matter what stage it is in. My goal is not to change yours or anyone else's view on what is a life in the womb, but to keep the topic on track, I will redirect to what I think the initial posters' intentions were with this thread. In our fight for our 2A rights, there can be a significant correlation between the court's rulings regarding abortions and arguments we can present for our case to defend our Constitutional right to bear arms. There may be some merit to this train of thinking.

    I apologize to anyone reading this if it is convoluted, but I did my best at 4 or 5 Am when I wrote this.


    .
     

    kohburn

    Resident MacGyver
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2008
    6,796
    PAX NAS / CP MCAS
    I totally agree with you Kohburn! Innocent children should not be murdered, but I was talking about abortions here. Not a toddler playing with a toy on the sidewalk, or a fetus capable of living outside the mothers womb. So lets keep to the topic and not change other peoples words to change the topic.:party29:

    dehumanizing those who can't defend themselves has long been a tool of the left to eliminate those it doesn't want around.

    just because you deem a fetus to not be a human child does not make it so.
     

    Kman

    Blah, blah, blah
    Dec 23, 2010
    11,988
    Eastern shore
    Just for context.

    fe·tus
    ˈfēdəs/
    noun
    noun: fetus; plural noun: fetuses; noun: foetus; plural noun: foetuses

    an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
     

    Elliotte

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 11, 2011
    1,207
    Loudoun County VA
    Hi, Elliotte!

    But what if that "human being" endangers the host? What if that "human being" was conceived via violence? What is considered a human being? ( See my other long winded post. ;) ) I believe a woman needs to make that choice for herself.

    Lets also help your argument by keeping out the "committed no crime" part, because soldiers kill other soldiers that probably didn't commit a crime. I think the complicated part is defining that human being aspect, no?

    Owning a weapon does not kill other people, but it prepares you to kill other people in a time where you may be forced to defend yourself from an aggressor. So, you have the choice to use that firearm for defence.

    Soldiers fighting other soldiers in a war is faaaar from this discussion.

    In many defensive gun use situations, the person defending themselves does not have to kill the other person or even shoot them. For many attackers merely the threat of deadly force is enough to make them stop.


    If you've taken any honest biology classes or learned anything about genetics, you would know that the moment sperm meets egg a new person with their own unique DNA has been created. All those terms (fetus, zygote, blastocyst, embryo) describe different developmental stages of the same thing a person. The terms baby, infant, toddler, child, adult, also are used to describe different developmental stages of a person.

    So if a person is conceived in violence or in an act that the mother later regrets, that makes them less worthy of life? At what point does that change? A week after birth when the baby is crying through the night and the mother is sleep deprived can she change her mind and decide the child is no longer worth keeping alive? What about a year? Ten years? Some people like to choose the moment of birth, claiming that at that point the baby is no longer dependent on the mother. Should we then use the moment of birth as 40 weeks gestation? There are documented cases of babies as young as 20 weeks surviving outside the womb with the right medical care.
     

    kohburn

    Resident MacGyver
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2008
    6,796
    PAX NAS / CP MCAS
    Basically, what I am trying to say is that things are much more complicated, then "You are killing someone."

    I would also like to add that the 2nd amendment is in essence sanctioning the killing of someone. You bear arms to defend yourself, thereby you maybe killing someone... such a decision is not made lightly. I hope that I am never in a position to have to exercise that right, but I also hope that no one ever takes that right from me.

    Its all tough stuff...

    I think they need to come to terms with the fact that they ARE killing someone and thus must decide whose life is worth more. it gives proper scale to the decision.

    are they sacrificing a life out of convenience or medical risks or impending death, or are they doing preemptive mercy killing because its easier to not look the victim in the face while doing it?
     

    Ghostrider1

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 10, 2009
    1,906
    The PGC
    The lesson we should take from the abortion issue re: 2A is the creeping incrementalism and deception of the left. Abortion had to be allowed so it would be "safe, legal, and rare." They attack candidates that oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest, but fail to mention that rape, incest, and medical necessity make up a small fraction of all abortions. Now, the left wants unfettered access to abortion on demand. "Machine guns are too shooty," they said, "but you can keep your other guns." Now look where they are, HQLs and "assault weapon" bans, because they look scary.
     

    beretta_maven

    Free Thinking Member
    Jan 2, 2014
    1,725
    SoMD
    hmmm....

    but it is that freedom of choice that we hold dear, is it not?

    So by your ideology, you deem that the right to choose an abortion should not be given.

    How different is that from the ideology of another who states you should not have the choice to own a firearm?

    I believe that we all have the right to make responsible choices for ourselves. We will regret some choices, and others we will relish. But it is that fundamental right to be allowed to make that choice on your own volition that is important.

    I choose to own a firearm.
    I choose to be a responsible citizen.
    I choose to believe in no god.
    I choose to not care whether some one is married, religious, colored, gay, foreign, handicap, pro-life or pro-choice.
    I choose to help my family, friends, neighbors, and strangers in need.
    I choose to be a patriot, and it pains me when my country blunders... but I am filled with joy when my country does the right thing.

    What i see, is that people from many different aisles, of different experiences, and different ideologies attempting to prevent the possibility of choice to those whom sit on the other side of the fence.

    It is difficult to walk in the shoes of the other, our sensibilities have been our own since birth... we, unfortunately, cannot sense the sensations of another.

    So I would celebrate SCOTUS's decision as:
    All right, people can still make a choice on that subject(whether you care, or whether you would make one decision over the other.) What can I do to make sure that on a subject I care about, people will continue to have a choice.

    Excellent post! :party29:
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,933
    Messages
    7,259,542
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom