The Core Problem to Murder by Firearms

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Isn't abortion a "right". As a "right" should not your opinion about reasonable rational rules be discussed in relation to abortion too, as well as, other "rights" and how those rules impact individual "rights"? Abortion as a "right" is part and parcel of any discussion of "rights" and reasonable and rational rules.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Have you ever given birth?

Old men dictating what women can, and cannot, do with their bodies.
Mankind has evolved very little over centuries.

If you believe men can give birth, you're in dire need of some professional help.

Women can do anything to their bodies they want, as long as they bring no physical harm to the human fetus within that body.

Why don't godless women do this instead, since they have so little regard for life: Give birth to the baby, then afterward the woman can "abort" her own life in any number of creative ways possible. Another great advantage to this self-abortion solution is that it offers a permanent solution to birth control concerns.

Oh yeah...one final thing: There are many women who are pro-life. Maybe you should pull your head out of the sand and get out more often, since you think only men are concerned and that men can also give birth.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Show Me, this is Hcap's modus operandi whenever he's backed into a corner and not going too swell for him. He pulls his SLEEPER act.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Really hcap. I really don't want to discuss abortion. I want to discuss your inconsistent position on "rights".

In all seriousness, is it not inconsistent on your part to support limiting "rights" you do not support, while expecting "rights" you support to be unlimited?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No you wanted to discuss abortion.

Use the rational limits of first amendment abuses instead.

But how can one rationally "limit" an inalienable right? Can explain that to us?

[thaskalos]

The conservatives defend the life of the fetus in the womb...but deny the same fetus the financial help that an unwanted child eventually needs in order to survive. When the State denies a mother her wish to terminate her pregnancy...who should then be responsible for the welfare of the unwanted child?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The conservatives defend the life of the fetus in the womb...but deny the same fetus the financial help that an unwanted child eventually needs in order to survive. When the State denies a mother her wish to terminate her pregnancy...who should then be responsible for the welfare of the unwanted child?

The parents and then the child.
If you can't afford to have a child, there is no reasonable reason you should ever get pregnant in this day and age.

At what point does the responsibility of the mother come to play?
Should we admit freedoms are not absolute, ass hcap says, and require background checks and a license before a woman is allowed to have sex? At least a 5 day waiting period.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Tom

The parents and then the child.
If you can't afford to have a child, there is no reasonable reason you should ever get pregnant in this day and age.

At what point does the responsibility of the mother come to play?
Should we admit freedoms are not absolute, ass hcap says, and require background checks and a license before a woman is allowed to have sex? At least a 5 day waiting period.

That's a great idea! A 5-day cooling off period for people in heat! I love it. Might actually get fewer unwanted pregnancies.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by horses4courses View Post
Have you ever given birth?

Old men dictating what women can, and cannot, do with their bodies.
Mankind has evolved very little over centuries.

Yes, we now have vast availability of birth control. Too bad many are still too stupid to use it. A baby should die because the mom is an idiot or a hooker?

BTW, we do not allow a woman to sell her body on the corner, or are you all for that too?

And at what age?
Can Suzie Floozie make a few bucks in the locker room after cheerleading practice? Multi-task in the back seat of the school bus?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Tom

The parents and then the child.
If you can't afford to have a child, there is no reasonable reason you should ever get pregnant in this day and age.

At what point does the responsibility of the mother come to play?
Should we admit freedoms are not absolute, ass hcap says, and require background checks and a license before a woman is allowed to have sex? At least a 5 day waiting period.

Fine...but how do we enforce such a rule? Do we criminalize the act of "irresponsible sex"? The heinous criminals are now getting released early because of a lack of jailing space. Do we release the murderers even earlier...so we can make jail space for the promiscuous?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Fine...but how do we enforce such a rule? Do we criminalize the act of "irresponsible sex"? The heinous criminals are now getting released early because of a lack of jailing space. Do we release the murderers even earlier...so we can make room for the promiscuous?

No need to make it a crime or for incarceration.

We create work programs like FDR (D) did and have them support their children with the money earned from the social programs, while benefiting the community.

This is the short-term fix until we starting teaching our young again about individual responsibility and everything is not society's fault.

People like Trudeau are tiresome blaming their shortcomings on society.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

No need to make it a crime or for incarceration.

We create work programs like FDR (D) did and have them support their children with the money earned from the social programs, while benefiting the community.

What about the inherent risk associated with forcing a mother to raise a child that she doesn't want? Don't we have enough child-abuse cases already? How are our social workers handling the child abuse problems NOW? Who is going to ensure that these unwanted children are getting the proper care that they need at home?

[JerryBoyle]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About Gun Control

Very good article and the writer nails the problem perfectly. As usual, the secular left's spiritual/moral barometer is about as deep as a mud puddle, so leftists are stuck on stupid -- that is to say, on the least meaning level of argument, which is the object level.

I have a theory on why the left doesn't want to go any deeper than this. But for now, I'll hold that opinion to see how this thread runs.

It's long read, but a good thought-provoking one. I've quoted some excerpts below.

A social ill takes place on three levels: the object level, the individual level, and the social level.

Take alcoholism. There’s the object, alcohol. There’s the choice that the individual makes to drink the alcohol. And, finally, there’s the social problems that can be blamed for widespread alcoholism.

The gun control movement operates in the same object-oriented space of the prohibitionist movement. For prohibitionists, the problem was gin. For the gun control movement, it’s all about the guns. Get rid of the gin and the guns, and the underlying problem goes away without having to do anything else....

And object-oriented prohibitionism is the least meaningful way of looking at a social problem....

Usually, the Left loves root causes. It can trace any individual dysfunction to the problems at the heart of a society. But when it comes to guns, it refuses to look past the physical object, while blaming everyone responsible for the existence of guns, from firearms manufacturers to the NRA. But blaming everyone involved with the existence of an object is not an examination of the root causes of its misuse....

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/201...el-greenfield/

Man, what do you hope to acheive with posts like this? 1 sentence in and you're flaming an entire group of people. It can't be to try and effect change or reason with another side. What happened to you that you're so bitter? Is it to gain rep points from everyone on the site who thinks like you? Don't worry, they're very firmly in your camp. The off topic section here is unhinged on all ends - I won't say both, because it's not a simple left/right thing.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What about the inherent risk associated with forcing a mother to raise a child that she doesn't want? Don't we have enough child-abuse cases already? How are our social workers handling the child abuse problems NOW? Who is going to ensure that these unwanted children are getting the proper care that they need at home?

Well, killing them sure is not going to help them.
Maybe we take them away and throw the failed moms in prison and make them WORK there to earn the money to take care of THEIR children.

Or just abort them.

Between the moms and the kids, kids don't deserve it - they might turn out alright. The moms are already losers and of no value to society. Probably save us all money to just dispose of them.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What about the inherent risk associated with forcing a mother to raise a child that she doesn't want? Don't we have enough child-abuse cases already? How are our social workers handling the child abuse problems NOW? Who is going to ensure that these unwanted children are getting the proper care that they need at home?

What about the mother who doesn't want the child after it is born? Maybe we do have too many child abuse cases, because immature and irresponsible people lack a moral compass?

Who insured children were getting proper care at home, before social workers? As you said since the advent of social workers there are too many abuse cases and they can't keep up. Why? Social workers enable irresponsible behavior. Is it because without irresponsible behavior there is no need for social work?

Do you recommend continuing to let irresponsible people continue in their ways and force the product of their irresponsibility upon others?