Would liberals trade guns for human lives?

[UCFBS]

Sanger never said that. And the few times people get her quotes correct, they are so far out-of-context, it's pathetic.

Sanger is a study of a women who fought for the right of women to just be educated on their body, their options, and their rights. She was against abortion until it could be made safe. She dealt with minorities who were birthing kids at rates they could not economically afford, and even today people take her comments on sterilization -- always the choice of the woman -- out-of-context.

This was back in a day when women had no choice if a man impregnated her.

Disclaimer: I'm Pro-Life, but I fully support a woman's control over her body. Just like I believe in the inalienable right to self-defense.

 

[UCFBS]

BTW, here's the original "Weeds" quote, that has been used over and over in various ways, and well out of context ...

"I was merely thinking of the poor mothers of congested districts of the East Side who had so poignantly begged me for relief, in order that the children they had already brought into the world might have a chance to grow into strong and stalwart Americans. It was almost impossible to believe that the dissemination of knowledge easily available to the intelligent and thoughtful parents of the well-to-do classes was actually a criminal act, proscribed not only by State laws but by Federal as well.

My paper was suppressed. I was arrested and indicted by the Federal authorities. But owing to the vigorous protests of the public and an appeal sent by a number of distinguished English writers and thinkers, the case against me was finally abandoned. Meanwhile "Birth Control" became the slogan of the idea and not only spread through the American press from coast to coast, but immediately gained currency in Great Britain. Succinctly and with telling brevity and precision "Birth Control" summed up our whole philosophy. Birth Control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."​

You spend any time researching Sanger, and you will quickly see how much time she actually spent with poor, minority mothers who were looking to Sanger for help.

As a man, it troubles me how much we blame women, and want to limit their ability to provide solutions, all while we act like they don't exist. Sanger is the product of the 1920s, back when women were just getting the right to vote, yet still couldn't say "no" to a man, while they were "stuck with the check."

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

Idk BS - quotes schmotes think Sanger like a lot of "progressive" Democrat heroes were actually giant eugenics/racist types.

BS, u got kids? That's what really stuck the vacuum up the vagina for me.

 

[UCFBS]

Idk BS - quotes schmotes think Sanger like a lot of "progressive" Democrat heroes were actually giant eugenics/racist types.

Pre-WW2 Eugenics != Nazi Eugenics

I.e., there were a lot of well-respected scientists in the '20s who argued the case of breeding out various genetic defects, at a time when mankind was just discovering such was possible. But ... the argument was a consenting adult should have their own choice, ala freedom.

It's not like the viewpoint we now have, post-WW2, that every little limitation in mankind often results in an "adapt and overcome" aspect ... let alone the Nazi's took Eugenics to a "non-consenting" aspect. They just "chose for people."

Furthermore, trying to "extend" Sanger's comments into the realm of racism is far from the context of her quotes. She was, foremost, battling the under-addressed aspect of poverty, and the inability to feed their own kids, especially once the Depression hit in the '30s. This is where her common quotes are mis-appropriated to the KKK et al.

Yes, Sanger advocated the government fund sterilization of the poor ... but only those poor women who wanted it. The ones who has husbands, or just men, who took them against their will. Again, still their choice ... as with everything in Planned Parenthood. And the age-old, male-dominated attitude of "oh, she's a slut," is very far, far from the realities of the '20s and '30s, and even '40s and '50s!

BS, u got kids? That's what really stuck the vacuum up the vagina for me.

My wife and I never had to go to that point, or myself with any woman prior for that matter. But I don't judge those who do.

In fact, we tried to have kids for 5 years (long story), but it never happened.

But when my wife, also coming from a poor family, wanted to get on the pill prior to our marriage, Planned Parenthood gave her a full physical, discovered many things no other doctor had addressed prior. That really changed my view.

They are, by and for women's health. So I understand women who cannot tolerate men who argue in such ignorance against them.

Just like liberals who don't know the first thing about firearms, and safety, look like idiots when they start talking about gun control and the NRA.

 

[OmniKnight]

Any way, back to the point. The argument you seem to be making is that any form of contraception is equivalent to abortion, which belies your stance that abortion is wrong.

No. The argument that he's making is that anything done to avoid or terminate pregnancy after sperm has combined with an egg constitutes abortion, regardless of the mode or method.

The viewpoint you are spouting seems to be that any sexual congress should only be for the purposes of procreation, which is such a backwards view IMHO.

No. The viewpoint he is presenting is that engaging in any sexual congress inherently comes with the responsibility to see a pregnancy to full term if one occurs. In other words, if you're going to make the conscious decision to have sex, and an egg is fertilized, you have the responsibility to exercise due care in development of a child and not terminate such process at any point in time after fertilization has occurred.

The debate in abortion is at what point it goes from being illness prevention to being murder. Your view is that any interference of the reproduction process is murder, which is such a simplistic view of the process and shows little understanding of how the world works.

It's not simplistic. It's based in moral principle. If you're going to have sex, you need to assume responsibility for the potential outcome.

I'm not saying I have the definitive answer - none of us do - but merely that yours is wrong.

That's absurd and marginalizing.

Sex is and should be a healthy form of recreation and not just a procreative activity.

No one said sex should be used only for deliberate insemination. All they said is that if you're going to do it, you need to take responsibility and care for a developing child once an egg is fertilized by a sperm, which is achieved through a deliberate act (sex).

Taking steps to avoid a medical condition is simply smart living, and the signs of an advanced society. Go back to the dark ages and the days of the Inquisition if you want to manage the womb in such a manner to suggest that contraception is murder.

Wait, the miracle of male cells combining with female cells to create life is now a 'medical condition'??!? Are you some kind of morally devoid robot?!

The signs of an advanced society are certainly not avoidance of ethical and moral principles by use of technology.

 

[OmniKnight]

BS you're very misguided. You mistake ignorance for conviction. You have no clue what it means to be a man

 

[CommuterBob]

All we are doing is arguing as to where the line is drawn as to when life truly begins. Anything before that line is acceptable to you. Anything past that line is not. You've drawn that line at the moment a sperm combines with an ovum. Fine. You're entitled to that belief. However, it is not the only definitive belief on the subject, as the courts have repeatedly debated. That chemical reaction is but one step in the formation of a life. It is not the only step, nor is it the first step, and it's a step taken in many failed zygotes that do not result in babies. I tend to believe that until the fetus can possibly sustain without the mother that it's not a life, as until that point it is a collection of cells. And yes, technically pregnancy is a medical condition that usually requires the supervision of a licensed physician.

This is not an easy issue, but for me to say what a person can or cannot do to their body to attend to a medical condition is beyond the scope of their rights.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

I tend to believe that until the fetus can possibly sustain without the mother that it's not a life

An infant cannot survive without its parent.

 

[CommuterBob]

An infant cannot survive without its parent.

But it can breathe on its own, pump its own blood, and process its own food.

 

[UCFBS]

BS you're very misguided. You mistake ignorance for conviction. You have no clue what it means to be a man

I've been accused of both many times.

My view is that unless you're a man that is party to the contraception and/or would be directly affected by it, you should have no say. That said ...

No. The argument that he's making is that anything done to avoid or terminate pregnancy after sperm has combined with an egg constitutes abortion, regardless of the mode or method.
No. The viewpoint he is presenting is that engaging in any sexual congress inherently comes with the responsibility to see a pregnancy to full term if one occurs. In other words, if you're going to make the conscious decision to have sex, and an egg is fertilized, you have the responsibility to exercise due care in development of a child and not terminate such process at any point in time after fertilization has occurred.
It's not simplistic. It's based in moral principle. If you're going to have sex, you need to assume responsibility for the potential outcome.
That's absurd and marginalizing.

What people disagree on is what "responsibility" actually means.

As a Libertarian, I see this as being something that does not affect others.

I.e., what "good" does it do for society to have a child to term, only for it to be a burden for society more than the child's creators care to be responsible for?

I also am at odds when people on the right argue a woman should have to have a "waiting period" or "get counseling" and other things. Do they really think a woman isn't going to do those things on her own? Do they really think other women and other people in her life are not going to have such influences already, and will understand her far more, than society does?

Or the bigger point, and back to the OP ...

It's like when the left argues that society knows better for our own personal defense, than we do, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, safety and responsibility. Sorry, no, that's just not true. Same with women and their own bodies.

I mean, an irresponsible person is usually going to be irresponsible. No amount of regulation -- more like "limitation" -- is going to change that. All it's going to do is constrict the freedom-loving, law-abiding, responsible citizens who take their rights and freedoms seriously, while the irresponsible person continues to not give a f---.

No one said sex should be used only for deliberate insemination. All they said is that if you're going to do it, you need to take responsibility and care for a developing child once an egg is fertilized by a sperm, which is achieved through a deliberate act (sex).
Wait, the miracle of male cells combining with female cells to create life is now a 'medical condition'??!? Are you some kind of morally devoid robot?!
The signs of an advanced society are certainly not avoidance of ethical and moral principles by use of technology.

And yet ... both the left and right find ways to make an argument so they can impress their views on others, at odds with their freedoms and own rights.

You don't need technology for that. Technology does not enable such, even if that's the argument many make.

 

[OmniKnight]

Bob2, you know that view is marginalizing. You know it and you adopt it anyway.

I'm not going to get personal and accuse you of anything, but you need to ask yourself why you're willing to do that and what you're really trying to accomplish

 

[UCFBS]

All we are doing is arguing as to where the line is drawn as to when life truly begins. Anything before that line is acceptable to you. Anything past that line is not. You've drawn that line at the moment a sperm combines with an ovum. Fine. You're entitled to that belief. However, it is not the only definitive belief on the subject, as the courts have repeatedly debated. That chemical reaction is but one step in the formation of a life. It is not the only step, nor is it the first step, and it's a step taken in many failed zygotes that do not result in babies. I tend to believe that until the fetus can possibly sustain without the mother that it's not a life, as until that point it is a collection of cells. And yes, technically pregnancy is a medical condition that usually requires the supervision of a licensed physician.
This is not an easy issue, but for me to say what a person can or cannot do to their body to attend to a medical condition is beyond the scope of their rights.

Which goes back to the simple reality ...

It is a woman's body.
It's for a woman, and the people she involves in her life, to make that choice.
And yes, it's really that simple.

Just like when it comes to the alienable right to personal defense.

No one has the right to impede in anyone else's rights.
Using the laws to do such is the ultimate litmus test.
In the case of a Supreme Law/Ruling.

 

[CommuterBob]

Bob2, you know that view is marginalizing. You know it and you adopt it anyway.

I'm not going to get personal and accuse you of anything, but you need to ask yourself why you're willing to do that and what you're really trying to accomplish

I'm not marginalizing; I'm thinking objectively about a situation that many people, like yourself, attach a lot of emotion. You see it as marginalizing because it's on the "wrong" side of your line. You want to call me names and marginalize my opinion because it's different from yours, but that doesn't make you any more right.

 

[OmniKnight]

I'm not marginalizing; I'm thinking objectively about a situation that many people, like yourself, attach a lot of emotion. You see it as marginalizing because it's on the "wrong" side of your line. You want to call me names and marginalize my opinion because it's different from yours, but that doesn't make you any more right.

pro-life side thinks just as objectively as pro-choice side. pro-choice side thinks just as emotionally as pro-life. they're just rooted in different emotions and desired outcomes.

you're marginalizing society incrementally. every aborted baby marginalizes the human race.

54 million and counting - how many more terminated human lives will it take for people to stop the madness?

 

[UCFBS]

pro-life side thinks just as objectively as pro-choice side. pro-choice side thinks just as emotionally as pro-life. they're just rooted in different emotions and desired outcomes.
you're marginalizing society incrementally. every aborted baby marginalizes the human race.

Most people are pro-life, but also pro-choice. Everyone likes telling everyone else what to do ... except when it comes to themselves.

54 million and counting - how many more terminated human lives will it take for people to stop the madness?

I still don't think we've caught up to the Soviets during their era. After all, it was they who perfected the vacuum.

 

[CommuterBob]

pro-life side thinks just as objectively as pro-choice side. pro-choice side thinks just as emotionally as pro-life. they're just rooted in different emotions and desired outcomes.

you're marginalizing society incrementally. every aborted baby marginalizes the human race.

54 million and counting - how many more terminated human lives will it take for people to stop the madness?

Oh, please. Following that logic:
Every hungry child marginalizes the human race.
Every homeless person marginalizes the human race.
Every drug addict marginalizes the human race.
Every person who dies from a curable disease marginalizes the human race.
Every soldier who dies in combat marginalizes the human race.

Terminating a few unwanted pregnancies is the least of our problems.

 

[OmniKnight]

Oh, please. Following that logic:
Every hungry child marginalizes the human race.

yes, correct.

Every homeless person marginalizes the human race.

yes.

Every drug addict marginalizes the human race.

yes, very much so.

Every person who dies from a curable disease marginalizes the human race.

yes, absolutely.

Every soldier who dies in combat marginalizes the human race.

not necessarily. sometimes war is necessary, and it will always be so. but let's not start down that tangent.

Terminating a few unwanted pregnancies is the least of our problems.

it's absolutely not, and this view represents the epitome of pro-choice marginalization. the difference is, in every one of those tragic scenarios listed above - at least the person had a chance to live. they had a chance to breathe air and eat food and feel the sunshine and, if they're lucky, fall in love. 54 million is not a 'few'. 54 million people never had the chance to live at all.

 

[UCFBS]

... the difference is, in every one of those tragic scenarios listed above - at least the person had a chance to live.

Er, um ... what? I see a lot of cases where they don't, or not well at all.

they had a chance to breathe air and eat food and feel the sunshine and, if they're lucky, fall in love. 54 million is not a 'few'. 54 million living, breathing people never had the chance to live at all.

Yes, it's sad and even tragic.

But you don't think women don't think ... and think hard ... about that before they have an abortion?

 

[CommuterBob]

So sending people off to die in war is OK, but killing zygotes isn't. got it.

War isn't necessary. Ever. FFS

 

[UCFBS]

War isn't necessary. Ever. FFS

Er, um ... what about "deterrence"?

Freedom of Navigation?
Other, standard operations we, the US, undertake?

What about alleged "defensive systems" that enrage other nations, just because we have them?

Should we match what other other nations do?
Enforce UN rulings or other things?

What happens when the US, or anyone, can't hold any threat over anyone because they know nothing will be done?

 

[CommuterBob]

Er, um ... what about "deterrence"?

Freedom of Navigation?
Other, standard operations we, the US, undertake?

What about alleged "defensive systems" that enrage other nations, just because we have them?

Should we match what other other nations do?
Enforce UN rulings or other things?

What happens when the US, or anyone, can't hold any threat over anyone because they know nothing will be done?

Those are responses to acts of aggression, which aren't necessary. They are childish responses to difficult circumstances.

 

[UCFBS]

Those are responses to acts of aggression, which aren't necessary. They are childish responses to difficult circumstances.

Which was the exact same argument made by the current administration, and we did not exercise Freedom of Navigation for nearly a half-decade in some parts of the world ...

Until just recently.

So ... why did we restart?
And what has been the result of stopping for 5 years ... only to start again?

Ergo, the classic, "inconsistent policy" argument
(and the "aggressor, once allowed, will not regress")?

Also ... what did you think of Reagan rolling out Pershing II? Should we have just let the Russians roll out SS-20s and push the balance well over, neutralizing NATO's prior threat to "nuke first" if the Russians crossed the Fulda Gap?

Etc...?

I really don't understand most of the arguments I hear these days. Either we have a policy, or we don't. This "flipper" is only pissing off everyone ... freedom loving Americans, our allies, etc...

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

War is absolutely necessary at times. How do you stop Hitler without war? There are dozens of other examples. Abolish slavery? Cripple Al Qaeda?

 

[CommuterBob]

War is absolutely necessary at times. How do you stop Hitler without war? There are dozens of other examples. Abolish slavery? Cripple Al Qaeda?

Why did Hitler have to start it? Response is necessary, but starting it isn't.

 

[UCFBS]

Why did Hitler have to start it? Response is necessary, but starting it isn't.

Thought's like that resulted in Munich, taking out the Czech deterrence. Again ... deterrence.

If a lot of pacifists had their way, the world would still be embroiled in a 3rd world war. It's why we do everything from deploy advanced sensory and general air defense (marketed as "unbalancing missile defense" by China, Iran and Russia, all while they deploy the exact same) at our allies as well as continue Freedom of Navigation (FoN) so countries cannot build and claim artificial islands that are designed to be forward strike bases to hit our allies.

Deterrence prevents war.

 

[CommuterBob]

Thought's like that resulted in Munich, taking out the Czech deterrence. Again ... deterrence.

If a lot of pacifists had their way, the world would still be embroiled in a 3rd world war. It's why we do everything from deploy advanced sensory and general air defense (marketed as "unbalancing missile defense" by China, Iran and Russia, all while they deploy the exact same) at our allies as well as continue Freedom of Navigation (FoN) so countries cannot build and claim artificial islands that are designed to be forward strike bases to hit our allies.

Deterrence prevents war.

Backwards thinking. Hitler wanted to expand Germany for both economic and genocidal reasons. Hubris on both sides that lead to war. There were other solutions to the Great Depression that Germans should have explored, but they went with the emotional vote. Much like I'm afraid the Republican base is doing behind Trump.

If you don't view the other side as a threat, there's no need for deterrence.

 

[UCFBS]

Backwards thinking.

I wish the world world the way you say it should. But until then ... the US really keeps a lot of things from happening.

That said ... understand I'm an Isolationist Libertarian. I want to pull back to the Americas. In fact, given how most of our allies are pissed at us now, I think it's going happen anyway. Japan alone is severely pissed with the Obama administration on FoN, and basically forced the President to restart them ... although now it's too late.

Hitler wanted to expand Germany for both economic and genocidal reasons. Hubris on both sides that lead to war.

Yes ... and yet people thought they could stop it from happening by giving him the most well defended, well armed, highly industrial, northern areas of Czech lands.

How well did that work out?

There were other solutions to the Great Depression that Germans should have explored, but they went with the emotional vote.

Many would argue the Germans would still today, but really haven't been their own nation for awhile.

Much like I'm afraid the Republican base is doing behind Trump.

Most Republicans cannot stand Trump. He only has 1/4th of them, and even the Republican focus groups have pointed out why.

If you read Trump's actual policies, they aren't what he says in front of the camera. He just is anti-PC for free advertising reasons, and he's spent the least, by far ... of anyone. They like him being anti-PC, to inspire real debate.

That's what virtually every focus group that studies Trump's supporters are pointing out. The fact that he's anti-PC is finally "breaking through" the media non-sense. I.e., much of the media counters Trump, and also end up being wrong too.

I.e., From there, people get educated on the actual civics.

SIDE NOTE: Trump has traditionally been a Clinton-Democrat, but with a twist. When it serves his business interests, he's pro-Clinton (e.g., eminent domain). But when it doesn't, he's not (e.g., H1B "indentured servitude"). E.g., He's actually more like Bernie Sanders on immigration (bomb the Visa system, issue more Green Cards, let people become immigrants), very different than "Big Business" Bush and Clinton.

Even left-leaning The Atlantic and Salon have been trying to warn Democratic voters what is coming. That while Trump will probably not win, let alone probably won't get the GOP nomination (and even if he does, they'll pull a "Ron Paul" type fiasco to keep him from getting it), it's part of the greater "anti-PC" movement that appeals not to a growing number of just Republican voters ...

But even Democratic ones too that are tired of hiring things in the media that seem true, but are not.

If you don't view the other side as a threat, there's no need for deterrence.

I won't argue the French greatly influenced the creation of Nazi Germany because they saw them as a threat.

But how much were the Czechs responsible for that? And why did we give into Hitler's demand for those key, Czech defensive positions and their prime, industrial base? Why? Why, why, why?

Just like the President has been doing, and now reversing (because he sees the grave errors of doing so), with the Chinese and Russians?

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

Dont forget the Germans got the shaft out of WWI as well

 

[UCFEE]

I durd it flur the babies.

 

[Notasir]

Guns are for ...........? (I'll Refrain from making some mad, but)

Well Mach3 has guns.. I rest my case!

 

[crambone]

How did I miss this thread?!?!

 

[NascarSteve]

This is always a fun discussion to have--we haven't had a good abortion debate in some time.

God dammit, it's a woman's Constitutional right to coat hanger that fetus right the hell on out. The Supreme Court has ruled on this and stuff. Deal with it.

Kinda like guns.

It has never been a constitutional right for women to kill there unborn babies, but a Supreme Court ruling which can be changed. It was illegal up to that point. Now every 30 seconds an unborn baby is murdered!

 

[MACHater02]

It has never been a constitutional right for women to kill there unborn babies, but a Supreme Court ruling which can be changed. It was illegal up to that point. Now every 30 seconds an unborn baby is murdered!

they aren't babies

 

[fabknight]

they aren't babies

We've already established that the life of a child begins as a zygote which is the first step in the process of the human development. Don't start with your blithering shenanigans.

 

[brahmanknight]

Why is this thread four pages long?

 

[OmniKnight]

Why is this thread four pages long?

because people want to make excuses for exercising poor judgment and have a government-sponsored parachute while denying life to would-be human beings