Pro Life + Pro Gun = Contradition in terms ?

Page 3 of 4 [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

pheonixiis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 532
Location: sifting through the ashes

01 Sep 2008, 1:34 pm

oscuria wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
What crime has the unborn committed?

Nothing yet.


Have colored children in mind?


Sensitive to one issue much?

I'm pro-choice and pro-gun.

I guess that makes me a conspirator to mass murder.

Kill 'em all and let God sort it out. :twisted:

Gee whiz guys. :roll:


_________________
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself.
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

-Walt Whitman


JohnnyCarcinogen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jun 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 729
Location: Missouri, USA

09 Sep 2008, 2:17 pm

Actually, it's Pro Life + Pro Death Penalty = Contradiction in terms.

You can't be pro all life and yet be pro death as a punishment for a crime; that's taking life, period.

To be really Pro-Life, you would want ALL life - no matter the age nor the crime - to be preserved until it's NATURAL end.

I think there are very few people who are truly pro-life.

What most so-called Pro-lifers are is actually Anti-Choice/Anti-Abortion, and they need to label themselves as such. Mislabeling themselves as "pro-life" is not only wrong, but misleading and a deliberate attempt to propagate a minority party agenda on the society of our nation.

As for guns, I'd rather raise up the price of bullets so high that it's harder to find and purchase, and put more restrictions on ammunition than on guns themselves.
An unloaded gun can only cause blunt trauma at best; a bullet is what does the real damage.


_________________
"If Evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve" - Jello Biafra
Check out my blog at:
http://thelatte.posterous.com/


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

09 Sep 2008, 2:23 pm

People, Pro-Life refers not to life in general, but helpless human life such as a pre-born human baby. Pro-life is contra-infanticide, but not contra-death.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

09 Sep 2008, 4:24 pm

JohnnyCarcinogen wrote:
As for guns, I'd rather raise up the price of bullets so high that it's harder to find and purchase, and put more restrictions on ammunition than on guns themselves.
An unloaded gun can only cause blunt trauma at best; a bullet is what does the real damage.


Ahh, the comedy routine put forth as policy, I think Chris Rock suggested this one in Bigger and Blacker. Cute idea in theory, but ignores the ease with which ammunition can be fabricated and the vast stockpiles already out there. All that raising the price on the ammo would do would be to create a vast(er) black market dealing in it as the people who saw which direction the wind was blowing bought up as much surplus as possible before the law took effect, like what happened with the high cap magazines.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

09 Sep 2008, 4:35 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Pro-life is contra-infanticide, but not contra-death.


Pro-choice people don't see an embryo as a human life, thus your claim that it's infanticide is meaningless to all but people who already agree with you. I'm not being biased, pro-choicers are guilty of the same pointless arguments, albeit on the other side.


_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

09 Sep 2008, 4:39 pm

Dox47 wrote:
JohnnyCarcinogen wrote:
As for guns, I'd rather raise up the price of bullets so high that it's harder to find and purchase, and put more restrictions on ammunition than on guns themselves.
An unloaded gun can only cause blunt trauma at best; a bullet is what does the real damage.


Ahh, the comedy routine put forth as policy, I think Chris Rock suggested this one in Bigger and Blacker. Cute idea in theory, but ignores the ease with which ammunition can be fabricated and the vast stockpiles already out there. All that raising the price on the ammo would do would be to create a vast(er) black market dealing in it as the people who saw which direction the wind was blowing bought up as much surplus as possible before the law took effect, like what happened with the high cap magazines.


No, I think Chris Rock is really onto something there. :wink:



ShawnWilliam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,462

09 Sep 2008, 4:41 pm

I'm pro life and also pro defense.. but if i knew someone who had a gun I would not agree with keeping it out in the open.. it is not something that should be used for intimidation, and just what kind of people use guns for protection?.. i havent seen many or heard of many other than gangsters who really dont use them purely for protection.. of course that is a steriotype, i just dont know of any moralistic person who keeps a gun on them.. and i wouldnt either.. i seems to be the kind of mentality that if you were in a sticky situation it would come in handy, and therefor thinking of attacking someone before it happens.. it's an act of fear, and causes more problems than solutions.. but for every rule there are exceptions.. if EVERYone had a gun then it would be different.. how could you shoot someone knowing that somone could turn around and shoot you back?.. but then that's just asking for trouble.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

09 Sep 2008, 4:50 pm

I'm pro-defense but I do not see the necessity of guns for defense. I do not agree that it's always a good thing to shoot and kill for self-defence purposes. I am not living in waiting for a chance at legally justified murder.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

09 Sep 2008, 5:28 pm

Phagocyte wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Pro-life is contra-infanticide, but not contra-death.


Pro-choice people don't see an embryo as a human life, thus your claim that it's infanticide is meaningless to all but people who already agree with you. I'm not being biased, pro-choicers are guilty of the same pointless arguments, albeit on the other side.


The pro-choice people may argue definitions until their tongues fall out,
because ultimately it doesn't matter what they wish to call them.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

09 Sep 2008, 5:33 pm

It would be interesting if the consent criterion were to be used here...

"Excuse me Mister or Miss Unborn, do you consent to die?"



Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

09 Sep 2008, 5:52 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

The pro-choice people may argue definitions until their tongues fall out,
because ultimately it doesn't matter what they wish to call them.


I rest my case. This is why the pro-life side makes very little progress.


_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

09 Sep 2008, 8:25 pm

Phagocyte wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

The pro-choice people may argue definitions until their tongues fall out,
because ultimately it doesn't matter what they wish to call them.


I rest my case. This is why the pro-life side makes very little progress.


Compromise doesn't suit me, unless the issue is unimportant to me.

BTW, irrelevant doesn't equal unimportant.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

09 Sep 2008, 8:29 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
It would be interesting if the consent criterion were to be used here...

"Excuse me Mister or Miss Unborn, do you consent to die?"

Abortion wouldn't be an issue in this case, but, what if they don't want to live?


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

09 Sep 2008, 8:33 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
The pro-choice people may argue definitions until their tongues fall out,
because ultimately it doesn't matter what they wish to call them.

It doesn't matter because it's legal ;)


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

09 Sep 2008, 9:11 pm

greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
The pro-choice people may argue definitions until their tongues fall out,
because ultimately it doesn't matter what they wish to call them.

It doesn't matter because it's legal ;)

Yes, but in most countries rules are invented by humans.

Quote:
Abortion wouldn't be an issue in this case, but, what if they don't want to live?


Have you forgotten the arbitrary AGE OF CONSENT. ? :p



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

09 Sep 2008, 9:19 pm

If the intended victim is just a cluster of cells in somebody's belly, the act itself has almost no emotional impact ... compared to when the intended victim is fully gestated, ambulatory, and looking at the buisness end of your pistol. Atmittedly, I don't feel much guilt when killing a lower life-form like a bug.

[/sarcasm]