The connection between guns ,abortion & religion.

[GardoneVT]

My view is each subject is a distinct matter unto itself,both philosophically and politically.

That outlined, it seems that a lot of folks view all three topics as connected; otherwise politicians in the GOP ,self interested people as they are wouldn’t hold that being pro gun also means pro religion and anti abortion.

I’m genuinely curious why people believe those subjects to be connected- no BS,no snark.

[blues]

The three are completely separate issues in my world. Obviously, mileage may vary, though I haven't a clue why.

[Duelist]

And then there’s the people who think anybody who is pro-life/anti-abortion is also automatically anti-birth control, anti-proper women’s health care, and oh, by the way, doesn’t give a flying kitten about what happens to the welfare babies after they are born.

Correlated things don’t always actually have anything to do with each other, in spite of twisted efforts to make it so.

[Mitch]

I think if there is any connection there for an individual, it is because for religious people their religion usually governs just about everything in their life. I think that’s perfectly fine, until they expect their religion to start governing things in my life, and then we have a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[breakingtime91]

During an ethics class I quickly realized that people who were pro abortion were also anti gun. The irony of that was not lost on me.

[BehindBlueI's]

The three are completely separate issues in my world. Obviously, mileage may vary, though I haven't a clue why.

Personally, I'm the same. Politically, I believe it catches on due to the ability to point the finger of hypocrisy. "Oh you want to ban guns to save children, but you are fine with children being killed in abortions" charges. If you truly believe there is no difference between a school child and a fetus, then the charge of hypocrisy will ring true. If you do see a difference, then it'll likely ring hollow and contrived.

I'm honestly not sure where the line should be drawn on abortion. It's an issue I just don't think I know enough about to have an informed opinion. I don't think it's a "child" as soon as the egg is fertilized, I'm quite sure it's a child when it's viable outside the womb, but trying to put a bright line on when that change takes place? Beyond me.

[Robinson]

I have a feeling you just want to stir shit up, but perhaps I am wrong and your question is genuine.

The three issues you listed are separate. It would be just as fair to ask "why are an overwhelming majority of Democrats in favor of gun control?" Gun rights shouldn't even be a political issue in my mind. Yet it is to a large extent.

I am conservative in some of my views, more libertarian in others. I certainly don't lump gun rights, abortion, and religion into one issue. When I talk to someone about gun rights I don't drag my pro-life views into the discussion. My pro-life views are not based in religion. I am a person of faith but not religious or beholden to a particular doctrine. I have a strong sense of right vs. wrong that I'm sure shapes my positions on the issues. I have no desire to belong to a "God & Guns" tribe, but I'm not anti-gun or anti-God.

[willie]

Certain stances on all three are associated with conservative philosophy. Hence, politicians seeking support from conservative voters view these as hot button issues.

[RevolverRob]

They are all separate political issues. Hemmed up together by both parties and treated as hot button issues to garner emotional support. It's a classic example of a strawman argument and a perfect example of why neither political party is worth a damn.

"Oh you're pro-abortion, you must hate God and guns."

"Oh you're pro-gun, you must hate women and black people."

What if you're like me?

"Oh you're pro-gun, you must..."

Me: "Mind your own fucking business."

"Oh you're pro-abortion, you must hate..."

Me: "Mind your own fucking business."

"Oh you're not religious, you must be for killing babies..."

Me: "Mind your own fucking business."

There isn't a political party for "Mind your own fucking business and leave me out of your shit." But I sure wish there was.

[olstyn]

During an ethics class I quickly realized that people who were pro abortion were also anti gun. The irony of that was not lost on me.

"Pro abortion" isn't really a thing. Nobody is out there campaigning for more abortions to happen. Much like all of us here want to retain the right to choose responsibility for our own safety, pro choice people want to retain the right to choose what happens in their own bodies, and they don't take kindly to others trying to choose for them. Also, it's definitely not impossible to be pro gun and pro choice - I certainly am.

[olstyn]

There isn't a political party for "Mind your own fucking business and leave me out of your shit." But I sure wish there was.

You and me both, sir.

[MistWolf]

As for myself, my stance on religion, gun control and abortion are connected through my beliefs on free agency, personal responsibility and the sanctity of life.

[Clusterfrack]

I feel very strongly that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy. I feel even more strongly about every person’s right to defend themselves.

Religion is not important to me and I don’t give it much thought.

I don’t care what other people believe or say as long as they are not a physical threat to others. I wish more people felt that way.

[Totem Polar]

The three are completely separate issues in my world. Obviously, mileage may vary, though I haven't a clue why.

Yup.

The left has it too: "you’re in favor of marriage equality, legalizing medical MJ, and moving to a single-payer system? Great! Ban all the gunz; repeal the 2A..."

It’s all linkage bullshit.

Unless, someone genuinely objects to abortion on their religious convictions; fine, y’all do you.

But case-by-case, for sure. JMO.

[Tabasco]

There is no connection. Divide and conquer. I generally vote Republican due to the gun rights issue, it's a big deal to me. Otherwise I'm more in the Libertarian camp.

[blues]

https://addapinch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/old-fashioned-vanilla-ice-cream-recipe-DSC_4239.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/finecooking.s3.tauntonclud.com/app/uploads/2017/04/18152000/fc71do070-02-main.jpg

https://food.fnr.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/food/fullset/2014/5/14/1/FNM_060114-Chocolate-Ice-Cream-Recipe_s4x3.jpg.rend.hgtvcom.616.462.suffix/1400255820837.jpeg

http://paleogrubs.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/dairyfreeicecream-800x420.jpg

[chl442]

I have a feeling you just want to stir shit up, but perhaps I am wrong and your question is genuine.

The three issues you listed are separate. It would be just as fair to ask "why are an overwhelming majority of Democrats in favor of gun control?" Gun rights shouldn't even be a political issue in my mind. Yet it is to a large extent.

I am conservative in some of my views, more libertarian in others. I certainly don't lump gun rights, abortion, and religion into one issue. When I talk to someone about gun rights I don't drag my pro-life views into the discussion. My pro-life views are not based in religion. I am a person of faith but not religious or beholden to a particular doctrine. I have a strong sense of right vs. wrong that I'm sure shapes my positions on the issues. I have no desire to belong to a "God & Guns" tribe, but I'm not anti-gun or anti-God.

I think trusting your gut feeling in this instance would be spot on .

[SeriousStudent]

Is that vanilla bean ice cream? I'm in! :)

[breakingtime91]

"Pro abortion" isn't really a thing. Nobody is out there campaigning for more abortions to happen. Much like all of us here want to retain the right to choose responsibility for our own safety, pro choice people want to retain the right to choose what happens in their own bodies, and they don't take kindly to others trying to choose for them. Also, it's definitely not impossible to be pro gun and pro choice - I certainly am.

Pro choice advocates killing an unborn child. Same people in my class were very against gun violence and the death it caused. An acorn grows into a tree, a fetus grows into a person. I am not so niave to think that there are not scenarios where it isn’t moral or prudent but when people act like it isn’t killing another human I put up my bull shit flag.

[mtnbkr]

"Pro abortion" isn't really a thing. Nobody is out there campaigning for more abortions to happen.
There most certainly is. I've seen their statements. If I had links to those statements handy, I'd share them.

Chris

[breakingtime91]

There most certainly is. I've seen their statements. If I had links to those statements handy, I'd share them.

Chris

Yup most forget that abortion laws started as privacy laws. Now people act like it’s a right to terminate pregnancies just because. We have become so detached from what pregnancy means and the end product of it.

[WobblyPossum]

I feel very strongly that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy. I feel even more strongly about every person’s right to defend themselves.

Religion is not important to me and I don’t give it much thought.

I don’t care what other people believe or say as long as they are not a physical threat to others. I wish more people felt that way.

We should hang out.


–————————————————
My posts only represent my opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of my employer. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

[RevolverRob]

The reason I dislike these topics is the fundamental issue at hand. The Constitution guarantees justice. Not morality or ethics.

You cannot legislate moral behavior. You cannot force a square peg into a round hole without a hammer that causes collateral damage.

If right to privacy is a constitutionally protected right - then the rights of people to discreetly carry guns, have abortions, or have sex with whomever they choose to (consensually) - should all be protected rights.

To be honest, I find the vast majority of Organized Religious teachings to be ammoral to immoral at best. I believe that many unethical actions are taken in the name of religious righteousness. The most immoral and unethical people I have known have been devout followers.

And because the Constitution protects freedom of religion, I will die to the death, to defend their rights to continue to have their immoral, unethical teachings and personal ways.

To some degree, the Constitution actually guarantees the right to be immoral and unethical. As long as you don’t actively violate the rights or agreed upon laws of our country.

I’m sure people think I have questionable morals. Afterall, I’m a non-religious, abortion supporting, gun carrying, death penalty supporting, evolution teaching and believing, cis-gendered, bi-racial man - who frequently walks the line between the rules and gray areas in my personal and professional life. And I don’t give two rats fucking in a sock - about what anyone thinks about it. Because that’s my business and no one else’s business.

[GardoneVT]

Interesting. It seems like the “package deal” dynamic is so ingrained in the national political structure, to the point that voting is like ordering a McDonalds combo; pick Option 1 or Option 2, with limited customization.

[BWT]

I think it’s how you value human life really.

I’m Pro-Life, Christian, and Pro-Gun. I believe God created life, and life has very high value and is to be protected. No matter how small, weak, or insignificant. I feel most are okay with abortion early-on because of how they feel in relationship to the life. You can’t talk to it or really see any sign of it’s existence yet?

It’s easier to abort. Yet, once it can cry or has essentially emerged from the mother’s body the situation changes? It’s a stage of development of a human life; if left uninterrupted it becomes a human you can recognize.

The rest is just indecision on should a parent to be or society be forced to raise that child if unwilling.

I’m all for protecting human life and believe all lives are valuable.

This is also near and dear to my heart because of the children we’ve miscarried in the last year. I sat with my wife and tried to comfort her through concerns about us trying again earlier this week. It’s been 6 months since being back from Haiti (ensuring I’m free of the Zika virus) and we’ve both lost 30+ lbs in anticipation of trying again.

Sorry to rant.

God Bless,

Brandon

[Stephanie B]

Men discussing abortion is like that Hogg kid talking about guns.

IMO.

[BWT]

Men discussing abortion is like that Hogg kid talking about guns.

IMO.

I’m curious to hear how so. You have a broad and deep perspective on life. We’re already discussing one of the probably most inflammatory subjects wrapped up into one thread.

What’re your thoughts? I can assume, but why not just ask.

God Bless,

Brandon

[Totem Polar]

Interesting. It seems like the “package deal” dynamic is so ingrained in the national political structure, to the point that voting is like ordering a McDonalds combo; pick Option 1 or Option 2, with limited customization.

I took a reasonable amount of time earlier today trying to dig up an old blog post by Tamara that riffed on this concept with amazing alacrity.

Maybe she remembers the comparison to upsizing at the drive through. It was good.

[holmes168]

Men discussing abortion is like that Hogg kid talking about guns.

IMO.

Yep- and only cops can talk about cop stuff, vets can talk about war, etc, etc, etc. I’ll make sure I stay in my lane.

[olstyn]

Men discussing abortion is like that Hogg kid talking about guns.

I would go so far as to say that anyone who hasn't faced the choice who is moralizing at others about it is like that Hogg kid talking about guns.

[Cheap Shot]

Yep- and only cops can talk about cop stuff, vets can talk about war, etc, etc, etc. I’ll make sure I stay in my lane.

Thank you!

For a while there I thought PF was turning into the Oprah show. Everyone talking about their "feelings".

Peace out homies

[SkippySanchez]

I think they are connected in many people's minds as the litmus test trifecta of political inclinations.

If you learn where someone stands on any one of the three, or particularly a combination of all three, you probably can extrapolate where they stand on many other current political and social issues, like immigration, military strength, welfare, law enforcement, the environment, free enterprise, gun control, criminal justice, international politics, prison reform, etc etc.


-------------------------------------------
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

[Default.mp3]

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/959/41411619805_d19e2581f3_o.gif
All we need now is to throw in the climate change issue for this to be a real shitshow, amirite.

People link these things together because they're not into critical thinking, they just follow a vague package of ideals and beliefs, and then go off and find data that supports their conclusions, regardless of actual ideological/logical purity.


Men discussing abortion is like that Hogg kid talking about guns.

IMO.Painting with a rather wide brush, don't you think? Like, I get it, for men, there's a lot of theoreticals and permanent unknowns, but that doesn't mean that males are inherently incapable of empathizing/having a reasonably informed decision (although it does seem to be a rarity these days).

[JAD]

They’re all arguably traditional values, that people at least think were held by the majority in the past. I suppose that’s debatable but I think that’s the perception that associates those three viewpoints for a lot of people.

For me each of my positions with respect to those three issues was formed rationally (including the necessity of religion) prior to my adoption of a particular religion. My perspective on each of them changed once I engaged in that religion— I would say my understanding of them deepened— but my position wound up staying about the same.

[JohnO]

I'm honestly not sure where the line should be drawn on abortion. It's an issue I just don't think I know enough about to have an informed opinion. I don't think it's a "child" as soon as the egg is fertilized, I'm quite sure it's a child when it's viable outside the womb, but trying to put a bright line on when that change takes place? Beyond me.


Isn't the crux of the argument where that "bright line" should be drawn? By passing judgment on where the transformation, protoplasm to human, occurs isn't society operating outside of their lane? Perhaps the line gets drawn at keeping it in your pants or keeping your legs closed? Many argue that a woman should have control over her own body. I know plenty of women who given the choice of giving birth or dying would choose to give birth.

As our capabilities have increased through medical science more and more moral dilemmas have occurred. Viability continues to happen sooner and sooner in the gestation period. Are fertilized eggs held in a cryogenic cooler in a fertility clinic actually humans being held in frozen suspended animation? If someone can take them, implant them in a host uterus and a child is born what does that say about what they were while frozen?

Is partial birth abortion acceptable in any way? What is the real difference between killing a fetus when it is viable on its own or expunging a mass of rapidly dividing cells hours after conception?

Personally I would prefer that individuals choose life. Also I have a hard time with a government who tells a person what they can and can't do with their body. However every time I say what I just did I think, "Is it her own body anymore?" Wasn't that choice made by previous actions? Does the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness extend to the unborn?

The more I dwell on the topic the further down the Rabbit Hole I fall. What would a person think if they found out that they were the product of a frozen fertilized egg and they have unborn siblings still on ice? perhaps there are areas where we should not tread.

[pangloss]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” --Barry M. Goldwater, ~1994.

EDIT: Just for the record, I'm a Christian (Presbyterian). I also have, perhaps, one of the most complete collections of Goldwater presidential campaign buttons in the world.

[Drifting Fate]

::Putting on shiny, flame proof suit::

Honestly, I think there is a lot of head-in-the-sand in this thread and that logical fallacies abound. A lot of people who mean well simply haven't thought things through to a consistent conclusion, which is a sad bleeping commentary on our education system. I'm not going to tell you what that conclusion should be, but I will say my understanding of the world, physically and spiritually, leads me to search for Truth. Period. We can all agree we are spawned under the magic of a full moon or that the earth is flat, it doesn't make it True. Truth is separate from public opinion, group think, or trends, and is quite often in contrast to those.

One's views in politics should be in harmony with their views in religion. Abortion is not a philosophy, but an act on which someone can look and make a decision, hopefully consistent with a larger world view. Abortion, like gun rights, or the right against self-incrimination, doesn't fit with the other two in broad terms, but should fit with a life view.

Sadly, there are people who toe the party line on all matters without independent thought. They are fools. So are people whose views are contradictory. Political parties have agendas and will do what it takes to meet those agendas - gain money, power, and influence. Rare is the politician who has both the grace of the party and cares for the People.

Would I like a party who says, "Mind your own business, and I'll mind mine"? Absolutely. With the caveat, "...until you do harm unto others." It's why murder, rape, and child abuse should be capital crimes. We don't live in a theocracy anymore than we live in a "socialist paradise." I don't want to see either here in this Great Experiment, but I sure as hell want to be consistent within my soul, the very existence of which you don't have to agree with.

If our moorings are so loose as to not intertwine our views on our government structure, our immortal nature (or not), and life in general, then it's time to sit down, put on some quiet music, smoke a pipe (tobacco preferred, but, hey, it's a "free" country) and contemplate our existence.

[beenalongtime]

Nobody is out there campaigning for more abortions to happen.

Evil laugh, thinking that some of us wish there were more Darwin award winners.:rolleyes:

[RevolverRob]

The only topic I’ve seen that can generate more uninformed, pseduo-scientific, comments than abortion is climate change.

I’m gonna step away now. As folks attempt to distill an incredibly complex and highly evolved system that has no morality - into a set of criteria that they can attempt to reconcile with their personal belief systems.

When I return, I expect nothing significant will have occurred.

[Totem Polar]

When I return, I expect nothing significant will have occurred.

I hope you’re correct. It's always possible that a productive, contributing member or two will get fed up/pissed off and bail.

If any forum can handle a thread topic like this one, it’s P-F for sure, but history is not kind to the discussion. JMO.

[TheNewbie]

Men discussing abortion is like that Hogg kid talking about guns.

IMO.

I truly don't understand this statement. I'm guessing you believe in moral relativity.

[critter]

Pro Guns - Not a pro yet.

Pro choice - check - well almost.
-- If a woman, solely, has the choice to either abort or to carry to term without any input from the man, then the man should have the choice to 'opt out' or 'chip in' in the same manner, without any input from the woman or the government, rather than be saddled by her choice for 18+ years enforced by threat of government violence. If she chooses to have the child, she should be prepared to bear the responsibility alone unless the guy also chooses to be involved. Can't have one with freedom of choice and the other with only coercion.
-- Something I've wondered about -- If the fetus is actually a mass of dividing cells which can be legally aborted then why is there a charge for feticide under other circumstances?

-- Religion -- Freedom of Religion and from religion -- both categories apply for all religions.

[BigT]

Threads like this often remind me, that gun rights aside, by US standards I would probably be considered deeply liberal.

[Hambo]

113 days until I post my opinion.

[BehindBlueI's]

Men discussing abortion is like that Hogg kid talking about guns.

IMO.

Potential fathers have no interest in the decision, only potential mothers?

[Stephanie B]

I would go so far as to say that anyone who hasn't faced the choice who is moralizing at others about it is like that Hogg kid talking about guns.

I think that is a better way to put it than I did. There’s quite a bit I should expound on, but I’m limited to a crappy phone keyboard today.

So, as Our Tweeter-in-Chief says: “Stay tuned.”


Damn the iPhone Typos!

[TheNewbie]

So if someone hasn't faced a certain situation they can't commit on it or make moral judgements?

[Robinson]

I still wonder if this whole thread is an attempt to cause factions to arise within PF membership. Pick a couple of the most divisive topics and then throw it out there to see what happens.

So OP, if members who hold traditionally "conservative" views on these things take a position of moral superiority while those having more so-called "liberal" views take a position of intellectual superiority is that a win for you?

[Guerrero]

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/959/41411619805_d19e2581f3_o.gif

[Peally]

Gardon we need to get you a hobby. This thread was pointless before it was posted.

[blues]

113 days until I post my opinion.

I don't know why folks allow themselves to be drawn into this no-win "discussion". People feel what they feel, the law is what it is, and dare I say that nobody is going to change anyone's mind.

On top of that, some of the posted replies are confounding at best.

Back to my bunker...

[ubervic]

For a minute there, I thought that I was reading a thread on FB rather than P-F.com :eek:

[TheNewbie]

Obviously many of us disagree here on these issues, but even heated discussion shouldn't stop us from getting along.

I think abortion in most cases is evil, disgusting and immoral. Yet I know there are decent people who believe in a woman's right to choose.*

*- most of these people are not in the pro abortion crowd but simply believe in choice.

[Leroy Suggs]

pistol-forum.com
for Teachers and Students of the Pistol

We need to keep it that way.

[JCS]

pistol-forum.com
for Teachers and Students of the Pistol

We need to keep it that way.

Agreed. I don’t think anything productive can or will come from this thread. This thread is just turning into an abortion argument thread and that’s something people tend to be pretty passionate about. Seems like this thread is destined to be locked.

[TheNewbie]

Agreed. I don’t think anything productive can or will come from this thread. This thread is just turning into an abortion argument thread and that’s something people tend to be pretty passionate about. Seems like this thread is destined to be locked.

That very well may happen but if you want to limit your forum experience to only weapon issues, you can avoid these threads. That's not to sound tacky or smart ass, but that many of us enjoy debate and having our positions challenged.

[critter]

I hope you’re correct. It's always possible that a productive, contributing member or two will get fed up/pissed off and bail.

If any forum can handle a thread topic like this one, it’s P-F for sure, but history is not kind to the discussion. JMO.

Three emotionally charged topics to be sure. Too many, in reality, think with their emotions or equate strong emotion with empirical evidence. Pretty obvious in others but a more difficult distinction to make within ourselves. P-F is a pretty adept filtering mechanism most of the time.

Personally, I'd rather appear the idiot (happens often) with a reasoned, dead wrong opinion (also often) subject to change with more information than be a slave to emotional irrationality ultimately resulting closed-mindedness. Closed-mindedness is like self-inflicted stupidity.

The obvious disappointment with these kinds of threads is that they turn from a decent exchange of ideas (absolutely beneficial for all parties involved) into "You're a...." fairly rapidly.

What would Spock do? :cool:

[Guerrero]

What would Spock do? :cool:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YC-w0EvJKJo/VPFJg2H9gFI/AAAAAAAAO8c/3k6aFMLdNDs/s1600/Leonard%2BNimoy%2BSpock%2BStar%2BTrek%2BVulcan%2BO ne%2BEyebrow%2BRaised%2BIncredulity%2BDisbelief%2B Nonverbal%2BCommunication%2BExpert%2BBody%2BLangua ge%2BExpert%2BSpeaker%2BKeynote%2BConsultant%2BLas %2BVegas%2BLos%2BAngeles%2BNew%2BYork%2BCity%2BOrl ando.png

Raise an eyebrow at all this?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I understand Stephanie's post. I feel that in discussing gun rights, it is a mistake to bring in the abortion or theological debates. Gun rights stand on their own.

I will share something I saw on a TV interview about abortion.

The pro-abortion person was asked if he was worried about violence against himself (as we know that happens). He said that he carried a 1911 and went on about how it was a great gun. Surprising to me that he went there. The anti-abortion dude started to froth at the mouth and called the pro-abortion dude a gun nut and dangerous. I was taken aback by the conversation.

When a politician decides to tie more crime to having abortions (said in why we had the latest rampage) or less crime (it's in the criminological literature but not strongly supported), they are both full of crap and just spouting their personal beliefs without evidence.

When some cites religion - I mention that there are 1400 known religions on Earth at this time. It's amazing that 1399 are believed by misguided nuts and yours is the correct one.

In any case, they are useless in gun debates. The reasons for gun ownership are the defense of self and relevant others (which is denied by some religions), defense against tyranny and defense of the state (here come the Martians but having renewed reality in European states threatened by Russia).

[BehindBlueI's]

When some cites religion - I mention that there are 1400 known religions on Earth at this time. It's amazing that 1399 are believed by misguided nuts and yours is the correct one.

Point of order: Not all religions, or all adherents, believe anything approaching that other religions are believed by misguided nuts or are incorrect. There is often more than one path up the mountain, so to speak.

[Casual Friday]

Gardon we need to get you a hobby. This thread was pointless before it was posted.

Yeah he should take up shooting or something.

[Sensei]

These discussions are complicated by the lack of agreement on definitions and loose use of terms that have specific meanings. For example, people are using the terms “human” and “person” interchangeably and probably inappropriately. That is to say, a blastocyst has all of the genetic criteria to be considered human, but may not be a person. Then, people want to refer to a fetus as part of a woman’s body eventhough it is immunologically distinct and has its own metabolism and circulation. Don’t get me started on how terms like living, alive, and life get manipulated to fit an agenda.

[Mike C]

-- Something I've wondered about -- If the fetus is actually a mass of dividing cells which can be legally aborted then why is there a charge for feticide under other circumstances?

-- Religion -- Freedom of Religion and from religion -- both categories apply for all religions.

I heard this from Shapiro's argument the other day and can't help but agree, last I checked we were all technically a mass of cells and it's illegal for me to just go and kill someone else because they are an inconvenience to me. The morality of this argument is unchangeable as I see it. Really compelling argument in my opinion.

I completely agree with the second point thought I do find myself to have a profound faith. I have the right to practice and worship as I choose and others are free to do the same or not so long as no laws are broken in the process and it is not forced upon anyone.





The Constitution guarantees justice. Not morality or ethics.

You cannot legislate moral behavior. You cannot force a square peg into a round hole without a hammer that causes collateral damage.

If right to privacy is a constitutionally protected right - then the rights of people to discreetly carry guns, have abortions, or have sex with whomever they choose to (consensually) - should all be protected rights.

To be honest, I find the vast majority of Organized Religious teachings to be ammoral to immoral at best. I believe that many unethical actions are taken in the name of religious righteousness. The most immoral and unethical people I have known have been devout followers.

And because the Constitution protects freedom of religion, I will die to the death, to defend their rights to continue to have their immoral, unethical teachings and personal ways.

To some degree, the Constitution actually guarantees the right to be immoral and unethical. As long as you don’t actively violate the rights or agreed upon laws of our country.

I’m sure people think I have questionable morals. Afterall, I’m a non-religious, abortion supporting, gun carrying, death penalty supporting, evolution teaching and believing, cis-gendered, bi-racial man - who frequently walks the line between the rules and gray areas in my personal and professional life. And I don’t give two rats fucking in a sock - about what anyone thinks about it. Because that’s my business and no one else’s business.

Rob, I know you bowed out but I am interested in you thoughts. Feel free to PM me if you aren't interested in airing your thoughts again. So while I agree that, "the Constitution guarantees justice. Not morality or ethics." It does in effect to a degree control the morality of behavior. This is accomplished through the threat of confinement, force/violence, fines and in some places death. People do not go out rape and murder and steal; well, at least the majority don't. Some of that is derived from moral upbringing and values, some do go out and do those things because they are scum, but there is a small percentage that strictly do not go out and commit heinous crimes solely due to the repercussions. Some people have even gone as far as to state that.

Secondly I am curious about your statement about Organized Religion and unethical devotees. I can point out plenty of immoral and unethical people who are both religious and nonreligious as well as, (insert race, political group, religious affiliation). I have also seen this same behavior from extremely educated individuals as well as uneducated, both rich and poor. Unethical and immoral behavior is strictly that and the blame for that behavior lies with the individual not the religion as a whole, nor race, education level, class etc. There are exceptions to this but they are fewer and far between and the most notable in the past. I want to admit that I have been called on my own bias as I have some serious biases/reservations with regards to Islam primarily with the way it is contorted thought I don't blame the religion itself as the problem. Why are you drawing such general parallels? You are extremely intelligent from what I've gathered from your posts over the years, is there a specific catalyst for this view in particular or do you just dislike organized religion as a whole in practice, (is it a specific religion)? If so why? Personally I have no dog in the fight, I have profound faith but do not find myself deeply involved in organized religion and am interested in what has caused you to view religion or one specifically as a whole unethical/immoral.

I won't dispute that atrocities are committed in the name of religion. But look around you can find many who commit the same atrocities because they want to and religion is just a catalyst for power not because they believe what they are selling to the masses, (I'm thinking of ISIS leadership and other terrorist organizations here) thought there are domestic examples as well. Political parties have also done the same to advance their agenda and solidify power and it had nothing to do with religion. It sounds as most of your argument is based on personal views and biases as there are plenty of other groups/organizations who have committed much of the same, to include academia which you have left out of the discussion and I think they have a seat at the table.

I ask not to start an argument but to promote discussion as I believe that this statement was made out of your own personal biases and judgements and is largely broad. I would add that the Constitution we have is not perfect but is by and large the best there is. The framework of this country is largely based on Judeo-Christian values which is a pretty decent in terms of the basis for moral or decent behavior. It's not perfect but show me a system that is.

Lastly I may not agree with everything that you have to say but I would certainly listen, think and absorb what I can and do my best to understand, most here seem to be that way. I wouldn't judge you because I don't agree with you or because you are, "non-religious, abortion supporting, gun carrying, death penalty supporting, evolution teaching and believing, cis-gendered, bi-racial man." That has fuck all to do with it. If you were and immoral ass I would hate you for that, :o. Never because of your beliefs or views unless you were forcing them on me or someone else then that would be different. You are entitled to believe and think and say as you so desire so long as you aren't breaking the law or forcing your views and imposing your beliefs on myself or others. I will and have offered to die for those rights and would do it again with no hesitation. That is in fact the beauty and the bane of our system to which I am grateful to have. Sorry for the book.


To actually add something to this discussion I do find all three of these subjects, mostly, "distinct matters" unto themselves. The exception is the 2nd. I do believe having seen how many other countries are run first hand that our Second Amendment rights secure every other right. If you want to have freedom of religion, free speech or any other right you have to be able to secure it with force. I do believe it was a member here who wrote a blog post that resonates with me even to this day it might have been the OP. I'm paraphrasing but there are only two ways to get someone to do what you want, you can reason with them or force them with the threat of violence. If people aren't willing to reason with you or allow you to disagree and continue down your current path then you have to be able to provide equal force to back your argument if the other side is willing to impart violence upon you in order to achieve their means. Guns allow that and so I believe that this subject is a matter unto itself. As to the others I am liberal in my beliefs of the practice of religion but I am very conservative in my views of protecting all life especially life that is unable to protect itself.

[That Guy]

I’m genuinely curious why people believe those subjects to be connected- no BS,no snark.

I feel that a lot of, if not even most people, do not form their opinions rationally. (I suppose I must take care to emphasize I am not referring to anyone here with my statement.) Their thoughts come more from being herd animals and the desire to belong to a group. "Troop A believes in A, B and C. I wish to belong to troop A. Therefore I shall signal my belief in A, B and C in order to display my membership in my chosen troop of monkeys."

This is a depressing thought but reading daily news, it's a difficult one to avoid.

Sent from my Infernal Contraption using Tapatalk

[Irelander]

From my porch...
A people or government that denies the existence of God (religion), many times, denies basic moral/biological/scientific facts. For example: Life begins sometime between conception and birth vs. the biological fact that life begins at conception, gender is a state of mind vs. a biological fact, some lives are precious vs. all lives are precious, etc. When these facts are denied that opens the door for totalitarian ideologies where the state determines who lives, who dies, who can protect themselves, who can be a parent, etc. We're starting to see this kind of stuff on the West Coast and unfortunately the rest of the country slowly follows.

So I think that religion, or the lack thereof, is connected to abortion and guns. Once religion is out the door, the sanctity of life usually follows suit. If life is not precious then abortion will abound and there is no reason for you to have a gun to protect your life.

[BehindBlueI's]

-- Something I've wondered about -- If the fetus is actually a mass of dividing cells which can be legally aborted then why is there a charge for feticide under other circumstances?


Why can I legally put my child up for adoption but it you take the child to raise against my will it's kidnapping?

[momano]

Those three topics have been connected from the first couple of paragraphs in our Declaration of Independence on, haven't they?

[critter]

I heard this from Shapiro's argument the other day and can't help but agree, last I checked we were all technically a mass of cells and it's illegal for me to just go and kill someone else because they are an inconvenience to me. The morality of this argument is unchangeable as I see it. Really compelling argument in my opinion.



Technically a mass of cells, certainly so. Obviously most don't have a problem with single cells being discarded, and probably wouldn't consider a zygote to be life on its own. The question of morality is tethered to that point where individual life begins. That's a question I'm not qualified to answer so I can only go by what is or isn't currently legal.

It has always struck me as strange that an abortion is the legal removal of tissue whereas in other circumstances it is defined as a killing (using the 'cide' suffix).




Why can I legally put my child up for adoption but it you take the child to raise against my will it's kidnapping?

In that example, the child is already defined as an individual entity or a life though there is a point there. The child is not 'property of' the parents, so this action can't be theft related -- and another raising the child could, theoretically, be a better situation for the child and actually in the child's best interest soooooo ... :p

Granted one is a choice and the other isn't. Your example doesn't magically transform the child into something else. The word "feticide" actually does, apparently, transform the fetus from dependent tissue to 'life which can be killed.' That's just... odd considering the outcome is equivalent.

[Mike C]

Why can I legally put my child up for adoption but it you take the child to raise against my will it's kidnapping?

You would have to let that child live first to put it up for adoption.

[peterb]

Heading back to the OP........

It’s easy to bundle views into a big ball of stereotypes, but a lot of folks are more complex than the pundits would have us believe.

Just for fun I’ve written “red” and “blue” profiles of myself — both true, but painting a very different picture in the mind of someone who believes certain characteristics and beliefs are always linked. “Rural-raised firefighter gun owner......” and “Liberal arts college grad oBoston resident sea kayaker” —- what box are you going to put me in?

It can be fun to defy people’s expectations.

[BehindBlueI's]

You would have to let that child live first to put it up for adoption.

Self evident but beside the point. There are decisions I can make for myself, my property, my family that others cannot legally force on me.

[Sensei]

Technically a mass of cells, certainly so. Obviously most don't have a problem with single cells being discarded, and probably wouldn't consider a zygote to be life on its own. The question of morality is tethered to that point where individual life begins. That's a question I'm not qualified to answer so I can only go by what is or isn't currently legal.

It has always struck me as strange that an abortion is the legal removal of tissue whereas in other circumstances it is defined as a killing (using the 'cide' suffix).





In that example, the child is already defined as an individual entity or a life though there is a point there. The child is not 'property of' the parents, so this action can't be theft related -- and another raising the child could, theoretically, be a better situation for the child and actually in the child's best interest soooooo ... :p

Granted one is a choice and the other isn't. Your example doesn't magically transform the child into something else. The word "feticide" actually does, apparently, transform the fetus from dependent tissue to 'life which can be killed.' That's just... odd considering the outcome is equivalent.

There is no debate in the scientific community that a zygote is alive. The cells are metabolically active and dividing - they are alive. They are also human in the scientific sense that we classify embryonic tissues.

What is left is a philosophical and legal (rather than scientific) question of what it means to be a person or a “human BEING.”

[Sensei]

Heading back to the OP........

It’s easy to bundle views into a big ball of stereotypes, but a lot of folks are more complex than the pundits would have us believe.

Just for fun I’ve written “red” and “blue” profiles of myself — both true, but painting a very different picture in the mind of someone who believes certain characteristics and beliefs are always linked. “Rural-raised firefighter gun owner......” and “Liberal arts college grad oBoston resident sea kayaker” —- what box are you going to put me in?

It can be fun to defy people’s expectations.

The reason why they are linked is the tendency of conservatives to have an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. The Framers felt that individual liberty came from god (most believed in the Christian god of the New Testiment except for Jefferson who was a deist), not the state. Firearms were the tool that the Framers gave the people to keep the state from usurping god’s role in securing rights. Abortion gets tied in due to fact that origionalism and individualism tend to go hand in hand...

[Totem Polar]

It can be fun to defy people’s expectations.

I am often demonstrably the most conservative person in my liberal work circles, and the most liberal person in my conservative social/enthusiast circles. I bet I’m not the only one here.

Probably due to my rural WA land-grant U upbringing in the 70s/80s, to be honest.

Like a guy in ancient Greece (most of them) who believes in Zeus throwing lightning, and coming down dressed like a bull to bang the local girls, or a guy in Yemen (most of them) who is a believer in fundamentalist Islam, I’m not sure I had much of a choice of belief system, except old-school libertarian leanings with a hefty dose of education.

A lot of times, prevailing geographic beliefs choose their people more than people choose their beliefs. JMO.

[Mike C]

Self evident but beside the point. There are decisions I can make for myself, my property, my family that others cannot legally force on me.

I think that we can both agree that life should be protected based on what you did for a living, yes I know self evident and all. As to your statement I would agree that there are decisions one can make for one's self, one's family, one's property. But a life is not the property of another it is the property of the entity to which it belongs. I liken this to suicide prevention. When suicide is prevented by an outside party the act is done involuntary and against the will of the suicidal party. It is done regardless of how the individual may feel about it, even though it is their life to take. It is done under the presumption that the suicidal party cannot rationally make the decision to go on living due to crisis or some other catalyst. How is protecting a life not capable of making a rational decision to exist not any different than saving the life of someone who is suicidal?

They can't rationalize their existence or the need/desire to continue their existence how can they make that choice? If they cannot and you take that choice from them before they can decide for themselves it is in essence murder because you have stripped them from their right to live without their consent. Now obviously this is open to philosophical debate depending on your sensibilities what what you legally define as a life whether it be at cell formation or consciousness. That is where a firm line in the sand must be drawn. I do not believe firm enough lines have been drawn. I do believe that there are special circumstance that exist in the even of things like rape, or medical condition where termination is necessary in order for one to continue living for the individual carrying the child or their might be undue hardship resulting from the pregnancy. I view these instances like a justifiable homicide in preservation of ones own live e.g. self defense. I do not like to think of these instances but they should be rationalized and discussed so that a rational consensus can be reached that everyone can live with. I am not the person to draw that line I am simply drawing parallels to my line of thinking and rationalization as it relates. I am doing my best to stanch my religious objectiveness to it and think of things in a rational and nonemotional/religiously biased manner.

[peterb]

I am often demonstrably the most conservative person in my liberal work circles, and the most liberal person in my conservative social/enthusiast circles. I bet I’m not the only one here.

The WWII GI Bill changed my father’s life for the better in ways he’d never dreamed of. I think that made him a lifelong believer in the power of government to do good. But he was also pragmatic enough to know that bills must be paid and hated fiscal irresponsibility.

[BehindBlueI's]

I think that we can both agree that life should be protected based on what you did for a living, yes I know self evident and all. As to your statement I would agree that there are decisions one can make for one's self, one's family, one's property. But a life is not the property of another it is the property of the entity to which it belongs. I liken this to suicide prevention. When suicide is prevented by an outside party the act is done involuntary and against the will of the suicidal party. It is done regardless of how the individual may feel about it, even though it is their life to take. It is done under the presumption that the suicidal party cannot rationally make the decision to go on living due to crisis or some other catalyst. How is protecting a life not capable of making a rational decision to exist not any different than saving the life of someone who is suicidal?

They can't rationalize their existence or the need/desire to continue their existence how can they make that choice? If they cannot and you take that choice from them before they can decide for themselves it is in essence murder because you have stripped them from their right to live without their consent. Now obviously this is open to philosophical debate depending on your sensibilities what what you legally define as a life whether it be at cell formation or consciousness. That is where a firm line in the sand must be drawn. I do not believe firm enough lines have been drawn. I do believe that there are special circumstance that exist in the even of things like rape, or medical condition where termination is necessary in order for one to continue living for the individual carrying the child or their might be undue hardship resulting from the pregnancy. I view these instances like a justifiable homicide in preservation of ones own live e.g. self defense. I do not like to think of these instances but they should be rationalized and discussed so that a rational consensus can be reached that everyone can live with. I am not the person to draw that line I am simply drawing parallels to my line of thinking and rationalization as it relates. I am doing my best to stanch my religious objectiveness to it and think of things in a rational and nonemotional/religiously biased manner.

It gets messy for sure. If you equate abortion with murder, I can't see the rape exemption as equivalent to self-defense. That's a bridge too far for me, its an unwanted pregnancy/child/zygote/whatever either way and the new little entity isn't the threat. If the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, then yes, but unwanted is unwanted.

I'm frankly of two (or more) minds about the whole issue. Outlawing abortion would likely go as well as the drug war, even if that were to be a possibility and desirable. While I can understand the bright line belief that it's a "person" from the moment of conception, I can't personally accept that. I don't know at what point we're people, at what point we have a soul, at what the theological implications are of death before birth. You've made no choices. Who could you be? If I'm to believe that upon death I will be reconstituted as a young adult, but I'm shaped by my earthly experiences, then what of someone who has never had a choice to make, who lacks self determination? I, honestly, find the entire question beyond me. Which is why I value my opinion very little on the topic, and would expect others to do the same.

[cheby]

Men discussing abortion is like that Hogg kid talking about guns.

IMO.

This thread is pointless and I don't care about religion and abortion enough to discuss in this thread. However, I do care a lot when somebody tells me what I can or can't talk about. This is one of the identity policy points that is morally and intellectually catastrophic. Western civilization used to be about debates about issues without retreating to our identity; otherwise it is impossible to discuss pretty much anything. It leads to fragmentation of the society. Shutting anybody up simply because of the color of their skin or nature of their genitalia is actually sexist and bigoted. With all due respect.

[Totem Polar]

Which is why I value my opinion very little on the topic, and would expect others to do the same.

That is one of the more mature and frank responses to the topic that I've seen online.

Not that you should value my opinion to any higher degree, either.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I’m genuinely curious why people believe those subjects to be connected- no BS,no snark.

The connection is brought up by some progun folks. I've seen signs at progun rallies saying that more kids are killed by abortions than guns and at proabortion rallies, saying ban guns but prochoice. Both sides use it for their emotional appeals.

Then there is silly stuff like Lt. Gov. Patrick in TX linking millions of abortions to rampage shootings and I don't understand that logic (independent of my views on abortions). He says it relates to family breakdown. Well, would more unwanted children reduce violence. Don't get it. Probabilistically, more people - more folks to lose it. More kids in bad homes - more stress - more violence? That's a more logical prediction.

Anyway, that's why they are linked and I think they shouldn't be. Gun rights stand on their own.

[critter]

These discussions are complicated by the lack of agreement on definitions and loose use of terms that have specific meanings. For example, people are using the terms “human” and “person” interchangeably and probably inappropriately. That is to say, a blastocyst has all of the genetic criteria to be considered human, but may not be a person. Then, people want to refer to a fetus as part of a woman’s body eventhough it is immunologically distinct and has its own metabolism and circulation. Don’t get me started on how terms like living, alive, and life get manipulated to fit an agenda.


There is no debate in the scientific community that a zygote is alive. The cells are metabolically active and dividing - they are alive. They are also human in the scientific sense that we classify embryonic tissues.

What is left is a philosophical and legal (rather than scientific) question of what it means to be a person or a “human BEING.”

I rest your case. It must be as annoying to see biology terms misused as it is for the rest of us to hear "clip" in movies. My use of "life on its own" should have been "being" or perhaps "consciousness." I'm not sure about that, actually. The philosophical discussion is really all we have until a scientific demarcation of 'becomes a human BEING' can be demonstrated.

Either way, I think the initial thrust of Guns, (Anti)Abortion, and God being linked has a number of exceptions.

[Default.mp3]

The philosophical discussion is really all we have until a scientific demarcation of 'becomes a human BEING' can be demonstrated.I would disagree, mainly because I don't believe that this is something that science is suppose to solve. That is something to be defined (not solved) by religion/philosophy/legal system. It is up to us, both as individuals and as a society, to decide what it means to be a "living human being". In some ways, this debate of when a mass of cells becomes what we wish to define as a viable individual is something like a reverse the Sorites paradox: if a heap of sand is reduced by a single grain at a time, at what exact point does it cease to be considered a heap?

[Inspector71]

Life begins at conception.

[willie]

If I were going on a hunting or fishing trip or any other outing with others, I would see no point in bringing up controversial topics that might foster disagreement and then cause hard feeling among individuals present. Since we here are a family of DIVERSE characters from all respectable walks of life, we should be aware that there are some social issues that we will never see eye to eye on. Age, socio-economic status, geographical region, educational level, and life experience are a few variables that interact to influence viewpoints. Let's not allow our differences to disrupt harmony. Instead, let's argue about gun oil. Then if I get bent out of shape I could(I won't, though)tell somebody that he's full of shit if he thinks that 3 in 1 Oil......

[critter]

Life begins at conception.

Isn't that when you think about it? I don't know... at this point it's been so long I can't remember...

[critter]

If I were going on a hunting or fishing trip or any other outing with others, I would see no point in bringing up controversial topics that might foster disagreement and then cause hard feeling among individuals present. ...

Perhaps people sometimes (often) take themselves and their positions too seriously. "Triggered" is for the snowflakes. I realize this is primarily a Pistol forum. There are a thousand threads in this General Discussion area where people are arguing over nothing far worse than anyone in this thread. Seems the most upsetting part of this thread is that it actually exists rather than any of the actual content. :cool: But I agree with you... 3 in 1 Oil is great on waffles... I mean, who could disagree with that?

[Hambo]

Maybe we can work the Civil War, 9-11, Chronic Lyme Disease, TDA vs. SFA, and mid-length gas systems into this discussion.

Yes, I’m not helping. As BBI so eloquently noted, I don’t value my opinion on these topics very highly and neither should you.

#ModsHereAreShit

You forgot pre-tensioned strikers, 6.5 vs. .308, and whether the Bismarck was scuttled or sunk.

[JRB]

Perhaps people sometimes (often) take themselves and their positions too seriously. "Triggered" is for the snowflakes. I realize this is primarily a Pistol forum. There are a thousand threads in this General Discussion area where people are arguing over nothing far worse than anyone in this thread. Seems the most upsetting part of this thread is that it actually exists rather than any of the actual content. :cool: But I agree with you... 3 in 1 Oil is great on waffles... I mean, who could disagree with that?

I'll bet 3 in 1 is better on waffles than maple syrup is on Beretta M9 internals.

Though a former LT of mine can speak on the syrup-in-the-Beretta situation from experience. He was from Wisconsin and always full of stories about how much better the syrup was up there.
After after the LT's numerous derisive rants about the "glorified sugar goop" that passes for maple syrup in an Army DFAC, one of my Soldiers assigned to the arms room decided to 'lubricate' said LT's sidearm with a very specific, 100% pure Maple syrup that was so fancy it came in a glass bottle.
We all laughed, then lots of pushups were involved, then I and my SPC ended up bringing a 10 pack of Monster to some guys in a nearby maintenance det so we could use their parts washer to clean it up.


Edit: My opinion is that criss-crossing such contentious topics in most company is a great way to pour syrup in the proverbial Beretta. I make a diligent effort to never assume someone's stance or opinion on a topic based on their stance or opinion of any other topic.
Most folks worth talking to have divergent and unique viewpoints that don't toe any party line.

[Guerrero]

He was from Wisconsin and always full of stories about how much better the syrup was up there.

That part is true, and the good stuff does come in glass bottles.

[Stephanie B]

I believe that the guy that runs this place would prefer that we all STFU about hot-button non-firearms topics.

His place, his rules.

So, with an aside that the very best maple syrup comes from Vermont and to insist otherwise is rank heresy, I'll drop from this discussion.

[Mike C]

It gets messy for sure. If you equate abortion with murder, I can't see the rape exemption as equivalent to self-defense. That's a bridge too far for me, its an unwanted pregnancy/child/zygote/whatever either way and the new little entity isn't the threat. If the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, then yes, but unwanted is unwanted.

I'm frankly of two (or more) minds about the whole issue. Outlawing abortion would likely go as well as the drug war, even if that were to be a possibility and desirable. While I can understand the bright line belief that it's a "person" from the moment of conception, I can't personally accept that. I don't know at what point we're people, at what point we have a soul, at what the theological implications are of death before birth. You've made no choices. Who could you be? If I'm to believe that upon death I will be reconstituted as a young adult, but I'm shaped by my earthly experiences, then what of someone who has never had a choice to make, who lacks self determination? I, honestly, find the entire question beyond me. Which is why I value my opinion very little on the topic, and would expect others to do the same.

I’m certainly am not smart enough to even be a blip on the radar towards a solution. My opinion or thoughts on the matter equate to a giant pile of nothing. I do just want to clarify though. I’m not trying to equate a rape victim dealing with pregnancy as a self defense situation and could see how my poorly written thought could be construed as such. I was specifically speaking to threat to life by continuing a pregnancy due to health complications at least this is what I was thinking. I can see an extension to rape victims, (not in terms of self preservation) but due to hardship and phycological trauma that having a child as a result of being a rape victim could bring. These issues could be magnified if the woman were young single etc. and it would be wrong to force having a child under those circumstances. There are certainly more factors but I wouldn’t be the one to lay them all out. I am also most certain there would be other scenarios for exemption not just the two I’ve brought up. These were just two examples that came to mind. You have posed a lot of good questions which mainly just point out how complicated the matter is and despite my best efforts at sidelining my biases I am still in fact being biased in my view due to some religious/personal convictions.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let's start a caliber like discussion on whether you prefer Light, Medium or Dark grade A Maple syrup.

I agree that an abortion discussion on the merits of abortion on p-f is not one I will grace with my scientistic Academic world view. I only think it should not be raised in RKBA debates. 'I should have a machine gun because abortion kills more' is not a useful discussion point. It's like ' I want an AR-15 because it is not an assault rifle as it is not fully automatic, thus it is a Modern Sporting Rifle and nice'. Babble nonsense of the choir and useless in the gun debate.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Good advice, I intend to go to the gym tomorrow. Went yesterday. Sunday, I will shoot a match and my biggest decision is to shoot a:

1. Revolver
2. One of my Glocks
3. My 1911 - which I shot last week.

I just don't know. If I shoot my revolver I will come in high in the ratings as few due nowadays. I tell my friends that I have come in second after a national champion. Oh, there were only two revolver guys that day. Oops.

It will be 100 deg. on the range. TX - oh, well.

Maybe I will go get pancakes.

[willie]

I never said that I don't like 3 in 1 Oil. I use it on my back gate hinges.:cool:

[Stephanie B]

I know. I have a blog and I have to close discussions now again when they either get circular or people start insulting each other. I really like this place; I should do my utmost to refrain from smearing shit on the walls.

I do have a match tomorrow and a new (to me) gun to try out.

[Stephanie B]

Let's start a caliber like discussion on whether you prefer Light, Medium or Dark grade A Maple syrup.

I like medium/Grade A for pancakes. Dark Grade A /Grade B is good, but best to use for cooking.

Fancy grade is for selling to tourists at high prices.

(Yeah, I know the Canucks redid the grading systems. Hmph.)

[QuickStrike]

Hate guns, because they make me so poor.
Pro-science, but also fascinated about spirituality (which science will provide answers for with quantum physics imo)
Mostly anti-abortion, though a very big supporter of contraceptives

I tend to vote for whoever I think will leave my gun rights alone first and other issues second. They all suck somehow anyway.


Pro abortion is TOTALLY a thing, there was this openly gay co-worker who giggled at this new app game for your phone, where you abort fetuses. I believe it was taken down. I believe the LGBT community also hates you if you are/were a transgender but decide to change back, but that’s another topic...

[critter]

Vermontans claim to produce the best Maple Syrup. Wisconsinians should immediately invade, box up all their syrup and send it south.

[critter]

Hate guns, because they make me so poor.
Pro-science, but also fascinated about spirituality (which science will provide answers for with quantum physics imo)
Mostly anti-abortion, though a very big supporter of contraceptives

I tend to vote for whoever I think will leave my gun rights alone first and other issues second. They all suck somehow anyway.


Pro abortion is TOTALLY a thing, there was this openly gay co-worker who giggled at this new app game for your phone, where you abort fetuses. I believe it was taken down. I believe the LGBT community also hates you if you are/were a transgender but decide to change back, but that’s another topic...

Well, pro-abortion creates quite a different mental image than pro-choice though I guess the end result is the same.

All of this, IMO, relates directly to government coercion vs Liberty (or in legal terms - get the damn government out of our lives):

Forcing a woman to carry and give birth.
Forcing a man to pay for a woman's choice.
Forcing gay people back into the closet.
Forcing Christian bakers to cater a gay wedding (or whatever the hell it was - since there is now precedence, YouTube, Google, facebook, Twitter should be forced by the government to host any and all viewpoints equally)
Forcing a business to adhere to hiring quotas.
Forcing a homeowner to sell to anyone.
Forcing Texas flood relief recipients to sign an agreement to "not protest Israel" to receive relief funds. I'm not even sure you can legally sign away your right to protest.
Forcing religious viewpoints into law.
Interfering with anyone's lawful religious practices.
Forcing me to be in traffic (when I enter the roadway, all others should be forced off of it)
atheist communities (wtf is that anyway? hey, let's start a non-stamp collector community or a "there's no evidence of the easter bunny" club.. the latter would be utterly foolish because those baskets do appear every year from SOMEwhere)
Etc. etc. and so forth.. ad infinitum

[GuanoLoco]

I can’t understand why anyone else should give a rats ass about my optionion on their abortion, suicide, religion or guns. Well, maybe guns, assuming I have value to offer.

I also can’t understand why I would or should give a rats ass about someone else’s opinion about MY abortion (tough as I’m a dood but obviously pro choice), suicide (time, place and method of my choosing), religion (free from it’s influence entirely, TYVM) or guns. Well, maybe I care about your opinions on guns, assuming you have value to offer.

The problems start when people feel that their point of view should be relevant to or enforced on others.

IMHO, MYOFB and maybe we can all get along.

[Kyle Reese]

Good advice, I intend to go to the gym tomorrow. Went yesterday. Sunday, I will shoot a match and my biggest decision is to shoot a:

1. Revolver
2. One of my Glocks
3. My 1911 - which I shot last week.

I just don't know. If I shoot my revolver I will come in high in the ratings as few due nowadays. I tell my friends that I have come in second after a national champion. Oh, there were only two revolver guys that day. Oops.

It will be 100 deg. on the range. TX - oh, well.

Maybe I will go get pancakes.Post-range session hotcakes are always a winner.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[Sensei]

I rest your case. It must be as annoying to see biology terms misused as it is for the rest of us to hear "clip" in movies. My use of "life on its own" should have been "being" or perhaps "consciousness." I'm not sure about that, actually. The philosophical discussion is really all we have until a scientific demarcation of 'becomes a human BEING' can be demonstrated.

Either way, I think the initial thrust of Guns, (Anti)Abortion, and God being linked has a number of exceptions.

Is consciousness or self-awareness required to be considered a human being or person? Do humans in a persistent vegetative state lose their moral status as persons? How about the demented?

[critter]

Is consciousness or self-awareness required to be considered a human being or person? Do humans in a persistent vegetative state lose their moral status as persons? How about the demented?

Interesting questions for sure. No, no, and no. Consciousness or self-awareness (along with memory creation), vegetative states and dementia are, apparently, attained at or after birth. There have been rulings that allow for the deaths of those in persistent vegetative states, but those are passive though one could easily argue that actively unplugging a respirator or disconnecting a feeding tube with full understanding that life will cease is active killing as opposed to passively allowing natural death to occur. An abortion, by contrast, would seem an unquestionably active process occurring in a different time frame. The primary difference is that these are all, irrefutably (though I always hesitate to use that word), beyond whatever line of determining 'living human being.'

People believe that souls exist and are imbued, inserted, or maybe created at conception. I have no problem with that other than the lack of evidence that souls actually do exist at all so wind up being unusable for point of no return, or event horizon determinations. That elusive event horizon should be a physically evident line which can be referenced.

At what point in development may the cord be cut and life naturally continue? I think that's the only actual line we have if such line indeed exists somewhere between conception and birth (which apparently it does.. but where exactly?).

I think such a line is important to prove simply because this is framing a reference for lawfully enforced compulsory behavior which would be removing freedom from one in protection of another.

Fascinating thought exercise regardless.

[Sensei]

Interesting questions for sure. No, no, and no. Consciousness or self-awareness (along with memory creation), vegetative states and dementia are, apparently, attained at or after birth. There have been rulings that allow for the deaths of those in persistent vegetative states, but those are passive though one could easily argue that actively unplugging a respirator or disconnecting a feeding tube with full understanding that life will cease is active killing as opposed to passively allowing natural death to occur. An abortion, by contrast, would seem an unquestionably active process occurring in a different time frame. The primary difference is that these are all, irrefutably (though I always hesitate to use that word), beyond whatever line of determining 'living human being.'

People believe that souls exist and are imbued, inserted, or maybe created at conception. I have no problem with that other than the lack of evidence that souls actually do exist at all so wind up being unusable for point of no return, or event horizon determinations. That elusive event horizon should be a physically evident line which can be referenced.

At what point in development may the cord be cut and life naturally continue? I think that's the only actual line we have if such line indeed exists somewhere between conception and birth (which apparently it does.. but where exactly?).

I think such a line is important to prove simply because this is framing a reference for lawfully enforced compulsory behavior which would be removing freedom from one in protection of another.

Fascinating thought exercise regardless.


The lower limit of viability where life can be sustained outside of the womb is around 24 weeks. Interestingly, the rate limiting developmental milestone that keeps you in the womb is related to lung development rather dependence on a cord for circulation or the brain. Assuming that we do not go out in the next 50 years like the dinosaurs, humanity will likely have the technology to “grow” someone from gametes to adulthood just like in the movie The Matrix. We can already do this with lower animals and much of the reason why we are not pushing the envelope with humans is an international consensus on ethics. Regardless, in our lifetime there may very well be humans walking the Earth who are not persons because they never had the opportunity to pass through the magic “personhood” bestowing vagina that seems to be our current criteria for gaining basic human rights.