The numbers don't lie.

**CleverGeek** · 01-14-13, 10:36 AM

I don't think this should be a political issue, government needs to stay out of someone's personal business. Medical decisions and life choices need to be made by individuals/couples in consultation with medical professions if required.

Isn't the entire US constitution aimed at protecting individuals rights? Now I know the counter argument is that the fetus has rights as well. (which even if I don't agree with, I won't argue it)

Is it correct to violate an individuals right to do with their body as they see fit, to inversely protect the potential rights of an unviable fetus (prior to 24 weeks)?

There is always an argument for and against, that's why personal decisions should be made by individuals. I personally do not believe in abortion for myself in my current situation, but I do believe in everyone's freedom to make their own choices.

In Canada we do not have any laws governing abortions, it is strictly considered a medical not legal issue.

**CivilWars** · 01-14-13, 10:41 AM

This topic is TLDR, but I will jump in here to say I do find it amusing when people, and not pointing this specifically at anyone in this topic, say they should have the right to have an abortion, or smoke dope, but at the same time are lobbying to take away the rights of others to obtain certain guns or gun accessories. Stay consistent America...

**Warprosper** · 01-14-13, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

This topic is TLDR, but I will jump in here to say I do find it amusing when people, and not pointing this specifically at anyone in this topic, say they should have the right to have an abortion, or smoke dope, but at the same time are lobbying to take away the rights of others to obtain certain guns or gun accessories. Stay consistent America...

Same concept when people say that the presidents take an oath to uphold the constitution in regards to the second amendment yet I don't hear them complaining about suffrage and it's appeal today.

**CivilWars** · 01-14-13, 10:55 AM

I don't get it, but then again I don't get a lot of things.

**Morningfrost** · 01-14-13, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

What's astounding but probably not all that shocking is your complete lack of understanding (or willful ignorance) of the facts regarding abortion, considering you support it. This is a sordid business, abortion. If I were a supporter I would damned sure understand the numbers. Here is some education for you from BlackGenocide.org | Abortion and the Black Community:

Planned Parenthood was founded by eugenicist and white supremacist Margaret Sanger, whose support for abortion and stated intent for planned parenthood was to control the growth of races, and to eliminate the "inferior races". There is a lot more out there about abortion's effects on black people in America. It amounts to legal genocide and is a tragedy of epic proportions.

First off, this came about in the '20s and '30s, so to call someone out for being racist when the overwhelming majority of people were racist is silly. Also, her intent was more anti-retarded people than it was anti-minority. While she may have believed light-skinned races were superior to dark-skinned races, she still worked with the black community on interracial projects and didn't allow bigotry on her staff. So in other words, she worked on things despite her personal beliefs.

And as for the claims of abortion being black genocide....genocide is designed to wipe out a race. While abortion has certainly lessened the number of potentially black children, it's done the same with all races. Perhaps not to the same degree, but it's there. By you're own numbers (which I honestly doubt are correct because of issues with medical privacy), 64% of abortions are performed on white women. White people make up 72% of the population, so while they're still less likely to get an abortion than a minority, it's not the vast, overwhelming difference you implied. Minorities make up about 28% of the population (and thus roughly 28% of the female population, rather than the 13% your source quoted), so if they're getting 36% of the abortions they're getting more than the average, but not a lot more.

You're wrong about that. Murdering a pregnant woman in the vast majority of states is a double homicide, despite your personal view.

I was only talking about in regards to the child. Murdering the woman would obviously always be a crime. And I provided a source earlier that showed nearly half the states in the U.S. don't automatically consider the killing of a fetus to be murder, and that it depends on development.

~Morningfrost

**CleverGeek** · 01-14-13, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

This topic is TLDR, but I will jump in here to say I do find it amusing when people, and not pointing this specifically at anyone in this topic, say they should have the right to have an abortion, or smoke dope, but at the same time are lobbying to take away the rights of others to obtain certain guns or gun accessories. Stay consistent America...

The Second Amendment always confused me, who would wan to take away this guys rights?

The numbers don't lie.-v3-amused-_img-bear-arms-jpg

I completely agree that individuals should be able to possess weapons to be able to protect and defend themselves. Yet I also believe that there needs to be some kind of oversight. The thought of a mentally unstable personal being able to walk into any Walmart at any time and buying an automatic weapon and a few thousands rounds, scares the crap out of me. Also, does this right include high-explosives? Certain chemicals?

How it would be moderated is beyond me without infringing on rights, which is why similar to abortion I believe counter arguments make it an inarguable paradox. Chicken versus egg argument.

There has to be some medium ground but with two radically diametrically opposed sides, how do you meet in the middle?

In Canada we have three classes of guns (restricted, non-restricted and prohibited), you require a gun safety course prior to purchasing restricted and non-restricted firearms. Prohibited firearms can now only be grandfathered to their owners. Whether this approach is correct or not, I do know that completely the firearm safety course made me a more conscientious and responsible gun owner and operator.

We range from 150-200 firearm related deaths in Canada annually, compared to the US at 9,000-11,000. Even with a 10th of the population you still have 5x the firearm related deaths per capita. (Not a criticism, just a fact)

**CivilWars** · 01-14-13, 11:28 AM

The same arguments apply to so many other topics though. Why should the government be able to tell me it is wrong for me to smoke dope in my own living room? If your opinion is that they shouldn't then why should they tell me I can't smoke crack in my own living room as well? If you are truly saying MJ should be legal because as Americans we have rights, then you should also say crack should be legal because we have those same rights. As for guns the same rules apply. If the second amendment truly stands for having rights then it should protect my right to shine up my rocket launcher in my living room along with my 1847 Colt single action revolver, right?

As for your example of some mental patient you know that is already on the application, right? So technically, if I am under the treatment of a psychologist, and/or on medication for psychological problems, and I do go to Wal-Mart to buy a gun then I am already breaking the law, but I am sure you already knew that.

**deathgodusmc** · 01-14-13, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

The same arguments apply to so many other topics though. Why should the government be able to tell me it is wrong for me to smoke dope in my own living room? If your opinion is that they shouldn't then why should they tell me I can't smoke crack in my own living room as well? If you are truly saying MJ should be legal because as Americans we have rights, then you should also say crack should be legal because we have those same rights. As for guns the same rules apply. If the second amendment truly stands for having rights then it should protect my right to shine up my rocket launcher in my living room along with my 1847 Colt single action revolver, right?

As for your example of some mental patient you know that is already on the application, right? So technically, if I am under the treatment of a psychologist, and/or on medication for psychological problems, and I do go to Wal-Mart to buy a gun then I am already breaking the law, but I am sure you already knew that.

What i think complicates that is guns are specifically mentioned where narcotics aren't. Due to that one has no grey area that people keep trying to say there is one where as the other has always been in the grey.

**deathgodusmc** · 01-14-13, 11:41 AM

I'll even go in a different direction for that one. The wording for firearms is very short and sweet in that no law shall infringe on the right to bear arms. Going by just the words we have already violated the constitution in many ways. No where does it give an age limit, the requirement of a permit, or that a convicted murderer upon being released should not be allowed to own one. Where as i am not really ok with my first 2 examples i am perfectly fine with my third. Riding the letter of the constitution is a tough one to do if your going to say those rights are truly inalianable.

**CivilWars** · 01-14-13, 11:44 AM

I think what complicates it is when people try to claim they stand for something because it is their "right" to have it when what they really mean is it is their "preference" to have it. I do not begrudge people for saying that women should be able to say what happens to their body as that is a perfectly valid opinion. I do however take issue when they stand on their soap box and say that it is the "right" of a woman to have an abortion, and they support "women's rights" while in the next breath saying they want to infringe upon the rights of others.

Personally, I oppose gay marriage, but politically I don't think the government should have any say in what two people do with their private lives.
Personally, I oppose the use of MJ, but politically I don't think the government should have any more say in you smoking weed than they do in someone smoking cigs or drinking booze.
Personally, I oppose smoking tobacco, but politically I don't think the government should have any say in what a business owner allows to happen with a legal substance in their place of business.

No, I am not perfect, but I try to stand on the belief that the only places the government should intervene is when something I do has a direct negative impact on another citizen. Owning guns has no negative impact on anyone else. Shooting someone with a gun does, so I support stiffer penalties for using guns improperly, not owning them.