I see what you are after, and I think there is merit in it as a discussion. But there are significant differences in the issues that I think limit the usefulness of a 1:1 argument. Guns are a personal freedom and while they are specifically mentioned in the constitution, there are many personal freedoms where we accept limits (even guns). Abortion is a medical procedure that impacts many portions of the person's life, and honestly it impacts 0% of the lives of those protesting other than their ability to inflict their will on someone else.
I'm still okay with a few restrictions, but they would pretty much fall in line with what 99% of abortions already are. And I'd leave a wide swath of "medically necessary as defined by a doctor not a politician" that would probably wind up cover another 0.99%. I'm sure there are a handful of abortions that we could agree to take issue with, but I'd also say that a healthy society would have sex education, and health care systems that would eliminate the vast majority of what's left.
But I also don't really want broad gun restrictions. I think common sense would cover most of it. But since either we are lacking, or my definition is overly broad, then I do think there are a lot more restrictions that make sense. Mostly mine would be around where you should have them (theaters, stores, public venues, ect.), but I don't really think that's a solution. I think we need a cultural shift that would mock and shame someone sending a christmas card with the family holding guns. This is also the same cultural shift that would probably give more public health and general public societal support that would eliminate a lot of abortions. Not surprising then that while we are at a political stalemate, we won't be making much progress on these items.
See you next week after the next mass shooting where I'll just copy/paste this.
I can get behind your points, as a healthy start...and especially the bold.
Especially the point we could improve the overall health of our society, and the majority of issues we face, with better overall education.
Which brings to mind another thought, I think that (better education) might require an even more radical discussion... a real no child left behind policy.
I understand your passionate response, but it didnât really address my question.
Understand that I, and I believe most here are not smart enough, or lack the medical background to really address this debate. But that doesn't matter, as the lack of real debate is the pointâ¦like with guns, immigration and other issues. Conservatives largely view guns as a black and white issueâ we donât want limits on guns. With abortion for liberals, same... and yes of course, the "compromises" coming from most of the right seem disingenuous. (not trying to position this as a left or right argument, but an actual argument). Even if you are 100% right, that still doesn't mean we ought not still have this debate.
As for following the constitution on this issueâ¦itâs an arguable point. But if we look at it from a practical, historical perspective, abortion was largely allowed up until the point of âquickening,â which I believe is around mid-term. Still, thatâs only so relevant for the current debate that is needed.
a good debate might require both sides to drop the straw and steelman an opposing or different view
intellectual honesty should and probably would bring some respect/credibility to the conversation
I understand your passionate response, but it didnât really address my question.
Understand that I, and I believe most here are not smart enough, or lack the medical background to really address this debate. But that doesn't matter, as the lack of real debate is the pointâ¦like with guns, immigration and other issues. Conservatives largely view guns as a black and white issueâ we donât want limits on guns. With abortion for liberals, same... and yes of course, the "compromises" coming from most of the right seem disingenuous. (not trying to position this as a left or right argument, but an actual argument). Even if you are 100% right, that still doesn't mean we ought not still have this debate.
As for following the constitution on this issueâ¦itâs an arguable point. But if we look at it from a practical, historical perspective, abortion was largely allowed up until the point of âquickening,â which I believe is around mid-term. Still, thatâs only so relevant for the current debate that is needed.
I see what you are after, and I think there is merit in it as a discussion. But there are significant differences in the issues that I think limit the usefulness of a 1:1 argument. Guns are a personal freedom and while they are specifically mentioned in the constitution, there are many personal freedoms where we accept limits (even guns). Abortion is a medical procedure that impacts many portions of the person's life, and honestly it impacts 0% of the lives of those protesting other than their ability to inflict their will on someone else.
I'm still okay with a few restrictions, but they would pretty much fall in line with what 99% of abortions already are. And I'd leave a wide swath of "medically necessary as defined by a doctor not a politician" that would probably wind up cover another 0.99%. I'm sure there are a handful of abortions that we could agree to take issue with, but I'd also say that a healthy society would have sex education, and health care systems that would eliminate the vast majority of what's left.
But I also don't really want broad gun restrictions. I think common sense would cover most of it. But since either we are lacking, or my definition is overly broad, then I do think there are a lot more restrictions that make sense. Mostly mine would be around where you should have them (theaters, stores, public venues, ect.), but I don't really think that's a solution. I think we need a cultural shift that would mock and shame someone sending a christmas card with the family holding guns. This is also the same cultural shift that would probably give more public health and general public societal support that would eliminate a lot of abortions. Not surprising then that while we are at a political stalemate, we won't be making much progress on these items.
See you next week after the next mass shooting where I'll just copy/paste this.
Compromise - the soul of a democratic republic - means following the U.S. Constitution on issues of personal and medical privacy, bodily autonomy and separation of church and state.
Women are not having elective abortions all the way up to the day of birth - that is a malignant fallacy. Abortions after 15 weeks require far more surgical skill, expense and a doctor's approval that it is necessary for the life of the Woman. These are people who were looking forward to being parents and are devastated at finding out a medical condition will render the fetus not viable after birth (like not having a skull casing, or kidneys) or the fetus has died in utero and the sepsis toxins are flowing into the woman's system. These are people who have picked out names, decorated a nursery and they are heartbroken at having to make that choice.
But that choice belongs to a woman, her doctor and her God. Not the state or anyone else's 'Beliefs.'
Why should a woman compromise on her own internal organs in a Nation based on a secular law system?
If you BELIEVE that life begins at conception, that's a belief that not everyone, or even science shares. My kidneys have human DNA, but it doesn't mean they are 'alive' and I should give them names. Pregnancy is a Process; Not an Instant Pudding Result.
Where's all the hand wringing when foreign Mothers and children are blown away by our guns and tanks during war time, militarily known as "Collateral Damage?"
I guess only SOME fetuses get to be 'Starkist?'
I understand your passionate response, but it didnât really address my question.
Understand that I, and I believe most here are not smart enough, or lack the medical background to really address this debate. But that doesn't matter, as the lack of real debate is the pointâ¦like with guns, immigration and other issues. Conservatives largely view guns as a black and white issueâ we donât want limits on guns. With abortion for liberals, same... and yes of course, the "compromises" coming from most of the right seem disingenuous. (not trying to position this as a left or right argument, but an actual argument). Even if you are 100% right, that still doesn't mean we ought not still have this debate.
As for following the constitution on this issueâ¦itâs an arguable point. But if we look at it from a practical, historical perspective, abortion was largely allowed up until the point of âquickening,â which I believe is around mid-term. Still, thatâs only so relevant for the current debate that is needed.
Well beyond this, the goal is to also criminalize pharmaceuticals that would post-coitally prevent conception (like Plan B)...the goal, ultimately, is to take away a woman's right to control her own body.
Very true. And I should have said criminalize all abortions that don't personally impact them, those they seem to be okay with.
The question then is (with all sincerity, and clearly each state has its own rules even pro-abortion states), are there compromises from pro-abortion groups?
Compromise - the soul of a democratic republic - means following the U.S. Constitution on issues of personal and medical privacy, bodily autonomy and separation of church and state.
Women are not having elective abortions all the way up to the day of birth - that is a malignant fallacy. Abortions after 15 weeks require far more surgical skill, expense and a doctor's approval that it is necessary for the life of the Woman. These are people who were looking forward to being parents and are devastated at finding out a medical condition will render the fetus not viable after birth (like not having a skull casing, or kidneys) or the fetus has died in utero and the sepsis toxins are flowing into the woman's system. These are people who have picked out names, decorated a nursery and they are heartbroken at having to make that choice.
But that choice belongs to a woman, her doctor and her God. Not the state or anyone else's 'Beliefs.'
Why should a woman compromise on her own internal organs in a Nation based on a secular law system?
If you BELIEVE that life begins at conception, that's a belief that not everyone, or even science shares. My kidneys have human DNA, but it doesn't mean they are 'alive' and I should give them names. Pregnancy is a Process; Not an Instant Pudding Result.
Where's all the hand wringing when foreign Mothers and children are blown away by our guns and tanks during war time, militarily known as "Collateral Damage?"
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Jan 27, 2023 - 7:05am
islander wrote:
I have yet to hear a compromise position from an anti-abortion proponent. As evidenced by recent events, their goal is the criminalization of all abortions.
Edit: I'm open to being incorrect here, but the larger rhetoric an action that I see is 0 abortions. I'm very compromise on 2A. I want guns generally available, but I don't want them in most situations without proper training and guidance. And I do believe that with proper training and guidance, the vast majority of situations would suggest that you leave your gun behind - especially at the movie theater/grocery store/kindergarten/concert venue/park/sportsball game/drinking establishment....
Well beyond this, the goal is to also criminalize pharmaceuticals that would post-coitally prevent conception (like Plan B)...the goal, ultimately, is to take away a woman's right to control her own body.
The question then is (with all sincerity, and clearly each state has its own rules even pro-abortion states), are there compromises from pro-abortion groups?
But, to be fair: if you really believe - and I mean really believe - then you shouldn't back down. You shouldn't compromise.
Agreed. Otherwise its Cafeteria Christianity and Selective Morality.
Interesting how the bill before SCOTUS was originally arguing for an after 15 weeks ban in Mississippi, but they decided to obliterate Roe anyway. Now, right to life zealots and Republicans realize this could be a losing policy for them ... what are they attempting to go for? A ban after 15 weeks.
Most medical or surgical abortions are performed in the 8-12 week period.
Bottom line: Regulating the Internal Organs of any American is the very definition of Unlawful Search and Seizure.
You see an unbending, vehement position like this from someone driven by the Will of God - which is the supposed reasoning behind the No Abortion rule. It's, of course, based in the commandment to not kill, and there's the added emotional layer of "won't someone think of the children!?"
So compromise on this, from the Folks Who Know What God Wants isn't gonna happen ever.
The only way of compromise is through the folks that think before they write reasonable laws. And those folks are being replaced by those who are beholden to the religious zealots.
But, to be fair: if you really believe - and I mean really believe - then you shouldn't back down. You shouldn't compromise.
It's sad that in 2023 society is still so afflicted the ancient superstitions and myths. Get over that shit already, please.
I have yet to hear a compromise position from an anti-abortion proponent. As evidenced by recent events, their goal is the criminalization of all abortions.
You see an unbending, vehement position like this from someone driven by the Will of God - which is the supposed reasoning behind the No Abortion rule. It's, of course, based in the commandment to not kill, and there's the added emotional layer of "won't someone think of the children!?"
So compromise on this, from the Folks Who Know What God Wants isn't gonna happen ever.
The only way of compromise is through the folks that think before they write reasonable laws. And those folks are being replaced by those who are beholden to the religious zealots.
But, to be fair: if you really believe - and I mean really believe - then you shouldn't back down. You shouldn't compromise.
I have yet to hear a compromise position from an anti-abortion proponent. As evidenced by recent events, their goal is the criminalization of all abortions.
Edit: I'm open to being incorrect here, but the larger rhetoric an action that I see is 0 abortions. I'm very compromise on 2A. I want guns generally available, but I don't want them in most situations without proper training and guidance. And I do believe that with proper training and guidance, the vast majority of situations would suggest that you leave your gun behind - especially at the movie theater/grocery store/kindergarten/concert venue/park/sportsball game/drinking establishment....
There are compromises in some anti-abortion proponents as going for a 15 week ban - but I think that may be a wolf in sheeps clothing to lure people to vote for conservatives who realize its not popular. Yet when in office, they haven't the courage to stand up to the religious zealots and extremists.
Seems the gun and abortion issues are being fought from opposing sides, with the same argument.
Neither side wants to negotiate or yield an inch.
Rather than admit the obvious compromise,
instead hold that if that portion of the right is taken away, when does it end?
I have yet to hear a compromise position from an anti-abortion proponent. As evidenced by recent events, their goal is the criminalization of all abortions.
Edit: I'm open to being incorrect here, but the larger rhetoric an action that I see is 0 abortions. I'm very compromise on 2A. I want guns generally available, but I don't want them in most situations without proper training and guidance. And I do believe that with proper training and guidance, the vast majority of situations would suggest that you leave your gun behind - especially at the movie theater/grocery store/kindergarten/concert venue/park/sportsball game/drinking establishment....
Seems the gun and abortion issues are being fought from opposing sides, with the same argument.
Neither side wants to negotiate or yield an inch.
Rather than admit the obvious compromise,
instead hold that if that portion of the right is taken away, when does it end?
But even still, you have to be able to adjust the light housings for height and side to side. Hence the garage door. Or you can spend the bucks for a "professional" to do it.
That is how I have done it ever since HS with my first car, a 62 Corvair with Powerglide !
The only automatic tranny that could be bump started like a stick. Nowadayze you cannot even bump start a stick if your battery is dead.
The computer that runs the ignition system needs power to work. Learned that one the hard way about 30 years ago.
Location: Really deep in the heart of South California Gender:
Posted:
Jan 20, 2023 - 10:49pm
geoff_morphini wrote:
Woah, aren't these the instructions for one of those "older" vehicles, like the one you drive but most people don't anymore? I used to buy "headlights" for my car but now it is only a bulb. I may be mistaken and that happens often.
Well my truck just turned 49 last December.
Yes, you're correct. One can just purchase a bulb nowadays. Heck, I even converted my truck to Hella motorcycle headlights years ago. Before it was legal to do so.
You see, it was the law back about 30+ years ago, that "sealed beam" headlights were the only legal lights to be used for headlights in America. A really inferior lighting system.
They allowed different setups now because of car designs. They are no longer limited to 4" or 7" round or rectangle shapes.
But even still, you have to be able to adjust the light housings for height and side to side.
Hence the garage door. Or you can spend the bucks for a "professional" to do it.
There are compromises in some anti-abortion proponents as going for a 15 week ban - but I think that may be a wolf in sheeps clothing to lure people to vote for conservatives who realize its not popular. Yet when in office, they haven't the courage to stand up to the religious zealots and extremists.
