Another equivalence to argue over. :)

[Charles Kozierok]

My right/left equivalences always seem to get discussion going, so here's another that came to mind after reading a comment on another thread.

Abortion is legal in this country. The right hates this, but they can't outlaw it, so instead, they pass one law after another intended to discourage it through laws that harrass or restrict access by those who seek to get an abortion. The end result is areas of the country where getting an abortion is still technically legal, but practically nearly impossible for many people.

Owning guns is legal in this country. The left hates this, but they can't outlaw it, so instead, they pass one law after another intended to discourage it through laws that harrass or restrict access by those who want to own guns. The end result is areas of the country where owning a gun is still technically legal, but practically nearly impossible for many people.

And no, I am not saying that the two are the same in all respects. It's more an observation on how both sides do everything in their power to end run around constitutional dictates they don't respect.

 

[Bowfinger]

You are correct.

/thread

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Is there a state with only one gun store left in it on the verge of being shut down?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ssippi-close-its-last-abortion-clinic/267352/

Actually, according to this website, there are 682 abortion clinics (or "death camps") across the country with a listing by state.
http://www.lifedynamics.com/deathcamps/deathcamps.cfm
I'll go out on a limb here and say not a one has more abortion providers than gun dealers.

 

[highland145]

I'm not seeing where the group, the right, "hates" abortion. I do see a lot of pandering politicians on the right that would be breaking out the coat hanger if their precious darling came home knocked up.

The same goes for the politicians on the left with their gun toting aides.

 

[Pantoot]

I like this equivalence for a different reason:

The right thinks that by making abortion illegal that they will keep people from getting abortions.
The left thinks that by making guns illegal they will keep people from getting guns.

The left sees that by making abortions illegal they will drive the practice underground inherently making it unsafe, etc.
The right...well, you get the picture...

 

[DaveSimmons]

Both want to restrict personal liberty to "save others."

Both care more about the restriction than its consequences (defenseless citizens, unwanted children being born to mothers who possibly can't support them properly).

 

[Atreus21]

Tactics may be the same. Issues are entirely different.

 

[Mxylplyx]

The left sees that by making abortions illegal they will drive the practice underground inherently making it unsafe, etc.
The right...well, you get the picture...

After a lengthy debate here a few weeks ago, I was surprised how easy several people on the right of the gun debate felt crafting a gun in one's own garage from scrap metal is. I didn't realize I was one of the few that had the equipment and expertise necessary to perform precision metal fabrication. Are there little home metal fabrication kits in a box I can find at Walmart or something, maybe next to the kids chemistry sets?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Zip guns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm

" The use of such weak tubing results in a firearm that can be more dangerous to the shooter than the target; the poorly fitting smoothbore barrel provides little accuracy and is liable to burst upon firing."

 

[ivwshane]

Hypocrisy you gotta love it!!


I'll say this about the two issues; gun control advocates are trying to respond to a problem with something they think will fix the problem (right or wrong isnt important to my point), the anti abortion crowd is trying to fix what they see as the problem, abortions.

So one side is willing to take your rights away because they think its the only or the best solution to a problem.

And one side just wants to take your rights away.

You can test this by asking the gun control side if they would support a law that drastically reduces gun violence but doesn't remove or restrict a persons right to own guns. The answer would be, "of course!".

Now what response would you get if you asked the anti abortion crowd would you allow abortions (without restrictions) if a law was passed that drastically reduced unwanted pregnancies?

So yeah both want to restrict rights but one issue isn't dependent on it.

 

[Fern]

-snip-The end result is areas of the country where getting an abortion is still technically legal, but practically nearly impossible for many people.

Never heard of that. Where would you be referring to?

And no, I am not saying that the two are the same in all respects. It's more an observation on how both sides do everything in their power to end run around constitutional dictates they don't respect.

Not sure everyone agrees that abortion is in the Constitution. Guns clearly are.

Otherwise, I mostly agree with you.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Never heard of that. Where would you be referring to?



Not sure everyone agrees that abortion is in the Constitution. Guns clearly are.

Otherwise, I mostly agree with you.

Fern

You haven't heard of any republicans trying to restrict rights to abortions?

I'm not going to list each instance by state but you can start here:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=republ...ublicans+restrict+abortions&sc=0-21&sp=-1&sk=

Abortion was deemed legal under the right of privacy, which is in the constitution.

 

[Agent11]

As Fern mentioned that is the only flaw in your argument, and one could argue it is a false equivalency due to the fact that the 2nd amendment explicitly protects the right to bear arms whereas abortion is not mentioned at all and has to be inferred as protected, meaning it is a much weaker protection and more easily interpreted in any way one would wish to choose.

Also I would be curious if you were to compare the amount of legislation introduced to restrict abortion vs. restricting gun rights, I would think the latter would lead by a wide margin.

 

[ivwshane]

As Fern mentioned that is the only flaw in your argument, and one could argue it is a false equivalency due to the fact that the 2nd amendment explicitly protects the right to bear arms whereas abortion is not mentioned at all and has to be inferred as protected, meaning it is a much weaker protection and more easily interpreted in any way one would wish to choose.

Also I would be curious if you were to compare the amount of legislation introduced to restrict abortion vs. restricting gun rights, I would think the latter would lead by a wide margin.

Weaker protection? If it was indeed weaker then you wouldn't be able to make the claim in bold would you?

Rights are rights, there is no such thing as a strong right and a weak right. All rights are subject to court interpretations.

 

[Agent11]

Weaker in that it is totally inferred and has no protection derived from explicit text in the constitution. Abortion rights could easily be changed if the supreme court had justices with a mind to do so.

That said, abortion is a non issue politically for the vast majority of people. Gun grabbers however can and do exploit tragedy to leverage their views.

 

[stormkroe]

Current abortion laws are based on vagueness from 2 angles. One, is it a right of the woman, and two when do human rights (specifically the right to life) kick in for the other human involved?
Gun control laws, existing and proposed, have been pointed out by to be impotent by both supporters and opposers. Not to mention that lax gun control areas actually have lower crime.
Short version:
abortion - possibly constitutional, based on things like 'nobody knows when life begins'.
Gun control - infringing on constitution, proven to create that which it tries to eliminate.

 

[ivwshane]

Weaker in that it is totally inferred and has no protection derived from explicit text in the constitution. Abortion rights could easily be changed if the supreme court had justices with a mind to do so.

That said, abortion is a non issue politically for the vast majority of people. Gun grabbers however can and do exploit tragedy to leverage their views.

Yes and gun rights could easily be changed if the courts had the mind to do so. Gun rights have already been restricted so your statement that its a protected right is invalidated.

 

[Agent11]

I think it is apples and oranges from a constitutional law standpoint.

Google supreme court rulings on both and you will see there are many times more precedents involving the 2nd amendment than there are involving abortion.

In law precedents matter, as does something like plain English text enshrining something as a right in the constitution. It is easy to wiggle and waffle about something that is inferred, it is harder to argue against the clear intent of a sentence that hasn't changed in over 200 years.

 

[fskimospy]

Current abortion laws are based on vagueness from 2 angles. One, is it a right of the woman, and two when do human rights (specifically the right to life) kick in for the other human involved?
Gun control laws, existing and proposed, have been pointed out by to be impotent by both supporters and opposers. Not to mention that lax gun control areas actually have lower crime.
Short version:
abortion - possibly constitutional, based on things like 'nobody knows when life begins'.
Gun control - infringing on constitution, proven to create that which it tries to eliminate.

Your short version leaves a lot to be desired. There is not a statistically meaningful relationship between gun ownership and less crime. "proven to create that which it tries to eliminate" is simply false.

Abortion is explicitly and repeatedly constitutional.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Never heard of that. Where would you be referring to?

Lots of states.

There are states where abortion is legal but they are only in large cities, hours away from many women. They pass laws requiring "waiting periods" to force women to have to make multiple trips to make it difficult to do.

Mississippi is putting up all sorts of hurdles to make access to abortion nearly impossible.

And then there's that new law in Arkansas, which is flat out trying to ban all abortions past a certain time frame, I think it's 12 weeks.

Not sure everyone agrees that abortion is in the Constitution. Guns clearly are.

It's not in the constitution, but it has been ruled a constitutional right by the Supreme Court, and thus has binding effect unless new law is passed or it is overturned.

I agree that the right to gun ownership is much more strongly entrenched in our history and in the constitution itself (though this gets into debates over what exactly is constitutionally protected). But again, this is more about tactics than anything.

Abortion is explicitly and repeatedly constitutional.

IMO that's a massive overstatement.

"Explicitly constitutional" would mean the right is spelled out in the Constitution. Where is that, please?

The right to an abortion is essentially a construction of the Supreme Court. If anything is "explicitly constitutional", it is the right o gun ownership.

 

[fskimospy]

I mean explicitly constitutional in that the Supreme Court has explicitly stated a right to abortion exists. Period, end of story. I never stated that gun ownership was not also explicitly constitutional.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I guess we're just using different interpretations of "explicit".

I agree with the outcome of Roe v. Wade, but not with its legal reasoning. I really think it was mostly the justices wanting to make abortion legal and constructing something that would fit. But of course, that's a big discussion.

 

[Fern]

You haven't heard of any republicans trying to restrict rights to abortions?

But I was repsonding specifically to this statement:

The end result is areas of the country where getting an abortion is still technically legal, but practically nearly impossible for many people.

I've never heard of that.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I guess we're just using different interpretations of "explicit".

I agree with the outcome of Roe v. Wade, but not with its legal reasoning. I really think it was mostly the justices wanting to make abortion legal and constructing something that would fit. But of course, that's a big discussion.

I'm curious what you think their legal reasoning was.

The last time I look at Roe v Wade my impression was they were trying to balance the right of the unborn to life, and the right of a doctor to provide care for his/her patient, in this case obviously a woman.

The common perception seems to be that the decision revolves around a right to privacy and the woman's body being her's to with as she pleases. My impression was that this is materially incorrect.

I was also left with the impression that abortions after a certain date (the viability of the infant to survive outside of the womb, including the use of medical technology to make it possible) can be outlawed without violating any Constitutional right(s). This, IMO, directly conflicts with what I described above as the common perception.

I also believe it means the decision should be revisited, if only because of technological advances in medicine. I.e., the the cutoff date date they arrived at to determine viability has likely been greatly changed. The result being that if a state was inclined to pass a restrictive law banning abortions after, let's say for purposes of example, a few weeks it would be Constitutional providing they demonstrate medical proof that the fetus would be viable. But I do think it necessary that they allow an exception for danger to the mother's life, else they will be right back at the original problem of interfering with a physicians right to provide medicare to a patient.

Fern