Asks some conservative whose big issue is abortion.
Sheesh.
I dunno. I'd never use one of my firearms to murder someone. I would use a firearm to preserve my own life and those of my loved ones. That's pretty pro life, isn't it? I'd also use it if I had to defend my way of life, too.
Guns are pro-life that way. Also, slaves are alive. Firearms rights help afford me liberty. The iron behind the words of life.
Abortion fights are not my issue. I guess I am pro-life in a way, but I'm not married to it. And I approach it from a libertarian angle instead of the churchy angle. Which has an advantage, going forward, as the country becomes more secular or at least agnostic. But I always wondered if the most rabid anti-abortion protestor was pro life. After all, they don't DO anything about abortion policy, they just make noise. And when they do put forward anti-abortion policies they always bite off more than Judiciary will let them swallow. They pass laws KNOWING they will be over-turned.
For example: Instead of passing an all out ban on any abortion after 26 weeks gestation, which the courts will almost certainly allow, and which can be agreed to by voters that might be wavering a bit, they pass a ban at 20 weeks. The court overturns the 20 week ban, and now we still have 36 week abortions from that point forward.
Whatever you think on the issue, maybe those strident folks should look toward incrementalism? Pass the 26 week one today, try for 24 next time? But all or nothing is their by word, and because they can't get all they get.... nothing.
Both sides of the gun debate have been dealing in incrementalism for decades.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Breaking into my house or trying to rape my wife is best thought of as an elaborate and complex means of suicide in that the decision to die wasn't made by me or mine; but by the criminal.
Angus, or you can think of yourself as a fetus who is armed and the intruder the abortionist.
Post a Comment