Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local
-
... a gun?.. or an abortion?
http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/2...e-people-thinkMembers of the General Assembly seem to have some kind of disassociative disorder. When a woman walks into a gun store, socially conservative legislators like Cole treat her as rational, well informed, and fully capable of making her own decisions without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. But if the same woman walks into an abortion clinic, suddenly shes an addled dimwit who hasnt given her decision two seconds thought, and somebody needs to make her.
Another way to look at the logical "silliness" of the left/right paradigm and the idea of "freedom of choice". -
lol @ comparing buying a gun to killing your unborn child.
Come on, man! -
Guns do not kill people, women with guns do.
-
Only b/c of responses like your first. If you understood the point you wouldnt have wasted your time or the time of the time of the readers of this thread with pointless drivel.
Originally Posted by OneM24
No, I get the point. I just think a better comparison could be made. This won't turn into a debate about legislating whether you can force people to make better decisions. This will turn into what my first post states.
If you understand the point and disagree, state why. No need to push the thread down the wrong road unless you dont think your facts and/or beliefs are strong enough to sway the conversation and ideals of other in your direction. -
I think the comparision is simple. They both can be argued to result in the loss of human life.
-
The comparison itself is pointless drivel, because choosing to buy a gun does not automatically = death of a person. Choosing an abortion does.
Originally Posted by Realbigfish4
Only b/c of responses like your first. If you understood the point you wouldnt have wasted your time or the time of the time of the readers of this thread with pointless drivel.
If you understand the point and disagree, state why. No need to push the thread down the wrong road unless you dont think your facts and/or beliefs are strong enough to sway the conversation and ideals of other in your direction.
The comparison aside, this type of legislation is ridiculous. It shouldn't ever be voted on, much less voted in favor of. -
haha sounds about right
Originally Posted by Article
gun buyers are just walking blends of testosterone and nitroglycerine, ready to explode at the slightest nudge
-
curious on ur defn of person?
-
Yup, better to abort them in the womb before they become murderers
-
this, completely LOL comparison regardless of what side you're on. one is a right to protect yourself which could in the future lead to the death of someone. the other is the choice to 100% murder something
-
i still think people are kinda missing the point.
Originally Posted by BetzPH
this, completely LOL comparison regardless of what side you're on. one is a right to protect yourself which could in the future lead to the death of someone. the other is the choice to 100% murder something
raise ur hand if u read the article.... -
What if it's the same woman? First she goes to a gun store (or wherever the hell you buy them) to buy a gun and get's treat as perfectly sane and reasonable, then she goes to the abortion clinic round the corner and wants an abortion but is treat as mentally unstable. The checks and balances made for each activity are disproportional. That was my interpretation on the point in op
-
begging the question for 200, alex
-
I had no idea this stuff used to go on...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2398463.story
"Reporting from Raleigh, N.C.—
Elaine Riddick was a confused and frightened 14-year-old. She was poor and black, the daughter of alcoholic parents in a segregated North Carolina town. And she was pregnant after being raped by a man from her neighborhood.
Riddick's miserable circumstances attracted the attention of social workers, who referred her case to the state's Eugenics Board. In an office building in Raleigh, five men met to consider her fate — among them the state health director and a lawyer from the attorney general's office.
Board members concluded that the girl was "feebleminded" and doomed to "promiscuity." They recommended sterilization. Riddick's illiterate grandmother, Maggie Woodard, known as "Miss Peaches," marked an "X" on a consent form" -
You can thank the "wisdom" of Oliver Wendell Holmes for that one.
Originally Posted by DAWS
I had no idea this stuff used to go on...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2398463.story
"Reporting from Raleigh, N.C.—
Elaine Riddick was a confused and frightened 14-year-old. She was poor and black, the daughter of alcoholic parents in a segregated North Carolina town. And she was pregnant after being raped by a man from her neighborhood.
Riddick's miserable circumstances attracted the attention of social workers, who referred her case to the state's Eugenics Board. In an office building in Raleigh, five men met to consider her fate — among them the state health director and a lawyer from the attorney general's office.
Board members concluded that the girl was "feebleminded" and doomed to "promiscuity." They recommended sterilization. Riddick's illiterate grandmother, Maggie Woodard, known as "Miss Peaches," marked an "X" on a consent form"











