It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Compromise Question??

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: fiverx313

Why are non-US citizens posting in this thread - wasn't the following by Flyingclaydisk clear enough?


...i'm a US citizen




posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: snowspirit

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: DBCowboy


How could you compromise on abortion if you believe it is murder?



Sorta where I'm at. I don't think abortion should be used as birth control(take responsibility before sex) but can see the value in other instance. Secondly if YOU want an abortion it's none of my business.


It is none of your business then if someone commits murder?


That would depend on people's views, of when an embryo turns into a fetus and when a fetus turns into a baby. Some people are of the belief that conception is the point of when it's an actual baby, even though it's a lump of cells at that point.


Right now, at this very moment at time. . . you and I are nothing but a clump of cells.



Other people believe that the fetus becomes a baby, when it can survive outside of the uterus, with help of an incubator.
And there's still seems to be a few that think it's not a baby, until it's born. I think these people are the rarest.


Even after a child is born, it cannot survive on it's own.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
'How could you compromise on abortion if you believe it is murder?

How could you compromise on guns if you believe they should be banned?


So you should never compromise on anything you believe? You can't really compromise about something you never cared about in the first place.

I just think most people don't have ultra strong opinions about guns, seems like the first one is a lot heavier.

a reply to: Martin75

On a related note, maybe the babies could stop getting aborted if they started practicing nonviolent resistance, like Ghandi thought us.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Can't have it both ways.

If you want further gun legislation then you must support further pro-choice/abortion regulation.

That's the question (asked).

Conversely, If you want reduced pro-choice regulation then you must support reduced firearms regulation.

The last option is status quo, no further firearms regulation in return for no further pro-choice regulation.

Those are the only options.


edit on 12/10/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants



I think I'm done compromising. I think it's time for others to start compromising.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

All due respect DB...

Care to answer the question?

And, as I'm sure you've reasoned out by now...there are actually two questions; the question asked and another not so readily apparent question. The answer for one, answers the other.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

That's actually not a good analogy, DB. Because it doesn't represent where the pieces of the cake are going...they're just vanishing and that's not accurate. As a pro-2A person I wouldn't say I agreed with that.

Do you?

edit...unless there's three people at that table...and the one demanding the cake is neither one of the two owners.

edit II...oh, and it also overlooks NFA '86 (correction FOPA)

edit on 12/10/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I think I have answered.

First using the quote.

Compromising on foundational beliefs erodes the very same foundations.

Would you ask a Muslim to compromise on eating bacon?

I don't wish to compromise on a Constitutional right like gun ownership.
I also think abortion is murder.

I can't just change my thoughts the same way others change socks.

I would refuse to compromise.

Period.


Sometimes in life there are just winners and losers.

In terms of abortion, my "side" is the loser because abortions exist. Guns? Losing that one as well.

I'll not change my stance just so I can be a "winner". I'd rather be a loser who stayed true to my values and beliefs than a winner with no moral compass, one who just "compromises" to stay a "winner".



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yeah, I'm pretty much pro gun ownership. I'm on the fence about AR's and such, and about the details, but handguns for self-defense should be protected. In fact, I wish I had a gun, but I live in Europe and I fear it'd be a real hassle.

And in case anyone was wondering, I chose not to answer OP's question because I'm in favor of both. Not saying anyone should particularly care about my opinions, lol

EDIT: Undecided but leaning towards pro gun, I guess, when it comes to the more efficient guns.
edit on 10-12-2017 by Cutepants because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Unfortunately, you're incorrect. (meaning your answer does not pass a logic test).

You cannot equate "rights" with feelings/emotions or perceptions of morality.

You say you are unwilling to surrender a "right", then you follow that with you "think" abortion is murder. The reality is, they are both 'rights'. That, or neither are. And, now you're getting closer to the second question.

Define a right. God given? Granted by the Constitution? Because someone just 'feels' like it?

edit - you can't have it both ways...either.

edit on 12/10/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

What right is more important?

The right to choose?

The right to life?



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Okay...just in case it's not abundantly clear here, there are actually two questions. One of the questions is the same question asked in the OP. It's been framed several ways for clarity, but the question remains the same.

The second, not so apparent, question is a more fundamental one...

Question - Are you willing to accept further infringement of YOUR own rights in order to achieve the restriction of OTHERS rights on other issues which are important to you (morally, intrinsically, or just cuz)?

Conversely, would you be willing to relax your posture on the restriction of OTHERS rights in order to preserve YOUR own rights on a different issue?

Again, same question, just worded both ways for clarity.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I presume you are expecting an answer from me, correct? Or, was it a rhetorical question?

I would offer you haven't asked a true question in the context of the OP. Your question is more one of morality than one of right, even though you have framed it as a right. However, I will answer your question (as I try to answer all questions here truthfully).

Answer - The right to not have others interfere with my life. Therefore, the right to choose.

I suspect you may not like that answer, but it is my answer.

Now answer mine.

...and no, you really didn't answer it already.
edit on 12/10/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


Question - Are you willing to accept further infringement of YOUR own rights in order to achieve the restriction of OTHERS rights on other issues which are important to you (morally, intrinsically, or just cuz)?


No.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

Answer - The right to not have others interfere with my life. Therefore, the right to choose.



So the right to choose infringes on another's right to life.

You don't see a conflict?

Rights should not supersede each other.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: fiverx313
oh, go fly a kite

I tried, but it got fried by lightning.
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
I wonder if you saw my rant in the Tax overhaul loophole thread?? My thoughts were pretty much along these lines. If Tulsi Gabbard abandons any and all talk about further second amendment restrictions, she could become the first female President. Now, if that requires free abortions for all, in an assembly line for young teenage girls who no longer need to so much as think about responsibility or intentionally making a bad decision, then so be it.

Cheers, I like where this is going, and would like to see congress maybe go for this in session



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Define the “ drop the second amendment stuff”..

Because democrats to a man have been swearing they won’t touch the second amendment for decades..

The only things they have proposed was a registry and banning the new sale of assault rifles, with the millions already in circulation remaining legal..

So I don’t think you would have any trouble getting that trade out of the dems..



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: VictorVonDoom



I'm a little unclear what you mean by "dropped."


By "drop" I mean...do not pursue any further legislation against.



If you mean "no longer discuss or champion the cause of" I would have to say no. First Amendment, people can discuss what they want.


Yep, people can 'discuss' whatever they want. No issue there. But, it's just that...discussion. This question is about laws and legislation.

edit - I have intentionally not responded to your third question.

edit II - Actually, I will respond to your 3rd item. In all actuality, this whole premise is about the exact antithesis of taking rights away. It's about not taking rights away...any rights at all. In fact, that's the very essence of it!


I understand your position, but I would still have to say no. It's still taking away one right: the right of people to be represented in their government.

I may disagree with some people on their positions on guns or abortions, but I respect their right to have those opinions, and I believe it is the duty of elected representatives to represent their constituency. If a large portion of their constituency wants a law passed, the congress person should present that viewpoint for discussion.

Of course, that's the way things should work in theory. In practice, money counts more than voters.



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


Question - If the right dropped the Freedom of Choice / Abortion issue, would you consider dropping the 2nd Amendment / Gun issue?


I have no issue with the "2nd Amendment." What I have an issue with is that there should be better universal checks into who is allowed to purchase, since so many fall through the cracks, it seems (and I guess some always will fall through).

I like the 2nd Amendment, it's a fundamental right. I own guns.

But I only speak for myself.


edit on 10-12-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit

I agree to a point.

Guns in the rural sections only will probably facilitate more lobomites doing mass shootings with Noone around to stop it(armed citizens), in cities.

But then on the other hand - I live in a state where open carry has been legal since 1898, however it's considered disorderly conduct or breach of peace. And yet we need a permit to carry concealed.
It seems to me an openly carrying public is more prone to be civil to one another/ instead of wondering if anyone in the vicinity is carrying so they can engage in nefarious activities...
edit on 11082017 by Hewhowaits because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join