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.

 

Turns out abortion is a little like gun rights

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 09:42 PM
link   
At least in one respect. In another, it’s entirely different. One is enshrined in the immutable Bill of Rights, the other exists only as a convoluted ruling by a court. Tenuous by nature.

This is from a chain email I am a part of. Focused on debate and discussion. Recent arguments have shown at least one similarity though. That is the results proponents say will happen when abortion is no longer a national issue. Here is what they’re worried about.



America over time will become a crazy-quilt of abortion laws in which some have rights and some don’t, depending on which part of the country they live in. That reality reflects the notion that America isn’t really one country. (It’s instead a federation of regions with distinct personalities animating opposing political cultures.) And it reflects another thing: American women in their child-bearing years will not be treated equally under law on account of being American women in their child-bearing years.


The same thing can be said about some grossly infringing federal gun laws and the myriad of state laws that have arisen despite the second amendments very clear language (shall not be infringed).

Those concerns may as well read as this:




America has already become a crazy-quilt of gun laws in which some have rights and some do not depending on which part of the country they live in. That reality reflects the notion that America isn’t really one country. (It’s instead a federation of regions with distinct personalities animating opposing political cultures.) And it reflects another thing: American citizens will not be treated equally under the law on account of their financial status. Those with wealth can easily and legally acquire machine guns, suppressors and the ability to carry a weapon in places requiring special permission while those without wealth find such weapons unobtainable.



Second class citizens indeed. I wonder if any abortionists regret not defending the second amendment while touting their far more tenuous court decision



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Disagree. These are two very different set of rights.



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Yes indeed, one is the court legislating the female reproductive parts while the other is the rights to own a piece of equipment, female are born with private parts, the guns you can buy them at a gun store.

The irony


edit on 4-12-2021 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)


+3 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: JBurns

Disagree. These are two very different set of rights.



Yeah, only one is a right.



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I'm still a tad surprised no one from the left has realized all their talks of vaccine mandates undercuts their "my body, my choice" mantra! At the core both are about something unwanted in a persons body? Everybody seems to forget about setting precedents! As for gun control, notice how the guy Rittenhouse shot had his gun charges dropped? That was POINTEDLY IGNORED by everyone. So much for zero tolerance.



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: MDDoxs

Indeed. The entire premise of their argument- that which they fear most - is *exactly* the conditions they have created for exercising 2A.

Their failure to appropriately uphold the 2A federally has created a landscape where different laws apply to different people in different places. You may be following the law in one state while engaging in an activity that would make you a “felon” in the next state over. They have created a Balkanization among the states, where free exercise of the 2A is only for *some* people. Owning automatics or hearing protection devices is only for *some* people. Equal protection under the law my …

Only difference is the second amendment is enshrined in the Bill of Rights

I have warned anti-gun types their rhetoric would come home to roost. Their constant attacks on the second amendment meant a whole lot of people were never going to show up when they needed us to. The fact it has happened so quickly is that much better. Add to that their failure to achieve their anti-gun objectives and you have true irony.



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Not quite.

If covid is proving anything is that we have no rights when it comes to "our bodies our choice" or has anyone noticed?

The rights of the individual are now meaningless. If the collective thinks that you should own, do, say, or choose something then they will now force you to comply.

Am I wrong?

Because I am watching it unfold daily.

If you want to see how they roll out the mark of the beast? You are getting a preview.

If you want to see how your "gun rights" and just about any other "right" including your own medical decisions are no longer yours, you are watching it happen in slow motion.

Once the collective decides that you must do or do not do something, your rights are tossed out the window.




edit on 4-12-2021 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

You are not wrong

The key word is “think” though! I hope patriots get real smart real quick and organize themselves, secretly and silently, into regional/national paramilitary commands.



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: JBurns

Disagree. These are two very different set of rights.



I agree with you. One is openly enumerated in the Constitution while the other was invented by an activist court ruling.



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: JBurns

Disagree. These are two very different set of rights.




Disagree. There is NO SUCH THING as a "right" to abortion, in the Constitution, or elsewhere.

Look, you want to engage in this immoral act, I get it.
Then have the balls to do either a proper Constitutional amendment or pass legislation.
But leftists are just too lazy to do it.

You want instead some libtarded unelected, unaccounatble judge to "read in" something that is NOT there in the Constitution



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I think this idea of rights is interesting. The right to own a gun seems an individual specific right. Abortion is entirely different: a woman has a right to any abortion at any time as long as she wants to do with her body (starve, suicide). However the right to have an abortion is to give another human being the right to perform an abortion. That is the true essence of the right to abortion: doctors are given the right because of their license and expertise to perform such act.


+5 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns




posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: JBurns

Disagree. These are two very different set of rights.






posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:19 PM
link   


And it reflects another thing: American citizens will not be treated equally under the law on account of their financial status. Those with wealth can easily and legally acquire machine guns, suppressors and the ability to carry a weapon in places requiring special permission while those without wealth find such weapons unobtainable.



edit on 4-12-2021 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

The problem is that no one is telling anyone how to use their private parts, not men, not women. Pregnancy is a natural outcome of how women choose to use their private parts and except for very, very narrow circumstances, it is not forced on them. Most women who end up pregnant very much chose to use their private parts in the manner that led to the pregnancy, and you cannot uncouple sex and pregnancy. One is the natural consequence of the other no matter how hard we try to deny that reality, just like transfolk would like to deny the reality of their own natural chromosomal sex.

It would be more like saying that we're trying to deny that the death of other people is a potential consequence of how folks sometimes choose to use their right to keep and bear arms. And as far as I know, no one does who is responsible which is why we talk about firearms safety.



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: JBurns



haha, perfect!



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

Perfect!

And anyone who doesn’t believe these measures are necessary needs to be on medication and is not fit to have an assault abortion

Thank you for reading the entire OP 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I base my point to the fact that if we let the courts legislate body parts we will be getting into a slippery slope here and is not going to stop with how women use their uterus and the rights to own it, but obviously it will be to courts and the individual states to own it.

Body parts in this instance women female parts seems to be the only one that some groups are going after.

We are born with the body we have, is not given to us by outside means, soo no courts should be legislating what we are actually born with and that means it belongs to us females because obviously this is no a male issue but female.

With this say, it goes for wanted or unwanted pregnancies and the rights to choose what a female wants.

Most of the abortion issue, has become from religious to emotional to anything you can name it.

But the reality is that women body parts is the individual women business and a private issue.

Now like everybody pointed out, guns are part of the constitutional rights, soo to do anything with it, the constitution will have to be amended and that is no going to happen.



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 10:57 PM
link   
The two are nothing alike. In the case of Gun Rights, people who don't like then don't have to pay for those who do, while in the whole Abortion Rights public funding is used to offset others to get abortions.

The way I see it, if public funding for abortions was removed from organizations, then the whole argument would go away.

The issue for guns rights is different. Since the public isn't required to pay taxes that offsets another person's desire to buy a gun.

If anything, the issue with Abortion Rights and the Vaccine mandates are more alike than people want to address. As it is right now the Mandates for people having to be vaccinated can be used to force people to get an abortion. If the government can tell you what tot put in your body, then inversely it can tell you what to take out of it too.

Vaccine Mandates are nothing more than a variant of the Chinese One Child Rule.

Gun ownership and the right to defend oneself against draconian government is literally the antithesis of the abortion rules. The fact that people are more fixed on "If a person has the right", rather than "Should the public pay for the right" should be telling to the populace that right now abortion is nothing but a token issue being used to further divide Americans, rather than address any real issues with public funding of abortions.



posted on Dec, 4 2021 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

This is the proper comparison (your comparison) . If you use your gun hastily or improperly you may end up with something the courts need to rule on. Injury or death is frowned upon in one instance, but not the other. To make things fair for Marg, the men can have all the guns and the women can have all the bullets
edit on 4-12-2021 by onthedownlow because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join