"He (Bush) speaks to the audience as if they're idiots. I think the reason he does that is because that's the way these issues were explained to him." - Graydon Carter
Is some sort of prior restraint relating to abortions war on women's rights or not? Seems I've heard even minor limits to abortion decried as a war on women's rights.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Access to a medical procedure is in a completely different realm of discussion.
I used cars as a comparison because they are also a tool designed for a specific purpose, which can cause death or harm if misused. (And I happen to think that penalties for deliberately misusing a motor vehicle, such as driving drunk, should get your driving priveleges yanked for a life, but that's a seperate argument.)
Most of what you write seems to point to a need for consistancy in regulation. I'll have a closer look at your links when I get some time.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Access to a medical procedure is in a completely different realm of discussion.
I'm comparing rights that have serious repercussions. Abortion is in fact one of those. It is the termination of a life at some point. Certainly in the last trimester up to the last day of pregnancy it is the death of something that is either alive or nearly just. Given that there's no hard day of its not alive/its alive, there's some fuzzy point between the transition from a part of the mother's body to an as yet unborn life.
Firearms are just as grave but aren't the pet right of the left (unless it's the right of the government to exert deadly force on the population which is how it's couched half the time by democrats). The right of self defense is a basic right. No-one in their right mind can argue against that point. Yet, there are an inch and a half of laws in two binders above me, what are the regulations on speech, abortion or other rights again? Most laws aimed at restricting speech for example are struck down on the basis of prior restraint (CDA for example) regardless of the harmful effects of such speech.
I used cars as a comparison because they are also a tool designed for a specific purpose, which can cause death or harm if misused. (And I happen to think that penalties for deliberately misusing a motor vehicle, such as driving drunk, should get your driving priveleges yanked for a life, but that's a separate argument.)
If we're comparing accidental and criminal use, then cars are a hell of a lot more dangerous based on their US national 'accidental' death rates of 40,000 people per year. Firearms have something like 600 deaths per year relating to accidental uses. Seems to me, automobiles are far more dangerous to the users or others around and yet there's no cries for stricter licensing or regulation of cars is there?
Checkout www.guncite.com as well. Lots of material there.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
You're comparing apples and oranges. Access to a medical procedure is in a completely different realm of discussion.
I used cars as a comparison because they are also a tool designed for a specific purpose, which can cause death or harm if misused. (And I happen to think that penalties for deliberately misusing a motor vehicle, such as driving drunk, should get your driving priveleges yanked for a life, but that's a seperate argument.)
Most of what you write seems to point to a need for consistancy in regulation. I'll have a closer look at your links when I get some time.
no subject
I'm comparing rights that have serious repercussions. Abortion is in fact one of those. It is the termination of a life at some point. Certainly in the last trimester up to the last day of pregnancy it is the death of something that is either alive or nearly just. Given that there's no hard day of its not alive/its alive, there's some fuzzy point between the transition from a part of the mother's body to an as yet unborn life.
Firearms are just as grave but aren't the pet right of the left (unless it's the right of the government to exert deadly force on the population which is how it's couched half the time by democrats). The right of self defense is a basic right. No-one in their right mind can argue against that point. Yet, there are an inch and a half of laws in two binders above me, what are the regulations on speech, abortion or other rights again? Most laws aimed at restricting speech for example are struck down on the basis of prior restraint (CDA for example) regardless of the harmful effects of such speech.
I used cars as a comparison because they are also a tool designed for a specific purpose, which can cause death or harm if misused. (And I happen to think that penalties for deliberately misusing a motor vehicle, such as driving drunk, should get your driving priveleges yanked for a life, but that's a separate argument.)
If we're comparing accidental and criminal use, then cars are a hell of a lot more dangerous based on their US national 'accidental' death rates of 40,000 people per year. Firearms have something like 600 deaths per year relating to accidental uses. Seems to me, automobiles are far more dangerous to the users or others around and yet there's no cries for stricter licensing or regulation of cars is there?
Checkout www.guncite.com as well. Lots of material there.