I doubt it. Maybe in smallish numbers, but I’m guessing most people won’t have the ability to uproot their families/etc just so they have more lax gun laws.
Would a judge actually even entertain that? I would imagine if that was possible, we’d already be seeing it with the drug trade.
This one I’d say probably. We already see higher per capita immigrants in the southern states with more lax immigration standards to my knowledge, so loosening it up would probably just drive more movement.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be rigid classes. Could easily be thought of as a sliding scale. I still hold very steadfast that not all rights are equal, and that the ‘right’ to an abortion doesn’t come close to touching anything you’d find in the BoR.
That being said, I’m fully willing to concede the verbiage point I brought up earlier. Im definitely no lawyer.
You may be right. I was just working off of something I saw in a previous argument. I think it was that Montana had 150% of the firearms per capita as Missouri, but only 1/3 of the per capita rate of homicide (and similar numbers when you compare mountain states to old midwest. Guns per capita don’t correspond to homicides between states.
Notice that its total homicide, not firearm homicide that has no correlation, so a critical question is whether firearm ownership supresses the total murder rate despite raising the firearm homicide rate.
If all rights were equal then the right to privacy would equal someones right to life and a state restriction on speech in certain instances where the speaker has done nothing wrong would be equivalent to the state executing someone when they had done nothing wrong.
…
That is what occurs to me first. I am trying to see what you mean by all rights being equal and I’m not sure what you mean.
What I mean is, the constitution neither denotes nor connotes a hierarchy of rights. Which is not to say that (as you rightly point out) when competing rights conflict, someone (=the judiciary) has to pick winners and losers.
You know what? I will take all the free advertising over Roe v. Wade that people want to put on it.
The more that people have to stare at it, the more they have to come to grips with what it actually is. And that only helps me get what get what I want more and more
Eh it’s not like exposure is doing all that much to move the needle. Now that the stem cell field is able to progress without fetuses most of the shock factor of abortion is gone. People generally understand what’s goin on
Thats quite a lot to get through, but the answer is simple to me. It’s scientific.
Once, the sperm and the egg cross that plane where they become a genetically seperate and autonomous human being, different from mother and father it gets at least one right all human beings have; the right to live.
I am not worried.
The one confort I have on this issue, is I know I am right on this issue (unique of pretty much any other political issue). 100% right. I have morality, logic AND science all on my side.
And there isn’t a damn thing you or anybody else can do about it.
Oh, I’ll be hated for saying this stuff, but I won’t be wrong
Hated? No. Not taken seriously? Yes. I mean, if you base your opinion on the autonomous nature of a zygote or fetus then you are indeed wrong. So you lack logic, science and English. All you have is your sense of morality.
A human being is a rather fuzzy and subjective label applied at some stage of an individual human’s already present life. Does it apply to a newborn, who a Chimpanzee could run circles around? The human being designation means nothing to me. I’ll let others bicker over when the being spirit descends from the well of beings in secular heaven. My argument is simply that an innocent individual human life has already begun. Therefore, abortion is the deliberate and premeditated taking of an innocent human life.
Edit: Just explaining my position. Don’t want to outright hijack, so I’ll creep back into the shadows…
Innocent implies not guilty but since a zygote is incapable of commiting an action one way or another, it cannot be innocent or guilty. It just is.
Obviously abortion is the deliberate ending of life but is that always wrong? People eat killed animals. Even plant life is killed for food. We kill in self-defense. So arguments for the ending of life, even human life, exist and many agree.
I don’t try and convince anyone that abortion is right or wrong. I don’t pretend to know if it is or isn’t wrong as a fact. That’s really the only issue I argue about, that is, the arguments against it based on religion or a lack of scientific understanding. If someone simply says they find it personally immoral then I have nothing to say. But if they say they have scientific evidence that proves abortion is murder then I have to call them on their idiocy.
Thanks for the response, Z. Was tempted to respond a bit, but I’m going to let the thread be. If it opens up a bit, and everyone is cool with it, I’ll probably jump back in. I’m trying not to derail into my favorite topics is all! Someone will get me with derailing train pic!
