[thinkprogress.org]

Quote

House Bill 2036, which measures a fetus’ gestational age from the first day of the woman’s last period, prevents abortion after 18 weeks of pregnancy, making it the most extreme ban in the nation. Most fetal abnormalities are detected during this period, but the ban forbids abortions even when the doctor discovers a fatal defect. The woman must then carry to term a baby who will almost certainly die as soon as it is born...

MISS Foundation and Embrace are non-profits specifically working to develop birth plans for such families, provide counseling, and prepare funeral services. The Legislature has allocated no funding for these services, which are expected to kick into high demand once the abortion ban goes into effect...

One family highlighted in the Republic’s report is working with Embrace to prepare for the birth of their daughter, who is missing most of her skull and brain. Julia Gonzales, a devout Catholic, refused to get an abortion but is now terrified of what her baby will look like:

I didn’t even have the idea in my mind to stop the pregnancy. And then two weeks after they told us, we saw her. She was a girl. But we never expected it would be this bad. Sometimes I wonder why I didn’t stop the pregnancy…I’m so scared about seeing her. When I remember her, I don’t want to remember her looking like that.

That's all just really sad.

Quote
Lemon Drop
That's all just really sad.

x2. So sad...

---

----------------------

I'm sure the strong gun rights advocates will chime in on this thread to commiserate with abortion rights advocates about this. It's an actual example of the slippery slope of deteriorating rights that the strong gun advocates are always talking about.

Actually, I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal in this country.

I read this in the morning and half a day later never have found any words with which to respond. It's like a horror movie.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Quote
Mac-A-Matic
Actually, I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal in this country.

Good, that's one. How about the other strong gun supporters here?

Count me in.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

Quote
Ted King
I'm sure the strong gun rights advocates will chime in on this thread to commiserate with abortion rights advocates about this. It's an actual example of the slippery slope of deteriorating rights that the strong gun advocates are always talking about.

What I also think is that your statement is rather narrow-minded and prejudiced - as though any gun owner is automatically conservative and automatically anti-abortion. It's this kind of thinking that creates an "us vs. them" mentality that divides our country. I challenge you to break free of that kind of thinking.

Quote
Mac-A-Matic

Quote
Ted King
I'm sure the strong gun rights advocates will chime in on this thread to commiserate with abortion rights advocates about this. It's an actual example of the slippery slope of deteriorating rights that the strong gun advocates are always talking about.

What I also think is that your statement is rather narrow-minded and prejudiced - as though any gun owner is automatically conservative and automatically anti-abortion.

You are reading things into what I said that are not there. What I'm getting at is that to be consistent, strong gun advocates who place great stock on using slippery slope arguments against gun regulation because it impinges on a Constitutional right should say the same thing about the kinds of regulation of abortion rights as the one in cited in the OP.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2012 09:42AM by Ted King.

Quote
Ted King

Quote
Mac-A-Matic

Quote
Ted King
I'm sure the strong gun rights advocates will chime in on this thread to commiserate with abortion rights advocates about this. It's an actual example of the slippery slope of deteriorating rights that the strong gun advocates are always talking about.

What I also think is that your statement is rather narrow-minded and prejudiced - as though any gun owner is automatically conservative and automatically anti-abortion.

You are reading things into what I said that are not there. What I'm getting at is that to be consistent, strong gun advocates who place great stock on using slippery slope arguments against gun regulation because it impinges on a Constitutional right should say the same thing about the kinds of regulation of abortion rights as the one in cited in the OP.

It is true that I specifically chose gun advocates to mention, but that is because if you look at the demographics of who are strong supporters of minimum regulation of guns and the demographics of those who are strong advocates of regulating abortion, there is a lot of overlap. I think in that overlap there is a lot of selective outrage about stomping on Constitutional rights - a lot of inconsistency.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2012 09:48AM by Ted King.

Quote
Ted King
...if you look at the demographics of who are strong supporters of minimum regulation of guns and the demographics of those who are strong advocates of regulating abortion, there is a lot of overlap...

Stereotype much?

Quote
SDGuy

Quote
Ted King
...if you look at the demographics of who are strong supporters of minimum regulation of guns and the demographics of those who are strong advocates of regulating abortion, there is a lot of overlap...

Stereotype much?

If it is true that there is a lot of overlap between those demographics then it is not a stereotype. I suppose I could be wrong about the overlap - I tried a quick Google search but couldn't find solid evidence one way or the other. I still think my observation is correct - there is a lot of overlap between those demographics, but I will admit that I can't verify that at the moment.

Quote
Ted King

Quote
SDGuy

Quote
Ted King
...if you look at the demographics of who are strong supporters of minimum regulation of guns and the demographics of those who are strong advocates of regulating abortion, there is a lot of overlap...

Stereotype much?

If it is true that there is a lot of overlap between those demographics then it is not a stereotype. I suppose I could be wrong about the overlap - I tried a quick Google search but couldn't find solid evidence one way or the other. I still think my observation is correct - there is a lot of overlap between those demographics, but I will admit that I can't verify that at the moment.

Let me help you out a bit...

Quote
SDGuy

Quote
Ted King

Quote
SDGuy

Quote
Ted King
...if you look at the demographics of who are strong supporters of minimum regulation of guns and the demographics of those who are strong advocates of regulating abortion, there is a lot of overlap...

Stereotype much?

If it is true that there is a lot of overlap between those demographics then it is not a stereotype. I suppose I could be wrong about the overlap - I tried a quick Google search but couldn't find solid evidence one way or the other. I still think my observation is correct - there is a lot of overlap between those demographics, but I will admit that I can't verify that at the moment.

Let me help you out a bit...

So you are saying that everyone who favors minimum gun regulation are Libertarians?

Quote
Ted King
I'm sure the strong gun rights advocates will chime in on this thread to commiserate with abortion rights advocates about this. It's an actual example of the slippery slope of deteriorating rights that the strong gun advocates are always talking about.

Evidently you misjudged the demographic here in the forums, at least ;-) Actually, I'm one of those foaming at the mouth gun rights guys (not really), and anti-abortion. I don't think it's fair to assume that because the "slippery slope" argument might come into play in one issue, that it must have the same relevance in another (the death penalty is another issue where I've seen this logic employed). Plus, if I'm not mistaken, planned parenthood is anti-any-regulation-whatsoever of abortion I believe for the same slippery-slopey reasons (they know there are those who want to outlaw all abortion). But I would never argue they need to be in favor of no regulation of guns because they employ the slippery slope argument elsewhere. I don't think anyone's stance on any issue relies completely on the slippery slope argument. I do believe the slippery slope exists though (despite arguments to the contrary, which I understand). kj.

Quote
kj
I don't think it's fair to assume that because the "slippery slope" argument might come into play in one issue, that it must have the same relevance in another (the death penalty is another issue where I've seen this logic employed). Plus, if I'm not mistaken, planned parenthood is anti-any-regulation-whatsoever of abortion I believe for the same slippery-slopey reasons (they know there are those who want to outlaw all abortion). But I would never argue they need to be in favor of no regulation of guns because they employ the slippery slope argument elsewhere. I don't think anyone's stance on any issue relies completely on the slippery slope argument. I do believe the slippery slope exists though (despite arguments to the contrary, which I understand). kj.

Pro-gun stances may not rely solely on slippery slope arguments, but slippery slope arguments are central to a great deal of what I read of arguments for not restricting gun rights - second only to the argument that having a gun is a right and don't mess with my rights. The only way that a slippery slope isn't relevant to one right even though it is relevant to another is if you don't assume that Constitutional rights should be treated as equally sacrosanct. If I'm reading between the lines correctly, you are suggesting that we shouldn't assume all Constitutional rights are equally sacrosanct. That's certainly a tenable position to take... but, then, to be consistent you have to let the other side not assume that gun rights are sacrosanct. What I'm saying is that I think there are a great many anti-abortionists who want to say that gun rights are sacrosanct but not abortion rights. That's inconsistent. I could be wrong about how common that view is, but I don't think so based on my impression that there is a lot of Republican run state legislators that have both reduced restrictions on guns and also passed legislation to reduce access to abortions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2012 02:51PM by Ted King.

Well,
Some of us are enlightened enough to see people as individuals, not as some monolithic block of "those people who I don't agree with"...

Quote
SDGuy
Well,
Some of us are enlightened enough to see people as individuals, not as some monolithic block of "those people who I don't agree with"...

Saying that two demographic groups share some of the same people is not denying the individuality of the individuals in those groups.

Quote
SDGuy
Well,
Some of us are enlightened enough to see people as individuals, not as some monolithic block of "those people who I don't agree with"...

While you may see yourself as not a part of a monolithic voting block, the MBAs who call the campaign shots and influence legislation see you as just that.

Quote
Ted King
You are reading things into what I said that are not there. What I'm getting at is that to be consistent, strong gun advocates who place great stock on using slippery slope arguments against gun regulation because it impinges on a Constitutional right should say the same thing about the kinds of regulation of abortion rights as the one in cited in the OP.

I'm actually in favor of defending the Constitution. Though doesn't this house bill already fly in the face of the current standard of Roe v. Wade - that a fetus must be able to live outside the womb? I understand it's generally accepted that beyond 28 weeks is "too late", but eighteen weeks? I can't see how a fetus can survive outside the womb at that stage to not conflict with the Supreme Court ruling and be overturned.

Of course, we're talking about Arizona - a state that I prefer not to visit due to its draconian laws and rabid conservatives.

Quote
Ted King

Quote
kj
I don't think it's fair to assume that because the "slippery slope" argument might come into play in one issue, that it must have the same relevance in another (the death penalty is another issue where I've seen this logic employed). Plus, if I'm not mistaken, planned parenthood is anti-any-regulation-whatsoever of abortion I believe for the same slippery-slopey reasons (they know there are those who want to outlaw all abortion). But I would never argue they need to be in favor of no regulation of guns because they employ the slippery slope argument elsewhere. I don't think anyone's stance on any issue relies completely on the slippery slope argument. I do believe the slippery slope exists though (despite arguments to the contrary, which I understand). kj.

Pro-gun stances may not rely solely on slippery slope arguments, but slippery slope arguments are central to a great deal of what I read of arguments for not restricting gun rights - second only to the argument that having a gun is a right and don't mess with my rights. The only way that a slippery slope isn't relevant to one right even though it is relevant to another is if you don't assume that Constitutional rights should be treated as equally sacrosanct. If I'm reading between the lines correctly, you are suggesting that we shouldn't assume all Constitutional rights are equally sacrosanct. That's certainly a tenable position to take... but, then, to be consistent you have to let the other side not assume that gun rights are sacrosanct. What I'm saying is that I think there are a great many anti-abortionists who want to say that gun rights are sacrosanct but not abortion rights. That's inconsistent. I could be wrong about how common that view is, but I don't think so based on my impression that there is a lot of Republican run state legislators that have both reduced restrictions on guns and also passed legislation to reduce access to abortions.

That's really a bit much for me to process ;-). But I personally would avoid making ethical arguments based on what is currently the law. To me, ethics and the law are clearly two different things. The argument as to whether there should be any restrictions on guns is moot. There are lots of restrictions. I've not really talked to anyone who would argue there shouldn't be any. My thought on having an armed society is that throughout history, there has never been a people who didn't need to be armed. Maybe for some period of time, but not in perpetuity. Will we as citizens ever need to be armed? I would say inevitably we will. Others would argue we won't. There is no way to resolve this dispute, so debate will continue. As far as the slippery slope, I agree that judicious regulation is possible in theory. But in practice, people are really tricky. I don't trust anyone to provide judicious regulation, so the only response is to be skeptical of all of it. I think those who favor legal abortion feel the same way regarding those who would regulate abortion "judiciously". kj.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2012 01:51AM by kj.

Quote
RgrF

Quote
SDGuy
Well,
Some of us are enlightened enough to see people as individuals, not as some monolithic block of "those people who I don't agree with"...

While you may see yourself as not a part of a monolithic voting block, the MBAs who call the campaign shots and influence legislation see you as just that.

So, which MBA decided Obama should be for gay marriage this week ?
Which MBA buys Michelle's clothes ?

---

Kooper's Flute Thing cover

[www.freethegrapes.org]

norwegian wood reality TV

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
kj

Quote
Ted King

Quote
kj
I don't think it's fair to assume that because the "slippery slope" argument might come into play in one issue, that it must have the same relevance in another (the death penalty is another issue where I've seen this logic employed). Plus, if I'm not mistaken, planned parenthood is anti-any-regulation-whatsoever of abortion I believe for the same slippery-slopey reasons (they know there are those who want to outlaw all abortion). But I would never argue they need to be in favor of no regulation of guns because they employ the slippery slope argument elsewhere. I don't think anyone's stance on any issue relies completely on the slippery slope argument. I do believe the slippery slope exists though (despite arguments to the contrary, which I understand). kj.

Pro-gun stances may not rely solely on slippery slope arguments, but slippery slope arguments are central to a great deal of what I read of arguments for not restricting gun rights - second only to the argument that having a gun is a right and don't mess with my rights. The only way that a slippery slope isn't relevant to one right even though it is relevant to another is if you don't assume that Constitutional rights should be treated as equally sacrosanct. If I'm reading between the lines correctly, you are suggesting that we shouldn't assume all Constitutional rights are equally sacrosanct. That's certainly a tenable position to take... but, then, to be consistent you have to let the other side not assume that gun rights are sacrosanct. What I'm saying is that I think there are a great many anti-abortionists who want to say that gun rights are sacrosanct but not abortion rights. That's inconsistent. I could be wrong about how common that view is, but I don't think so based on my impression that there is a lot of Republican run state legislators that have both reduced restrictions on guns and also passed legislation to reduce access to abortions.

That's really a bit much for me to process ;-). But I personally would avoid making ethical arguments based on what is currently the law. To me, ethics and the law are clearly two different things.

Yes, law is an idea distinct from ethics but what the law ought to be is very often an ethical question so debates about what the law ought to be are very often ethical debates.

Quote
kj
The argument as to whether there should be any restrictions on guns is moot. There are lots of restrictions. I've not really talked to anyone who would argue there shouldn't be any. My thought on having an armed society is that throughout history, there has never been a people who didn't need to be armed. Maybe for some period of time, but not in perpetuity. Will we as citizens ever need to be armed? I would say inevitably we will. Others would argue we won't. There is no way to resolve this dispute, so debate will continue. As far as the slippery slope, I agree that judicious regulation is possible in theory. But in practice, people are really tricky. I don't trust anyone to provide judicious regulation, so the only response is to be skeptical of all of it. I think those who favor legal abortion feel the same way regarding those who would regulate abortion "judiciously". kj.

I think that usually when people reflect on these issues they do come to see that no Constitutional right is absolute, but in discussions people often do resort to this kind of argument, "I've got a right to have a gun in my home, so don't be telling me that I've got to do this or that to make it safer to have in my home." I guess I will say that I was focused on that type of argument, but I will admit that if people who make this kind of argument step back a bit and reflect on it, they will try to reframe their argument away from just simply "I've got the right" to something like "the issues with gun safety in the home aren't compelling enough to make me change how I keep my gun in my home".

But that gets me to wondering if there still isn't an equivalency question with respect to gun rights and abortion rights. Constraining Constitutional rights is a matter of balancing interests. Is it okay to have different standards of balancing interests for different rights such that one right gets significantly more constrained than another? If so, why? And, specifically, if gun rights should be less constricted than abortion rights, what is the balance of interest justification for that?

I'm not sure what the measure of constraint of a right would be, but it seems to me that because they're different issues, you have to consider them differently. What works for the protection and definition of one right, doesn't necessarily work for another. At this point I would think there are more laws meant to limit gun ownership than there are laws limiting abortion, so if we were to equalize the number of laws we would probably add restrictions to abortion. That seems like an odd approach to me, no matter which "side" benefits. I'm sure I'm not fully understanding you though. Ah, one real idea that comes to mind is that guns are awesome (they're fun, they're cool, and whatever), so some people really want them. Abortions, not so much. Even if a woman feels they need one, they don't provide joy, excitement, recreation like a gun does. So laws are going to have to be different for each, in this case more restrictive for guns (which they seem to be). kj.

Quote
kj
I'm not sure what the measure of constraint of a right would be, but it seems to me that because they're different issues, you have to consider them differently. What works for the protection and definition of one right, doesn't necessarily work for another. At this point I would think there are more laws meant to limit gun ownership than there are laws limiting abortion, so if we were to equalize the number of laws we would probably add restrictions to abortion. That seems like an odd approach to me, no matter which "side" benefits.

I agree that there is no practical way to quantify the factors that go into trying to balance interests when deciding how much to constrain a right. Even trying to do so by counting the number of laws isn't useful because it isn't the number of laws but the impact of the laws on the ability to exercise a right (fewer laws could still be a lot more constraining because of the nature of their content). But in spite of that, I think we should strive to maintain a rough parity in the way different rights are constrained.

As to your assessment that gun rights are more constrained than abortion rights, I just don't see that. Certainly if we are to look at current state and federal legislation attempts, there are a whole slew of laws being passed, and Republicans are trying to pass, to further restrict abortion rights at the same time that they are working at passing quite a few laws making it easier to carry a concealed weapon, for example. Based on that legislative activity, I would say that abortion rights are much more besieged than gun rights.

I suspect kj has less concern about various attempts to restrict abortion rights than he has about any - seemingly non-existant - attempt to restrict gun rights.

Quote
RgrF
I suspect kj has less concern about various attempts to restrict abortion rights than he has about any - seemingly non-existant - attempt to restrict gun rights.

Yeah, something like that. kj.

Quote
Ted King

Quote
kj
I'm not sure what the measure of constraint of a right would be, but it seems to me that because they're different issues, you have to consider them differently. What works for the protection and definition of one right, doesn't necessarily work for another. At this point I would think there are more laws meant to limit gun ownership than there are laws limiting abortion, so if we were to equalize the number of laws we would probably add restrictions to abortion. That seems like an odd approach to me, no matter which "side" benefits.

I agree that there is no practical way to quantify the factors that go into trying to balance interests when deciding how much to constrain a right. Even trying to do so by counting the number of laws isn't useful because it isn't the number of laws but the impact of the laws on the ability to exercise a right (fewer laws could still be a lot more constraining because of the nature of their content). But in spite of that, I think we should strive to maintain a rough parity in the way different rights are constrained.

As to your assessment that gun rights are more constrained than abortion rights, I just don't see that. Certainly if we are to look at current state and federal legislation attempts, there are a whole slew of laws being passed, and Republicans are trying to pass, to further restrict abortion rights at the same time that they are working at passing quite a few laws making it easier to carry a concealed weapon, for example. Based on that legislative activity, I would say that abortion rights are much more besieged than gun rights.

Besieged maybe, but I don't know how many existing laws there are restricting abortion. Are there really any? kj.

Quote
kj
I don't know how many existing laws there are restricting abortion. Are there really any? kj.

Is that intended to be sarcasm?

Quote
Chakravartin

Quote
kj
I don't know how many existing laws there are restricting abortion. Are there really any? kj.

Is that intended to be sarcasm?

I guess I'm aware that there have been quite a number passed by some states, but the lists of the ones considered to "push the boundaries" don't seem that outrageous to me. Some even require physicians to provide abortions (so they regulate, but but they don't down-regulate). As far as I can tell, there are many thousands of laws meant to regulate gun ownership. I'd be surprised if the attempt to regulate abortion comes even close. kj.

Well kj, you are unabashedly anti-abortion choice so it might be understandable if you failed to notice that no state in the Union has forced gun sellers into a single location (see North Dakota and Mississippi). The only location in the entire state where one could obtain a legal gun.

I could expand on this but that would hardly matter since you seem to have less concept of equivalency than awareness of what goes on around you.

Quote
RgrF
Well kj, you are unabashedly anti-abortion choice so it might be understandable if you failed to notice that no state in the Union has forced gun sellers into a single location (see North Dakota and Mississippi). The only location in the entire state where one could obtain a legal gun.

I could expand on this but that would hardly matter since you seem to have less concept of equivalency than awareness of what goes on around you.

That's a reasonable point. Guns are just plain more difficult to regulate, but that's not for lack of trying. I have been talking about laws that attempt to restrict, if you look back. So how many laws will it take to reach parity as far as the true level of restriction for both? Since there are many thousands already on the books, I'm not sure any number of laws will suffice. It's a complex question, and no rog, I'm not sure I buy into the parity thing. Really, why should there be parity? What if it isn't possible to reach parity? As far as anti-choice goes, I think good choices are awesome. I'm really, really pro-good choice. Abortion is a bad choice. I'm not pro bad choice. kj.

You still don't get my point.

KJ

Quote
I guess I'm aware that there have been quite a number passed by some states, but the lists of the ones considered to "push the boundaries" don't seem that outrageous to me.

RgrF

Quote
you failed to notice that no state in the Union has forced gun sellers into a single location (see North Dakota and Mississippi). The only location in the entire state where one could obtain a legal gun.

You instead came back with how much more difficult gun control is as opposed to abortion control - a complete non-sequitur.

The point again kj is; if states can regulate health facilities to the point of there being only one, they can also regulate gun shops to only one.

If you want to argue a point or position, you should start reading for content and argue the actual point.

>>if states can regulate health facilities to the point of there being only one, they can also regulate gun shops to only one.

I don't think they could if they wanted to. And I don't think they should. I think these are the issues, rather than deciding arbitrarily that all rights have to be restricted in exactly the same way. It sounds like some sort of bizarre "fairness" thing. Like "Jimmy got a cookie, so sara has to get one too". These are complex issues. You can't necessarily treat them the same way. And if you could, why would you want to?

In short, I don't think owning an assault rifle is unethical, but I do think abortion is. Why would I think they should be regulated in the same way? It's not fair that they get their guns, and I can't have my abortion? kj.