ridding your body of an accidentally acquired zygote is not.

been screwed. When you purchase gun you're not the one getting screwed.

I know that makes for a good bumper sticker but conflating the two doesn't really make sense.

/people should have reasonable access to both without unnecessary restrictions. IMO.

I oppose some restrictive gun laws for the same reason I oppose restrictions on abortion.

Ie: what the government may not prevent you from doing.

But that again is pretty broad.

I just don't think there's any reason to muddy the conversation by mixing the two debates.

What could get more contentious than a discussion about both guns and abortion?

I guess we could add obesity and smoking, breast feeding in public, circumcision, beans in chili, etc.

should be as sacrosanct as their right to get their children either aborted or circumcised (but not both).

I won't get in to the beans/chili thing. That's too inflammatory...

Beans optional, but served only on the side. If you want them mixed in with the meat and sauce, you can do that yourself.

Have at you sir!

Contrary to what many fellow Texans will argue that's the original recipe (it's peasant food, poor people didn't have a lot of meat back in the day, but they did have plenty of beans).

*obvious exception being chili on hotdogs. Putting beans in chili-dogs is treason.

I no longer put ketchup on hotdogs, ever.

that's like . . . ketchup on a steak.

It's a free country and all but my god. Some things push that notion to the breaking point.

/tried my first proper "chicago dog" recently. It was . . . really good actually.

And several kinds of pickled peppers.

ETA I was born in Kansas City. The Chicago influence is strong throughout the Midwest.

Why should one be more difficult than the other?

The right to own guns is protected by the 2nd amendment. The right to an abortion is protected by the 14th.

This is why I am asking the question.

Abortions should have fewer restrictions.

Guns should not have more.

The two debates are separate.

Adding or removing restrictions on one has no bearing on restrictions applied to the other.

I see it this way...

If you want to freely go and buy a gun, then I should be able to freely get an abortion.

You don't want unreasonable restrictions. I don't want unreasonable restrictions.

But yet, my right to have an abortion is more restricted here in this state than it is to buy a gun. I'm saying it should not be that way.

Of course they are not the same, but your right as a gun owner are more important than my rights over my body. Does that make more sense?

Maybe you should consider moving to California.

but yes, I should be free to get a gun if I choose and you should be free to get an abortion if you choose.

Of course they are not the same, but your right as a gun owner are more important than my rights over my body. Does that make more sense?

I don't view one as greater than the other and I don't think that one should be more restrictive than the other. I do think reasonable people can come to decisions about both without usurping one's rights.

I'm curious as to how the RW would answer the question. That's where I'd like to direct the question. Would they be able to come to the same conclusion, you think?

but you probably won't find their opinions on here.

So . . . you're saying abortions should be nearly impossible to get and only allowed after extensive psych evaluations, background checks, and special fees?

Oh and limit people to some "reasonable" number of abortions in a given period of time.

Those are all restrictions you've asked for on guns.

Really?

The intention of my OP is to get people to think about personal rights. Should getting a gun be as difficult as getting an abortion? Should I have to watch horrific gun shot wounds? Should I have to witness a shooting? Should the provider of weapons have just as tight restrictions as do abortion providers?

Getting an abortion is much more difficult than getting a gun. I can go buy a gun at Walmart and bring it home today. A hand-gun...a 3 day wait after a background check.

Abortion...much harder for both patient and provider.

That is the situation the person I responded to wishes.

By agreeing that guns and abortion should be equally available that means he would see abortions nearly impossible to acquire (since that's his stance on guns).

Don't make more out of it than it is.

your slogan makes it seem like it's ok to restrict abortion rights. that's ass backward.

I know it's not realistic these days. Guess I was hoping for someone to think about it on those terms.

...customers should be forced to look at pictures of mangled dead bodies of gang bangers laying in puddles of blood in the street. Or at least be forced to look at sonograms of the shredded internal organs destroyed by a bullet.

I'm not sure I follow you.

That was my point.

I can get a gun here in TN much easier than I can get an abortion. Should it be that way?

I thought it was a "forward looking statement" as they say. And you're right, it is pretty ironic that you can buy a gun easier than you can have access to health care. Priorities, my friend. Priorities.

In California, buying a gun requires more than twice the paperwork that it does in other states, extra fees, a background check, and a 10-day wait. You have to provide, in addition to a state-issued ID, two additional documents to prove residence in the state. ETA you must also either purchase a trigger lock or prove that you own a state-approved gun storage device. You have to demonstrate that you know how to unload the gun that you are buying.

For handguns there is a "safety certificate" that requires payment of a fee and completing a test. If you are a convicted felon, have been discharged from the military involuntarily, adjudicated as mentally incompetent, are in the country illegally, etc. you can forget about buying a gun here.

A woman can walk into a clinic and get an abortion in one day. There is no residency requirement, waiting period, or background check. There are no conditions other than being underage that can disqualify a woman from having an abortion.

So all those assholes don't get to high and mighty. After all, since there is no medical reason for transvaginal ultrasound for women other than humiliation, why not use it for everything.

instead of infringing on rights that we are free to exercise to protest against limitations on other rights how about we just focus on removing those restrictions?

It depends on the state laws and the type of gun, but in many states there is background checks and waiting periods, etc.. You want to tell a woman that wants an abortion that she has to first go through background checks and a waiting period?

I think I understand your point though that the right to bear arms seems to be more protected than the right to get an abortion. That's partly because guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion on the other hand is only interpreted to be there through a Supreme Court interpretation. Women's reproductive rights were not an issue of debate during Colonial America when they wrote this document.

2/3rds of both Houses, and 3/4th of the states would have to agree in order to make abortion officially a constitutional right beyond Supreme Court interpretation.

Women have to undergo counseling, waiting periods, and so on. They want to force women to have ultrasounds. They've tried transvaginal ultrasounds on women who did not want them. That's not to mention the burdens placed on providers as well which makes it nearly impossible for a clinic to operate.

The right to an abortion may not be mentioned specifically, but it is still protected by the 14th amendment. It's a right to privacy. Keep in mind that plenty of other rights are not specifically mentioned, but are still protected by the constitution. They were not an issue or even existed when the constitution was written.

We don't need an amendment for something that's already protected by the constitution and I certainly don't need schooled on it.

In my state, I can go buy a rifle and bring it home easily. I can buy a handgun, go through a waiting period and have it in no time.

An abortion...no. They make it a hell of a lot harder than getting a gun. And yes, it IS more protected than my reproductive rights.