On Guns and Abortion

Academically, the "slippery slope" argument is considered a logical fallacy; it’s the unsubstantiated belief that one action will inevitably lead to a worst-case conclusion. In politics - which is seldom logical - the "slippery slope" is used with wedge issues, trumpeting the undeniable disaster that will follow any compromise on a matter of morality. It’s used to inflame and manipulate voters, to encourage distrust and the fear of mutual concession.

So let’s turn down the flame and apply some common sense to two such topics - gun rights and abortion rights. First, the guns.

The Second Amendment, in its awkwardly worded entirety: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The ultimate question - is this right conferred to the people, or to the state? - has never been resolved by our highest court, despite recent efforts to force their hand: "The Supreme Court passed up a chance…to rule on the Bush administration’s assertion that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear firearms." (NewsMax.com, 6/11/2002)

In the absence of such judicial clarity - and accepting that the Supreme Court has generally upheld federal gun laws - the issue of private gun ownership could be effectively addressed by the United States Congress. One reasonable approach might look something like this:

Consider firearms as the rough equivalent of a motor vehicle. Both require a degree of maturity and skill for proper operation. Both face concerns over safety and lawful application, since both are potentially deadly weapons. Both have restrictive provisions for their use (such as age, criminal background, drug abuse, etc.). Using the template of a driver’s license, we could explore federal legislation on firearms that would involve a test-based license - one for simple ownership, with a more extensive test for a concealed-carry permit. These exams - uniform, and nationally administered - would encompass knowledge of gun safety, gun laws, and a shooting-range assessment of minimal skill levels.

An effort at such legislation would no doubt be attacked from both sides. Advocates of gun rights would claim that such testing is an abridgement of the Second Amendment; that the tests would not be devised or administered fairly; that the licensing records would be used as a ‘national registry’ for eventual gun seizure by a restrictive federal government. Gun control supporters would reject any law that endorses private gun ownership, even if its intent is to ensure responsible gun ownership; they would insist that such an action would see a soaring rate of handgun deaths.

And, perhaps, that’s our cue: The merits of such a compromise might indeed be measured by the volume of the outrage from both extremes.

Philosophically, the debate regarding abortion is more complex than that of gun ownership. The basic question, however, is pretty straight-forward: At what point, if any, do the rights of a fetus supercede a woman’s rights?

There are three basic categories within the anti-abortion population. The first group opposes abortion under any circumstances. They believe that life begins at conception, and the right to life of a fetus takes precedence over all other concerns - including the life of the woman. Their beliefs, and efforts, are aimed at making abortion illegal, period. Within this group - a small percentage, one hopes - are those who find it heroic to murder doctors who perform abortions.

The second group opposes abortion in all cases, except when the woman’s life is endangered. This is a quantum leap from the first tier, since the rights conferred to the fetus have become negotiable. One may disagree with the position, but at least it shows an attempt to rationally reconcile conflicting values. The third group - those who would allow abortion in cases of rape or incest - have staked out a bizarre corner in the debate. Their moral interest is not in the fetus itself; instead, they would use pregnancy as a punishment for willful sex - a woman is only eligible for an abortion if she didn’t consent to the act. Those that support abortion in these cases are - from their logic - inflicting the death penalty on the fetus itself, as if it were a guilty party to the means of its own conception.

The flip side of the argument, succinctly stated by Judith Jarvis Thompson ("A Defense of Abortion," Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1971): "…nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments…for nine months, in order to keep a person alive."

Even in the face of such a emotional issue, surely there is some common ground to at least begin a discussion. If, to the pro-lifers, abortion is the ultimate evil, shouldn’t their efforts - concurrent with encouraging anti-abortion legislation - also entail broadening birth control knowledge and availability? Even if they find this morally distasteful, surely it is a minor sin when weighed against its greater good - the minimizing of abortions. In addition, to be true to their values, they should be supporting scientific efforts to expand contraceptive reliability.

Surely, to the pro-choice faction, there is leeway on the question of the "Intrauterine Cranial Decompression" procedure (termed, by the pro-lifers, "partial birth abortion"). Allowing for certain exceptions - when the woman’s life is endangered, or when the fetus suffers from serious genetic defects - couldn’t an agreement be reached that, at some point late in the pregnancy, the woman has sacrificed the right to "abortion-on-demand?" After all, every "right" - including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms - has its legal limits.

Those on the extreme edges of both these controversies will find all attempts at compromise unacceptable. For the rest of us - living in an increasingly polarized America - finding common ground on such divisive issues may be the key to our survival. There is a limit on how much damage a foreign terrorist can inflict on this nation. Unfortunately, there is no such limit on the damage we can do to ourselves.

The 2nd is clear except for idiots who have only lived in the cave of socialist plato and do not understand the word ownership.

It simply means that the state can lose control of itself and lose legitimacy and reasonable ownership of itself, becoming insane, tyranical and what not.

Thus the only way to prevent such an anarchic state to riot against the people is for the people to have the means to organize a militia to control the riot and put the state in time out during its temporary insanity, and rebuild it from scratch.

In order for such militia to be able to be put together, individuals and corporations of individuals can arm themselves in reserve of such event.

Of course liberals do not understand a clear sentence, much like the insane is incapable of understanding sanity, simply because the insane cannot have a personal situational awareness that corroborates with the words, or, rather, the words as corroborative evidence to what they know.

In other words, the liberal idiot does not see that texts are not meant to tell you something off hand, but it is the heart that is to tell you what to do, through the living and the action being read, as opposed to words processed. Words on a text are to the heart, just like professional government is to the militia, they are only a corroborative and back up help.

Well, duh!!!

And as far as abortion goes, well, anyone should be against the loss of governance and property of any genetic make up. Doing otherwise is genocide and obvious support of assuaging words on devil text before the heart.

Using the template of a driver’s license, we could explore federal legislation on firearms that would involve a test-based license - one for simple ownership, with a more extensive test for a concealed-carry permit. These exams - uniform, and nationally administered - would encompass knowledge of gun safety, gun laws, and a shooting-range assessment of minimal skill levels.

Let's stop for a second. I'm not even going to get into the constitutional issue and the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is protected and that the Federal government is explicitly prohibited from interfering with that right by the 2nd amendment, and the states are similarly prohibited from interfering with that right by the 14th amendment.

Ignoring that, there is no "ownership license" for automobiles. Anybody can own an automobile. There is no test required. You just buy a new or used car from a dealer or a used car from an individual. If you have the money to pay for it, you can purchase the car. There is no background check. There is no license. There is no "proficiency test."

If you buy a car and you want to drive it around your own private property, no license is required. You don't have to have a drivers licesne. You don't need to have a tag on the car. You don't have to register the car.

Registration, licensing, and taxation only happens if you want to drive the car on public roads.

By the "let's treat guns like cars" logic, I should be able to buy any gun without a background check, just like I can buy any car without a background check. If I own 40 acres and I want to go deer hunting, or just plink some tin cans on my own property with my gun, I shouldn't need an "operators license," just like I don't need a drivers license to drive my old heap (untagged, unregistered car) down to the end of the driveway to pick up the mail from my mail box. The same goes for someone who just wants to keep a gun in the house for home protection. No license is required to keep an old "spare car" in the garage.

Cutter's arguments fail on several points.

First, licensing of drivers really doesn't make safe drivers. Licensing is another way for the state to make money and provide employment to more members of the bureaucracy. There are plenty of people who have licenses and are still bad drivers. People become good drivers by making efforts to improve their skills beyond what is necessary for a license and by practicing over time. Those who make those efforts and exercise basic caution and courtesy are usually pretty safe people with whom to share the road. Those who don't make these efforts are a constant moving hazard. While a license is needed to drive legally, many people who don't have licenses still drive when they need to drive. They may lack a license because they are bad drivers, but they aren't bad drivers because they lack a license.

Would licensing all gun owners make the presence of guns in our society any safer? No, and the example of driving is the best explanation of why licensing gun owners is silly. If we licensed gun owners, we'd still have people who have licenses and act irresponsibly. They'd still have occasional accidents and kill innocent people. They'd still kill in a moment of passion occasionally. Some would still kill in cold blood either for the sake of killing or as part of the commission of some other crime. Nothing would change in terms of the impact of firearms on our society. The only difference would be that we would have to build another bureaucracy to spend taxpayer and gun owner money in order to administer the licenses.

I realize that those who think that government restrictions, regulation, or intrusion can improve every problem will not understand this reality. They will see my example and still refuse to believe that licenses won't make the situation any better. They will still insist that we should pay to build a huge new bureaucracy because we must "do something" about a problem. In reality, our only problems are that 1) too many people hold the delusion that some government action or series of actions can eliminate tragedy as a fact of life; 2) there has been a breakdown of the family over the past generation that has left more young people without the self-control to curb their passions and wrong intentions. Problem youth have always existed, but the demise of the family has created more; 3) people vastly overrate the risk of firearm misuse because the media exaggerate every firearm incident.

Bill

Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. You cannot compare the two.

I don't know where this assertion started, but it is nonsense. The Founding Fathers supported the idea of federally-maintained roads primarily for delivering the mail, but they recognized that these roads would have value to the country by encouraging commerce. They clearly intended for everyone to be able to use these roads to go about his or her business. They intended that the roads would be available for foot traffic, horseback, or wagons. If you'd suggested to one of them that walking on the post roads was a right but that riding a horse was a privilege, most would have laughed at you. Those who wouldn't have laughed at you would have shot you as an advocate of return to the British system of lords versus commoners.

Bill

On abortion, Cutter also fails to say anything worthwhile. His argument that pro-lifers should support greater efforts at contraception is just more liberal prattle. The liberals always want to argue for more contraception as a way of preventing pregnancies. What they fail to realize is that for many people, both abortion and contraception are wrong. The "big sin/little sin" is just an attempt to marginalize these people's right to argue exactly what they believe. I disagree completely with the argument that artificial contraception is wrong, but if someone holds the belief that both abortion and contraception are wrong, he has the right to make that argument.

The evidence is not conclusive and may not even suggest that more government-sponsored education about contraception lowers the rate of unwanted pregnancies. This issue is a little similar to the driving issue. The government can burn millions of dollars in "education," but ultimately, the rate of unwanted pregnancy will be determined by people's willingness to make responsible decisions. People who are responsible will find the information without needing a government education program around contraception. Those who aren't responsible won't act on what they learn no matter how many hours they spend in these classes.

I'm a member of what Cutter calls the "third group" of abortion opponents. I believe that when a woman is pregnant as a result of rape, neither she nor her doctor should be prosecuted for aborting the baby. While the baby's death is tragic, I don't believe in forcing her to give a year of her life to carrying the baby when she wasn't the one responsible for its existance. Instead, I believe that when a rape results in pregnancy, the rapist's sentence should be extended to punish him for creating the situation regardless of the choice made by the victim. I used to have two fairly long articles about this issue on my website, but the $&%*%%$^*% at Yahoo disconnected my site (apparently because someone hacked it and posted dirty pictures).

Bill

The author does not understand the right to life or those who defend it.

Each of us has the right not to be killed by the arbitrary "choice" of another. The right to life justifies acting in self defense and calling on the government (which is a collection of "us") to protect us when we are in immediate and clear danger from others who would kill us. In every other case of self defense, the law requires at least some evidence to prove endangerment that will stand up in court. Those of us who believe that a woman has the right to protect her life when she is at risk of dying due to her pregnancy do not question or negotiate on the child's right to life. Rights are not negotiable, they can only be infringed or enforced. While most of us agree that the woman has the right to remove the child from her body if there is no other way to save her life, we would prefer live birth when it will allow the woman to protect her life, while the pro-abortion crowd seems to accept nothing less than the right to a dead child.

The pro-human rights advocates who accept abortion in the case of rape and incest do so either out of tradition or see the pregnancy as a continuing assault on the woman and the abortion as self defense. However, many of us do not accept abortion in this case, since the woman is not actually in danger of losing her life and see no reason to punish the child by the death penalty for his or her father's infringement of his or her mother's right to liberty.

While pregnancy is definitely a special case that is hardly analogous to any other situation, it is a fact that parents are required by law to sacrifice their liberty and property for the benefit of their children, at the risk of being charged with negligence if they don't. There's no justification for allowing parents to "choose" to kill a child - either before or after birth.

... shows that driving is a right."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Join the list of those who believe their pet cause is a "right" -- a "right" to affordable healthcare, a "right" to do drugs, a "right" to wear blue hair to school, on and on.

No, you don't have a "right" to drive a 3000 pound car at 70 MPH. If you can demonstrate that you can, you'll get a license to drive. No different than airplane pilots, boat captains, doctors, etc.

Unless, of course, they have "rights" also and they don't need a license either. Is that what you're proposing?

The well established reasoning regarding self defense can accurately be applied to the issues of abortion and 'rights', so long as the applier doesn't commit the fallacy this article author makes, namely an either or ... the right to end a pregnancy for reasons of self-defense ought not be misconstrued to create a right to a death in the family, a death of the newest, most innocent family member. If that reasonable perspective is applied, then terminating a pregnancy in cases of rape, incest, and imminent threat to the mother's survival doesn't create an automatic cancellation of the right to life for the little one on life support ... the physician already acknowledges she is treating two individual alive humans, not just the one giving life support.

Consider firearms as the rough equivalent of a motor vehicle.

Somehow or other, I don't think that the Founding Fathers ever envisioned using horses, carriages or even horseless carriages (yes, there were some who proposed such things, but they weren't technologically feasible) to overthrow a tyrannical government. Guns ARE different, which is why they are the only technological device that is specifically mentioned as being protected by the Constitution against infringement.

Also, as mentioned by others, you don't need a license to operate a car on your own private property. At least the same should apply to guns.

While the Founding Fathers didn't know that cars would exist, the extension of the principles on which they built this country shows that driving is a right. Furthermore, the first time eminent domain is used to procure land for a road, driving becomes a right. The first time that taxes are used for a road, driving becomes a right.

There is simply no principled argument for the assertion that driving is a privilege.
Bill
28 WFTR

________________________________________

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Join the list of those who believe their pet cause is a "right"
No, you don't have a "right" to drive a 3000 pound car at 70 MPH. If you can demonstrate that you can, you'll get a license to drive. No different than airplane pilots, boat captains, doctors, etc.
Unless, of course, they have "rights" also and they don't need a license either. Is that what you're proposing?
34 paulsen

____________________________________

Well said Bill. -- And you now have a fine example of an unprincipled argument from one of FR's most divisive statist's.

The 'States Rights' crowd here has no concept of reasonable regulation under our due process of Constitutional law.
-- To them the almighty State can prohibit any activity, outlaw any type of property, -- if the majority wills it to be so.

Very strange & anti-constitutional stance to be advocating on a site dedicated to restoration of our free republic.

Unless, of course, they have "rights" also and they don't need a license either. Is that what you're proposing?

I'm proposing that you learn a little about the Constitution. The arguments that I made are based on our country's history and the intent of those who gave us our current form of government.

I believe that I have a right to drive a car on roads built and paid for with taxes. That doesn't mean that I have a right to have someone else buy the car or gas that I use. The cost of the car and gas are dictated largely by the market, and I'm not arguing that I have a right to have the government dictate to the market what I should pay.

The same principle applies to healthcare. I have a right to the healthcare that I can afford in a free or relatively free market. I can and do advocate that some policies be enacted to control certain aspects of the market. For instance, the cost of medical malpractice is inflating the cost of healthcare. I advocate tort reform that will bring these costs back under some control so that healthcare will be more affordable. I do not advocate that doctors should be slaves of society and forced to provide people with care at a cost that doesn't compensate doctors for the efforts they made to become doctors or the work that they do as doctors.

I believe that drug use is a wrong and that it is wrong enough to warrant punishment. I don't think that there's a right to use recreational drugs.

Minors don't have the same rights as adults, so there isn't a specific right to wear blue hair to school. On the other hand, blue hair is not what's wrong with our schools. It may be a symptom, but it's not a cause. I guess you just joined the list of people who believe that their pet cause should be a law that is forced on everyone else. People who believe that their pet causes should be laws are a big part of the reason that the laws that we truly need are so hard to pass. No one trusts the government when it is seen as a vehicle to force everyone to follow some group's pet causes.

Bill

Congratulations! Five paragraphs and no answer to my question.

Let me try again. Are you suggesting that we also not license doctors, dentists, private & commercial airline pilots, truckers, bus drivers, boat captains, etc.?

Of course, if you wish to maintain the licensing of a certain group, I am going to ask where you get the constitutional authority to do so since, given your condescending remark, it is obvious that you know so much more about that document than I.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.