Posted on 02/13/2013 10:32:35 PM PST by New Jersey Realist
In the wake of the Newtown murders, many on the left have, predictably, been calling for new controls on arms ownership. What's of interest to me is the apparent irony of their position, especially when it's accompanied by a kind of contemptuous disbelief that anyone would take gun rights seriously as a matter of principle.
Here's what I mean: Many of the most ardent exponents of abortion rights will take pains to clarify that they are not "pro-abortion"; rather, they are "pro-choice." The distinction, of course, is meant to signal that, although they themselves find abortion morally distasteful, they have a principled objection to depriving a woman of the "choice" to abort her baby. In other words, they are willing to tolerate the possibility that abortion rights will sometimes be misused -- whether as a form of birth control, gender-selection, or any other number of ways -- because they believe the evil of restricting the right to no-questions-asked abortion is even greater.
Given all that, it's remarkable that ardent lefty "pro-choicers" seem either unwilling or unable to understand the position of those who support gun rights, notwithstanding their awareness that some deranged, evil people will misuse them. Certainly, they can disagree with the moral calculus of gun-rights advocates, but surely at least some of those who demonize the National Rifle Association are enthusiastic supporters of the National Abortion Rights Action League or Planned Parenthood. People like President Obama spring to mind.
Finally, though I support abortion rights in cases where rape, incest or life of the mother is implicated, I'd point out that, except in the latter instance, the primary purpose of an abortion is always to end an innocent life (one that, except in the cases above, has been created -- even if accidentally -- through a consensual act). Guns, by contrast, often protect and defend innocent life.
So I'm not really sure by what right pro-choice liberals claim the moral high ground in demanding gun control.
Ms. Liebau adds this comment:
And -- to pile irony on irony -- there's an actual, textual guarantee of gun rights in the Second Amendment, while abortion rights are grounded in the "right to privacy," which has itself been "rooted" in the First Amendment, or the Fourth, or the Fifth, or the Ninth, or the first part of the Fourteenth or (my personal favorite!) in the penumbras formed by the emanations of various constitutional guarantees.
Carol Platt Liebau is an author and commentator based near Manhattan.
She has served as a guest radio talk show host for the nationally-syndicated “Hugh Hewitt Show,” for KABC in Los Angeles, and on 97.1 FM Talk in St. Louis. Her book, “Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America, Too!)” was released by Hachette Book Group (formerly Time Warner Books) in November of 2007. She has contributed to the editorial pages of papers including The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Times, The Orange County Register, The Sacramento Bee and The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Carol is a 1989 graduate of Princeton University, where she served as Editorial Chairman of The Daily Princetonian, and Harvard Law School, where she graduated in 1992 as the first female managing editor of The Harvard Law Review.
Carol has been a law clerk for Reagan appointee Judge David B. Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, legislative assistant to Senator Christopher “Kit” Bond of Missouri, and a consultant to the 1994 Senate campaign of John D. Ashcroft. After leaving Washington, D.C. she practiced law and served as Policy Advisor and Counsel to Rep. Tom Campbell’s 2000 U.S. Senate campaign against Senator Dianne Feinstein. She lives outside Manhattan with her husband, their five-year-old twins, and a highly opinionated West Highland Terrier. You can follow her on Twitter at @CPLiebau.
I think this is the way to go at these crazy gun grabbers - take away their abortion rights!
“. . .though I support abortion rights in cases where rape, incest or. . .”
Why?
If you can justify this ridiculous position do the research. It does not support it. See what these women are saying.
We better be careful with this argument. A counter argument is that abortions should only be performed by licensed trained people. Then the argument can be made the guns should only be owned by licensed trained people.
No, because the implication then is that *the mother* must be trained/licensed/educated before she can have the abortion. How well do you think requiring a permit to have an abortion would go over with that bunch?
The right cannot win Roe/Wade at the federal level. It must be won at the state level, then with a 2/3 states vote, it can be overturned.
I know of the 4th Amendment and the implications of a right to privacy, but in a day and age where my airspace is violated by surveillance drones, and every electronic transaction I make and communication I engage in is subject to summary analysis, where even vehicles contain the means to monitor my location, heading, and velocity without my knowledge or consent and without the issuance of a warrant stating probable cause, it seems odd at best that the Government goes to such lengths to protect the illegitimate fraction of a right it goes to great lengths to violate on every other front.
My answer to babies conceived as a result of rape or incest is this: they are the one inarguably innocent party to the crime leading to their existence, in no wise can they be found at fault. Yet they receive capital punishment for the deeds of someone else. Sorry, but it's pretty tough to argue they should be killed to me. Give them up for adoption in extremis.
Take that logic to the so-called "dream act". What makes the unborn have a right to life, should that make the child of an illegal able to achieve citizenship?
Life can be had anywhere physically suitable on the planet.
It seems there are a lot of people on both sides who are not honest with their beliefs in order to be taken seriously, but those pretenses are falling;
-The left really does want to ban and confiscate all guns in civilian possession.
-The right really does want to overturn Roe-v-Wade
I think it will be a much more healthy and productive conversation if we stop hiding our real beliefs and intentions and have an honest discussion of the issues on their merits instead of just trying to get along.
Truer words were never spoken. Rape babies are truly the innocent ones. Abortion being used as a birth control method totally disgusts me.
You are correct and I am convinced that, until our nation ends the curse of abortion, it will never again be the good and prosperous nation it was meant to be.
My daughter 14 was “raped” by a 19 year old. In the following weeks after the pregnancy was determined, abortion was considered by some very scared people. I stood my ground in saying I thought that was just wrong.
Today that granddaughter, while inconvenient at times, is one of the brightest lights in my life. I mean she is really exceptional in intelligence, and a happy smiling character compared to most two year olds.
I just can’t imagine if...
Kudos on your (grand?) baby.
However, the left does in fact want to disarm the private citizen. Read more deeply and you will discover all of the gun laws are but incremental steps leading inexorably and intentionally toward complete disarmament of the general populas. This is a vital step in the creation of a totalitarian state.
The left clearly isn’t honest with us regarding their true intentions with gun control. I even think the left has even deceived themselves with their “reasonable gun control” rhetoric. Ineffective laws like those proposed with “assault weapons” only makes more gun control and bans inevitable when they fail.
But I do know of one “Ban” that will save 3000 lives a day; Ban Abortion!!!
No need. Roe was actually a decision that established a
“right to privacy” between a doctor and patient, which has been used as the justification of making it illegal for the government to get between a doctor and patient.
Obamacare eliminates that established “right to privacy” and as a result any “procedure” can be deemed unfundable at any given time. In addition, the administration affirmed their desired removal of that privacy when they issued executive orders that will require doctors to ask about gun ownership and then report the answers to the gov.
The useful idiots are more than happy that their Dear Leader has overturned Roe with the stroke of a pen.
Interesting! The rats outfoxed themselves.
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.