(no subject)

[weswilson]

Comments

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

well played. +1

[weswilson]

I'll see your troll and raise you one goblin.

[rose-cat.livejournal.com]

Nice.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

If men could get pregnant, abortion clinics would be like gun stores.

[rose-cat.livejournal.com]

Yep.

[atheistkathleen.livejournal.com]

i saw this on facebook and like half the people commenting didn't understand what it was getting at

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Probably because it's a ridiculous comparison on a few levels.

[atheistkathleen.livejournal.com]

? it doesn't seem ridiculous at all to me

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Now a serious response:

1) What if the gun bill did not "close" all those gun stores, but rather shut them down temporarily until they, say, moved all the guns behind the counter, kept the ammunition locked away, and installed a computer to help with background checks? Because that's effectively what the Texas bill does.

2) What if the right to bear arms was as explicit as the right to an abortion? Namely, that the right to bear arms was created as a form of the right to privacy, or in the other direction, that a right to an abortion was an amendment in the Constitution. To assume that abortion = guns in terms of rights ignores the continuing debate on the logic and intellectual legitimacy of Roe v. Wade, many of who agree with keeping abortion legal and think the Court made a poor leap.

Terrible comparison is terrible.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

1) You believe that Perry and such Republicans are genuinely interested in only providing for safer abortions rather than to elimination abortion?

2) Even law that you disagree with is still the law.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You believe that Perry and such Republicans are genuinely interested in only providing for safer abortions rather than to elimination abortion?

I think if they were looking to eliminate abortion, they'd actually do it as opposed to promoting a bill that allows it for the first 20 weeks.

I also care more about what the bill says, not necessarily what the proponents believe it does or want it to do. If legislation accomplished a wishlist simply based on what people believe...

Even law that you disagree with is still the law.

Okay...

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

1) If you make those restrictions a bit more cost prohibitive to the point where the gun store was forced to either break the law or close, then we'll be a bit closer to a legit comparison here.

2) Simply because the image mentioned "2nd amendment" doesn't mean it was making a comparison or a case for or against any rights. Whether or not abortion is mentioned in the Constitution is irrelevant as the example doesn't make owning a weapon illegal. This is about limiting access by enacting unreasonable regulations. In many cases, limiting access is tantamount to a ban for a percentage of the population unable to make the trek across the state for whatever reason.

While the comparison is not perfect, it doesn't have to be. It's taking one sacred cow and replacing it with another to hopefully make the opposition think. I think you know that and were just being pedantic to pad your argument.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If you make those restrictions a bit more cost prohibitive to the point where the gun store was forced to either break the law or close, then we'll be a bit closer to a legit comparison here.

Assuming the comparison is legit to begin with, of course.

It then raises the question, however, about what makes abortion so special that basic points of medical safety don't apply, even though the same people trying to block that are in the front of the regulatory agenda to begin with. (Not to say either side is especially consistent on the matter, but one is clearly further off than the other). Even the PA grand jury that indicted Gosnell felt that the pushback against oversight led to that situation.

Simply because the image mentioned "2nd amendment" doesn't mean it was making a comparison or a case for or against any rights.

The idea behind the image is to create a false equivalence, as if the two rights should be compared in a way to create some sort of cognitive dissonance between those who hold both anti-abortion and pro-gun positions. Even a cursory look at the positions in question falsifies the attempt, but it's not stopping people from using it.

This is about limiting access by enacting unreasonable regulations.

Perhaps. But it also assumes, again, that the rights are equal. They're not.

It's taking one sacred cow and replacing it with another to hopefully make the opposition think. I think you know that and were just being pedantic to pad your argument.

If you want to make the opposition think, a better way to do so would involve actually making a comparison that holds up to even basic logic or scrutiny. This is instead a silly FB/Tumblr meme designed for limited thought and self-congratulatory backpatting by abortion advocates.

[rabidsamfan.livejournal.com]

You do understand that the attacks on abortion and birth control aren't about abortion and birth control, yes? They're attacks on the rulings that uphold a right to privacy. If Griswold gets overturned, it will essentially say that "yes, the government has a right to intrude on your every decision, no matter how personal, even in the privacy of your own home." They arguments are just wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.

[mzflux.livejournal.com]

Excellent.

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

That's a great idea if you're into supporting monopolies, oligopolies, or the black market.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

black market abortions, they are the safest in town!

/snark

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

No, it's perfectly patriotic. (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/3763159.html?thread=85205463#t85205463)

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Two Three Four problems:

1. There are bound to be some low-income people who are too far away to get to any one of these stores. So there's a social equity issue here (unless of course, you're okay with the idea of only the middle- and upper classes being able to hunt, target shoot, etc).

2. It creates a monopoly.

3. This only affects law-abiding citizens, given that something like 90% of gun crimes are committed with stolen guns.

4. Violates the Commerce clause and the Tenth Amendment: currently, only local governments in some states at least can dictate how many of a certain type of business is allowed in a given area (usually, they only do this with sexually-oriented businesses or things considered a general nuisance like junk yards).

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

It's satire. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/texas-abortion-bill_n_3488965.html)

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Perfectly fine by me.
Follows the "Good For The Goose, Good For The Gander" principle. Nothing more American than that.

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

Social Darwinism then, right?