Abortion Rights vs. Gun Rights

Bob S. has challenged me. I don't think for a minute I'm up to the task of going head to head with him on something like this, but I'll give it a try.

The incredible story from Florida about the live-birth abortion is being used by Bob to illustrate my faulty ideas about guns. Basically, if you haven't read about the gruesome story, an 18-year-old paid $1,200 for an abortion. The doctor was late; she had a live birth at 23 weeks. The clinic staff stuffed the gasping premature baby in a plastic bag with the placenta and disposed of it like so much medical waste. The latest news is that the doctor, who eventually showed up, lost his medical license for falsifying records and trying to cover up the incident.

Here's Bob's comment on a post about guns.

Mike,

Let's combine two meme's here.

You say that the misuse of firearms by some is a reason to reduce the availability, correct?

Would that apply to other activities/actions? If people misuse/abuse them, then actions should be taken to reduce the availability of activity?

How about abortion and this case from Buffalo News

http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html

Fla. doctor investigated in badly botched abortion
By CHRISTINE ARMARIO
Associated Press Writer

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

Had the abortion clinic not be so easily available, an infant would be still alive today possibly.

Now I am not arguing for the banning of abortion. Just trying to apply your logic to the problem.

Even those who support abortion rights are concerned about the allegations.

"It really disturbed me," said Joanne Sterner, president of the Broward County chapter of the National Organization for Women, after reviewing the administrative complaint against Renelique. "I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics.


Isn't this the same with firearms...there are people out there who misuse firearms, responsible people would like to keep them from being used in illegal manners....but what can effectively be done to control free will?

At first I tried to beg off, calling this a ridiculous comparison. What prompted Bob's comment was, what I thought to be an extremely witty toungue-in-cheek post of mine comparing guns to cars. That's another comparison Bob likes to make.

My attempt to extricate myself from this mess of silly comparisons was met with this.

Please explain in simple terms and words why the comparison is invalid because obviously I, and many others, disagree.

Please explain why the comparison between the misuse - criminal deeds--in the abortion case and the misuse--criminal deeds-- of firearms isn't appropriate.

I think you are running from the issue.

I'll challenge you again. Take my argument apart point by point and show my how it is wrong.

Give you a break Mike? How about giving us a break from your repeated calls to disarm us?

From your repeated calls to impose restrictions and costs you aren't willing to bear on any other right...such as abortion.

Show me how I'm wrong instead of simply telling me it is what you "feel".

You are completely entitled to your opinion...but you are calling for changes in society, in my ability to enjoy a sport, in my ability to protect my family. Shouldn't that call for change require more song lyrics:

Feelings, nothing more than feelings,


(Now that was a light hearted attempt at humor )

Compared are the right of a woman to have an abortion and the right of any person to own a gun. Compared are the horror that happened in the clinic in Florida with the gun violence that takes place in America. I call those ridiculous and absurd comparisons; let's see if I can explain why.

Bob said, "You say that the misuse of firearms by some is a reason to reduce the availability, correct?" I answer, "correct."

Bob said, "Please explain in simple terms and words why the comparison is invalid because obviously I, and many others, disagree." I say, "here's how."

You cannot compare the right to bear arms to the right to have an abortion. They're both "rights," so to speak, but they're too different from one another. The 2nd Amendment was written in another time and place, and for totally different reasons than the ones that exist today. The authors were the same guys who owned slaves and denied women and others basic human rights. So, that argument means nothing to me; that's just my opinion. Furthermore the need to carry a gun to protect yourself and your family, I believe in most cases is totally exaggerated and the result of fear, insecurity and grandiosity; again that's just my opinion. Access to abortion, on the other hand, is a basic human right for women. Wherever it's denied, an injustice occurs because we all, women and men, must have sovereignty over our own bodies. Religion should stay out of politics; politics should stay out of women's bodies.

The downside of these rights being upheld is that every once in a while you have an awful story like the one in Florida, but every day in practically every major city you have gun violence. The misuse of guns is an epidemic; it's not an occasional odd incident. If you gun owners have to be inconvenienced in order to limit the availability of weapons to the criminals, I say that's a good thing. I've never said there should be a total ban, even though I'm continually accused of having said it. I'm only talking about major restrictions sufficient to curtail the flow of guns into the underworld.

So, I don't believe in these types of comparisons. I don't think they work, not guns and abortion, not guns and cars, not even guns and knives. Each situation is unique and needs to be examined on its own without resorting to facile comparisons that don't make sense.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

The Incredible ex-Vice-President Dick Cheney

Politico.com published a fascinating interview with the ex-Vice-President the other day in which he staunchly defended the Bush administration policies many believe he orchestrated. Liberal feedback has been furious, mainly concerning his continued attempts at utilizing fear tactics.

On Crooks and Liars I found the following post: Rachel Maddow Show: Glenn Greenwald on Cheney's Fear Mongering. In the video, Greenwald makes a neat parallel between what the Bush Administration apologists keep saying, that he (Bush) kept us safe since 9/11, and the fact that Clinton "kept us safe" for years after the first World Trade Center attack.



On Opinione I found this post: Cheney terrorized Americans more than the terrorists ever did. The video is Keith Olbermann doing his thing, which I sometimes find to be a bit much, but with which I agree totally.

Dr. Death - Hero or Villain?

The Miami Herald reports on Jack Kevorkian, who spoke in Davie about a movement that is gaining momentum nationally.

"You have every right in the world to have assisted suicide," he told an audience of 2,600 Thursday night at Nova Southeastern University in Davie.

"I can only get people to think," said Kevorkian, 80, paroled in June 2007 on the condition that he not assist in any more deaths. "That's all I've done."

"I've never considered myself a criminal," said Kevorkian, who was sent to jail in 1999 after lethally injecting a man who had Lou Gehrig's disease and showing the video on the television program 60 Minutes. He had taken part in up to 130 suicides and, in his interview Thursday, said he would have "done it the same way" if he had to do it over again.

Although public opinion is gradually moving towards acceptance, according to the article in the Miami Herald, there continues to be criticism of Kevorkian's methods even among proponents of doctor-assisted suicide. He was personally present at each of the 130 assisted suicides he conducted, administering the medications himself. States where it has been implemented do not allow this.

"He was killing people," said Peg Sandeen, director of Death With Dignity, which advocates nationally for assisted-suicide legalization. "He illustrated some of the significant problems that can happen when this is not regulated."

What's your opinion? Is assisted suicide of terminally ill patients contrary to the mission of a medical practitioner? Does prohibiting people from doing this violate their rights?

Please tell us your opinion.

Growing Up

No one describes growing up in New Jersey in the 70s like the Boss. (rare video courtesy of Paulrob2006)

Those Crazy Czech Sex Offenders

CNN reports on the situation in the Czech Republic.

The Czech Republic's practice of surgically castrating convicted sex offenders is "invasive, irreversible and mutilating" and should stop immediately, the Council of Europe's Anti-Torture Committee said in a report made public Thursday.

The Council of Europe condemned the practice as "degrading."

The procedure is being performed even on first-time, non-violent offenders, such as exhibitionists, its investigation revealed.

It only takes a quick dance through the internet or a minimal familiarity with the conservative mindset to see that this barbarism will receive wide support. All the law-and-order types and the personal-responsibility folks will be quick to point out the efficacy a policy like this. All the vengeance seekers and the eye-for-an-eye characters will applaud this insanity. The Czech government is doing it, after all.

It argues the procedure is effective in reducing repeat offenses.

I wonder if that's true. Putting aside for a moment the questions of privacy and torture, of human rights, does it really work?

But the Council of Europe questioned the statistics on repeat offenses and said even if they were correct, castration was not an appropriate way to reduce recidivism.

"The committee's delegation came across three cases in which sex offenders had committed serious sex-related crimes, including serial rape and attempted murder, after they had been surgically castrated," the human-rights group said.

Studies, which I'm sure are just a click or two away, have suggested that rape is not about sexual attraction in many cases, but about power and violence. It's about subjugating another person and violating them. I suppose the theory is that the drive to harm others in this way does not come from the same testosterone that promotes the sexual urge. Of course, if this is true, then the Czech policy is all the more barbaric. What do you think?

But, what about gelded horses? Isn't that practice done to promote docility? Wouldn't the same thing work on humans?

And what does this say about the power of deterrence? I can't imagine how the would-be rapist who knows that the penalty could be castration, can go ahead and rape. To me this proves that deterrence does not work. The reason it doesn't work, as I've said before, is that criminals plan on getting away with their crimes, they don't plan on getting caught. Sometimes this is a calculated, well-thought-out criminal plan, while other times it's pure delusion. The result is always the same. Deterrence fails to inhibit criminals.

What's your opinion?

Opinione: The deafening silence of the press in America

Over on Opinione I discovered a terrific critique of the what's happened in Iraq and continues to happen and how it happened: The deafening silence of the press in America.

One of the reasons President Bush and his boss Dick Cheney were able to launch the war in Iraq in 2003, was due to the relative silence of the American press and the lack of investigative journalism into the conflict of interest of two former oil industry executives desire to go to war in Iraq.

I thought it was quite witty to call Cheney Bush's boss, but before the sentence was out, we have a serious inference. Could the fact that these guys had been in the oil business have had something to do with it? And, as il grande principe asks, why wasn't the press more vocal about that?

The results have been tragic for many and very profitable for a few. Some believe the American casualties, dead and wounded, are over 100,000 and the Iraqi numbers over 1,000,000. The profits for politically favored military contractors have been incalculable.

The relative silence of the US press to make an issue of the recent nomination and approval of former defense company lobbyists William Lynn and Michele Flournoy for high-level Department of Defense positions is another example of the diminishing power of the press in America. Similar to the conflict of interest that Dick Cheney had in granting a non competitive defense contract to a company he had been the president of, the recent Congressional approval of former lobbyists in the Pentagon also presents a conflict of interest for the Pentagon and the new Obama administration.

Is this something that can be blamed on the press? Or is this just the way business is done in Washington D.C.? Do you think these appointments, and others like them, will derail the Obama administration into being another train wreck like its predecessor?

What's your opinion?

If Guns Were Cars

I usually avoid these absurd comparisons because, well, they're absurd. They're like comparing apples with oranges, as the saying goes. However, in an attempt to comply with the wishes of the commenters who continually make these comparisons (especially you Bob), and who never miss an opportunity to accuse me of avoiding answering (that's you Weer'd), I've decided to give it a go.

So let's talk about cars.

Let's imagine there's a serious movement afoot to ban them. I'm talking about total ban. Those spearheading the movement are nothing less than fanatical in their untiring attempts to win support. Everyone knows how dangerous cars are. They pollute the environment; they're stolen from their lawful owners and used in crimes. All too often they're involved in deadly accidents on the highway, about which everyone understands the cars are not at fault, but as the banners love to say, "No cars, no accidents". Then, you've got the problem of law abiding car owners driving drunk or otherwise intoxicated. Again, this should not be blamed on the car, but since people are people, and even though the vast majority of car owners are responsible, you've always got that certain percentage who gives a bad name to the rest. Ban 'em all, says the Movement.

Fighting tooth and nail against the Movement is a more vocal minority who insist banning cars is not acceptable. These car enthusiasts feel eliminating cars would not address the problem. People would still use horses and bicycles for transportation, so you would still have accidents. They frequently refer to 19th century news articles in which horse-drawn carriages came thundering down upon an intersection only to crash into another vehicle or trample pedestrians. What about all the safety and convenience cars provide? We need them to protect our families, they cry. They will hear nothing of punishing the majority of lawful car owners for the sins of a small minority, even if those sins result in untold violence and bloodshed. Above all, the car lovers shout, it is their Constitutional right to possess cars. The Founding Fathers certainly would have specified so had cars existed at the time. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can hardly be achieved without cars, they say.

The interminable debate rages on, car apologists, despite their smaller numbers, are maintaining a clear lead.

One voice from among the Movement to Ban Cars suggests that since the actual existence of cars hangs in the balance, and since these opposing philosophies represent all-or-nothing positions, it is reasonable to say that as long as car enthusiasts continue winning the battle, they must assume responsibility for the problems resulting from their victory. Since cooperating with the Movement would so completely eradicate the problems (no one really believes in that nonsense about horse-drawn carriages causing serious accidents or the fact that defensive car use outweighs offensive), then car lovers are responsible, if not directly, certainly indirectly for those problems.

Does that make my position no guns clearer?