Election 2014

'Why can't I have a gun and get an abortion?'

|

Obama and Boehner
White House

In a Los Angeles Times piece about how disappointment with the economy, distrust of government, and distaste for President Obama drives many Iowa voters to favor Republican candidates this year, and many others to sit out the election, a great summary of the lousy choices posed by the two major parties comes from the mouth of an Iowa City waitress.

"Why can't I have a gun and get an abortion?" asks Heather Molyneux, who won't be voting in the midterms, not out of lack of interest in the issues, but revulsion at the Republicans and Democrats. "Really, they're both so extreme," she says of the two political parties that have made themselves the quasi-official either-or choices for most Americans for generations.

Pundits like to echo that second sentiment, arguing that "moderation" and "common sense" policies will bring Americans together and solve the nation's problems. But what these calls for centrism usually amount to is mashing together the authoritarian tendencies of the left and the right on which newspaper columnists agree so that we can have have both gun control and high taxes. Moderation, to them, means a big, bossy government that avoids the extremism of leaving people alone.

But Heather Molyneux wonderfully captures the opposite sentiment. To her—and to many Americans—extremism means the tendencies of Republicans and Democrats to lard their policy positions with authoritarian presumption. People, she adds, should "make their own choices."

That's a moderation we should all be able to get behind.

NEXT: Why more liberal cities have less affordable housing

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why don’t you use the gun to kill the baby right after it’s born? It’s a twofer!

    1. That takes too long. Buy the gun and just shoot yourself through the abdomen.

      Alternate: That takes too long. The kid will graduate college before you can get through the red tape to get a gun.

  2. Of course you bury the lede that “Heather” was just Stefan in drag.

    1. Hey! I’m friends with Stefan Molyneux!

      Well, “Facebook Friends”, anyway. Never actually listened to his show…

      1. @ cavalier973. If you can get over the “Dr. Spock”, and the creepy, culty “DeFoo” thing his show is pretty good. His narration of Albert Jay Nocks “Our Enemy The State” is what got me interested in Anarchism, and Libertarian philosophy. I listen to his show from time to time.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBiFbSHN5zI

    2. “Stefan in drag”

      Yo! I’m trying to enjoy my lunch!

  3. How are the Republicans actually extreme about abortion? They cannot ban it. At most they can maybe ban elective late term abortions and not require people to pay for it. There are a lot of good arguments against the Republicans. Most of them however relate to their lack of backbone and love of spending moeny and giving to their cronies. I am not really seeing how “they are so extreme on abortion” is one of them or why I should take someone who takes that as the best argument against them seriously.

    1. because Republicans are always extreme – duh

      1. It is funny, I can’t think of a single issue they could rightly be described as “extreme” on. Even on the all important and defining civil rights issue of the last 150 years, gay marriage, the Republicans would sign off on civil unions in a minute. So I am not seeing how agreeing to civil unions makes you extreme on the issue.

        God knows the Republicans are not extreme on any economic issues. We could only hope they would be. Fat chance though.

        1. They’re extreme about wanting to enlarge the size of government.

          1. Unfortunately, libertarians are the ones who are “extreme” on the size of government. Not a dig on libertarians, more of a dig on the population in general.

        2. Sorry but separate but equal (civil unions) is extreme. You equate the GOPs lip service to some issue as moderation.

          Actually the issue for you John is that you are pone of those with extreme positions so they do not seem that way to you.
          Look at the GOP and the Dems in 1960 versus today, if you do you will see that their political positions have done a 180

          1. Look at the GOP and the Dems in 1960 versus today, if you do you will see that their political positions have done a 180

            They have? I suppose maybe you could make that argument for the Dems who went from over a century as the party of the Klan, to one of their guys signing the CRA ’64 (after they lead the longest filibuster in history to kill it).

            But the Republicans? They’re suddenly in favor of segregation?

            Uhhh, yeah, no.

            1. “Look at the GOP and the Dems in 1960 versus today, if you do you will see that their political positions have done a 180”

              This comment doesn’t seem to match up well with reality.

              1. To be specific, here are highlights from the Republican party platform of 1960:

                “Foreign Policy – The Republican Party asserts that the sovereign purpose of our foreign policy is to secure the free institutions of our nation against every peril, to hearten and fortify the love of freedom everywhere in the world, and to achieve a just peace for all of anxious humanity. ”

                “National Defense – The future of freedom depends heavily upon America’s military might and that of her allies.”

                “Economic Growth and Business – To provide the means to a better life for individual Americans and to strengthen the forces of freedom in the world, we count on the proved productivity of our free economy. ”

                “Labor – America’s growth cannot be compartmentalized. Labor and management cannot prosper without each other. ”

                “Natural Resources – A strong and growing economy requires vigorous and persistent attention to wise conservation and sound development of all our resources.”

                “Government Finance – To build a better America with broad national purposes such as high employment, vigorous and steady economic growth, and a dependable currency, responsible management of our federal finances is essential”

                Etc. ….

                http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25839

                I’d guess that if you circulated this as the current Republican platform, most people wouldn’t notice the difference. Though, the comments about Atoms for Peace and Communism would probably stand out for the more astute reader.

                1. Are you high? the platform you cite includes pro-labor stances, and pro-environment stances. Both of these *have* shifted 180 degrees since 1960.

          2. “Sorry but separate but equal (civil unions) is extreme”

            How is that extreme? I have no problem with gay marriage but this is hardly an extreme position. Civil Unions can be implemented in a way that makes them legally equivalent to marriage. After that we are just arguing over how a word gets used. Even if you change the wording of the laws, you haven’t achieved anything that the civil union did not already cover. Also, the people who oppose gay marriage are still not going to consider gay marriage a legitimate marriage. Changing the definition of a word is a cultural hearts and minds issue. If anything we should take the word marriage out of legal definitions and give everyone civil unions.

            I fear we are close to the day when I gay couple could force a church to marry them. They can already force bakers to make wedding cakes.

      2. And Democrats aren’t?

        There a governor in CT that’s about ready to push the button on gun owners Wednsday. If he wins the election, he’s vindicated in his actions. If he loses the election, it’s to punish the gun owners for voting him out.

        The Second American Revolution is about to kick off thanks to Democrats.

        1. I look forward to it. Time to settle accounts with progressivekind.

        2. 5.Nov now. Election’s over. Maloy’s still governor in CT. So… where’s that revolution again? #bigtalk

    2. You know how blue states don’t technically ban guns, they just make so many regulations, licensing requirements, state approval schemes, taxes, mandatory waiting periods, and other disingenuous bullshit little laws to make it difficult to actually do so?

      That’s what Republicans do to abortion. And that is my single favorite metaphor for explaining to libs why “common sense” gun control policies are so vehemently argued against.

      1. Common sense laws; for when banning will get us lynched.

      2. An abortion is different than guns because you don’t own one. A blue state banning guns means I can’t go to another state and buy one and bring in legally. A red state regulating abortion just means you have to travel to a blue state to get one. That doesn’t exactly put in up there with Nelson Mandella on the opression scale.

        Moreover, even with the regulation, those states still have abortion clinics, just fewer of them. And lastly, the blue states are just as extreme in that they refuse to regulate them at all just that someone like Kermit Gosnell runs a butcher shop for years and no one notices.

        1. Even blue states have gun stores, just fewer of them. I live in Maryland, one of the worst, and there’s still severla gun stores within convenient driving distance.

          It did take me six months for the state (not NICS) background check scheme to clear. It’s amazing how pro-gun states never have these “normal” and “ordinary” delays.

          In both cases, we’re not talking about a total ban, just making it unreasonably bothersome, expensive, or difficult.

          1. Not all blue states are extreme on guns. Not every state is New Jersey and not every city is Chicago.

            Just because you favor some regulation doens’t make you extreme. It may make you wrong but it doesn’t make you extreme. I oppose all gun regulations but I wouldn’t describe every person who supports any regulation “extreme”.

            Your position boils down to anyone who wants to regulate abortion clinics at all is “extreme on the position”. And that is just idiotic.

            1. Not all red states are extreme on abortion. As for regulations, holy strawman, Batman – I’m not saying anyone who wants any kind of regulation whatsoever is an extremist.

              All I said was that, in the cases of both guns and abortion clinics, there are tons of little laws that are individually billed as “reasonable” “common sense” and “compromises” but, when taken together as a whole, form an unreasonably burdensome regulatory environment that makes it unreasonably difficult for a person to legally buy or sell a gun/have or perform an abortion.

              I find this metaphor useful because a lot of libs – at least the well-meaning ones rather than the malicious fucks who explicitly want this to be the case – think of these rules as being reasonable, and it helps to compare them to a concept they’re set against.

              1. Not all red states are extreme on abortion

                Which means Republicans, who run the Red states, are not in general “extreme on abortion”, which was exactly my point. The fact that some Republicans may be extreme on abortion doesn’t mean Republicans as a whole are. And you just admitted they are not.

                So we agree.

                1. Alright then, *that is what SOME Republicans do to abortion. I never said the entire party is “extreme on abortion.”

                  1. I will note the date and time – two members of the resonoid commentariate have agreed. film at 11, apocalypse soon to follow

                    1. “film at 11, apocalypse soon to follow”

                      women and minorities hit hardest.

                    2. But what about the millenials? That’s the real question on everyone’s minds…

                2. John, you’re conceding too much. You’re allowing aardvark to arbitrarily define “extreme” in a way that favors his/her/its side.

                  Wanting to ban all abortions is not an extreme position in the US population.

                  1. Wanting to ban all abortions is not an extreme position in the US population.

                    Oh yes it is. It is also a fringe position that we’re not going to see happen anytime soon thank God.

                    1. Just because you don’t know associate with people who believe something doesn’t make it extreme.

                    2. Abortion without limits is also an equally extreme positions as far as population is concerned, but that position is not normally characterized that way.

                    3. Yes, as many people revere and cherish the availability of unrestricted infanticide.

      3. Blue states DO ban guns, silly. Maybe not ALL guns, but they do ban entire categories of use. And unlike abortion, you can’t go to another state to get one.

        1. Merrill, don’t be silly. Everyone knows it only counts if it’s a total ban!

          1. So as long as they allow single shot flintlock muskets with 40″ barrels, they’re evaluated equally to states that require abortion clinics to meet minimal cleanliness requirements (not reusing needles, not having cockroaches on the operating table, etc). Got it.

            1. And if that were the extent of the regulation on abortion clinics, this wouldn’t be an issue at all.

            2. Isn’t this a libertarian discussion? As long as the cockroaches are in the prospectus (no fraud), then the outcome is between the doc and the patient. Abortion isn’t contagious – it’s not a significant public health concern.

              Gun ownership, now… there’s a gift that keeps on giving. I’d be fascinated to see what happens with gun safety if the liability shield were taken off the gun companies.

    3. Well, in a way they CAN ban it, given time. If the Pro-Choice activists don’t get on their game, and keep allowing screwups like the career of Kermit Gosnell to happen on their watch, then public opinion will turn against Abortion, and at some point it will be possible to pass a constitutional amendment banning the practice.

      I hope that doesn’t happen, though I am worried. That Gosnell was allowed to operate for so long, even after complaints had been made, is very bad. The self-righteous outrage over Parental Notification laws is another symptom that worries me. Abortions are not, say, heart bypass operations, but they aren’t risk free either. If some self-described Pro-Choice activists were to sneak an underage girl across a state line to avoid a Parental Notification law, and the girl died from complications (or, for that matter, just regretted getting an abortion) the damage would be huge.

      Pro-Choice spokespersons tend to act as if the matter had been decided by The Voice Of God, and no opposition was possible. They really need to get over it. There is going to be opposition, and some of it will be intelligent, or at least clever. If we want Abortion rights to be secure, we need to do a rather better job of policing our own.

      1. You must hate women … and children.

        1. No, but I do despise sloppy thinking.

      2. Gosnell wasn’t ‘allowed’ to operate. He was protected, by many of his peers, the state, and planned parenthood for years. Because it’s more important for them to sweep their dirt under the rug than face any ridicule because if his actions.

        Abortion advocates are happy to let these things continue as long as their infanticide continues unrestricted.

        1. I think you’re wrong about their motives. I think he was allowed to continue because it is fundamentally part of the Progressive mindset that Black people can’t be expected to measure up to mainstream standards. I think that is so ingrained that they never thought for one moment about demanding that he meet the standards that they would have expected of a White doctor.

          I’m sure that their belief that access to abortion should be easy had something to do with it, but I strongly suspect that the prime motivator was their systemic and appalling racism.

    4. Note that this is actually the state of affairs in much of “progressive” Europe: no late term abortions, limited funding, and counseling and medical exams for all abortions.

    5. Republicans are actually proponents of decreasing government spending, and they despise the ever-growing deficit that Democrats are kicking down the road for future generations to pay off or default on.

      1. Yeah, whatever… until they actually get rid of their warboners and work to close tax loopholes (which means their corporate interests can’t get those sweet breaks anymore), I’m calling BS on this one.

        1. You’re stereotyping the Republican Party, and what you’re saying isn’t true at all. Republican policies like Reaganomics actually did close tax loopholes and led to tremendous growth. Republicans also favor peace over war, and we only believe that our military force should be used when it is absolutely necessary. Corporate tax reductions should be passed with tax reductions for everyone.

      2. Republicans only want to decrease spending in programs that people associate with Democrats, thereby reducing the voter buying that Democrats can do via welfare programs. Republicans will fight reductions in military and defense spending tooth and nail.

        1. Republicans want to decrease welfare spending because the welfare system is a mess. Welfare should be a TEMPORARY safety net for a person while they are trying to get back on their feet. Welfare has become a way of life for many. People are not motivated to get off welfare if everything is being handed to them.

        2. *Republicans will fight reductions in military and defense spending tooth and nail.*

          How many times does it have to be pointed out to you people that:
          a) providing for the common defense is actually mandated to the fedgov in the CONSTITUTION, whereas propping up generations of welfare leeches most definitely isn’t.
          and
          b) the defense budget is miniscule compared to the massive and ever increasing ENTITLEMENT spending, which as previously mentioned, is not mentioned anywhere in the CONSTITUTION.

          1. I agree with the ideas behind your post. Defense is a Constitutional mandate. Welfare is not.

            On the other hand, this comment, undermines your point:

            “the defense budget is miniscule compared to the massive and ever increasing ENTITLEMENT spending”

            The US defense budget is not miniscule, even relative to other US government spending. It’s over 20% of the total budget.

            1. while we’re working on ‘miniscule’, let’s compare to the defense spending of any other nation on the planet. Then let’s do it per capita.

              The US defense complex is not justifiable as a mechanism for *defense*. Its only possible justification is imperial hegemony. Our national defense does not actually require the capacity to simultaneously obliterate any *two* opposing countries, in whatever theater – but that is the current minimum capability built into our national war machine budget calculations.

    6. How are the Republicans actually extreme about abortion?

      The fact that they can’t ban it doesn’t mean they can’t take extreme positions. Many of them would ban IUDs and Plan B, and force rape victims to carry to term if they could.

    7. If there’s one thing that the Obama presidency has taught us, and Republicans currently love to point it out, it’s that legal restrictions on presidents and congress don’t matter. So i would argue that those who are pro-abortion are right to fear what Republicans would do to abortion rights if given power. Well, most Republicans.

      1. I think your argument undermines itself. Republican’s had broad control of the government in 2001. They had the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. And yet, they didn’t enact any major restrictions on abortion.

  4. OT:

    Russian slide guitar blues. Song is called Mannerheim’ Street’ Blues” by Andrey Dobrovolskiy

  5. Seems to me like the GOP is more pro-abortion than the Democrats are pro-gun. Not that I’ve voted for either one since 1996.

  6. “Why can’t I have a gun and get an abortion?”

    Because that would be pro-choice, and pound for pound, the Democrats aren’t within a thousand miles of that.

    1. Freedom means gay sex and abortion. It doesn’t mean freedom to take what medications you wish, freedom to run your business as you wish, or the freedom to injest whatever substances you like for fun. Don’t you know that Paul?

      1. Freedom – Krugman Style

        1. Liberal Freedom; the freedom to act like a Liberal ?. of get re-educated.

          1. Conservative Freedom: The Freedom to act as conservatives tell you to ……..or get arrested and imprisoned

            1. I would disagree, but there’s a bigger point tto be made. Imprisonment is preferable to reeducation.

            2. “”Why can’t I have a gun and get an abortion?”

              propose we draft a new amendment saying women can have free abortions whenever with no mansplainers telling them what to do AND that women only can buy & own firearms ’cause womyn
              (who are all strong, intelligent, & beautiful but also defenseless, helpless victims) need guns to protect their bodies from the 200+ million American rapist prowling our local colleges and/or workplaces

              betcha we exceed 90 Democrat support before cerebral logic circuits immolate

  7. I would like to ask this chick why can’t she own a gun and also take responsibility for getting pregnant rather than just ducking it by whacking her unborn child. She might want to ask herself is there is perhaps more to the abortion issue than why can’t she do what she wants. You know like whether getting one involves taking someone else’ life. If it does, her question could just as easily be phrased as “why can’t I own a gun and use it to murder my wife so I don’t have to bother with a divorce?”.

    1. You ignore the difference between a Fetus and a human, open your bible it will explain to you that a fetus is not a human

      1. Which book is that? Jezebel?

        1. Jezebel 2:14

          And a child will be born unto you, unless ye decideth it not be considered a child, then it shall be a fetus. But if you do decideth it a child, the man better pay up or it beith a sin against all womankind and ye shall get him to pay for your birth control until the end of days.

        1. ahh, so it’s not a human it is a prophet to the nations.

          Fetus…prophet to the nations, same thing.

      2. A human fetus is a human. This is not a disputable point.

        1. But is it a “person”?

          #definitionsFTW

          1. Humans are normally defined as persons. Defining the unborn as not being persons is a utilitarian rationalization that would be unacceptable if applied to any other category,

          2. Define “person” and do it in such a way that excludes the unborn, but does not exclude any other category of human that are considered persons.

            1. Out of curiosity, what is your definition of a person in relation to individual rights? Why would human DNA and self-replicating cells have individual rights?

              Does a human body that doesn’t have a brain have all the rights that a person with a brain has? If a human body is kept alive without their own heart (e.g. a mechanical heart), is he/she a person? Does a human body that does not have a brain, but is nonetheless kept alive, still a person? If there is a brain in a human body, how much and what type of brain activity is necessary for that body to have rights? If a human brain is transplanted into a vat but still has contact with the world through technology, does it have individual rights? Does a dog have individual rights? If a dog successfully has a human brain transplanted into it, does it have individual rights?

              It’s a complex subject with lots of different possibilities and situations. The issue of gestation is just one problematic area.

              What’s fundamental to having individual rights is a functioning human brain. If an adult, for example, has a mechanical heart but is otherwise normal there is no ambiguity in realizing he qualifies for individual rights. If an adult does not have a functioning brain, then he does not qualify for individual rights. EEG measures brain activity, which has shown regular brain waves and activity starting consistently around week 25 in fetuses.

              1. I keep,waiting for the views of Thomas Aquinas to get broader dissemination. He held that the human soul did not exist until AFTER birth. He also held that that time was 40 DAYS after birth … for males. 90 days for females.

                Wouldn’t THAT piss off everybody on both sides?

  8. “take responsibility for getting pregnant”

    Abortion is a means of doing that.

    1. Sure it is, just like murdering my wife is taking responsibility for getting married.

      1. DERP. Your wife is obviously a person; can’t say the same for the unborn.

        1. Under ordinary circumstances, I would agree with this statement.

          But you’re an asshole.

          1. Principals over principles.

            1. bumper sticker slogans over buzzwords!

        2. Yes because you are such a retard there is no question you can’t beg. And no amount of sarcasm that won’t go over your head.

          Your thinking on here is like some bad DOS program wittern by a college student back in the 1980s. You have three or four prime directives and you engage in some crude reasoning from those and viola.

          1. Cool story bro. I guess it’s a bad idea to hold my breath waiting for evidence of pre-birth personhood?

            1. “Pre-birth”???

              Seriously?

              So, a fully-developed “fetus” that is 15 minutes away from being born is not a person? You mean that you really *do* belive in the “magic personhood sauce”?

              1. Well the Bible say so, or are you ignoring the old testament fore a newer re-write?

                1. Well the Bible say so…

                  You mean like in Genesis 25:21-22?

                  “21 Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord [a]answered him and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 But the children struggled together within her; and she said, ‘If it is so, why then am I this way?’ So she went to inquire of the Lord.”

                  The Hebrew word used, banim is the usual word for sons after birth.

          2. Look in the mirror you are calling outsoem for acting like dos when you are not even at punch card levels

            1. Punch cards are a data store. DOS is an operating system. Cards can be used with DOS. DOS and hollerith cards are not mutually exclusive, as you assume.

              Bad analogy.

          3. You mean a .bat program? I don’t see the analogy with a small # of prime directives.

        3. Well, you never met my ex!

        4. Personhood begins at conception.

    2. Shorter Cytotoxic/Stalin:

      “If a person has a problem, get rid of the person and the problem goes away by itself.”

      1. But it’s not a person.

        1. Neither, then, are you.

        2. “But it’s not a person.”

          I think Stalin would agree with you about un-persons.

  9. Why did the patriarchy force women to have uterus’?

    1. ‘Cuz Prez. BOOOOOSH!!!!!

    2. It’s “uterus“, not “uteryou“.

      1. But according to Government Almighty, it is neuter-you, that is their policy, to neuter you and neuter me too, to neuter ALL of us (except themselves; they and they alone deserve to have POWER)… So really, their policy is call neuter-us…

  10. “Why can’t I get gay-married ***AND*** make my own charity choices for my own friggin’ self?”
    “Why can’t I smoke pot ***AND*** also pick for myself, when and where to blow my own nose, w/o running afoul of the Interstate Commerce Clause, that says the feds can Lord it over ANYTHING that might, for example, affect the interstate commerce in booger rags”?
    “Why can’t I save money by seeing an un-licensed doctor, ***AND*** also make some money on the side, as an un-licensed interior decorator”?
    ? SOOOOOO many more questions out there, not being asked!!!!

  11. This is precisely what the Democrats want, of course. High-info voters saying “both parties are awful” even though the awfulness of the GOP is nowhere near as bad as that of the Dems. Also why Reason’s brainless “pox on both their houses” approach is effectively pro-Democrat and pro-Obama.

    1. ITT, butthurt Hit ‘n Runpublicans lash out at others over their party’s gross deficiencies. Conservatives are consistently the whiniest tribe by far.

      1. No flerking way.

        Later this week Reason is going to be squealing like stuck pigs over King Barry’s executive orders. Conservatives will be unhappy and angry, but at least we know we took action in the real world to try to stop him.

    2. Just like the GOP recruits the low information voters to defend them like you are doing

  12. Isn’t there a point at which it is, legally, considered a double homicide if one kills a pregnant woman? Perhaps, abortion should exist under the same metric.

    1. Nah, the mother owns the life of the embryo or something.

      Well, unless she drinks or takes drugs while she’s pregnant, then she’s guilty of child abuse.

      Not sure whether she’s guilty of attempted murder if she tries to commit suicide while pregnant.

  13. “Why are so many people focused on the economy and issues that affect their livelihood, and not abortion and second amendment?”

    1. Gun rights do affect my livelihood.

    2. I don’t know about you, but infringement on my 2nd amendment rights affects my livelihood.

      Hard to earn a living if one is murdered because he or she couldn’t employ self-defense.

      1. I have no intention of ever owning a gun and don’t foresee ever wanting an abortion, so neither of those issues is high on my priority list. Unless a candidate is truly extreme — “Ban ALL Guns!” or “Ban ALL forms of birth control!” — I pretty much tune out when those issues come up. And it annoys the hell out of me when a candidate campaigns almost exclusively on those issues.

        1. So you’d be OK with a candidate who banned everything but 40″ barrel single-shot muskets?

          1. If one person actually had the power to make that happen, maybe I’d care more. But if it’s just something they’d like to do that is not realistically ever going to happen … meh. I wouldn’t vote for that person, but it wouldn’t be because I’m freaked out that they might take people’s guns — it would be because only an idiot would propose something so clearly unconstitutional.

            1. Clearly? 4 justices on SCOTUS thought it was constitutional.

              And 6 will, after King Barry replaces Scalia and Thomas if Reason’s favorite “third party” candidates manage to keep the GOP from taking the Senate.

              1. FWIW, I’m planning to vote for Thom Tillis, so will be doing my part to help your cause. I don’t agree with his stance on abortion or gay marriage, but both are already legal, and I’ve been pretty happy with his record on economic issues, which have had a direct impact on me as a state employee. Also, having the two houses of Congress divided has been a disaster. I don’t think it will necessarily improve much with a (likely slim) Republican majority, but it certainly can’t be any worse than what we have now.

        2. Well the STFU until you have permission to speak! You see that is why reven the rights you do not use should be important to you, when you restrict or ban one you can do it to all!

  14. Ugly thought:

    If you are a rape victim, it’s likely that both parties will allow you both (yes ,there are exceptions. Don’t think they are in Iowa). If you are NOT a rape victim, I’m not pursuaded you exhibit the foresight I would like to see in an armed citizen. Don’t want to force you to have the kid, but don’t want you armed either.

    1. Oh for god’s sakes. There was never an occasion when you had sex and regretted it later?

      Hey, what about some young daredevil who takes a jump on his motorcycle and gets a spinal cord injury? Should he be on the No Gun list forever because of his lack of foresight?

      What about someone who got financially creamed on an IPO?

      I shudder at judgmental types like you.

      1. But this isn’t a case of just “Having sex”. It’s a case of having sex under conditions where conception is possible. It’s a question of not taking routine precautions. The same applies to the “young daredevil”; young men who think they are invincible don’t strike me as good candidates for weapon ownership.

        You shudder at judgmental types like me? I shudder at people like you who are devoid of judgement.

  15. I agree with gun rights, but I have serious trouble with accepting abortion. Killing a human before it has the chance to be born is just something that I feel is not right. I know that this article’s purpose extends beyond these two issues alone, how can a fetus’ death be justified?

    1. Glad to see I’m not alone.

    2. I see these comments are filled with social conservative “libertarians”.

      1. I support gay marriage, ending the War on Drugs, and be forcing people to say the Pledge. But abortion is the destruction of human life; it is indefensible from even the most secular point of view.

        Calling me a SC for being pro-life is like calling me an isolationist for being antiwar.

        1. *not forcing people to say the Pledge

    3. How can pulling the plug on a brain-dead patient be justified?

  16. Go ahead.

    Buy a gun and have an abortion.

    Just don’t ask anyone else to pay for either.

    1. AND…don’t force companies/individuals to sell you a gun or provide the abortion, or mandate that guns or abortions are available within a reasonable distance from the residence of every citizen.

  17. Can I get fries with my abortion and gun? Or, more preferably, some combination of pot, Mexicans, and ass sex?

    1. The fries will cost you extra.

  18. You can’t have an abortion, because that involves taking another human’s life. You can have a gun, because it is possible to have a gun without killing another person. It isn’t, however, possible to have an abortion without killing another person.

    I hope that cleared things up.

    1. Sorry, no, it doesn’t clear it up for me? If I have a pet orangutan / chimp / gorilla, and such critter has been raped by an invasive species, and the sonogram shows that the offspring is viable only for 3 days after birth, suffering horribly in excruciating pain for 3 days, AND my pet agrees to the procedure, are you STILL going to stand in my way? Or are humans sacred, and all others are dirt? Got a direct line to God? If so, is God telling you to murder abortion doctors? WHO appointed you to make these decisions? If I could transplant said such to-suffer-for-no-apparent-reasons clump of cells to the womb of YOU or YOUR wife, would you agree to take on such a burden? If NOT so, how many Down’s Syndrome children have you adopted lately, to relieve the “evil temptations” of those who already have such children, and want no more, cannot HANDLE any more? Or do you just like to stew in your self-righteousness?

      1. Pretty sure it’s illegal to own a monkey and allow it to be raped.

        1. I had MY monkey raped by an APE, and it felt pretty good to me! … “If it feels good, do it”, they told me in the ’60s, and, they have ALWAYS told me, “It’s legal as long as they don’t catch you for doing it!”

      2. 1. Nothing self-righteous about saying that it’s wrong to kill.
        2. Saying that I need to adopt a child before having an opinion is like saying that I need to serve in Iraq before being antiwar.
        3. I don’t have a wife, but yes, if I could take your child, I would.
        4. I didn’t mention God once.
        5. Killing rapists is anti-libertarian. So is killing the innocent human being conceived through rape.
        6. It’s remarkable how you have more sympathy for the people who end children’s lives than you do for those children whose lives have been ended.

    2. The whole point of the second amendment is to kill an out of control government. Your “god” doesn’t have a say over my rights in abortion or the 2nd amendment.

      1. I never mentioned God. It’s a scientific fact that life begins at conception. You do not have the right to kill an innocent human being.

  19. It’s sad to see Ms. Molyneaux, a member of a respected and honorable profession, should sink to the level of an intellectual with her foolish moral-equivalence remarks.

  20. “Why can’t I have a gun and get an abortion ?”

    J.D. I applaud you trolling skillz. =D

  21. Yet another potentially outrage making thought;

    Perhaps the reason you don’t get a candidate that supports the mix of positions you would like, instead of the standard is that not enough people like you were willing to get involved and mix it up during the Primary stage of the elections, or before?

    If you really want candidates that perfectly reflect your beliefs, then frigging GET INVOLVED.

    Note; maybe she is an involved person. Maybe this is grossly unfair. But if she is an active member of either party, and it was mentioned, I missed it.

  22. I mean really, are we going to continue to demonize people who think abortion is murder? Have people lost all empathy that they don’t care one bit about someone else’s opinion and why they might think in such a way? Hell, I don’t care but I have learned to hate the left and it’s complete hatred of anyone who dares have an opinion that is different.

    1. I think that in this case the Left is motivated by more than simple lack of empathy. IF the Pro-Life people are correct in their beliefs, then people who have abortions, and this who perform them, and child-murderers. Nobody sane wants to think of themselves that way. Further, if they really examined the abortion question the Left might have to confront the specter of eugenics than hangs about it lie the memory of a very old salami. They certainly don’t want to do that either. Nothing would bring about their mental collapse faster than admitting to themselves that they consider brown persons to be semi-civilized apes who cannot possibly be expected to live responsible lives.

      So abortion is one issue they will always overreact on. There are too many suppurating wounds under that bandage.

      1. You equate abortion to murder, and it’s pro-choice people that are overreacting? Really?!

        You social conservatives want raped women to have babies. If it’s murder as you say, then you would hold that position.

        1. Yes, why not? The innocent little baby with brainwaves, a heartbeat, and the ability to feel pain didn’t do anything to deserve a death sentence.

        2. Your reading comprehension needs work. I said IF. I’m in favor of legal abortion. But I don’t describe myself as Pro-Choice because I find most of the Pro-Choice spokespeople to be devoid of anything resembling sense.

          I said that IF the Pro-Life side is correct in their beliefs then abortion is murder, and that the Pro-Choice side REALLY doesn’t want to think about it, so they come up with exotic reasons why somebody could oppose abortion. Like you did.

          As for my remarks regarding eugenics; if the Pro-Choice people in PA had any brains they would have shut Gosnell down ? unless they simply didn’t give a fat damn about the poor women who went to him.

          Now, I think that Gosnell’s career is due more to stupidity on the part of the Pro-Choice establishment in PA than anything else. That seems to me to be a clear case of “We’ve won, we can relax” idiocy. But the odor is there.

          1. “Now, I think that Gosnell’s career is due more to stupidity on the part of the Pro-Choice establishment in PA than anything else. That seems to me to be a clear case of “We’ve won, we can relax” idiocy. But the odor is there”

            Is it enough to call it “stupidity”, if they knew about it and did nothing?

            1. They got the complaints, and every sector thought “Well, that’s so-and-so’s job, and I’m busy”, probably. Oh, there were inspections. I’m sure Gosnell knew about them in advance and had everything suspicious cleared away. The mentality was more “We have to keep the Other Side from shutting down clinics” than “we need to make sure all the clinics are safe” they ASSUMED the clinic were safe.

              I’m disinclined to attribute to conspiracy what is adequately explained by complacency. Hell, the complacency is bad enough. Couple it with the knee-jerk outrage at post-Gosnell regulation by anti-abortion Republicans, and I begin to fear that I will see abortion outlawed in my lifetime. When you hand the ball to the other side you don’t get to bitch when they score.

  23. ????? This offer only UK , USA, Canada, Australia, New Zeland persons first 50 registeration free can join us ?????

    What Matthew responded I’m shocked that a stay at home mom can earn $8529 in four weeks on the internet . pop over here.

    Registeration free can join us ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  24. I only read the headline, so I probably missed the whole point, but I still have an answer. Because guns don’t kill people but abortions do…

    1. I think that’s a fatheaded position. IF you believe in the Second Amendment AND that a fetus is human, then both guns and abortions are about killing. The question, then, is is the killing justified?

      I DON’T believe that a fetus is human. I DO however believe that people who take that position are human as opposed to, say, cartoon villains in some PC fictional world. but that cut both ways. I think that people who want abortion to be legal are people too, not cartoon bad-guys in a John Birch society comic book.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.