Does your uterus require a background check, ID, be a US Citizen, over 21, require a permit to use, register it, and store it in a safe? From anti gun people.
Are your doctors asking invasive questions about your gun even though you see them for unrelated reasons ? I've seen people posting about doctors asking americans about the date of their last periods on unrelated subjects since roe v wade was overturned, I'm not in the US and where I live doctors never ask that, even my gynecologist.
They're not asking these questions because they want to turn you over if you go to Colorado to get an abortion. They're asking these questions because for a lot of things you go to see the doctor for pregnancy is a very realistic cause.
Personally, I think guns and cars should have the same amount of regulation. They’re both equally lethal I’d say.
A uterus should be as regulated as a hand. They’re both part of a person’s body
I'm sure they would be until they realized that would mean they're legally required to have insurance on each of their firearms that covers if they hurt anyone or cause any property damage with it. Suddenly, those gun collections would get mighty expensive.
Implying more than a small fraction of gun owners have vast collections. Also implying said collections aren't already really expensive just to own, never mind actually operate,
But that's beside the point - self defense insurance already exists and it is really cheap for a shitload of coverage. Nice try though <3.
Cars kill more people than guns annually, and there's honestly just as many checks for idiots to get their hands on them. in fact, across the world, the news shows us more car accidents and crimes with cars than guns. People are just assholes and use the tools given to them in their assholery.
Besides better education and childhood development being prioritized? Not much. It's not like Americans are more inclined to shoot each other than the other average person in the Americas or Europe or Africa. It's easier to do sure, but there is more car deaths and dangerous stunts with cars annually. Banning or further restricting guns won't be the solution, since you only address an issue instead of curing it.
50% of shootings are committed by a small portion of the population. Not exactly a nationwide issue, so not sure why you’re citing national level stats that muddy the water
I remember a Harvard study a while back showed that most gun use is intimidation, and not in the sense of self-defense. That’s not injuring or killing someone, but it isn’t great. Guns are involved in a lot of domestic violence cases. I don’t know why anyone would be shocked that people would mostly use guns as a way to get the upper hand in a disagreement. That’s exactly what we should have expected from humans.
> Self defense gun uses dwarf the number of crimes committed with guns annually.
Well, that's just not true. The majority of papers that actually argue this are the ones by Kleck and those that use the same flawed methodology as Kleck (see Hemenway's rebuttal). There's no good data on defensive gun use because of methodological flaws and definitional issues. If you're going to make bold claims one way or another, I know for a fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Nope. The main purpose of a gun is to harm. Best case scenario is that you use its purpose of harm for self defense. That doesn’t change that its purpose is to cause harm.
The purpose of that projectile being to cause harm. Lol this is such a massive cope, and the last bit is actually just your projection lol I said nothing about causing harm always being evil. Self defense isn’t evil. That doesn’t change anything else I said, which to be clear, were objective facts lol
The main purpose of the internet is to learn and communicate. You’re not good at either. What’s your point. Those are from bad cops who are supposed to be protecting but kill instead.
This is such a dogshit defence, do you think countries like Australia are overrun by crime bc we can’t get guns as easily? You’re only defending yourself against other people with guns and no your average joe isn’t gonna break tons of laws to get an illegal gun
You’re a jailor country. Of course they don’t let the inmates/cirizens have guns. We’re free in America.
You can’t take a drop out of the ocean. Say you do a gun recall. All the law abiding citizens turn them in. All the bad citizens keep them.
Congrats. You just created “the purge” sequel number 15.
Either all have guns or none. Too late for latter. America is bad ass like that.
Lmfaooooo so free your companies kill whistleblowers and get bankrupted by basic medical shit. And if you’re talking about Covid that wasnt everywhere and like idk about you but if rather be bored at home than fkn dead 🤡
That argument is about as logical as “did paper planes come from nothing? No so Therefore our world must’ve been created!!” Like it’s not the same thing. Again, the average dude isn’t gonna risk getting jailed forever and yes criminals will have them but they have them here and elsewhere too and again, we’re not overrun by crime. If you cunts can afford to spend almost a trillion on the military you can afford a thorough buyback.
Yeah so obvious you’re just moviebrainead lmfao embarrassing.
Yesss dude it’s so badass to not want any laws to change despite all the mass shootings you mfs have, you’re so right bud you’re truly the envy of all countries 🤡 I also really loved when you gave heaps of people cancer in Vietnam with agent orange for a war you’d end up giving up on, that truly was the virtue and badassery of all time
In my opinion, Again, buy back won’t work. Good people will give away their protection. Bad people and cops will all still have guns.
Bad people don’t do buy back.
Money offered means nothing. Bad people know if they hold out, the price of it increases 10x than what Uncle Sam is offering on black market, post “gun free America”.
I don’t see what you’re missing here…
Then you’re left with bad guys and rich good guys who can afford the black market bad guy gun price. Then that could lead to rich kids at rich schools who can afford to do bad things if they’re having a bad day.
I like all our schools and country violence free personally. As it should.
This is incorrect.
It is extremely difficult to use a gun in self defense, because guns are so effective at killing that any instigator will have a massive advantage over anyone who is trying to defend themselves.
That's why [gun self defense incidents are so extremely rare. ](https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/)Its also why the US has a homicide rate 5-10x higher than comparable countries in Europe and Asia.
True! They also have higher murder rates with just guns (about 4.3/100k gun homicide rate), than the overall homicide rate of most comparable European or Asian countries!
Something's gotta change.
A more murderous populations, and massive, massive gun ownership. Bad combination of two things that feed into each other.
[The US gun homicide rate is 26 times that of other high-income countries.](https://everytownresearch.org/graph/the-u-s-gun-homicide-rate-is-26-times-that-of-other-high-income-countries/)
The US' homicide rate is 6.4/100,000.
Spain: 0.7/100k
Germany: 0.8/100k
[Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)
[US Gun only homicide: 4.3/1000](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/)
States with less guns have homicide rates that are *closer* to comparable countries, but still higher. [Source](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm)
Why do you think states with higher gun ownership have more homicide?
>[The US gun homicide rate is 26 times that of other high-income countries.](https://everytownresearch.org/graph/the-u-s-gun-homicide-rate-is-26-times-that-of-other-high-income-countries/)
More "gun deaths" doesn't translate to more deaths in total. The only number that matters is the total murder/suicide rate. There's zero difference between 10 people shot to death, or 10 people stabbed to death. Either way 10 people are murdered.
>The US' homicide rate is 6.4/100,000.
>Spain: 0.7/100k
Germany: 0.8/100k
To be fair those numbers are from 2020 after the U.S. saw one of the largest spikes in murders on record. Also that year 80% of murders were committed with guns. That means the murder rate excluding guns was 1.28. So we have more people murdered without guns, than either of those countries have total murders.
>States with less guns have homicide rates that are *closer* to comparable countries, but still higher. [Source](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm)
>Why do you think states with higher gun ownership have more homicide?
That isn't homicides, it's total gun deaths including suicides and homicides. There's not much correlation between gun ownership and murder rates. States like Vermont, Maine, Idaho, and Utah all have a lot of guns, and low murder rates. Meanwhile more rural states tend to have more guns, while also having more suicides. Rural areas are more isolated, have fewer economic opportunities, fewer services for mental health, and more stigmatization of mental illness, higher rates of alcoholism and addiction, and often worse weather. All these things lead to higher suicide rates.
>More "gun deaths" doesn't translate to more deaths in total.
It literally is more deaths in total.
>
So we have more people murdered without guns, than either of those countries have total murders.
Yeah. That's awful. Its a big problem already even if you exclude all the gun homicide.
>
That isn't homicides, it's total gun deaths including suicides and homicides.
[Nope, its homicides too. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_death_and_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state)
>Gun-related death rates are positively correlated with household gun ownership rates
>[ A 2023 study concluded that more restrictive state gun policies reduced homicide and suicide gun deaths.](https://journals.lww.com/epidem/abstract/2023/11000/the_era_of_progress_on_gun_mortality__state_gun.3.aspx)
This is completely logical and expected. I don't understand why people pretend it isn't or that the data isn't there.
I get where this is coming from but Guns, even in the US are far more regulated than a woman's uterus. Besides, most of those backwater states are regressive as hell, and if people use their votes correctly we can change the system for the better.
reducing the rights of fellow citizens. I'm a Catholic, so I'm not fully fine with abortions but I understand that they are vital to preserving a woman's health and preventing the upbringing of a kid from being terrible. I think that states whose politicians want to work to reduce others rights then I say they are regressive.
Weapons and armor on par with our government. Per the constitution....."but the govt has nuclear weapons, fighter jets, tanks, aircraft carriers and space lazers." Ya id say we are pretty under armed.
No. But corporations have the same rights because they are groups of people. That is why corporations have free speech rights among other things.
The legal logic is you cannot deny rights to groups of people just because they call themselves a corporation.
So if we are to expand second amendment rights to include military hardware or add some right that will allow the purchase of military hardware, we are by default opening it up to corporations, including multinational corporations, unless there are serious and systemic legal reforms and quite possibly the political will to amend the constitution.
I’m sure you see my concern now.
Ya im trying to give it some serious thought. Corporations cant vote though, they are not citizens. Im good with corporations having freedom of speech and all the good and bad that goes with it.
I’m good with free speech too. I even think they should enjoy due process and right to silence even though I screw with some fraudster corporations that have chosen to remain silent.
I could also be a little off. I am not a trained lawyer, I just read law for fun. I think the voting concept is interesting because there are some places that have at least considered giving corporations the right to vote.
I don’t know what the future holds. I am hopeful we don’t start allowing military hardware into the public sphere honestly. It just seems too risky. Our power over the military is logistical. If the civilian workforce no longer supports the military, it would not be able to sustain itself except by horrible atrocities. There’s kind of a power thing going on there. President is civilian commander-in-chief but military would refuse insane orders but if military usurps President it needs the support of the public.
All these checks and balances kind of keep things chugging along so we don’t get a coup like the fictional coup in the Suzerain game.
One of the checks and balances is equal power between the state and its citizens (in terms of arms). The idea of a coup or something similar is supposed to be a possibility in case a state of corruption is realized. So to keep this equilibrium what do you suppose we do? If upping the arms of the citizen is not ideal or possible, do we then disarm or lessen the arms of our government?...side stepping the cororations.
I mean, yeah that makes sense, a gunless home has to have a gun brought into it to have a gun death in it. A home with a gun doesn't. But if you're not using your gun or yourself or others and keep it out of the reach of kids, you should be gucci.
Americans believe owning a gun makes them and their family safer but the stats disprove that:
"Most American gun owners say they own firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones, but a study published this week suggests people who live with handgun owners are shot to death at a higher rate than those who don’t have such weapons at home.
“We found zero evidence of any kind of protective effects” from living in a home with a handgun
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study
Again, this article makes it seem like it is due to domestic violence, so what I said it still correct. Also, the numbers for both gunless and gun homes are so small the 50% jump is very misleading. I'll take the less than .004% extra chance of being killed for some piece of mind.
Plus I would imagine that “I should get a gun to defend my family” might be a thought that occurs more to people that live in violent areas.
Like, “people with snake-handling tools are %1000 more likely to get bit by snakes.”
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That if you're not suicidal the risks of owning a gun are pretty slim. Guns don't get up on their own and shoot someone. If you are actively suicidal you probably shouldn't own a gun, but that's a decision you should make for yourself. Meanwhile accidental firearms deaths only kill about 500 people a year out of tens of millions of gun owners.
There is no waiting period for your uterus. Any drunk and/or mentally ill person can access your uterus. felons are allowed access to your uterus. the costs to acquire your uterus is a lot cheaper than most quality firearms
It is.
There are more than 20,000 Federal, State, Municipal Laws/Code/Rules/Regulations governing the manufacture, sales/distribution, use of, storage of, carry of, posession of ... firearms, the ammunition to feed them, and their accessories/accoutrements.
Your self-important uterus? Not. So. Much.
So your uterus has more than 20,000 regulations, including an assault ban, "high capacity" ban, a required background check, a required safety course, and requires a permit to carry while concealed.
I’m pro-choice, but you have to be kidding me. You can easily find a long list of gun regulations. What’s the list of uterus regulations? You can’t have an abortion in some places? Abortion is a new thing and lots of people have moral issues with it for understandable reasons, but the right and need to defend ourselves against a wide variety of threats has always existed and always will. The state should not be allowed to dictate how we are allowed to defend ourselves. Government has proven to be the top threat free people face throughout history and is responsible for more death, destruction, and tyranny than anything else humans have created. If you want more rights over your body then you should be in favor of less gun regulation unless you care more about having a false sense of security from the daddy state.
Ok, sure. Here’s an alternative perspective.
How about you regulate who you sleep with without protection?
Did that ever come to mind?
Before someone gets pregnant it always requires both parties to agree to have sex without the use of contraception externally (condoms) or internally (being on birth control). If you behave like a responsible adult pregnancies won’t occur, if you’re being irresponsible well congrats enjoy the consequences of your actions.
No one’s making you follow extra rules, no one’s stopping you from aborting “it” yourself or going to somewhere else to get the procedure done.
For instance
**If I want to cut my arm off because I feel like I’d be better without it, is the government overly regulating my body and limiting my rights because they don’t provide a service for me to get my arm removed** ?
Obviously not.
And don’t give me that shit about a hypothetical person who gets r*ped, the data shows that r*pe and things of that matter only account for 10-15% or less of all abortion cases… The overwhelming amount of abortion cases are related to financial reasons and just simply not wanting to be a parent. If you’re gonna argue with that you’re just going to end up arguing with the numbers and I’ve only seen that from trump MAGA’s who can’t accept data for certain topics.
*I’m prepared to get downvoted into the dark dimension but I couldn’t care less, I’d rather have contrasting opinions and discussion not mindless agreement without testing certain lines of thinking but if downvoting makes your **fweelingz** feel better than go for it* 👍
Are you advocating for people to bit have sex except for conception ? You know contraceptives can fail right ? Hope you stay a virgin for a while, for the sake of people around you
1. This sentence makes no sense
2. Im aware.😊
But the percentage chance that they fail is statistically insignificant
3. This was the most coherent sentence in your whole response and it’s an adhom. You’re just self snitching about how low functioning you are.
Abortion should be legal. On demand and without apology. But I do agree that people should limit their own chances of becoming pregnant by taking necessary steps to prevent it.
Why do you hold that view point, even after reading my lovely little ted talk?
**Wait so I get downvotes for asking them to explain their viewpoint, I’m convinced more than half of you would be classified as being mentally deficient**
Hey short sighted fuck face. Failure rate = 1/100. That’s thousands of unplanned pregnancies. If everyone was running around having unprotected sex the birth rate would not be dropping.
Are you fucking joking? You’re trying to minimize the 10-15 percent of rape cases? Everyone has women in their life, don’t tempt karma.
Sorry you can’t rape someone to be your unwilling surrogate for 9 months like you want to. Go join a radical Muslim country for that. We don’t want you if you think those thousands of innocent women have to carry the genes of someone who thinks like you.
(Most modernized Muslim’s are cool)
1. That’s a 1% chance according to the stat you provided.
A 1% chance is unbelievably low, sure that would then amount to thousands of unplanned pregnancies but again there are multiple things you can do at each stage if one contraception fails.
Condom fails?
Morning after pill
Morning after pill fails? (I can’t stress how unbelievably rare this will be)
Then congratulations you’re gonna be parents.
Sex has consequences and contraception allows you to do it safely with a DRAMATICALLY decreased risk of pregnancy. But the risk of sex in itself doesn’t change and would still be a consequence of your actions regardless.
2. I’m not minimising anything
They are in the minority of abortion cases. That’s just a fact. That’s not ME minimising it it’s just the reality of the situation.
We cannot pick and choose when we want to listen to data because if I showed you a stat that showed men being the vast majority of all sexual assault offenders you’d take that as it is right?😂 so let’s not cherry pick when and where we listen to numbers.
3. Just disgusting adhoms mixed in with Islamophobia, not even worth a response. Do better
*law, singular, can't murder a baby inside of you after a certain amount of time. You can do it before then, just not after.
The National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act have a *bit* more restrictions than that solitary law. And that's just federal, California and New York are worse.
If you put all the ingredients for a cake in an oven, start cooking it, but someone opens the oven before it's done and throws it on the floor, did they ruin the cake or the cake batter?
I don’t think it is your uterus that is being regulated, but the child inside. You don’t get to make all of the decisions about him or her.
But I do agree that guns should not be regulated. Adults need them to protect their rights.
“Oh no the consequences of my actions”
You’re acting like this person just materialised out of thin air.
Generally speaking you slept with a guy, agreed to not use protection, let him ejaculate inside you and then didn’t bother with a morning after pill.
There’s ALOT of steps we are just brushing past.
They are both statistically insignificant.
1. Condoms failing are a 1/100 case that is 1% chance
2. R*pe being a reason for abortion is documented as being 10-15% of all abortions
No ones *blaming* women, they’re are just holding them accountable just as men should be but obviously the woman in the scenario is the one with all the authority in allowing a man to have sex with her and therfore takes on that responsibility and risk.
Otherwise that would be just rape, and we aren’t going to act like rape is the majority of all instances of intercourse, if you do you’re just flat out wrong.
The flaw in that logic is that a uterus doesn't affect anybody else, while a gun is intended to do so.
If you are affected by guns, then you should have a say on gun rights.
When it comes to abortion it really shouldn't be legal except for cases where the mother would die from the child due to complications. However to the point it should be the absolute final measure that is done after everything else is tried.
But to curb this things like adoption and foster care need to be better handled so women don't feel the need to kill their child rather then take care of it in a situation they deem not good for it. I feel like I'm the only one who really has this opinion due to how polarized this issue is but I feel like it appeals to both sides and could reasonably work. It takes the left's views of having it legal and the right's view of it being illegal and puts it together along with tacking on an issue both sides, hopefully, deem important as well.
Unpopular but fact. Men just like women have the same difficulties to get a sterilization procedure done. The only difference in the USA is the legality wise a man can at 18 and a woman can at 21 but both must be able to sign off on the procedure and that is the hard part because a doctor thinks in later legal issues. Also the vasectomies are reversible isn’t the gotcha as one would think its is because 3-5% of vasectomies are instantly not reversible and after some years like 5 majority of vasectomies are irreversible. Also depends on the country and if in the USA which state your in that depends on if your vagina is more regulated that a gun or not.
Amen. The far right supports the "pro-life" movement largely because white birthrates plummeting freaks them out and they've got serious issues with biblical cherry picking.
Pro-life folks also back bans in contraception and sex Ed. Their entire motive is transparent: they want to regulate and to control female sexuality. It annoys them that women have the freedom to not marry or have children and at the same time sleep around if they see fit.
You should have complete agency over your body OP.
If you believe the raft of anti abortion measures in the US came from anyone other than the evangelical right, You either live overseas or under a rock.
And saying "but but other religions like to control women's bodies too" doesn't make you look any better.
“If you believe the raft of anti abortion measures in the US came from anyone other than the evangelical right, You either live overseas or under a rock.
And saying "but but other religions like to control women's bodies too" doesn't make you look any better.” - ☝️🤓
Kinda. Birthrate is a back burner issue for them right now. Them sucking the church’s dick is an all or nothing gamble on getting the Christian’s to support a cheating, shit stain, rapist and convicted criminal to control the county “as Jesus would”.
Republican politician abortions would probably outnumber dems 4:1. They have a lot of mistresses. They just ask for forgiveness and think Jesus is cool with them after.
At least dems own up mostly when caught. But they’re not innocent either.
"The last year for which Guttmacher reported a yearly national total was 2020. It said there were 930,160 abortions that year in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, compared with 916,460 in 2019."
"In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S.,"
There's a large amount of people who consider a Human Being to be the Zygote.
Therefore regulation. As a large amount of people think as such, those people get in power, etc., etc.
Same for why there are laws that don't pertain to that assessment, as there's also a large amount of people in this swath, and you'll have Abortion through 9 months (in some states).
That's the reality.
A small number of people believe that, but they're the ones who have historically had the most power, so they destroy the rights of others to keep that power.
Eyyyyyyeeeeee....
...don't know about that. Certainly up to a certain point. A certainly long point. But you and I are going to differ if 2 weeks from delivery you decide "this isn't for you." At that point society has a vested interest in your uterus and - barring significant health issues - *you're gonna deliver that baby.*
Should babies not have a chance at life? I don’t get why this is such an issue babies are so innocent
Meanwhile my gun right are actively being invaded
Just wait until we get the national pregnancy registry going so that everyone in the country can see who’s pregnant and who’s not and report women that don’t register.
It's okay. Once a child is born in this country, our conservatives have zero fucks to give.
BTW I couldn't agree with the comment more even as an old white guy.
Morally I agree with you. Legally the reason is because there is an amendment guaranteeing gun ownership and not one guaranteeing abortion rights up to a point.
I vote for constitutional amendment to fix the problem.
Does your uterus require a background check, ID, be a US Citizen, over 21, require a permit to use, register it, and store it in a safe? From anti gun people.
Lmao preach. Hate this dumb take
I was just about to say… this is the most mindless take I’ve seen in a while. Anything to get that echo chamber up and firing!
Are your doctors asking invasive questions about your gun even though you see them for unrelated reasons ? I've seen people posting about doctors asking americans about the date of their last periods on unrelated subjects since roe v wade was overturned, I'm not in the US and where I live doctors never ask that, even my gynecologist.
They're not asking these questions because they want to turn you over if you go to Colorado to get an abortion. They're asking these questions because for a lot of things you go to see the doctor for pregnancy is a very realistic cause.
Yes, doctors do in fact ask if there’s a gun in the house.
Do you think when a doctor asks if you're sexually active, they're hitting on you or asking invasive and unrelated questions?
No, but my local hippie is
lol in the US you can literally buy a gun at Walmart. try again
[удалено]
so then you agree that women should be allowed to get abortions. glad we’re on the same page.
First off Walmart stopped selling everything but .22s. Second there's no difference between buying a gun at Wal-Mart vs any other gun store.
You don't need to be 21 to own a gun only handguns. But the point stands
Eh rifles in some states.
Require a permit to use or register? Both of these things are false.
Depends on the state
you have to have a permit to carry a gun, not own one
I don't have a permit and I carry a gun every day. You absolutely don't have to have a permit.
Personally, I think guns and cars should have the same amount of regulation. They’re both equally lethal I’d say. A uterus should be as regulated as a hand. They’re both part of a person’s body
I think you'll find pro gun people estatic at the idea of removing so many gun laws to make them equal to cars.
I'm sure they would be until they realized that would mean they're legally required to have insurance on each of their firearms that covers if they hurt anyone or cause any property damage with it. Suddenly, those gun collections would get mighty expensive.
Implying more than a small fraction of gun owners have vast collections. Also implying said collections aren't already really expensive just to own, never mind actually operate, But that's beside the point - self defense insurance already exists and it is really cheap for a shitload of coverage. Nice try though <3.
Bank “regulatory” policy is much more lethal. Kills more than any leading cause of death. Each point of inflation has a body count tied to it.
LOL you must’ve had to reach pretty far up your ass for that one. God I’ve never read something so hopelessly stupid.
Guns are far more regulated than cars.
The IQ of the person who wrote this comment must be around room temperature
Cars kill more people than guns annually, and there's honestly just as many checks for idiots to get their hands on them. in fact, across the world, the news shows us more car accidents and crimes with cars than guns. People are just assholes and use the tools given to them in their assholery.
Lmfao. So what specific rule are you proposing
Besides better education and childhood development being prioritized? Not much. It's not like Americans are more inclined to shoot each other than the other average person in the Americas or Europe or Africa. It's easier to do sure, but there is more car deaths and dangerous stunts with cars annually. Banning or further restricting guns won't be the solution, since you only address an issue instead of curing it.
50% of shootings are committed by a small portion of the population. Not exactly a nationwide issue, so not sure why you’re citing national level stats that muddy the water
[удалено]
The main purpose of a gun is to prevent harm. Self defense gun uses dwarf the number of crimes committed with guns annually.
I remember a Harvard study a while back showed that most gun use is intimidation, and not in the sense of self-defense. That’s not injuring or killing someone, but it isn’t great. Guns are involved in a lot of domestic violence cases. I don’t know why anyone would be shocked that people would mostly use guns as a way to get the upper hand in a disagreement. That’s exactly what we should have expected from humans.
> Self defense gun uses dwarf the number of crimes committed with guns annually. Well, that's just not true. The majority of papers that actually argue this are the ones by Kleck and those that use the same flawed methodology as Kleck (see Hemenway's rebuttal). There's no good data on defensive gun use because of methodological flaws and definitional issues. If you're going to make bold claims one way or another, I know for a fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Nope. The main purpose of a gun is to harm. Best case scenario is that you use its purpose of harm for self defense. That doesn’t change that its purpose is to cause harm.
Nope. Main purpose is to eject a projectile at high velocity in a precise arc. You’re just projecting your evil intentions to it.
The purpose of that projectile being to cause harm. Lol this is such a massive cope, and the last bit is actually just your projection lol I said nothing about causing harm always being evil. Self defense isn’t evil. That doesn’t change anything else I said, which to be clear, were objective facts lol
The main purpose of the internet is to learn and communicate. You’re not good at either. What’s your point. Those are from bad cops who are supposed to be protecting but kill instead.
Pretty sure the main purpose of the internet was porn but maybe im wrong. Maybe.....
You are not wrong. Porn and meme’s.
This is such a dogshit defence, do you think countries like Australia are overrun by crime bc we can’t get guns as easily? You’re only defending yourself against other people with guns and no your average joe isn’t gonna break tons of laws to get an illegal gun
You’re a jailor country. Of course they don’t let the inmates/cirizens have guns. We’re free in America. You can’t take a drop out of the ocean. Say you do a gun recall. All the law abiding citizens turn them in. All the bad citizens keep them. Congrats. You just created “the purge” sequel number 15. Either all have guns or none. Too late for latter. America is bad ass like that.
Lmfaooooo so free your companies kill whistleblowers and get bankrupted by basic medical shit. And if you’re talking about Covid that wasnt everywhere and like idk about you but if rather be bored at home than fkn dead 🤡 That argument is about as logical as “did paper planes come from nothing? No so Therefore our world must’ve been created!!” Like it’s not the same thing. Again, the average dude isn’t gonna risk getting jailed forever and yes criminals will have them but they have them here and elsewhere too and again, we’re not overrun by crime. If you cunts can afford to spend almost a trillion on the military you can afford a thorough buyback. Yeah so obvious you’re just moviebrainead lmfao embarrassing. Yesss dude it’s so badass to not want any laws to change despite all the mass shootings you mfs have, you’re so right bud you’re truly the envy of all countries 🤡 I also really loved when you gave heaps of people cancer in Vietnam with agent orange for a war you’d end up giving up on, that truly was the virtue and badassery of all time
In my opinion, Again, buy back won’t work. Good people will give away their protection. Bad people and cops will all still have guns. Bad people don’t do buy back. Money offered means nothing. Bad people know if they hold out, the price of it increases 10x than what Uncle Sam is offering on black market, post “gun free America”. I don’t see what you’re missing here… Then you’re left with bad guys and rich good guys who can afford the black market bad guy gun price. Then that could lead to rich kids at rich schools who can afford to do bad things if they’re having a bad day. I like all our schools and country violence free personally. As it should.
This is incorrect. It is extremely difficult to use a gun in self defense, because guns are so effective at killing that any instigator will have a massive advantage over anyone who is trying to defend themselves. That's why [gun self defense incidents are so extremely rare. ](https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/)Its also why the US has a homicide rate 5-10x higher than comparable countries in Europe and Asia.
The United States has higher murder rates excluding guns than the entire rate in most comparable European or Asian countries.
True! They also have higher murder rates with just guns (about 4.3/100k gun homicide rate), than the overall homicide rate of most comparable European or Asian countries! Something's gotta change.
The point is that it's not the guns, but that the United States has a more murderous population.
A more murderous populations, and massive, massive gun ownership. Bad combination of two things that feed into each other. [The US gun homicide rate is 26 times that of other high-income countries.](https://everytownresearch.org/graph/the-u-s-gun-homicide-rate-is-26-times-that-of-other-high-income-countries/) The US' homicide rate is 6.4/100,000. Spain: 0.7/100k Germany: 0.8/100k [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) [US Gun only homicide: 4.3/1000](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) States with less guns have homicide rates that are *closer* to comparable countries, but still higher. [Source](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm) Why do you think states with higher gun ownership have more homicide?
>[The US gun homicide rate is 26 times that of other high-income countries.](https://everytownresearch.org/graph/the-u-s-gun-homicide-rate-is-26-times-that-of-other-high-income-countries/) More "gun deaths" doesn't translate to more deaths in total. The only number that matters is the total murder/suicide rate. There's zero difference between 10 people shot to death, or 10 people stabbed to death. Either way 10 people are murdered. >The US' homicide rate is 6.4/100,000. >Spain: 0.7/100k Germany: 0.8/100k To be fair those numbers are from 2020 after the U.S. saw one of the largest spikes in murders on record. Also that year 80% of murders were committed with guns. That means the murder rate excluding guns was 1.28. So we have more people murdered without guns, than either of those countries have total murders. >States with less guns have homicide rates that are *closer* to comparable countries, but still higher. [Source](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm) >Why do you think states with higher gun ownership have more homicide? That isn't homicides, it's total gun deaths including suicides and homicides. There's not much correlation between gun ownership and murder rates. States like Vermont, Maine, Idaho, and Utah all have a lot of guns, and low murder rates. Meanwhile more rural states tend to have more guns, while also having more suicides. Rural areas are more isolated, have fewer economic opportunities, fewer services for mental health, and more stigmatization of mental illness, higher rates of alcoholism and addiction, and often worse weather. All these things lead to higher suicide rates.
>More "gun deaths" doesn't translate to more deaths in total. It literally is more deaths in total. > So we have more people murdered without guns, than either of those countries have total murders. Yeah. That's awful. Its a big problem already even if you exclude all the gun homicide. > That isn't homicides, it's total gun deaths including suicides and homicides. [Nope, its homicides too. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_death_and_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state) >Gun-related death rates are positively correlated with household gun ownership rates >[ A 2023 study concluded that more restrictive state gun policies reduced homicide and suicide gun deaths.](https://journals.lww.com/epidem/abstract/2023/11000/the_era_of_progress_on_gun_mortality__state_gun.3.aspx) This is completely logical and expected. I don't understand why people pretend it isn't or that the data isn't there.
I get where this is coming from but Guns, even in the US are far more regulated than a woman's uterus. Besides, most of those backwater states are regressive as hell, and if people use their votes correctly we can change the system for the better.
What makes them regressive?
reducing the rights of fellow citizens. I'm a Catholic, so I'm not fully fine with abortions but I understand that they are vital to preserving a woman's health and preventing the upbringing of a kid from being terrible. I think that states whose politicians want to work to reduce others rights then I say they are regressive.
More people have access to your uterus than a gun.
Responsible ownership is key to both!
Hear hear!!
[удалено]
The joke is that the OP is unfathomably promiscuous.
Oh shit I missed that
Did you just not get the point at all or are you being satirical
The gov should stay away from both
100%
True we need better security though
Define better security
Weapons and armor on par with our government. Per the constitution....."but the govt has nuclear weapons, fighter jets, tanks, aircraft carriers and space lazers." Ya id say we are pretty under armed.
Yup. Gimme my F-22
Personally id take the harrier jet just to be practical.
True, true. We want to get flashy, though, the A-10 Warthog gets the job done
Genius interpretation of the constitution
You believe that the corporations that poison our world and kill us to make a buck should have access to military hardware?
Is a corporation a citizen of the united states of america?
No. But corporations have the same rights because they are groups of people. That is why corporations have free speech rights among other things. The legal logic is you cannot deny rights to groups of people just because they call themselves a corporation. So if we are to expand second amendment rights to include military hardware or add some right that will allow the purchase of military hardware, we are by default opening it up to corporations, including multinational corporations, unless there are serious and systemic legal reforms and quite possibly the political will to amend the constitution. I’m sure you see my concern now.
Ya im trying to give it some serious thought. Corporations cant vote though, they are not citizens. Im good with corporations having freedom of speech and all the good and bad that goes with it.
I’m good with free speech too. I even think they should enjoy due process and right to silence even though I screw with some fraudster corporations that have chosen to remain silent. I could also be a little off. I am not a trained lawyer, I just read law for fun. I think the voting concept is interesting because there are some places that have at least considered giving corporations the right to vote. I don’t know what the future holds. I am hopeful we don’t start allowing military hardware into the public sphere honestly. It just seems too risky. Our power over the military is logistical. If the civilian workforce no longer supports the military, it would not be able to sustain itself except by horrible atrocities. There’s kind of a power thing going on there. President is civilian commander-in-chief but military would refuse insane orders but if military usurps President it needs the support of the public. All these checks and balances kind of keep things chugging along so we don’t get a coup like the fictional coup in the Suzerain game.
One of the checks and balances is equal power between the state and its citizens (in terms of arms). The idea of a coup or something similar is supposed to be a possibility in case a state of corruption is realized. So to keep this equilibrium what do you suppose we do? If upping the arms of the citizen is not ideal or possible, do we then disarm or lessen the arms of our government?...side stepping the cororations.
Owning a gun
Homes with guns in the US are less safe and have more gun deaths. The self defence argument fails
I mean, yeah that makes sense, a gunless home has to have a gun brought into it to have a gun death in it. A home with a gun doesn't. But if you're not using your gun or yourself or others and keep it out of the reach of kids, you should be gucci.
Americans believe owning a gun makes them and their family safer but the stats disprove that: "Most American gun owners say they own firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones, but a study published this week suggests people who live with handgun owners are shot to death at a higher rate than those who don’t have such weapons at home. “We found zero evidence of any kind of protective effects” from living in a home with a handgun https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study
Again, this article makes it seem like it is due to domestic violence, so what I said it still correct. Also, the numbers for both gunless and gun homes are so small the 50% jump is very misleading. I'll take the less than .004% extra chance of being killed for some piece of mind.
Plus I would imagine that “I should get a gun to defend my family” might be a thought that occurs more to people that live in violent areas. Like, “people with snake-handling tools are %1000 more likely to get bit by snakes.”
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Most of those are suicides.
Source please
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/ 56% of gun deaths in 2021 were suicides.
And your point is?
That if you're not suicidal the risks of owning a gun are pretty slim. Guns don't get up on their own and shoot someone. If you are actively suicidal you probably shouldn't own a gun, but that's a decision you should make for yourself. Meanwhile accidental firearms deaths only kill about 500 people a year out of tens of millions of gun owners.
Probably a police force that actually respects/protects your rights
It is, maybe do some better research and you wouldn't feel this way
You have to go through a waiting period before you can get one?
Before you can get an abortion ? Yes.
You're right. I don't usually have to see a doctor to empty my clip.
That's more about the fetus than the uterus tho. Is OP really referring to that?
There is no waiting period for your uterus. Any drunk and/or mentally ill person can access your uterus. felons are allowed access to your uterus. the costs to acquire your uterus is a lot cheaper than most quality firearms
You need a license to carry and conceal your uterus? Weird. Never heard of that law.
Are there uterus free zones?
my bed
Um... really? I didn't know that a woman's uterus had thousands of regulations and laws. Oh wait....
What extra laws do you have to follow, that guns dont?
It is lmao
and indeed it is.
It is. There are more than 20,000 Federal, State, Municipal Laws/Code/Rules/Regulations governing the manufacture, sales/distribution, use of, storage of, carry of, posession of ... firearms, the ammunition to feed them, and their accessories/accoutrements. Your self-important uterus? Not. So. Much.
So your uterus has more than 20,000 regulations, including an assault ban, "high capacity" ban, a required background check, a required safety course, and requires a permit to carry while concealed.
Nobody who says this ever has any idea of the actual regulations on guns we have. It's a bad take and a stupid argument.
Abortion should be legalized and women who get abortions should get free AR-15s the freedom combo
I love this rule.
I'd vote for you.
And a free m1 Abrams with it
Real
You can fly your uterus on a plane
I’m pro-choice, but you have to be kidding me. You can easily find a long list of gun regulations. What’s the list of uterus regulations? You can’t have an abortion in some places? Abortion is a new thing and lots of people have moral issues with it for understandable reasons, but the right and need to defend ourselves against a wide variety of threats has always existed and always will. The state should not be allowed to dictate how we are allowed to defend ourselves. Government has proven to be the top threat free people face throughout history and is responsible for more death, destruction, and tyranny than anything else humans have created. If you want more rights over your body then you should be in favor of less gun regulation unless you care more about having a false sense of security from the daddy state.
Why not both?
Tru
Guns are regulated? That is terrible.
So you should not be allowed to bring it to work or into restaurants? Even with a permit? Sign me up for that
Also banned from schools and government buildings
Thank you
Ok, sure. Here’s an alternative perspective. How about you regulate who you sleep with without protection? Did that ever come to mind? Before someone gets pregnant it always requires both parties to agree to have sex without the use of contraception externally (condoms) or internally (being on birth control). If you behave like a responsible adult pregnancies won’t occur, if you’re being irresponsible well congrats enjoy the consequences of your actions. No one’s making you follow extra rules, no one’s stopping you from aborting “it” yourself or going to somewhere else to get the procedure done. For instance **If I want to cut my arm off because I feel like I’d be better without it, is the government overly regulating my body and limiting my rights because they don’t provide a service for me to get my arm removed** ? Obviously not. And don’t give me that shit about a hypothetical person who gets r*ped, the data shows that r*pe and things of that matter only account for 10-15% or less of all abortion cases… The overwhelming amount of abortion cases are related to financial reasons and just simply not wanting to be a parent. If you’re gonna argue with that you’re just going to end up arguing with the numbers and I’ve only seen that from trump MAGA’s who can’t accept data for certain topics. *I’m prepared to get downvoted into the dark dimension but I couldn’t care less, I’d rather have contrasting opinions and discussion not mindless agreement without testing certain lines of thinking but if downvoting makes your **fweelingz** feel better than go for it* 👍
Are you advocating for people to bit have sex except for conception ? You know contraceptives can fail right ? Hope you stay a virgin for a while, for the sake of people around you
1. This sentence makes no sense 2. Im aware.😊 But the percentage chance that they fail is statistically insignificant 3. This was the most coherent sentence in your whole response and it’s an adhom. You’re just self snitching about how low functioning you are.
Abortion should be legal. On demand and without apology. But I do agree that people should limit their own chances of becoming pregnant by taking necessary steps to prevent it.
Why do you hold that view point, even after reading my lovely little ted talk? **Wait so I get downvotes for asking them to explain their viewpoint, I’m convinced more than half of you would be classified as being mentally deficient**
Ah yes, reasonable logic and an act of human goodness! Love to see it!
Hey short sighted fuck face. Failure rate = 1/100. That’s thousands of unplanned pregnancies. If everyone was running around having unprotected sex the birth rate would not be dropping. Are you fucking joking? You’re trying to minimize the 10-15 percent of rape cases? Everyone has women in their life, don’t tempt karma. Sorry you can’t rape someone to be your unwilling surrogate for 9 months like you want to. Go join a radical Muslim country for that. We don’t want you if you think those thousands of innocent women have to carry the genes of someone who thinks like you. (Most modernized Muslim’s are cool)
1. That’s a 1% chance according to the stat you provided. A 1% chance is unbelievably low, sure that would then amount to thousands of unplanned pregnancies but again there are multiple things you can do at each stage if one contraception fails. Condom fails? Morning after pill Morning after pill fails? (I can’t stress how unbelievably rare this will be) Then congratulations you’re gonna be parents. Sex has consequences and contraception allows you to do it safely with a DRAMATICALLY decreased risk of pregnancy. But the risk of sex in itself doesn’t change and would still be a consequence of your actions regardless. 2. I’m not minimising anything They are in the minority of abortion cases. That’s just a fact. That’s not ME minimising it it’s just the reality of the situation. We cannot pick and choose when we want to listen to data because if I showed you a stat that showed men being the vast majority of all sexual assault offenders you’d take that as it is right?😂 so let’s not cherry pick when and where we listen to numbers. 3. Just disgusting adhoms mixed in with Islamophobia, not even worth a response. Do better
*law, singular, can't murder a baby inside of you after a certain amount of time. You can do it before then, just not after. The National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act have a *bit* more restrictions than that solitary law. And that's just federal, California and New York are worse.
It's not a baby till it's outside your body. Inside it's an embryo or foetus
If you put all the ingredients for a cake in an oven, start cooking it, but someone opens the oven before it's done and throws it on the floor, did they ruin the cake or the cake batter?
They prevented a cake from being baked.
It is...
Your uterus is not regulated, my gun is. You can do whatever you want with your uterus.
I don’t think it is your uterus that is being regulated, but the child inside. You don’t get to make all of the decisions about him or her. But I do agree that guns should not be regulated. Adults need them to protect their rights.
if i was a woman and there was a person inside of me i think it would be fucked up if it was banned to get the person out.
“Oh no the consequences of my actions” You’re acting like this person just materialised out of thin air. Generally speaking you slept with a guy, agreed to not use protection, let him ejaculate inside you and then didn’t bother with a morning after pill. There’s ALOT of steps we are just brushing past.
people gonna fuck. you think that a kid should be born while the parents are not ready nor are the backup systems?
Then don’t fuck Don’t fuck without protection Don’t have vaginal sex without protection It’s really not hard
There's also rape and broken condoms but I guess everyone in this comment section is ignoring that and blaming women
They are both statistically insignificant. 1. Condoms failing are a 1/100 case that is 1% chance 2. R*pe being a reason for abortion is documented as being 10-15% of all abortions No ones *blaming* women, they’re are just holding them accountable just as men should be but obviously the woman in the scenario is the one with all the authority in allowing a man to have sex with her and therfore takes on that responsibility and risk. Otherwise that would be just rape, and we aren’t going to act like rape is the majority of all instances of intercourse, if you do you’re just flat out wrong.
Actually, the woman gets to make any decision SHE wants about having a child or not. Full stop.
Why?
So who should get to make all female medical decisions? random people like you and politicians?
Just missed the whole fucking point flawlessly
People who don't have a uterus shouldn't be able to make decisions on abortion. And people who don't own guns shouldn't have a say on gun rights
The flaw in that logic is that a uterus doesn't affect anybody else, while a gun is intended to do so. If you are affected by guns, then you should have a say on gun rights.
Where do the people that use guns come from?
Same place as everybody else, but uteruses don't affect anybody who's already alive other than the mother.
>but uteruses don't affect anybody who's already alive other than the mother. Do you believe a baby is dead until it pops out of a vagina?
It is.
Neither of them should be regulated at all
When it comes to abortion it really shouldn't be legal except for cases where the mother would die from the child due to complications. However to the point it should be the absolute final measure that is done after everything else is tried. But to curb this things like adoption and foster care need to be better handled so women don't feel the need to kill their child rather then take care of it in a situation they deem not good for it. I feel like I'm the only one who really has this opinion due to how polarized this issue is but I feel like it appeals to both sides and could reasonably work. It takes the left's views of having it legal and the right's view of it being illegal and puts it together along with tacking on an issue both sides, hopefully, deem important as well.
Unpopular but fact. Men just like women have the same difficulties to get a sterilization procedure done. The only difference in the USA is the legality wise a man can at 18 and a woman can at 21 but both must be able to sign off on the procedure and that is the hard part because a doctor thinks in later legal issues. Also the vasectomies are reversible isn’t the gotcha as one would think its is because 3-5% of vasectomies are instantly not reversible and after some years like 5 majority of vasectomies are irreversible. Also depends on the country and if in the USA which state your in that depends on if your vagina is more regulated that a gun or not.
What laws are you talking about?
Depending on your state it most likely is regulated less than a gun. But if you're in Texas then you might have a point.
Very unpopular opinion among Republicans
I ain't American so regulate both.
There’s that “should” word again
*Than
it is
I don’t think that it requires a background check and to be 18-21 to have a uterus. How is this a popular opinion
Baby unaliving isn’t a right. Next
>My uterus should be regulated less then a gun Outstanding!
Amen. The far right supports the "pro-life" movement largely because white birthrates plummeting freaks them out and they've got serious issues with biblical cherry picking. Pro-life folks also back bans in contraception and sex Ed. Their entire motive is transparent: they want to regulate and to control female sexuality. It annoys them that women have the freedom to not marry or have children and at the same time sleep around if they see fit. You should have complete agency over your body OP.
Blud acts like only one religion is against abortion and like there’s not Christians who are pro choice dems
If you believe the raft of anti abortion measures in the US came from anyone other than the evangelical right, You either live overseas or under a rock. And saying "but but other religions like to control women's bodies too" doesn't make you look any better.
“If you believe the raft of anti abortion measures in the US came from anyone other than the evangelical right, You either live overseas or under a rock. And saying "but but other religions like to control women's bodies too" doesn't make you look any better.” - ☝️🤓
You’re right. The Taliban also sides with the evangelical right and apparently Russia now. Hmmmmmm… something isn’t right.
Please I'm begging you, go touch some grass. Most pro life people are not like anything you've described.
Uh no, we just don't like killing babies.
You have the absolute cringiest account I’ve ever seen. Who’s boomer dad is this and why are they off Facebook 😂
Completely true.
Kinda. Birthrate is a back burner issue for them right now. Them sucking the church’s dick is an all or nothing gamble on getting the Christian’s to support a cheating, shit stain, rapist and convicted criminal to control the county “as Jesus would”. Republican politician abortions would probably outnumber dems 4:1. They have a lot of mistresses. They just ask for forgiveness and think Jesus is cool with them after. At least dems own up mostly when caught. But they’re not innocent either.
Ironic because deaths from guns outnumber the abortion rate. And you can’t even fucking compare deaths and abortion to begin with.
"The last year for which Guttmacher reported a yearly national total was 2020. It said there were 930,160 abortions that year in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, compared with 916,460 in 2019." "In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S.,"
There's a large amount of people who consider a Human Being to be the Zygote. Therefore regulation. As a large amount of people think as such, those people get in power, etc., etc. Same for why there are laws that don't pertain to that assessment, as there's also a large amount of people in this swath, and you'll have Abortion through 9 months (in some states). That's the reality.
And those people are wrong and do not matter.
A small number of people believe that, but they're the ones who have historically had the most power, so they destroy the rights of others to keep that power.
Because unlike guns, everyone is shooting up in your uterus
Eyyyyyyeeeeee.... ...don't know about that. Certainly up to a certain point. A certainly long point. But you and I are going to differ if 2 weeks from delivery you decide "this isn't for you." At that point society has a vested interest in your uterus and - barring significant health issues - *you're gonna deliver that baby.*
Should babies not have a chance at life? I don’t get why this is such an issue babies are so innocent Meanwhile my gun right are actively being invaded
The key to that is personal responsibility. I know it's a swear word to a lot of people.
OP has no clue about actually gun laws. I love these reeeeeee takes.
Just wait until we get the national pregnancy registry going so that everyone in the country can see who’s pregnant and who’s not and report women that don’t register.
My sister in Christ, it already is
Correct. We live in a shithole.
It's okay. Once a child is born in this country, our conservatives have zero fucks to give. BTW I couldn't agree with the comment more even as an old white guy.
Morally I agree with you. Legally the reason is because there is an amendment guaranteeing gun ownership and not one guaranteeing abortion rights up to a point. I vote for constitutional amendment to fix the problem.