Monday, March 2, 2009

Points to Ponder

Right-wing gun rights advocates (or at least some of those I’ve spoken with or read) claim that guns are needed to defend their home and property from violent intruders. In other words, they claim that a human life (that of the intruder) is worth LESS than their property (say, a DVD player.)

The right wing also claims that a human life is worth MORE the right of a woman to control access to her body.

The only logical conclusion is that the right wing believes that a woman’s right to control access to her person is worth LESS than a DVD player.

What are your values?

9 comments:

Doug & Laurel said...

Hi Chris
I stumbled across your blog on LDS BLOGS. I thought you mighe be interested in a site my wife and I just built called MormonsMadeSimple.com, which uses simple, explanatory videos to explain the Mormon faith. Feel free to feature any of these videos on your blog, or just share them with non-member friends. We're hoping these videos will be missionary tools to help members share their beliefs. Anyway, sorry to spam your comments section. I couldn't find any contact information for you on your blog.

- Doug & Laurel

Lori Ann said...

Chris,

I am Danielle's sister and I am one of your blog readers:) I am mostly conservative with a few liberal leanings.

Having grown up on the East Coast, and gone to perhaps the most liberal of all liberal graduate schools, I have been surrounded by liberal ideology my entire life. So, I like being the unique conservative.

Maybe the same is true for you. You like being the unique liberal.


In your post you said

"The only logical conclusion is that the right wing believes that a woman’s right to control access to her person is worth LESS than a DVD player"

How is that the ONLY logical conclusion?

The Declaration of Independance gives us the following inalienable rights "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Liberty is not just freedom TO but also freedom FROM

Freedom from home invasion.

Freedom from tyrannical government

And yes, the intruders have a right to life, but does their right to life supercede their victims right to liberty?

And if the right to life supercedes the right to liberty, why are we still arguing abortion? Should the right to LIVE be more important than the LIBERTY to choose?

p.s.- "control access to her body" is one of the coldest terms I have ever heard to descibe pregnancy termination.

j said...

Maybe I'm just an uneducated redneck not smart enough to come to an enlightened and educated conclusion, but I would like to think that any woman that has gotten pregnant understands the whole process of how you get pregnant. You know the whole thing about when you have sex there is a chance you'll get pregnant. If she had the liberty to make that choice she's not entitled to the liberty to abstain from the consequences of it. Now, if you want to talk about a victim who didn't choose to get pregnant and them being able to have an abortion I think we might be able to come to some type of agreement. But as Lori pointed out, the baby's right to life trumps the mother's selfishness considering she's already used her liberty to choose to get pregnant in the first place.

Carrie said...

Your conclusion sounds like twisted logic. Arguments like that rarely help move a conversation along.

Carrie said...

I forgot to add one more thing.
In your post you said "violent intruders". There's a difference between someone coming into my house, stealing my DVD player and leaving and the intruder coming into my house with the intent to steal my DVD player but also threatens my life. We have the right to defend ourselves if we're being threatened with harm. I agree that if I shoot someone because they are trying to steal my DVD player that I will be in the wrong.
But please don't compare the right to bear arms with abortion.

Hunter Family said...

Wow, Chris, way to stir the pot :)...

And I think you know what I think so I'll leave it at that.

Brett - Rachel B said...

Man, I don't know what conservative Mormons you are talking to, but I have to say before you post any of their arguments you need to ask how many teeth they have...

ouch, that was low even for me.

Anyways I've always wanted a gun, but only to protect my daughter and I while my husband is away. It never once ran across my mind to protect my belongings.

Anyways, guns are going to be around whether you like it or not. The question is should they belong only to the criminals who get them illegally or them AND people who have good intentions?

danielle said...

More teeth does usually mean a little smarter. I would count.

Dave said...

Chris,
I am afraid I must disagree. Gun rights activists do not want guns so they can defend their DVD players from violent criminals. They want to defend their families from violent criminals. A violent intruder has already egregiously undervalued the lives of the people he is attacking. One who can so easily forfeit the the rights of others to live and live without fear deserves the same forfeiture of those rights. Men are commanded to defend their families (Alma 43:47, actually just look up 'defense' in the index of the Book Of Mormon)
Unfortunately just the first part of your argument succumbs to the Straw man logical fallacy. Gun rights activists do no not value a DVD player or any other possession over a human life. That is a misrepresentation of their argument.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#straw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I do however, wish to have greater discussion on the parallels of gun and abortion control, as I have often thought that several of their arguments follow similar lines of reason.
Example: Making "BLANK" illegal, will only cause an unregulated and unsafe blackmarket of "BLANK"
Please continue to post. I always enjoy reading your thoughts. Thanks!

-Dave