pull down to refresh

Pro-choice, Pro-Gun
I'd like to live in a world with the following standards:
Abortion: choice to abort a child in the womb should be considered a very serious one. If a woman is well informed about the consequences of the decision (emotional, ethical, alternative options, etc), but still decides to make that choice it ought to be allowed. She is essentially deciding to discontinue her genes, and the genes of the father, on some level, which would reduce the prevalence of this behavior in the future and I'm not sure is negative thing for the future.
Guns: Gun control is a contradiction. To prevent people from having guns you need to use guns. So, gun-control advocates aren't really against guns. They are pro guns for certain people (i.e. usually people they trust in government). Consistent principles needs to allow people to have guns to defend themselves from other people who may use guns, and other weapons against them. However, for people who use guns to initiate violations of other's property, it is reasonable to prohibit them from using guns. Ideally, I think this should be decided on community levels. This just expands property rights to the community level. Communities can decide their policies and how to deal with gun usage in them. People can live in communities that suit their preferences.
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Krv 14 Feb
On abortion: my take was very pragmatic, which is not intended to minimize the absolute tragedy of the situation. The truth is abortion has an enormous negative emotional toll on any woman, except perhaps for psychopathic women. Any truthful analysis would present this reality to a woman considering this. Contrary to the pro-abortion advocates who seem to care nothing about these woman and/or are so deluded as to not express it.
reply