Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 1:13 pm
notfatcat wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 12:55 pm
Kiwias wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 11:55 am
Pointing out that there are far greater restrictions on getting an abortion than on purchasing a military-style assault rifle is neither emotive nor stupid. But I sense that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
It's both emotive and stupid. Purchasing an assault rifle doesn't necessarily end in a death. In fact it rarely ends in a death. Having an abortion always results in a death. 60 million of them since it was legalised. It's a dumb comparison regardless of how one feels about abortion, unless I suppose one views abortion in the same way one views elective surgery.
I don't know for a fact but I presume most abortions would be more elective procedure than elective surgery. Either way the more critical distinction is the women having abortions are indeed electing to have them, whereas the people being shot dead are not electing to be shot dead.
Every ten year old boy in the US should have a reversible vasectomy. When they are old enough and in a financial position to support a child they can then elect to have the procedure reversed, after interviews, counselling and internal examinations of course.
This would have a huge impact on the number of abortions needed, in all probability it would reduce them to almost zero.
As for assault rifles and semi-automatic hand guns, the desire to have one should disqualify the person from having one, no sane person outside of the military needs these.
Anyone who starts spouting about the 2nd amendment is a useful idiot to the near-30 billion dollar gun industry in the US.