If some conservatives are fine overturning Roe v Wade "to save lives," are they also fine with losing the second amendment for the same reason?

[Anonymous]

If extreme conservatives are fine with overturning Roe v Wade "in order to save a lot of lives," then would they also be fine with losing the second amendment "in order to save a lot of lives" as well? People argue that "guns take lives and are barbaric."

So if forcing terrible women who make poor life choices into being mothers and letting a child suffer a lifetime of abuse before killing themselves anyway is "the right thing to do," according to all of you who pretend to give a damn about "baby murdering," then by your same logic, we should lose the second amendment too, to "save all those babies," right?" No more school shootings, gang murders, or innocent people dying, too. Cause you care so much about morality, right?

I mean, if we're going to tear the Constitution into shreds over some fake-morality BS and virtue signaling as bad as the Left does, then why not? Let's just wipe our asses with the entire Constitution while we're at it.

I'm going to post this anonymously so everyone I blocked can even answer it, but you should be able to figure out who I am.

Frankly I'm sick of the hypocrisy and BS people have on this issue. Some conservatives want to act like they're morally better than liberals and care more about freedom and the Constitution, then they celebrate stuff like this and taking away people's rights and controlling their lives, JUST LIKE FAR-LEFT LIBERALS DO!

As if ALL your fucking laws and rights won't also be taken away based on the same BS fake-morality and "doing this to save lives." As if any of you give a fuck about "unborn babies." You laugh at single mothers and call them whores, all the time.

Virtue signaling and pretending to care about "saving lives" are EXACTLY how corruption and oppression happens, to begin with. You really think shitting on the Constitution by pretending to "care about babies" isn't going to come back and bite you in the ass?

Note: I'm not left-leaning or a liberal, nor am I anti-second amendment.

[NamerOfStars]

That doesn't make any sense; taking away gun legality doesn't stop shootings. If you doubt that, visit Chicago.

Better bring a bulletproof vest, though.

[Paige90]

Roe v Wade was a terrible decision... Even liberal Ruth Bater Ginsburg said it was. Abortion won't be eliminated with the reverse of Roe v Wade it will simply be up to each state where it should have been all along.

[Anonymous]

Children-to-be in the womb need protecting.
Existing children in classrooms are fair game.

[joeldalton]

how many guns are in the US?

[Opinion Owner]

@joeldalton
Hundreds of millions. Why?

[joeldalton]

so if gun violence was truly a massive issue, with hundreds of millions of guns don't you think we'd see substantially more gun deaths than we do?

[Asker]

@joeldalton
Those two have nothing to do with each other.
But if you want to use that logic, "If abortion was truly such a massive issue, with 350+ million Americans, don't you think we'd see massive protests around the entire US of people wanting to see abortion outlawed over the decades it's been a thing?"
What exactly are some of these conservatives angry over, anyway?
People on both sides don't give a fuck about human lives, so why do they pretend to give a shit over someone else's non-existent embryos?

[Opinion Owner]

@joeldalton
That could always be the result of Americans inability to shoot straight, and not necessarily a reflection on their attempt to do so. 😂
Kidding aside, how many school children need to be killed in their classrooms before we try and do something about it?
If the pro-life crowd put even half the effort into fighting gun crime as they do fighting against abortion, then maybe, just maybe, they might actually live up to the title of pro-life.

[Asker]

They're not even "pro-life." They're just anti-abortion.
They don't give two shits about that child once it's born.
They won't even fucking pay taxes to welfare and child care programs for these babies they pretend to give a shit about.
"wHy iS tHaT mY pRoBlEm?" They'll say like fucking idiots, while at the same time wanting LAWS put in place to stop bad mothers from being burdened with children they don't love... While also shitting on them for being single mothers to begin with.
These are also the same people that argue for fathers to have rights to their children or the ability to opt out of fatherhood (not that I disagree with this), but then want unfit mothers to be shackled with a lifetime of raising children they don't want, that these same pro-life people bitch and moan about having to pay taxes to support.
It's like, do you care about the baby or don't? Fucking pick one already.

[joeldalton]

lmao. You two are idiots. So since you're both pro abortion, you both have to be pro killing kids in classrooms to be consistent using your logic.

[Opinion Owner]

@joeldalton
You’re gonna need to detail your brand of “logic” here. I’m not sure how you make that connection.

[joeldalton]

If you're saying that anti-abortion people have to be anti 2nd amendment to save children's lives, then you pro abortion people have to be pro 2nd amendment to kill children in utero and the classroom.

[Opinion Owner]

@joeldalton
Lmao….. okay.
First of all, pro abortion is disingenuous. I don’t advocate for abortion. I don’t recommend all pregnant women seek abortions.
I advocate for the right to have the choice. If a scared pregnant woman came to me for help, I wouldn’t just tell her to go have an abortion. We would discuss it as an option, same with having the baby, or giving it up, and I would help her decided based on her situation.
I’m pro choice.
Get that straight.
However, a pro lifer will tell you that they are about saving children. Saving lives. But it’s only the unborn that gets their focus.
From where I’m standing, all I see is a group of people who choose an easy cause to make laws that, for the most part, won’t affect them directly in their daily lives.
Advocating for gun laws would affect their daily lives, and therefore, not as even a consideration.
This might not be you personally, but most of the people I talk to, when probed enough, always come back to “well, she had sex.”
So it’s not the moral war they claim it to be.
You didn’t really think that whole pro abortion = pro 2nd amendment thing was actually going to work, did you?

[joeldalton]

It's the moron OP who started the 2A comparison. And you ran with it with your idiotic "existing children in classrooms are fair game". You set the stupid rules of the discussion, and now you're pretending that it's not what you brought up. If you can claim to be pro choice but against abortion, then someone can be pro 2A but against children being killed in classrooms, can't they?

[Asker]

@joeldalton
So you have absolutely nothing to say towards the arguments then? Got it.

"If you're saying that anti-abortion people have to be anti 2nd amendment to save children's lives, then you pro abortion people have to be pro 2nd amendment to kill children in utero and the classroom."

Now THAT is "retarded logic," because there's nothing in the second amendment that says anything about murdering children in the classroom. And I can't speak for the female poster, but like I already said above:
"I'm not left-leaning or a liberal, nor am I anti-second amendment."
So yes, genius; I AM pro-choice and pro-second-amendment.

This question isn't about pro-choice people, though.
It's about the inconsistent logic of an undeveloped embryo being aborted being equal to "baby murder" according to "pro life" people, while also supporting death through the use of firearms, whether that be hunting or shooting a burglar in his face.
That literally ain't "pro life."

But since you didn't argue any of the things I brought up, including the very post itself, I assume you just have nothing to actually say here and will just continue to call people "retards" for not agreeing with the dumb-ass logic of equating a lump of cells and skin in the womb as being the same as a five year old living breathing child.

[joeldalton]

The very premise that "It's about the inconsistent logic of an undeveloped embryo being aborted being equal to "baby murder" according to "pro life" people, while also supporting death through the use of firearms" is a stupid one. You failed at the gate.

[Asker]

@joeldalton
It's so stupid, you're not even going to dignify picking it apart which you could do so effortlessly being it's a "retarded" argument. Oh, but I guess your "pro-choice equals pro-mass shootings" argument was your best attempt though, right?

So once again, you have NOTHING to say against the issue and want to call people retards with fuck-all to counter it in actual arguments. Got it.

[joeldalton]

When you start off with a stupid premise, where is there to go? Who is pro classroom shootings, exactly?

[Opinion Owner]

@joeldalton
Oh, yeah! That’s not how I meant it at all.
I was referencing your “if your pro abortion, you must be pro 2nd amendment” logic.
Yeah. I totally made that comparison first. I wasn’t trying to deny that.

[Asker]

@joeldalton
Motherfucker! Do you NOT know what a fucking analogy is? This isn't LITERALLY about "classroom shootings." Good god, you're fucking dumb. All this stuff about "retards" and you can't even pick understand the ACTUAL issue here. Are you literally autistic or what? I'm really asking here. That would explain a lot.

You know what? Just don't ay anything else here. It's not like you'd actually contribute anything of value.

[joeldalton]

Yeah, it’s a shitty analogy, idiot.

[joeldalton]

Boy, you are retarded. Please, if you can’t understand that RvWade only puts the abortion issue out to the states rather than making it federal, I would ask that you stop weighing opinions on either it or the 2A.

[Tommysunami]

the 2nd amendment is a actual right. Abortion is not actually a right. If you want abortion to be a right it has to go through congress. I really recommend learning how government works then you will understand why the roe v wade ruling was not correct.

[Snsl153]

Yes, scrap the Second Amendment as well! It's archaic, stupid and shouldn't be there.

[Tommysunami]

You do understand gun rights are expanding? 26 state now have constitutional carry. Plus the new ruling from the Supreme Court means they aren't going anywhere anytime soon not that you could ever disarm the American citizens. We had a war about this once.

[Anonymous]

hate to point this out, but it's estimated that guns prevent 400,000 life-threatening crimes per year. Why do you want all those people to die?