Say what?

I have to admit being taken aback when I see someone arguing that you can be pro-life and pro-gun at the same time.

Well, I guess you need the guns to kill abortion doctors.

There is a serious problem with this position, but I don't expect that someone who is stupid enough to believe one can be pro-life and pro-gun would comprehend the disconnect.

First off, up to a point, the foetus is a speculative life. The foetus can miscarry. That seems a simple enough concept to grasp. Up until birth, there is the possibility that the foetus can miscarry. Modern technology has reduced the level of infant mortality, but birth also isn't a guarantee that a child will live.

On the other hand, those who have been born sacrifice their "innocence".

We can put a face on a foetus, but we make gun violence victims into statistics.

I know I sounded callous in my Bart Stupak post, but that is the type of disconnect I see in people who are pro-life and pro-gun. Even more disconcerting, is that Stupak's family suffered from gun violence.

People like Nicole Dufresne, BJ Stupak, Melanie Hain, and others are the real face of gun violence in America, not the overestimated and anecdotal DGUs the gun cretin crowd cite.

Another problem is that the assertion that guns are the only effective method implies that only deadly force is effective for self-defence. That deadly force is the only effective means of self-defence in of itself should be enough to make it ridiculous to assert that one is "pro-life".

Once people start rationalizing the deliberate taking of life, they are on a slippery slope. Before they know it, they are in a situation of having to destroy a village in order to save it, are in a plane over Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Could a person in an ICBM launch control center or on a submarine, ready and willing to turn the keys that would launch the missiles carrying nuclear warheads aimed to kill over 100 million people in half an hour, possibly be considered “pro-life”? If so, then it may be futile to seek limits to the killing in which one is willing to engage.

Personally, the lack of gun control impacts society in such a way, that one cannot possibly call themselves pro-life and pro-gun.

The problem is that more than 12,000 homicides by gun were reported in the United States in 2005. But the number who are wounded and survive gunshot assaults is much greater — nearly 53,000 were treated in emergency rooms in 2006, the same federal database shows.

A report in the journal Spinal Cord a decade ago estimated the direct lifetime charges for every shooting victim at $600,000, or nearly $800,000 in today's dollars. Some estimates put the indirect costs, including lost wages and productivity, at double that amount.

In a 1999 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Cook and his colleagues concluded that gunshot injuries in the United States in 1994 produced $2.3 billion in lifetime medical costs. Taxpayers footed half of that through Medicaid, Medicare, workers' compensation and other programs.

In a follow-up book, "Gun Violence: The Real Costs," published in 2000, Cook and Jens Ludwig estimated that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year, with medical costs only a small part of that.

This is just the financial cost, but there are other societal costs to gun violence in harm to families and destruction of neighbourhoods.

As I keep saying "Pro-life" society would work to make sure that basic needs would be assured, including a nutritious diet, sanitary water, decent shelter from the elements, a safe environment, and humane medical care. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and food stamps are assertions that satisfying these basic human needs should not be determined by one’s ability to pay. Structural violence in society occurs when people’s basic needs go unfulfilled because they are too poor to purchase goods or services.

Of course, this is an effort to take seriously the possibility of a “pro-life” philosophy and to examine what that might entail other than opposition to abortion. Of course, another possibility is that antiabortion people are not really interested in developing a “pro-life” philosophy but rather are just using the “pro-life” label because it will enhance their political effectiveness. Labeling oneself as “pro-life” is a form of self-aggrandizement, in part because it casts aspersions on one’s adversaries, implying that these opponents are “anti-life.” It is very unlikely that anyone would willingly seek or accept the label of “anti-life.” In that respect, the situation may be similar to those created by the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy and the National Right to Work Committee; who would volunteer to be the advocate of an “insane nuclear policy” or oppose the right of people to work?

But, why try to hide the fact, that this may not be a "pro-life" position, but one that is far more insidious.

Bart Stupak--Sick Motherfucker!

It comes to my attention that Bart Stupak claims to be pro-Life. The origin of this rant is that this "pro-life" dickhead claims enough votes to stop health care bill over abortion.

Health care is a "pro-life" concept even if it has provisions for abortion on demand. As I said before:

In a “pro-life” society, certain basic needs would be assured, including a nutritious diet, sanitary water, decent shelter from the elements, a safe environment, and humane medical care. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and food stamps are assertions that satisfying these basic human needs should not be determined by one’s ability to pay.

Anyway, if you didn't know it, Stupak's son, BJ, killed himself with a firearm on May 14, 2000. Yet does this asshole do anything about trying to prevent gun violence? fuck no? In fact, the fucker blamed accutane rather than the gun.

I've got news for you, Dickhead, I've gone through two courses of accutane and only came out of it with a bad sunburn.

But I had two things going for me, I wasn't mentally ill and I didn't have access to a firearm.

Instead of trying to stop other senseless deaths, it seems that Stupak claims to be "pro-life". That means he works to curtail women's access to birth control and if they have a "whoops": safe abortions. That means they would ultimately have to find some illegal source to terminate the unwanted pregnancy which could result in serious injury or death.

I guess he's one of those "kill a doctor for life" crowd.

There is a really sick trend in the US to calling yourself "pro-life" yet instead of doing things that promote and work to make life better, they try to make life hard for people. They want to punish. Punish women for having sex.

If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

An unborn baby is an "innocent life", yet Stupak's fucked up son wasn't worth putting his guns in a gun safe. Get the picture?

Naw, I'm not cynical or biased, these sick bastards will treat victims of gun death as scum the moment they get popped.

Remember Meleanie Hain?

Anyway, Stupak, call it like it is: you aren't pro-life. You're a fucked up, asshole and a piss poor father.

Your son deserved to die.

As the pro-choice crowd says, If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child.

In your case, it's if you aren't parent enough to keep your guns locked up in a safe, then your kid deserved to die.

It was his choice after all.

"Pro-life" my ass.

Punish your own sick ass, Stupak, not other people.

Pro-Life????

I have long joked that the anti-abortion movement should adopt the motto "kill a doctor for life", but it seems they are now whining that Harlan Drake, an anti-abortion activist has been shot.

Of course, you can't ask for gun control. Nevermind the Second Amendment was intended to prevent the militia formed under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution from being disarmed and no private purpose intended. Part of the use of abortion and gun control to keep the US political system as divisive as it is requires perpetuating the lie of an "individual right" (whatever that means) under the Second Amendment. And Heller didn't say shit since the holding said that Heller was able to register the gun provided he passed the registration requirements.

Donald Granberg said it pretty well in his post found at http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1315.

In a “pro-life” society, certain basic needs would be assured, including a nutritious diet, sanitary water, decent shelter from the elements, a safe environment, and humane medical care. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and food stamps are assertions that satisfying these basic human needs should not be determined by one’s ability to pay. Structural violence in society occurs when people’s basic needs go unfulfilled because they are too poor to purchase goods or services.

On the matter of health, it almost goes without saying that the “pro-life” person would refrain from smoking, oppose government subsidy of domestic tobacco production and sale to overseas markets, encourage physical fitness, and donate blood for transfusions to people whose lives might thereby be saved. Also, insofar as a surplus existed, one might also expect the society to provide relief to needy people in other societies in the form of nonmilitary foreign aid, directly providing goods or teaching developmental skills.

The U.S. is a violent society, as reflected in the statistics showing the very high rate at which we kill each other and the frequency with which we go to war. We are a nation armed to the teeth, in terms of civilians owning guns and in terms of the amount we spend on the military.

At both levels there are sincere and well-intentioned people who believe that having more weapons makes for more safety, peace and security. Statistics, however, do not bear this out. There is no evidence that would indicate that a family is less likely to die from gunshot wounds if it keeps guns in the house. In fact, the contrary is true.

What does that mean in practise?

Well, if you are truly pro-life, then you should be supporting health care and really concerned about gun control.

But the issue isn't really "pro-life" or Scalia wouldn't have put his name to that piece of shit called the Heller decision. It is anti-abortion.

So cut the crap folks: if you don't want an abortion, then don't have one.

BUT KEEP OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S PERSONAL DECISIONS: ESPECIALLY PERSONAL DECISIONS REGARDING MEDICAL CARE, WHICH ABORTION IS..

I have a serious problem with the US believing in gun rights, but denying the basic human rights of health care, housing, or education.

What is wrong with the situation where some asshole can show up at a rally where the president will be speaking with an assault rifle, scream tyranny and decry healthcare? Maybe we should send him to Iran or North Korea and learn about Tyranny.

Seriously, any other country and he would have been cuffed face down on the ground. In a tyrannical society they would have shot him without a by your leave.

That would have served him for being enough of an idiot to show up with a weapon. Maybe he will be more intelligent in his NEXT life.

Yanks are such cretins that they don't realise that a couple of people with the same type of rifle carried by the cretin in AZ held the US capitol hostage for a couple of weeks. There are people running around openly carrying guns. These people allow for the carnage at LA Fitness by blocking laws that would prevent access to firearms by psychos because they are Psychos who know they wouldn't be allowed firearms if registration were required.

Unfortunately, the US has this bizarre myth that requires them to attack and harm innocent people. On the other hand, there are people who go bankrupt from serious illnesses because the healthcare system in the states sucks. Yes, the US is #37 in the world as far as actual healthcare services go according to the World Health Organisation. Quote:

In spite of improvements, on various measures of health outcomes the United States appears to rank relatively poorly among OECD countries. Health expenditures, in contrast, are significantly higher than in any other OECD country. While there are factors beyond the health-care system itself that contribute to this gap in performance, there is also likely to be scope to improve the health of Americans while reducing, or at least not increasing spending.

What is wrong with the picture of a person carrying an assault rifle to protest people having health care? Is it just me?

The US has some serious problems if the Second Amendment allows for George Sodini the firearms to kill and maim at LA fitness, yet Heather Sherba, one of Sodini's victims, has to have a car wash to pay for treatment.

Pro-life my arse.