I was just thinking about how much more damage a 12 gauge shotgun slug would do compared to a 223 rd.... 🤔


but it's OK to own a shotgun... 😟

Ever see what even bird shot will do to a watermelon..?? 😕

DrafterX wrote:

OK.
For those who are challenged with an inability to comprehend reasoning:
The point is we can't embrace an executive order simply because we agree with it.


Now, if you'd like to talk specifics, I find it odd that the same group who supports the killing of millions as a "choice" are somehow against the "choice" to own a weapon regardless of the intent.

Here's a stat:
100% of aborted babies are dead.
I don't think most guns have that kind of statistic. You should snopes it.

tailgater wrote:

Executive orders are how our government works. Like it or not.

And as far as abortions go - Oh, no you don't!
The view that legal abortion is murder is a religious view. It is not a fact of science or law. Some feel that birth control is and act murder or against God’s will and some feel that the morning after pill is murder – this is their choice. But these are spiritual views – again not science or law. We have a separation of church and state in this country. Thank God!

Brewha wrote:

Yes, but executive orders were supposed to be more for administrative things, not for bypassing congress and making laws. Laws are to be made by congress, but Obama doesn't like that arrangement.
We also have laws being made by faceless nameless bureaucrats that have no accountability to the citizenry.

Are you saying that you like that arrangement?

"And as far as abortions go" killing a baby is killing a baby, it is a fact of science.

Why do the libs always rail about "free choice' when it comes to this issue, but every other issue, free choice be damned?

(school "choice" for instance)

teddyballgame wrote:

Abortion kills an unborn baby.
There might be some grey area between fetus/unborn, but nobody harvests fetus parts. They do, however, harvest aborted babies for body parts. Or at least they try to.
How is that? If it's not a baby (a human), then how can we use their parts? How and why is it big money? This is just a for-instance.

Brew, I'm not an anti-abortion zealot.
I understand why it needs to remain a legal option.
But your insistence that it's strictly a religious viewpoint is dead wrong. a reasonable person without religion can agree that at some point the baby in the womb is a person, and how dare you tell it that it's not.

tailgater wrote:

I thought this was about executive orders?

dstieger wrote:

Abortion prevents a zygote, embryo or fetus from becoming a baby. And like killing a plant, it is not murder.

Admittedly there is a gray area between fertilized egg and the moment of birth where the to-be person is sufficiently a person for it to be murder. But in the first trimester there is no self-supporting or conscious life. Third trimester is highly questionable and not really an option. As a point of science, the battle ground is the second trimester.

People harvest stimcells to great advantage – but I see no argument for murder here. Reuse of a heart or kidneys is only an issue if the person was killed for harvest. I would ask you to clarify what you mean by “using their parts”.

Now for people to assert that “all abortion is murder” is an opinion that is not supported by the scientific definition of a person or as a point of law. And while this opinion does not require religion (to your point) it most often comes from religious ideas.

Brewha wrote:

By definition a fetus is not a baby. Looking at state laws a fetus becomes a baby once it has drawn it's first breath. If you want to debate the issue of when a fetus becomes viable please do so, but let's be clear about the facts. Killing a baby is murder, but your religious belief that a fetus is a baby has no legal basis unless there is a law that I am unaware of.

Speyside wrote:

Can we get back to John Lennon?

Brewha wrote:

Prolly somewhere.... 😟



I'm still trying to find the .223 going thru 8" of steel.... 🤔

DrafterX wrote:

I'm not talking stem cells. Nice attempt at misdirection.
If you can harvest a heart or kidney from an aborted "fetus" then the fetus was in reality a human being.
that's not religion. It's also not the law. It's just the reality of it.

tailgater wrote: