It seems hypocritical to me that the US does not want to take responsibility for the guns that cross the border into Mexico, but they blame Mexico for the drugs that cross the border into the US. Especially when statistically, the drugs come into the country with people coming into the country legally.
Yeah, American citizens and legal residents make the guns, make the money from the sale and manufacture of the guns, make up the group with the highest demand for illegal drugs and make up the majority of people bringing in the drugs. But Mexico!
I have no doubt that SCOTUS took this case so its conservative justices could use it to cripple the few laws that some states have passed to make it less difficult to bring actions against gun manufacturers under the PLCAA. In an era with ballooning gun industry profits, when guns are the leading cause of death for American children and teens, where gun violence is a major driver of migration from south of the border and where cartels armed with American guns facilitate the illegal drug trade into the U.S., what are we doing? Trump issued an executive order that directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to conduct a review within 30 days “to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens.” After that, Bondi is expected to present a plan to undo any policies the administration believes violate gun rights. On the chopping block are several high-profile attempts by the previous administration to reduce gun violence, including regulations on ghost guns, expanded background checks on gun sales, and tougher regulatory oversight of lawbreaking gun dealers. It will be even easier for people like the American in Texas who purchased almost a hundred assault rifles over a two-month period, two thirds of which have so far been recovered at crime scenes in Mexico. He spent a few months in prison for paperwork violations. And things will be easier for gun dealers to engage in even more massive cash transactions, a major red flag for trafficking. We are already hamstrung by a law on the books that shields almost all gun dealer and trafficking information from public view. In addition, Trump has ordered the already strapped ATF, whose mission is to prevent gun trafficking and gun violence, to provide agents to assist in deportations, RFK Jr testified that gun violence is not a public health crisis and Trump shut down The Federal School Safety Clearinghouse, an interagency effort housed in the Dept of Homeland Security that was created by Trump’s first administration after the Parkland shooting to share resources and best practices related to school safety. Dark days.
I'm rooting for Mexico on this. And I'm saying this as a gun owner. My family used to be members of the NRA until they decided that gun ownership was the only thing that mattered, not responsibility, not the public good, and not American lives. We continue to own guns, but we have NEVER believed that there should be no restrictions on ownership. The NRA stands for the financial interests of the gun manufacturers, gun traders, and NRA leaders, not responsible 2nd Amendment stewardship. Mexico shouldn't have to pay, literally or figuratively, for the inability of our elected leaders to prioritize common sense over lining pockets.
SCOTUS will likely rule in the Gun manufacturers favor. Typically courts do not take kindly to lawsuits from other countries. This is true for all countries, not just the USA. I do fear that is this will embolden Manufacturers to do even more business with Cartels and nefarious people in the USA. Those guns are part of the reason we have people fleeing Latin American countries for the USA. While I hope SCOTUS holds the manufacturers accountable for violating marketing schemes, I think ultimately, they will decide that it falls on Mexico to prevent Cartels from getting access to guns. Which will do nothing to help the border issues.
I am probably a rare liberal who doesn’t want to see the second amendment abolished. However, I do believe we need to really look at what kind of guns are sold, how they are sold, and prevent the illegal sale of them in gun show parking lots and other areas. We can’t keep saying we need to enforce the laws already in place if those laws are fundamentally flawed and or don’t have the backing of people charged to enforce those laws.
I point to Red Flag Laws. In many states I hear stories about police not enforcing them as they don’t believe them, and thus undercut their effectiveness.
I know I am going off topic here and into the realm of gun control but I feel this case is tied to that as well.
You make some good points but I take issue with your statement that implies that liberals want to abolish the second amendment. That's not true. The vast majority of people who lean liberal simply want more common sense gun regulations and policy. With everything going on I don't think that's an unreasonable position.
I agree with Gina. You are not rare, Kris. In actuality, I know of no one (personally) who advocates for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The problem isn't the amendment itself. The problem is that it is currently 'enforced' under the guise of a gross misinterpretation. In a nutshell: The founders never intended it to allow unfettered access to guns...yet that is how it is being interpreted today.
Not to mention when the 2nd amendment was written they couldn’t even fathom the array of powerful firearms we would have in the year 2025. In my opinion it is both ignorant and reckless to deny that there needs to be more common sense gun regulation. Sadly, if guns being the number 1 killer of children and teens in our country isn’t enough for people to agree to enforce stricter regulations I don’t know what would.
I hear it a lot in my area. I have gotten into arguments with people about it as well. That’s why I say it. It’s good to know that others feel the same way I do.
I just wish we could get out from under the NRA influence held over politicians.
Imagine if the situation were in reverse—that something deadly was pouring into our country from across the border—oh wait, it is: fentanyl. You’d think we’d be able to consider that it goes both ways and we need to do our part to stop our exporting guns to cartels, which will in turn help stop the importation of Fentanyl.
Also, HUMANS. The cartels not only engage in human trafficking but also run the coyote industry that sneak groups of migrants into the country. If you're actually worried about immigration, this gun legislation is critical.
I'd love more information about Project Thor (the article linked regarding the investigation into how American guns get into Mexico). Both Sharon and the article note that the U.S. intelligence estimates between 250,000 and 1,000,000 weapons are smuggled across the border from the U.S. into Mexico illegally.
I have so many questions about this. First, that is an incredibly wide range - are they saying that it varies from year to year but is within that range, or that they can't get more precise than that?
Second, it doesn't sound like there's any attempt to stop it as part of border security operations, even though that would significantly increase security in both countries. As a Texan, although I don't usually cross into Mexico via car, I do experience border checkpoints in areas close to the border every year and either get waved through automatically or just asked "U.S. citizen?" and then when I say yes, waved through without anything further. It seems like there is a lot more that could be done here on the U.S. side to prevent weapons leaking across the border, which would improve both countries immeasurably.
While I know border security is something people think is important - I wonder what their response would be too more security checkpoints. And those checkpoints taking longer. In addition to taking more time and money on the side of the agents, I have to wonder what people would say. Especially those who pass through them more often. Again maybe they'd be fine with it! But I have to wonder if there wouldn't be some push back to that. It seems like that is one of the tensions that exists there. The tension between what people want and what they want to put up with to get it.
Re: What this means for 45/47, it's so weird how things are complex issues and not black and white! Listen, I think we all know how this is going to go, but I really hope we're wrong.
Not weird. It’s a function, not a bug. I, also, hope for a positive and productive ruling. But no matter the decision, at least we are all better educated on the subject, and that is positive!
There was a great article in The Atlantic late last year "Seventy Miles in Hell" (link below) where one reporter embedded with a group of migrants trying to make it to the U.S. border. One thing that she discussed at length that isn't covered here is that the cartels have taken over the migrant-guide industry and thus the "coyotes" people hire to sneak them into the U.S. work directly for the cartels. I.E. it's not just about Trump's border security in general but about illegal immigration itself - these cartels are directly responsible for the flow of migrants into the country, using gun violence to enforce their monopoly and to get people past certain security points. I know that this isn't how our country currently works but truly the only thing that makes sense is to side with Mexico on this case if you are actually concerned about the flow of migrants into the country. That said, as Sharon has written, guns are the golden calf, so I can't imagine that the right thing will be done here, and we will instead see the very same people crying about the immigration situation who then turn around and actively arm cartels via lax gun regulation, knowing that the guns are going right to cartels who then sneak large groups of people into the country. LOL maybe it's a job security thing? They arm the cartels to increase the immigration that they then run on?
So US supplies the guns that they take over the border to Mexico and then when migrants are fleeing to our country to get away from the violence, we reject them. 😡
While I agree we need to stop the flow of so many US manufactured guns from crossing the us/Mexico border and getting into the hands of cartels and gangs, I would like to ask why there isn’t at least equal outrage regarding an EXPONENTIALLY larger killer in our country. Why is the anger so much louder regarding deaths attributed to guns than by those caused by abortions? According to the CDC and Pew Research Center, deaths committed by someone using a gun in the month May 2024 =3900 (which was a decrease from 2023) compared to 98,000 the same month (an increase over 2023) caused by abortions. Let those numbers sink in and let me know why the rage over one is so loud and the silence over the other is deafening.
Well, first of all people can be upset about both things simultaneously.
Second of all, abortion is a complex issue and women deserve bodily autonomy which includes getting to choose to use it to support a fetus. No one else can be forced to use their body and organs to maintain the life of someone else- you even need to give consent before you die to have your organs donated and you aren’t even using them anymore!!
Abortion is not a black and white issue and to attempt to force it in to one leaves millions of women’s lives in jeopardy. It’s best to leave medical decisions between the patient and their provider. Hope that helps.
Also, this dismisses my point that you cannot be forced to donate blood, a kidney, bone marrow, etc. even if you’re the only person that can prevent another’s death by donating yours. why must a woman donate literally her entire body to sustain a fetus ?
As someone who has grown and birthed two babies I can say without a shadow of doubt in my mind that no one should ever be forced to do that against their will.
I’m also not afraid of going to work or the super market and being aborted by someone. But I actually scared about being killed in a mass shooting.
In addition, my sister had to have a d&c during her journey to become pregnant, as did many of my friends. She desperately wanted that baby, but it was not meant to be. Those d&cs are counted in the abortions per month statistics. As are miscarriages that happen in hospitals or clinics.
Call it whatever makes you comfortable but in reality, it is the ending of a life and at a far higher rate than all deaths attributed to guns. We should be outraged at this as a civilized nation!!
For those of you who are Pro-Choice - isn't 98,000 a month a staggering number to you? Rape, incest, health of the mother aside, does that number give you pause at all? Genuine question asked calmly, with no malice intended.
98,000 certainly sounds like a lot, but as a proportion of the population that can get pregnant in the U.S., it's around 0.1%. While I think reducing the need for abortion is absolutely a worthy cause, I'm also not concerned with what 0.1% of women are doing with their bodies. I would much rather a woman be able to choose when and how she becomes a mother than to be forced into it by a country that provides nothing to her for the pain of it all.
That's not an accurate number based on my research. While I respect that you might find that even one is too many, the real number is not 98,000 per day. Unless you're talking globally. Even the highest reliable statistics put it at about 2,500 per day. The CDC puts it at closer to 1,700. Thus, 98,000 is an inflation of nearly 40-60x the real number. Ask yourself, why did someone feed you such an exaggerated number? If we're going to have a conversation, we should start with a shared understanding of the facts, first. As with Lemon Esq., I believe that the first step to preventing abortion is to make the world a better place for children. That includes making sure mothers only become mothers when they're ready to be mothers. It also means making sure that, if a child is born, the biggest cause of death should be old age.
I want to correct my assertion that 98,000 a day was the statistic used above (by the original poster). It was per month. It's still a significant exaggeration, but more in the order of 25% to 90%. My apologies.
Since you replied directly to me to dispute something that I didn’t post originally, I am responding to say that no one stated it was 98,000 a day. Regardless, in my opinion, that number is staggering and I am allowed to think that way and feel however I want to about it, as are you. I can have a conversation without knowing the exact number, as that is not the basis of my belief. I can also see the other sides perspective based on their beliefs.
Just curious, prior to giving birth did you refer to the baby in your womb as your fetus or your child? The possibility of pregnancy should be taken into consideration prior to conception. Your argument is not equivalent to the examples you listed. False equivalency but nice try.
I did, in fact, refer to my fetuses as a "pregnancy" until they were viable. I had two miscarriages (and something like 24 failed cycles) before having a viable pregnancy. You learn pretty quick not to put personhood into something that's not a guarantee. And fetuses before viability are never a guarantee.
That sounds like an extremely tough journey to have to go through. Thank you for sharing and I’m sorry that you have to bring it up in the first place let alone get such a cold response in return. I appreciate your strength in helping give shape to all the different complexities of this issue. ❤️
The only false equivalency here is you try to argue that living, breathing, talking, school age children being mowed down by guns is the same as a non viable fetus being terminated via abortion.
Actually the two are in fact the same. It’s just a matter of location of the lives being ended. What you are presenting are justifications/rationalizations for making one sound more horrendous than the other when, in fact, the two are equally sad. No matter how you may wish to spin the language they are the same!! In both instances lives are ended at the hands of another.
You seem to have missed the phrase 'non-viable' above. Unless you genuinely believe that a mother agonizingly choosing to abort a pregnancy that has zero chance at life (and instead will suffer) is the same thing as a child being shot with a gun.
While I agree abortions should not be used as a form of birth control for many people, there are certain circumstances that it should be allowed and these women should not be judged for it. It’s such a hard thing to define that it’s either allowed or not. My best friend in high school got pregnant at 15 by her first and older boyfriend who encouraged her to not use a condom so you can say she was naive. Her family was very religious and would disown her if she carried through with the pregnancy. I don’t think it should be too much to ask that a 15 year old not become a mother with no support. She would have to live homeless with a child and try to get welfare and not be able to finish school. Is it a responsibility question? Sure, but she was 15!
The next section, I use “you” not to aim directly at you Robn but just as a whole to the pro life crowd.
Now, if I never told you that story, you would never know she had an abortion. I don’t see how that affects anyone’s life except hers and her family. You would’ve treated her without judgment if you didn’t know.
That’s just my story that impacted my views regarding abortions. You are certainly within your right to believe in pro life and raise your family to live the same lifestyle but I don’t think it’s fair that you are judging others for choosing theirs and voting to make that decision for them.
We certainly disagree and therein lies the thesis of my original post. Wheee is the outrage. Why do we get to pick and choose when to be outraged and when to excuse away. Perhaps it’s because to acknowledge the truth would mean we have to also accept responsibility?
Brianna, I do not stand in judgment of your friend, that’s between her and God. My point in all of this is why are we as a as a people, in this great nation, not willing to put as much effort in encouraging all lives to be saved from the youngest to the oldest, especially when it involves children. The only difference in those in school and those in the womb are time and place. Both are significant and should be considered and respected accordingly.
I’d like to ask Sharon directly: Do you *really* think Mexico stands a chance here???
It’s not that I don’t think it’s important to discuss/know about; and of course it goes both ways (re: border security) Also, very brave for Mexico to try to work within the system! However, I’m 💯 sure the SC will rule that Mx doesn’t have a standing; since there’s no way in hell they’ll touch the 2nd Amendment with a 10 foot pole 🤷🏻♀️ so the question really is: do you think this is really going anywhere???
I follow Christy Carlson Ramon from Kim Possible on Disney and she was recently shot in the face at a gun range by a friend who wasn’t using a gun safely. Can you imagine the difference it would have made if they had some sort of training requirement before you could own a firearm.
And unrelated to my previous comment, I wonder if the Supreme Court might try to go the route of saying that Mexico doesn't have standing. I am absolutely not a lawyer of any kind, so I don't know if that argument holds any merit or is possible, but it seems like the Court has recently gone in that direction when trying to avoid a more controversial decision.
It seems hypocritical to me that the US does not want to take responsibility for the guns that cross the border into Mexico, but they blame Mexico for the drugs that cross the border into the US. Especially when statistically, the drugs come into the country with people coming into the country legally.
Yeah, American citizens and legal residents make the guns, make the money from the sale and manufacture of the guns, make up the group with the highest demand for illegal drugs and make up the majority of people bringing in the drugs. But Mexico!
I’d love to see US gun manufacturers go out of business. I know it won’t happen, but a girl can dream.
Today I learned Congress granted those manufacturers immunity from the harms they cause. I needed a moment after reading that in today's post.
I have no doubt that SCOTUS took this case so its conservative justices could use it to cripple the few laws that some states have passed to make it less difficult to bring actions against gun manufacturers under the PLCAA. In an era with ballooning gun industry profits, when guns are the leading cause of death for American children and teens, where gun violence is a major driver of migration from south of the border and where cartels armed with American guns facilitate the illegal drug trade into the U.S., what are we doing? Trump issued an executive order that directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to conduct a review within 30 days “to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens.” After that, Bondi is expected to present a plan to undo any policies the administration believes violate gun rights. On the chopping block are several high-profile attempts by the previous administration to reduce gun violence, including regulations on ghost guns, expanded background checks on gun sales, and tougher regulatory oversight of lawbreaking gun dealers. It will be even easier for people like the American in Texas who purchased almost a hundred assault rifles over a two-month period, two thirds of which have so far been recovered at crime scenes in Mexico. He spent a few months in prison for paperwork violations. And things will be easier for gun dealers to engage in even more massive cash transactions, a major red flag for trafficking. We are already hamstrung by a law on the books that shields almost all gun dealer and trafficking information from public view. In addition, Trump has ordered the already strapped ATF, whose mission is to prevent gun trafficking and gun violence, to provide agents to assist in deportations, RFK Jr testified that gun violence is not a public health crisis and Trump shut down The Federal School Safety Clearinghouse, an interagency effort housed in the Dept of Homeland Security that was created by Trump’s first administration after the Parkland shooting to share resources and best practices related to school safety. Dark days.
Damn! Thank you!
Two things are true.
President Trump proved he didn’t care about the border when he killed the bipartisan border bill.
Also, please tell me again, who are the “bad hombres”?
Thank you, Sharon, for this super important info.
I'm rooting for Mexico on this. And I'm saying this as a gun owner. My family used to be members of the NRA until they decided that gun ownership was the only thing that mattered, not responsibility, not the public good, and not American lives. We continue to own guns, but we have NEVER believed that there should be no restrictions on ownership. The NRA stands for the financial interests of the gun manufacturers, gun traders, and NRA leaders, not responsible 2nd Amendment stewardship. Mexico shouldn't have to pay, literally or figuratively, for the inability of our elected leaders to prioritize common sense over lining pockets.
Thank you for writing this piece. I live in Mexico and we see the fallout from this every day. It’s time that someone be held accountable.
SCOTUS will likely rule in the Gun manufacturers favor. Typically courts do not take kindly to lawsuits from other countries. This is true for all countries, not just the USA. I do fear that is this will embolden Manufacturers to do even more business with Cartels and nefarious people in the USA. Those guns are part of the reason we have people fleeing Latin American countries for the USA. While I hope SCOTUS holds the manufacturers accountable for violating marketing schemes, I think ultimately, they will decide that it falls on Mexico to prevent Cartels from getting access to guns. Which will do nothing to help the border issues.
I am probably a rare liberal who doesn’t want to see the second amendment abolished. However, I do believe we need to really look at what kind of guns are sold, how they are sold, and prevent the illegal sale of them in gun show parking lots and other areas. We can’t keep saying we need to enforce the laws already in place if those laws are fundamentally flawed and or don’t have the backing of people charged to enforce those laws.
I point to Red Flag Laws. In many states I hear stories about police not enforcing them as they don’t believe them, and thus undercut their effectiveness.
I know I am going off topic here and into the realm of gun control but I feel this case is tied to that as well.
You make some good points but I take issue with your statement that implies that liberals want to abolish the second amendment. That's not true. The vast majority of people who lean liberal simply want more common sense gun regulations and policy. With everything going on I don't think that's an unreasonable position.
I agree with Gina. You are not rare, Kris. In actuality, I know of no one (personally) who advocates for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The problem isn't the amendment itself. The problem is that it is currently 'enforced' under the guise of a gross misinterpretation. In a nutshell: The founders never intended it to allow unfettered access to guns...yet that is how it is being interpreted today.
Not to mention when the 2nd amendment was written they couldn’t even fathom the array of powerful firearms we would have in the year 2025. In my opinion it is both ignorant and reckless to deny that there needs to be more common sense gun regulation. Sadly, if guns being the number 1 killer of children and teens in our country isn’t enough for people to agree to enforce stricter regulations I don’t know what would.
You are not rare. Common sense gun control is for everyone!
I hear it a lot in my area. I have gotten into arguments with people about it as well. That’s why I say it. It’s good to know that others feel the same way I do.
I just wish we could get out from under the NRA influence held over politicians.
Imagine if the situation were in reverse—that something deadly was pouring into our country from across the border—oh wait, it is: fentanyl. You’d think we’d be able to consider that it goes both ways and we need to do our part to stop our exporting guns to cartels, which will in turn help stop the importation of Fentanyl.
Also, HUMANS. The cartels not only engage in human trafficking but also run the coyote industry that sneak groups of migrants into the country. If you're actually worried about immigration, this gun legislation is critical.
I'd love more information about Project Thor (the article linked regarding the investigation into how American guns get into Mexico). Both Sharon and the article note that the U.S. intelligence estimates between 250,000 and 1,000,000 weapons are smuggled across the border from the U.S. into Mexico illegally.
I have so many questions about this. First, that is an incredibly wide range - are they saying that it varies from year to year but is within that range, or that they can't get more precise than that?
Second, it doesn't sound like there's any attempt to stop it as part of border security operations, even though that would significantly increase security in both countries. As a Texan, although I don't usually cross into Mexico via car, I do experience border checkpoints in areas close to the border every year and either get waved through automatically or just asked "U.S. citizen?" and then when I say yes, waved through without anything further. It seems like there is a lot more that could be done here on the U.S. side to prevent weapons leaking across the border, which would improve both countries immeasurably.
While I know border security is something people think is important - I wonder what their response would be too more security checkpoints. And those checkpoints taking longer. In addition to taking more time and money on the side of the agents, I have to wonder what people would say. Especially those who pass through them more often. Again maybe they'd be fine with it! But I have to wonder if there wouldn't be some push back to that. It seems like that is one of the tensions that exists there. The tension between what people want and what they want to put up with to get it.
Re: What this means for 45/47, it's so weird how things are complex issues and not black and white! Listen, I think we all know how this is going to go, but I really hope we're wrong.
Not weird. It’s a function, not a bug. I, also, hope for a positive and productive ruling. But no matter the decision, at least we are all better educated on the subject, and that is positive!
There was a great article in The Atlantic late last year "Seventy Miles in Hell" (link below) where one reporter embedded with a group of migrants trying to make it to the U.S. border. One thing that she discussed at length that isn't covered here is that the cartels have taken over the migrant-guide industry and thus the "coyotes" people hire to sneak them into the U.S. work directly for the cartels. I.E. it's not just about Trump's border security in general but about illegal immigration itself - these cartels are directly responsible for the flow of migrants into the country, using gun violence to enforce their monopoly and to get people past certain security points. I know that this isn't how our country currently works but truly the only thing that makes sense is to side with Mexico on this case if you are actually concerned about the flow of migrants into the country. That said, as Sharon has written, guns are the golden calf, so I can't imagine that the right thing will be done here, and we will instead see the very same people crying about the immigration situation who then turn around and actively arm cartels via lax gun regulation, knowing that the guns are going right to cartels who then sneak large groups of people into the country. LOL maybe it's a job security thing? They arm the cartels to increase the immigration that they then run on?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/09/darien-gap-route-migrants-panama/679156/
So US supplies the guns that they take over the border to Mexico and then when migrants are fleeing to our country to get away from the violence, we reject them. 😡
While I agree we need to stop the flow of so many US manufactured guns from crossing the us/Mexico border and getting into the hands of cartels and gangs, I would like to ask why there isn’t at least equal outrage regarding an EXPONENTIALLY larger killer in our country. Why is the anger so much louder regarding deaths attributed to guns than by those caused by abortions? According to the CDC and Pew Research Center, deaths committed by someone using a gun in the month May 2024 =3900 (which was a decrease from 2023) compared to 98,000 the same month (an increase over 2023) caused by abortions. Let those numbers sink in and let me know why the rage over one is so loud and the silence over the other is deafening.
Well, first of all people can be upset about both things simultaneously.
Second of all, abortion is a complex issue and women deserve bodily autonomy which includes getting to choose to use it to support a fetus. No one else can be forced to use their body and organs to maintain the life of someone else- you even need to give consent before you die to have your organs donated and you aren’t even using them anymore!!
Abortion is not a black and white issue and to attempt to force it in to one leaves millions of women’s lives in jeopardy. It’s best to leave medical decisions between the patient and their provider. Hope that helps.
I’d also like to add that also according to Pew Research Center 99% of abortions occur before fetal viability.
A fetus is a life! I hope that helps.
It is the potential for a life but it is not a fully realized human. Sorry I think fully realized humans should have more rights than a fetus.
Also, this dismisses my point that you cannot be forced to donate blood, a kidney, bone marrow, etc. even if you’re the only person that can prevent another’s death by donating yours. why must a woman donate literally her entire body to sustain a fetus ?
As someone who has grown and birthed two babies I can say without a shadow of doubt in my mind that no one should ever be forced to do that against their will.
Abortions are medical procedures. Gunning down someone is a violent crime. Not the same. At all.
I’m also not afraid of going to work or the super market and being aborted by someone. But I actually scared about being killed in a mass shooting.
In addition, my sister had to have a d&c during her journey to become pregnant, as did many of my friends. She desperately wanted that baby, but it was not meant to be. Those d&cs are counted in the abortions per month statistics. As are miscarriages that happen in hospitals or clinics.
And yet they are the same…both are the ending of a life by choice. (And don’t come at me with the exceptions as a valid argument).
Because abortion isn't murder.
Call it whatever makes you comfortable but in reality, it is the ending of a life and at a far higher rate than all deaths attributed to guns. We should be outraged at this as a civilized nation!!
For those of you who are Pro-Choice - isn't 98,000 a month a staggering number to you? Rape, incest, health of the mother aside, does that number give you pause at all? Genuine question asked calmly, with no malice intended.
Yeah it’s a lot, for sure. And I think that number could be reduced by better health and sex education and access to birth control.
Also, by supporting programs that support families such as WIC, paid family leave, subsidized childcare, etc.
That said, I believe Until fetal viability the pregnant person should have absolute control over their own body.
Thank you for responding. I agree with most of your points, and I appreciate your side of what we disagree about.
I also believe that much more must be done regarding gun control.
98,000 certainly sounds like a lot, but as a proportion of the population that can get pregnant in the U.S., it's around 0.1%. While I think reducing the need for abortion is absolutely a worthy cause, I'm also not concerned with what 0.1% of women are doing with their bodies. I would much rather a woman be able to choose when and how she becomes a mother than to be forced into it by a country that provides nothing to her for the pain of it all.
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
That's not an accurate number based on my research. While I respect that you might find that even one is too many, the real number is not 98,000 per day. Unless you're talking globally. Even the highest reliable statistics put it at about 2,500 per day. The CDC puts it at closer to 1,700. Thus, 98,000 is an inflation of nearly 40-60x the real number. Ask yourself, why did someone feed you such an exaggerated number? If we're going to have a conversation, we should start with a shared understanding of the facts, first. As with Lemon Esq., I believe that the first step to preventing abortion is to make the world a better place for children. That includes making sure mothers only become mothers when they're ready to be mothers. It also means making sure that, if a child is born, the biggest cause of death should be old age.
I want to correct my assertion that 98,000 a day was the statistic used above (by the original poster). It was per month. It's still a significant exaggeration, but more in the order of 25% to 90%. My apologies.
Since you replied directly to me to dispute something that I didn’t post originally, I am responding to say that no one stated it was 98,000 a day. Regardless, in my opinion, that number is staggering and I am allowed to think that way and feel however I want to about it, as are you. I can have a conversation without knowing the exact number, as that is not the basis of my belief. I can also see the other sides perspective based on their beliefs.
My apologies for responding to you.
No apologies are necessary; I just didn't provide that number. I think we want the same things for children and mothers.
Just curious, prior to giving birth did you refer to the baby in your womb as your fetus or your child? The possibility of pregnancy should be taken into consideration prior to conception. Your argument is not equivalent to the examples you listed. False equivalency but nice try.
I did, in fact, refer to my fetuses as a "pregnancy" until they were viable. I had two miscarriages (and something like 24 failed cycles) before having a viable pregnancy. You learn pretty quick not to put personhood into something that's not a guarantee. And fetuses before viability are never a guarantee.
That sounds like an extremely tough journey to have to go through. Thank you for sharing and I’m sorry that you have to bring it up in the first place let alone get such a cold response in return. I appreciate your strength in helping give shape to all the different complexities of this issue. ❤️
And with abortions they are guaranteed to never be viable this my point.
The only false equivalency here is you try to argue that living, breathing, talking, school age children being mowed down by guns is the same as a non viable fetus being terminated via abortion.
Actually the two are in fact the same. It’s just a matter of location of the lives being ended. What you are presenting are justifications/rationalizations for making one sound more horrendous than the other when, in fact, the two are equally sad. No matter how you may wish to spin the language they are the same!! In both instances lives are ended at the hands of another.
You seem to have missed the phrase 'non-viable' above. Unless you genuinely believe that a mother agonizingly choosing to abort a pregnancy that has zero chance at life (and instead will suffer) is the same thing as a child being shot with a gun.
My discussion is about elected abortions not the type you reference in your case. I consider those miscarriages or dnc procedures.
While I agree abortions should not be used as a form of birth control for many people, there are certain circumstances that it should be allowed and these women should not be judged for it. It’s such a hard thing to define that it’s either allowed or not. My best friend in high school got pregnant at 15 by her first and older boyfriend who encouraged her to not use a condom so you can say she was naive. Her family was very religious and would disown her if she carried through with the pregnancy. I don’t think it should be too much to ask that a 15 year old not become a mother with no support. She would have to live homeless with a child and try to get welfare and not be able to finish school. Is it a responsibility question? Sure, but she was 15!
The next section, I use “you” not to aim directly at you Robn but just as a whole to the pro life crowd.
Now, if I never told you that story, you would never know she had an abortion. I don’t see how that affects anyone’s life except hers and her family. You would’ve treated her without judgment if you didn’t know.
That’s just my story that impacted my views regarding abortions. You are certainly within your right to believe in pro life and raise your family to live the same lifestyle but I don’t think it’s fair that you are judging others for choosing theirs and voting to make that decision for them.
We certainly disagree and therein lies the thesis of my original post. Wheee is the outrage. Why do we get to pick and choose when to be outraged and when to excuse away. Perhaps it’s because to acknowledge the truth would mean we have to also accept responsibility?
Brianna, I do not stand in judgment of your friend, that’s between her and God. My point in all of this is why are we as a as a people, in this great nation, not willing to put as much effort in encouraging all lives to be saved from the youngest to the oldest, especially when it involves children. The only difference in those in school and those in the womb are time and place. Both are significant and should be considered and respected accordingly.
I’d like to ask Sharon directly: Do you *really* think Mexico stands a chance here???
It’s not that I don’t think it’s important to discuss/know about; and of course it goes both ways (re: border security) Also, very brave for Mexico to try to work within the system! However, I’m 💯 sure the SC will rule that Mx doesn’t have a standing; since there’s no way in hell they’ll touch the 2nd Amendment with a 10 foot pole 🤷🏻♀️ so the question really is: do you think this is really going anywhere???
I follow Christy Carlson Ramon from Kim Possible on Disney and she was recently shot in the face at a gun range by a friend who wasn’t using a gun safely. Can you imagine the difference it would have made if they had some sort of training requirement before you could own a firearm.
And unrelated to my previous comment, I wonder if the Supreme Court might try to go the route of saying that Mexico doesn't have standing. I am absolutely not a lawyer of any kind, so I don't know if that argument holds any merit or is possible, but it seems like the Court has recently gone in that direction when trying to avoid a more controversial decision.