Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Are wombs potentially more deadly than assault weapons? Really?
01-23-2013, 04:46 PM
Post: #1
Are wombs potentially more deadly than assault weapons? Really?
It is clear that the Republican Party does not trust women. Especially in regards to their wombs .

Pro-choice does not necessarily mean pro-abortion. It means a woman still has the right to make decisions about her own body, based on a variety of personal factors without interference from anyone who is not directly involved.

But, the men in Congress, who continue to create anti-women bills, do not see it that way. According to folks like Paul Ryan, if you are a woman, you –will- kill your babies. Apparently they believe that the Federal Government must insert itself into a woman's life and seize control of her womb in order to save all the babies. It is their mission to completely circumvent a woman's personal right to choose what is best for herself, her family and her life. And that a man, even her rapist, is not only entitled but is far more capable of making this profound decision than she is.

So, because she is a woman, who clearly cannot be trusted with her own womb, there must be strict laws in place. There must be laws that protect the cells (that may or may not grow into a fetus) from her and her terribly flawed and suspect decision making. There must be laws to guarantee that since a woman cannot be trusted to make a decision that upholds the Republican ideals, she no longer deserves the right to make any decisions about her life, especially regarding her own body and health.

Why isn’t the same logic applied to people with guns? Gun owners and legislators are fighting very hard to retain their right to own whatever kinds of guns they choose..even guns that are only meant for military or police use; guns that have no other purpose than to kill people. To many it seems as if they are the ones with suspect and flawed decision making processes. The rants of some gun owners are frightening as they assure the world that they will not "go down" without a fight. Are we supposed to trust that they will not use their assault arsenals on us?

Obviously the gun lover will probably always have the right to choose to own a gun. The right to own a weapon has never really been the issue, though some would have us believe it is the -only- issue. So, it appears that the gun owners' right to choose is not in any real danger and included in that right is the choice of whether or not to use their guns to kill people. Why are they to be more trusted than women?

Why is defending a gun owner’s right to choose nobler and more important than defending a woman’s right to choose?

If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
-Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply Return to top

Post Reply 
Messages In This Thread
[*]

Post Reply 

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)