They surveyed 705 California registered voters, but not “likely voters,” i.e. voted in the last 3 elections. Figure that only 50% of the reg’d voters actually vote, and that is considered an excellent turnout, but most typical turnout is probably closer to around 30-40%
=================================================================================================
[url]http://www.kfwb.com/news_local.asp?displayOption=&contentGUID={9A68A361-76E8-4C78-92D9-CDC6AE7070BD}&groupName=KFWB%20Front%20Page%20Local%20Headlines&siteGUID={3B62BF55-4A93-48E6-A45D-6A495DC423AD}[/url]

Poll: Most Californians Favor Abortion Rights, Gun Controls

SACRAMENTO (AP) 5.08.02, 7:10a -- A new survey shows Californians' feelings about some of the most emotional political issues have remained steady for the past decade: Most favor abortion rights, gun control and capital punishment.
The Field Poll released Wednesday comes as Democratic Gov. Gray Davis attempts to display those issues as evidence his GOP challenger, businessman Bill Simon, is out of touch with voters.

According to the survey of registered voters, a majority of California voters are classified as "pro-choice" on abortion and support greater gun ownership restrictions. However, the poll found that there are sharp differences in opinion between Davis and Simon supporters.

The survey also found that voters who said they were undecided about their choice in the November gubernatorial election held abortion attitudes closer to those held by Davis.

On abortion, the survey shows virtually no change in public opinion in California. Sixty-three percent of registered voters say they approve of allowing abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, the same proportion as in 1996. In the current survey, 28 percent said they disapprove, while 9 percent had no opinion.

On gun control, voters were evenly split about whether stronger gun control laws reduce violence. But 55 percent said they believe imposing greater controls on gun ownership was more important than protecting the right of Americans to own guns, which was considered more important by 39 percent.

The survey also found that 72 percent of voters favor the death penalty -- an issue upon which Davis and Simon agree.

When divided into groups of Davis and Simon supporters, 82 percent of those who back the governor said they favor abortion. That compares to 41 percent of Simon's supporters.

Three quarters of Davis supporters said they back Medi-Cal payments for abortions, while 41 percent of Simon voters said they support the public funding of the procedure.

The telephone survey of 705 California registered voters was conducted between April 19 and April 25. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Yeah, stuff like this just happens to come out when Simon (whom I very much believe can and will win) is going for the governorship.

Sad they didn't talk to me...I am for neither.


What gets me is abortion is the least of our worries in California but that seems to be the biggest issue for Dems in California...

Okay here's what's going on:


These Liberal-slanting polls (of which the "Field Poll" is one of the oldest in CA) survey "registered voters" rather than "likely voters" - already evidence that the results are MEANINGLESS (but not altogether useless).

They will poll the great unwashed who don't even vote and thus probably don't even pay attention enough to be informed on these issues.

If the data show a liberal-leaning result, the pollsters trumpet it loudly and repeatedly on CNN/NBC/CBS/USATODAY all day long.

They knowingly use these slanted results (knowing the psychological phenomenon known as "Bandwagon Effect") to push as many "undecided-but-still-likely-voters" over to their side.

Liberals know that MANY undecided voters will be influenced (even subconsciously) by these polls to lean more towards the liberal views.

And voila! Maybe 5% MORE undecided voters will be [b]con[/b]vinced and will vote for the liberal side. Just enough to win close elections.


Why do you think all the Democ[b]rat[/b]s and CNN talking heads kept waiving Clinton's job-approval ratings in the face of America 24hours/day 7days/week during the Impeachment scandal for? Polls aren't "news"!

The media were GENERATING the polls - then reporting it as "news" to keep the undecided from jumping off the "Bandwagon" and turning against Clinton.

It's not news - it's PROPAGANDA and very subtle "mind control".

Maybe Clinton WAS a genius in giving our nuke tech to China.  [}:D]


[i]My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws [strike]Russia[/strike] California forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.
-- Ronald Reagan (Said during a radio microphone test, 1984, [b]amended[/b])[/i]

Bill Simon is going have to overcome some big obstacles to beat the formidable incumbent Gov Davis in the fall. Simon will be going against the liberal Calif. news media which will give Davis huge amounts of free air time/print space to get his points across. This is on top of the massive amounts of money Davis has raised in preparation for this election.

Now my point, here is the time for Calif. gunners to get even with Davis. In the fall of 2002, if you have few extra hours a week, volunteer to campaign for Mr. Simon.  I have met some real pro-gun people during these, and it really cool to talk to people of like mind. The work is not easy, but we can bitch and moan amongst ourselves all we want on the computer, but we are convinced, or at least hopefully convinced, now it is time to convince others besides the gunners.

No surprise there. If there is no right to life, there can exist no right to keep and bear arms. Of course some have deluded themselves into thinking that ripping children from their mother's womb has nothing to do with gun control.
Name the three groups that most favored removing the laws that protected the lives of unborn children.
1. The Communists
2. The Nazis
3. The Democrats

Name the three groups that most favored removing firearms from the hands of it's nation's citizens.
1. The Communists
2. The Nazis
3. The Democrats

"If abortion is not wrong, than nothing is wrong."
Mother Teresa

42 million butchered in the United States since 1973. Another 4,000 yesterday, 4,000 today, and 4,000 tomorrow, and so on, and so on....

[flame]No one is forcing those "most" of 705 voters to remain citizens of the US[flame]

Better Yet.......

[flame]No one is forcing Kalistan to stay in the Union[flame]

"Most Calif. Favor Abortion & Gun Control"
this is a surprise?

what surprises me is that is considered worthy of discussion.

LOL - don't take the article seriously...

The Field Poll group is a notorious left-leaning organization. Every time a Caliban Demoncrap wants a "poll" to justify their far-left position, they go to the Field Group. Field has never done any honest polling. They slant the polling questions and cherry pick the places where the pols are taken (generally places like south-central LA or gay rights rallies).

The only issue that looks like it could trip Davis might be the energy mess in Cal.  The media is crucifying Enron for price manipulation (probably righfully so), but the underlying reason was Davis' botched up energy program, i.e. no new plants, buy it elsewhere, but sell it to us at a capped price.  Then he wanted the Cal govt to get into the energy business.  The media won't dwell on this, but his opponents should.  

Thanks for bringing up this point. This a good example of how the liberal news media is trying to help Gov. Davis by deflecting the blame for the electrical energy crisis away from Davis. This is thinly disguised as news. Gov Davis has got many allies in the news media.

Belloc,

You (and everyone else)are entitled to your opinion regarding abortion - thank God we live in America - but realize that not everyone in the gun community shares it.

Myself, I am more libertarian in my views. I think the government should stay out of a woman's uterus as much as they should stay out of my gun cabinet. I can't and will never think that a blob of cells a couple of weeks old has the same rights as a born baby or a grown woman.

P.S.

I met Mother Theresa once. Nice lady, but I still disagree with her views re abortion.

A "blob of cells" does not have a functioning central nervous system or heartbeat as does a 4week old embryo.

If you want to engage a debate on abortion, please start a new thread.

This is commonly known as "hijacking" a thread is frowned upon here. [;)]

For myself, albeit somewhat over simplified, any position shared by the Nazi and Communist Party and Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson and Al Gore HAS to be bad for America. If the Declaration of Independence is wrong to assume that all are rights begin when we "ARE CREATED", then we don't have any rights at all.
Which is in fact really what the pro-abortionists believe, that "rights" come from government. A "right" does not stop a beating heart.
Our INALIENABLE (i.e they come from God and not government) rights begin when we do, when we are "created". This is why the Founding Fathers never said that the laws that protected unborn children at the time they wrote the Constitution were "unconstitutional". The pro-abortionists don't like this little fact of history, but than again, they don't much like the Founding Fathers.
And BTW, if there is something alive in your gun cabinet that is of human origin perhaps the law should protect it's inalienable right to life.

I think Joseph Sobran sums it up well in his piece "How Tyranny Came to America".

[url]http://www.ustaxpayers.org/how_tyranny_came.htm[/url]

Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.

Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now.

Mac,

This is the second post of mine you seem to have had a problem with. Well, no matter. I do not think I have "hijacked" this post. If anyone has, Belloc has, so kindly redirect your comments to him.

As to the abortion debate, I have no desire to engage in it here. I come here because I like AR15 rifles. I comment only because I dislike being cubbyholed with a complete agenda simply because I believe in the second amendment.

regards,

legrue

Well, I don't think he is trying to hijack a thread---I think he's saying that he believes in individual liberty and personal responsibility.

From Alan Keyes,
"We are a people that believe in basic rights. We believe in self government by consent. That didn't just happen. It happened on the basis of certain principles. And those principles state very clearly that the basis of human rights is not human will or choice but God's will, the Creator's will.
That means that if we reject that principle we are destroying the essence of our whole way of life. And that is what is involved in abortion when we assert that a human choice, the choice of the mother, determines the childs right to life. That cannot be true in light of our American principles."


or as C.S. Lewis put it,
"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his own creation."



A "blob of cells"?!

[b]When does the heart begin to beat?[/b]
At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother.


[b]When is the brain functioning?[/b]
Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG).


[b]When does the developing baby first move?[/b]
"In the sixth to seventh weeks. . . . If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a ‘total pattern response’ because it involves most of the body, rather than a local part."
At eight weeks, "if we tickle the baby’s nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus."

[b]When are all his body systems present?[/b]
By eight weeks.


[b]How about nine weeks?[/b]
At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm, will make a tight fist.
By nine weeks he will "bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand."

[b]When does he start to breathe?[/b]
"By 11 to 12 weeks (3 months), he is breathing fluid steadily and continues so until birth. At birth, he will breathe air. He does not drown by breathing fluid within his mother, because he obtains his oxygen from his umbilical cord. This breathing develops the organs of respiration."

(cont.)

[b]Can he cry?[/b]
Although the watery environment in which he lives presents small opportunity for crying, which does require air, the unborn knows how to cry, and given a chance to do so, he will. A doctor

". . . injected an air bubble into the baby’s amniotic sac and then took x-rays. It so happened that the air bubble covered the baby’s face. The whole procedure had no doubt given the little fellow quite a bit of jostling about, and the moment that he had air to inhale and exhale they heard the clear sound of a protesting wail emitting from the uterus. Late that same night, the mother awakened her doctor with a telephone call, to report that when she lay down to sleep the air bubble got over the baby’s head again, and he was crying so loudly he was keeping both her and her husband awake. The doctor advised her to prop herself upright with pillows so that the air could not reach the baby’s head, which was by now in the lower part of the uterus."

[b]Does the unborn baby dream?[/b]
Using ultrasound techniques, it was first shown that REM (rapid eye movements) which are characteristic of active dream states have been demonstrated at 23 weeks.
REM have since been recorded 17 weeks after conception.

[b]Does he/she think?[/b]
We now know that the unborn child is an aware, reacting human being who from the sixth month on (and perhaps earlier) leads an active emotional life.
The fetus can, on a primitive level, even learn in utero.

[b]Can he/she feel pain?[/b]
Yes, by the 8th week and perhaps earlier. By this age the neuroanatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present by 8 weeks. Without doubt a abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant.


[b]What of The Silent Scream?[/b]
A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12-week suction abortion is commercially available as, The Silent Scream, narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby’s mouth clearly opens wide — hence, the title (available from American Portrait Films, P.O. Box 19266, Cleveland, OH 44119, 216-531-8600).

I suppose the first instance you're referring to was me tapping your shoulder when you told a fellow member "...don't listen to us amature therapists and lawyers".

That blanket dismissal of the wide expertise in this group came on only your SEVENTH post here.

I was just offering a newbie some advice... there are landmines in this forum, if that doesn't matter to you then proceed ahead full throttle.

And yet you did.

"being cubbyholed with a complete agenda"??

How does people freely airing their views that you don't agree with "cubbyholing you with a complete agenda"??


Look - we share common interests in guns and rights, there's no need to get so defensive, especially when I'm just trying to help you get acquainted with this forum.

Edited.

Upon reconsideration, let's just drop it.

Have a beer?

You gotta love Alan Keyes, man.

Someone here said that as a Libertarian they are "pro choice" .

Well, if you are a Libertarian with regard to the choice of the mother, that makes you like a Communist dictator with regard to the choice of the baby, intentionally denying him / her the right to speak to his / her "choice."

And that's the way it is.

[beer]
Damn man, what took ya'? I'm on my second round [:D]

Let's put it on the table.

I said it with regards to libertarians and abortion. And I appologize in advance to most of you. I think the gun crowd is usually friendly. But I also won't be called a "communist" and not respond (would you?)

While I may be a "noob" to this forum, I have been involved in the pro-life pro-choice debate for over 15 years, at some of the deepest levels. I've heard the best argue the issues on both sides, so I don't need anyone, I repeat, anyone dissing me because I don't agree with them, nor do I appreciate being equated with a dictator, communist or whatever.  

As strongly as you may feel, so do I. So to the FEW of you who feel you have to push your laws and religious views on me and mine and can't agree to disagree, then no appology whatsoever. I won't start a flame war, but I won't run either.

The problem with these polls is that, although many people will answer a general question like "do you believe we need more controls on gun ownership?" in the affirmative, as soon as the anti's get around to specific proposals, the people say, "well, that doesn't make any sense!"

In Washington state, polls showed a large majority supporting "more gun control" back in 1997-ish, when Initiative 676 was put on the ballot.  I-676 failed by a 71%-29% landslide.

Part of that was because the anti's overreached themselves.  But mostly, it was because none of the restrictions would have been of any use, and people understood that as soon as they saw the actual proposals.

Hyperbole, don't ya just love it?

Gee, Mac, the title has 'abortion' in it.  Whassa matter, if someone posts something that disagrees with you, that is 'hijacking'?

I never believe these "polls". You can't just take the percents at face value. There are variety of questions that need to be asked:

-Was the sample representative of the population?
-Was the sample big enough?
-What were the questions and how were they worded?
-Does the polling organization have a good reputation?

There are others too.


As for abortion:

I am a pro-life libertarian. In my opinion, pro-choice libertarian is an oxymoron. Libertarians believe first and foremost in the non-aggression principle: Take no aggression against others if they are not taking aggression against you. Abortion violates that principle. The  baby, at whatever age, from one day to 18 months, is life. He or she is innocent, he or she has made no aggression against anybody. Killing that baby for no reason, or for the wrong reasons(convience, rape, among others), violates that principle. I could believe that an abortion is necessary if the life of the mother is in absolute mortal danger, upon the opinion of two doctors and the conset of both the mother(if she can give it) and the father, but that would be exceedingly rare, and should only be undertaken with extreme caution. There have been stories where the doctor wanted to abort, but the mother refused. The mother ended up okay and so did the baby.
Abortion also violates the right to life, stated in the Declaration of Independence, and also natural law. Every human, whether 1 day old or 100 years old, has the unequivicalbly right to live, unless that person has taken aggressive action or has violated the rights of another person.
Murder is in fact violating the right to life.

There are many other pro-life libertarians out there. [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com]LewRockwell.com[/url] is a major place to read about them. Abortion is not a settle issue among libertarians, any more than it is among Republicans .

Wow! All this Pro-Life chest pounding brought a tear to my eye.
I heard choirs singing, saw flags waving - It Was Beautiful!
...Sniff

[b][size=6][red]THIS POLL IS BULLPUCKIES!!![/red][/size=6][/b]

Sgtar15

Liberty,

I can respect your opinion. In my years of study and debating the topic, I have seen the real differences between the two sides boil down to a couple of issues, among them, when does life start and when do the rights of the fetus overide the rights of the mother. Suprisingly, when you strip away the rhetoric and extremists, there is much both sides agree on.

I 2nd that!

Quoted:
[b]I met Mother Theresa once. Nice lady, but I still disagree with her views re abortion.[/b]

So you think Hillary Clinton is right and Mother Teresa is wrong.

I, on the other hand, do in fact agree with Mother Teresa and think Hillary Clinton is a friggen lunatic wackjob, a threat to freedom and liberty in this country, and worthy of nothing but contempt.

I think Alan Keyes is right, you think Jesse Jackson is right.
I think Ronald Reagan is right, you think Al Gore is right.
I think Susan B. Anthony is right, you think Rosie O'Donnel is right.

Those I agree with stood for freedom and liberty.
Those that you agree with stand for tyranny and death.

Who's views are better for the future of America, and for freedom?

Well said, [b]libertyof76[/b].

Since most here think a discussion of abortion is within the topic of the thread, I'll engage.

The Libertarian position supposedly supports the  life, liberty and freedom for all, including those who have lost the ability to defend their own rights.

This includes the severely disabled, mentally-retarded, terminally infirmed or comatose persons - all of whom permanently rely entirely on others for food, water and even air for the rest of their lives.

To say that a senescent, 3, 6 or 8 month old fetus has less rights and deserves less protection than a terminally-infirmed, senile-dementia patient who has no hope of improving is beyond reason.

The rights of the mother are not an issue.

An abortion is not like a tonsillectomy, appendectomy or wart-removal. [b]It is NOT the woman's flesh being extracted.[/b] Therefore she does not have 100% rights to destroy it.


[b]Nobody has a right to destroy a fetus any more than anyone has the right to walk into grandpa's bedroom at the old-folks home and pop a few rounds into the bed-ridden, babbling-drooling-demented man's head.[/b]




Edited to add: If physiology has anything to do with this debate, I'll engage that angle as well.

Nor I. It is you who wish to push the views of death and tyranny on the rest of us. Abortion was nothing other that the continued usurpation of states rights and further consolodation of federal power, period.



Abortion and the English Language
by Joseph Sobran
[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran93.html[/url]

In his famous essay "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell analyzed the corrupting influence of dishonest politics on the way we speak and think. There is no better example than the effect abortion has had on our language.

Though abortion – including the killing of viable infants at the verge of birth – is now a sacrament of the Democratic Party, nobody admits to being "pro-abortion"; they are "pro-choice." This is an obvious lie. The right to choose anything presupposes the right to live. The child, fetus, embryo, or whatever you want to call the entity growing within its mother’s womb has no "choice" about being killed. It will never have a choice about anything.

The pro-abortion side is pro-abortion in the same way that advocates of slavery were pro-slavery. "Oh," they protest, "but we don’t insist that everyone get an abortion; we only want people" – that is, mothers – "to have a choice!" Then nobody was pro-slavery either, since nobody insisted that every white man own a slave; they were "pro-choice." They wanted each white man to be "free" to decide whether to buy slaves; or they wanted every state to decide whether to permit slavery. Of course they overlooked the obvious fact that the slaves themselves had no choice; in their minds this was irrelevant.

The bad conscience of the pro-aborters shows in their studious avoidance of the word kill to describe what abortion is. Why be coy about it? We don’t mind speaking of "killing" when we kill lower life forms. Lawn products kill weeds; mouthwashes kill germs; insecticides kill bugs; mousetraps kill mice. If the human fetus is an insignificant little thing, why shrink from saying an abortion kills it? But the pro-abortion side prefers the evasive euphemism that abortion "terminates a pregnancy."

As Orwell noted, dishonest people instinctively prefer the abstract to the concrete. Abstract language avoids creating unpleasant mental images that might cause horror and shame; concrete language may remind us of what we are really doing. This is why military jargon dehumanizes the targets of bombs and artillery: so that soldiers and pilots won’t vividly imagine the men, women, and children they are killing. Part of the job of military leadership is to anesthetize the consciences of fighting men. And political leaders (who usually start the wars in the first place) do their part by describing the bombing of cities as "defending freedom."

(cont.)

In the modern world people are trained to avoid looking directly at the effects of violence they commit or sanction. If possible, the killing is delegated to specialists, who themselves are increasingly remote from their victims – as in recent U.S. bombings of Iraq and Yugoslavia, where American casualties were nearly zero. Most of us don’t mind if our military kills people on the other side of the world; we feel no pain, even vicariously. We may even buy the official explanation that our bombs are "preventing another Holocaust." It may seem otherwise to the Iraqis and Slavs on whose homes those bombs are falling.

But just as the news media refrain from showing us what those bombs actually do, they never show us what an abortion looks like. They even refuse to carry ads by abortion opponents, on grounds that pictures of slaughtered fetuses are in "bad taste." They certainly are in bad taste; all atrocities are. But the media are willing to show some atrocities, as in the killing fields of Rwanda a few years ago. Since we’re forever debating abortion, why not let us see one? Why the blackout?

The answer, of course, is that the news media themselves are pro-abortion. They adopt the dishonest language of the pro-abortion side: pro-choice, fetus, terminate, and – my favorite – abortion provider (to make the abortionist sound like a humanitarian).

A few years ago NBC produced a sympathetic movie about a woman seeking an abortion – Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" of Roe v. Wade. But when Mrs. McCorvey later changed her mind and became an active opponent of abortion, did NBC do a sequel? Unimaginable.

We have to keep our guard up at all times against political language, especially in seemingly bland journalism, that is subtly infected with propagandistic purposes.

Man, you read me like a book! You guessed all my heros and from Two, just TWO sentences I wrote! You must be some sort of friggin' Einstein!

/rude Bello

PS, please don't tell anyone I also slept with Janet Reno!

I on the other hand think that the child that is growing in the mother's womb is quite a bit more valuable and worthy of defending than whatever is in your oh so precious "gun cabinet".


[url]http://www.abortiontv.com/ForbiddenPicture.htm[/url]
If our laws can't protect this, they can't protect any of us.

Now you all don't mind me, I'm just a guy who likes guns, but regardless of your position on abortion, you all overlooked the fact that Roe vs. Wade was not a legal decision, and in no way can be regarded as law. While legal precedent is referenced in making some decisions, the purpose of the judicial branch of government is not to make laws, but to enforce the ones the legislative branch makes. Therefore, it makes little sense to base legislature and a whole big argument over "law" that the lawmakers didn't make!

Belloc,

You are typical of the thousands, yes, thousands of abortion protestors I have seen in my life. You moan about how many innocent babies are being killed while not bothering to distinguish between an egg just conceived or an 8 month old fetus. You don't give a sh*t about the kids after their born and then you have the balls to say that the mother's rights don't come into it. Next thing, you're bringing in your daughter who just got knocked up prom night because we all know "that's different". (That never happens??? BS. I've seen it.) You want to impress me? Drop the fancy quotes and links to the anti-choice websites, I've probably seen them. Get off your butt and reduce the reasons alot of women get abortions, i.e. poverty, lack of knowledge of birth control, and dead-beat dads who can drop their pants for a poke but who disappear when the baby appears. Then we can talk. But telling me I worship the Klintons will just get you flamed.

Being "pro-choice" is a misnomer, as stated above. The choice comes when 2 people choose to have sex.
Once that choice is made, there are possible consequences. Just like when you choose to speed, or walk across the street without looking for traffic.
A child (which is an infant or an embryo) is a life.
If the body rejects the embryo, then it was a natural selection process.
And there is established case law where people have been charged in the MURDER of unborn children in criminal cases. How was that done? By establishing that the unborn child IS A PERSON. Unless the one taking the life is an AMA certified surgeon or OB/GYN.
Don't want to have kids?
There is a simple way to keep it from happening. DON'T HAVE SEX.
A woman has no choice in the matter if she chooses to have sex. Because the one that is DIRECTLY HARMED BY ABORTION IS NOT HER.

What gets me is that SCROTUS has decided that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion and the congress as well as SCROTUS have decided that the citizens don't really have a right to bear arms, or at least that this right can be infringed upon. All of this when clearly the Constitution states in the 2nd amend that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon" and while there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that even refers to abortion.
Liberal perversion of the Constitution goes on.

"Anti-choice"? Sh!t, now he's even talking like Rosie and Hillary. What a surprise.

You are slime...

Now that is out of the way...

Sex is not evil. People have the right to sexual fulfillment. Women included.  Women who do not want to raise children should not have to become nuns. People should use birth control. But if the birth control doesnt work then a woman should get a abortion rather than have a child she can't/won't care for.

Without a unrestricted right to abortion women become slaves to the men who knocked them up. The real goal of anti-abortionists isn't to stop abortions, its to again force the submission of women to the will of men.

This will always be why abortion and gun control are linked. Once it becomes permisable to make up rights that clearly do not exist, than the power exists to take away those rights that do. This is in fact why ALL pro-abortionist are complicit in the attempt to disarm us all.


As I posted from the first page...

"How Tyranny Came to America".

[url]www.ustaxpayers.org/how_tyranny_came.htm[/url]

Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.

Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now."

Legrue can attempt to make light of the fact that he supports Rosie, Hillary and Jesse, but he can't deny it, which is why he didn't.

Then why are you on a gun website?
Go spout this crap somewhere else. This thread was about a POLL in Cali.
This rhetoric, life & choice has nothing to do with the validity of the poll.

I can care less about suzie floozie getting an abortion, I come to AR15.com to read about GUNS!

Yes, this is "General Discussion" but it seems more like "General Preaching" to me.

You use your mind-speak, I'll use mine. As for Rosie, you're probably more like her than I am. You both believe you're the only one's with the "TRUTH" and to hell with everyone else. And if they don't agree with you, just start spouting the same tired crap about how "un-american" they are and how this nation is going down the toilet because of "them". Rational dialogue, (and hence, solutions) are beyond you both.

Anyone who looks at my first post will know I didn't start out to antagonize anyone, especially you, Belloc. I simply wanted to point out that there was dissention in the gun community. But no, you had to make it personal. Your kind of religious bigotry (Yes, I said religious bigotry, I'll explain to anyone why who wants to know for discussion's sake) I will never tolerate. You cloke it in Mom, the Flag, and Apple Pie, but it's just a way for you to do a martyr number when you're protesting and the police whack you for it.

So line up proudly with the other extremists: David Duke, Jessie Jackson, Fidel Castro, Hilary Clinton.

[b]You are slime...[/b]
Here we go...

[b]Now that is out of the way...

Sex is not evil. People have the right to sexual fulfillment. Women included.  Women who do not want to raise children should not have to become nuns.[/b]
Or not be whores. That's simple enough don't you think?

[b]People should use birth control. But if the birth control doesnt work then a woman should get a abortion rather than have a child she can't/won't care for.[/b]
Sorry you find the concept of "with rights comes responsiblity" to hard to grasp. I think this is why the worlds great thinkers of history tend to be men and why women's magazines have such thought provoking articles like "how to match your shoes with your purse".

[b]Without a unrestricted right to abortion women become slaves to the men who knocked them up.[/b]
If a woman does not have the moral fortitude to control her urges than she is already a slave.
Or is that too deep for you?

[b]The real goal of anti-abortionists isn't to stop abortions, its to again force the submission of women to the will of men[/b]
Yeah, that's it. Wackjob. Susan B. Anthony, one of the founders of the woman's movement, was pro life because she wanted  to "again force the submission of women to the will of men."
That's brilliant. Care to regurgitate anymore drivel you feel the need to parrot from Hillary Clinton?

Or, you mean those pro-abortion wackjobs like you? You mean the ones who's view of the constitution you support? Line up with THOSE extremists, your friends?

Edit:

Oh, I like this:

Quoted:

Legrue can attempt to make light of the fact that he supports Rosie, Hillary and Jesse, but he can't deny it, which is why he didn't.
-----------------------------------------

Another trait your kind have is poor conceptionalization of the concept of "Sarcasm".
I suppose you really do believe I slept with Janet Reno too. (Man, I turned over and something kept poking me in the @$$. What was with that???)