14DusBriver

14DusBriver t1_j04m1lx wrote

> The gun-control bill is desperately needed

It isn't. All it does is say to legal gun owners in the dominion - as in people who have Possession and Acquisition Licenses - that they can no longer own certain models of firearms. PAL-holders have their records regularly checked by the RCMP. Getting a PAL already means one has some form of training plus they are vetted to have a clean background.

Lots of the guns that they seek to ban have been allowed for hunting use for ages. Even some single shot rifles and semi auto shotguns commonly used for duck hunting are on the list. Clearly, this isn't a law written under careful deliberation with input from the public and subject matter experts, but a poorly assembled sham with less value than used toilet paper put together by scared, uninformed MPs acting out of fear of something they refuse to understand.

13

14DusBriver t1_ixxeg1h wrote

I'm aware of that. I also believe that the problem of a child being born into an abusive and shit environment is to improve that environment or remove that child and mother from it, not kill the kid

So instead of combating their chronic societal alcohol problem and the 99% of the other problems they have, you'd just throw the unborn to Moloch as acceptable casualties?

−15

14DusBriver t1_ixx32f8 wrote

Firstly it's perfectly possible for someone to be irreligious and hate abortion

Secondly and more pertinent to the article, Russia already leads in the amount of abortion procedures per live births. They not only exceed the CIS average, but the EU average. Actually they just blow out every country in Europe on this matter.

It used to be so much worse at over 2000 procedures per every 1000 live births. It's good that it's dropped down to 350ish per 1000, but that's still higher than every other country.

−24

14DusBriver t1_ixs0s9u wrote

Thermal pollution is more manageable than CO2 emissions

Dump hot water into the water table and it’s not like it irreversibly contaminates the groundwater supply for generations.

5

14DusBriver t1_ixokkmw wrote

> People can deal with the consequences of their own actions, i didnt make them go out and get pregnant

They can have sex all they want, they must simply accept that the life of the unborn is more important than the orgasm.

> Just because a homeless dude has no money doesn't mean it's ok to kill them.

This same point applies to those with deformities and disabilities. Abortion should never be used as a method of cleansing the gene pool - that is called eugenics. We do not go out and stone people with Down syndrome. Unless the medical condition is on the level where it is incompatible with living, we should not strip agency from people who have done nothing wrong on their own

“Bodily rights” has become a sham word to cover up what is essentially infanticide excused by rampant hedonism

−10

14DusBriver t1_ixojzat wrote

> You going to pay for all the kids who will need financial, mental, physical, emotional help?

A normal, functioning society should absolutely do that because it’s a moral good to support the less fortunate and less able. It is also morally good to ensure the practice of elective abortions not justified by some absolute necessity like rape or medical complications is banned, criminalized, and assigned social stigma.

> You going to pay for food, clothes, school, medical, and any special needs they may have?

What do you think taxes and charity is for?

Are you seriously suggesting that the answer to the question of “what if a child is born in poverty?” is to kill them but only at a point where they cannot resist?

Do you just assume everyone in the anti-abortion crowd doesn’t care for the life of children and mothers after birth?

−6