Jodi, Many folks in Arizona would consider both issues to be one in the same, self-defense.

Firearms are simply a means of protecting those who had the opportunity of being born, while the abortion laws are simply laws to protect the unborn.

They are just another class of human beings such as race or sexual orientation ... unborn.

And I am pleased that your mother wasn't a customer of Planned Parenthood. Women have a choice before conception occurs. You know as well as anyone how many abortions are elective and how many are truly for the health of the woman.

If health were truly the issue, then cosmetic surgury and lipposuction would have been banned as un-healthy procedures.  As it stands now, abortions are a very un-healthy procedure for that innocent class of human beings, the un-born.  You know this.

My mother could well have used Planned Parenthood as after four children, and living in an abusive marriage she underwent a pre-Roe abortion and had numerous complications leading to a hysterectomy.

So your assumptions are quite unfounded.

I am not clear what the case for "self-defense" is with respect to the many children killed by handguns, and their misuse due to widespread availability? Why gun proponents oppose reasonable registration and background checks and the like and instead cry foul when these are proposed? And why the prolife movement is not as passionate, vocal, public or strenuously complaining about (as but one example) these various forms of violence against children with handguns.

To my knowledge, I have yet to receive an "alarmed email" from any pro-life organization about these issues nor heard a speech about them nor seen quotes in the paper about them.

Curious.

Finally, our definitions of self-defense obviously differ quite dramatically as I believe women have the right to self-defense against unintended pregnancy--elective abortion or no--and against the government and religious groups intruding on their bodies, and controlling their lives. Jodi

Women have a choice before conception occurs.

This oversimplifies life a great deal. It's certainly true that most women, most times, do get to choose whether they're sexually active. But I know far too many women who've been victims of sexual assault and domestic abuse to believe that "[w]omen have a choice" is an accurate blanket statement. Additionally, even more women do not have meaningful access to adequate contraception, whether due to cost, distance, health provider preferences, lack of information, or other factors. As a result, many women have less agency than they need to make truly the choices they'd otherwise wish to make. 

Finally -- legally -- women do not only have a choice "before conception occurs." Nobody gets to decide what happens in (or inhabits) my uterus but me.

There is a term we use when seeing blatant lies used in support of a position, we say "We call Bullshit on this one".

All one has to do is go to the CDC and look up the number of death's data and how many of these were of children. Children are those aged 18 or less. The CDC data has children grouped into a 15-24 year age group of data, and pardon us, but 19-24 year olds are not classified as children, they are leigible to vote, some states drink, enlist in the military without parental consent, etc.....

In 2006 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf in table ten, you will see the data. In the 15-24 years old, the data is spread relatively evenly so divide by 10 years then multiply by 4 years (15-18 year olds) and you get really close to the real numbers.

What you will find is that approximatley 802 children, ages 1-18, died in accidental disharges, suicides, murders, and police involvement.

You will not find in this information, how many of these so called children in their teens, were involved in criminal activies.

This total hasnt changed much year to year so the fact is over the last 26 years, around 21,000 children died from firearms if you neglect to remove those who were engaged in criminal activities as this does include gang bangers, rather than the 104,000 number played on by the author of this article.

I call Bullshit on the credibility of Senator Carl Levin as a credible commenter on guns as in the two times we have spoken face to face on this matter, he couldnt look me in the eye and provide data or logic for his defense of gun control laws. I unfortunately see this waste of a congressional seat 3 to 4 times per year in my conservation activies.

I call bullshit on the 30,000 deaths by handguns per year as per the FBI UCR data, in 2006 firearms are only used 67.2% of the time in murders (17,030 x .672 = 11,444), with handguns being used about 85% of that time (11,444 x .85 = 9,727) in criminal activity, and this includes suicides and such as suicide is indeed illegal.

In 2006 per CDC data, there were 30,970 deaths by firearms of which approximately 26,324 involved a handgun.

What isnt posted here by the author is that year after year, these rates continue to drop, the data trend shows this readily if you just look.

What is also neglected to be mentioned is that up to 80% of these murders, occured when both parties were involved in criminal activity.

This continued portrayal of every victim being an inncoent victim is a bunch of baloney as well.

Jodi would be well served to research the data she uses as support for her position, otherwise, what should one think of her position when so much of the supporting data is unfounded?

For some of us, both gun violence and abortion are causes for concern and alarm. I'm as eager to see the rate of gun violence go down as I am eager to help lower the rate of abortion.  Interestingly, neither problem can be solved by a blanket prohibition.  Some people want a law to prohibit abortion, some want a law to prohibit guns.  Both are well-meaning but simplistic solutions to very complicated problems.

I find a great deal of similarity in two groups: NARAL and the NRA.  They each tenaciously defend constitutional rights (with NARAL it's the 14th Amendment, with the NRA it's the 2nd) without ever taking stock of the human carnage these defenses leave in their wake.

If you really want to advance a respect for life you can't throw your lot in with either the conservatives or the liberals.  They both have their pro-death leanings.  And they both justify these leanings in the name of privacy and freedom. 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice