Guns And Abortions - Two Peas In A Moral Pod

I must confess, the idea of having a gun at home for protection frightens me.   I am far more concerned about the consequences of an accidental discharge than I am of the consequences of having an intruder in my house.   I believe that hurting someone through an accidental discharge is a more likely scenario than the intruder scenario. I also am very squeamish at the thought of hunting.  I do not understand the emotional satisfaction of the hunting experience, and hunting for sport is dead wrong and immoral to me.  

Modern guns are rapid fire, accurate, and so powerful -  capable of mass killing in a short period of time.  So if it were up to me, only law enforcement would be able to legally own weapons.

ON the other hand, my brother is a gun advocate. A retired military man, he is very comfortable around guns, but is also extremely mindful of the safe handling and use of weapons.  My brother owns multiple guns as he keeps a gun in each room of his house so he's ready everywhere in case of a home invasion. My brother also appreciates the craftsmanship of his weapons.  He can talk at length to me about the balance, precision, beauty,and mechanical advances of guns.  He cleans and oils his weapons and takes pleasure in how they look after maintenance.  For my brother, his guns are admired tools in the same way that a carpenter admires and cares for his tools.   For me, a gun is a lump of steel that can have deadly and immoral consequences

The issue of abortion breaks along similar lines.  Pro life advocates find abortion immoral and abhorrent.   Pro choice advocates perceive abortion as a tool used for the constitutionally protected privacy rights of women.   An abortion doctor can talk in a matter of fact, or even an admiring way, about the procedural details of an abortion from a clinical, instrumental, perspective.  The undercover tapes of the Planned Parenthood doctors talking in this detached and sometimes approving manner about manipulating forceps on a living being disgusts and shocks pro life advocates.

Each side believes that legislation which creates obstacles to access is designed to whittle and ultimately eliminate their constitutionally protected rights.  Gun advocates believe that additional gun control laws will lead to a nationally registry of weapons, and then confiscation by the Federal Government.  Pro choice advocates perceive laws adding further requirements to perform abortions are
designed to reduce and ultimately eliminate abortion in this country 

Each side presents statistics and polls buttressing their point of view.  The reality is that data is not persuasive when addressing moral beliefs.  Social, moral issues will continue to polarize until a consensus on these issues is achieved.

Both of these issues are highly politicized.  Republicans and Democrats, at the national level, do so to fire up their respective bases and to create wedge issues for political advantage.  In a pure world, Democrats and Republicans would allow these issues to play out at the state level, a proven, effective manner of coming to a consensus on social issues.  A consensus on gay marriage was achieved that way.   Prior to the supreme court protecting  gay marriage as a constitutional right, 37 states had already legalized gay marriage. 

Of course I would be naive to think that we will live in a world where politicians act solely for the greater good.  In the mean time, how about each side appreciating that their issue is a kindred spirit to the other side's issue when thinking about and discussing guns and abortion.