Yik Yak logo
Download TikTok Instagram X
Yik Yak icon
Join communities on Yik Yak Download
US Politics icon
US Politics 3w
Hot take: you can't be pro choice and anti 2A
comment

19
upvote -4 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 3w

I suspect you are pro-life and pro-gun

upvote 23 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 3w

Then you can’t be pro life and pro gun. If anything that’s an easier argument to make

upvote 15 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 3w

This is flawed as a premise

upvote 9 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 3w

You can be, pretty easy choice at that.

upvote 7 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 3w

I don’t understand how these two things are like morally similar circumstances

upvote 5 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 3w

How about two things can be true. You have the ability to freely use your healthcare as you see fit and we have gun laws?? like wtf is this argument.

upvote 2 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 2w

You absolutely can be

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 3w

Well I guess you can do so illogically because it's pretty illogical to say that you should be able to access abortion because of risk to your life but not a gun for the same reason. They both are intended to end a human life.

upvote -4 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 3w

Pro-Choice is literally about regulating abortions and making sure they are done correctly and not in the backwoods, same as regulation of guns wanting to lower gun crimes and make sure people who don’t need guns don’t get them. Both make people safer.

upvote 7 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 3w

This only holds true if "regulating" has a circumstantial definition to you, meaning wider access when applied to abortions and stricter regulations on access when applied to guns.

upvote -2 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 3w

Regulation is just an official rule by the government fam. Regulations of course are different from one another, what’s your point here?

upvote 6 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 3w

"Regulating" is overly vague in context, simplify to "infringe upon [abortion rights/gun rights]" and "widen access to [abortion rights/gun rights]" for clarity's sake

upvote -1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 3w

It’s literally the definition of regulation that I gave you. It’s not vague in any sense, it’s a government or agency given rule. You can expand abortion healthcare while making gun access harder for those who don’t need it. There’s no contradiction in that at all? You just bad at bait or something?

upvote 4 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 3w

I believe it is when "regulating" refers to two different types of legislation that are pretty much opposites; ones intended to widen access to something, and ones intended to reduce access to something.

upvote -1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 3w

Yeah this is just shit bait. That’s implied with how they are two entirely separate subjects that regulation is different.

upvote 5 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 3w

I don't see why you have so much issue clarifying, there is gun regulation that widens access.

upvote -1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 3w

Anti-2A would mean restricting access, something you know and are clearly being dull about. 😐

upvote 5 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #5 3w

Yeah or at least closer to that than most opinions on here

upvote -3 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 2w

If I can’t be pro-choice and anti-2A, how can you be anti-choice and pro-2A then tf??

upvote 6 downvote