Disclaimer; this post is not about being either pro-life or pro-choice! Please save that argument for another day. This is about the two sides finding a common sense middle ground for real world application in the name of reducing the number of abortions performed. Listening to debate regarding the mandatory waiting periods to legally purchase a firearm versus the mandates to apply a waiting period to have an abortion I come away perplexed. Why would anyone have a problem with setting aside some time to reflect and verify the action being contemplated is just after a discrete visit with a physician? In the name of my own understanding to this phenomenon I travel back to guns. It would be hard to find someone more in line with the defense of gun owners and gun rights than I am. Having said that, I could live with a 24 or even 48 hour waiting period to purchase a firearm. I’m not thrilled about it but could live with it. As has been the case from the get go those who would align themselves as a member of the pro-choice community have always stated very emphatically that their position is not one of advancing the number of abortions but rather the simple choice therein. This could certainly be considered a test for those without the burden of proof as to whether or not this should be labeled overly aggressive lip service.
Let’s compare the two. On one hand we have a life lost as a certain end result. One could debate until the cows come home on what that life is and represents but regardless of semantic gamesmanship the life is there and then it’s gone. On the other hand we have the purchase of an inanimate object whose power and influence is limited in scope by its possessor with an inception which would have to be described in the worst possible terms as “potential”.
What do you think of this story?
Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
Be and editor! Choose an option below: