According to the wording of the second amendment, "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This specifically says that the people have the right to own and manage their own guns. While the first part of the amendment talks about a "well-regulated militia," it does not mention a heavily regulated militia, nor does the first line supplant the second. Finally, the original purpose of the amendment was to give people the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government. That purpose cannot be fulfilled if the federal government highly regulates individual's gun usage.

I fully agree with you. Abortion is, in fact, murder. But making the decision of whether or not someone can abort for the entire population of America is a very exact violation of the inalienable right of liberty. The decision should be there for everyone, every family.

Then father and the mother should discuss the issue amongst themselves. They, as a family should still be able to choose the route they want to go. Choosing to have a baby is just an important a choice as choosing to not have one.

What if, in a similar situation, the father does not want to have the baby? Does that violate the women's rights? Or is it just his thoughts on the subject? Shouldn't he also get to decide what happens to his child, since he and her created it in equal partnership, whether it be to abort or not?

A woman gets pregnant in a great situation during a great time in her life. The woman has the option to decide whether or not it would be a good choice to abort the child. She ultimately decides to get the child aborted, saving her from the cost of having a child. But, later down the line, she feels guilt and loss over having killed something she could have loved so dearly. Was her long-term emotional turmoil worth saving herself the short-term stress of a child?

Now consider another woman in a much worse situation who decides instead to keep her child. She is saved from the guilt and sorrow the previous woman suffered, but she feels the weight of the cost of a child for years and years even after the child moves out. Was the devastating cost for her worth avoiding the emotional turmoil she could have suffered?

These questions are impossible to answer because of the numerous factors that make their situations different, as well as the inability of the human race to see alternate timelines. Now imagine 10s of thousands times more women in similarly complex situations. All of these women have made sacrifices and gained something in return, so who is to say whose situation was better?

Certainly not a body that governs over 3 million people. When it comes down to it, each woman made their own choice. Each woman has to deal with the consequences. If they don’t like what they chose, that is their own issue and they have to deal with it individually. It should not be the government’s decision what a single woman in a single situation decides to do with her own body. America was founded on the basis of freedom and choice. Making abortion illegal violates that liberty to choose.

Although I would prefer to not swim in any dumpsters, If I absolutely had to, I would rather swim in a McDonalds dumpster. A Taco Bell dumpster would be full of liquid foods such as sour cream and guacamole, not to mention the greasy nightmare that is the hamburger meat they use. A McDonalds dumpster may be greasy, but at least I wouldn't be swimming in congealed and sticky goop. Smell and taste-wise, I would prefer the McDonalds dumpster as well. I simply prefer the smell and taste of McDonalds over Taco Bell and would much rather come home smelling like chicken nuggets and pancakes than molded cheese and rotten avocado.