I would like nothing better than for each to acknowledge valid reasons for abortion, not just occasionally—when the base is not looking—but (for example) in the many proposed and enacted abortion bans. I do not believe I am alone there; while some people undeniably do advocate abortion on demand, they are very much the fringe minority. Far more so than their counterparts at the other extreme; I guarantee there were not five US Senate nominees in the last election alone advocating abortion on demand, but there WERE that many advocating abortion bans without exceptions. Plus the vice presidential nominee. And the PLATFORM on which he and the presidential nominee ran. Even Libertarian darling Ron Paul is pro-life, without exception; I know of no 2012 GOP presidential candidate who is not.

For my part, I am neither pro-abortion nor anti-gun; had I my druthers, I would significantly restrict and regulate both, but ban neither. In fact, personally, I think law-abiding competent adults have the right to own an Abrams and/or Raptor, though the progressively stricter firearm testing/licensing I advocate would make it impractical for most of even people who could afford the vehicles (for one thing, responsibly maintaining and operating either requires a competent crew, not just an individual.) If it comes down to resisting a tyrannical government in possession of the US military though there will be no other way; against a tank platoon it would really make little difference what kind of small arms local militia kept and bore.

I support Castle and Stand Your Ground Laws, believe that where the latter is absent Duty to Retreat ends at my front door and have no problem with people using guns to defend their own or anothers life. Yet even our more properly nuanced discussion of the original question leads back to it: Is it reasonable to place all sorts of qualifiers and conditions on abortion despite its frequently indispensable life-saving benefit to pregnant women without placing similar ones on guns despite their frequently life-ending detriment to innocents? Almost no one supports arming the criminal, mentally incompetent and/or unqualified, and almost no one supports abortion on demand; the list of people who consider either a fundamental right is vanishingly small: Is it not passing strange we allow BOTH?

A good friend of mine just replaced the barrel on my dads old .22 for me, and I am grateful; my 69 year old mother has it and I am 7000 miles from her. However, ANOTHER .22, the child-sized pink Crickett "My First Rifle" my cousin bought her FOUR YEAR OLD last Christmas, scares me. Call me crazy, but I do not think anyone who cannot SPELL "rifle" should operate one. Take her along when you go hunting or to the range, definitely educate her about how to use (and NOT use) a gun if it is in the house with her, but a four year old should not own a firearm. A position, incidentally, with which federal law concurs, yet they are still on the market.

It is a long way from there to "ban all guns," which is several bridges too far for me, and, I believe, most people. Just as with abortion on demand. Is it too much to ask for reasonable and limited safeguards, without one side or the other proving Godwins Law? I support all law-abiding adults owning any firearm for which they have demonstrated competent responsible use (much as with vehicles, but a .22 Remington and M61 Vulcan should not have equal licensing requirements any more than a moped and semi do.) As noted in response to Isaac, I could support an abortion ban with exceptions for criminal acts and to prevent death/disability; even the former is somewhat negotiable. I am not aware either option is on the table.

I know both issues have a spectrum of positions; I just wish the Republican National Committee did. There many invocations of both issues rarely reflect either spectrum, only the narrowly defined points. I read the 2012 major party platforms (and posted links here, so everyone could refuse to read them.) The GOPs abortion ban without exceptions is right where it has been for 30 years; no "if"s, "and"s or "but"s. That is one reason "legitimate rape" was such a big 2012 story. The other, of course, is the statements author and the GOP vice presidential nominee co-wrote a federal law reiterating it, declaring a fetus a person with all constitutional rights and thus banning abortion, without exception. Ryan "clarifying" that "rape is rape"—while maintaining pregnancy DISPROVES rape—changed nothing.

I am an old fashioned guy: When people say things on the campaign stump, in their party platform and in the laws they write, I assume they mean it.

Fair enough; I did not mean to be rude, and apologize if I came off that way.