Rights: Yours and Hers

16 December 2004

–by Mike Murray

Uh, guys, can we talk? Let’s assume for a moment that women are concerned with abortion and men with guns. I know, I know: it smacks of sexism. (Genderism, actually. But since when did accuracy enter into this debate?)

Speaking of accuracy, abortion supporters play silly games with terms. My favorite is the absurdly worded standard, “reproductive rights.” The mere fact that something is permitted under the law doesn’t make it a right. But let’s not quibble.

Instead, let’s look at the term in toto. Even there, it’s misleading. The right to reproduce isn’t really what’s being addressed, as one might infer. Instead, it’s the right to avoid reproduction.

And then there’s that catchy rallying cry, “a woman’s right to choose.” Probably was inspired by the time-honored slogan, “it’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind.” Come to think of it, the second phrase comes closer to the truth.

Fact is, well before most abortions are considered, several choices have already been made. Excepting in, of course, cases of rape and incest, the choice to engage in sexual intercourse was initially made. A choice was subsequently made to refrain from sexual activity during the times of the month when conception is impossible. And, finally, a choice was made (often in the heat of passion, no doubt) to forego the use of contraception.

By the time the “right to choose” whether or not to engage in abortion is considered, then, three presumably bad choices have already transpired. So, it’s not really a woman’s right to choose that is at issue here; rather, it’s her supposed right to choose to undo previous choices. To change her mind.

We men proffer similar absurdity.

We speak of the “right to bear arms” in reverent tones. Now, I like the heft and feel of a .45 as much as the next guy (those sure were cool sidearms we sported as MPs in the Army). But let’s get real. The founding fathers probably didn’t have Saturday-night specials – and certainly not such weaponry as “oozies” and AK-47s in mind — when they spoke of citizen militias and such.

And, come on, does anyone really need a machine gun to take down Bambi or Thumper?

Alas, such is the idiocy of partisan positioning that “guns rights” supporters oppose bans on assault weapons and “abortion rights” activists favor the legality of partial-birth terminations. Both groups are on pretty thin ethical ice with those stands, but each had fears the same thing: the nefarious “slippery slope” effect.

You know, the one that holds that, if you give your political opponents an inch, they’ll take a mile.

But men, maybe we should consider just giving in on this one. I see a bad moon risin’. There’s trouble on the way, and it’s heading straight at us.

I see it there, hiding behind the pleasant facades, lurking beneath the small-talk pleasantries of the “gentler” sex (er, gender). Perhaps you’ve noticed the exchanged glances between women. Knowing smiles that dart back and forth when they think no man is watching.

Bras were just the start: those communal burning rituals (although, sure, the fires were sometimes rather small) produced smoke signals blown far and wide by the winds of change.

Brothers, I’m begging you: wake up before it’s too late. That woman’s-right-to-choose thing is bigger than you think. It’s only a hop, skip, and a jump from (gulp) the unborn to …us! And we’ll be partly to blame.

As the “right to choose” converges with the “right to bear arms,” I See Dead People. Men dead people. How long will it be before abortion ”choice” progresses to a woman’s right to off an oafish husband, boyfriend, significant other?

Think about that before you cut a woman off in traffic; stand one up for a date; call one an, er, witch; dump one for her roommate; or (God forbid) leave the toilet seat up. And think about it before you insist on the proliferation of assault weapons.

I mean, the next time you torque off a woman, she could be packin’ heat. Do you really want it to be a bazooka?

Berea Pundit