I fully believe that a woman has sovereignty over her own body and that a gang of old white men should keep their meddling misconceptions out of a woman’s way. But I wonder if this is the most efficacious dialogue we can have to support such controversial subjects as birth control or abortion?
We do hear some progressives recognizing that the typical right-to-life advocate is only concerned with promoting life up until birth. After a baby is born it drops off the conservative radar and can undergo any and all pain and suffering, including death, without the right-to-lifers even giving notice.
So I think we should be promoting the right to life after birth, and we should be somewhat militant about it. We need signs and rallies and letters and PSAs and sky-writing with pigeons … whatever it takes. The discourse is simple: no one gets to call themselves a right-to-life advocate or to legislate against abortion or birth control until they have solved the problems of the already living: conquest, famine, war, and death (throw in pestilence and Donald Trump).
A no-brainer is also to rein in the cuckoos with the guns. Imagine, I can go to a bar with a .357 strapped to my belt, enjoy far too many adult beverages and get into an argument with the gent next to me about the anagogic aspects of Star Wars versus Transformers … and when the dweeb on the next stool mentions Shakespeare In Love, my hand drops to my belt and flips off the safety, the cold steel of my Hopalong Cassidy replica six-shooter fits perfectly into my hand, the dweeb quotes Milton, I slide the Peacemaker slowly out of the intricately tooled leather holster I had made in Mexico to complement my Sam Brown, the dweeb mentions he is a big fan of John Keats … I drop the heat back in the holster: this guy ain’t so bad after all.
Do you realize how dangerous it is to allow romantic poets in a sketchy bar down by the river?
So, how many people are killed or seriously injured by guns in this country every year? How many unwanted pregnancies are terminated? How many young children are killed in auto accidents? How many kids go to bed hungry every night? How many people shoot themselves or their loved ones by accident every year?
A Little Lesson in the Art of the Analogy
One of the most tiresome bromides we encounter in the argument over gun control is that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. I notice that a clever, but quite inaccurate, analogy is being batted around the sub-space lunasphere … If guns kill people then a pencil causes spelling errors. First, I understand this silly notion originated from a comedian known as Larry the Cable Guy; Larry’s schtick is to say dumb stuff so it’s understandable that the gun advocates (who eat nothing but bearcat stew) would consider Larry the go-to intellectual for philosophical truth.
But even a third grader can see that the analogy is flawed (not to mention stupid). First, people still write with implements like a pencil? There’s no spellcheck in a pencil. Come on out of the trees guys and and add keyboarding to your limited vocabulary (tomorrow’s word is “texting”). Besides, the analogy is more accurate comparing making spelling errors with a pencil to blowing away innocent bystanders when an open-carry missing-link accidentally fires his Bushmaster into a crowd seeking Back-To-School bargains. Ooops.
But the argument that people are behind killing is hard to refute. However, whether it’s the gun or the person recklessly brandishing the gun, comparing a young child laying in a pool of blood with half his face blown off to a spelling error is a clear indication of the baseness of the gun mentality in this country.
If you believe in a Right To Life then you cannot advocate the unrestricted access to guns. Besides, everyone knows that guns are just the objective correlative for the inadequacy felt by those of a certain biological deficiency.