I have been thinking about the weird marriage of ideas in political folks on the right. For instance, people who believe in gun rights. They assert, even vehemently, that every person in the USA has the RIGHT to own guns and ammunition -- as many, and as many kinds, as they want. Men must be able to own guns. Women must be able to own guns.
But most of them marry that passion for liberty to own guns with a passion to deny women the right to decide for themselves whether or not to have an abortion. People, they say, do not have the right to make decisions about this issue. A woman pregnant because of rape, or casual sex, or incest, or sex with her husband cannot be allowed to decide for herself whether to carry the fetus to term. She is denied her liberty, her right.
Many will decide to carry the fetus to term. Some will not.
Citizens are capable of deciding whether to own a gun, or not own a gun. We trust them with this capacity to decide whether to own a killing machine that can kill none, one, or many people as we saw in Aurora, CO, recently. We even defend their right to own guns that are legal ONLY to kill people -- handguns, assault weapons and automatic weapons.
But a woman cannot decide whether to have an abortion or not. These opposite, conflicting positions are held passionately by the same person.
How strange.
It's about morality, some say. Isn't the freedom to own a killing technology, and maybe use it to defend yourself, also a moral issue? But we trust the gun owner to exercise good judgment about the people and animals and things they may shoot, but don't trust any women to exercise good judgment about their own bodies and futures.
As I say, "strange".
Why are not the "liberty" folks about guns as passionate about being "liberty" folks for women?
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
