Tuesday, November 26, 1996
OBJECTIVITY:
Ban on assault weapons, partial birth abortions not an attack on
citizens’ rightsBy Michael Schneider
Last year, I had both the good fortune and the misfortune of
living with a female. It was good because I learned more and more
every day about how the female mind operates. It was bad because
the more I learned, the more I got confused. I finally gave up,
knowing that for the rest of my life I will never know how women
think, and I can live with that.
One day, after returning from class, I was greeted at the door
by my roommate (we’ll call her "Helga" to protect her anonymity)
with a pissed off look on her face. Seeing this as my cue to ask a
stupid question, I said, "What?" She then proceeded to tell me that
she hated Bill Clinton. This was a surprise, considering we were
both members of that most prestigious of clubs, the Bruin
Democrats.
Seeing this as yet another cue to proceed with my ignorance, I
asked "Why?"
"Because I just heard on CNN that the White House said that the
son-of-a-bitch will sign the Partial Birth Abortion ban if it has
certain exclusions, that’s why!"
Now it was time for my third stupid question in a row: "What’s
so bad about that?"
For about a half-hour after uttering these five words, I
received an eardrum-shattering lecture about how this was a limit
on a woman’s right to choose, and the beginning of the end for Roe
vs. Wade, blah blah blah, etc., etc., etc. One part of this tirade
I remember clearly is Helga saying, "I don’t necessarily agree with
late-term abortion, but if they put limits on that, what will they
limit next?"
Does any of this logic sound familiar? Maybe an argument that
came from the other side of the ideological aisle?
In 1994, President Clinton signed into law a very controversial
crime bill that included, along with funding for midnight
basketball, a ban on certain types of assault weapons. The
NRA-backed members of the House and Senate (read: Republicans)
objected to this as an "…assault on our Second Amendment rights!"
Their argument, of course, was that if we were to ban certain types
of weapons, this could lead to a full-frontal assault on the Second
Amendment! And God knows that our founding fathers wanted us to
have as much firepower as possible for when we go hunting
defenseless little forest creatures!
Now, let’s look at the facts about the centers of these two
particular debates. First of all, what is an assault weapon made
for? Give up? It’s made for nothing other than maiming and/or
killing human beings. That’s it! Hence the reason why armed forces
have tons of the things! Of course, the NRA-Michigan Militia types
will tell you that "Guns don’t kill people. People kill people."
True. But, as I’d rather say, "Guns don’t kill people. People WITH
GUNS (or sharp instruments, or blunt objects, or poison, or cars,
or chainsaws for that matter) kill people." Does the true sportsman
really need a semi-automatic weapon that can pierce tank armor for
his average hunting expedition? I wouldn’t think so, but then
again, I’ve never been hunting, and Bambi might be one bad ass deer
…
To make sure that I don’t spend this time just bashing right
wing groups, let’s move on to late term abortion, or "Partial Birth
Abortion," if you please. For those of you who don’t know, a late
term abortion takes place in the third trimester (up to the ninth
month of pregnancy.) The way this is performed is very disgusting.
The doctor dilates the cervix and induces labor. Then, he reaches
up inside, and either stabs the fetus in the brain or crushes its
skull, killing the would-be baby. Finally, he pulls it out of the
mother and destroys it. Sound like a good time? I have to be honest
here to avoid nasty replies to the editor and say that most of
these are done when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or the
baby will have serious defects. The pro-choicers will tell you that
there are only a couple clinics in this country that will perform
this procedure on demand. Still, though, isn’t that a few too
many?
I like to consider myself a moderate (or, as liberals and
conservatives refer to it, a "sell-out.") I am pro-choice in most
matters, but I’m happy that President Clinton vetoed the "Partial
Birth Abortion Bill" because it had no provisions for life of the
mother or quality of life for the child. However, had it included
provisions such as those, I would have cheered him for signing it.
What other reason could a woman have for needing a late-term
abortion? I’m sorry, but if the child is healthy and a normal birth
would be of no risk to the mother, I’m not going to feel sorry for
the woman who was too lazy to get off her ass and get an abortion
earlier.
I am also not against people owning firearms. My cousin owns a
few, and I enjoy blasting away at paper targets at a shooting range
and imagining the black silhouettes as people (mostly women) who
have wronged me in my life. (Note: I am just kidding. I would never
take a human life, unless that person was physically threatening
(with a gun, for example) to kill and/or maim a loved one. I swear.
So those of you who have wronged me in my life, fear not. I am not
a violent person.) However, don’t we need to draw the line
somewhere? There are certain people within the NRA who think it
should be legal to own Surface-to-Air missiles and the like, so
that their Second Amendment rights are not violated!
I guess my point to all this is that it is important to stand up
for our beliefs, yes, but it is also important to have a little
common sense. Though these two sides are probably as polar as they
can possibly be in our political spectrum, they both have one thing
in common: The structure of their argument. Fear not, Mr. Militia
Man. We’re not after ALL of your guns. And fear not, Helga. We’re
not trying to take away your right to have an abortion. All I’m
advocating is a little common sense in these and other areas of our
lives and ideologies.
Michael R. Schneider is the former president of Bruin Democrats.
He is currently in exile.