Abortions? No Men Allowed

So after Trump’s reinstatement of the Mexico City policy, a lot of women are up in arms about it because women have the right to abortion or so they believe. I’ve already made like one and a half posts about the issue so I’m not going to comment on abortions. I’ve pretty much said about all I want to say about the issue. I’m happy to tell you about compromises I would make on that front (and why) but really, that’s not the issue at hand today. Today we’re going to talk about the future and how exciting it is.

So what prompts today’s post? This tweet which flew all over my Facebook feed not too long ago (at the time of writing).

I’m just going to leave out that it’s highly probable (mathematically) that over the lifespan of our species (assuming another few billion years) that we will actually see a photograph of some number of women signing legislation about what men can do with their bodies.

So what do I find so terribly interesting about this? Quite simply, the introduction of transgendered individuals being accepted as members of the sex that they identify with. A man that identifies as a woman is accepted as a woman. With the current political climate, we’re at the point where you don’t even need to make the effort to transition through operation to be accepted as whatever sex you want to be. Hell, you don’t even need the op, you can just say that you’re some other gender and badda-bing. You’re ste. See Lauren Southern’s video just to see how easy it is (in Canada, anyway).

This pressure is coming from the American left, not the right. I only bring up the distinction because it’s relevant to the photo above. When it comes to abortion rights, the left tends to support the woman’s right to choose. (As a side note, what is the woman choosing?) So when we combine the above, (sexual identification) and abortion rights, what we get is the possibility that several of those men actually identifying as women (inwardly) and for all you know it could be 4 men and 4 women signing legislation about what women can do with their bodies. So there’s your first strike, you assumed the genders of the people signing the documents, you bigot.

Let’s ride this train a little further. A person may be born as a woman but identify as a man. We also see from Lauren Southern’s case that there’s no necessity for transgender operation (or chemical castration as Vee likes to call it) for this transformation to be accepted. By that logic, it is conceivable that Lauren Southern could have sex with a man (is it gay?) and get pregnant. Lauren Southern is legally a man now, so would abortion rights still apply to him? It should. Which means that abortion rights are no longer women’s rights, they are human rights. But maybe you want to come at it from the biological women’s rights angle. Sure, that’s cool. So the right to abortion is afforded to only people that are born as women?

But the future is a strange and wonderful place. About two and a half years ago, The Lancet (a reputable medical journal) published an article about a successful birth after a uterine transplant. This is big news. In the case of the article it’s biological woman to biological woman, but let’s imagine the future for a little bit. Suppose the transplant was put into a gay man that identifies as a man because he wants to have a child with his partner. Abortion is no longer a women’s rights issue. You can’t come at it from the biological women’s rights issue anymore because now we have a case of someone born as a man that is pregnant.

So what do we have at the end of the day? We have to call abortion rights human rights, and the left needs to get off their high horse because now they can’t frame it as a women’s rights issue. Anyone that finds fault with anything I’ve said can come at me bro. Thanks for reading.

Artemis Hunt

Advertisements
Abortions? No Men Allowed

Inherent Rights

I made a post a while back about whether or not you have the right to (government subsidized) healthcare. Thinking back on it now, I made a lot of mistakes in the post and didn’t quite word the post the way that I really needed to in order to convey the correct meaning of what I truly think rights are and how they operate. Some people might go back to the original post and issue a correction. I won’t do that for a few reasons. First, the post is hella old and no one will really read it so making a new post gives me an excuse to get one more blog post on my site. Second (and possibly more importantly), I believe that correcting or clarifying mistakes makes more sense if the original material is still intact. You can think of this like one of your homework problems. You learn less from a sheet full of correct answers than you do from a sheet full of corrected answers. Mistakes are a necessity to helping others avoid pitfalls, so let’s keep them up, eh?

So two of my favourite YouTube content creators (better pad that word length) are Sargon of Akkad and Vee. Sargon was my introduction to what some might call the “Rational YouTube Community” (even though some members often lumped into that group don’t like that term). I use the term because it’s what people are familiar with. Sargon’s British accent bass tones are very soothing to listen to, and were often more interesting that various “nyahhh” that I might hear when playing a game. So I’d run his videos in the background and get a little bit of content while I gamed. Vee is Sargon’s friend, and I find Vee to be far more entertaining as a content creator than Sargon. Vee’s accent and snarky sense of humour are delightful and I legitimately enjoy Vee’s videos more than Sargon’s probably because of the character. I bring them up because Vee recently debated (or rather, had a discussion) with a white nationalist. About halfway through, Sargon joins the chat. The topic that had come up was one of rights and the concept of ‘Inherent Rights’. Vee and Sargon often call themselves classical liberals and Cole(?) (the white nationalist) wanted to bring up something about inherent rights and use classical liberalism as a common starting ground. However, it seems that he was unaware that Vee and Sargon both diverge from classical liberalism in practice on the issue of rights.

In classical liberalism there exists the concept of ‘Inherent Rights’. I’ve brought this up (implicitly) in a prior post about the 2nd Amendment. Simply put, an ‘Inherent Right’ is a right you get just for being alive. This is different from a right granted to you by the government, such as your right to a court-appointed attorney should you be unable to afford one yourself. Some libertarians may disagree with such a right as being inherent because it forces someone else to provide their services. Vee explicitly states that there’s no such thing as an inherent right because without someone to enforce the right (government) you may as well not have it. A few times Sargon said that he agrees that the right exists but that without someone enforcing it, it may as well not exist.

While I agree with Sargon, I think his statement has too much concession in it. I believe that someone always has their inherent rights, even if they go to prison or get killed for it. And that while it may be futile for these rights to be exercised, we should still think of them as existing. A person that breaks the law exercising an inherent right is often a catalyst for turning it into a government-enforced right. Think Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Today we agree that the rights he fought for were inherent rights and that him breaking the law to achieve them can be forgiven, because he wasn’t doing anything “wrong”. Does this mean that if enough people fight for a right that it becomes an inherent right? No. Because there are certain criterion that a right should fit for it to be considered an inherent right. So let’s try to figure out what makes something a candidate for an inherent right. Let me just preface this next section by saying that this is all my opinion and I in no way speak for anyone other than myself. I present this purely for the purposes of thought.

So an inherent right should be tied to the individual. To be redundant, an inherent right should not require any part by another party. Freedom of speech is a good example of this. You do not require someone else around to exercise your freedom of speech. Although if there’s no one around to hear your speech, is it really speech? (#ShowerThoughts)

An inherent right should not be selective in who it applies to. So there are no inherent rights that only blacks may exercise (unless you want to walk into a subset of inherent rights we might call ‘Inherent Rights for Blacks’). There are no inherent rights that only transexuals may exercise. Inherent rights apply to all people.

An inherent right should be voluntary in application. And this is where I tend to side with the libertarians in viewing the optimal society as one devoid of forced interactions. This is part of why I oppose minimum wage laws. They stifle voluntary interactions between two parties. And the most important part of this is that the voluntary interaction should not be one taken under duress. While ‘gun to your head’ decisions are ‘technically’ voluntary, they’re not voluntary on the interaction taking place. But in looking at this criteria, we also need to look at the flip side. While exercising this right should be voluntary, not exercising this right should also be voluntary. In the United States, if you’re over the age of 18 and you’re a U.S. citizen and not a felon (some restrictions apply) then you have the right to vote in your local elections. However, you also have the right to choose not to vote.

A right is not an inherent right unless it conforms to all of these criterion. And this is why the way Democrat Independent Senator Bernard Sanders is mistaken in the way he presents (and probably thinks) about healthcare as a human right. While I don’t think anyone would disagree that everyone has a right to seek health care, I believe quite a few people would disagree that everyone has a right to demand a doctor’s service (I believe even Dr. Vee would agree to that). This is the argument often made by proponents of abortion rights. That the fetus has no right to demand the mother’s body (and this is where I criticize the left for inconsistent application of logic).

So when Senator Sanders says that everyone has an inherent right to health care and college education, he’s wrong. Health care and education require two parties and if these two parties are not making a voluntary interaction (without being under duress), then another right must be violated in order to enforce this right. One of which being one’s right to one’s own labor. Which means at least one of the two rights being applied is not an inherent right. Whichever right ‘wins’ would be a better candidate for an inherent right, but in these two cases, the right being overridden (there’s a reference for ya) is the right to one’s own labor. So if we allow that right to be overridden, we are actually saying that it is not an inherent right. Which means that it is then a government owned right. This could get hairy because if your body and labor belongs to the state, then are you really living in a liberal society? I leave that question up to the reader to answer for themselves. On the other hand, if we allow your right to a doctor’s services to be overridden, well then I guess there’s no problem because it didn’t conform to all three criterion necessary to be an inherent right.

Now what Vee and Sargon are saying is absolutely true in that if no one will recognize your right and enforce your right, then you may as well not have it in practice. And in principle, they are correct. If we look at the definition of ‘right’ in this context:

Right: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. – Google Search

So in the broad sense, a right is only useful if someone is willing to enforce it. But just because a right is not enforced, it does not mean that one should not attempt to exercise it. But here’s my sticky point. Let’s return again to the example above of rights overriding other rights. If a right can be overridden by another right, it’s not a right anymore. You can call it a right if you add some asterisks to it to make an exception. The problem this could lead to is a situation in which rights have several asterisks interplaying with each other. At some point we have to ask ourselves if these rights have all of these troublesome exceptions, can we really call them rights?

When this happens in the field of science with models that require asterisks upon asterisks (the Ptolemaic model of our Solar System comes to mind) we usually evaluate the model and see if it might be simpler than we’re making it out to be. Why are we not then applying it to rights? The answer I came up with is that we accept the government-enforced rights model, which could lend itself to these asterisk situations. Or an inherent rights model, in which inherent rights exist, but may or may not be enforced by a government. While they may not be useful for those that would wish to exercise them, they do exist. But again, a question for the reader to answer for themselves.

At any rate, I think I’ve said all that I want to say on the topic at hand. Feel free to let me know what you think. As always, thank you for reading.

Artemis Hunt

Inherent Rights

Your ‘Right’ to (Government Funded) Healthcare

EDIT: I had to rename the title to more accurately reflect the argument. I’m not saying that you have no right to seek health care as much as I am saying you are not entitled to services provided by another (beyond the government).

So there’s this idea that’s been spreading about for a while and it has really picked up steam since Senator Sanders started pushing for it in their “progressive” platform. That idea is the ‘right’ to healthcare and the ‘right’ to education. Today, I’d like to rain on some parades and explain to you why these are not rights. I’ll focus on healthcare but the same argument will apply to education as well.

Before we explain why something is not a ‘right’, let’s figure out what a ‘right’ is to begin with. The definition of right is this:

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory – Wikipedia

I actually find this definition quite acceptable. Rights are important because they act as a guiding principle to the way you want your society to be run.

But where do we get our rights? I’d like to say we get our rights from the government because in one sense we do,but I don’t feel that’s entirely proper. Saying you get your rights from the government sort of distances you from how you obtained your rights in the first place. You could replace government with God and essentially have the same sentence. Are you familiar with the idea of the “Social Contract“? The philosophy is that people define their government, voluntarily giving up their power in exchange for protection of their rights. So put simply: we define our rights. Our rights are defined when we create this contract in which we give the government its legitimacy. In the United States, this contract is the Constitution.

What are some rights that we in the United States have that you may be familiar with. We have the right to assembly, the right to petition the government, the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom of the press. At present, we have the right to bear arms but I’m skeptical of how much longer that will remain as Clinton moves towards the office and the ‘progressive party’ starts to get more involved with government. But that’s a complaint for another day. We have the right to an attorney. In fact, I’ll just list the Bill of Rights here because that’s really what it is. I’ll try to limit each right to a sentence if possible.

  1. The right to assemble, petition the government, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.
  2. The right to bear arms.
  3. A fairly antiquated amendment, I’d describe it as the right to your own home. Specifically, this amendment prevents the government from forcing you to put up soldiers in your home.
  4. Unreasonable search and seizure, you can’t be searched without a warrant.
  5. The right to a fair trial, and the right to not be forced to testify against oneself.
  6. Right to a speedy trial (you can’t have your trial delayed arbitrarily).
  7. Right to a trial by jury.
  8. Right to fair punishment (no ‘cruel or unusual sentences’).
  9. You have rights not listed in the Constitution.
  10. Powers not given to the government belong to the states or the people.

So if you live in the United States, you are guaranteed all of these rights. The 9th amendment is a ‘catch-all’ which is pretty much the founding fathers saying “We can’t list all of your rights, use common sense for the rest” or at least, that’s my interpretation. Do note that I am not a law in constitutional law, so my opinion is just that, my opinion. But do you notice any special about the amendments? They all seem to be focused on an individual. The main trend among these rights is that they don’t require unwilling parties (with the exception of the seventh). All of these rights focus on an individual’s place in the government.

The most important thing about rights is that they don’t trample one another. You have the right to be offended, and I have the right to offend you. However, you do not have the right to silence others from offending you, because such a ‘right’ would trample another right. Then you run into an issue of ‘which right is right’? Law seems to be a tricky business that I’m quite glad that I stayed out of. So every right is distinct.Do you pay for your rights? Through jury duty, draft (if you’re male), and taxes, essentially yes.

Now let’s talk about what a ‘right to healthcare’ would entail. A right to healthcare suggests that doctors would be required to operate on you regardless of how much you are willing to pay. A right to healthcare suggests that pharmacies would be required to provide you with drugs regardless of what you are willing to pay. You would be entitled to this service because of your place within the country. This, I don’t like. It infringes on the rights of the individuals providing that service. I have the right to charge what I want to charge for my product or service. You have the right to purchase my product or service, or to refuse to purchase my product or service. I have the right to my body and everything that entails. I own my lungs, my heart, my liver, my spleen, my everything. I also own my labor. I cannot be forced to provide labor if I am unwilling to. You can’t force Wal-Mart to hire me any more than you can force me to work for Wal-Mart.

If healthcare were a right, you would be infringing on the rights of the doctors to provide their labour in the manner that they see fit for the price that they see fit. You would be infringing on the right of the pharmaceutical company to charge the prices that they want for their drugs. Essentially, what I’m saying is if you want to make healthcare a right, you’d either have to trample the rights of doctors, or find a way to provide healthcare through the government through volunteers.

See, it’s a weird issue because it’s always framed in the way of costs. Do I mind taking a healthcare tax to provide healthcare to everyone? Personally? Not in the least. But do I mind requiring that healthcare providers provide healthcare regardless of their whether or not they want to for the prices stated? Absolutely.

The problem we are running into this election cycle, and by extension this generation, is the idea of entitlement. The millennial generation is a bunch of entitled children. Am I saying that they’re dumb? Absolutely not. I know several very hardworking millennials that I respect very highly. Do I think that millennials want free stuff or think that the Sanders plan would’ve given them free stuff? Absolutely not. I believe most millennials recognize that the money had to come from somewhere, and it would have likely come from them. However, what I do think is that millennials have a problem discerning their freedoms and whether or not they are necessary. Each year, as more and more students go through the college system which brainwashes the liberal bias into them, they become a little more authoritarian. When students are attempting to sign away free speech (I believe most Americans agree that the first amendment is the most important one) citing that they have the right to not be offended by others. They’ve also been a major push-back against the second amendment. Honestly I wish they’d care as much about the fourth amendment as they do about revoking the first because the fourth one is the one in trouble. Sure, the Supreme Court made the correct ruling that time, but the fact that police are breaking it is a sign of bad times to come.

The worst part is that I can see the good intentions behind the movement, right? Why would you oppose universal health care? Are you so greedy as to not want to help other people pay for their doctor visits and medication? It’s this idea of altruism that guides this hand. If you oppose this altruism, you get branded a bigot. “What? You don’t care that people are dying because they can’t afford healthcare? You must hate poor people”. Then you become a social outcast and who wants to become an outcast? But the problem comes in the way of ‘forced altruism’. If I want to give to charity, it should be on my terms, not someone else’s. Because it’s my money, my services, my property going into this act of charity. I recognize that it very may well be for ‘the greater good’ but that doesn’t mean that I give up my rights to satisfy it.

Wouldn’t a universal living wage be for the greater good? Like getting paid just to live (which I foresee as an inevitable outcome as automation becomes more and more widespread). How about homes? We have a ton of unused homes and a ton of space in the used homes. Wouldn’t it be for the greater good if every home in the United States took on a homeless person (or people, proportional to the size of the home) and gave them a place to stay? We would reduce homelessness! Unfortunately in doing so, you’ve forfeited the right to your property. And the worst part is – once rights are gone, once rights are surrendered to the government, they aren’t easily reclaimed. That’s why we must hold out against these oppressive movements as long as we can, and educate their proponents on the consequences that would arise if they were successful.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I recognize the goodwill, but reject the premise on the grounds that I enjoy my freedoms and rights. Thanks for reading.

Artemis Hunt

Your ‘Right’ to (Government Funded) Healthcare

Abortion

I promised that I would do this topic soon, I may as well do it now. Especially since I’m in the mood after my raging debate on Facebook about it. Allow me to set the stage. My friend posted this image:
815086

 

After which her friends chat about their side of the issue. And I’m reading this Tumblrism and I notice something… the Tumblr post, the “Fun fact” never addresses the original question. It never addresses whether or not it’s one body or two. In fact, it skips that step altogether, and calls it one body on an assumption that the fetus, embryo, child, whatever you want to call it (I shall henceforth call it ‘the entity’) isn’t a human life. So because I’m an instigator, I have to get my hooks in and make some people mad. Over the course of some 20 or so messages, I could not get a straight answer out of the other individual as to why the being inside was not human and was not alive. So here’s my take on the issue. And before I start I’m just going to point out that I’m not a doctor, I have no medical background, I’m just a random blogger here.

Human:

First – is it human? Don’t be ridiculous, of course it’s human. On what grounds? It’s the offspring of two humans, it can only BE a human. If you mate a horse and a donkey you get a mule. A mule isn’t a horse, and it isn’t a donkey, and it can’t mate with either one. Or other mules for that matter, it’s completely sterile. If two horses generate offspring, that offspring will reliably grow up to a horse that could (in theory) mate with one of its parents. Chickens mate with their species, generate another chicken. So what you’re telling me when you say that this fetus isn’t a human is either that one of its parents isn’t human (unlikely) or what I think you’re really saying is that it’s not a human yet.

If you want to say that the entity isn’t a human yet, then that means you have the define a point in the development cycle in which the entity does become a human. How do you set that point? Obviously when the big bulge is on the mother, the entity is about to make its exit, it’s probably ‘human’ by that point. In fact, I think ‘abortion’ at that point may take the name ‘birth’ (sarcasm). But what about… say 2nd trimester? Hmmm… Maybe not then. The child’s hair has developed and we come from apes so… probably a bit too far in the cycle. The sex of the child can be determined. Probably safe to call it a human at that point. So how about we go further back. How about middle of the first trimester? The second month, the neural tube is distinguishable from the rest of the body. The fingers and toes are forming, the bones are forming. Is that human yet? Why?

I’ve asked this question several times and the discussion suddenly shifts from what makes the entity a human and turns into the rights of the mother. But we’re not worried about the rights of the mother just yet. We’re worried about whether or not the entity is a human and whether or not it should be afforded human rights. So how far back can we go?

I would argue that the entity becomes human at fertilization, or perhaps shortly after. The reason being eggs and sperm separately aren’t necessarily human. Why? Well, if they are, it presents a great problem because if eggs by themselves are humans, killing a woman is like a forty-thousand homocide or something. Women would be, by natural design, killing one human a month or so. Sounds like a dangerous path to go down for philosophy and law. On the flip-side if sperm were humans, we’d have to take a lot of guys downtown for killing humans regularly. Really, the main reason I argue that egg and sperm aren’t human by themselves because what happens if the host abstains? (Let’s just ignore Mary) In the female host, she will continue to have her period until menopause and no life will spring forth from her. In the male host, sperm will get reabsorbed by the body and the male will continue to produce sperm until he dies. No new life will spring forth from the male host either. Nothing you could count in the United States Census would be brought into this world. Let’s take the case of the newly pregnant female. If she maintains her healthy lifestyle, the entity will be born in 9 months-ish. The entity will be human assuming human parents.

I’m sure someone has noticed the problem with my definition of human. Evolution. If a human is the offspring of human parents, and I’m a human then my parents have to be human, and so on, until we get to our great ape ancestors which were not human by any definition of the word. So how do we resolve this issue? We run into the same issue of when is the entity a human versus when it is not a human. Hmm… How about this. Humans and chimps have a common ancestor. We stop there. So we can pick me, and go up through my parents and their parents and so on. When we meet a parent that can mate with me and chimps, we’ve gone too far.

Life:

So there’s my human definition and since the entity has two human parents, it’s a human. Now how about whether or not it’s alive? Well now we need to define life. There’s no good way to answer the question “what is life?” According to wikipedia, this is life:

“the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.” – Wikipedia

I tend to use an input-output definition of life. If an autonomous being requires sustenance from outside its being to survive, grow, and reproduce, it’s alive. If it can die, it was alive. This might get me into trouble when it comes to the robot revolution, and the question as to whether or not true AI self-replicating robots are alive, but that’s a problem for another day. And I’m not entirely sure I could argue that these robots wouldn’t be alive. I mean, think about it. If your issue with robots is that they can just chop-shop fix themselves, WE ARE GETTING TO THAT POINT TOO. How long before you can just go into the store and pick up a new arm? Holy smokes.

By my definition, the entity has to be alive, because it’s a parasite on its host. It eats the host’s resources to grow.You can’t use an autonomous self-providing definition because let’s be real here – babies are really useless for like two years. They can’t feed themselves, they can’t walk, they can’t do jack. So if you require mobility and the ability to provide for oneself for something to be alive, newborn babes are just as alive as the entity within. Which, if abortion is legal, would make the… neutralization of newborns also legal. It’s a natural extension.

Doctors have several types of life and death. When your heart stops being, you’re not really dead. We could bring you back through CPR, or the use of defibrillation. I guess most people go by brain death, where you can still have blood pumping through you, but you cannot be brought back… yet. If you go by the beating of the heart, you have 3 weeks to discover that you’re pregnant and then get your abortion. If you wait for the brain to partially develop, same deal, the beginning of the nervous system forms in the timespan it takes to form a heart. End of the first trimester the entity will have a functioning circulatory system. If you’re waiting for the brain to form, that would be in the second trimester. So if you require a fully developed brain, to call something alive, the entity is alive in the second trimester. But I don’t like the requirement of a brain for life. Single-celled organisms don’t have a brain, but they’re ‘alive’.

When are most abortions performed? CDC stats say about two-thirds in the first 8 weeks (first two months) and let’s just round about the last third done between 8 and 13 weeks (the third month). Because I was given a range of time, I’ll assume a Gaussian distribution of when the abortion was performed (though strictly speaking, I should probably assume a Laplacian distribution). That means most of the abortions were performed in the 3 week to 5 week range. But wait, that’s when the baby’s heart was formed. That’s when the neural tube, what would become the nervous system was formed. That’s when bones are forming. If we accept my definition of life and human, the entity will be a human and it will be alive. the removal of it would then be murder.

How about this, how do you determine what is the host’s body compared to the entity’s body? You can’t, if you accept the entire system as the host’s body. So how do you know how much host to remove? You have to accept that there is knowledge of the entity and its scope, so you remove the entity alone and not the host. But that assumption itself implies that the entity has a body, in which case, it is no longer just the host’s body.

Now understand, my issue with abortion is pretty much entirely the murder part. And not because I have some preconceived notion of the value of human life. My problem is with the consistency of law. A legal abortion would be legal murder by the logic presented. What you’re proposing is a condition under which murder would be legal. Which makes it a target for setting precedent. Precedence is a very dangerous thing when applied to topics which you might find rather invasive. I’m not entirely sure that I would argue that slippery slope doesn’t apply. I can just imagine the future in which doctors shrink themselves to operate inside a patient. A patient could, while the doctor is inside have the doctor removed and killed on the premise that it was the patient’s body. How much of the entity must the host contain for the removal of the entity to be fair. I hate to get gross here, but what if a couple is having sex and the female suddenly decides to chop of the male’s penis. It was inside her, was it ‘her body’? Bear in mind this example is arguing from the ‘is is not alive and it is inside my body’ point of view.

Conclusion:

 So you see, I’m at a bit of a pinch. Because I don’t think the government should pass two contradicting laws. And I don’t very much like the idea of setting a precedence like this on something which in its best case is mutilation and in its worst case is murder. The safest option is to outlaw it altogether and file it under murder. And it’s not like non-human things don’t get rights. You can’t up and kill your dog, that’s animal cruelty. The murder of threatened species like Bald Eagles will net you fines and jail-time. And I wonder if this does anything to the rights of people in vegetative states. I don’t know. Legal abortion could open up it’s own can of worms. Until we agree on what’s human and what’s alive, we should avoid permitting abortions. That’s just my take on it.

Artemis Hunt

Abortion

Are Guns REALLY a Question of Safety?

I have a lot of liberal friends on Facebook. This is probably expected because I am a millenial and it seems my age group is liberal. It may even be getting increasingly so, considering all of the higher education events going on around the nation. And one common issue that seems to be used as a weapon among liberals is the issue of gun ownership. But as I sit here procrastinating my statistical mechanics midterm, I wonder, what is the REAL issue we’re talking about here? Because I don’t suspect that it’s gun ownership.

I’ll start with an anecdote. My friend recently purchased a firearm. They described the process as follows (paraphrased and shortened):

  1. Enter the gun shop
  2. Pick a gun
  3. Fill out 15 minutes of paperwork
  4. Background check that takes less than an hour
  5. Gun – get

I personally view handguns as a tool and since this tool has a great deal of potential to be used to harm society, I believe that maybe it should be a little more difficult to obtain guns. I do not believe you should be able to walk home with a gun the same day you go to buy it. The most important of reasons being ‘when do you decide to buy a gun’? I would guess that most people just buy a gun because they want one. Whether it’s for recreation or protection, that’s fine. But I also recognize that there are other reasons one might buy a gun. Maybe your spouse just died and you say you need it for ‘protection’ but really you need it to kill yourself. Maybe you’ve been bullied at school for a while and whatever just happened today is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Maybe there’s a guy with only a month’s rent left to their name and no job nor hope in sight. They plan to use the gun to rob stores. Obviously these people won’t tell the salesman that, but they exist. There are a lot of people out there that need help more than they need guns, and giving them a little time, maybe requiring the pass of a mental health doctor over a few weeks might prevent guns from getting into the hands of people that wish themselves or others harm.

But the weird part is as far as gun ownership goes, those that are polled agree on several points. Regardless of whether or not those polled are republican, democrat, or independent, they all seem to generally agree on where the issues are. So my question is why are guns being used as a partisan issue? Well, here’s my suspicion. The democrats have taken on a lot of special interests as time goes on. And they do this because it’s easier to gather votes and control the government if you tell more are more people that you’re looking out for their interests. But also because of another thing and I think this is the most important reason for them crying foul of guns.

The easiest way to gather support is to play the victim.

Humans like to claim that they are right. They like to justify their actions not only with logic but with morality. In the Western World, a key component of being moral is helping others, true to our Christian beginnings (let’s just forget that the United States was founded on secularist ideology and focus on the people in the country). We should help our neighbor, feed the homeless, and all of that other charitable stuff. When you take on special interests, you are virtue signaling. You are telling the people that what you do is right because you are helping those that need it. People should follow you because they too will be able to help people and they can feel good about themselves because they would believe themselves to be helping others and then enhance the virtue signal effect.

I don’t mean to use virtue signaling as an implication that these people do things without believing in them, rather in reference to the propaganda of it. I have no doubt in my mind that many people engage in charities like Habitat for Humanity without believing that what they are doing is right. But there is an element of using charity as a weapon to garner support.

Now let’s get to how this applies to playing the victim. I am going to propose a scenario for you and we’ll see how it goes. You hear a boy and a girl yelling. This is normal, right? Boys and girls fight all the time. But then you hear the girl start crying. You go outside and look at the two. What is your first guess as to what happened? My guess is that your guess is that the argument got heated, and the boy hit her and then she started crying because she was in pain. Was I right? This interpretation is an example of how society views men as the aggressor. As such, your first response is probably to protect the girl or defend her. Let’s change it a bit. This time you go outside and the girl notices you and quickly says (before the boy can even open his mouth) ‘he hit me’. Now what is your reaction?

The most reasonable reaction is to ask if this is true. And then if it is true, to ask why. Maybe this is just my own upbringing coming in, but I can’t help but feel as though most people wouldn’t even bother to hear the boy’s side of the story. They would rush to the aid of the female without wanting to hear the whole story, or even check if this story is true. In fact we do see that this is not just my upbringing coming in when it comes to the modern view on rape in society. We see this because it happens in the media. People were so quick to rush to the aid of the ‘victim’ that they never bothered to check the facts. Even after the story was proven to be fabrication, ‘lo and behold’ the Twitter Brigade was quick to defend the alleged victim. Especially on the topic of sexual actions, women get the highest preferential treatment in the land. Domestic abuse shelters overwhelmingly favor women. Custody courts overwhelmingly favor women. CRIMINAL COURTS OVERWHELMINGLY FAVOR WOMEN. And this is a strategy women have been employing since they were young since they know that they can get away with it. It’s how the feminist agenda has been getting pushed despite touting falsehoods like ‘Women get paid 77 cents on the dollar for the same work as a man’ and ‘One in five women in college get raped’. When they play the victim they encourage people to support them.

Okay, let’s bring this round circle, how does ANY of this connect to guns? Some liberals are quick to point to gun violence as a reason for them to be removed from society. In reality, I believe that the argument is one cored in safety but the cause is misunderstood. If safety is the true concern, why don’t we install breathalyzers in every car to prevent people from drunk driving? Hell, why are we even letting people drive? We should just have self driving cars (can’t wait for this actually). Of the deaths in the country I believe lung cancer is one of it not the leading cause death. Why aren’t we banning smoking? I’ll tell you why – it’s not a question of safety. At the end of the day, the question of guns isn’t one of safety, but rather one of how many privileges we can take away without the people complaining. We already have Yale trying to sign away our first amendment (which I would argue is the most important amendment) in the name of protecting feelings. Our country has a long way to grow and if you start taking away these privileges in the name of safety, then you hamper the growth of the nation. Your rights are rights for a reason. So I’ll leave you with a quote from one of the founding fathers of the United States.

“Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” – Benjamin Franklin

Artemis Hunt

Are Guns REALLY a Question of Safety?