Are There True Parallels Between Being Pro-Choice and Pro-Gun Rights? Abortion as Self-Defense

take_it_pill_2_web

A  much more fair comparison looks like this: a gun-owner’s desire to have access to a gun to protect himself and his family is like the woman’s desire to have access to safe abortion to protect herself and her family. To look at abortion this way is to accept that it is a form of self-defense.

I’ve always been interested in the value of political parallels. As an extension I’m often on the lookout potential false equivalencies. Some years ago, my father and I were talking about the self-described “pro-life” movement. He said, “Isn’t it ironic so many ‘pro-lifers’ are also in favor of the death penalty?” I agreed, but upon reflection decided they could say the same thing about us – the pro-choice crowd. They might ask, “Why are pro-choice people so often also against the death penalty?” For me, I don’t believe ending a pregnancy is the same as ending the life of someone who has lived actually outside the womb for years and years, but if you follow the shallow logic of “the innocent should live and guilty should die,” then being ‘pro-life’ and pro-death penalty makes perfect sense. In my experience, though, the ‘pro-life’/pro-death penalty stances generally fail to acknowledge the complexities of the consequences of forcing a woman to birth a child she can’t or doesn’t want to care for, and of killing a person who has been found guilty of a crime, but that is a different essay.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, I was posting, talking, reading a lot about Planned Parenthood and the testimony of Cecile Richards in front of a House committee that is seeking to defund it. On Thursday I was posting about yet another mass shooting – this time at a community college in Oregon. On Thursday night, I found myself thinking and discussing a LOT about the parallels between the fight for access: to abortions and to guns. A friend of mine posted the following, which I found incredibly thought-provoking and incisive:

Screen Shot 2015-10-02 at 7.12.53 PM

Why aren’t thoughts and prayers an adequate solution for “pro-life” crowd when a “life” is taken by abortion? Why must they seek to completely end access for all others to a safe abortion? And why are thoughts and prayers enough for the “pro-gun” crowd when a life is taken by a gun? When a tragedy happens involving a gun, why are they not clamoring for ways to make sure guns don’t fall into the wrong hands? Why must they oppose with fortress-like strength any attempts to limit access to guns?

I shared the above post, and began talking to my friends online about it. One friend, Liane, though like-minded, presented a Devil’s advocate argument, saying,

“1. The Left wants to put more restrictions on guns. Guns don’t kill people. Guns are utility. People are the problem.
2. The Right wants to put more restrictions on abortion. Abortion kills people. Abortion is not utility. People are the problem.”

She went on to clarify,

From the right’s perspective….it seems their argument is like this: abortion’s only outcome is the death of a human; guns, however, don’t kill people. They are for hunting, for sport, or, okay, for self-defense. Only a criminal would purposely seek to take a human life, with a gun or with abortion. (Unless his name is George Zimmerman….the right can’t suck HIS cock hard enough)

(You can thank HER for that imagery…)

So, while guns serve a purpose other than to kill a person, abortions don’t. Allegedly. Is that a fair parallel, or even a true one? It’s fallacious reasoning to presume the person seeking an abortion does so out of a desire to kill rather than (get this) to live the life they want and that’s best for her.

A  much more fair comparison looks like this: a gun-owner’s desire to have access to a gun to protect himself and his family is like the woman’s desire to have access to safe abortion to protect herself and her family. To look at abortion this way is to accept that it is a form of self-defense. Those seeking to outlaw abortion are taking away her ability to defend herself against a number of things. Having to carry a dead fetus to term. Having to continue a pregnancy that endangers her life. Having to endure childbirth when her pregnancy resulted from rape. Having to have a child when she does not want a child. Having a child when she knows she lives in abject poverty and can barely feed the children she has now. These are all situations on which the pregnant woman’s life may depend upon having access to safe abortions, yet the “pro-life” movement wants to strip her of that form of self-defense.

The left wanting restrictions on guns – especially in the wake of these horrible, tragic mass-shootings, is not in the same universe as the right going after access to safe abortions with the venom and deceit and horrible disregard for the lives of women the right seems to have. In comparing how the two things (guns and abortion) are viewed in our culture, consider that unlike guns, our culture doesn’t worship or romanticize abortion. We don’t say, “Ohmygod, I can’t wait until I’m old enough to have an abortion!” We don’t say, “Okay, sweetie – my mommy had this abortion and gave it to me, and when you’re old enough I’ll give it to you.” Our media, games and entertainment don’t make it look cool to have abortions. Our toy stores don’t sell toy abortion kits. When the Pink Legos Towns came out, they  did not have little pink Planned Parenthood buildings. We don’t have “Abortion Shows” at convention centers, where it’s legal to purchase an abortion in the parking lot.

In other words, abortions are already viewed with the appropriate gravity. They are already  considered a last resort by most, and those seeking them are already experiencing feelings ranging from anxiety to outright tragic despair. Women don’t get abortions frivolously, for improved social status or to show off to their friends. It is not considered “sport.” I’d venture to say that increasing access to them is unlikely to turn it into sport or a status symbol. It’s perfectly reasonable to demand the Second Amendment fans approach guns with the same gravity – even moreso. In fact, someone brilliant (I’m not sure who – if you know, please enlighten me…) suggested reversing the approaches in the following comparison:

 

12107749_10153198474377602_2227274541429526579_n

To be fair, I actually know quite a few people on the right who are fans of gun rights, but also champion a woman’s right to have access to abortions, and many of the other services organizations like Planned Parenthood provide. They oppose open-carry, accept reasonable limitation on gun ownership and wouldn’t dream of interfering with a woman’s access to any and all manner of healthcare. I know conservatives who think protesters shouldn’t be allowed within a mile of an abortion clinic. Flipping the coin, I also know people on the left who are pro-choice, but also own and enjoy guns. Even of those who don’t own a gun, they don’t necessarily equate gun-ownership with insanity and a lust for blood. They’re cool with gun owners as long as said owners are ultra-careful and super-responsible in the way they use and store them. Such people as these are called “moderates.” Say it with me, class – “MOD-er-ates.” Unfortunately, moderate voices are often unheard, as they seem to be outnumbered. They need to get LOUD. We at least need to see Republicans vocally defending Planned Parenthood. Unlike unicorns, they do really exist!

Yet, I cannot bring myself to say that we need to see Democrats vocally defending gun owners. Why is that? I mean, aside from the fact that I don’t think it’s true… I think it has to do with who holds the power in each situation. The gun lobby already HAS a great deal of power – more than it should. A gun owner already HAS a great deal of power – more than he or she should. The same cannot be said for women lobbying for choice in and access to women’s health care. It must come down to which right I consider more important. More sacred. More worthy. More the underdog. A “pro-lifer’ may think the fetus is the ultimate underdog who needs someone to speak for it. I disagree. In that scenario, they are putting the fetus’ rights above the rights of the woman carrying it, making HER the true underdog. Still. As usual. As history would have it. The woman as the afterthought, unimportant in the equation.

take_it_uterus_6_web-150x150

Aliza Worthington grew up in Brooklyn, NY, and now lives in Baltimore. She began writing in 2009 at the age of 40. Sometimes her writing follows The Seinfeld Model of “no learning, no hugging.” Other times it involves lots of both. She blogs about Life, Liberty and Happiness at “The Worthington Post.” Her work has also appeared in Purple Clover, Catonsville Patch and Kveller and Daily Kos. She has won BlogHer Voice of the Year awards in 2013 and 2015. Follow her on Twitter at @AlizaWrites. She is proud to have an essay in the upcoming anthology, Love Her, Love Her Not, The Hillary Paradox.

Image Credit – Many thanks to Christy Caine and Dan Wilkinson  for conceiving of (see what I did there?) and designing the above “Come and Take It” images. They originally appeared in Christy’s brilliant 2012 piece, “Come and Take It” on her blog, Leap of Fate.

  • A J MacDonald Jr

    Abortion is the intentional violent destruction of an innocent human being.

    • machomachoman

      Using your gun to shoot someone is a violent destruction of a human being as well. If a man breaks into your home and you shoot him dead while he’s running out the door with his arms full of your possessions, you are a murderer. Nothing, not your TV, your cash, your jewelry, etc. is more valuable than the life you just intentionally and violently destroyed. Same thing goes with stand your ground mentality. Just because you’re scared of someone, it’s not morally acceptable to kill him when you have a chance to get away. Once we as a country can value life, even the life of a thief, above all else, then we can have a real conversation. Until then, we’re just playing with ourselves.

  • JimR978

    “I think it has to do with who holds the power in each situation. The gun lobby already HAS a great deal of power – more than it should. A gun owner already HAS a great deal of power – more than he or she should. The same cannot be said for women lobbying for choice in and access to women’s health care. It must come down to which right I consider more important. More sacred. More worthy. More the underdog.”

    Just my view, but I see this as faulty logic. To begin with, any view on whether or not any group has “to much power” (or not enough power for that matter) is simply that, a view – an opinion.

    We’ve had numerous periods where we’ve had majorities in both sides of the Federal Legislature AND the White House that were Pro-choice. How is having some measure of influence over those that pass the laws having more power than actually BEING the people that make the laws?

    But your point also ignores that the bulk of laws on both abortion and guns are at the State level and the pro-choice side has over-whelming majorities in the seats of power at the State level in many States.

    So instead of arbitrary views on who does or doesn’t have “power” at any given moment, a much more rational choice begins with the recognition that the law says that both are individual rights (which is a fact, not an opinion) and the principle that individuals in both cases are free to exercise their individual rights.

    And while the little graphic comparing getting an abortion to buying a gun is a cute and catchy, how accurate is it really? If it were re-written to reflect MY State, a woman seeking an abortion would need to attend a 48 hour training class, get two letters vouching that she is of good character, not have any criminal convictions or arrests and THEN she could apply to have her vagina licensed. To do that she’d go and have a nice little chat with her local Chief of Police who will inform her that she should really join an abortion club (because your aren’t getting that license if you don’t…) of his/her choice (and pay the annual fees for being a member of that club) and set any number of other restrictions that she’d have to meet before he/she will even consider granting that license.

    Then that Chief of Police will complete a full background investigation (which will require that she divulge every detail of her life) and make an arbitrary decision based on whatever factors THEY deem relevant. (Including who you live with, where you live, whether they like your landlord or not, how often she attends church, which church she attends, etc…) This, of course, will all take a minimum of 60 days. And that’s just to get your vagina licensed. You haven’t even gotten pregnant yet!

    *IF* they deem you worthy, you may then proceed to your local watering hole (aka the gun shop) and hope you meet any arbitrary and unwritten rules they might have about whether or not you might get pregnant (this is called “Dating”.). IF you manage to find a suitable date, have sex with them and get pregnant you may then proceed to your chosen abortion clinic and apply to get the type of abortion that has been approved by some un-elected State-level functionary.

    To do so you will undergo another background check and pay for everything with cash out of your own pocket because there is no insurance, no local, State or Federal subsidies and no non-profit organizations that pay for that sort of thing. And you get to pay additional Local, State and Federal taxes as well. You will, of course, also register the name and ID number of everyone you’ve had sex with with the State Police and notify them when you ceased having sex with each individual and when you start having sex with someone new.

    After all of this, you can then maybe get your abortion.

    Of course, your local Chief of Police may decide NOT to issue you a vagina license in which case, you can’t do anything. You *could* go spend $4,000-$5,000 (out of your own pocket again) to hire a lawyer and appeal the Chief’s decision. That’s another 2 to 3 months of Court processes where it is incumbent upon YOU to prove that you haven’t done anything that actually disqualifies you from wanting to exercise one of your rights. Proving a negative is always so much fun. And once again, maybe you’ll win the arbitrary decision coin-toss with your appeal and the judge will order your Chief of Police to issue that license. If not, sorry.

    And then after all of this you get to log in to any of hundreds of sites including most major news sources and see all many of those politicians (The one’s without any power!) insisting that there aren’t enough laws on abortions and that we need more abortion laws because getting an abortion is just to darn easy!

    Oh, and by the way, your vagina license expires every 5 years. Don’t forget to renew it well in advance (And go through all of this all over again!) because if you are caught with a vagina after you’ve had an abortion and your has licence is expired, that’s a mandatory prison sentence.

    Does the author of that comparison still want to make that deal? Because it’s looking pretty good to me right now.

Why I Wrote “Trumping And Drinking”
Get Over Yourselves. We’re All Rory Gilmore
Hillary Clinton, Shake It Off, Taylor Swift, Hillary Clinton Campaign song
Six Reasons “Shake It Off” Should Be Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Theme Song
Nancy Reagan dies, Just Say No, Ronald Reagan
A Not-So-Positive Ode to Nancy Reagan’s Frothy “Just Say No” Campaign
I Married for Health Insurance
Why I Wrote “Trumping And Drinking”
A Case of Nixonian Deja Vu
Post-Election Munchies: What is Your Grief Snack of Choice?
Why I Wrote “Trumping And Drinking”
A Case of Nixonian Deja Vu
Trump Reality Check, Now with Actual Facts!
Fascism Facts
I Married for Health Insurance
Get Over Yourselves. We’re All Rory Gilmore
Post-Election Munchies: What is Your Grief Snack of Choice?
Women’s Elections Rights in Saudi Arabia: A Token Drop in an Abysmal Bucket & the Plight of Women Under Sharia Law
Maybe It Wasn’t Rape: Emerging Matriarchy and the Altering of Women’s Past Sexual Narratives
Paris attacks, Paris terrorism
Is Paris Burning?
Chinese government and women's reproductive rights, adopting Chinese girls, international adoption
Dear Xi Jinping, I Am Writing to You as an American Mom of a 19-Year-Old Chinese Daughter
The Vital Voice of Hillary Clinton: Part 1
Maybe It Wasn’t Rape: Emerging Matriarchy and the Altering of Women’s Past Sexual Narratives
The Eyes Have It!
Ashley Madison, Jared Fogle, sex, rape, sexual affairs
Ashley Madison vs. Jared Fogle: Rape, Sex and Hacking in America
women's viagra, Viagra, Flibanserin, sexual arousal, women's desire, sex after menopause
That “Little Pink Pill” Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up to Be

Get our new weekly email
Broadly Speaking

featuring our best words for the week + an exclusive longread