• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

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.