Women and Hubris

The decision to have sex is between a woman and a man. The decision to have an abortion is between women and God. So says Detroit Free Press writer Rochelle Riley, in response to the recent events in the Michigan Legislature, events which which have supposedly taken freedom of speech away from women in the state. The thousands who appeared in Lansing yesterday certainly seemed well aware of the right, and well capable of expressing it.

But as we said here a few days ago, this isn't about freedom of speech. It's about abortion, which even Ms. Riley admits in something of a backhanded manner in a recent column. The decision to have sex is between a man and a woman. The decision to have an abortion is between a woman and God.

We do not care to speculate as to the nature and extent of such a discussion between God and a woman who has had an abortion, except to say that we would just as soon not be around for it. Still, back here on Earth, would the decision to have the baby be seen as only between a woman and God? Or would the woman expect that the father of the child would contribute to the raising of the child if she elected to have her? Of course she would; indeed, daddy would likely be hauled into court if he balked. The trouble herein is really twofold. On the one hand, the father is told that, although he consented to sex too and as such can claim the moral right of fatherhood afterwards with all that that entails, he nonetheless has no such rights if mother wants an abortion. This is truly a deceit, when you think about it. He participated freely in the act yet is essentially denied a say in the results of the act. He gave of himself and yet expected to sign off on the effect.

Which leads to point number two. We are told that women should never be treated as objects or mere vessels. And they should not; we say so emphatically and without reserve. Their dignity as human beings commands as much. Yet we seem, or, at least, the Rochelle Rileys of the world appear to think, that men can be treated as mere objects of a woman's whim. They can have relations with a woman, they can be used as a mere sex objects, after which their opinion may be readily discarded.

Be careful, ladies, should you really want a world which disregards men so easily. This is a world which has legislated against things such as rape, something which men in power have done to help protect your dignity as women and for which they are not harangued against even though it involves only a violation against women. You didn't appear to mind laws about your bodies then.

It is dangerous, women of Michigan, to hold yourselves in such isolation. You do not want to be guilty of the very hubris of which you accuse the men-folk.

Abortion Debate Not About Freedom of Speech

Once again, the left is attempting to make an issue into something which it is not. Representative Lisa Brown, a West Bloomfield Democrat in the Michigan House, has been censured for using the 'V-word' during a rant about abortion legislation. She ended comments on the House floor Wednesday with, “And, finally, Mr. Speaker — I’m flattered that you’re so interested in my (V-word), but no means no.”

Where to start? Well, we are quite certain that Michigan House Speaker Jase Bolger is not in fact or even in the abstract interested in his colleague's, um, physical person. It is more likely that he is concerned with something far greater than that. Yet is he or the GOP leadership in Lansing violating her rights in any way?

Her choice of words have been defended as simple freedom of speech. Rep Brown herself has said that it's anatomically correct, and no different than saying 'elbow'. But the trouble here isn't whether her verbiage is or is not anatomically correct. The real issue within the abortion debate is not of something so mundane as body parts. The real issue is whether human women have human babies, and whether human babies have the same human rights as every other human.

Such displays of hubris are nothing new to the left. For liberals, the abortion debate is not about human rights but women's rights. They forget, fail to understand, or simply ignore the fact that no one has rights based on something as relatively benign as what gender they are. The purveyors of women's rights are asserting that there are human rights exclusive to their gender.

There are not. Attacks against the rights of anyone are attacks against them as persons, not as a man or a woman. Similarly, innocent persons have the right to their lives whether male or female. That the two genders have physical differences matters not when someone's right to live is at stake. Or, indeed, when any given right of theirs is at question.

The abortion debate is not, never has been, and never will be about the female anatomy. The abortion debate is not, never has been, and never will be about men holding women down, or holding them to obligations which men are not also held to. It is about whether a human baby has the right to be born simply due to the fact that it is human. A woman can no more take an innocent human life than can a man. That women are the ones who give birth is in truth merely incidental to that point.

We are not trying to be mean spirited or uncaring towards women as we say this. We are however attempting to state the obvious in no uncertain terms. The abortion debate is not about women. It's about human life and all the rights which that must necessarily entail. It is the Lisa Browns of the world who are trivializing the question by trying to make it into something it is not.

Her use of the clinical terms of female anatomy under the guise of freedom of speech belittle rather advance the cause of human rights generally, and of the right to life in particular. Indeed, such actions make light of what ought to be a very serious and considered discussion: what human life is and when it begins. It is ultimately nothing more than sensationalism, and as such, is shallow grandstanding for a selfish purpose.