Some people’s kids! Am I right?
Abigail Ramirez is an opinion columnist for The Maneater, the University of Missouri’s campus newspaper. She recently wrote, “To uphold the American rights to ‘life and liberty,’ cis men should not have any power in deciding what women can or cannot do with their bodies.”
So, liberty means preventing someone from having a say in something? And upholding the Creator-granted right to life means the right to kill babies? That seems counterintuitive to me. In fact, exactly the opposite is true.
But Ramirez was just getting started. She opined: “With predominantly conservative federal courts and male-dominated legislatures on both the national and state levels, the American government cannot and does not properly represent the people or protect their rights. It is the right of the women to demand a change in governmental power or legislation regarding abortion rights and who gets to vote on them. It is unethical for cis men to have any power in choosing what women are able to do with their bodies, including getting an abortion. An abortion is a woman’s choice and a woman’s experience. Only women should be able to vote on issues that concern only their bodies, not cis men.”
This is a tiresome and patently absurd argument. Abortion does not “concern only women’s bodies.” By definition, it is the taking of another’s life, inside—or possibly outside—of a woman’s womb. A life that a man was instrumental in creating. In the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases for the convenience of the mother. Regardless, women do not have the right to murder someone. Or drive drunk. Or steal someone else’s wallet. Or even to walk across the street against a red light. Neither do men. There are limits to what any of us can rightfully/legally do with our bodies.
Ramirez bemoans the fact that national and state legislatures are dominated by males, claiming they don’t “properly represent the people.” She fails to note that these male representatives were voted in by the people…females as well as males.
Ramirez added: “The only way for America to stay true to the Declaration of Independence is to only allow women to vote on the issue of abortion on the federal and state levels. That way, we are not only properly represented, but we also have a voice.”
The “only way for America to stay true to the Declaration of Independence is to only allow women to vote on the issue of abortion?!” That may well be one of the most preposterous statements ever uttered in the history of the world. And we can all agree that is saying something. I’m pretty sure Thomas Jefferson-- and the other Founders-- didn’t have abortion at the top of their minds/agenda when crafting The Declaration. Women got the vote in 1920. “Progressive” feminists want to take away voting rights from men 101 years later?
To use Ramirez’ “logic,” women shouldn’t have any power in deciding what men can or cannot do with their bodies. What’s good for the gander is good for the goose, right? If all of us are created equal. So, would she agree that only men should be allowed to decide whether or not they wish to wear a condom when having intercourse with a woman? Or whether rape should be legalized?
Will someone please remind me why we have colleges and universities?