I got a call from ADT the other day. They wanted me to buy an alarm system to protect my family from would-be intruders. I declined.
You see I’m totally against alarm systems. This includes the alarm system used by most of my friends back in Missouri, also known as the Smith & Wesson alarm system. (For those uninformed, that means that you protect your home with firearms).
I’m against both. Let me explain…
I think we really need to consider those that are forced to steal. For someone to break into my home and kidnap my children—they have to have had some bad stuff happen to them. Maybe they have made bad decisions in the past and it is now forcing them to do things that they don’t want—like kidnap kids or steal my television. It could even be possible that someone is forcing them to engage in this horrible act.
Now what happens if I have an alarm system or I use a gun to protect my family and property? When the alarm goes off this guy is going to get spooked. He might botch this and wind up hurting himself in the process. I don’t want to be responsible for that. Nor do I want to further perpetuate the effects of his bad decisions by having him be punished with jail time.
I want to take this a step further. I also think it is wrong for us to punish people who steal and kidnap children. Think of all the would-be-perpetrators that have died in prison. Or worse yet think of those that have died at the hands of someone they were trying to steal from. It’s not fair for them to lose their lives over a television set. Whether they lose their life in prison or at the hands of a gun-owner protecting his property. Think of what it must feel like to have to give up your freedoms because of one bad choice you made in the heat of the moment. It just doesn’t seem right.
Therefore, I believe that we should outlaw alarm systems and guns for home-owners. Furthermore, we should no longer make it illegal for people to kidnap our children or steal our stuff. It’s much safer that way.*
Why My Argument Doesn’t Work
The argument that I’ve just made is pretty ludicrous isn’t it? It’s silly because during the entire argument I’m not thinking about the safety of my children. I’m putting an emphasis upon the “suffering” of an adult that happens to get injured while attempting to harm my family. That’s foolishness. Certainly, we should protect our little ones over the guy that is trying to kidnap them.
So why do we still make the argument that abortion should be legal because women will die in bathtubs trying to perform their own abortions?
Not only is that statically dishonest it doesn’t make sense. Take this quote:
"One woman," Reagan writes, "described taking ergotrate, then castor oil, then squatting in scalding hot water, then drinking Everclear alcohol. When these methods failed, she hammered at her stomach with a meat pulverizer before going to an illegal abortionist."
We are supposed to respond to this by feeling sympathy for the woman. Which, might I add, is a correct response. But it’s not a sufficient response. We should also be upset that she has decided—yes, even in the case of rape—to resort to terminating the life of her child. Victim, yes. But she is also making herself a perpetrator. In the case of rape she has, sadly, chosen to perpetuate the violence done to her.
If we shift our eyes from the poor woman in the bathtub (and again it really ought to make us weep) to the unborn child in her stomach, then it doesn’t make sense to put the rights of the perpetrator (the pregnant mother) over that of the victim (her child).
Wait, you say…
Some that make the coat-hanger argument are saying, “Listen, I don’t want to see children aborted. But I also don’t want to see women die. If she is going to abort her child in a backstreet somewhere, I’d rather her do it in the hospital where it is safe. Why lose two lives instead of one?”
Even the most liberal statistics have the deaths for mothers at 5-10,000 deaths per year. That is horrendous. Each of these should cause us to weep. Consider this, though: Since 1973 there have been over 56 million legal abortions. If 10,000 mothers had died from 1973 to 2013 in back-street abortion attempts that would have been 400,000 would-be mothers.
So that means we have performed 56 million “safe” abortions to protect 400,000 mothers. That’s not 2-1. That is 140-1. For every mother that we have “saved” we have sacrificed 140 children. So my response to the “why lose two lives instead of one” is to say, “why lose 140 lives instead of one?”
If it’s a child in the mothers womb (and it is) then the coat-hanger argument simply doesn’t work…
*This entire section is not true. If you try to harm my wife or children I’m going Liam Neeson on you. I do have two cats that you are more than welcome to take, however.