"Rights": Open To Interpretation?

It is interesting to observe that, in the words of Thomas Sowell, our society has been trained like Pavlov's dog to respond to certain phrases and stimuli. One of these often used stimuli is to call upon an individual's "right" to do something. The meaning of individual "rights" has been twisted and damaged beyond belief, to the point that we can't even distinguish what "rights" are anymore.

I started thinking about this as I saw a recent news article, giving account of an incident in Boston. Apparently, a man was driving down the street in a neighborhood, when he decided to throw his Chihuahua out of the moving vehicle. How this ended up on the evening news, I will never know. But I'm glad that it did. Because the man has already been raked up by the local media and the animal "rights" groups. Now, as a dog enthusiast, I am in complete agreement that it was a cruel and meaningless thing to do to an animal. There is no excuse for that sort of behavior. So I do not scorn the anger of the public. I do point out, however, the glaring self-contradiction our society embraces when we persecute a man for tossing a canine out of a car, but refer to abortion as a "woman's right" to subject her living, unborn child to unbelievable and grotesque mutilations that result in murder.

Now, be rational with me for a moment. What happened to the man's "rights" when he wanted to play toss with his dog? No one seemed concerned for his "rights" to do as he pleased. That was his dog, and he can do with his dog what he pleases. It belonged to him, didn't it? I say, tongue in cheek, that it is certainly not anyone's business what he does with his own dog. I mean, it's not anyone's business what a woman does with her own child, right? This is the reasoning that abortion supporters use. So why is that reasoning used for humans, but discarded when it comes to animals? If we are going to establish the "rights" of those who want to have an abortion, then in all fairness we have to establish the "rights" of man to toss his dog wherever he pleases. Perhaps we ought to set up roadside areas for this behavior, you know, make it all official and everything, just like abortion.

I have witnessed the abortion crowds fight hysterically for the "rights" of a woman to submit her unborn child to the tools used by abortion practitioners, which include things like the "skull fork." I am amazed that we will tolerate, as a society, the murder of millions of children, and then act as righteous defenders of the Chihuahua. I for one will not stand for it.

There was another recent news piece about a Lubbock, Texas man who is being charged with "child injury and endangerment" for subjecting his children to sub-standard living conditions. To be sure, the evidence police found in the home was shocking. The children had to live in a roach-infested house, with the closets full of dirty diapers. The public was outraged, and they ought to be. But again, from a rational perspective; where are the "rights" activists on this one? That guy can keep his house however he pleases, and that is his "right." Right? He has individual freedom, the "right to choose", as we so often hear from the abortion crowd. There is another phrase that the modern Pavlov's dogs respond to so well: the right to choose. I guess we throw that one out when it comes to keeping house. So, still thinking rationally, why do we get upset about a man subjecting his children to these standards, if we accept and defend the murder of other children? The thinking is that this man exposed his defenseless children to conditions which were terrible. The anger, in both the case of the dog and the case of the man in Lubbock, comes from the mistreatment of the defenseless and innocent--and yet we do not get angry when the defenseless and innocent are savagely killed by the "right" to have an abortion. The self-contradiction here is amazing. We are taught to be outraged and shocked over sub-standard living conditions for children, but expected to be tolerant when unborn children are torn limb from limb, and murdered like science experiments.

If you carry out the arguments of the abortion "rights" groups to their logical ends, we would have people throwing dogs out of windows and children living amongst dirty diapers and rats--and it would all be legal. Rationally, it should be legal to keep a disgusting house like that if it is legal to murder your own child. There is no rational basis for defending abortion and persecuting the man in Lubbock. So, witness for yourself the twisted, modern definition of the words "rights." It is definitively selective. Can you imagine what the world would look like if everyone acted upon their perceived "rights"? Civilization begins to unravel at that point. And we already have.