Letters to the editor: Abortion debate concerns men; and smart gun legislation needed
Make abortion debate about men
In the landmark case of Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s fight for a widower to receive social security benefits paved the way for equal rights for women’s rights. As stupid as it is, one of the battles for women’s rights was won because a man was affected negatively.
I believe the right is making what will ultimately be a fatal mistake in its attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.
If the Supreme Court allows each state to establish its own abortion laws a few precedents will be established.
A state that determines life begins at conception removes viability from the discussion.
A state that declares the fetus a citizen with equal rights makes the issue between two citizens’ right to agency over their body.
Basically, the state is saying they can force citizen A (woman) to give up a part of herself and body in order to preserve the life of citizen B (fetus).
The implications are this:
The state’s ability to force a person to give up a part of their body to keep another person alive does not end at birth. The right of a citizen persists through their entire life.
Because the state is protecting the fetus as a citizen, not the child of a mother, that relationship is broken. This means the state can make any citizen give up a part of themselves to keep another citizen alive.
When men start to get sued to donate blood, give bone marrow, donate a kidney, etc., we'll start to see a change in these laws. It is mostly white men who are in power. Change will only happen when they are replaced, or when the laws they are passing start to impact them.
Jay Amaro, Oxnard
Common sense for gun legislation
Marty Ryzak’s recent letter, “More guns do make us safer,” delivered a solid, common-sense message. Guns are popular, he writes, because of police defunding, releasing criminals early, reducing enforcement of laws, threats to take guns away, and failure to prosecute criminals.
Pat Butler rebutted Mr. Ryzak’s letter, saying our homicide rate is more than double the average for all countries. No kidding. The citizens in most countries do not have the right to bear arms. The U.S. numbers would obviously be higher. Mr. Butler claims he is not aware of incidences where a citizen used a gun successfully against a criminal. Mr. Butler can find all he wants on YouTube or by doing more research.
Jim Shahan in his letter, “Heard of mass shootings?” has missed the point completely. He thinks more guns would not stop mass shootings. If trained armed security was present at any of the shootings, and they were able to stop the shooter, then lives could have been saved. But without armed security there is no chance of any lives being saved.
So how do we stop mass shootings — with legislators who have common sense. Most shooters break gun laws or have mental issues. How about this law: any person treated for any mental aberration is put on a “no-gun” list. If a gun is used during a crime, that person gets an extra 25 mandatory years in prison.
And let’s lock up irresponsible parents who don’t secure their firearms from their minor children.
Our legislators need to understand that criminals and the mentally off do not follow the law. In almost every mass shooting, the shooter was mentally off or was breaking a gun law. Did that stop them? No. Attention legislators: Use critical thinking skills and common sense to pass laws against people who use guns to kill and stop making laws that remove liberties from law-abiding citizens.
Rod Baker, Thousand Oaks
This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Letters: Abortion debate concerns men; and smart gun legislation needed
