In my thirteen years as a college professor, I’ve never seen joy and celebration that rivals the response to Dick Cheney’s hunting accident. Of course, that’s really saying something. Bringing American professors to laughter is nearly as tough as bringing American feminists to orgasm. It’s a theoretical possibility that is seldom achieved without a workshop.
The liberal reaction to Cheney’s accident may vary slightly from liberal to liberal but there is one common characteristic; namely, these liberals feel morally superior because they’ve never shot someone on a hunting trip.
Of course, the fact that the dancing liberals have never gone hunting doesn’t seem to attenuate these feelings of moral superiority. Similar logic would lead a 12-year-old to brag about his clean driving record or a blind man to boast that he’s never downloaded pornography.
But, I have a serious question to ask all these gleeful liberals while the Cheney story is still in the headlines: How does a) the accidental near-taking of human life compare with b) the actual (and intentional) taking of human life, in conjunction with recreational activity?
Whether your favorite sport is casual sex or quail hunting, the answer to this question is important. It is a given that the anti-gun lobby will try to use this accident to impose new restrictions on hunters and gun owners. But, rather than go after the hunters, I would insist that we place the following limitations on abortion. These restrictions will help foster gender equality – a goal I share with the American feminists:
1. Abortion season. Presently, a hunter (in North Carolina, where I reside) is able to harvest a quail or pheasant only between October 1st and March 31st. I propose that an abortion season be established for six months of every year. This would be a good compromise in a country torn between the pro-choice and pro-life positions.
2. Bag limit. I would also propose that women be limited to a maximum of three abortions in a lifetime. This will help us considerably in our human conservation efforts. Also, when the Islamic terrorists start to attack the homeland, it is important to ensure that the feminists have not aborted the armies we need to defend our nation. Just look at what’s happening in Europe.
3. Negligence citations. When a hunter pulls the trigger without knowing what is in the line of fire, he faces a possible citation. The same thing should happen when someone pulls the trigger on an abortion without knowing whether the object of the procedure is or is not a person. All of the women who can’t explain their position on this issue should be given a fine of no more than $160 with no jail time.
4. Dependency restrictions. When I see a young spotted deer next to a large doe I hold my fire. I want to make sure that the fawn has a mother to nurse it until it can take care of itself. For some reason, the liberals see dependency differently. Rather than showing mercy to the dependent they use dependency as a reason abort, often calling the fetus a “parasite.” I think that the pro-choice crowd should adopt the kinder stance used by deer hunters. This will help to protect the young until after they graduate from college.
5. Abortion safety education. Anyone who is about to have an abortion should take an abortion safety class. The students should be shown films of the fetus inside the womb at three months. This will test their confidence in the assertion that the fetus is “just a clump of cells.” Women should also be told about the miscarriages they may suffer after having one or more abortions. Finally, they should be told to wear an orange cap and vest during abortion season to let men know that their child will be aborted if they get one of these women pregnant. The cap and vest would only be required of women who believe that the man has no right to be involved in the decision to abort.
For what it’s worth, those are my thoughts about the latest display of liberal hypocrisy. We have enough restrictions on those who harvest quail. It’s time for more on those who harvest humans.