One of the results of letting our language go is watching it being abused.
“My Body My Choice” is a phrase emphasizing body autonomy, the ability to care for and be the responsible party in life choices. It is used primarily by people protesting anti-abortionists, defining abortion as a choice of the pregnant person. It is used in many countries in many languages, always defining the right to control one’s body.
Recently, in a move that turns the stomachs of rational people, “My body my choice” has become the cry of the anti-vaxxers. The most disturbing example that comes to mind is a picture of my niece, who lives in Texas where women are forced to complete pregnancies, wearing a “My Body My Choice” button to express her defiance to vaccination and facial masks. There are a number of twists in the logic presented.
Another phrase that has been twisted to death is “Self Defense.” One reason that the phrase has become the opposite of what it originally meant is the growth of fear. Fear is rampant in society, it appears that everyone is afraid of something.
Our current poster boy for self defense is Kyle Rittenhouse, a child of seventeen, who was supplied with a rifle that is illegal for him to possess and drove the twenty miles across the border to a riot in order to defend himself.
Kyle wanted to protect property, without knowing what property he was protecting or from whom. Kyle walked through the unrest with his rifle, and when he scared someone enough that they tried to stop him, he shot them to death. When arrested for killing two people and wounding another, his defense strategy was to claim he was defending himself.
That may be difficult for you to follow; it was for me. Despite a solid three reasons he should not be there, and the overriding fact that he traveled there with the sole intent of shooting someone, he claimed he was defending himself. He expanded the “Castle Doctrine” to include the public streets of a town in another state.
He was (#1) underage and defying the local curfew, (#2) carrying a loaded rifle in the midst of a riot, and (#3) not a resident of the city or even the state. But he was there to “protect.” By pointing a lethal weapon at people he determined were a danger with his seventeen years of experience. The most delightful turn of irony would be if the property he was protecting by killing residents was the home of an organization he opposed. “I put my life on the line to protect a dildo factory” over his picture would be a great t shirt.
Fear is not rational, and almost everyone has experienced fear. I have never gotten used to having a gun pointed at me, even in jest. Anthony Huber was frightened by Kyle waving his gun around and firing shots. His response in fear was to remove the weapon from the shooter. He wanted to remove the inspiration for the fear Kyle was imposing upon his neighborhood.
Kyle was afraid of people with guns, so in order to defend against that fear he shot and killed Anthony Huber.
Kyle’s attorneys were able to convince a jury of twelve cheeseheads that the only fear that was important in this case was the fear Kyle felt when confronted with the possibility that he would no longer be able to induce fear. In that second, as he pulled the trigger, Kyle was afraid. Afraid of a person he had scared. A person who would have had no interest in him had he not been firing a rifle.
It doesn’t take many steps to see the precedent being set. Simultaneously, a jury in Georgia is determining whether a white man with a shotgun who chased down a black man was acting in self defense when he killed the black man. If that case finds the white man absent of guilt, I fear the reaction. Would I be acting in self defense if I planted a bomb in the court house?
I still belong to second amendment groups, and the yokels calling Kyle’s case a victory scare the shit out of me. They are celebrating their perceived freedom to police any situation. They do not see the obvious flaws in the decision, or how faced with the prospect of armed “militia men” inflicting their version of safety might affect the attitudes towards firearm restrictions.
I have seen articles “debunking the myths” about Rittenhouse. The articles are based on the fact that he was found not guilty, and therefore did not do the things accused of. Not only were the murders self defense, he did not participate in them because he was found not guilty of the legal aspect of murder. Oddly enough, the victims did not applaud the verdict, they were still dead.
When I see language being twisted to make the indefensible acceptable, I feel sorrow. When words become meaningless, there is no purpose in conversation. Isolated and uninformed, fear does horrible things to societies.
KBlakeCash 