Among QAnon believers, a favorite saying showed up in social media posts and biographical write-ups: Where we go one, we go all. This apparently comes from the movie, White Squall, though it is reminiscent of the slogan from The Three Musketeers, “all for one and one for all.” When applied to wannabe caped crusaders in search of cannibalistic pedophiles in the back offices of major governments, it is rather silly, but in general terms, declaring that we are all in something together—be it the fight against fascism of the Second World War, the need to replace fossil fuels with renewables in energy generation, or raising a barn for newlyweds—the principle is a sound one.
Sound enough to be applied as a categorical imperative in the subject of human rights. We may each have our personal favorites, and it can be an interesting topic for debate in political philosophy seminars or parlor games—this reveals the sort of parties I enjoy—as to which right if any is the most important. (The answer to that, of course, is the one under attack at present.) But it is my assertion that if one right is violated, all of them are in danger.
I raise this argument in the context of the infamous law that took effect in Texas at the start of September of this year that bans abortion after the first six weeks of pregnancy and of the case about to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court that challenges the State of New York’s policy of issuing concealed carry licenses only to those who, in the view of the state, have proper cause for carrying a handgun.
All too often, these two categories, abortion and guns, are mutually exclusive in supporters. A person will demand protections for the one and at the same time assert that the other is not only not a right, but is in fact immoral to participate in. Both abortion and guns get tied up in matters of political and religious affiliation, questions of personhood and bodily autonomy, and the dividing line between personal and collective responsibility.
In my own view, the right to defend oneself, be that from without or within, is fundamental, but not everyone will see things my way. The point that opponents of only one of this pair of rights should consider, however, is that everything said against the one applies just as well to the other. Every attack in public opinion, in the courts, and in the legislatures against the one teaches those who wish to eliminate the other how to go about doing so. An outright ban on gun ownership, for example, has long seems unfeasible, and gun control advocates claim not to want that in any case, but ratcheting up restrictions to make legal possession increasingly difficult has been much easier to achieve in states like New York and California. This is exactly the same approach that opponents of abortion have followed. Recognizing that the Roe and Casey decisions were hard to overcome directly, anti-abortion advocates have spent decades testing out a variety of limited restrictions such as requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at hospitals or introducing a ban after the detection of what is called a heartbeat, as in the recent Texas example.
The tactics are the same, and the end goal appears to be the same, namely the gradual chipping away at a given right until it becomes all but impossible to exercise under the law—at least for ordinary people. The rich will always have access to what is denied to the rest of us. A wealthy pregnant woman could drive to a state in which abortion remains legal or could fly to Canada if a ban were enacted nationwide. When a resident of New York City, Donald Trump was among the privileged few who were deemed worthy of having a carry license—why is unclear, though the conclusion that most loudly suggests itself is that he wrote a large enough check (that did not bounce) to the right people.
How much better it would be if we were to focus our funds and energies on reducing the factors that make abortion and guns necessary. Comprehensive sex education, child care, addiction treatment, protection of domestic violence victims and prosecution of offenders, and a living wage and higher education (college, university, or trade school, as appropriate) for all are examples of what makes a less violent and more productive society for everyone. But these things are solutions, and solutions bring an end to the need for activism.
What we all should remember is that if one right can be driven to extinction, all can. I may not like rights B or C. I may even deny that they are rights. But right A that I value is only as safe as those others. If we want to protect one, we must protect all.
Defend from within? I'm certain one cannot invite someone into their home, then shoot that person, then claim the same jeopardy one experiences during a home invasion necessitated killing the "intruder." Frankly when you invite someone into your home... or your body... you can't terminate them once they are inside.
Sorry but you implied concent when you had sex.