The stupidity of equating abortion and gun ownership

A friend of mine recently posted this to Facebook in the wake of the San Bernadino shooting.  She and her husband are fairly left-wing, and never allow a lack of information or a warped set of data deter them from sharing their opinion on something, sometimes with derision.

She recently shared this photo from Janis Ian:

"How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion-- mandatory 48-hr waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he's about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, and ultrasound wand up the ass (just because).  Lets close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun.  Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.

It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health care, right?  I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?

My friend adds:

This applies of course to every (young) person who wants to buy a gun, not just every young man.

Of course, the comparison isn't exactly apples to apples:  When a woman has an abortion, there is a life being snuffed out.  You can argue viability all you want, that's not the point.  Human beings, for their life span, have a heartbeat.  Stop the heart, or cause the heart to stop, and the body dies.  A person purchasing a firearm might never use it to cause the heart of others or himself to stop beating.  However, a woman who has an abortion will almost without exception terminate the heartbeat(s) of the life or lives growing inside her.

Waiting periods?  Most firearms have them.  Those that don't are because it doesn't take that long to execute a background check on would-be buyers.  Parental permission?  Federal law allows minors to only legally possess long guns and long gun ammunition.  Many locales will allow those same minors to get an abortion without parental notification.

Let's not forget that a minor having an abortion has already made a misjudgement about the laws of nature:  Have unprotected sex, and play Russian roulette with the odds that one of a billion sperm finds its way to the egg.

And the snark about having to travel hundreds of miles?  Personally, I waffle on the topic of abortion, but if we accept the premise that it's just a medical procedure, without the moral issues around the termination of one or more heartbeats, then shouldn't we, as an industrialized nation, have a high standard for medical care?  In the wake of the horrors of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, shouldn't we mandate safe, sanitary conditions for such a procedure?  If you were to have your appendix out, you'd want it done in a sterile environment by well-trained medical professionals.  If some facilities can't meet government standards for hygiene, safety, etc., why should those facilities continue to operate?

Finally, are we certain that, in a day and age of widely-available contraception and post-intercourse abortifacents, is it possible that demand for this particular medical procedure is down?

In conclusion, the post makes a false equivalence between a young man assumed to be a murderer just because he chooses to get a gun, and woman who goes in for a medical procedure, knowing that it will terminate the heartbeat of another human being.