Abortion-Pushing Alabama Dem Introduces Mandatory Vasectomies Bill

P. Gardner Goldsmith | February 19, 2020
Font Size

In a perfect example of how so-called “pro-choice” collectivists haven’t the faintest clue about ethics when it comes to life, an Alabama state politician has introduced a bill that would FORCE men to get vasectomies after age 50 or their third child, whichever might come first.

According to WSFA:

HB 238, filed by Rep. Rolanda Hollis (D-Birmingham), says the bill would require a man to undergo a vasectomy after the birth of his third biological child or within one month of his 50th birthday. The bill also says the procedure would be done at the man’s own expense.

And Ms. Hollis (who, according to her “logic,” had no rights as a tiny unborn baby, but now claims a “reproductive right” to not only kill her unborn child, but also praise organizations that take other people’s tax money to pay for said life-taking) offered this in the bill:

Under existing law, there are no restrictions on the reproductive rights of men.

Which indicates that she hasn’t the foggiest notion about what rights are, or why there’s a difference between a vasectomy and an ABORTION.

A vasectomy is a surgical procedure on one man.

Abortion is a surgical procedure on a woman and her unborn baby – two people. Two humans, both living. At the end, as intended, the abortion takes the life of the latter.

Ms. Hollis doesn’t seem to understand that one has a right to his or her life, and that this is the predicate from which other rights -- such as the right to property ownership, self-defense, and free speech -- derive. In fact, they’re really one-in-the-same, all part of a holistic “one” attached to the right to life. If a person cannot rely on the other rights being sacrosanct, he or she cannot claim that the principle of the right to life is safe.

The action of taking another life that is not directly threatening one’s own life is aggressive. Doing it with premeditation is murder.

One does not have a right to murder. One does not have a right to take the life of another in any way other than in self-defense.

Abortion is premeditated life-taking. In very rare instances, the woman asking for the abortion might claim her life is threatened by the existence of the new, growing human life, but the vast, vast majority of abortions are not for protection of the mother’s life, and therefore, they are murder. There is no way to avoid this reality.

What Hollis, in her bill, calls “male reproductive rights” is nothing more than the right of any man to a property ownership of himself. His “reproductive right” extends to control over his own body, and to be free from attack by others.

If Hollis wanted to be logical about her attack on men, she would understand that the equivalent of her proposal would be to force sterilization – hysterectomy, tubal ligation, or some other ugly procedure – on a woman. She would also understand that this actually IS an attack, and any person has a right to defend himself or herself by any means necessary to eliminate that threat.

So Hollis might want to stop creating a false equivalency between the right to life and bodily integrity of an adult and her fatuous idea that this is the same as a woman deciding to hire someone to take the life growing inside her.

There is a profound difference between protecting oneself, and killing another human being.

To look at it another way, one might ask Ms. Hollis if she supports tax money being used to pay for police and a justice system that will arrest or punish people for taking human lives. For example, if she wants to impose forced sterilizations on men who’ve fathered three kids, would she say it’s okay for any such man to kill the child? Say the child was seventeen and his father didn’t like him coming home late one night, and the father strangled and killed him, then dismembered the boy’s body and put the pieces in a bucket, perhaps to be sold off to research labs…

Would she want the state to punish the father for murder and other sundry crimes, or would she claim, “He was exercising his reproductive right?”

See, Ms. Hollis, the right to choose to reproduce or not reproduce extends only to the point of actual REPRODUCTION. Once an egg is fertilized, a new human life is conceived. Reproduction has begun. At that point, it’s hands-off for any intentional interference by another human, interference that is no different than stopping an infant from living, stopping a seventeen-year-old, or an elderly life, from continuing. It’s all one continuum, from conception to death.

You don’t get to draw arbitrary lines, Ms. Hollis. And if you want the state to “protect” human beings from being killed in robberies, then you’d better wake up to what defines a human life.

At the moment of conception, is the fetus human?

Yes. At the moment of conception, the new entity is a distinct human, carrying new, distinct human DNA.

Is the human “being”?

Yes. The fetus is on that great arc of life that makes any intentional human interference an infringement on its own rights.

So, Ms. Hollis. A woman has a right to reproduce if she desires and if she can. But she doesn’t have a right to murder.

It’s pretty simple, and if you support a tax-funded police agency to “protect” human beings from attacks by others, you might want to be consistent, rather than trying to use that state force to sterilize men.