The bill suggests that a man’s choice to not conceive a child through issuance of sperm during sex is equivalent to a woman’s “choice” to abort an already fertilized egg at various fetal stages. This is where the Southern Gentlemen (and Ladies) of the legislature show their pettiness and ignorance.
Preventative and barrier methods employed prior to sex and prior to fertilization of an egg are in no way abortive. Termination of a human life for the sake of convenience, no matter whether six days or six months along in gestation, is still the wanton taking of human life!
Representative Yasmin Neal is quoted as saying:
“If we legislate women’s bodies, it’s only fair that we legislate men’s,” said Neal, who said she wanted to write bill that would generate emotion and conversation the way anti-abortion bills do. “There are too many problems in the state. Why are you under the skirts of women? I’m sure there are other places to be.”
An otherwise intelligent Black woman, Yasmin gets it wrong as is oft the case with misguided and unprincipled Democrats. By saying unprincipled, I guess I’m being too harsh. The principal followed by most Dems is “live and let live—except if it’s a fetus”.
Anti-abortion laws are not about legislating a woman’s body as much as they are about saving the lives of innocent, living, growing children inside of those bodies. As trite as it may sound these days, the time for a woman to exercise reproductive choice is before conception and more appropriately, pre-sex. Abstention is the best form of birth control. For those who cannot abstain, contraceptives that block conception are the next best option. Failing those two methods are used, does a woman have the right to say “scrape it out of me” as if it’s simply a tumor?
By the same standard, if Yasmin wants to level the playing field, an equal measure she could take up is to allow the man to exercise abortive rights, not just the woman. After all, per the words of the bill:
“It is patently unfair that men avoid the rewards of unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly … It is the purpose of the General ASsembly to assert an invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men in this state and substitute the will of the government over the will of adult men.”
I say men should have the right to abortions even over the objections of the woman. Women can exercise that right over the objections of the father and that is patently unfair. Here’s a ridiculous rewrite one could imagine:
“It is patently unfair that only women avoid the rewards of unwanted motherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the father … It should be the purpose of the General Assembly to assert an invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of women in this state and substitute the will of the men over the will of adult women.”
Let’s not forget that eugenics, passed into law by the legislature and imposed on men and women alike, was practiced in Georgia right up until 1963 and remained on the books until 1970! So much for Georgia knowing the right thing to do regarding reproduction!