Last year, Alabama passed a law banning abortion except for situations in which the mother's life is at risk.  A federal judge found the bill unconstitutional, and the Alabama attorney general did not appeal the decision.  Nevertheless, on Thursday, state rep. Rolanda Hollis introduced a counter-bill requiring that all men over fifty or who have had three children must get a vasectomy.  The bill is silly and fails to make a convincing pro-abortion case.

The bill's summary is brief:

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

This bill would require a man to undergo a vasectomy within one month of his 50th birthday or the birth of his third biological child, whichever comes first. 

Hollis explained that she wants to highlight that it's wrong for Alabama ever to foreclose the possibility of abortion for unwanted children, especially in cases of rape or incest:

This is to neutralize the abortion ban bill," Hollis said. "The responsibility is not always on the woman — it takes two to tango. This is to prevent pregnancy and the abortion of unwanted children and to help men become accountable as well as women.

"You don't think about what women have to go through as far as incest and rape, but you want them to carry a kid out of rape or incest so let's neutralize it," she continued.

Hollis further explained that men should not tell women what to do with their bodies:

"I am pro-life and I am pro-choice and what I mean by that is I don't believe in abortion as a birth control, but I believe if a woman is raped or there's incest or health reasons, then they [should] have a choice," Hollis said. "I'm reading some of the things people are saying and I see the hypocrisy. It's OK to tell a woman what to do with her body but it's not OK to tell a man what to do with his."

Hollis's bill is a cute idea insofar as it's garnered a lot of headlines so, in that way, she's made her point.  However, at a logical level, it's completely wrongheaded.

The anti-abortion bill is not just about telling "a woman what to do with her body," a notion that justifies telling a man what to do with his body.  Women's and men's roles in procreation are so different that they cannot be compared in tit-for-tat fashion.

The pro-abortion arguments boil down to one thing: it's not fair that men can walk away from sex, while women end up with what one Leftist author calls "the incredible violence of pregnancy," followed by the subsequent burdens inherent in raising a child.

It's Nature, not a bunch of "old white men," who decreed that women are the vessels of procreation, with all the upsides (carrying a life, loving a child) and downsides (loss of control over their bodies, pain, illness, self-sacrifice, etc.) that come with it.  It's science (mostly old white men), though, that reduced maternal mortality.

Biblical morality layers onto biology the idea that unfairness doesn't give women the automatic, unfettered right to snuff out the lives they are incubating.  As religious people know, the Bible is not about fairness.  Only Marxism is about "fairness" — except that this ostensible fairness is always based upon a zero-sum game in which one person's "fair" victory is another person's loss, with the loss determined as "fair," provided that it furthers Marxism's political ends.

Nature is unfeeling.  It is instead a relentless, unfair force in which living species' prime directive is to cling to life in whatever way they can.  Religion tempers that prime directive with morality.  Marxism tempers that prime directive with raw power and selfishness.

On abortion, leftists think they're taking a stand for women and against the patriarchal God of the Bible.  What they're really doing is screaming against Nature's unfairness and, in their effort to show their dominance over Nature, more and more openly embracing the same path the Nazis did: declaring that certain humans, including humans who are the result of rape and incest, aren't human at all, but are, instead, inconveniences, encumbrances, and parasites, and therefore entirely deserving of being snuffed out.

Trying to compare this biological and moral reality to men's sperm delivery system is ridiculous.  Abortion kills a life; vasectomies just mean that a specific man is prevented from impregnating a woman.  Hollis's bill is a joke and not a very good one.