BRIDGING THE ABORTION DIVIDE
A Modest Proposal for the Abortion Divide — in the Bible Belt
Why Mississippi could become the first state to enact mandatory vasectomies
This article continues the discussion of the legal foundation for mandatory vasectomies — but strictly as a means for resetting the genital balance of power between the sexes after Roe v. Wade.
Dulling the teeth of the governmental bone saw?
It is to the English jurist Sir William Blackstone that American women can assign blame for the law of coverture — historically enforced by the states well into the 19th century.
That legal standard opined that women were denied rights of property — including the disposition of their own bodies. Thus, it was tantamount to deeming females nothing more than an appendage of a related male.
In that former coverture context, white women were not far removed from the status afforded female slaves: diminished legal existence — but without the whip, terror, and chains.
However, I suspect today there are many white women in the Bible Belt unwilling to become the equivalent of a man’s pinky toe. And definitely not upon the edict of a British aristocrat wearing a long white wig.
Paradoxically, it was that poster-child of modern conservative jurisdictions, Mississippi, which led the nation as the first state to dissolve coverture — back in 1839. That also probably meant white women had the right to own human beings. The irony is not lost.
So, many Southern women of today would more likely subject their fate to a Harry Blackstone rather than a William Blackstone. The former was the illusionist, who became infamous on the stage for sawing ladies into half. Yet, in a break with the state’s “feminist” legacy, Harry’s stunt is now the trick which Mississippi’s abortion ban has performed.
Alas, the state has twisted the magician’s illusion and turned it into an actual splitting of the female anatomy: with the state taking title to the lower half. Women now know the teeth of a government bone saw; its push and pull of mandated pregnancy — for them — is no illusion.
But what of male prerogatives after coverture’s departure? Did men lose some privileges under American law by abandoning Europe’s medieval customs that suppressed the rights and personhood of women?
If we are honest, we must say yes. We males relinquished power bestowed on us — solely attributable to our genital plumbing. Similarly, this modest vasectomy proposal serves to properly weight the scales of justice in the aftermath of abortion bans.
Manhood & human imperfection
For American males, this sexual balance of power imposed by vasectomy mandates may mean reinventing conceptions of our manhood. However, we males are simply catching up. The state abortion embargoes already have compelled females to reinvent their conceptions of conception.
But lest readers object, I have not forgotten my earlier description of the pillars of conservative (aka “contra”) thought. Both abortion bans and universal vasectomies legitimately could be criticized as social engineering — something that conservatives typically hate.
Yet the twin regimes — if jointly implemented — are inherently scientific: They mimic that famous law of Newtonian physics. Sir Isaac told us that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction — an insight applicable outside of the natural sciences.
Consider also that in contract law, a promise given must be matched by some consideration. So women should be given adequate consideration in return for the imposed obligation to eject a fetus into the world. And it is only by the bargain which I propose that we mitigate the damage of a drastic break with pro-choice tradition.
Women now know the teeth of a government bone saw; its push and pull of mandated pregnancy — for them — is no illusion.
Thus, it will be by this compensating promise of forced vasectomies that we maintain the balance in the desert we now tread — that is, after leaving the political oasis of Roe v. Wade.
Human sexuality involves chaos. If post-pubescent males could keep their appendages zipped away, and if the lure of the skirted sex could be skirted, there might not be a need for mandated vasectomies. However, we must consider that pillar of contra thought warning of the imperfection of human beings. That was deemed the sixth principle of conservatism by one of the ideology’s high priests.
And until red-blooded males find other outlets for their turbo-charged testosterone, male genitals will represent a clear and present danger to female chastity. That is something the Bible Belt traditionally has taken extremely seriously — as exemplified by the heinous murder of Emmett Till.
The authority of the state
In the final analysis, perhaps the most influential argument for the vasectomy mandate is nestled in the conservative embrace of law and order.
It is the state, or states, that will implement abortion bans; likewise, it must be those same governments that compensate for their own actions by enacting this vasectomy protocol.
We may find a willing advocate for this vasectomy legislation in that staunchest of forced-birth lobbyists: the Family Research Council (“FRC”). In an essay entitled “Conservatives and the Constitution: The Political Imperative of Retaining our Allegiance to Constitutional Governance,” the FRC opens its argument with this statement:
“Conservatism has always contended that representative self-government must be grounded in the moral self-control of its citizens, that liberty should be ordered to prevent it from descending into license, and that liberty should only be constrained in order to ensure the public good.”
That sounds like an endorsement for universal vasectomies.
Thus, while vasectomy laws will not prevent wanton promiscuity, pre-marital sex, or crimes of rape or incest, their preemptive embargo of fertilizing sperm will mitigate the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies.
Lastly, though this proposition may seem radical, it is grounded in the most gentlemanly of ethics surviving in the West. I speak of that old proverb handed down to us as the earliest admonishment for gender fairness:
“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
Such an attitude will neuter the accusations of reproductive hypocrisy, which undoubtedly will be hurled at conservatives. Mississippi, your destiny and legacy are calling.
Mandatory vasectomies, however, are just a first step for contras to show their commitment both to fairness and pro-life ideals. And no conservative conviction for the protection of unborn life can be deemed authentic without the second leg to this modest proposal.
Hence, that second and final component will be discussed in the next installment. The prior post (Part 6) may be accessed here.
Thanks for your attention and past claps, and I welcome your response. To follow future posts, you can press the button on the screen. — Geronimo Redstone
