, , , , , ,

Having listened to SCOTUS oral arguments in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization earlier this week and having digested perhaps too much commentary about the future of Roe v. Wade, I’ve come to the conclusion that the pro-choice movement has been going at this all wrong.

We can all see where these “viability” arguments will lead. And, once the last gasp remedy to end an unwanted, unplanned, and unaffordable pregnancy is off the legal table, what’s next? Will women’s access to birth control become the next battle line? It seems that the moment of conception is the contentious issue. So, why are women having to deal with pregnancy in the first place? They can’t get pregnant without the ultimate thrust of the male.

We think nothing of neutering dogs, gelding stallions, castrating bulls and rams; why in the name of reason are we not talking about neutering men? I mean it! Women already carry the burden of nine months’ worth of gestation. Let’s face it, women also predominantly carry the burden of feeding and caring for infants and, in this country, women all too often find themselves raising their offspring completely alone. It strikes me that the male half of this equation gets off Scat-free. Pardon the pun.

I think the entire fetus discussion needs to start before the sperm can makes its way to the egg. How about a national program of male sterilization? Okay, maybe we leave ‘em intact until they’ve procreated successfully one time (replacement theory and all). In the event they stay with the same woman, maybe two times. Beyond that, off with their nuts!