Jessica Farrar’s essential premise is spot on, and she does well by drawing attention to it: the current abortion regime, in the US and Canada, is an extreme violation of human rights. But past that point, she goes off the rails.
Even leaving aside the most obvious violation of human rights involved –cough, cough-- it involves profound sex discrimination. The mother can currently unilaterally decide if a child lives or dies. Morally and biologically, the child’s father has an equal interest. Yet he is given no say.
An abortion law that did not discriminate, if it did not ban abortion outright, must at least address this. Either the father too must give consent for an abortion to be performed, or either parent can demand one. Not sure how much support either option would be given by “feminists.”
Farrar wants to add legislation prohibiting masturbation. Perhaps there is a justification for this, but, then, it cannot be limited to only one sex. If the object is to restore a sense of the sacredness of the sex act, female masturbation is equally wrong, and must also be outlawed. If the object is not to “waste” sperm that might become a child, as is indeed claimed, female menstruation is equally culpable. And rather easier to prove.
Still onside, feminists? Does equality of the sexes still look good to you?
Farrar wants to require a rectal exam for any man getting a vasectomy. Sexual equality and simple logic demands that the same procedure be applied to women requesting a tubal ligation. That ought to be fun, then.
There is no available female equivalent to Viagra or Cialis, so there is no chance to make a ban sex-neutral. But given that all the rest of the proposed legislation seems intended to promote procreation, and this one to prevent it, it seems to serve no public purpose. Unless, God forbid, the purpose is simply to discriminate against men. Surely this can’t be so. Perhaps men should be required to prove they are married in order to purchase Viagra. And then women must in order to buy birth control pills. That would be fair.
The Farrar bill would also provide legal protection for any doctors or healthcare professionals who refuse to perform a vasectomy, or to prescribe Viagra, “due to their personal, moral, or religious beliefs.” There is something wrong here. This should go without saying. It need not be enshrined in law. Are doctors really legally obliged to perform voluntary procedures on demand? That is a violation of freedom of conscience. It is unconstitutional. Of course, doctors and nurses are entitled not to do something they consider immoral.
Er, is there some current procedure for which this legal right has currently been placed in doubt? And what voluntary procedure might that be?
Farrar ironically objects to women being subjected to medically unnecessary procedures—like an ultrasound. Again, she seems to hit the nail on the head. Obviously, then, ban abortion. It is probably never medically necessary.
Farrar is to be congratulated for raising these issues.