,
16 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
Clearly the value placed on human life is high enough that you are seeking to protect the unborn.
Prioritising their well being over the pregnant woman. Even if you feel the woman has rights, you place the rights of the unborn first.
Prioritising their well being over the pregnant woman. Even if you feel the woman has rights, you place the rights of the unborn first.
I don't feel this is an unfair appraisal of the situation...
Criminalising the act of abortion, as a deterrent. But what is it intended to deter?
Abortion - clearly. But is that the intention here? Isn't it "Promiscuous" sex that is the "sin" you are looking to combat?
Criminalising the act of abortion, as a deterrent. But what is it intended to deter?
Abortion - clearly. But is that the intention here? Isn't it "Promiscuous" sex that is the "sin" you are looking to combat?
You've opted to take control of women's bodies. Dictating what consequences are to be made unavoidable.
You are ok with the government legislating about the bodily autonomy of otherwise free citizens.
You are ok with the government legislating about the bodily autonomy of otherwise free citizens.
Men of #Alabama - as free citizens who will never face the consequences that women are going to be going through due to this law - can I get you to ask yourselves a question...
Would you be willing to let the state of Alabama legislate on your use of your body?
Would you be willing to let the state of Alabama legislate on your use of your body?
What if the situation were reversed, and instead of an #Alabama #HeartBeat #Abortion law, there were a #Virginia #Vasectomy law?
Would it be ok for the government of a state to legislate your reproductive rights / bodily autonomy?
Would it be ok for the government of a state to legislate your reproductive rights / bodily autonomy?
What would be the point of such a bill?
If the medical procedure to reverse a Vasectomy was controlled by the state, and only administered to allow men to start pregnancies - there would be no unwanted babies thus no abortions (except for life threatening cases).
If the medical procedure to reverse a Vasectomy was controlled by the state, and only administered to allow men to start pregnancies - there would be no unwanted babies thus no abortions (except for life threatening cases).
So we've achieved the same goal, protected the unborn rights over the rights of the living. Prioritising the right of women not to have to carry a child to term. All babies are safe from the threat of abortion (unless their development threatens the life of the mother).
But of course the #Alabama legislation might not allow for #abortion in cases where a woman's life is threatened by the unborn life inside her. So the #vasectomy option might even be better suited.
Oh but this whole #Vasectomy idea is just some ~stupid-liberal~backlash~ it isn't the kind of thing that would ever actually happen?
It's foolish to even entertain the idea that a society would let their government cook up such a scheme, robbing men of their reproductive rights!
It's foolish to even entertain the idea that a society would let their government cook up such a scheme, robbing men of their reproductive rights!
But what society wouldn't let their government do the same to women?
Heck its just women after all.
~?~
Lets hope that society never gets to the point where men don't have the power to protect their fragile dangly parts. What would it feel like to have no control in that area?
Heck its just women after all.
~?~
Lets hope that society never gets to the point where men don't have the power to protect their fragile dangly parts. What would it feel like to have no control in that area?
#AskWomenOfAlabama - they might be able to offer a clue.
Worth reading through this thread too.
