The Left Has Lost Their Mind on Alito

It never ceases to amaze me how people who call themselves “reporters”, even when they’re writing for the editorial page, simply won’t be honest with their readers – and the amazing amount of damage this does to our society.

I’ll pick specifically on the Alito controversy for the moment….

Of course the left is going ape over this one. They are citing various opinions that, taken at face value as reported, would make this individual look like some kind of whackjob – or monster.

One of the more stunning cases they’re arguing over is a ruling in 1991, in which Judge Alito voted on the Appellate Court to uphold a law requiring that a husband be notified before his wife could have an abortion, subject to certain exceptions (e.g. if he was violent and she had a reasonable fear that he would physically harm her if notified.)

This decision was later reversed with Sandra Day O’Connor being the deciding vote at the Supreme Court.

Now the “choice” folks argue that this is a matter of reproductive freedom.

To which I answer: “freedom for whom?”

Certainly not for men! Indeed, men have been held responsible for child support even in a case where a woman took a used condom from the trash and used the sperm in it to intentionally impregnate herself!

Indeed, what reproductive freedoms exist when it comes to men, beyond “keeping it in your pants?” And why is it that this option is, in fact, the limit of reproductive freedom when it comes to men, but isn’t for women?

That option is one available to women even in the absence of abortion.

Now let’s look at exactly what this law, which Alito voted to uphold, required.

The law stated that, absent a demonstrable and reasonable fear of harm to the woman which would result from notification (e.g. a reasonable fear of domestic violence), before a married women could have an abortion she had to notify her husband.

Exactly what’s wrong with that law?

What is the fundamental, underlying, purpose of marriage? Is it not to secure for both genders of adults, and for offspring, a reasonable security in family life?

Well, it used to be anyway. These days that’s honored more in the breach than the observance, but exactly what purpose does marriage serve for men if not to secure them the ability to have and raise offspring?

Let’s face it – men cannot gestate. As a consequence men have no means of securing the ability to raise children on their own – men must have the active cooperation women, or that’s something that men simply cannot accomplish. Since many men do indeed wish to have children, we have social structures that ostensibly exist to secure those rights.

Or do we?

Are we going to talk about equality here? Or are we going to talk about women being granted superior rights over the other, while being able to shove off on men the costs that come with those choices?

Judge Alito’s vote was, to my perspective, spot-on. He identified the salient issue – that a married man has a legitimate right to be a participant in matters of procreation within that marriage, and that this right overruled his wife’s “right to privacy.”

Why? Because by getting married you both give up that privacy right in favor of a shared responsibility to each other in matters of procreation. Indeed, that’s the very essence of marriage!

It is long past time that men stop putting up with this crap, and its long past time that women come to grips with the fact that if they’d like to have the option to mate with men who have an IQ that exceeds their shoe size, they are going to have to stop playing the gender war game and attempting to carve out bastions of “freedom” that provide them with the right to impose the costs of their unilateral decisions in the bedroom on men.

The risk of not coming to grips with this may well be a run on vasectomies by men who have more sense than libido, in that men may well (correctly) conclude that they have no means of securing any resemblance of reproductive freedom and rights in this nation, and thus, their only logical option is to opt out.

Just as it was wrong when men did it to women (by excluding them from inheritance, from the workplace entirely, or in certain fields, or in other areas of professional and social life) it is wrong when women do it to men. And for the last 30 years, that’s exactly what women have done – with full support from the Left..

The Left needs to be exposed for what it is on this particular argument and complaint – they are arguing for a radical view in which one can do whatever they’d like, but shove both the emotional and financial costs off on another – so long as you happen to have two “X” chromosomes.

XYs need not apply.

Nobody in this instance was arguing for a restriction preventing an abortion from taking place. What was being argued for, and what Judge Alito ruled on, was the right of a married man to know before a life he had an equal hand in creating, and for which he would be jointly responsible for was destroyed.

Here’s an interesting parallel and an example of just how wrong-headed the Left is on this – if you’re a married man, try getting a vasectomy without your wife’s consent.

Just for kicks and giggles try calling around and see what the urologists in your area tell you.

And that, by the way, is minimally invasive surgery and only affects the ability to create future children – not unborn present-tense ones.