Pennsylvania Democrat introducing legislation to sterilize "inseminators"...

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Klassified
It's not a joke, but it is part and parcel of the clown world we now live in. Rep. Christopher Rabb thinks men aka "inseminators" should be sterilized so they can do no harm by impregnating anyone against their will.

Therefore, I will be introducing legislation that will require all inseminators to undergo vasectomies within 6 weeks from having their third child or 40th birthday, whichever comes first.

Further, this legislation will allow Pennsylvanians to take civil action for unwanted pregnancies against inseminators who wrongfully conceive a child with them.

This legislation will also empower Pennsylvanians to enforce this new law by offering a $10,000 reward for reporting to the proper authorities those scofflaws who have not complied with this statute within the allotted timeframe.

Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Christopher M. Rabb
I'm all for holding people responsible for being irresponsible or criminal. If you're a rapist or child molester, sterilization isn't extreme enough. For everyone else, it takes two consenting people to produce a pregnancy. This sounds more like the beginnings of another eugenics or population reduction scheme than it does a way to hold "inseminators" responsible for their actions. In case Mr. Rabb isn't up on his history, this was tried before in this country. It was disgusting then and it's disgusting now.

Send in the clowns...

The concept needs some tweaking. For every abortion, the man responsible for the fetus is required by law to be sterilized. Problem solved.

I'm sure Rabb would approve.

originally posted by: Bigburgh

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Bigburgh

Hey , they Spade Animals Against their Wills ...Just Sayin'

Hey! My boys we're extra mmmm mmmm with the pillow, couches my leg. Murph, Ben and myself had a discussion when they were less than a year. They often still show their Reddish Lipstick.

I'm against home breeding and or puppy mills. Also when I got them, there is and always will be a contractual agreement to Spay & Neuter. Also in thd contract is that if something were to happen, the breeder will take the dog(s) back to live with him on a 65 acre farm with a fairly big pond.

My Rescue dogs were neutered the day they started humping. In some cases I waited till thier bodies were fully grown/matured then "we're going for Ride"😁.

USE A PROPHYLACTIC, OR DO IT IN THE BUM BUM.

edit on 5-10-2021 by Bigburgh because: USE A PROPHYLACTIC!, OR DO IT IN THE BUM BUM! AND STOP ABUSING AND RAPING OR GUT STRING UP😏

Thats All Well and Good , but My Wife would be VERY UPSET If I got Neutered . I am also just an Occasional Humper by the Way ..............*)

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Klassified
It's not a joke, but it is part and parcel of the clown world we now live in. Rep. Christopher Rabb thinks men aka "inseminators" should be sterilized so they can do no harm by impregnating anyone against their will.

Therefore, I will be introducing legislation that will require all inseminators to undergo vasectomies within 6 weeks from having their third child or 40th birthday, whichever comes first.

Further, this legislation will allow Pennsylvanians to take civil action for unwanted pregnancies against inseminators who wrongfully conceive a child with them.

This legislation will also empower Pennsylvanians to enforce this new law by offering a $10,000 reward for reporting to the proper authorities those scofflaws who have not complied with this statute within the allotted timeframe.

Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Christopher M. Rabb
I'm all for holding people responsible for being irresponsible or criminal. If you're a rapist or child molester, sterilization isn't extreme enough. For everyone else, it takes two consenting people to produce a pregnancy. This sounds more like the beginnings of another eugenics or population reduction scheme than it does a way to hold "inseminators" responsible for their actions. In case Mr. Rabb isn't up on his history, this was tried before in this country. It was disgusting then and it's disgusting now.

Send in the clowns...

The concept needs some tweaking. For every abortion, the man responsible for the fetus is required by law to be sterilized. Problem solved.

I'm sure Rabb would approve.

Any man who isn't a coward and a hypocrite would approve.

It's funny how the guy had to add the "or 40th birthday, whichever comes first" to his mockulegislation. He must have been worried that to many progressives would have agreed to the legislation if it was just about limiting the number of children inseminated.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So, what did you mean by questioning the kind of gal that gets raped? You mean "weak women" like Simone Biles?

You were the one who seemed to be insinuating that women are weaker and more likely to be victimized by men... which seemed out of touch with your often stated position of equality and non-discrimination... so I called you on it. Admit it, own it, embrace it, deal with it.

originally posted by: dandandat2
It's funny how the guy had to add the "or 40th birthday, whichever comes first" to his mockulegislation. He must have been worried that to many progressives would have agreed to the legislation if it was just about limiting the number of children inseminated.

I honestly don't think progressives have many scruples about inseminating children... at least if Hollywood, Epstein, and some of their more prominent politicians are representative of the group as a whole.

a reply to: burdman30ott6
a reply to: burdman30ott6

"Honestly"? That's your phrase for what you've done? LOL

When Ketsuku said that MOST women weren't forced to have sex, I replied "Most? Even "SOME" is unacceptable. Did anyone forced any of the men who may be affected by such a law as in the OP to have sex?"

You replied:

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ketsuko

Did anyone force most of those women to have sex?

Most? Even some is unacceptable.

Did anyone forced any of the men who may be affected by such a law as in the OP to have sex?

Are you postulating that women aren't as strong as men and are, thus, more prone to being victims? That doesn't sound very progressive or enlightened of you.

I say "BS to you honesty".
I'll ask you again. Are you saying people like Simone Biles are weak, and that's why they get themselves raped?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Google tells me Simone Biles is an Olympic gymnast? Why are you using an accomplished athlete to prepare your "weak woman got raped by strong man" argument? Was Becca Swanson unavailable?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Bigburgh

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Bigburgh

Hey , they Spade Animals Against their Wills ...Just Sayin'

Hey! My boys we're extra mmmm mmmm with the pillow, couches my leg. Murph, Ben and myself had a discussion when they were less than a year. They often still show their Reddish Lipstick.

I'm against home breeding and or puppy mills. Also when I got them, there is and always will be a contractual agreement to Spay & Neuter. Also in thd contract is that if something were to happen, the breeder will take the dog(s) back to live with him on a 65 acre farm with a fairly big pond.

My Rescue dogs were neutered the day they started humping. In some cases I waited till thier bodies were fully grown/matured then "we're going for Ride"😁.

USE A PROPHYLACTIC, OR DO IT IN THE BUM BUM.

edit on 5-10-2021 by Bigburgh because: USE A PROPHYLACTIC!, OR DO IT IN THE BUM BUM! AND STOP ABUSING AND RAPING OR GUT STRING UP😏

Thats All Well and Good , but My Wife would be VERY UPSET If I got Neutered . I am also just an Occasional Humper by the Way ..............*)

LOST MY SH!T!!! 😂😂🤣🤣😂😂😆😆😆
What about the second suggestion? 😂😂😂😂😂👍🏽

This is a Ballsy Thread😁


Edit:

eu·gen·ics

/yo͞oˈjeniks/

noun

the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Developed largely by Sir Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, eugenics was increasingly discredited as unscientific and racially biased during the 20th century, especially after the adoption of its doctrines by the Nazis in order to justify their treatment of Jews, disabled people, and other minority groups.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Klassified
It's not a joke, but it is part and parcel of the clown world we now live in. Rep. Christopher Rabb thinks men aka "inseminators" should be sterilized so they can do no harm by impregnating anyone against their will.

Therefore, I will be introducing legislation that will require all inseminators to undergo vasectomies within 6 weeks from having their third child or 40th birthday, whichever comes first.

Further, this legislation will allow Pennsylvanians to take civil action for unwanted pregnancies against inseminators who wrongfully conceive a child with them.

This legislation will also empower Pennsylvanians to enforce this new law by offering a $10,000 reward for reporting to the proper authorities those scofflaws who have not complied with this statute within the allotted timeframe.

Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Christopher M. Rabb
I'm all for holding people responsible for being irresponsible or criminal. If you're a rapist or child molester, sterilization isn't extreme enough. For everyone else, it takes two consenting people to produce a pregnancy. This sounds more like the beginnings of another eugenics or population reduction scheme than it does a way to hold "inseminators" responsible for their actions. In case Mr. Rabb isn't up on his history, this was tried before in this country. It was disgusting then and it's disgusting now.

Send in the clowns...

The concept needs some tweaking. For every abortion, the man responsible for the fetus is required by law to be sterilized. Problem solved.

I'm sure Rabb would approve.

Any man who isn't a coward and a hypocrite would approve.

You're not making any sense. You said...

The concept needs some tweaking. For every abortion, the man responsible for the fetus is required by law to be sterilized.

Problem solved.

Providing the coupling was consensual, why should the man be sterilized if it is the woman who decided she doesn't want the child?

If it is him, or both of them, who doesn't want the child, then your "tweak" becomes applicable, but should be applied to both.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And I am saying that you implied that any woman who is pregnant is forced to carry the baby to term or that any woman who falls pregnant does against her will.

I say that any woman who chooses to have sex also chooses to accept that one of the possible consequences of that action is pregnancy. If she is not ready to handle the reality of pregnancy - the conception of another human being - then she should not choose to have sex. As most women who get abortions can and do make this choice freely, then no one "forced" them to get pregnant and no one is forcing them to carry the pregnancy.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. And, of course, no one will force an unfit mother to raise the child. I know of many adopted folks who are living wonderful lives. I've been married to one for 20+ years. I know ... that offends you; he should have been aborted.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: GraffikPleasure
So, who will be responsible for those women who suffer, become septic and possibly die because texas insists their miscarriages not be managed and expedited? Who will be responsible for the 10 year old incest victim who ends up with life long health problems because she wasn't allowed to terminate the pregnancy, or worse she ends up dead?
And talk about a money maker!! Letting women become septic ensures a much longer stay in the hospital!!

Cool story bro.

Don't have sex...

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Personal responsibility.

If you are a woman and you engage in an act that might produce a child, you are responsible.

If you are a man and you engage in an act that might produce a child, you are responsible.

Having the state mandate the condition of your own body is repulsive and sick.

Personal responsibility is right.

People don't hear "life isn't fair" anymore from their parents. That's a problem

Sometimes you have to find a new occupation after spending 20 years in the same profession.

Life isn't fair.

Actually yes, times change. Just like if you're in the gas industry. It will go away at some point.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: GraffikPleasure
So, who will be responsible for those women who suffer, become septic and possibly die because texas insists their miscarriages not be managed and expedited? Who will be responsible for the 10 year old incest victim who ends up with life long health problems because she wasn't allowed to terminate the pregnancy, or worse she ends up dead?
And talk about a money maker!! Letting women become septic ensures a much longer stay in the hospital!!

Almost always, these laws protect the mothers life. If her life is in danger they would perform the procedure.

But this is the sensationalism that is always spewed to rile everyone up

They need this law in Texas.

Sterilization of men (can’t produce children anymore) vs. abortion (which does not sterilize a female) is the wrong argument.

The two topics are not the same.

.23% chance of a woman becoming infertile after an abortion. Feel free to look that stat up.

www.forbes.com...

a reply to: GraffikPleasure

No one sends their kids to school thinking today might be the day a crazy with a gun goes in and guns them down. Heck, they don't even think the hurricane will someday come their way and destroy that newly build mansion of theirs on the seashore. Such things happen to other people, not them... till they it does..
Very few women worry about the care they could recieve in the hospital if they were to happen to miscarry, weather they wanted the baby, didn't want it, or were raped.

Just like no one thinks that it could be their little 10 year old girl that ends up being knocked up by the church clergy!

Link

Doesn't dear Mr. Seago sound like he believes the texas law prevents expediting (inducing labor) a miscarriage along? Doing so reducing the risks to the mother, keeps her condition from deteriorating to the point where it is a health emergency requiring immediate action to save moms life!

a reply to: wdkirk
The stupid law is just there to make the dems feel like they did something.. yaaa! They made a statement! They have made about the same statement many times before and will many times more in the future.

originally posted by: Klassified
Rep. Christopher Rabb thinks men aka "inseminators" should be sterilized so they can do no harm by impregnating anyone against their will.

That's not actually his point:

For far too long, the public debate around abortion, contraception and related reproductive matters has thrust government into the center of restrictions on the bodily autonomy of women and girls.

Rarely is there a meaningful dialogue around public policy focusing on the personal responsibility of cisgender men in this sphere.

The rights of cisgender men have always been paramount in our society with little focus on their
responsibility as inseminators to change their behaviors for the good of their partners, families, and society at large.

As we head toward climax on this heated discourse around this delicate matter, we should come together to address it with surgical precision. We must also commit to mending the social fabric being sliced up by bitter acrimony.

In order to improve public health outcomes and release sweet justice into our households and bedrooms, we must wrap our love of individual liberty in the moral imperative of greater personal responsibility and acknowledge men’s essential role in procreation.

It's not about unwilling women, it's about men unwilling to accept their own responsibility for creating unwanted children, and expecting more and better from women.

It's not either/or... as in it's either the man's fault and responsibility or the woman's fault and responsibility.

It's both/and... as in it's both men and women's fault and responsibility.

And this thread's responses perfectly exemplifies this refusal to accept responsibility by men -- before, during and after conception. This bill is ridiculous -- obviously. But the refusal by men to take any responsibility as a whole, or to even encourage and promote reproductive responsibility among men, is worse.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: wdkirk
The stupid law is just there to make the dems feel like they did something.. yaaa! They made a statement! They have made about the same statement many times before and will many times more in the future.

I know that.

It sounds like an ill-informed college kid ranting on a topic they know nothing about. That’s the level of legislation we have now. Twitter rants and ignorant statements for likes and fandom.