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

a reply to: dawnstar

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!

Thank you for pointing out the dangers to women in pregnancy and giving birth. Pregnancy and childbirth have both short and long term effects on the mother's body. I daresay every mother -- some just uncomfortable and inconvenient, others debilitating and disabling, and sometimes including death for mother and/or the child.

They should at least make Male masturbation illegal. All those potential babies being killed.

originally posted by: wdkirk
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...

You got a point there, and I clearly missed it.

Therefore, in order to back this law as fair and equitable for all, all women who make the same ugly bumping mistakes as men must relinquish their ovaries, or disconnect them (side note: personally did the latter after Kid 2, it is NOT a big deal, girls, grow a pair already)

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
They should at least make Male masturbation illegal. All those potential babies being killed.

OOOH, good one. I guess if we women want to be as equal as men in all things, then every month an egg goes to waste and isn't fertilized should be illegal, too! Loss of a potential life and alla that.


And yes, for the slow ones reading along, I'm being sarcastic as hell (but not at Nexttimemaybe, playing off his comment obviously) And rubbing it in a little where shining a light on brain-dead stupidity counts.

a reply to: Nyiah
Gee, are you gonna force those catholic hospitals to go against their religious beliefs and sterialize anyone male or female?
You do realize that any women planning to give birth in one hoping to have her tubes tied at the same time
Is probably gonna be disappointed.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Nyiah
Gee, are you gonna force those catholic hospitals to go against their religious beliefs and sterialize anyone male or female?
You do realize that any women planning to give birth in one hoping to have her tubes tied at the same time
Is probably gonna be disappointed.

Do you not know how to read, or just not aware of definition of the word "sarcasm"? Pick your panties out of the front crack, settle the hell down, and re-read more slowly next time. Jesus.


Edit: I mean seriously here, two back to back posts, and you can't figure sarcaasm out? And you wonder why people snap at you a lot? Stop jumping the gun for activist brownie points, you missed the entire point -- hands off crotches.

Don't know why I bother, though, you don't seem to be able to simmer down long enough to get the idea.

a reply to: Nyiah

Just pointing out another flaw in their great plan of mass sterialization...
Too many places where the only hospitals are catholic.. and, it's against their religion... sorry!!

a reply to: Nyiah
Oh, I had another fun fact to go with your second post...

But, I guess you don't want to hear that one.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
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?

That's your argument, not mine.

a reply to: Klassified

Does that include artificial inseminators?

What about those aliens that are making all of those hybrid children?

This is probably just some kind of statement on abortion, not serious legislation.

a reply to: ketsuko

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.

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. You were the one that said MOST women willingly have sex. I said SOME is too many. Nobody is forcing the men in question to have sex.

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.

Right. I know your stance. Sex is for procreation only.

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.

That's not true in Texas, right now, and other states are already following Texas' lead...which is why we have this thread.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Sex isn't a crime. Rape, on the other hand, is.
Being a parent isn't a punishment for enjoying sex.

And, of course, no one will force an unfit mother to raise the child.

Right. They'll force her to give birth, then take the baby and sell it on the adoption market. Sounds like slavery to me.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I kind of think that some of these recent abortion laws were also just there to make a statement. A see, we are doing something!! They never expected something like the texas abortion law to be able to go into effect, or have a dr publicly admit to breaking it, or then have two lawyers, convicted of crimes, at least one in prison file a lawsuit against the dr. Now they are crying foul!!

a reply to: Boadicea
Thank you (yet again) for a reasonable and common sense approach to the topic. When I authored this thread, I had a myriad of thoughts running through my mind, but chose to focus on a few to keep it from becoming convoluted. Now, I really wish I had thought about it a bit longer before posting it...

Regarding the aspect of the topic and the proposed legislation you are addressing, you are correct imo, and won't get any argument from me. What kept nagging me though was that he wanted to introduce such a draconian piece of legislation that would be so wide open to interpretation as to be ambiguous and easily abused.

This initially led me to think of mass sterilization of specific demographics of our society. First certain types of men, then extending that to certain types of women later on, but I think the truth is, there's no conspiracy at all. He knew no such legislation would ever see the light of day.

I honestly believe he is mocking women and decided to do so in the most absurd of ways. This legislation.

a reply to: Klassified

You don't see this as a empty gesture response to what happened in Texas? Because that is exactly what I see...a publicity stunt to point out how stupid the TX law is. Imagine complaining about the other side encouraging children to rat out parents then supporting something like this.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Boadicea
Thank you (yet again) for a reasonable and common sense approach to the topic. When I authored this thread, I had a myriad of thoughts running through my mind, but chose to focus on a few to keep it from becoming convoluted. Now, I really wish I had thought about it a bit longer before posting it...

Kudos for having those myriad of thoughts! It's a complex subject with many variables -- the greatest being human nature itself -- and with no easy answers. Of course you couldn't address them all, so the wisest thing to do is address the few standouts. The discussion itself helps clarify and solidify what's important, or at least what could be/should be prioritized. It's all just part of the process.

What kept nagging me though was that he wanted to introduce such a draconian piece of legislation that would be so wide open to interpretation as to be ambiguous and easily abused.... I honestly believe he is mocking women and decided to do so in the most absurd of ways. This legislation.

I'm so glad you said this because I totally agree. While the focus is on men, in the final analysis, the implications and repercussions are all on women. It struck me as stealth misogyny. "I'm gonna create a piece of absolutely ludicrous legislation for men to show how silly it is to try and hold men responsible for their actions." Which leads right back to putting all the onus on women.

a reply to: Boadicea

Taking responsibility and carrying for a child you helped make VS being forced by the government to have a procedure are no where near the same.

Also... The MORE important thing... Is setting a precedent of forcing people to have a procedure done.

Please think about that.

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: Boadicea

Taking responsibility and carrying for a child you helped make VS being forced by the government to have a procedure are no where near the same.

Also... The MORE important thing... Is setting a precedent of forcing people to have a procedure done.

Please think about that.

Um... I don't need to think about that. I have long advocated that people have the absolute inalienable Natural right to say "yes" or "no" in all matters, including healthcare. And on topic, as I already stated and you quoted:

This bill is ridiculous -- obviously.

But men also have the absolute inalienable Natural right to say "no" to creating babies that are not wanted and this bill (purportedly) addresses men's unwillingness and refusal to accept their responsibility to do so. This bill is, at best, a misguided attempt to highlight this with a ridiculous "solution."

It is an opportunity for others -- especially men themselves -- to offer more reasonable and rationalize ways and means for men to take responsibility for their contribution to the problem.

a reply to: Bigburgh

I had my reasons to delete my post.I sent you a
PM.

I sincerly apologise to all the ladies on here for what I'm about to post.
I've wrote about this before so I'll repeat. There is only one set of people to sterilise if you hope to control populations. And that's women, not men.
Reason, example, you have 100 men and 100 women. Technically that population can have 100 children with 100 women (don't go on about twins or triplets). So sterilise 99 men, the one unsterilized man can impregnate as many women, up to the 100. So still you have 100 babies.
Now if you sterilise 99 women and no men then you can only have one child at a time.
It's not the impregnator that's the problem but the actual baby maker.
Ladies sorry again.

originally posted by: crayzeed
I sincerly apologise to all the ladies on here for what I'm about to post.
I've wrote about this before so I'll repeat. There is only one set of people to sterilise if you hope to control populations. And that's women, not men.
Reason, example, you have 100 men and 100 women. Technically that population can have 100 children with 100 women (don't go on about twins or triplets). So sterilise 99 men, the one unsterilized man can impregnate as many women, up to the 100. So still you have 100 babies.
Now if you sterilise 99 women and no men then you can only have one child at a time.
It's not the impregnator that's the problem but the actual baby maker.
Ladies sorry again.

Hard words but they are all true.