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

originally posted by: Boadicea

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.

I can at the very least, respect a libertarian viewpoint.

I hate the politics part of this whole thing more than anything. 'You created a bad law, so I'm going to do it too!'

Playing politics like this with peoples lives should get you sent to prison imo

a reply to: GraffikPleasure

I can at the very least, respect a libertarian viewpoint.

I hate the politics part of this whole thing more than anything. 'You created a bad law, so I'm going to do it too!'

Playing politics like this with peoples lives should get you sent to prison imo

I hate the politics as well... and those who play them. Although at some point it goes beyond politics. It's just petty tyranny...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Fascinating that you think that about my private life.

If sex is only for procreation, I'd have WAAAAAYYYY more than just one kid by now.

Of course, the nuance of biology escapes you though. I don't hold that against you. Sex evolved for the sole purpose of procreation. That is its only biological purpose, and when you engage in it, no matter how *safe* you think you are about it, you shouldn't be surprised when, erm, life ... finds a way.

So no woman should have sex without first considering what she would do if she becomes pregnant, and if she truly cannot tolerate that, then she should not be having sex.

a reply to: ketsuko

Fascinating that you think that about my private life.

There's nothing private about your postings.

the nuance of biology escapes you

I'm not surprised that the nuance of intimacy and human bonding escapes you.

So no woman should have sex without first considering what she would do if she becomes pregnant, and if she truly cannot tolerate that, then she should not be having sex.

That's what contraception is for, but it doesn't always work, and not every women can tolerate hormonal contraception and must rely on less reliable methods. Having sex is not a commitment to having children. Children are not a punishment for having sex, and shouldn't be treated as such by pro-lifers who want to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, blaming them for the "crime" of having sex in the first place.

originally posted by: Klassified

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.

It forces men to very carefully consider who they are sticking it in before they agree to conceive. It's called mutual accountability, something guys are very allergic to.

It's just another version of government interference in body autonomy for the sake of preventing murder. It's just starting with the testicles instead of waiting for conception because the real problem is men have no impulse control the way women have no respect for the sanctity of life. Two evils, one outcome. Two invasions of bodily autonomy, one outcome.

Or maybe men just don't like being told what to do, which is ironic.

When a guy gets a vasectomy say at age 12 by the time he is 20 the chances for reveral are bad like 20%

Here in colorado we offer free iuds to girls 12 and up for no charge....they are 99.9% effective and when removed you will get pregnant again

This could all end if girls at the age of 12 had the iud put in them ( 5 minutes) there is nothing bad with the iud and it van be removed anytime and the woman can still get pregnant and just to clarify my 14 year old daughter has this iud in her so she cant get pregnsnt

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Klassified

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.

It forces men to very carefully consider who they are sticking it in before they agree to conceive. It's called mutual accountability, something guys are very allergic to.

It's just another version of government interference in body autonomy for the sake of preventing murder. It's just starting with the testicles instead of waiting for conception because the real problem is men have no impulse control the way women have no respect for the sanctity of life. Two evils, one outcome. Two invasions of bodily autonomy, one outcome.

Or maybe men just don't like being told what to do, which is ironic.

Unfortunately, you have a valid point regarding mutual accountability. I guess I like to think that most guys have some sense of responsibility. Maybe I'm wrong. I never wanted children for a few reasons, and I made sure I never had any by accident. It wasn't exactly hard to accomplish my goal and I didn't have to abstain to do it.


ETA: My apologies on the previous post. I had a brain-fart. Not my first in life and I'm sure it won't be my last.

If they aren’t going to tie tubes for the women, it’s discrimination. But the whole idea is to cause a response- not pass a real law. I hope....


a reply to: Klassified

Your opinion of men must be based on the like company you keep. But generalizing about large groups of people is OK, as long as you don’t like them.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Klassified

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.

It forces men to very carefully consider who they are sticking it in before they agree to conceive. It's called mutual accountability, something guys are very allergic to.

It's just another version of government interference in body autonomy for the sake of preventing murder. It's just starting with the testicles instead of waiting for conception because the real problem is men have no impulse control the way women have no respect for the sanctity of life. Two evils, one outcome. Two invasions of bodily autonomy, one outcome.

Or maybe men just don't like being told what to do, which is ironic.

a reply to: Klassified
I feel like Steve Rogers after he got defrosted so much has changed in last 28 months. Seriously are they trying to start a new revolution?
This can not end well. I have not had any children of my own yet and I just turned 51 and if gov decided to neuter me I would definately rise up against them or leave for friendlier shores.

These democrats are sounding more and more like Hitler during the final days of the war. Ordering non-existent divisions of troops to battle, holding out hope in his technological wonders, and believing their "big lie" until the very bitter end.

Dems represent the old order, which God willing we will have finished drowning by time the midterms roll around.

Bipartisanship is dead, thank goodness. Just how much of our Constitution are each of YOU willing to be responsible for negating? Total war or bust

Down with democracy!

Whether its the ballot box or the battle field, they and their constituents must have no representation. To do so at this point is grossly irresponsible, given the body of evidence before each of us. The Senate helps temper them a bit, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. California and New York should have no means whatsoever to inflict their venomous ideology on the rest of us.

a reply to: JBurns

There is no taxation without representation.
You "conservatives" have fun paying the debt down now, ya hear!!

Might want to look up the word conservative in the dictionary by the way..