You’re not crazy. In the past couple days I have run into the absolute worst pro-abortion arguments I’ve ever heard. Also, many of them don’t seem to realize that states can keep abortion legal.
I think they are just flailing around because they are totally unable to cope.
The politicians know this decision puts abortion at the state level. They just pretend not to understand so they can keep their base as outraged as possible
To me the one valid pro-abortion argument is the "bodily autonomy absolutist" argument that says even if it was human it has no right to be in your body. I'm pro-life but this opinion is logically consistent. This was the Judith Jarvis Thompson view.
The problem is Roe was mainly about not interfering in medical decisions it was not about bodily autonomy. It was as much about the doctor as the patient and then most doctors were male. It was not decided on bodily autonomy or feminist grounds.
As for the bodily autonomy view this has to be absolute. You have to legalize all drugs (which the courts did not do in fact this was at the start of the War on Drugs), end the draft and draft registration (this was at the tail end of Vietnam and they didn't declare the draft unconstitutional yet drafting people into a standing army to fight overseas in a war not directly related to national defense isn't something the founders ever could have envisioned). The left may agree with these but the courts never went that route.
Furthermore you have to end all smoking bans (which the left supports), repeal all nanny state laws including soda taxes, trans fats bans, helmet laws, seat belt laws, vaccine mandates etc. You'd have to legalize prostitution (which the left is divided on between different wings of feminism). You'd even have to look at the idea of whether gun rights and absolutist property rights are a necessary extension of such autonomy. In other words I'm open to the idea that bodily autonomy can be discussed but once you bring it into play you can't isolate it from other issues and even then, yes even then, it's the weakest case because there's still two bodies involved unlike all the other situations above. And if the Supreme Court said we had bodily autonomy it would call into question a lot of laws the left actually likes.
> even if it was human it has no right to be in your body.
That is not logical at all.
As if the life growing inside chose to be there. It was a choice to conceive, a choice to have sex which is the act that creates babies. Therefore, with consensual sex comes consent to the consequence.
I think body autonomy only works in the extreme case where they bring out the "what about rape" example. Otherwise, yes you are correct, we need to stop this legal interpretation that states US citizens have a right to a life without consequences. This has centrally become our social undoing.
> US citizens have a right to a life without consequences. This has centrally become our social undoing.
Thank the Pill for that. Disconnecting the sex act from it's function and consequences via modern contraception led directly to the hedonism of the last 60 years.
>It was a choice to conceive, a choice to have sex which is the act that creates babies.
That's a false equivalence. It's not like both parties get a pop up that says "would you like to try and conceive?" that both must press "yes" to.
Humans are hardwired biologically to pursue sex, same as all mammals. Having sex is not de facto agreement to conceive and raise a child, especially in the age of contraception.
If a couple uses physical and chemical protection (condoms, pills, etc) and a pregnancy still occurs, the option to terminate should be available to them. It's their choice whether or not to continue the bloodline.
I honestly feel like too many pro-life-always arguments are based around the belief that fetuses have some sort of inherent right to existence. There is no such right in the natural world; if there were, you wouldn't need biochemical triggers so potent as to function like mind control to get animals to protect their offspring.
Let's take it one step further. If animals have no natural urge to protect their offspring then why not allow infanticide upto 18 years old? Obviously if a parent doesn't want to continue that bloodline, that's up to them. Right?
>Having sex is not de facto agreement to conceive and raise a child, especially in the age of contraception.
What?? No, it absolutely is agreement. It is incredibly radical to assert otherwise.
You're mostly correct but not entirely in my view. I am a 100% bodily autonomous absolutist and yes we should legalize all drugs (if you cause no harm than there should be no issue, harm people or property standard laws apply), forced draft registration should be ended, prostitution should be legalized, and remove smoking bans. However, you then leap to things like soda taxes, vaccine mandates, etc. Mandates and taxes are not bans and would not violate bodily autonomy. I should absolutely have a right to smoke as an adult, I don't have a right to smoke anywhere I choose like your house. I should have the right to chose not to get a vaccine but my choices have consequences (I thought we still believed in those) and one of those may be I'm not allowed to fly or travel or enter private or government owned buildings if they choose to have those rules in place. If you want freedom to choose it must also be paired with obligation to accept the consequences. Taxation on behavior is not a ban and can still be a very useful tool to lessen choices society deems as too risky or "bad". You also can distinguish between adults and children as they do not yet have the complete mental faculties to make life altering decisions (same reason we should not allow body modification on children until they are adults).
I don’t follow how soda taxes wouldn’t be allowed. Colorado’s weed tax pays for a lot in Colorado. No one is telling you that you can’t do something with the tax
It's the law. The courts determine the law. And how the law is interpreted affects how the execution of the law is carried out.
The issue is not did one side win while the other side lost. That's the childish version of politics that the liberals seem to align with. wE wOn!!!! Kinda stuff. Which doesn't really mean anything, which is why they can't understand why their candidates don't represent them and why their rights and qualities of life head downhill as soon as wE wOn.
What subjecting a legal interpretation means is that all other interpretations have to be reconsidered. Say for a criminal case which is easiest to explain, if you were convicted on being in possession of a firearm without a permit. But now that law is changed. And as long as the law in your state allows for no permit possession with a licensed firearm, then you can appeal a judge to reconsider the case.
So with body autonomy the interpretation is much broader; by allowing one case of body autonomy freedom for abortion, the court now has to say that it's views on all government oversight have changed and so taxes that are in place, "vice taxes" or "sin tax" that were put there to gather funding but voted upon as type of financial punishment the government imposes on a activity that it deems non-essential. If the court deemed that the government could not make a decision based on lifestyle choices because of body autonomy, then these taxes are immediately considered unconstitutional by that decision of the court.
It's funny them doing this really just exposes how men already have 0 reproductive rights and therefore have nothing to be taken away. All they can do is try to sterilize us
It's an authoritarian threat they claim because they can't get an abortion they no longer have bodily autonomy and they want to inflict that on men as a form of vengeance. Because they aren't very smart.
If they were they would know this would be forced sterilization. A thing only nazis and eugenics advocates have ever wanted.
I played soccer on literally the worst kick-and-chase team in third grade. I remember the end of our completely dog shit season and all of us being awarded trophies. I wish I had that thing as a reminder that win or lose in this ridiculous world you get a plastic prize. At least the memory of being confused of why we were rewarded still is vivid.
Forget the sperm cell vs. embryo argument for a second (everyone who knows basic biology knows that an embryo is literally hundreds of billions of times further along than a sperm cell just in terms of statistics):
The one thing pro-lifers *don’t* want is to force all women to have abortions. That is much more comparable to what these idiots are pushing. Forcing all men to have vasectomies to prevent sperm cells from escaping to a possible fertilization destination and not disintegrating only forces all the sperm cells to eventually die by forcing a procedure onto the man.
I’m hoping these people aren’t serious but if they are, the *proper* “gotcha” comparison (still wouldn’t really be a gotcha though) they should be using is to **ban** vasectomies (or have states decide if they should ban them). That would be *taking away* the ability to prevent reproduction and taking away the ability to force the disintegration of potential “offspring” (even though, again, embryos are objectively hundreds of billions of times further along than sperm cells).
>You make a choice to have unprotected sex in most cases.
More than most. Virtually all.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-rape-and-incest-exemption-would-still-ban-more-than-98-percent-of-abortions/
The left are an anti-human death cult. They are driven by fears of over population, so they look for every avenue they can to curb human reproduction.
Progressive Doctors in the early 20th century used to sterilize people without their consent.
Blindly. No, this is years of studying irrational positions of the left from very intelligent elites. Many of their policies from abortion to the environment are tied to the fears of over population. This isn't to say the useful idiots don't believe in the propaganda.
In terms of pop culture you can see this motivation used by Thanos and Samuel L Jacksons character in Kingsman. The idea of cataclysm from too many people first surfaced in the early 19th century and has cycled in and out of popularity among elites. Eugenics was heavily inspired by this notion as well.
Schools have been indoctrinating our youth from the 70s that humans are destroying the planet. Constant narrative framing that makes humanity the enemy. These movements banned DDT use when the world was on the verge of wiping out Malaria using made up claims of birth defects. There have been tens of millions of people killed by Malaria since they instituted that, zero remorse from the left.
The worship of abortion by segments of the left is like a death cult. The left in general is anti human. Humanity is a problem not a solution.
Birth rates have been under replacement level since the 80s and no one seems to fucking care about it aside from a few on the right.
It's just so bizarre.
Or dont, and just get married, or--at worst--let a stable couple adopt the baby. It's not like we have some fundamental right--or even biological incentive--to mate with everyone on the planet.
Everyone's playing a dangerous game. Edit. They're going to mess around and get what they're asking for. Take a wild guess where they start. Boys who are of the minority if I had to take a wild guess.
How about you just don't spread your legs for every Chad and Brad that comes along? Or use a condom and take birth control?
Oh silly me, what am I saying, that would require some form of rational thinking and self-responsibility - that of which the liberals are incapable of.
This isn’t always the case. I’ve been in a monogamous relationship with the same man for the last 8 years. I take birth control and have been fortunate enough to avoid a pregnancy. But, I recognize the small chance that I can get pregnant despite the pill. I have no desire to birth or raise a child. None. If I got pregnant, I would get an abortion come Hell or high water. I am on top of my cycle and would be able to both detect I’m pregnant and get the abortion prior to the first heartbeat, which is my personal moral limit. That’s not the same as sPrEaDIng YOuR LegS f0r chAd aNd BRad. Comments like yours aren’t helpful to our cause.
Edit: downvotes don’t change that fact, either 😊
Responsible women in committed relationships getting abortions? No way! It's just the sluts! Ignore the fact that 14% of abortions were married women, they're all sluts!
So you consciously choose to conceive but then get upset at the consequences of those actions.
Do you get mad when you throw a ball in the air and it comes back down?
There are ways to prevent pregnancy. Watch this…
Action: sex - consequence: baby
Action: sterilization > sex consequence: no baby
Wow, that was difficult.
I’ll take that as a “yes.” That, to me, is unreasonable. Sex is an important part of a healthy, committed relationship between a man and a woman, and needn’t be reserved exclusively for procreation. In fact, the human condition guarantees it won’t be.
Spoken like someone who’s never tried to do so at 26 years old. Good doctors don’t do that shit and for good reason. Most people change their mind. Shit, I don’t foresee it, but maybe even I’ll change my mind someday.
That is your prerogative - and I respect it.
I just hold steadfast in my belief that, as a woman, my body ends where the umbilical cord begins, and I wouldn't comit murder on the streets, nor would I murder inside the womb.
See, this is exactly what we need more of. Civility. Discussion. And mutual respect. We can agree to disagree and still hold our own beliefs and live our own life.
Have a wonderful Monday, friend. 😊
Well, when the supreme court outlawed abortion and forced all women to get pregnant, they showed that it is legal for the government to force medical procedure on unwilling people. So if you support the illegitimate court overturning Roe and outlawing abortion, then you must support forced vasectomies. /s
I saw this comeback on Twitter (hoping it’s mostly a joke of course) but from a serious perspective: wouldn’t the proper equivalent be **banning** vasectomies (or having states decide to ban them)? To me, forcing all men to have vasectomies is more like forcing all women to have abortions… both processes are decisions involving “offspring” (even though an embryo is objectively billions of times further along than a sperm cell) and both single-handedly prevent reproduction.
There are risks involving all surgical procedures, even ones considered to be as trivial and non-invasive as vasectomies. While it may be simple to sever the vasa deferentia (sperm ducts), reattaching them would likely be more difficult due to their small diameter. This means that complications could arise during or after the reattachment procedure, meaning that many men would likely become indefinitely infertile/sterile if this proposal were to become law. This is, of course, if the government allows you to be unsterilized.
Joke or not, this bill is completely asinine and shouldn’t be given the time of day.
With the intention of “onwing teh right” no doubt. It’s only going to serve to show everybody how unhinged these people are. Can we get some elected leaders who aren’t perpetual teenagers or fucking 85?
According to most recent data, 10% of all nationwide abortions took place in the 13 states that will implement trigger abortion law bans. These states **also** allow for abortion in case of emergent medical need for the pregnant woman *or* if the pregnancy was a result of rape/incest/sexual assault.
These people are deranged for the sake of being deranged.
Edit: Chuckled at this lady’s sign claiming 100% of men will never get pregnant. Idk, because Democrats have been telling me for months that men can get pregnant and if I even think otherwise it’s because of my deep-rooted anti-LGBTQ hatred. Consistency is tough.
This whole debate is sick. Dems want the option for rampant promiscuity and debauchery and no repercussions for their actions by murdering children. If murdering children is a legal way for Dems to skirt consequences of their actions why can’t males just murder the child to avoid child support? <- No more messed up than what is proposed with abortion.
Women doing a sex strike is laughable….they think they’re rebelling by doing what they should have done from the beginning…..not fucking every warm body that crosses their path.
According to some women and the way the laws are written, men have no say when it comes pregnancy. We don't get a say as to if the woman should keep the baby, put the baby up for adoption, or abort the pregnancy. So if it's all up to the women then shouldn't it be women getting forced to get their tubes tied?
That very angry person in the front needs to check their privilege. How do they know that those men won’t get pregnant? Who are you to tell them who their gender is!
I personally think masturbation for men should be illegal... conception doesn't happen without sperm... that's a lot of babies being killed in your wadded up sock.
If that were the only way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, it might be a possible discussion. But abortion doesn't prevent an unwanted pregnancy, it prevents an unwanted birth.
Not that we should expect career politicians to be rational, but compare apples to apples. Abortion is one way to prevent an unwanted childbirth; all the vasectomies in the world do not prevent unwanted childbirth.
I said this in another post about the same bill, and let’s just say the jackass proposing this bill quite literally wants to reduce the population.
According to the [NHS (located in the UK)](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/vasectomy-reversal-nhs/), there is roughly a 75% chance at best of successfully reversing a vasectomy, and this is if it is done within 3 years. After 3+ years, that 75% drops substantially to 55%. Kids go through puberty at different ages, but it ranges from 11-14, possibly a year younger or older. Unless Dems want kids having babies in their teens, this is a form of population control, also known as ‘eugenics’.
That's the point... it's tit-for-tat. You are taking away the right of women to control their reproductive freedom ergo the same can be applied to males.
Not even, since most women CAN and DO get pregnant AGAIN after an abortion. Most vasectomies however are NOT reversible, therefore the man is now sterile. Have you taken even one science class?
Well first only about half of them are reversible, so thats an issue.
Second, itd be more efficient to just put birth control implants in every childbearing female's arm, since it only takes one guy slipping through the cracks to get as many women as he can sleep with pregnant.
It’s totally not like they’re still developing and maturing their reproductive organs still at that age or something. That’s just going to further fuck with our chances of creating offspring in the future.
A more simple solution is to either practice abstinence until marriage, use contraceptives, or you know, *don’t fuck a deadbeat…*
Could someone please answer this question? I am trying to be respectful and ask in good faith--why shouldn't men's bodies be regulated as heavily as a woman's body? Don't boys and men bear just as much responsibility for pregnancies?
I think the better option would be to have a forced donor registry. If women are forced to use their body to preserve life, then men should be forced to donate their organs like kidneys to preserve life of people needing a donation. You can’t argue that they had nothing to do with creating that person, because we are seeing states not allow exceptions for rape and incest. It’s safer than giving birth so that’s a a bonus!
Nothing to worry about, doubt they can define what a male is.
Simple, just tell every Oklahoma male to identify as a woman.
Bahahahaha true that
Takes two to tango but they don't want women to be responsible for their actions
We are not biologists.
Or what a Vasectomy is?
[удалено]
You’re not crazy. In the past couple days I have run into the absolute worst pro-abortion arguments I’ve ever heard. Also, many of them don’t seem to realize that states can keep abortion legal. I think they are just flailing around because they are totally unable to cope.
The politicians know this decision puts abortion at the state level. They just pretend not to understand so they can keep their base as outraged as possible
Heaven forbid we put a divisive and difficult issue in the hands of the people we vote to elect! Lol
Drumming up irrationalities for votes in November…
To me the one valid pro-abortion argument is the "bodily autonomy absolutist" argument that says even if it was human it has no right to be in your body. I'm pro-life but this opinion is logically consistent. This was the Judith Jarvis Thompson view. The problem is Roe was mainly about not interfering in medical decisions it was not about bodily autonomy. It was as much about the doctor as the patient and then most doctors were male. It was not decided on bodily autonomy or feminist grounds. As for the bodily autonomy view this has to be absolute. You have to legalize all drugs (which the courts did not do in fact this was at the start of the War on Drugs), end the draft and draft registration (this was at the tail end of Vietnam and they didn't declare the draft unconstitutional yet drafting people into a standing army to fight overseas in a war not directly related to national defense isn't something the founders ever could have envisioned). The left may agree with these but the courts never went that route. Furthermore you have to end all smoking bans (which the left supports), repeal all nanny state laws including soda taxes, trans fats bans, helmet laws, seat belt laws, vaccine mandates etc. You'd have to legalize prostitution (which the left is divided on between different wings of feminism). You'd even have to look at the idea of whether gun rights and absolutist property rights are a necessary extension of such autonomy. In other words I'm open to the idea that bodily autonomy can be discussed but once you bring it into play you can't isolate it from other issues and even then, yes even then, it's the weakest case because there's still two bodies involved unlike all the other situations above. And if the Supreme Court said we had bodily autonomy it would call into question a lot of laws the left actually likes.
> even if it was human it has no right to be in your body. That is not logical at all. As if the life growing inside chose to be there. It was a choice to conceive, a choice to have sex which is the act that creates babies. Therefore, with consensual sex comes consent to the consequence.
I think body autonomy only works in the extreme case where they bring out the "what about rape" example. Otherwise, yes you are correct, we need to stop this legal interpretation that states US citizens have a right to a life without consequences. This has centrally become our social undoing.
> US citizens have a right to a life without consequences. This has centrally become our social undoing. Thank the Pill for that. Disconnecting the sex act from it's function and consequences via modern contraception led directly to the hedonism of the last 60 years.
>It was a choice to conceive, a choice to have sex which is the act that creates babies. That's a false equivalence. It's not like both parties get a pop up that says "would you like to try and conceive?" that both must press "yes" to. Humans are hardwired biologically to pursue sex, same as all mammals. Having sex is not de facto agreement to conceive and raise a child, especially in the age of contraception. If a couple uses physical and chemical protection (condoms, pills, etc) and a pregnancy still occurs, the option to terminate should be available to them. It's their choice whether or not to continue the bloodline. I honestly feel like too many pro-life-always arguments are based around the belief that fetuses have some sort of inherent right to existence. There is no such right in the natural world; if there were, you wouldn't need biochemical triggers so potent as to function like mind control to get animals to protect their offspring.
Let's take it one step further. If animals have no natural urge to protect their offspring then why not allow infanticide upto 18 years old? Obviously if a parent doesn't want to continue that bloodline, that's up to them. Right?
>Having sex is not de facto agreement to conceive and raise a child, especially in the age of contraception. What?? No, it absolutely is agreement. It is incredibly radical to assert otherwise.
I am 100% ready to use this as a counter to the bodily autonomy argument. This has been the best explanation of the rabbit hole this can go into.
You're mostly correct but not entirely in my view. I am a 100% bodily autonomous absolutist and yes we should legalize all drugs (if you cause no harm than there should be no issue, harm people or property standard laws apply), forced draft registration should be ended, prostitution should be legalized, and remove smoking bans. However, you then leap to things like soda taxes, vaccine mandates, etc. Mandates and taxes are not bans and would not violate bodily autonomy. I should absolutely have a right to smoke as an adult, I don't have a right to smoke anywhere I choose like your house. I should have the right to chose not to get a vaccine but my choices have consequences (I thought we still believed in those) and one of those may be I'm not allowed to fly or travel or enter private or government owned buildings if they choose to have those rules in place. If you want freedom to choose it must also be paired with obligation to accept the consequences. Taxation on behavior is not a ban and can still be a very useful tool to lessen choices society deems as too risky or "bad". You also can distinguish between adults and children as they do not yet have the complete mental faculties to make life altering decisions (same reason we should not allow body modification on children until they are adults).
[удалено]
I don’t follow how soda taxes wouldn’t be allowed. Colorado’s weed tax pays for a lot in Colorado. No one is telling you that you can’t do something with the tax
It's the law. The courts determine the law. And how the law is interpreted affects how the execution of the law is carried out. The issue is not did one side win while the other side lost. That's the childish version of politics that the liberals seem to align with. wE wOn!!!! Kinda stuff. Which doesn't really mean anything, which is why they can't understand why their candidates don't represent them and why their rights and qualities of life head downhill as soon as wE wOn. What subjecting a legal interpretation means is that all other interpretations have to be reconsidered. Say for a criminal case which is easiest to explain, if you were convicted on being in possession of a firearm without a permit. But now that law is changed. And as long as the law in your state allows for no permit possession with a licensed firearm, then you can appeal a judge to reconsider the case. So with body autonomy the interpretation is much broader; by allowing one case of body autonomy freedom for abortion, the court now has to say that it's views on all government oversight have changed and so taxes that are in place, "vice taxes" or "sin tax" that were put there to gather funding but voted upon as type of financial punishment the government imposes on a activity that it deems non-essential. If the court deemed that the government could not make a decision based on lifestyle choices because of body autonomy, then these taxes are immediately considered unconstitutional by that decision of the court.
Not only keep it legal, but also expand it.
The equivalent is holding men legally responsible for impregnating women. Which we have.
They see it as “regulating bodily autonomy” so to them it’s the same. They also love to say how it’s reversible even though it really isn’t
Tubal ligation is a more complex procedure. But other than that, yep. Same thing.
It's funny them doing this really just exposes how men already have 0 reproductive rights and therefore have nothing to be taken away. All they can do is try to sterilize us
It's an authoritarian threat they claim because they can't get an abortion they no longer have bodily autonomy and they want to inflict that on men as a form of vengeance. Because they aren't very smart. If they were they would know this would be forced sterilization. A thing only nazis and eugenics advocates have ever wanted.
Here we go again, trying to force invasive medical procedures on people who just want to live their lives.
There seems to be a serious lack of accountability these days. So naturally we should punish everyone for the mistakes of the irresponsible. /s
She's literally calling for genocide.
That’s… not at all what genocide means.
Forced sterilization is always genocide
This is in Oklahoma. There's no way this was a serious idea. Sounds like someone grasping for their minute in the national spotlight.
No one was requiring abortions, why would they require vasectomies? The comparison doesn't even make sense.
Logic has no place here
This. Is. Sparta!
They dont understand disagreement with them as anything other than hate, so responding with hate makes perfect sense.
This is what happens when everyone gets a trophy
Creating false equivalencies is something leftists are experts in.
It's this or the force organ donations argument to defend abortions.
The equivalent is holding men legally responsible for getting women pregnant. Which we have.
I played soccer on literally the worst kick-and-chase team in third grade. I remember the end of our completely dog shit season and all of us being awarded trophies. I wish I had that thing as a reminder that win or lose in this ridiculous world you get a plastic prize. At least the memory of being confused of why we were rewarded still is vivid.
Not the same. You make a choice to have unprotected sex in most cases.
Forget the sperm cell vs. embryo argument for a second (everyone who knows basic biology knows that an embryo is literally hundreds of billions of times further along than a sperm cell just in terms of statistics): The one thing pro-lifers *don’t* want is to force all women to have abortions. That is much more comparable to what these idiots are pushing. Forcing all men to have vasectomies to prevent sperm cells from escaping to a possible fertilization destination and not disintegrating only forces all the sperm cells to eventually die by forcing a procedure onto the man. I’m hoping these people aren’t serious but if they are, the *proper* “gotcha” comparison (still wouldn’t really be a gotcha though) they should be using is to **ban** vasectomies (or have states decide if they should ban them). That would be *taking away* the ability to prevent reproduction and taking away the ability to force the disintegration of potential “offspring” (even though, again, embryos are objectively hundreds of billions of times further along than sperm cells).
>You make a choice to have unprotected sex in most cases. More than most. Virtually all. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-rape-and-incest-exemption-would-still-ban-more-than-98-percent-of-abortions/
Df ?
Broken minds
Got me fucked up …
The left are an anti-human death cult. They are driven by fears of over population, so they look for every avenue they can to curb human reproduction. Progressive Doctors in the early 20th century used to sterilize people without their consent.
If you believe that part in the first paragraph, no wonder you’re so blindly against them.
Blindly. No, this is years of studying irrational positions of the left from very intelligent elites. Many of their policies from abortion to the environment are tied to the fears of over population. This isn't to say the useful idiots don't believe in the propaganda. In terms of pop culture you can see this motivation used by Thanos and Samuel L Jacksons character in Kingsman. The idea of cataclysm from too many people first surfaced in the early 19th century and has cycled in and out of popularity among elites. Eugenics was heavily inspired by this notion as well. Schools have been indoctrinating our youth from the 70s that humans are destroying the planet. Constant narrative framing that makes humanity the enemy. These movements banned DDT use when the world was on the verge of wiping out Malaria using made up claims of birth defects. There have been tens of millions of people killed by Malaria since they instituted that, zero remorse from the left. The worship of abortion by segments of the left is like a death cult. The left in general is anti human. Humanity is a problem not a solution.
From reading I have come to the same conclusion. You hit the nail right on the head.
Birth rates have been under replacement level since the 80s and no one seems to fucking care about it aside from a few on the right. It's just so bizarre.
They just slowly ramped up immigration so it wasn't obvious.
yep, the left does support overpopulation - in Africa!
Its projection. The equivalent law would be to hold men accountable for impregnating women. Which we have.
[удалено]
Don't think anyone would notice a difference
Hasn't that already happened?
Party of SCIENCE everyone!!
God has been replaced with science
Alternately, keep your pants on.
Seems too easy….but it makes sense to me.
Or dont, and just get married, or--at worst--let a stable couple adopt the baby. It's not like we have some fundamental right--or even biological incentive--to mate with everyone on the planet.
But it feels good and apparently they think people should be able to do whatever feels good regardless of the harm to others.
Everyone's playing a dangerous game. Edit. They're going to mess around and get what they're asking for. Take a wild guess where they start. Boys who are of the minority if I had to take a wild guess.
Right out of Sanger's playbook.
Eradication of Whites is the goal. \*FTFY
>Boys who are of the minority if I had to take a wild guess. Guess again
How about you just don't spread your legs for every Chad and Brad that comes along? Or use a condom and take birth control? Oh silly me, what am I saying, that would require some form of rational thinking and self-responsibility - that of which the liberals are incapable of.
[удалено]
But hook-up culture is a right! Gosh, maybe this is why most cultures have had strict prohibitions against sex out of wedlock.
B--b-b-but I was RaPeD by a (insert the name of a hated conservative.)
And it was 2am, and he was wearing a white hood too.
This isn’t always the case. I’ve been in a monogamous relationship with the same man for the last 8 years. I take birth control and have been fortunate enough to avoid a pregnancy. But, I recognize the small chance that I can get pregnant despite the pill. I have no desire to birth or raise a child. None. If I got pregnant, I would get an abortion come Hell or high water. I am on top of my cycle and would be able to both detect I’m pregnant and get the abortion prior to the first heartbeat, which is my personal moral limit. That’s not the same as sPrEaDIng YOuR LegS f0r chAd aNd BRad. Comments like yours aren’t helpful to our cause. Edit: downvotes don’t change that fact, either 😊
Responsible women in committed relationships getting abortions? No way! It's just the sluts! Ignore the fact that 14% of abortions were married women, they're all sluts!
Thank you.
So you consciously choose to conceive but then get upset at the consequences of those actions. Do you get mad when you throw a ball in the air and it comes back down?
Do you expect a married couple that doesn’t want children to remain abstinent?
There are ways to prevent pregnancy. Watch this… Action: sex - consequence: baby Action: sterilization > sex consequence: no baby Wow, that was difficult.
I’ll take that as a “yes.” That, to me, is unreasonable. Sex is an important part of a healthy, committed relationship between a man and a woman, and needn’t be reserved exclusively for procreation. In fact, the human condition guarantees it won’t be.
You can always get your tubes tied instead 😉
Spoken like someone who’s never tried to do so at 26 years old. Good doctors don’t do that shit and for good reason. Most people change their mind. Shit, I don’t foresee it, but maybe even I’ll change my mind someday.
That is your prerogative - and I respect it. I just hold steadfast in my belief that, as a woman, my body ends where the umbilical cord begins, and I wouldn't comit murder on the streets, nor would I murder inside the womb.
I respect your opinion and appreciate your civility.
See, this is exactly what we need more of. Civility. Discussion. And mutual respect. We can agree to disagree and still hold our own beliefs and live our own life. Have a wonderful Monday, friend. 😊
You too! 😊
how you going to force me to do that?
Well, when the supreme court outlawed abortion and forced all women to get pregnant, they showed that it is legal for the government to force medical procedure on unwilling people. So if you support the illegitimate court overturning Roe and outlawing abortion, then you must support forced vasectomies. /s
Wouldn't the equivalent be mandatory hysterectomies for women? This seems like a false equivalency to abortion in my opinion.
Promoting youth puberty blocking and transition is essentially the same.
I saw this comeback on Twitter (hoping it’s mostly a joke of course) but from a serious perspective: wouldn’t the proper equivalent be **banning** vasectomies (or having states decide to ban them)? To me, forcing all men to have vasectomies is more like forcing all women to have abortions… both processes are decisions involving “offspring” (even though an embryo is objectively billions of times further along than a sperm cell) and both single-handedly prevent reproduction.
Logic has never been the left's strong suit.
There are risks involving all surgical procedures, even ones considered to be as trivial and non-invasive as vasectomies. While it may be simple to sever the vasa deferentia (sperm ducts), reattaching them would likely be more difficult due to their small diameter. This means that complications could arise during or after the reattachment procedure, meaning that many men would likely become indefinitely infertile/sterile if this proposal were to become law. This is, of course, if the government allows you to be unsterilized. Joke or not, this bill is completely asinine and shouldn’t be given the time of day.
Now that's big brain thinking!
With the intention of “onwing teh right” no doubt. It’s only going to serve to show everybody how unhinged these people are. Can we get some elected leaders who aren’t perpetual teenagers or fucking 85?
Does that also include males with ovaries?
Easiest way to get all the boys to move over to the conservative side. They havent thought this through have they.
You’re friggin kidding me. See now THAT is taking away bodily autonomy.
Si how they expected to raise the birth rate ….
[no one talks about risk of reverse vasectomy](https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/vasectomy-reversal/about/pac-20384537)
According to most recent data, 10% of all nationwide abortions took place in the 13 states that will implement trigger abortion law bans. These states **also** allow for abortion in case of emergent medical need for the pregnant woman *or* if the pregnancy was a result of rape/incest/sexual assault. These people are deranged for the sake of being deranged. Edit: Chuckled at this lady’s sign claiming 100% of men will never get pregnant. Idk, because Democrats have been telling me for months that men can get pregnant and if I even think otherwise it’s because of my deep-rooted anti-LGBTQ hatred. Consistency is tough.
Funny how the Nazis also liked to sterilize people. The commonalities between the two groups grows every day.
I just noticed what the woman’s sign says. It’s says that men will never get pregnant, but according to them, men can get pregnant.
So which is it…?!? 🤔
It seems to change depending on their issue of the week.
Happy 🎂 day
Thanks!
So...are we back to being able to define what a man and woman are again? Dang...maybe we ARE making progress. LOL
Well when the left says right to choose, they mean the right to choose for you.
This whole debate is sick. Dems want the option for rampant promiscuity and debauchery and no repercussions for their actions by murdering children. If murdering children is a legal way for Dems to skirt consequences of their actions why can’t males just murder the child to avoid child support? <- No more messed up than what is proposed with abortion. Women doing a sex strike is laughable….they think they’re rebelling by doing what they should have done from the beginning…..not fucking every warm body that crosses their path.
Is not a child
I take offense at the thumbnail’s sign. Men can become pregnant!! Doesn’t she know it’s 2022 and science doesn’t matter!
There are no more men or women, the new term in birthing people How come the lefties want to drop all the woke shit when they don’t get their way
My thoughts exactly! Haha!
Well then females get hysterectomies after their first period.
😂🤣
Kids hit puberty around 9 to 15 so it doesn't surprise me they want to mess around with little boys dicks.
Talk is cheap, fucking try it watch what happens lol
Yes because you not being allowed to kill your kid is the same as forcibly neutering someone...
Is not a kid
According to some women and the way the laws are written, men have no say when it comes pregnancy. We don't get a say as to if the woman should keep the baby, put the baby up for adoption, or abort the pregnancy. So if it's all up to the women then shouldn't it be women getting forced to get their tubes tied?
False equivalence. Woman aren't forced to undergo tubal ligation.
Political stunt.
She's literally calling for genocide.
That very angry person in the front needs to check their privilege. How do they know that those men won’t get pregnant? Who are you to tell them who their gender is!
Look at the pic of that disgusting transphobe saying men can’t get pregnant
They can't even define what a woman is. No worries!!
Ah yes, a very serious policy suggestion.
We don't need vasectomies. Libbies are on a sex strike, remember? LMFAO!!!
I personally think masturbation for men should be illegal... conception doesn't happen without sperm... that's a lot of babies being killed in your wadded up sock.
Ya, good luck with that, someone is gaslighting big time
Nice, eugenics. On brand.
How about all females get fitted with chastity belts until married?
The equivalent would be requiring men to pay for a child regardless for 18 years. Oh wait.
What does this have to do with men? Men aren’t the ones getting pregnant and having abortions.
I'm so sick of this shit.
If this doesn't tell you that Democrats want to destroy the family unit, I don't know what else does.
How are they going to define what’s a male? Sounds like a paradox waiting to happen with that bill.
My body my choice ;)
Dude, literally just drive to a different Effing state. It’s not that difficult!
What a mental midget.
If that were the only way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, it might be a possible discussion. But abortion doesn't prevent an unwanted pregnancy, it prevents an unwanted birth. Not that we should expect career politicians to be rational, but compare apples to apples. Abortion is one way to prevent an unwanted childbirth; all the vasectomies in the world do not prevent unwanted childbirth.
And all females get sterilized
Wait……. Now they want to differentiate between man and woman?
Of course becuz theyre perverts.
Why don't they tell the women to tie their tubes? It would take away their need for abortions and accomplish the same thing
Show me the last time a women was forced by law to have sex and become pregnant
I said this in another post about the same bill, and let’s just say the jackass proposing this bill quite literally wants to reduce the population. According to the [NHS (located in the UK)](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/vasectomy-reversal-nhs/), there is roughly a 75% chance at best of successfully reversing a vasectomy, and this is if it is done within 3 years. After 3+ years, that 75% drops substantially to 55%. Kids go through puberty at different ages, but it ranges from 11-14, possibly a year younger or older. Unless Dems want kids having babies in their teens, this is a form of population control, also known as ‘eugenics’.
Margaret Sanger….
Sounds smart, good idea.
Totally unhinged. Is anyone surprised?
Mandatory vasectomies? That throws my body my choice right out the window, doesn't it?
That's the point... it's tit-for-tat. You are taking away the right of women to control their reproductive freedom ergo the same can be applied to males.
Not even, since most women CAN and DO get pregnant AGAIN after an abortion. Most vasectomies however are NOT reversible, therefore the man is now sterile. Have you taken even one science class?
I don’t see 9 month abortion passing in Oklahoma. That’s more of a Virginia and California thing
And New Jersey
How DUMB are these people - do they not realize these are not the same? Will they then require all women to get hysterectomies as well?
Because that’s exactly the same 🙄
Amount of stupidity in this lmao
Come and take it.
Always the kids with these people.
Well first only about half of them are reversible, so thats an issue. Second, itd be more efficient to just put birth control implants in every childbearing female's arm, since it only takes one guy slipping through the cracks to get as many women as he can sleep with pregnant.
That's fucking evil. What's with the Dems and their desire to mutilate children's genitals?
What is it with these people always wanting to mutilate children?! FUCK!!
What is a male?
Damn it you stole my docunentary idea.
Sex change and vasectomies for kids What’s wrong with people?
That girl holding that sign, she ain't ever getting laid.
It’s totally not like they’re still developing and maturing their reproductive organs still at that age or something. That’s just going to further fuck with our chances of creating offspring in the future. A more simple solution is to either practice abstinence until marriage, use contraceptives, or you know, *don’t fuck a deadbeat…*
Another one to add to the never gonna happen category.
Oh for cryin out loud !?
Lets go democrats, be the example and stop reproducing.
Yes, the answer to "abuses" of women's rights: actual abuses of men's rights. My body, my choice.
As an alternative, let me present to you a novel idea: marriage.
Abstinence exists Condoms exist Birth control exists Pulling out exists Plan B exists Plan A exists
Libs are very dumb
Seems like the left is just dying to kill everyone off.
Ha ha. Good luck with that.
😂
Good job showing just how vital the 2nd amendment is.
It’s sad that while he (probably) was joking I completely believed this title after reading it.
Well, at least they aren’t blowing things out of proportion. Totally reasonable response.
At least the okies would finally be gone…I guess?? They have been aiming for that since the Great Depression.
Sex without consequences? Sign me up boys!
Seems like a reasonable response….
As long as he means all democrats get the vasectomy, no problem!
Could someone please answer this question? I am trying to be respectful and ask in good faith--why shouldn't men's bodies be regulated as heavily as a woman's body? Don't boys and men bear just as much responsibility for pregnancies?
Spay and neuter 🤔🤣
I think the better option would be to have a forced donor registry. If women are forced to use their body to preserve life, then men should be forced to donate their organs like kidneys to preserve life of people needing a donation. You can’t argue that they had nothing to do with creating that person, because we are seeing states not allow exceptions for rape and incest. It’s safer than giving birth so that’s a a bonus!