I guess this is supposed to be a Leftist retort to the Texas heartbeat law, but I fail to see how attacking men in Pennsylvania does anything to advance abortion rights in Texas.

Moreover, I’m not sure how a ban or abortion equates to compulsory sterilization.

What do do know is that any time a politician talks about compulsory surgical sterilization every hackle in my body goes up and my trigger finger starts burning.

Compulsory sterilization has long been a weapon of Progressive tyrants against the undesirables, from Nazi sterilization of the Jews to American Progressive eugenicists.

This isn’t funny and it’s not an empty threat.

It’s cruel and unusual violence and will be responded to as such.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

20 thoughts on “I don’t care what sort political theater this is supposed to be but it’s got me oiling guns and loading mags”
    1. And does he know the rate of men in that community with multiple babymommas that doesn’t support any of them?

  1. Say you want racist euthanasia without saying you want racist euthanasia.

    (I know the term might be debatable in this context but I don’t think forced sterilization or forced birth control is morally superior to “mercy killing” undesirables).

    1. No men go near liberal women anyway.

      Yes, they may have a few friends with Y chromosomes. They may even have sex with, or marry them. But they do not fit the definition of man.

      1. The nice thing is, if you track the birth statistics, leftist whites are unproducing themselves, while conservative whites are still having lots of children.

        Within the next generation, whites will be bouncing back in numbers as the right-wingers keep breeding and the leftists start the great die-off of empowered wymyns, cat-ladies, girlie-men and gender-confused.

  2. I guess “inseminators” is moronspeak for “man”?

    Guns and mags would work; rope is another option and when used openly has additional educational benefits.

    1. Per the leftists. Not only men can inseminate. Women, gender fluids, trans, whatever can inseminate. Declare you are a microwave oven right before sex, and you are an inseminating microwave oven.

  3. I find it interesting how so many of these bills that they are introducing as “Equivalent but backwards” against the Texas heartbeat bill don’t actually match. They only seem to be punishment bills. Bills designed to punish the people they think are at fault for the bill they don’t like.

    So a man that has 3 kids must be sterilized. If you are a man, then when you turn 40 you must be sterilized. (I seem to remember some history about some group of people that was really into forced sterilization, don’t remember exactly which group it was).

    This is suppose to be a counter for “forcing” a woman that gets pregnant and doesn’t know it for over six weeks to have to carry the child to term.

    So lets run the possibles:
    1) She wants to get pregnant with the man she is having sex with.
    2) She wants to have sex with the man she is having intercourse with but doesn’t want to get pregnant.
    3) She doesn’t want sex with the man that is raping her.

    In case 1, it doesn’t freaking matter at all. She got exactly what she wanted.

    In case 2, there are lots of options, everything from keeping her legs closed to sterilization (voluntary) by either or both partners, temporary sterilization for her (the pill), or using barrier methods.

    In case 3, she has multiple options. She should start with reporting. But there are “day after” pills and she can monitor herself for pregnancy. Maybe she goes to her doctor and says “I was raped, I’m not on BC, I will need a blood tests for pregnancy over the next 5 weeks just to make sure I didn’t catch and if I did, I’ll need that abortion”

    The problem only occurs in case 2. She’s having sex with somebody she doesn’t want to have a baby with. That could be all of her sexual partners. I.e. she’s just having sex for fun with multiple partners.

    So what the left is upset about is the woman that is having sex, that doesn’t want a baby, who may or may not be using some sort of BC and who doesn’t notice that she’s pregnant before there is a heartbeat.

    Maybe she should using testing? Say testing every two weeks? I don’t know, seems to me that this all comes down to somebody doing something they could avoid doing and catching.

    When I program, I must program for edge cases. This means that I must be prepared to handle weird things. For some reason, the left takes great joy in using the edge cases as the reason for breaking everything else. Some one might get raped and might not be able to report it and might not test in time so she shows up at 7 weeks for an abortion because she didn’t know in time, therefore the law must be changed.

    Our problem is that every time the conservatives make a law with exceptions, we find that the left drives buses through those exceptions.

    1. RE: The “edge cases”:

      That’s the Left’s M.O. Take the least common — but most emotionally appealing — edge case for which the Right has already provided an exception, treat it as if it’s the most normal, and declare the law unfair and invalid.

      [apologies in advance for uncomfortable imagery ahead]

      One thing that appeared on my Faceb**k feed reposted by Leftist friends in response to the Texas “heartbeat” law went something like: “Things an 11-year-old is barred by law from doing: Voting, driving, ordering alcoholic beverages, [insert several others]. Things an 11-year-old is required by law to do: Carry a pregnancy to full term.”

      Nevermind that pregnant 11-year-olds are extremely rare.

      More to the point, nevermind that even Texas would allow the termination of a such a pregnancy under multiple exceptions written into the law:
      – Intercourse with a child is rape — a criminal act — and the law excepts rape and incest victims.
      – A child of that age is not biologically capable of safely carrying a pregnancy to term, and the law excepts actions taken to protect the life and health of the mother, at any stage of pregnancy.

      And nevermind that the vast majority of abortions performed in America are not for rape or incest victims, not on young children, and not to preserve the mother’s life or health. No, the vast majority of abortions in America are elective, because the mother simply doesn’t want to have the child her voluntary actions conceived. That’s the “mainstream” case, and not coincidentally it’s the most morally and ethically questionable. Thus, the need to focus attention away from the mainstream and onto the furthest edge.

      And so if you listen to the rubes on FB — and apparently the pols IRL — the edge cases are both common and unreasonably restricted. In reality, they are neither, but when has the Left ever let fact and truth get in the way of The Narrative [TM]?

  4. I guess this is supposed to be a Leftist retort to the Texas heartbeat law, but I fail to see how attacking men in Pennsylvania does anything to advance abortion rights in Texas.

    It’s not about “advancing abortion rights in Texas”.

    It’s about revenge, pure and simple. Leftists across the board have shown themselves to be vengeful and vindictive. This is just another example.

    That it targets the wrong population doesn’t matter. That women can be just as irresponsible as men and have more kids than they can support doesn’t matter. That enacting this law in Pennsylvania won’t do anything to “fix” Texas doesn’t matter.

    The Left has a target (men) and a goal (to punish). That’s all they need. That’s the point.

    1. A couple additional notes:

      – The proposal doesn’t differentiate between irresponsible males and responsible men who support their children. A man who conceives and raises three children with his wife, is treated the same as one who conceives three children with three different baby-mamas and abandons them all.

      – The verbiage, “after having their third child” — instead of, say, “after their third unintended conception” — will encourage men to pressure women into more abortions. To be clear, I wouldn’t support either of them; I’m merely pointing out that the implications and outcomes are very different, and I believe they chose the one they did intentionally — to shift the law’s focus onto actual men and away from baby-daddies.

      – A young male on a bender (or a serial rapist) could “inseminate” dozens of women before the “6 weeks after having their third child” deadline passes. Tell me you want to encourage irresponsible or criminal behavior without telling me you want to encourage irresponsible or criminal behavior.

      – Hypothetically, suppose a 45-year-old man moves into Pennsylvania with his wife and five children. Will his new neighbors be able to call in this “scofflaw” and will he be held criminally-liable for his born-out-of-state family? Suppose three of the kids are adopted and/or from the wife’s prior marriage, and only two are biologically his. Is he still liable?

    2. There is no such thing as “abortion rights”. It is a word salad that hides what is actually happen. The same as “woman’s reproductive health care.” That at least exists, abortion isn’t “reproductive health care”.

      What they are talking about is the *ability* to get an abortion from a medical provider.

      When you strip them of their word games, it becomes more obvious what they are doing.

      1. Correct. “Abortion rights” don’t exist, and couching them in the envelope as “reproductive rights” or “women’s health” is a deliberate deception.

        Even Roe v. Wade didn’t establish “abortion rights” — don’t fall for the Left’s synopsis. All it says is that a woman who has had an abortion cannot be forced to disclose her medical history. Roe v. Wade was a f***ing medical privacy case!

        We could easily argue that the case is 100% moot, given that HIPAA/HIPPA is now the law of the land (actually, I’d love to see that argued in court) so we can stop obsessing about it.

  5. What they have in common is obvious when you realize abortion “rights” have nothing to do with the “rights” of the woman but is about depopulating the planet. They prefer abortion because it lets them both kill a baby and mentally damage women.

    1. Not quite. It’s the slightly-updated slightly-disguised modern version of “eugenics”, a “progressive” project to remove so-called “undesirables” from the gene pool. For evidence, consider the racial distribution of abortion users.

  6. What happens if Roe v Wade and Casey get overturned?

    The Abortion Battle goes back to the individual states. Texas, Louisiana, and probably half or more of the states outlaw abortion. California, New Jersey, Massachusetss, DC, and New York keep it legal right up to birth. Other states may restrict it to twenty weeks or thirty weeks. People that really want an abortion will travel to states where it is legal. Just like they did in 1972, if they were pregnant and wanted an abortion.

    US Congress will loudly posture at both extremes. The mushy center will desperately try to avoid the issue. Taking a stand Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion will guarantee either a strong primary challenge or a strong election challenge. I expect the Do-Nothing Wings of the Uniparty will be happy to leave the issue to the states. The miserable louts cannot even do the few jobs the US Constitution requires of them, passing a budget and declaring War before we use military force.

Login or register to comment.