Alabama Democrat proposes bill mandating all men have vasectomy at age 50 or after third child

[JustAGuy1]

Alabama Democrat Rolanda Hollis proposes a bill REQUIRING MEN OVER 50 or over to have a vasectomy...OR ANY MALE, ANY AGE, after their 3rd child!

Yahoo Lifestyle
Alabama lawmaker responds to abortion ban with mandatory vasectomy bill: 'It always takes two to tango'
The bill, Hollis says in a statement she shared with Yahoo Lifestyle, “is meant to neutralize last year’s abortion ban bill, and sends the message that men should not be legislating what women do with their bodies.” Further, she told AL.com, “It always takes two to tango. We can’t put all the responsibility on women. Men need to be responsible also.”

The online backlash was swift, of course, with critics calling it “wrong,” “sick,” and “Communism,” although plenty of supporters got her point, and celebrated it, saying, “Ha! Stay out of my uterus!” and “Wahoo!”

I can understand why a woman would not want you anywhere near her uterus.

 

[Dragonlady]

..... The equivalency is in......

Shut the **** up. The only "equivalency" would be proposing involuntary serialization for both men and women. I don't want to kill or sterilize anyone. You immoral, illogical asshole leftists cannot say that same.

It’s the flip side of the same coin. ......

It's nothing of the sort. How ******* stupid are you? The only equivalent action would be the forced sterilization of both men and women. Forced sterilization vs NOT killing the innocent are in no way equivalent. How do you function on a daily basis with such an utter lack of basic logic?

Not according to the Catholic Church. Masturbation is WRONG because God intended that seed to get some woman pregnant. Pulling out is wrong - God killed Onan for "spilling his seed on the ground" Any sex which is NOT for procreation is wrong and sinful.

You want to put an end to abortion, stop allowing men to spread their seed in an indescrimminate way. Men are clearly incapable of controlling themselves in this regard. If abortion is really the crime against humanity that you claim it is, why are YOU unwilling to have a simple operation to ensure that YOU will never cause a woman to have an abortion. This is the height of personal responsibility to prevent abortion.

Again MEN should be the one's to have the operation because it doesn't endanger their ability to have children later. I had a tubal ligation after my son was born, and had it reversed when I remarried. I have an incision from my belly button to my hair line from that operation. It was a 4 hour surgery, and I was off work for 6 weeks. I only had a 40% chance of success and a high risk of ectopic pregnancy (risking death), but I beat all the odds and had a healthy baby.

For men, both the snipping and the unsnipping are much easier, cheaper, and more easily reversible. There is no physical danger to the man that could kill him like ectopic pregnancy. You can go back to work within days. And you can know that you will never be responsible for a woman having an abortion.

 

[Vastator]

..... The equivalency is in......

Shut the **** up. The only "equivalency" would be proposing involuntary serialization for both men and women. I don't want to kill or sterilize anyone. You immoral, illogical asshole leftists cannot say that same.

It’s the flip side of the same coin. ......

It's nothing of the sort. How ******* stupid are you? The only equivalent action would be the forced sterilization of both men and women. Forced sterilization vs NOT killing the innocent are in no way equivalent. How do you function on a daily basis with such an utter lack of basic logic?

Not according to the Catholic Church. Masturbation is WRONG because God intended that seed to get some woman pregnant. Pulling out is wrong - God killed Onan for "spilling his seed on the ground" Any sex which is NOT for procreation is wrong and sinful.

You want to put an end to abortion, stop allowing men to spread their seed in an indescrimminate way. Men are clearly incapable of controlling themselves in this regard. If abortion is really the crime against humanity that you claim it is, why are YOU unwilling to have a simple operation to ensure that YOU will never cause a woman to have an abortion. This is the height of personal responsibility to prevent abortion.

Again MEN should be the one's to have the operation because it doesn't endanger their ability to have children later. I had a tubal ligation after my daughter was born, and had it reversed when I remarried. I have an incision from my belly button to my hair line from that operation. It was a 4 hour surgery, and I was off work for 6 weeks. I only had a 40% chance of success and a high risk of ectopic pregnancy (risking death), but I beat all the odds and had a healthy baby.

For men, both the snipping and the unsnipping are much easier, cheaper, and more easily reversible. There is no physical danger to the man that could kill him like ectopic pregnancy. You can go back to work within days. And you can know that you will never be responsible for a woman having an abortion.

Ohhh the poor helpless women lacking agency, or the ability to say no... Sniff sniff, what happened to “my body, my choice”? Or is that mantra reserved only for killing your children?

 

[dblack]

View attachment 307432

Horseshit. It's not "someone else" until it's born. That's what "born" means.

Genetic testing handily dispenses with that fallacy...

It's not a fallacy. It's a simple definition. Birth is where we draw the line between a person and not yet a person.

No. That’s where you try to draw the line in order to justify murder. The genetics are clear on the matter.

Nope. It's where the line has always been. You're trying to move the line to justify state sovereignty over a woman's body. I reject that. Neither the womb, nor it's contents, is state property.

 

[Vastator]

View attachment 307432

Horseshit. It's not "someone else" until it's born. That's what "born" means.

Genetic testing handily dispenses with that fallacy...

It's not a fallacy. It's a simple definition. Birth is where we draw the line between a person and not yet a person.

No. That’s where you try to draw the line in order to justify murder. The genetics are clear on the matter.

Nope. It's where the line has always been. You're trying to move the line to justify state sovereignty over a woman's body. I reject that. Neither the womb, nor it's contents, is state property.

And. That’s where your wrong again. No where in the Constitution does it state that a person is absent their rights, by virtue of their location being inside a uterus.

Furthermore, no one gives a shit what you do with your body. The abortion issue is about the child not you. Not “women”. And I’ll keep kicking in into your head till it sticks. Don’t believe me? Try running your fingers through a band saw; and see how many people give a shit.
There endeth today’s lesson..

 

[Vastator]

V

 

[dblack]

Horseshit. It's not "someone else" until it's born. That's what "born" means.

Genetic testing handily dispenses with that fallacy...

It's not a fallacy. It's a simple definition. Birth is where we draw the line between a person and not yet a person.

No. That’s where you try to draw the line in order to justify murder. The genetics are clear on the matter.

Nope. It's where the line has always been. You're trying to move the line to justify state sovereignty over a woman's body. I reject that. Neither the womb, nor it's contents, is state property.

And. That’s where your wrong again. No where in the Constitution does it state that a person is absent their rights, by virtue of their location being inside a uterus.

That's just another circular argument. You're assuming the conclusion as your premise; namely that a fetus is a legal person with rights.

 

[Dragonlady]

..... The equivalency is in......

Shut the **** up. The only "equivalency" would be proposing involuntary serialization for both men and women. I don't want to kill or sterilize anyone. You immoral, illogical asshole leftists cannot say that same.

It’s the flip side of the same coin. ......

It's nothing of the sort. How ******* stupid are you? The only equivalent action would be the forced sterilization of both men and women. Forced sterilization vs NOT killing the innocent are in no way equivalent. How do you function on a daily basis with such an utter lack of basic logic?

Not according to the Catholic Church. Masturbation is WRONG because God intended that seed to get some woman pregnant. Pulling out is wrong - God killed Onan for "spilling his seed on the ground" Any sex which is NOT for procreation is wrong and sinful.

You want to put an end to abortion, stop allowing men to spread their seed in an indescrimminate way. Men are clearly incapable of controlling themselves in this regard. If abortion is really the crime against humanity that you claim it is, why are YOU unwilling to have a simple operation to ensure that YOU will never cause a woman to have an abortion. This is the height of personal responsibility to prevent abortion.

Again MEN should be the one's to have the operation because it doesn't endanger their ability to have children later. I had a tubal ligation after my daughter was born, and had it reversed when I remarried. I have an incision from my belly button to my hair line from that operation. It was a 4 hour surgery, and I was off work for 6 weeks. I only had a 40% chance of success and a high risk of ectopic pregnancy (risking death), but I beat all the odds and had a healthy baby.

For men, both the snipping and the unsnipping are much easier, cheaper, and more easily reversible. There is no physical danger to the man that could kill him like ectopic pregnancy. You can go back to work within days. And you can know that you will never be responsible for a woman having an abortion.

Ohhh the poor helpless women lacking agency, or the ability to say no... Sniff sniff, what happened to “my body, my choice”? Or is that mantra reserved only for killing your children?

No, my body my choice is the mantra reserved for deciding whether or not you should have a child. Not whether or not you should have sex with your husband. Most states say that my husband can divorce me if I refuse to have relations with him.

You're trying to suck and blow and at the same time. You're trying to place all of the onus on women to prevent pregnancy, and then blaming them for failing to deny conjugal rights to their husbands. We don't get pregant by ourselves. If women are so amoral as to spread their legs for anyone, you should be the bigger man here and save us from ourselves.

Having a baby is forever. Shouldn't parents be willing and able to welcome that child, and given it the best possible start, instead of being born into dire poverty with no prospects of opportunities in future. Quality parenting and a stable environment matters. We want parents to be in a position to give the best possible start to little ones. Parenting is hard enough all on its own, even when you're in a good economically stable position to welcome them.

That horror you're feeling in the pit of your stomach at the thought of being forced to have a simple medical procedure that you can reverse with no damage later, PALES in comparison to the horror women feel at the thought of the state having the right to force them to have a baby they're not in a position to raise. Two years and irreversible damage to their bodies, and financial situation, versus a few minutes in the doctors office, and a sore groin for a couple of day.

What's holding you back?

 

[dblack]

The real issue of this thread is the propaganda machine distributing the fake news. Did any of you people even question what the "Yellowhammer" website was all about? Did any of you try to find corroborating articles about the story? How many of you (be honest) actually realized the bill in question wasn't for real, that it was satirical in intent?

 

[Dragonlady]

Horseshit. It's not "someone else" until it's born. That's what "born" means.

Genetic testing handily dispenses with that fallacy...

It's not a fallacy. It's a simple definition. Birth is where we draw the line between a person and not yet a person.

No. That’s where you try to draw the line in order to justify murder. The genetics are clear on the matter.

Nope. It's where the line has always been. You're trying to move the line to justify state sovereignty over a woman's body. I reject that. Neither the womb, nor it's contents, is state property.

And. That’s where your wrong again. No where in the Constitution does it state that a person is absent their rights, by virtue of their location being inside a uterus.

Furthermore, no one gives a shit what you do with your body. The abortion issue is about the child not you. Not “women”. And I’ll keep kicking in into your head till it sticks. Don’t believe me? Try running your fingers through a band saw; and see how many people give a shit.
There endeth today’s lesson..

No where in the Constitution is a "person" defined as a "human genetic material", either. If you're not breathing, you are not living.

 

[Vastator]

Genetic testing handily dispenses with that fallacy...

It's not a fallacy. It's a simple definition. Birth is where we draw the line between a person and not yet a person.

No. That’s where you try to draw the line in order to justify murder. The genetics are clear on the matter.

Nope. It's where the line has always been. You're trying to move the line to justify state sovereignty over a woman's body. I reject that. Neither the womb, nor it's contents, is state property.

And. That’s where your wrong again. No where in the Constitution does it state that a person is absent their rights, by virtue of their location being inside a uterus.

That's just another circular argument. You're assuming the conclusion as your premise; namely that a fetus is a legal person with rights.

Genetics prove it’s a person.

 

[dblack]

It's not a fallacy. It's a simple definition. Birth is where we draw the line between a person and not yet a person.

No. That’s where you try to draw the line in order to justify murder. The genetics are clear on the matter.

Nope. It's where the line has always been. You're trying to move the line to justify state sovereignty over a woman's body. I reject that. Neither the womb, nor it's contents, is state property.

And. That’s where your wrong again. No where in the Constitution does it state that a person is absent their rights, by virtue of their location being inside a uterus.

That's just another circular argument. You're assuming the conclusion as your premise; namely that a fetus is a legal person with rights.

Genetics prove it’s a person.

No, genetics proves that you're an authoritarian statist hell bent on expanding the power of government to control our internal reproductive processes. That's just science.

 

[Vastator]

Shut the **** up. The only "equivalency" would be proposing involuntary serialization for both men and women. I don't want to kill or sterilize anyone. You immoral, illogical asshole leftists cannot say that same.

It’s the flip side of the same coin. ......

It's nothing of the sort. How ******* stupid are you? The only equivalent action would be the forced sterilization of both men and women. Forced sterilization vs NOT killing the innocent are in no way equivalent. How do you function on a daily basis with such an utter lack of basic logic?

Not according to the Catholic Church. Masturbation is WRONG because God intended that seed to get some woman pregnant. Pulling out is wrong - God killed Onan for "spilling his seed on the ground" Any sex which is NOT for procreation is wrong and sinful.

You want to put an end to abortion, stop allowing men to spread their seed in an indescrimminate way. Men are clearly incapable of controlling themselves in this regard. If abortion is really the crime against humanity that you claim it is, why are YOU unwilling to have a simple operation to ensure that YOU will never cause a woman to have an abortion. This is the height of personal responsibility to prevent abortion.

Again MEN should be the one's to have the operation because it doesn't endanger their ability to have children later. I had a tubal ligation after my daughter was born, and had it reversed when I remarried. I have an incision from my belly button to my hair line from that operation. It was a 4 hour surgery, and I was off work for 6 weeks. I only had a 40% chance of success and a high risk of ectopic pregnancy (risking death), but I beat all the odds and had a healthy baby.

For men, both the snipping and the unsnipping are much easier, cheaper, and more easily reversible. There is no physical danger to the man that could kill him like ectopic pregnancy. You can go back to work within days. And you can know that you will never be responsible for a woman having an abortion.

Ohhh the poor helpless women lacking agency, or the ability to say no... Sniff sniff, what happened to “my body, my choice”? Or is that mantra reserved only for killing your children?

No, my body my choice is the mantra reserved for deciding whether or not you should have a child. Not whether or not you should have sex with your husband. Most states say that my husband can divorce me if I refuse to have relations with him.

You're trying to suck and blow and at the same time. You're trying to place all of the onus on women to prevent pregnancy, and then blaming them for failing to deny conjugal rights to their husbands. We don't get pregant by ourselves. If women are so amoral as to spread their legs for anyone, you should be the bigger man here and save us from ourselves.

Having a baby is forever. Shouldn't parents be willing and able to welcome that child, and given it the best possible start, instead of being born into dire poverty with no prospects of opportunities in future. Quality parenting and a stable environment matters. We want parents to be in a position to give the best possible start to little ones. Parenting is hard enough all on its own, even when you're in a good economically stable position to welcome them.

That horror you're feeling in the pit of your stomach at the thought of being forced to have a simple medical procedure that you can reverse with no damage later, PALES in comparison to the horror women feel at the thought of the state having the right to force them to have a baby they're not in a position to raise. Two years and irreversible damage to their bodies, and financial situation, versus a few minutes in the doctors office, and a sore groin for a couple of day.

What's holding you back?

Look how quickly you ditch your own agency in the face of personal responsibility... You admit an inability to control your own impulse, and vagina; yet insist on being trusted with the responsibility of determining life or death for another. Lol You’re ******* insane...

 

[Vastator]

No. That’s where you try to draw the line in order to justify murder. The genetics are clear on the matter.

Nope. It's where the line has always been. You're trying to move the line to justify state sovereignty over a woman's body. I reject that. Neither the womb, nor it's contents, is state property.

And. That’s where your wrong again. No where in the Constitution does it state that a person is absent their rights, by virtue of their location being inside a uterus.

That's just another circular argument. You're assuming the conclusion as your premise; namely that a fetus is a legal person with rights.

Genetics prove it’s a person.

No, genetics proves that you're an authoritarian statist hell bent on expanding the power of government to control our internal reproductive processes. That's just science.

Actually that’s semantics..,

 

[Bobob]

We don't need a higher birthrate that's for sure.

I do believe that it was in response to the Republican Senate passing a bill to ban abortions in Alabama, kinda like a 'quid pro quo'.
You took it out of context, as that Democrat thinks that his proposal would resolve the abortion issue. Sorta like an equal rights thing.
Catch my drift?

 

[22lcidw]

We don't need a higher birthrate that's for sure.

I do believe that it was in response to the Republican Senate passing a bill to ban abortions in Alabama, kinda like a 'quid pro quo'.
You took it out of context, as that Democrat thinks that his proposal would resolve the abortion issue. Sorta like an equal rights thing.
Catch my drift?

The person who proposed the vasectomy law is a guy?

 

[dblack]

We don't need a higher birthrate that's for sure.

I do believe that it was in response to the Republican Senate passing a bill to ban abortions in Alabama, kinda like a 'quid pro quo'.
You took it out of context, as that Democrat thinks that his proposal would resolve the abortion issue. Sorta like an equal rights thing.
Catch my drift?

The website that published the article (yellowhammernews.com) is the guilty party. That's who took the bill out of context and tried to pretend that Democrats actually want to mandate vasectomies. That website was started by Trump's "special assistant" Cliff Sims. This is deliberately misleading, fake news - propaganda.

 

[Bobob]

We don't need a higher birthrate that's for sure.

I do believe that it was in response to the Republican Senate passing a bill to ban abortions in Alabama, kinda like a 'quid pro quo'.
You took it out of context, as that Democrat thinks that his proposal would resolve the abortion issue. Sorta like an equal rights thing.
Catch my drift?

The website that published the article (yellowhammernews.com) is the guilty party. That's who took the bill out of context and tried to pretend that Democrats actually want to mandate vasectomies. That website was started by Trump's "special assistant" Cliff Sims. This is deliberately misleading, fake news - propaganda.

Typical Trump shenanigans and lies that his uninformed followers buy into.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Yep, the feminists would then be screaming at you for not getting them pregnant.

LOL. 7 out of 10 women would not scream bloody murder if their male partner was responsible, in a relationship pregnancy is a topic that both must agree on. One night stands is not something a single or married women would do intentionally to become pregnant.

In fact in all cases when intercourse is on the bed, responsible men always ask if the women is protected, and if not has ready a condom.

One night stands didnt start happening in multitudes until that FREE sex, drugs and rock and roll happened in the 1960's. Then when hollyweird started showing sex on tv all the time, you wonder why kids these days are ******* at 10....Thanks Oblummer(the brown turd).

Clearly you are a racist, and likely don't have a clue about one night stands. It had nothing to do with rock and roll, drugs or Hollywood X and R rated films. On May 4th, 1960 the FDA approved the Pill which liberated females to engage in sexual activity without the fear of becoming pregnant.

Bwaaaaaahhhaaaaaaaa…...As long as the girl takes the pill....but what if she doesnt? Is it the males fault or the baby's? No it is the woman's fault yet she either kills the baby or makes the man pay for her mistake...You are one dumb mother ******..

No, it's the male's fault for not wearing a condom. Sperm is necessary to create an unwanted pregnancy and males can create FAR MORE unwanted pregnancies than women can.

Males must be made to control their sperm one way or the other. Snip snip ************.

Did you ever hear about the aspirin birth control system?

But since Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinsten, Jeffie Epstein, Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, and other liberal elites want their women easy, here is the way girls are taught today.

I call them sluts or savages.....But my favorite is still the SERF.....

 

[BlindBoo]

View attachment 307432

Socialists co-opting all baby factories.