Subscribe
Previous Post
Don’t worry, she’s joking. But she’s joking to make a really good point.
The controversial Senate Bill 1433, which is one of the “personhood laws” cropping up in conservative states is seeking to define life as begining at conception, and that “the unborn child at every stage of development (has) all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state.”
That makes it really hard to get an abortion.
Perhaps inspired by the Virginia State senator who proposed a mandatory rectal exam for men looking to recieve erectile dysfunction drugs, if women had to have an ultrasound to receive an abortion, Oklahoma Senator Constance Johnson – our new hero – added an “Every Sperm Is Sacred” amendment claiming that:
Any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child.
High five, lady.
(Though didn’t Elle Woods already make this argument in Legally Blonde?)
Still, high five.
this dumb nigger was not joking. she was just trying to save face by stating that she was joking. get off your charlie horses and face the truth: women are dumb. they are useless in anything other than the KITCHEN! put them back there, and the world will be a better place.
I realize that she did this as a joke to make a point.
But her attempt a making a point falls ridiculously flat because there is no parallel between ejaculation sans-vadge and procuring an abortion.
joking joking joking all are the jokers except me..ha ha ha ha
What Ok. really needs to do is pass a law that creates a new bureau. “The office of religious oversight”. The mandate would be to review all bills (and the people that sponsored it). Any bill that is based on any (or all) religious teachings would be struck and the person who sponsored it would be removed from office and brought up on charges of violating the civil rights of everyone in the state who isn’t of a religion that would support the sponsored bill.
I really don’t know how on earth the Supreme (idiot)Court can decide that this is anything but unconstitutional. What they have decided is that States can chose to adopt a religion (if in effect and not in name). So, I guess that means that if i live in a Christian controlled state (i.e. Ok.) that I should be able to do anything I want to any “Infidel” as long as its intention is for the death of said “Infidel” right? Since Its only the dominate religions beliefs that are being upheld by the laws of the state…
-_- this is a valid argument but it poses a LOT of risks. One being Homosexual rights. I was from OK, I know that it’s not a homosexual rights state but making it illegal pretty much for them to have fun!? Second off, condoms are used for safe sexual intercourse not just for contraception, but for the fact that there are STD’s out there. This means that if no one is wearing condoms, more people will be getting STD’s. Hmmm and third off, Oklahoma is known for it’s unwed mothers especially in small towns. There will be more in this case because if it’s illegal for a man to ejaculate anywhere else don’t you think it should be illegal for a woman to have birth control. Making ANOTHER point some women need it to control health related problems from menstrual cycles. This law is dangerous, though the argument is valid why it needs to be “in place” and could go through, it’s not a well thought out plan and causes many health hazards. I’m glad I moved to Nevada.
I do believe you missed the point. The reason that Constance Johnson added that extra wording, is to show exactly how STUPID the law they are trying to pass is. Not that she thinks that all sex is for procreation.
I wonder if any of the people posting about how we women love to gratuitously have abortions for fun support the death penalty?
If so, I wonder if they feel that showing the judge and jury photos of the accused as a toddler, and hearing a detailed list of every GOOD thing the accused has ever done, dating back to childhood, and then seeing the accused’s parents crying over what their child has become, would be legit?
How about giving the defence a period as long as the trial itself to read reports from the accused’s friends, partner or children (if any) and hearing from the person themselves all their disappointments and happy moments, so that they become fully ensconced in their minds as a real person, and more important than just their actions on one occasion?
If not, why not – it’s the same deal, using emotion to swing the decision in a highly important and significant event that some parts of society have sanctioned as a regrettable necessity.
“Though didn’t Elle Woods already make this argument in Legally Blonde?”
Yes, and that was a FICTITIOUS COMEDY. Children are REAL, and it does no harm to a woman whatsoever to have an ultrasound prior to a ‘procedure.’ (Not so for human bodies – who have functioning brains, hearts and visible pulses at the time of the ‘procedure’, BTW – getting ripped apart by vaccuums, burned inside & out by salt, or having scissors put into their brains because they haven’t happened to have moved 6 inches down a birth canal). Having all the information before ny medical ‘procedur’e USED to be bitterly fought for by patients … I guess ignorance is bliss if it’s to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. Apparently this woman has nothing better than to put up straw-man arguments.
Oh god, if this passes, I’m going to be put on trial for genocide.
The fact that anyone is taking this woman seriously is a joke by itself. DOes she or the GOP have nothing else to concern themselves with. It seems anytime they want votes from there base the jump right to abortion of a contraception. this is 2012. Our economy is terrible, mid east is is disarray, the environment is being assaulted, there’s human trafficking in America, the list goes on and on and this person wants me to hold it til I find a date. This is what she ‘s doing with your tax dollars.So will that make swallowing cannibalism? will that make pulling out Manslaughter? Will a hand job make a woman an accessory to Murder? the courts and jails will be full. Please do not pander to this, keep yo religious beliefs off the floor where real votes about real matters should be conducted
Your lack of reading comprehension is matched only by your atrocious treatment of the English language in the above comment.
The article was only a ~100 word little blurb, but I guess that was just too much for you huh?
I propose a new law – anyone who can’t pick the obviously sarcastic/ironic/just plain pisstake out of a selection of three stories, of which this HAS to be one (for all the hot-button issues which bring the morons crawling out) doesn’t get to vote, as their critical faculties and comprehension past a headline are obviously at a level of cognition which is a little below that of an adult pig.
Your reading comprehension is lacking. Let me guess: Oklahoma public education system?
Read the whole article. And spell check. Start with the first sentence actually. The one that says “Don’t worry, she’s joking. But she’s joking to make a really good point.”
To be fair, there are plenty of people in Oklahoma who are ashamed by the actions of our own state government (apparently not enough of us to change anything) and even a few of us who have been educated in Oklahoma can read and spell correctly!
NOTE: SHE WAS JOKING
Just pointing that out there to those who can’t read.
Seriously people…read the article before you post comments! The proposed legislation is a joke, used to make a point about other, equally ridiculous bills, that Republicans are actually trying to get passed. Sheesh!!
If this bitch think I any other man will actually follow the law, I mean really how are they gonna even enforce this. watch people fuck ?
someone doesn’t know how to read. unfortunate, since this article really did make a great point.
It’s obvious that the ability to read is an issue…. look at the grammar: “If this bitch think(s) I (or) any other man will follow (this) law, I mean….”
However, way to sound like a Caveman while making such a statement!
Cheers!
http://youtu.be/7y2KsU_dhwI
Stopped reading when I read “Virgina state Senator”
you too? but then again, this article is about a virgina…
The state of virginas.
My husband, who is an antiabortion activist, believes that life begins at conception.
Recently, he learned that he was conceived while his parents were on vacation in Jamaica, and he has come to the conclusion that he is therefore a Jamaican and is in this country illegally.
He is now talking about turning himself in and having himself deported. Am I married to a man of principle or a nut job?
He’s def a nut job. No doubt about that!
Please, god, tell me you’re joking. If you’re not joking, please tell me you don’t have any kids with this guy.
I thought you should leave him at “antiabortion activist.”
That theory of his excludes everyone conceived on a foreign honeymoon – oh, the lulz! I think the population of the Maldives, Bahamas, and the sunnier bits of Europe just doubled overnight…
Most of the justification people use for being anti-abortion comes from scripture – before you let him turn himself in you need to check that his doctrinal reasons don’t also include a bit about a wife not abandoning her husband – unless you want to be deported to!
(But, this IS a joke – right?)
Clearly, he’s joking. Or you are.
a nut job
No offense…. but that sounds ridiculously crazy….. Just because his parents had sex in Jamaica and created him there… does not make him Jamaican…… but On the other hand…. He sounds very interesting…..
Well if any, or both of his parents were US citizens then by jus sanguinis he is a US citizen too, no matter where he was born or conceived. In US law there is both “right of blood” and “right of soil” when it comes to citizenship. So even if true, his argument is invalid.
Please inform your husband, assuming he was being serious, that there are no US citizenship requirements concerning conception. He’s covered under jus sanguinis (law of blood) because his parents are US citizens. He’s also covered under jus soli (law of soil), because he was *born* in the United States (presumably that’s the case, anyways).
PJ O’Rourke mused about when life begins, in a legal sense. Right-to-life activists claim to know. But what if they’re wrong and the soul is in the egg and we have to arrest every ovulating woman who failed to get laid? What if it’s in the sperm, and every adolescent boy has to be tried on a hundred million counts of manslaughter?
In that case, I should be able to sue every man I know who has viable sperm for not 1. impregnating me, thus causing the death of my poor little ova, and also for not 2. marrying me/supporting me for life!
(That goes fine until I get sued for illegal disposal of human remains – for all the san-pro I’ve binned or flushed in the past 26 years…)
Seriously – good on her for pointing up the complete absurdity of these laws!
I’ve tried to become more spiritual the last couple of years – yeah within the context of my own agnostic beliefs. But for me, the composition of a soul is a moving target shaped by a person’s individual actions in his or her life. In my mind the soul doesn’t exist until you’re born, and once you are, it is yours to make of it. Obviously my views are pro-Choice.
Yeah ! I like that one!
Tired of getting splashed in the eye is she?
Not very good at reading, are you?
HELLO PEOPLE. She added the bill to make the point that bills like this are RIDICULOUS!
yes they are
Is everyone dumb? It says she is joking to make a point right at the beginning.
SHE’S A LYING HYPOCRITE I JIZZED ON HER FACE LAST NIGHT.SHE ALSO HAS HAD 2 ABORTIONS AND I HAVE PROOF
Look! More people who don’t get sarcasm!
Well, I guess you wouldn’t be able to throw a guy in prison either. Can’t throw countless innocent children in there with him. Would be unjust, right?