Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:25 PM
G_j (40,349 posts)
Senator adds “Every Sperm is Sacred” amendment onto Oklahoma personhood bill
http://feministing.com/2012/02/09/senator-adds-every-sperm-is-sacred-amendment-onto-oklahoma-personhood-bill/
Senator adds “Every Sperm is Sacred” amendment onto Oklahoma personhood bill By Vanessa | Published: February 9, 2012 Amazing. After Oklahoma conservatives introduced a “personhood” bill to the state Senate on Monday, Sen. Constance Johnson decided to follow in Virginia Senator Janet Howell’s footsteps and attach an amendment in protest, which would add this language to the bill: However, 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. Jezebel adds that another pro-choice senator added an amendment: Another pro-choice legislator, Democrat Jim Wilson, attempted to add an amendment to the bill that would require the father of the child to be financially responsible for the woman’s health care, housing, transportation, and nourishment while she was pregnant. ..more..
|
17 replies, 3216 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
G_j | Feb 2012 | OP |
russspeakeasy | Feb 2012 | #1 | |
Angry Dragon | Feb 2012 | #2 | |
russspeakeasy | Feb 2012 | #4 | |
dipsydoodle | Feb 2012 | #5 | |
madinmaryland | Feb 2012 | #15 | |
dipsydoodle | Feb 2012 | #16 | |
sarcasmo | Feb 2012 | #3 | |
newspeak | Feb 2012 | #7 | |
G_j | Feb 2012 | #9 | |
LynneSin | Feb 2012 | #12 | |
LeftinOH | Feb 2012 | #6 | |
titaniumsalute | Feb 2012 | #8 | |
xchrom | Feb 2012 | #10 | |
LynneSin | Feb 2012 | #13 | |
titaniumsalute | Feb 2012 | #14 | |
sarcasmo | Feb 2012 | #17 | |
mysuzuki2 | Feb 2012 | #11 |
Response to G_j (Original post)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:27 PM
russspeakeasy (6,539 posts)
1. The Onion, ....right ?
Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #2)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:35 PM
russspeakeasy (6,539 posts)
4. good god..., holy shit, and I'll be damned. Incredible.
Response to russspeakeasy (Reply #1)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:38 PM
dipsydoodle (42,239 posts)
5. No - Monty Python
Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #5)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 02:46 PM
madinmaryland (64,343 posts)
15. That's what I thought when I saw this thread!!
![]() |
Response to madinmaryland (Reply #15)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 03:00 PM
dipsydoodle (42,239 posts)
16. It wouldn't be easy
to find use of that term which preceeded Monty Python so we might as well call it there's by right.
![]() |
Response to G_j (Original post)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:32 PM
sarcasmo (23,267 posts)
3. Let me get this right. My daily act that keeps my prostate healthy and mind sane makes me
a killer?
|
Response to sarcasmo (Reply #3)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:42 PM
newspeak (4,847 posts)
7. there must be something in the water in oklahoma
anyone who'd vote for the likes of inhofe (a guy who I think is nuttier than a fruit cake) and thinking the muslins are attempting to push sharia law on us-by god, gotta have an anti-sharia law. And didn't they refuse the mortgage settlement money to help their fellow homeless oklahomans? Now, I'd see doing it, if they were going after the banks for criminal prosecution; but being as how they love them some corporations and banksters, I don't think that's the case.
|
Response to sarcasmo (Reply #3)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:51 PM
G_j (40,349 posts)
9. these amendments were attached in protest nt
Response to sarcasmo (Reply #3)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 02:20 PM
LynneSin (95,337 posts)
12. Only if you think that monthly act that drives me bonkers, makes me grumpy,
causes me to lose my temper for no apparent reason and make those around me miserable contains a personhood in all that mess.
![]() |
Response to G_j (Original post)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:39 PM
LeftinOH (5,260 posts)
6. That could backfire: Some nutjobs may support it. n/t
Response to G_j (Original post)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 01:48 PM
titaniumsalute (4,742 posts)
8. I wish about 250 men would surround her house
and have the world's largest circle jerk. I can't even comprehend this insanity. So if I blow a load into my wife's back versus her vagina i could be violating the law in Oklahoma?
|
Response to titaniumsalute (Reply #8)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 02:05 PM
xchrom (108,903 posts)
10. It's a pro-choice ammendment attachment.
Taking the 'personhood' bill to it's extreme.
|
Response to titaniumsalute (Reply #8)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 02:21 PM
LynneSin (95,337 posts)
13. It's meant to help defeat the anti-choice bill
Since men have no problem controling women's reproductive organs then why shouldn't we have the right to control men's reproductive organs
|
Response to LynneSin (Reply #13)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 02:39 PM
titaniumsalute (4,742 posts)
14. Yup
I read the other articles about this and realized that SHE was the one making sense and being satirical.
|
Response to G_j (Original post)
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 02:15 PM
mysuzuki2 (3,521 posts)
11. I think this bill does not go far enough!
My body makes sperm and stores them for future use. If they are not used, they die and are reabsorbed. So by this same logic every woman who refuses to have sex with me (BTW this group comprises BY FAR the majority of women I know, damn it!) is in effect MURDERING those millions of unborn sperm cells that die a lonely death in my seminal vesicles or wherever. Therefore, declining to have sex with me constitutes genocide! All of the above is sheer nonsense of course. It's not that much more ridiculous than the proposal put forth by these state senators however.
|