BREAKING: Ohio lawmakers have proposed a new law that bans men from ejaculating without intent of conception, would fine men up to $10,000 per ejaculation. pic.twitter.com/eOtMUatSPt
— Daily Loud (@DailyLoud) February 14, 2025
Not that anyone would ever really get charged. And obviously and admittedly, the bill will not get passed. Republicans control the Ohio legislature.
These Democrats are introducing The Conception Begins at Erection Act for rhetorical purposes. They want to expose hypocrisy within the anti-abortion group, which tends to say to women, if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex.
ADDED: These Democrats present the idea of leveling. Since sexual intercourse only risks pregnancy for the women, the law should impose an equivalent burden on men. Equity = $10,000. This reminds me of the much-loved Kurt Vonnegut story, "Harrison Bergeron," which begins:
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
Some things about living still weren’t quite right, though. April, for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron’s fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.
It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn’t think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel’s cheeks, but she’d forgotten for the moment what they were about.
On the television screen were ballerinas.
A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.
“That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did,” said Hazel.
“Huh?” said George.
“That dance – it was nice,” said Hazel.
“Yup,” said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They weren’t really very good – no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn’t be handicapped. But he didn’t get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.
George winced. So did two out of the eight ballerinas.
Hazel saw him wince. Having no mental handicap herself she had to ask George what the latest sound had been.
“Sounded like somebody hitting a milk bottle with a ball peen hammer,” said George.
“I’d think it would be real interesting, hearing all the different sounds,” said Hazel, a little envious. “All the things they think up.”
81 comments:
I had a vasotomy like 20 years ago. I'm as exempt as a tranny.
Introducing pointless legislation is about as constructive as Democrats get nowadays…
Well, abstinence is certainly an effective way to avoid pregnancy, but there are others...
The word is Fascist
It ought to be per sperm, not per ejaculation.
Serious people, thoughtful people. The kind we need managing our government.
Why are these people so manifestly foolish?
If you follow this stupidity to its logical conclusion, Democrats are now pushing to increase teenage pregnancies. Thus the term libtards.
"Tommy don't forget to pull out."
"I can't sweetheart. It'll cost me $10,000. That's like half a year's pay at the Kwik Trip. We have to risk it."
Libtards now promoting the old school Catholic rhythm method of birth control.
"Why are these people so manifestly foolish?"
Hubris. They are consumed with winning petty interpersonal competitions and entirely lose their bearings.
Why would a trans woman get off the hook?
I am very puzzled as to what the "hypocrisy" is. If you are a man and have sex and a child is the result, the "penalty" (if that is how you view a baby) can be enormous--and no "pro-life" person thinks it should be otherwise. The fact that the consequences for a woman are (necessarily) more significant does not make the "abstinence" position hypocritical.
"Why are these people so manifestly foolish?"
Birds of a feather flock together.
...the anti-abortion group, which tends to say to women, if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex.
Everyone says to men, if you don't want to pay child support, don't have sex. Reality is what it is.
This needs clarification. If two gay guys are having anal sex, even outside of a Senate hearing room, the erection and ejaculation are exempt. Correct?
Does that apply to heterosexual partners engaging in the same activity??? If so, pass the bill!!!
How extraordinarily stupid. Democrats, keep on keeping on.
Example number infinity of how the left cannot meme.
Men, unlike women have always been on the hook for unplanned pregnancies. Now that states can legally regulate abortion, women are now facing the same issues men have faced.
The Republicans should offer to put the bill to the vote - but without any of the carve-outs, just to make sure there's no hypocrisy involved.
They want to expose hypocrisy within the anti-abortion group, which tends to say to women, if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex.
Do I detect a hint of disapproval from some licentious professor Emerita? Why is it “hypocritical” for anti-abortion advocates to encourage young women to be more careful in their efforts to prevent pregnancy — and to be more careful in their choice of partners?
"I am very puzzled as to what the "hypocrisy" is."
It's based on the idiotic assumption by these hags that there is not a value difference between male and female gametes. Tons of women are mad at the universe as usual, and telling them they've got a 4:1 advantage over men in artificial methods of birth-control doesn't count.
Never let anyone tell you women don't try to control men's sexuality as much as they say men try to control theirs. The pill basically gave women 99.9% as much sexual license as men for the last 65 years, but that's still not enough...apparently.
Is that what they say? Don't have sex? I'm not sure that's a widely held view in the pro-life movement but I guess the point is to take a comment that some pro-lifer somewhere made in whatever context and then attributing that position to the entire movement. To justify frivolous and pointless activity by a couple of back benchers in the Ohio state legislature. Just add it to the ever-growing list of reasons why the Democrats lost in 2024.
Where's the obligatory monty python quote. I'm getting irate.
I would think that a law stating that any male having sex without intent to reproduce will suffer Fourier's Gangrene of the Genitals would be significantly more effective.
Democrats sure have come unhinged lately. This isn't as bad as what you can find on TikTok or in D.C., but it's certainly stupid, to say the least. I'm not sure what "hypocrisy" they think they're exposing, but I am sure that proposing this bill won't accomplish what they hope it will.
If nothing else, this bill is a raw look inside some of the pretzel logic that animates many Democrats.
This is no dumber than most of the bills Congress passes. And probably cheaper.
boatbuilder said...
...a law stating that any male having sex without intent to reproduce will suffer Fourier's Gangrene of the Genitals would be significantly more effective.
There you go, now you've got it.
Democrat legislators in Florida are proposing a new law requiring everyone in Florida to say “gay” at least once a day in a non offensive and non disparaging manner. Members of the LGTBQ community are exempt. Quotes from the movie franchise “Meet the Fockers” using the name of the character Gaylord Focker do not count.
This is straight out of the Delta Tau Chi handbook, see section entitled "Stupid and Futile Gestures".
I expect Sen. Megan Hunt and Sen. M. Cavanaugh of Nebraska to introduce this bill in the next session.
$10,000 for the offense? We should call it what it is: a pole tax.
Also, this law will make said act a felony. This is a not so stealth attempt at restricting the gun and voting rights for men.
When contraception fails do you get a refund, or does intention have the final say
serious questions:
IF the Democrats WANTED to be more repulsive.. What would they do?
IF the Democrats WANTED to lose MORE elections.. What would they do?
WHY aren't the Democrats TIRED of Losing?
This just another attack on the executive branch
"Do I detect a hint of disapproval from some licentious professor Emerita? Why is it “hypocritical” for anti-abortion advocates to encourage young women to be more careful in their efforts to prevent pregnancy — and to be more careful in their choice of partners?"
I didn't say it was hypocritical. I said they were trying to expose hypocrisy. That was their assertion and I passed it along. I agree that they are trying. I think there's some of this idea of leveling the playing field. Women's bodies are special in that they can (if they are fertile) get pregnant. Men's bodies can't get pregnant so they can have sex without the risk of pregnancy. So they're trying to bring in the government to impose some kind of equivalent risk on men who have sex (where the women have the risk of pregnancy).
Makes me think of that old Supreme Court case that upheld the sex discrimination in California law regarding statutory rape. Michael M. v. Superior Court. If 2 teenagers have sex, can the state make it a crime for the male but not the female? The Court said yes, because the criminal sanction added a deterrent for the male that corresponded to the deterrent that already exists for the female (in that she can get pregnant).
The Democrats are bringing Lawsuits, to PROTECT fraud/waste/corruption in Government.
That's RIGHT!
The Democrats are bringing Lawsuits, to PROTECT fraud/waste/corruption in Government.
They ALSO are bringing Lawsuits, to REQUIRE MEN in women's sports
They ALSO are bringing Lawsuits to PROTECT Men's rights to shower in front of little girls
THESE are the Hills they Want to DEI on..
I saw the "the anti-abortion group" phrasing. Words have meaning. Words can also be used for emotional reaction. The left pushed for (and won) the don't-call-it-pro-abortion position, make it pro choice. Is it proper to also twist words to put the negative spin on pro life? Actual cruel neutrality would seem say, "No".
Ann Althouse said…
“…So they're trying to bring in the government to impose some kind of equivalent risk on men who have sex (where the women have the risk of pregnancy).”
I can’t wait to see how these lawmakers choose to address the issue of peanut allergies.
If 2 teenagers have sex, can the state make it a crime for the male but not the female?
I was reliably told that there are no laws that disadvantage men.....
ERA! ERA! ERA! Oh the glorious day to come.
These Democrats are introducing The Conception Begins at Erection Act...
Isn't it good, morning wood?
Brings to mind the somnambulance cases, especially the one where the guy drove across town to kill his mother-in-law.
A man who said he was sleepwalking when he drove 14 miles to his mother-in-law's house and killed her was found innocent of murder charges. Kenneth Parks, 24, was acquitted by an Ontario Supreme Court jury of killing Barbara Woods, 42.
I'm only sleeping?
Th left are hyper obsessed with abortion.
Outlaw fornication, adultery, sodomy, abortion, pornography, and divorce while you're at it
"Th left are hyper obsessed with abortion."
>The left want to use birth control to prevent life from forming.
>If it miraculously does, they want to kill it with abortion.
>If a child is born they will work overtime to deform its sex organs into the opposite gender as young as possible.
>If that doesn’t work they want to turn it homosexual.
>If all that fails and the child is not white and grows up, the absolute worst features of its culture must be promoted to either make it controllable, useful to them, or on a track to die preferably before it has kids.
>If the child is white or any race sufficiently dangerous to be labeled white and grows up to be a functioning heterosexual, they will threaten it, publicly pronounce that they wish to kill it, and work tirelessly to disenfranchise it at the economic and political level.
Noticing a pattern? They’re not pro-choice. They’re anti-life.
"These Democrats are introducing The Conception Begins at Erection Act for rhetorical purposes. They want to expose hypocrisy within the anti-abortion group, which tends to say to women, if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. "
I think Boatbuilder is on to something here. Ann's take is much more subtle and steeped in legal reasoning, but the attempt of the bill is cultural.
80% of the men in this country are already not having sex. This is an attempt to marginalize men even further.
" (2) It shall be unlawful for a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo."
This would appear to outlaw spitting into a 23andme sample container, bleeding, menstruating, urinating, defecating, sneezing, blowing your nose, etc. etc. etc.
Men's bodies can't get pregnant so they can have sex without the risk of pregnancy.
Men's bodies can't get pregnant but that doesn't mean they can have sex, with a woman, without the risk of pregnancy. And I would imagine that to all the single men out there, and married for that matter, the risk of pregnancy very much feels like a personal risk they bear.
I think this plays with the cognitively challenged.
Althouse said...Men's bodies can't get pregnant so they can have sex without the risk of pregnancy. But I thought Democrats believed men COULD get pregnant. So they really don't swallow it do they? That would be illegal too I suppose.
“ So they're trying to bring in the government to impose some kind of equivalent risk on men who have sex (where the women have the risk of pregnancy”
In order to be fair to alcoholics, the government should require everyone to be dosed with qualludes. In the spirit of Vonnegut.
Do Democrats ever engage in substantive debate or real compromise? It seems that politics, rather than a means toward a way to resolve competing ideological or financial interests is just a team sport for them. There are a lot of people in this country who regard abortion as murder. On the other hand there are a lot of people, whether or not they consider abortion murder, regard women’s bodily autonomy to supersede the rights of the fetus. Politics should be the arena where we resolve these competing views and find a compromise that is acceptable to both sides of this issue. Instead, Democrats just see this as a sport where their team must win, not because their view is the correct one but because their team must win at all costs.
We have really important issues facing our country. Democrats don’t seem to care.
This stupid bill just eats up time and financial resources but Democrats don’t care. They think they’ve found a clever way to stick it to Republicans and that’s all they care about. It’s getting old. Democrats, fix your party - for the benefit of our country.
More accurately, it's women don't have UNPROTECTED sex if you don't want to get pregnant.
I agree 100% with Sally:
Is that what they say? Don't have sex? I'm not sure that's a widely held view in the pro-life movement...
I've NEVER heard anyone in the pro-life movement say this, at least not to women, although it is good advice for men that Charlie Kirk will use. But then Christians famously counsel to not have sex outside of marriage and protestant and evangelical types have no prohibition against using birth control.
I think their goal is to introduce confusion about the term conception so as to discredit the scientific fact that life begins at conception.
Let me just add:
I used to solicit funds for Planned Parenthood by phone. The most generous donations came from our retirement communities - mostly Republicans. They lived through the days when abortion was illegal and they were determined that those days never come back. Older Republicans both men and women supported abortion. Rather than reach across the aisle to find common ground with Republicans, Democrats turned the fight for abortion rights into a vehicle for the Democrat Party. They made fun of people who were concerned about the babies growing in the bellies of women - for many of those women, abortion was a traumatic decision. The phone bank turned into a vehicle for soliciting donations for Bill Clinton and any idea of finding common ground with Republicans was tossed out.
Count me with those not seeing the hypocrisy. First, I'll not those that suggest abstinence have never suggested abstinence only for women. Indeed, the religious pro-life types tend to quite clearly suggest abstinence for men and women. Second is as boatbuilder notes, there is already a legal penalty for men that far exceeds $10,000. To quote Kanye West:
18 years, 18 years (when I'm in need)
She got one of yo' kids, got you for 18 years
I know somebody payin' child support for one of his kids
His baby momma car and crib is bigger than he is
You will see him on TV any given Sunday
Won the Super Bowl and drive off in a Hyundai
Seems like a dumb move by Democrats, but that is pretty much the norm for the party these days.
Before I posted, I read Eva Marie's comment above. The better solution is for Democrats and Republicans to get onboard with the large majority across the United States that would support a reasonable legal abortion law for the first 15 to 20 weeks followed by the typically mentioned carve outs for rape and life of the mother (incest is often mentioned, but I suspect most of those are rape related, but sure incest too). No partial birth abortions. I think you might find 80% support for something along those lines.
Organic life has roots in carbon. Is Net-Zero a genocidal ambition? A transhumane religion? A Green blight?
And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
Has anyone looked in Fredor's ears lately?
The goal is responsibility, humane treatment, not abstinence.
This is only an issue for bisexuals in the transgender spectrum as couples, not couplets.
Back in high school I got to spend a week as a page in the NC state House. A highlight of this was being present when one Representative entered for consideration by the entire House an amendment to the bill being debated, the amendment stating breifly that the entire House agreed to ignore any and all statements made on the House floor by another Representative, who had just spent the previous half hour killing time by rambling nonsensically about nothing much, ostensibly "debating" the bill under consideration. The handwritten amendment form was processed upwards to the Speaker, a voice vote was taken, the amendment passed bipartisanally and almost unanimously, and the House adjourned for lunch. I grabbed the amendment form from the trash at the Speaker's lectern and kept it as a memento of political reality, losing it decades later in one relocation or another.
I move that amendment be considered by all commenters here for application to the Democrats of the Ohio House regarding their erection bill.
mikee... seconded.
Progressives, looking to progress America back to Victorian England.
And thank you, jim, for becoming irate.
Six weeks until homicide. A hate crime following conception with Loving. Self-defense throughout reconciliation. Men and women have equal and complementary responsibility.
My feeling is that this is one of those invitations to wrestle a pig. I shall decline.
“But make no mistake: there will be a trial and when that trial ends, Senators will have to decide if they believe Donald John — Donald John Trump - incited the erection insurrection against the United States,”
—— Chuck Schumer on 1/21/2021
The legislation, called the “Conception Begins at Erection Act,” was modeled after a similar bill introduced in Mississippi under the same name.
We're leading the way!
Conception begins at ovulation?
Conception is a state of mind? Before the wicked solution, the human rite is performed for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress.
"Why would a trans woman get off the hook?"
It would depend on how far along they were in the Emilia Perez list of procedures.
Conception begins at ideation.
At one time they burned witches to relieve "burdens" in the pursuit of social progress.
For jim and mikee:
"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, it makes God quite irate."
The best I could do from memory.
"Why would a trans woman get off the hook? "
Heh - Heh - Heh
You said "get off".
Heh heh
These Democrats are introducing The Conception Begins at Erection Act for rhetorical purposes.
Yes, they wish to establish that they are morons.
The law they are pushing is functionally equivalent to a law punishing women for having their periods, NOT a law banning abortion.
I'm pretty sure I've never come across any GOP legislature trying to do that.
So, as usual, everything about this Democrat push is total bullshit
Jump to @1:13 in the following TikTok "Legally Blonde" parody video.
https://www.tiktok.com/@julianburzynski/video/7302210065375776043
"Since sexual intercourse only risks pregnancy for the women,..."
That's not entirely true. For most men, there are already serious financial consequences to fathering a child. (Unless you want to break the law and avoid paying up.)
n.n said...
“Organic life has roots in carbon. Is Net-Zero a genocidal ambition? A transhumane religion? A Green blight?”
I am personally sequestering about 52 lbs of carbon. Do I get credit(s) for that? Nooo.
"(Unless you want to break the law and avoid paying up."
Which is an even larger risk than the mere financial, social, and emotional risks engendered by impregnating a woman.
This nonsense is just another expression of Dems not understanding how life works in these United States. The idea that men have no risks from sex is absurd on its face, but they are so steeped in Marxist feminism they can't see the reality that men bear a substantial risk.
The state can't even the playing field for women due to the nature of pregnancy and childbearing. It is a Marxist idea that the state can do any such thing. Common sense militates against such ideological fantasies.
I love that story. I’ve always been struck by the fact that Vonnegut and Orwell (who both considered themselves to be socialists) penned the greatest critiques of the political left ever written.
OK I give in. Fining men $10,000 for having sex without the intention to reproduce has no analogue for women, Women do not get fined $10,000 for having sex without intending to reproduce. If a pregnancy arises as a result of sex not intended to produce a pregnancy, women do obviously face a consequence - a baby or the need to get rid of a baby. Men face consequences in this situation too - 18 years of child support. Different consequences but consequences all the same. If the law restricts the woman from getting rid of the baby, then she's stuck with the consequences. But then so is the man. Moreover if the woman can get rid of the baby she has an option to do so and so avoid the consequences. But the man does not.
If you really wanted to even things up Harrison Bergeron style you'd make the father carry a prosthetic baby internally somewhere, and give him the occasional shot to screw up his hormones. Then after nine months you'd inflict quite a lot of pain to his nether regions. But if the woman has a right to abortion he'd have one too - he could choose to get rid of his prosthetic baby for whatever the cost of a real abortion would be. And he'd have the right to insist on the woman having an abortion or else a waiver of child support.
"...just another expression of Dems not understanding how life works in these United States. The idea that men have no risks from sex is absurd on its face..."
Democrat men have no risk from having sex, because Democrat men are the reason why feminism even exists.
Post a Comment
Comments older than 2 days are always moderated. Newer comments may be unmoderated, but are still subject to a spam filter and may take a few hours to get released. Thanks for your contributions and your patience.