Faced with relentless Republican attacks on reproductive freedom including efforts to give embryos and fetuses legal rights from the moment of conception, Democratic lawmakers in two states have recently introduced legislation that would ban men from ejaculating for purposes other than making babies, with some exceptions.
That’s not what I said, and you know it. Republicans implemented a concrete policy, with dire real world consequences. These proposed bills are dead before they’ve even finished drafting them, and accomplish nothing beyond creating a moment of tone-deaf political theater so that people who already agree with them can pat themselves on the back.
This does nothing to undo the harms of Republican anti-abortion laws, it doesn’t prevent any of those women from dying, it’s performative bullshit preaching to the choir. This isn’t going to make Republicans suddenly go, “Gee, I never thought of it like that,” it’s just to get brownie points in liberal circles.
They could have, I don’t know, removed the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court to prevent Republicans from doing exactly what they said they wanted to do the last time around, but that’s a step too far for the Democrats. I mean, it could have put the matter to rest definitively enough until they had a legislative majority that would let them codify abortion rights, but heavens forbid they kill off one of their great fundraising cash cows and lose the ability to campaign on “If you don’t vote Democrat, the Republicans are going to undo Roe v. Wade!” This is another blunder like Hillary’s pied piper strategy that came back to bite them when Republicans did the thing Democrats thought couldn’t seriously happen.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and even if they did, you and I both know these bills have a 0% chance of actually passing and changing anything.
Since you’re so sure this isn’t purely performative, but a valid and effective counter, would you care to quantify that efficacy for me? How many of these bills need to be proposed and die before they even hit the floor to win over enough Republicans? How many until women who lost their reproductive rights actually see them restored? Until women stop dying from being denied basic healthcare? I’m not expecting an exact number, but surely, you could give me a ballpark estimate and a timeline for these efforts to start producing results, as confident as you are in this strategy.
“That’s not what I said”
That’s literally what you said, that restricting bodily autonomy through legislation was a performance piece.
If the religious extremists are going to restrict women’s civil rights and bodily autonomy, the rational lawmakers should also be restricting men’s civil rights and bodily autonomy.
this is a very practical solution.
“Two wrongs don’t make a right”
that isn’t what’s happening.
they are fighting fire with fire.
they are backburning to stop the wildfire destroying civil rights because of religious extremists and oligarchs that have been elected or appointed.
“Since you’re so sure this isn’t purely performative”
it isn’t. this legislation prohibiting female bodily autonomy already happened.
raped children are being forced to keep their rape babies.
women are dying in the parking. lots of hospitals.
they are being bounty hunted for seeking medical care.
That’s not performative. those are real life effects of these people. you want to allow to steal civil rights, including basic human dignity.
shame on you.
You might want to work on your reading comprehension, as that is not at all what I said. Let me spell it out loud and clear for you. Republicans already did a terrible thing removing women’s right to autonomy over their own bodies. Several Democratic Senators proposed bills that would impose restrictions broadly within the same category that would impact men, rather than women, if they were to pass, but have literally none of the dire consequences women face from the Republican actions. These proposed bills have literally zero chance of passing into law, and thus will not have any effect. Now, then.
Let’s pull up the old Cambridge dictionary for that pesky word I’ve bolded.
Now, since these aren’t going to pass into law, and thus have no binding effect on reality, how exactly is this a practical solution.
Uh, I don’t know how to break it to you, but those are all the consequences of the Republican policy that have already taken effect, and these laws don’t propose to undo any of them. Once more, they don’t even level the field of oppression, since they aren’t going to pass, and the people writing them know this.
A practical solution would have been addressing the filibuster and expanding the Supreme Court to prevent the conservative-packed court from doing exactly what they did. Or actually codifying the protections obtained from the Roe v. Wade decision in law at any point in the 50+ years since the ruling was initially made. Either one of those would have actually prevented this situation.
You have yet to articulate in any way how proposing laws that these legislators know will not be passed will do literally anything aside from generate some media coverage. Unless you can do so, there’s no point in engaging with you any further. I don’t know if you’re just a troll, or if you really believe this will actually provoke any real change, as you refuse to explain why you believe this to be a practical solution that will bear fruit, either by correcting the wrongs done to women in this country or by making men face vaguely similar (but not really, kind of hard to equate dying painfully and unnecessarily from being denied healthcare with a $10,000 fine) consequences, in spite of all evidence indicating otherwise.
I mean, interesting strategy to just agree with most everything I said in your third comment but pretend you aren’t agreeing with me.
I’m glad you’ve come around, though.
The only thing left you need to understand is that because of the legislation that you now agree is hurting women, it is fair to pass legislation that also hurts men in the same way.
equality.
you got that?
it seems like you want to talk about coulda woulda shouldas instead of actually addressing the problems, while addressing the problems is a much more effective method of democratic management.
Yes, if and maybes are fun for you, but the legislation proposed here is a practical response to the targeted, harmful legislation already passed.
You keep saying this is a practical response, but won’t say how, so I’m done with you. You’re the one talking in hypotheticals here, as if bills with no chance of getting passed are actually going to accomplish something. You just keep repeating the same statement about these bills, with zero factual basis.
Good luck out there, because it sure seems like nothing is getting through to you, and I see you talking in the same circles with others now that I’ve looked around the thread more.
I have said how it is a practical response in every single comment, you are failing to comprehend what I’m saying.
legislation has been passed in the US that is harming women and taking away their bodily autonomy.
The same legislation should be passed for men as well.
this legislation has a “factual basis”, despite your believies, and is killing women right now.
your contention that doing nothing is better than fighting back. that is cowardly and foolish. sticking your head in the sand isn’t going to help here.
you claim this is ineffectual, while your proposed solution Is to do nothing", and facilitate the process of religious extremists passibg legislation targeting and harming vulnerable populations.
that is your path.
disgusting, to me.
so I’ll continue to set you straight.