If you cannot stop the zanies, dish it yourself.

Bill introduced in Mississippi State Legislature to levy fines for ejaculation without intent for reproduction.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    20 days ago

    This was a sarcastic bill by a lawmaker in opposition to restricting abortion.

  • Jesus_666@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    19 days ago

    Conception begins at meiosis. If you don’t want to procreate, don’t produce ova/sperm. Produce a million sperm cells and only make one child? Off to death row with you, mass murderer!

  • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    19 days ago

    “Life began about a billion years ago and it’s a continuous, ongoing process.” - George Carlin.

  • PaulBunyan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    (4) This section shall not apply to the discharge of genetic material:
    (a) Donated or sold to a facility for the purpose of future procedures to fertilize an embryo; and
    (b) Discharged with the use of a contraceptive or contraceptive method intended to prevent fertilization of an embryo.

    If you’re going to rub one out do it in a condom. Or claim that sock is an intended contraceptive.

    • GroundedGator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      contraceptive method intended to prevent fertilization of an embryo.

      Have we forgotten the pullout method? Blowjobs, handjobs, etc also seem to be methods intended to prevent fertilization. Even masterbation is a fine way to prevent fertilization.

      I’m also a bit confused here. My 6th grade biology taught me that you have eggs and sperm and that when they combine, you get an embryo. You don’t fertilize an embryo, you fertilize an egg.

      Like most of these laws, it seems this one was written by idiots or written specifically to not be enforceable.

  • SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    20 days ago

    This has got to be some kind of protest bill. Otherwise, why would it specifically call out ‘use of contraceptives’ as an exception?

  • Ledericas@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    19 days ago

    so IVF is banned, and surrogacy is banned. and these 2 things primarly affect well of white families.

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 days ago

      Baptists believe if you can’t conceive easily, it’s because God damns you as a sinner.

      Becauae it’s so easy for them to knock up their cousin by accident, there must be some reason you’re not doing it right.

    • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      Might be a stupid European question, but aren’t anti choicers against that stuff already? The ones Ive met tend to be.

  • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    19 days ago

    I don’t have the original I wrote in college but it kinda makes me want to redraft A Modest Proposal: for Men’s Anatomical Responsibility to Their Offspring. The key point is that men should be required to provide anatomical gifts to their offspring until the children become adults. These anatomical gifts include any transplantable organ from kidneys, livers, and lungs, to blood, skin, corneas, and possibly even limbs as that becomes a viable surgical procedure. The increased time and gravity of the gift is balanced by the decreased likelihood, and by only taking organs and tissues not essential to life (while a pregnancy can in some cases cause heart failure). All exceptions (rape, incest, etc) are welcome to be made to whatever extent they are also made for women. Any additional thoughts?

  • renzhexiangjiao@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    20 days ago

    these sort of laws usually aim to repress women but this time they went so far as to target men almost exclusively. I wonder if they forgot what their goal was. or perhaps the simpler explanation is that these legislators lack braincells

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      Once again, Lemmy users prove completely unable to recognise satire.

      The bill is an act of protest.

      • Jarix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        19 days ago

        I would like to acknowledge how much more difficult recognizing satire is right now.

    • lily33@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      BTW, this absolutely represses men, women, children, etc, as “genetic material” is contained in every cell of everyone’s body. In nails, hair follicles, urine, saliva…