this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
475 points (98.4% liked)

Not The Onion

13588 readers
1193 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works -5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"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.

[–] shikitohno@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

this is a very practical solution.

Let's pull up the old Cambridge dictionary for that pesky word I've bolded.

relating to experience, real situations, or actions rather than ideas or imagination

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.

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.

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.