Congratulations. Democrats.

[Jakob]

Five female Democrats in the Georgia state House have sponsored a bill that would require middle-aged and older men to report their ejaculations to a county sheriff.

State Rep. Dar’Shun Kendrick introduced HB 604, which states: “any male 55 years of age or older shall immediately report to the county sheriff or local law enforcement agency when such male releases sperm from his testicles.”

Especially mr Reasonable. Good job man. Gooooood job.

[Karpel Tunnel]

It's a retaliation bill in response to restricted abortions: you want to control our wombs, we'll control your testicles. If they actually expect it to get anywhere or are making a point, I don't know.

[phyllo]

Republican Representative Ed Setzler sponsored HB 481 which would prohibit abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected. “Protecting life in the womb with a human heartbeat is what science, law and human conscience would suggest,” Setzler said. Under the proposal, women still would be able to get later abortions in cases of rape, incest, if the life of the mother is in danger or in instances of “medical futility,” when a fetus would not be able to survive after birth. The bill passed a Georgia House committee on March 6th.

In response, female Democratic lawmakers (pictured above), drafted HB 604 to restrict the “reproductive rights” of male counterparts.

HB 604 would amend Chapter 1 of Title 35 of the Official Code of Georgia so that “any male 55 years of age or older shall immediately report to the county sheriff or local law enforcement agency when such male releases sperm from his testicles.

https://redherringalert.wordpress.com/t ... ia-hb-604/

Is HB 604 a reasonable response to HB 481? Is abortion just a male versus female or republican versus democrat issue?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Is HB 604 a reasonable response to HB 481?

Well, two bad laws don't make a good one. I kinda like it as performance art.

Is abortion just a male versus female or republican versus democrat issue?

It would be a law where women would be told they couldn't do something to their own body - and yes, I realize the issue is not simply resolved by looking at it this way, I get that people view the fetus as...etc. But the law would mean that women's bodys are controlled and not men's. Right or wrong.

But then of course it is also a men's issue. Many men support the right to abortion. Many men urge women to get abortions when they find out there is a baby on the way.

And no, it is not just a republican vs. dem thing. The parties have tendencies but you can be either one and have a range of positions on abortion.

[phyllo]

Well, two bad laws don't make a good one. I kinda like it as performance art.

I assume you think that HB 481 is bad because abortion ought not be based on fetal heartbeat which starts around 6 weeks. And that doesn't give a woman enough time to realize she is pregnant and get an abortion.

HB 604 doesn't address that issue. Instead it focuses on "control of women's bodies".

[Karpel Tunnel]

Well, two bad laws don't make a good one. I kinda like it as performance art.

I assume you think that HB 481 is bad because abortion ought not be based on fetal heartbeat which starts around 6 weeks. And that doesn't give a woman enough time to realize she is pregnant and get an abortion.

HB 604 doesn't address that issue. Instead it focuses on "control of women's bodies".

which that law affects, since women have less control since they have less information as you pointed out here. The law would be saying - now you must bring that fetus to term, also. Which is control of women's bodies - at least to the people who frame the issue that way. And in practical terms it would be, since if you chose not to bring it to term, you would be a criminal. We use the courts in part to control.

[phyllo]

A lot of legislation is about "controlling bodies", so politicians really have no problem with it in principle.

Any politician using "control of bodies" as an argument against a law is being either hypocritical or ironic.

[Karpel Tunnel]

A lot of legislation is about "controlling bodies", so politicians really have no problem with it in principle.

Any politician using "control of bodies" as an argument against a law is being either hypocritical or ironic.

Sure, though in this case it is specifically controlling one group of citizens bodies: womens', that is the whole point of what I think is more of a political performance art to frame the issue. It is a law aimed at controlling womens bodies, hey, here some laws controlling men's bodies, what do you think of that? Most if not all of the other legislation you are referring would be controlling any person X's body if they do Y.

[phyllo]

Sure, though in this case it is specifically controlling one group of citizens bodies: womens', that is the whole point of what I think is more of a political performance art to frame the issue.

I think that's just because abortion is unique to women. So it has the optics of "control over women's bodies".

What would an abortion law that did not control women's bodies look like? A woman could get an abortion up to full term. Right? Anything else is "control".

Is that the abortion law that most people (or most women) want? I don't think so. Even pro-choicers want some sort of time limit - some sort of control.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Sure, though in this case it is specifically controlling one group of citizens bodies: womens', that is the whole point of what I think is more of a political performance art to frame the issue.

I think that's just because abortion is unique to women. So it has the optics of "control over women's bodies".

It has the actuality of control over women's bodies, no citation marks. Yes, it is unique to women, no one is arguing it is not. The issue is still open around abortion in the different ways the issue is framed, but it is a law controlling women's bodies.

What would an abortion law that did not control women's bodies look like? A woman could get an abortion up to full term. Right? Anything else is "control".

Anything else would be some form of government control - no citation marks - over women's bodies, yes.

Is that the abortion law that most people (or most women) want? I don't think so. Even pro-choicers want some sort of time limit - some sort of control.

Without acknowledging my points we are now moving into new areas. With citation marks and strange noun choices like 'optics'. Why not acknowledge a point or not before moving on, instead of sort of doing it and searching around for some other way there might be a problem? I certainly know pro-choicers who do not think the government should be involved at all, whatever they would think of an 8 month abortion. This new law seems to have set off some people thinking that this control is not OK, and it is control focused on women's bodies. Perhaps they did not like there being any control, but since the law did not go against what the vast majority of women do - choose before whatever the old legislation covered, they put up with it. But now it went too far for them. So they suggested - I would guess without thinking it would ever become a law, a parallel law, to make a point.

[phyllo]

It has the actuality of control over women's bodies, no citation marks. Yes, it is unique to women, no one is arguing it is not. The issue is still open around abortion in the different ways the issue is framed, but it is a law controlling women's bodies.

Anything else would be some form of government control - no citation marks - over women's bodies, yes.

Unless women are remote controlled robots, I still consider it "control of women's bodies".

Without acknowledging my points we are now moving into new areas. With citation marks and strange noun choices like 'optics'. Why not acknowledge a point or not before moving on, instead of sort of doing it and searching around for some other way there might be a problem?

Which points?
This? : "Most if not all of the other legislation you are referring would be controlling any person X's body if they do Y."

Legislation controlling all bodies is still controlling men's bodies so men know what that feels like. I thought that I did not need to write it. I guess that I did.

Legislation specifically targeting men? : Alimony laws. Paternity laws. I'm sure that there are others.

Did I miss something else? Do I still owe you?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Unless women are remote controlled robots, I still consider it "control of women's bodies".

Well, you seemed to accept that other legislation was about control. And then the legislation aimed at men is no longer controlling men, but 'controlling them' I figure if a woman can go to prison for breaking a law, meaning that the state will come in and put her body somewhere if she does X, then her body is controlled. And since the legislation will control many women, out of fear of consequences, that also is a control.

Without acknowledging my points we are now moving into new areas. With citation marks and strange noun choices like 'optics'. Why not acknowledge a point or not before moving on, instead of sort of doing it and searching around for some other way there might be a problem?

Which points?
This? : "Most if not all of the other legislation you are referring would be controlling any person X's body if they do Y."

Legislation controlling all bodies is still controlling men's bodies so men know what that feels like. I thought that I did not need to write it. I guess that I did.

Men don't know what it feels like to have their body controlled by laws that only have to do with them as men. I thought I wouldn't have to say that.

One example of what you could have acknolwedged was you saying that if the women are upset about a law controlling their bodies, that's silly since their are many laws that control bodies (I think it was there you decided not to have citation marks.) I would have thought no one had to say that those laws are not gender specific, this being obviously the entire point of the counter-legislation.

Legislation specifically targeting men? : Alimony laws. Paternity laws. I'm sure that there are others.

Alimony laws cut both ways.

Paternity laws is a good point. I believe courts can demand that a man take a dna test. From there courts can demand things of both people who turn out to be parents, but don't need much effort to find out if the female is the parent. I don't think this is a good counterweight to demanding that a woman continue to go through a pregnancy. IOW the latter involves much more time and experience and control. But it does stand as a counterexample. You could contact the legislators in question and point out that men probably do understand what control is like based on their gender due to demands that they produce dna samples. They might think it is not enough, they might buy it and retract their legislation.

And yes, I do understnad that paternity laws entail other things in the long run, but then being a parent entails things in the long run from both parties.

Did I miss something else? Do I still owe you?

Owe is not the word I would have used. If anyone is owed, it would be both of us and any readers, not me in particular. I've mentioned some things I think you missed above.

[phyllo]

Owe is not the word I would have used.

It's my post, it's my word.

I don't feel that I can respond in the way that feels right to me.

[Mr Reasonable]

I'm not over 55.