Ohio State Sen. says if men are so worried about wombs, then turnabout is fair play

[A'isha]

Ohio Congresslady Wants The Nanny State Up In Your Boner

State Sen. Turner is sick and tired of menfolk continually trying to regulate her pieces. She is tired of Ohio seeking to prohibit abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy, so she decided that if men can regulate her wombular region, then she should take an active stance on men’s peener health. Under the bill:

[M]en taking the drugs would continue to be tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about “pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.”

Hahahaha, seriously Olds, mebbe you should consider putting that wang away for a bit. We kinda agree with Sen. Turner — if menfolk can go ******* and pass 92 abortion-related bills in Ohio in one year(!), then perhaps women should pass bills about twigs & berries. After all, it’s about men’s health, and Sen. Turner is just doing her best to protect men. Because sometimes men think with their little head, and maybe their hearts can’t take the lustful urges, so Sen. Turner is just looking out for them. Why is that a problem?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What's good for the goose. . .

 

[geni]

I'm failing to see any actual downsides. With the expiration of the patent on viagra the "throw drugs at it" approach to dealing with impotence becomes increasinly hard to justify.

 

[Resume]

I'm failing to see any actual downsides. With the expiration of the patent on viagra the "throw drugs at it" approach to dealing with impotence becomes increasinly hard to justify.

So to speak.

 

[Magyar]

I think this ammendment should be introduced in Tx as well.
Oh and an addition to the ammendment should be the addition of blocks to xxx rated websites on any single mans computer, cell phone and PDA. After all, it's the major root cause of every abortion.

 

[RandFan]

What about getting govt out of people's personal lives.

 

[maxpower1227]

Off topic, but can someone tell me what that picture is from? I really would like to know the context.

 

[Polaris]

Off topic, but can someone tell me what that picture is from? I really would like to know the context.

G. Gordon Liddy had just bitten a rabbit's head off.

 

[marplots]

Is that really how she frames abortion regulation - as about "her pieces?"

No wonder it's such a polarizing topic. Is a fetus one of her pieces or does it just happen to be an unwanted squatter in her womanly parts?

I hope she's a bit more effective as a legislator than this example illustrates.

But while we are on the topic, what's with the laws that require me to hide my manly parts? Where's my freedom to display to all and sundry what God has so generously gifted unto me?

They already be regulating my pieces. Not only where and when I can show them (mostly never), but also where I can stick it and who's permission I need when doing so. Freedom!

 

[fuelair]

She's framing it that way to pinpoint the **** headedness of the ******** who are performing these primitive atavist legislative ****ups.

 

[MattusMaximus]

 

[marplots]

She's framing it that way to pinpoint the **** headedness of the ******** who are performing these primitive atavist legislative ****ups.

Good strategy, I've seen it used on the forum. When opponents get ridiculous, get even more ridiculous.

 

[NoahFence]

LOVE IT!

This is hilarious.

 

[theprestige]

Is that really how she frames abortion regulation - as about "her pieces?"

No wonder it's such a polarizing topic. Is a fetus one of her pieces or does it just happen to be an unwanted squatter in her womanly parts?

I hope she's a bit more effective as a legislator than this example illustrates.

But while we are on the topic, what's with the laws that require me to hide my manly parts? Where's my freedom to display to all and sundry what God has so generously gifted unto me?

They already be regulating my pieces. Not only where and when I can show them (mostly never), but also where I can stick it and who's permission I need when doing so. Freedom!

As far as I can tell, it's the way Wonkette is framing a story she read in the Dayton Daily News. Some second-hand quotes are provided that suggest the senator herself might be somewhat more measured and mature in her own framing, but if you're looking for that, you probably won't find it in any of the material linked by the OP.

I wonder: Was the choice to link to Wonkette instead of the senator herself because the senator's own version wasn't classy enough... Or because it was too classy?

 

[theprestige]

She's framing it that way to pinpoint the **** headedness of the ******** who are performing these primitive atavist legislative ****ups.

The framing in question comes from Wonkette. Its purpose is probably to gratify her audience, which is a necessary part of any healthy blogger-reader symbiosis.

It seems to me that this thread is more about how some people appreciate Wonkette's brand of social commentary, than it is about the senator's actual proposal (which is presented in dismembered chunks, not unlike some abortions).

 

[RandFan]

I wonder: Was the choice to link to Wonkette instead of the senator herself because the senator's own version wasn't classy enough... Or because it was too classy?

Who cares? That's missing the point to say the least. At the end of the day what is being done to women in this country is truly vulgar. It's actually harming thinking feeling women to placate extremists and religious sentiment.

If he can pray for rain why doesn't governor Perry pray away unwanted pregnancies? Guess god doesn't work those kinds of miracles. I don't know if Wonkette is classy or not. I don't give a ****. I do know that what the GOP is doing to women is obscene. And that's the point.

 

[A'isha]

As far as I can tell, it's the way Wonkette is framing a story she read in the Dayton Daily News. Some second-hand quotes are provided that suggest the senator herself might be somewhat more measured and mature in her own framing, but if you're looking for that, you probably won't find it in any of the material linked by the OP.

If you're having trouble clicking the links in the Wonkette piece, I'd be happy to help you with that.

I wonder: Was the choice to link to Wonkette instead of the senator herself because the senator's own version wasn't classy enough... Or because it was too classy?

It was because Wonkette said everything I wanted to say, and better, too.

Though I do find your pearl-clutching indignation over Wonkette's "non-classy" tone to be quite amusing.

 

[theprestige]

If you're having trouble clicking the links in the Wonkette piece, I'd be happy to help you with that.

No need; you cited a tertiary source. It's obvious you want the discussion to be about Wonkette's commentary, rather than the bill itself. I'm not going to googlevestigate topics that you can't be arsed to cite from primary sources, and that aren't very interesting to me anyway.

It was because Wonkette said everything I wanted to say, and better, too.

Exactly.

Though I do find your pearl-clutching indignation over Wonkette's "non-classy" tone to be quite amusing.

The topic of the thread is Wonkette's commentary. You're mad that I'm discussing the topic you selected for the thread you started?

How about this: If you want to discuss the actual bill, go to the Ohio state government's website and find the actual bill. Start a thread, and link it there, and have that discussion.

Meanwhile, this thread is still about this discussion, as far as I'm concerned. Though, like most discussions about Wonkette's commentary, once it's been noted that its neither mature nor substantive, there's not much left to disucss. If the entire scope of your analysis is "what Wonkette said, just read her", then done and done.

 

[RandFan]

Though, like most discussions about Wonkette's commentary, once it's been noted that its neither mature nor substantive, ...

You are entitled to an opinion even though it's irrelevant and complete BS. The question becomes, why should anyone give a damn about your opinion?

 

[A'isha]

No need; you cited a tertiary source. It's obvious you want the discussion to be about Wonkette's commentary, rather than the bill itself. I'm not going to googlevestigate topics that you can't be arsed to cite from primary sources, and that aren't very interesting to me anyway.

So you are having trouble with the links in the Wonkette piece. It's okay; you don't have to "googlevestigate" anything, I'll walk you through it. See, right there in the Wonkette piece, there's a link to the Dayton Daily News article, helpfully labeled "Dayton Daily News" in bright red. All you need to do is click that, and you'll be able to read all about Senator Turner's proposal without any of Wonkette's icky girlcooties all over it.

You're welcome!

The topic of the thread is Wonkette's commentary. You're mad that I'm discussing the topic you selected for the thread you started?

The topic of this thread is Senator Turner's proposal, which you seem oddly determined to avoid discussing.

How about this: If you want to discuss the actual bill, go to the Ohio state government's website and find the actual bill. Start a thread, and link it there, and have that discussion.

How about I post a laughing dog at the notion of you trying to tell me what to do when it comes to my discussion of this topic instead?