State Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, filed a bill Friday that would penalize men for "unregulated masturbatory emissions." The satirical House Bill 4260 would encourage men to remain "fully abstinent" and only allow the "occasional masturbatory emissions inside health care and medical facilities," which are described in the legislation as the best way to ensure men's health. Such an emission would be considered "an act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life," according to the legislation.

"A lot of people find the bill funny," Farrar said in a phone interview. "What's not funny are the obstacles that Texas women face every day, that were placed there by legislatures making it very difficult for them to access healthcare."

A man would face a $100 penalty for each emission made outside of a vagina or medical facility. Such an emission would be considered "an act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life," according to the legislation.


http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Houston-representative-creates-a-bill-to-promote-10994871.php

This is laughable on many levels. How do they propose to monitor/collect for the $100 'finable emissions'?

If they would expect the men to police themselves and then submit a check to the state, in multiples of $100, for example, per month, for any 'unregulated emissions' performed, it is extremely unlikely that the state would realize any income from such an absurd bill.

In the highly unlikely chance that this bill would pass the legislature in Texas to become law, I think it is safe to bet that we will hear more about it, in the national news media, for example.

Is it as funny to you as all the legislation that is aimed at women??

Male semen does not have different DNA from the man who created it.

Hwint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Male semen does not have different DNA from the
> man who created it.

"Semen" might not, but sperm do.

Each one contains only half of any man's DNA, and only DNA from one chromosome (either X or Y) -- it's a haploid cell, not a diploid cell. So at best they only contain half of a male's DNA.

Additionally, mutations/copying errors are present regularly. Human sperm cells are particularly vulnerable to free radical attack and the generation of oxidative DNA damage.

When Law Makers have nothing better to do for their constituents and their constituents see nothing wrong with paying these wanna be's with their tax dollars. Nothing new here really.

This is the sort of nonsense that emerges by those who wish to avoid the hard (and real life) ethical problems presented by abortion on demand.

Science has not been a friend to those who want unrestricted abortion access. We are all now fully aware that at the moment of conception a unique human life is created that is discernible from its mother with its own DNA signature. Rather than answer the actual question of when or if it is ever ethical to end a human life simply due to the wishes of another human, people like this politician throw out meaningless red herrings. It's a clumsy attempt to divert attention away from the scientific fact that they are arguing one group of humans should have the absolute right to kill another group of humans with impunity simply because one is further along the path of human growth.

That's the actual issue, not masturbation. But they cannot reasonably engage the core issue, so they offer meaningless diversions instead. Kinda like a lot of Mormons do when confronted with the truth of their religion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2017 12:24PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Science. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

> Science has not been a friend to those who want
> unrestricted abortion access.

Science is nobody's friend or foe. The scientific method just is.

> It's a clumsy attempt to divert attention away
> from the scientific fact that they are arguing one
> group of humans should have the absolute right to
> kill another group of humans with impunity simply
> because one is further along the path of human
> growth.

Labeling something as "science" in order to push your personal religious views is disingenuous.

Do you actually know anything about science or the biology involved? If so, feel free to argue actual facts instead of name dropping entire fields of human endeavor.

East Coast Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you actually know anything about science or the
> biology involved? If so, feel free to argue actual
> facts instead of name dropping entire fields of
> human endeavor.

Only what I've read:

There's no argument to be made that negates the fact that a distinct human life is created at the moment of conception. The fertilized ovum within minutes begins repelling extra sperm and it has a distinct DNA instantaneously with fertilization. This meets pretty much any scientific definition of life, and it is obviously human.

The discussion is over the ethics of killing a human life. Nobody but ideologues try to claim it's anything else. Call it a clump of cells if you wish, but left undisturbed it usually becomes a fully viable human. And nobody has an abortion because they are bothered by a clump of cells. Abortions are performed to prevent babies from being born.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

If men could get pregnant, there'd be an abortion clinic in every 7-11. The abortion pill would be freely available in vending machines.
You can take THAT to the bank.

No man should be able to legislate what a women can and can't do to HER OWN BODY.

But of course, you see how ludicrous it is when something is directed towards MEN. But you fail to see how equally ludicrous it is when is directed, paternally, towards women.

YOUR nonsense it what emerges when you ignore the very real, dire effects on women when they are denied access to abortion. All that will do is drive desperate women to do desperate things.

What have you done lately to support the plight of women and children? Adopted a child? Provided foster care?

Have you demonstrated against the death penalty (since you're so "pro-life")

Somehow, I'm sure the answer to both of those is a resounding, "NO".

>> If men could get pregnant, there'd be an abortion clinic in every 7-11. The abortion pill would be freely available in vending machines. You can take THAT to the bank.

Preach it, sister!

You would think that abortion opponents would be among the biggest supporters of sex education and widespread, low cost (or even free) birth control -- because that would drastically reduce the need for abortions, right? Yet that is not the case.

Even after the children are born, there is a great disinterest. Currently funds for affordable school aftercare programs are being threatened. Such programs are a lifeline for the impoverished children of working parents.

Maizy222 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If men could get pregnant, there'd be an abortion
> clinic in every 7-11. The abortion pill would be
> freely available in vending machines.
> You can take THAT to the bank.

Bullshit. The same ethical debate would still be raging. Take this straw man crap elsewhere please.

> No man should be able to legislate what a women
> can and can't do to HER OWN BODY.

The baby isn't her body. It is the babies.

> But of course, you see how ludicrous it is when
> something is directed towards MEN. But you fail
> to see how equally ludicrous it is when is
> directed, paternally, towards women.

There is a huge difference between the termination of human life and an idiotic, time-wasting, and otherwise brainless "law" aimed at jacking off that will never see the light of day. If you can't see that, you are blind.

> YOUR nonsense it what emerges when you ignore the
> very real, dire effects on women when they are
> denied access to abortion. All that will do is
> drive desperate women to do desperate things.
>
> What have you done lately to support the plight of
> women and children? Adopted a child? Provided
> foster care?

I can't speak for the other fellow, but I give a large percentage of my income to helping the needy, including women and children.

> Have you demonstrated against the death penalty
> (since you're so "pro-life")

Again, can't speak for the other one, but I am against the death penalty too. Once again, however, this is an mornoic comparison. One is the murder of any innocent life. The other is the execution of justice on the absolute worst offenders in our society. I still don't support it, but comparing the two is absurd.

> Somehow, I'm sure the answer to both of those is a
> resounding, "NO".

And you'd be wrong.

Neither a zygote or fetus are human. They have potential to become human, but physiologically act function as a parasite.

A heart beat does not mean 'life' either, since cloned heart tissue in a petri dish will begin to beat on it's own.

Lots of people have answered the question you claim they aren't confronting.
You just don't like their answer.

Which isn't, of course, what you claimed at all.

Everyone caught the "The satirical House Bill..." part, right?

^ what Bang said ^

Exactly. I don't know if TMSH knows how to laugh or relax. It might be good for his health.

Seriously man, I don't know if the purpose of the thread was meant start an argument about abortion.

Edit: damn cell phone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2017 08:47PM by midwestanon.

I'd be curious to know how much this bill, if passed, would cost our very own in-house BYU Boner.

TMSH, The proposed bill is not aimed at masturbation, per se. The bill's author states that it is "an act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life". At this stage, however, there is no 'life' involved.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2017 02:17PM by cinda.

I'm glad this bill was introduced. See how the male representatives like someone legislating what you do with your body...and arguing that male masturbation is not consistent with "the sanctity of life."

I'm not saying masturbation, abortion, etc. are good OR bad. I'm just saying it's funny to see legislators freak out about this bill.

There used to be a law that criminalized sodomy, including oral sex. Could never be enforced (OK, once they tried and it got through the courts which reversed it.) I broke that law a lot with my ex, lol.

lets see $100 ... Mmmm. Is that for the whole day? are they supplying some kind of meter attachment? I might have to take on a 2nd job.

Will they give you $100 if you can shoot a tin can off a fencepost?

Get out!

This is exactly what alt-right, fringe crazy looks like! It's quite possible that his guy checked democrat by accident instead of republican when he registered to vote! Maybe he can't spell either? I don't know of any Democratic Party anywhere that supports this kind of insanity! In any case, people on the fringe of society like this unstable zealot should never be elected to political office anywhere!

Furthermore, this type of crazy, abnormal behavior that demonizes normal sexual development/maintenance proposed by the Texas Legislature is unhealthy for any male who values his prostate/life! Masturbation is normal for both men/women! In-fact, women have a clitoris that is a designated pleasure button that has no other purpose! If masturbation is so morally wrong then why did GOD who is suppose to be omnipotent allow humans to engage in such a practice? WOW! As Always, tnurg (GRUNT)

The bill was indeed introduced by a Democrat - a woman, by the way. The bill is not serious and was introduced as a satirical response to Republican bills that deal with women's health.
From the article:

"The satirical House Bill 4260 would encourage men to remain "fully abstinent" and only allow the "occasional masturbatory emissions inside health care and medical facilities," which are described in the legislation as the best way to ensure men's health.

Farrar said she created the bill after feeling fed up with the various legislative bills introduced by men addressing women's healthcare.

"A lot of people find the bill funny," Farrar said in a phone interview. "What's not funny are the obstacles that Texas women face every day, that were placed there by legislatures making it very difficult for them to access healthcare."

I'm surprised it wasn't introduced in the Utah legislature. I saw a photograph a while ago where a pro-life rights organization had placards that read "MASTURBATION IS MURDER". Guilty as charged, lady!! And proud of it too!!

Murder, I say! Collectively all the men on this forum are responsible for destroying trillions of potential lives. And all the women on this forum for destroying countless thousands of potential lives, or more, I guess I don't know exactly how many eggs a woman has in her body for her whole life. I wonder if any legislation has been enacted to punish women for the completely involuntary act of menstruating. They'll say that women could have done more to stop it. what they could have done, besides, I guess,getting so malnourished that one stops having their period, I'll never know.

The horror.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2017 08:55PM by midwestanon.

"...punish women for the completely involuntary act of menstruating"

Yes, my masturbating is also completely involuntary, lol!

A good argument for not allowing women into legislatures.

God, I hope you're kidding.

Let us all practice civil disobedience. Thoreau's Boner.

Good grief! This makes Texas look like silly dumbbells. (I could have said worse.)

Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzVHjg3AqIQ

Wonder which half carries my Joseph genes?

Of course, it's not a serious proposal. Satire is being used to underlie serious issues in other areas.

However, I have no doubt that there are a few very right-wing nutjobs who would love it to be serious.


Incidentally, it is illegal to sell a phallic-shaped vibrator in Texas!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2017 11:13PM by quatermass2.

quatermass2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Incidentally, it is illegal to sell a
> phallic-shaped vibrator in Texas!

...but it is legal to sell a Texas-shaped phallus as a vibrator.
Texas.
Go figure. :)