Plan T for Pro Compromise

I'm dissatisfied with the current pregnancy options available post-conception. There's pro-life, where a fetus is carried as long as it can be. And there's pro-choice, where a  fetus never becomes a baby. And... That's it?!?

It's 2016! Come on now. We're smarter than this. We're better than this. It's time to prove that, since both genders were made in the image of their creator (as many believe), both genders should get to carry life. It's time for men to get some equality.

Fetal transplant. That's what we need to throw some real weight behind!

The rules:
1- As a new option for pregnant women,  it should carry an equivalence to abortion. The same or less risks,  time, and definitivy. Once it's out of you, it won't go back in. Giving women the choice not to end the fetus, but also not to have changes to the body or their life.

2- If the conception was consensual, the father gets first dibs. Dad gets to be the first to decide if he'll carry his child. Men will finally have choice at this stage!

( * Rapist, child molesters, and forced incestuous impregnaters will not be rewarded with babies or the chance to carry a fetus.)

3- If not, a suitable parent must be found in time, or the fetus will not grow and thus will end. The number of pro life supporters will ensure that'll never happen. (Honestly, how do we even have unadopted children anywhere in the world with that many people trying so hard to get a kid?)

Once the male-majority members of Congress and the Senate have carried a few children (there are so many Republican men who have been eager for the chance for decades now,  I'm sure they'll run right out and get on that #3 list!), then they'll be better equipped to vote on issues like funding clinics and adequate time off after birthing.

In the meantime... Now men of breeding age who aren't careful enough will never know when the opportunity for carrying a baby might come to call! So they're going to need yearly tests to be sure their body is healthy and ready, and free from STD/STI. So we'll give Planned Parenthood (and similar clinics) exclusive rights to perform that exam. It'll be paid for on a sliding scale-- men will pay based on their salary and worth (as the rich can hide funds by being broke while their company provides everything, so proper worth assessment will be done). Minors and full-time attendance-proved college students will have free access. Not having the exam but engaging in sexual activity with any other individual will result in a heavy fine, a minimum 90 days in jail (30 for minors, but it won't be expunged or sealed at 18, and the irresponsible parents still get a fine), and community service of 100 hours. This exam will fund Planned Parenthood. In ten years a vote will be set to either continue this method or to have government funding of the same adjusted amount given. This gives those who vote for such a bill ten chances to see what all such a place does, and will therefore make for more informed decisions. And, at long last, the outcome of the choice will actually effect the people who get to make the decision!

Also,  those who funded the pro life and pro choice for all these years will have the same percentage of donation garnished for the next ten years and put toward DNA verification of fathers of a fetus. A vote will be put forth after that to determine future funding, though forcing the mother will never be an option (as it makes abortion look better than Plan T, and that must be avoided).

As teen girls are given the right to decide for their own body, so will teen boys. Parents will not get to weigh in on the choice their son makes. (The opportunity was before they created a fetus.) If this means that boys need to be raised like girls, taught that sex can lead to a baby and therefore shouldn't be rewarded with high-fives for conquests, well, so be it. That's a sacrifice the world is just going to have to live with. Equality has a price. Men getting to have a choice has a price. And yes, that means some male high school quarterbacks are going to be out for the season because they're with child. Maybe more than one. Maybe they'll have to carry two or three fetuses from different girls at the same time.

Wow. Science has a LOT to do given that possibility! Guys who are 8 and 10 weeks along... That's going to be interesting.

Plan T. Think about it.

Pledge cleaner and a book to a flag

I saw this interesting pin.

Is it creepy? Well, here's what's getting the hamster of my mind on the wheel...

It was Sixth grade before the majority of words in the pledge were vocabulary words. So, from K to 5, we said it every day without even knowing what we were saying. Just like kids will sing along to music about drive-bys without any context.

Pledge= a household cleaner

Allegiance= today, maybe a book/movie

Republic= (someone do a random poll of age 5 to 80 and see how many people can accurately define that word-- define, not use)

Indivisible= (then see how many children think America is invisible)

Liberty= cool monument

Justice= we've got courts

Not vocabulary, but clarification comes to play:

Under God= a diety said to be up in Heaven,  meaning we're not a nation floating in the clouds, in case you've seen Star Wars and were confused

So basically, you'll say it for six years before you'll find out what it means. And even then, several of the words are difficult concepts for your average suburban American child. Still, you make this pledge. It isn't a choice. If adults had to say, yes, then it's a choice. Children are not allowed to leave the country, or to not go to school, or to not say the pledge (maybe in home schooling, maybe). And so,  as with any pledge that you're saying because it makes your life easier,  it means nothing to you. They're just words.

Adults who haven't said the pledge in years will argue about the wording. If your family is Jehovoah Witnesses or something,  you just stand but don't say it.

There may be some government jobs which require reciting the pledge. Otherwise, whatever the original function was, it's gone. No six year old is beaming with national pride. They can recite it on a dime,  but they've got no idea what it means.

It's okay. We all grow up someday. And then check the box pledging that we read and understood the terms of service. Like any good pledge, you may as well agree,  because it's not like saying no is gonna make life easier.

Twisted Logic for Laws and the Power of a Triangle

Try to follow the "logic" here.

Putting a triangle on a door sign (instead of a rectangle) has the power to STOP sexual assault. Meaning a male with a fully functional penis sees a triangle and,  just by seeing that symbol, will decide NOT to enter an area and assault the women inside. This MUST be true, as the argument is that removing the triangle would dramatically increase sexual assault by penis-bearers on vagina-havers.

Okay, so that's the power of a triangle.

So what if we assigned an octagon or something to represent children? And then require, within one year of time, for every object capable of propelling a bullet at deadly speed/force ("guns") to have a sticker on them with a crossed out octagon. If you are caught with one and it doesn't have the sticker-- life in prison. Because the sticker will prevent people from shooting children.

Now I know you might be thinking,  "but sometimes children shoot children!" Yes, but those same children (who tend to be teens) sometimes also sexually assault each other. BUT NOT IN ROOMS WITH TRIANGLES ON THE DOOR! If those same triangle symbols are preventing teen boys from entering not just restrooms but also locker rooms-- then the power of a symbol will also make them not use guns on fellow children.

In exchange for no more gun control discussions for, I don't know, 4 years time-- think the NRA would print out those stickers for free? Probably. No need for non-gun owners to pay for this. And we wouldn't want, "I couldn't afford the sticker," as a reason. So there you go.

Is it oversimplified? Is this ridiculous?

If a triangle can stop a crime, so can an octagon.

(Sorry STOP signs. I know people sometimes run you. We're pretending that's not true because it really doesn't help the argument.)

I just felt the need to make an argument on the same level as one I read.

Her Husband Already Did It

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0878156.html

Today I encountered the most foolish,  horrible, sexist argument against Hillary Clinton.

"She shouldn't get to be president BECAUSE HER HUSBAND ALREADY HAD THE JOB."

Take a look at the link. See how many presidents have been related?
Except FDR, it's a list of REPUBLICANS.

If it can be fathers and then sons, or even cousins,  then spouses deserve equal opportunities. And for a woman to say it isn't fair, for anyone to say it, in fact...

Come up with a valid argument.

That... a wife can't hold a job because her husband once held it...

No. Your argument is invalid.