Tony Randall spawned children at 77. He married his intern who was 25. Many of us - I’m 70 - could probably sneak one past the goal if we got lucky. Ironically, the probability of a female having the plumbing to conceive at 50 is very low.
The bottom line of this bill is that only males less than 50 with fewer than three children need apply. This cuts women off from potential mates who have reached the maturity and wealth one can accumulate by 50. This a good mate market. Not to mention the rich sugar daddy market.
I agree with the theory. But the problem with the “new” generations is that the education system has destroyed the male in its efforts to equalize women.
I feel one of the main issues that make women go for women is that they can’t find real men as they are told men are evil and a threat to them so they can’t find men to meet their expectations physically, intellectually, and especially the emotional side they are taught to determine.
Men on the other hand, have grown fearful of women in the younger ranks because they are, also, told the women are a threat to them, so they turn away from them and toward their male counterparts. It’s safer and they are unprepared to deal with the issue as it has been shoved down their throats.
So a bill that sterilizes people for the purpose of nothing using any criteria, is being over controlling and not “fessing up” for the real reasons. Their saying it is what it is...okay, what is it?
There are a number of articles using the term “no real men anymore,” and I’m inclined to agree with them. But the stock haven’t changed, just the way they are herded. And this bill is a train that comes from the no where and goes to the no place. It doesn’t solve anything the government hasn’t already created in their lack of pre-planning stupidity.
Besides, first question that will be asked, if abortion is supposed to be a choice, why not male sterilization? The slope is slick, isn’t it? It’ll look like the mud hill in McClintock.
rwood