America: The Procreation Nation

Feb 17

Once again, God-fearing patriotic men are fighting to take away women’s rights to abortion and birth control in order to preserve the fabric of America. And as we all know, the fabric of America is woven from our collective ability to get married and procreate.

That’s why they want to abolish anything that could prevent little human beings from being pushed screaming into the world.

But I say they’re not doing enough to safeguard the expansion of that beloved cotton. After all, they’re not looking at the whole picture. Getting women to stop cock-blocking the point of entry is only half the problem. Let’s not forget all the potential unborn children floating in the funny sacs men carry between their legs. So what can men do to help keep America strong and (our) God smiling?

Let’s institute a new law:  The Patriotic Penis Family Planning Law.

First, since sex should only be used for procreation, we – as one proud nation – better make sure the only men having sex are ones that can actually have children.

So let’s implement a mandatory annual sperm count for boys (pubescent and older) and men. To provide samples, the patient wears a paper gown that opens in the front, signs into a cold hospital room with florescent lighting and fishing magazines and will not be allowed to leave until he’s filled a cup in front of a camera that streams live into the female doctor’s office.

Since internal damage can also be a cause of low sperm count, the patient will also undergo a mandatory comprehensive annual testing of all associated pathways. This will include a scrotal ultrasound, transrectal ultrasound, testicular biopsy and a scope inserted into the eye of the one eyed monster. To ensure the most accurate diagnosis, these procedures will be done simultaneously.

In addition to counting the swimmers and testing the lanes, the patient’s DNA will be recorded. All results will be logged into a nation-wide data system and posted on the website

Good Seeders – men with a sufficient sperm count – are free to have sex only once they are married and only when their wife is ovulating. With 20 – 40 million sperm per ejaculate (per milliliter), imagine the possibilities for American familial growth!

To ensure that every sacred seed is deposited only into the patient’s wife’s lawfully wedded vagina, every fertile man must wear a penis bracelet (The Penislet™). Armed with samples of both spouses’ DNA, The Penislet™ can easily detect any indiscretion, including the absence of another human being. When anti-American sex occurs, the device will constrict quickly, keeping chromosomal fish safe until the patient calls his priest… who may or may not also be his doctor. She will be the only person who can control The Penislet™.

Crafty Good Seeders (aka “Greeders”) who manage to father children outside of wedlock will be subject to immediate paternity tests once the baby is born, using the DNA gathered during their annual exam. Financial, physical and emotional obligations will be enforced via an implanted epidermal microchip that detects all such interaction with the patient’s offspring. Greeders who do not fulfill all parental obligations will be subject to the same fate as The Emasculates.

Men diagnosed with an insufficient sperm count will be known as The Emasculates (aka The Blank Shooters). They will not be allowed to ever have sex, since they cannot father children, and must be stopped from subversively stealing the time (and elasticity) of unsuspecting fertile women. Therefore, A Blank Shooter must have his penis removed.

Conducted with compassion, the procedure will retain a urethral pathway through a small hole next to the place where the testicles used to be.

And although none of these procedures will be covered by insurance, men will understand that they have an important role in the very fabric of our awesome nation, which will finally be allowed to grow until we burst its very seams.

Men who are blessed as Good Seeders must save up their sperm for the sole purpose of fathering children with their American-born wives. They’ll understand there is glory in this patriotic sacrifice. They’ll finally appreciate that their bodies are not really their own; they are ours and we must use them in the way that we – as one nation under God – know to be the right, the only, the most God-fearing, American way.


I originally wrote this in in 2012 in response to this ridiculously invasive proposed bill and this one.

In 2015, republican lawmakers made these ridiculous statements about abortion.

Those who want to defund Planned Parenthood really want to eventually overturn Roe v. Wade. They’re using the alternative facts that PP uses federal funding for abortions (it’s already illegal, Mr. Vice President, so they don’t do it) and that abortions are the majority of what they do. Here are the real facts from 

Here’s how federal funding really works at Planned Parenthood.

Fight like a girl. Support Planned Parenthood.


52 Responses to “America: The Procreation Nation”

  1. Jon says:

    Robin, tell us what you really think 😉

    I think that Monty Python said it very well as well:

    Oh, and by the way, by eliminating *all* forms of birth control, those folks have of course enforced abstinence as the only way to prevent STDs too.

  2. betty malicoat says:

    BRAVO!!! This lovely plan must begin with male politicians. Conservatives first.

  3. Tanky says:

    BAM. You should rename your blog "BAM!" because every time I read your fiery, pointed, poli-hum posts I squeal "BAM!!!"

  4. Jennifer says:

    I had heard about the ultrasound requirement, but it did not occur to me what type it had to be. I should have known. As someone who had an ectopic pregnancy (which had to be terminated and wasn't I grateful I had that choice – rather than die), my subsequent pregnancies required that I undergo that type of ultrasound to ensure everything was OK. It is one of the most uncomfortable and humiliating exams I have ever endured, despite the fact that the test gave me peace of mind that the fetus was where it should be. What a horrible, horrible thing to endure because of a law.

    What hypocrites.

    I say, "Don't tread on me!"

  5. Robin Dale Meyers says:

    Thanks for bravely sharing your story, Jennifer. The other problem with this proposed law is that after they force the woman to endure the procedure, they then want to force her to look at the results as well, assumedly because they think it will change her mind. I say \”Don\’t tread on my body or my brain!\”

  6. Stuart says:

    HUH??? There is not a single person who is seeking to take away a woman's right to abortion, nor birth control. Yiur comments are highly exaggerated – at best

    First off, this is contained to the Catholic Church being FORCED to provide measures they feel against their teachings and faith. This is nowhere near an issue facing all America.

    Second, even the Catholic Church is not taking away the rights of their employees to get an abortion nor contraceptive. Not a single Bishop, Nun, nor Priests have said they would fire a woman who got an abortion/contraceptive on their own. The question is will they (the Church) be forced to provide it.

    Third, this is not a Republican/Democrat issue. This is a Constitutional issue facing the Catholic Church. Seeing as how Obama won a great deal of the Catholic vote in 2008, it is hard to see how this is all Republican driven, Seriously, what's next – blame the Tea Party?

  7. Kiata says:

    Stuart, you are such a whiner. Seriously. Your claim that there is not a single person who is seeking to take away a woman's right to abortion, nor birth control, is a pathetic lie. And your statement "not a single bishop, nun or priests have said they would fire a woman…" is just weasel-words. Someone will refute you and you will demand the quote; SOP for you. And yet, these bishops, priests, etc. will fire a woman for choosing to carry to term, due to the immorality of bearing a child out of wedlock. Why wouldn't they fire a woman who gets an abortion or uses non-church-sanctioned birth control?

    And what's with the preemptive whine about the Tea Party? You're such a victim. It is to weep.

  8. Robin Dale Meyers says:

    I can see you’re passionate about this issue. But I must point out that *your* first statement is highly exaggerated. Not a single person? Please take a look at the link I posted to the proposed Virginia ultrasound bill, which seeks to force women who have chosen abortion to undergo an extremely invasive procedure as well as force them to look at the ultrasound. Why are those behind this bill trying to pass it? I believe it’s an effort to change the minds of these women and ignore their choice. There are several people in support of this bill.

    Furthermore, the bill that was passed before the ultrasound bill was the Personhood bill, stating life begins at conception. You can read about that in the new link I added above. What\’s the motive here? To make it even harder for women to have access to abortions.

    As for birth control laws, read up on Rick Santorum at the Chicago Tribune. (,0,5381324.story) Or watch what he says about birth control here. ( Sure, he says he’s voted for contraception, but he’s also said that he believes states should be able to ban them if they want. And he believes that birth control is harmful to women and society. If he became president, these are the things he’d fight for. He has many supporters.

    I see you believe the church is the victim in the birth control mandate. But I say religious organizations are companies that employee people and no boss has the right to decide what medical care I have access to, nor force me to pay out of my pocket for such care. So to me, yes, there are several people fighting to control a woman’s access to birth control.

    We’re looking at a battle between religious freedom and medical freedom. But what if the tables were turned? Medical organizations employ people of all religions, but do they force their employees to stop praying or going to church? Do they force them to go on birth control if it’s against their religious beliefs? Great arguments are made on the Chicago Tribune opinion page here. (,0,7690697.story)

    I understand you may not believe in abortion, and you have a right to your opinion. (Obviously we disagree and that’s a different argument.) But to state that *not one single person who is seeking to take away a woman’s right to abortion, nor birth control* is in fact, inaccurate.

  9. Stuart says:

    Robin: Passionate? I wouldn't call it that. More objective than anything else. In one case you are right, or rather, we miscommunicated. As to the abortion, I was referring to the Catholic Church case alone. Yes, there are some who have always sought to eliminate a woman's right to choose. But seeing as how it has been almost 40 years since Roe was decided, and seeing as how Republicans have placed double the number of Justices to the Supreme Court since Roe (8 to 4), and seeing as how there has been nothing close to challenging Roe, the issue of abortion is pretty much a moot issue – it has been decided. As to the Ultrasound bill you mention: that does not take away the right of choice.

  10. Stuart says:

    Part of my message did not go through. Bummer. 🙂 I am not a Santorum fan (I prefer Romney), but I have yet to see any serious proposal about elimination of contraceptives. Also, you assume that I do not believe in abortion. Didn't your mother tell you not to assume?

    This is a not a Catholic victimhood, but rather a decision that tramples all over the First Amendment. The Constitution is here to protect our freedoms. And do you seriously want to compare Religious Freedom with Medical Freedom? Look up the First Amendment. In fact, look up the entire Constitution. In fact, look up the entire Federalist Papers. "Medical Freedom" is not mentioned a single time. And once again, no one is saying that people who work at Catholic organizations are prohibited from getting contraceptives elsewhere.

  11. D.C. Douglas says:

    I think she's going off the general memes in politics right now. The Catholic Church of Pedophilia and Unnecessary Guilt is but the idiotic entry point politicians used. Obama solved it.

    I'm going to start a church, though, that doesn't believe in preventing heart attacks. Then deny coverage on those grounds to my employees.

    One day we will evolve beyond bronze-age mythology.

  12. Kiata says:

    You've moved on to Romney, now? A short while ago, you were all about Gingrich.

    Abortion is not something to "believe" in. How silly of you. So, are you pro-choice or anti-choice?

  13. D.C. Douglas says:

    "As to the Ultrasound bill you mention: that does not take away the right of choice."

    It certainly takes away the right to choose having a plastic stick stuck up your vagina. Stuart, you seem to miss the point of her post. Would you like "small government" to legislate you having to get an anal probe before you get a vasectomy? Especially when it doesn't serve any medical purpose re your decision?

    Seriously, Stuart, abortion rights moot? You don't have to overturn Roe v Wade to take away a woman's right. State's can make it impossible for doctors to provide the service. And they are doing just that in a dozen states.

  14. Stuart says:

    Name one state where a woman cannot get an abortion

  15. Robin Dale Meyers says:

    Abortion is legal in all states. However, each state can decide on anti-abortion requirements that clearly try to prevent a woman\’s choice or change her mind:

    TODAY\’s news in Texas, where women must endure their doctor\’s description of the fetus and then are forced to wait 24 hours before the procedure.

    Oklahoma Senate approved the Personhood Bill, declaring life begins at conception, making the way to criminalizing abortion:

    Kansas, where insurance companies are barred from offering abortion coverage as a general health plans.… More on Kansas:

    In short, as Rachel Maddow says: Why bother making it illegal if you can just make it impossible to get?

    There is a clear intention to make it difficult – physically, emotionally and financially – for women to get abortions. Sure, we can still *choose* but will we be allowed to *get*?

  16. Stuart says:

    So in other words, there is no state preventing a woman from obtaining an abortion. Thank you for answering my question.

    Let's give an analogy: We have in this country the 2nd Amendment: The right to bear arms. But there are all kinds of gun control laws. Right? We have the right to free speech. But we have restrictions on that speech, such as not having the freedom to yell "FIRE" in a movie theater. We have Freedom to assemble. But their are restrictions, such as having to obtain a permit, etc.

    One could argue that a woman has a right to choose. But there are constraints on that freedom ………. just like every other freedom. But when you get down to it, any woman can obtain an abortion in any state.

  17. Stewart says:

    I am so glad your name is spelled differently from mine.

  18. Robin Dale Meyers says:

    The ultrasound bill takes away my right to choose to have an *unnecessary* invasive medical procedure *and* view their results prior to getting the abortion I\’ve chosen to get. (Take a look at Jennifer\’s thoughtful description of her experience of this procedure, even though she elected to have it done for other reasons.) It is a medical and psychological preamble to what it\’s supporters are trying to do, which is to prevent a women\’s right to choose an abortion. Plus, as DC points out, states can make certain decisions outside of federal government. Please see his suggestion of a an anal probe for you prior to getting a vasectomy as the flip side of the issue. Excellent example.

    Regardless of any proposed or passed bills and laws, it\’s the fact that this conversation is even happening at all in 2012 that is astounding to me. This is part of what I\’m exploring here. There are people high up in the public eye (and some who are trying to gain positions of great power) who are saying that birth control is unhealthy for women and society. Many of these people are very much against abortion as well. Why? Because they view procreation as the thrust of both our religious and our patriotic purpose here. And there is simply no issue that puts men into this kind of position. None. Hence my post. Gender equality is the issue.

    As for where you stand on a woman\’s right to choose, I was trying to be respectful of what your opinion seemed to be. I may have misread this. If you are for a woman\’s right to choose, then I hope you\’ll take another look at the Personhood bill and Ultrasound bill and the direction in which these folks are trying to head.

  19. Stuart says:

    Robin, if I have learned anything in life it is not to argue abortion – either with a Pro-Lifer, nor with a Pro-Choicer. I respect your opinion. I also appreciate the manner in which you discuss, in that you do not take it personally, you do not insult, and you present facts as you see them. This is a rare trait to find in the world of the Internet. 🙂

    My original comment was on contraceptive – especially as it related to the religious freedoms. While i know that an ultrasound may be invasive, the act of taking a life is at least equally invasive, in my opinion.

    Yeah, I know: many people do not see a fetus as a life. But there are others who believe just as strongly that it is a life. And personally speaking, I see nothing wrong with a woman gaining as much knowledge as possible – on both sides of the issue – before making such a crucial decision.

    As for me, I am Pro-Choice. I just hope that life is the choice that is made, even if that means adoption. But I respect a woman to make that decision. Have a nice day

  20. Robin Dale Meyers says:

    My argument in this satirical article has never been about whether abortion or contraception is illegal. It is that the medical and reproductive constraints being placed on women today, in 2012, are clearly moving in a direction of severely restricting our medical freedom (such are the facts I\’ve presented). And the people fighting against these rights of women are doing so in the name of God and country. So I\’m exploring the question, why are there no equally constrictive restrictions on men for the same reason? And if there were, what would they be? And if they existed, how would men feel about them?

    Now that our textbook Twitching Blob discussion has sucked every bit of humor out of the topic, I\’m going to re-read the article and give myself a good giggle. I hope you can do the same, as it is a satirical piece of writing.

  21. Stuart says:

    While you may see your writing as satirical, it is evident that many others do not. It is also evident that the issues of abortion/contraceptive/religious freedoms are blurred. Sorry to have sucked the humor out of this topic. But as evident, there really is not much humor in this subject. So I'll mosey on elsewhere.Again, thank you for the discussion. I enjoyed it.

  22. Robin Dale Meyers says:

    With all due respect Stuart, every other person who reads this understands the article is satirical. The topic is not, but the article is. There is a difference. (If I\’m wrong, I\’m sure they\’ll chime in.) I don\’t believe a man\’s penis should be removed. But perhaps your fiery response to what you viewed as a realistic suggestion is the equivalent of how women feel about the very real ultrasound law and the very real general cultural discussion about reproductive rights going on right now. Something to think about. Thanks for playing.

  23. Kiata says:

    Elsewhere, Stuart is adamant that your article is not satire.

  24. Kiata says:

    You're anything but objective, Stuart.

  25. D.C. Douglas says:

    Wow, Stuart, you really haven't been paying attention. Robin showed you a lot of respect by responding with facts and links, essentially holding your hand through the process of enlightening you. I'll just stick with mockery and your first statement:

    "HUH??? There is not a single person who is seeking to take away a woman's right to abortion, nor birth control. Yiur comments are highly exaggerated – at best"

    [sigh] Really? Then I guess this is just a figment of people's imagination:

    It's good to be passionate, but dangerous when it's around ignorance. And, yes, that would be a Tea Party attitude. (

  26. Kiata says:

    Jennifer, I am sorry for your loss and sorry that you had to undergo that procedure. I had to undergo that procedure once, to help rule out an ovarian cyst. As you said, it was uncomfortable and humiliating. I can't imagine why anyone would want to force a woman who has already made the difficult choice to abort a pregnancy to undergo this procedure. It's simply cruel and seems to be a punishment. Barbaric.

  27. Alfi says:

    As one who has (as you know) followed politics for a long time, I'm astounded that the Republicans, who should be running the table in the current campaign, provide such opportunities (I almost said openings) to be labeled as demented.

  28. Alfi says:

    Back in the Dark Ages, when I was in college, I read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," to which I here post a link. If your ancestors hadn't come from a place other than the UK, I would suggest a direct line from that to your effort here.

  29. guest says:

    This is great!!! Deserves to be made expanded into a book, like "1984" or the Handmaiden's or "The Handmaiden's Tale".

  30. Jennifer says:

    You and Colbert. Just where I thought satire was dead in this country.

  31. Robin Dale Meyers says:

    I am humbled and honored. That is the highest compliment. Thanks!

  32. Alfi says:

    No. The HIGHEST compliment would have been Jon Stewart.

  33. Jennifer says:

    Aaaand by where I meant when.

  34. Claire says:

    Alas, I think many men will rush to sign up for the part where "he’s filled a cup in front of a camera that streams live into the female doctor’s office."

    Maybe instead of all the tests and emasculations they need to make the male partner be the one to abort the fetus, then he has to stare at it for a really long time before he buries it (with appropriate religious service). This will ensure that he too will not suffer "severe depression" and “regrets” if he is not made to understand the implications of what he has done.

    Welcome to the 1600s!

  35. Mariah says:

    Thank you, Robin, for writing this Swiftian response to the sexist/oppressive bill that was proposed and ultimately defeated in Virginia. Unfortunately, my own home state of Pennsylvania has now decided to follow suit and introduce a similar bill, so it seems the topic remains frighteningly relevant. This is not about religion, it never has been. It is entirely about sexism and the control and regulation of a woman’s body. If it was about religion, we would be living in a theocracy, and while it may feel like we are at times, technically we are not. The first amendment guarantees us that the state (Federal or otherwise) shall not adopt or implement any religion whatsoever. When people use religion as the basis of an anti-choice argument, they have already lost said argument because this lovely first amendment has guaranteed us the separation of church and state. Your religion is not my religion, as an Agnostic I can assure you of that. Therefore, your religious-based argument is invalid.

    (More to come…)

  36. Mariah says:

    What has always shocked and disturbed me about this type of attack, the slow erosion of a woman's freedom to choose, is the inherent assumption that all women are fickle children who decide to have this type of procedure on a whim and must be reminded of its grave implications. It is as if some people think that a woman who elects to have an abortion has not thought painstakingly hard about the decision BEFORE she scheduled the procedure. As if a pregnant woman might be strolling past a Planned Parenthood clinic one day and see a sign in the window saying “Happy-Hour Special: Half-Off All Abortions, 3-5 PM Daily!” (Planned Parenthood does not advertise like a Red Lobster, btw, this is called sarcasm), and said pregnant woman thinks to herself, “Hmm, that sounds like a bargain. Kids are annoying and expensive, anyway, so why not? After all, I have an hour to kill before my mani/pedi appointment. I’m sold!” This does not happen. Like, ever.

  37. Mariah says:

    When a woman makes this choice, it is not because she does not understand her actions: how offensive and unbelievably arrogant to assume this, which – thoug, it may not be articulated in so many words – is indeed the underlying attitude behind these bills. When a woman makes this type of heart-wrenching decision, you had better believe she has contemplated all avenues before her. As factually incorrect as his argument is, and as patently dense as he may be in his lack of understanding of the issue, Stuart was right insomuch that this bill does not outlaw abortion – that is federally illegal to do (for now). Instead, what it is designed to do is intimidate, humiliate and shame women into choosing to carry unwanted fetuses to term, a far more insidious and subversive tactic than outright banning the procedure. The ultimate irony here is that the Anti-Choice advocates who want every unwanted pregnancy brought to term are usually the very same folks who are against federal welfare, food stamp assistance, universal healthcare, government-funded school charters, and other federal assistance programs for the poor. Programs that would undoubtedly benefit the very children the Anti-Choice advocates have “saved” with these underhanded tactics.

  38. Mariah says:

    It is the poor, whose numbers in this country (and worldwide) are predominantly composed of women and children, that will suffer most from these types of laws. Rich women will always be able to buy an abortion, no matter what degree of legality, or, if they choose life, will subsequently be able to afford raising their little “mistake/miracle” into adulthood. However, poor women do not have the same resources or protections as rich women, and its poor women that can suffer the most from these types of callous decisions from the ruling class. When one sees only through one’s own paradigm, then one cannot and will not ever understand compassion or empathy for someone different from one’s self. Alas, as human animals, we are not a telepathic race, and are instead confined to our own paradigms. Therefore, it requires the conscious choice of each of us to step outside of that box, to look at a larger picture of the world, of history, of culture, of humanity, and to challenge ourselves to try to sympathize, empathize, or understand those who differ from us. In summation, you don’t have to like my choice, but you should at least respect my freedom and right to make that choice.

  39. Mariah says:

    Thanks for writing this small, clever essay, Robin, and allowing me to hijack the comments here for my own little verbose essay! I will be linking to you soon!

  40. Andrew says:

    How there is debate over who has rights to their own body is beyond me… Women should always have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies, even if it has to do with terminating something or preventing something their body creates.

  41. @euylavie says:

    This could be internationally executed and now we know what can replace wedding rings in the future—aptly, for the men. The woman's ring could be the execution device mentioned. Oh this could be a revolution!

  42. Ernie says:

    Dear blogger

    It's Ernie again. I loved your latest post, but… I think your use of lanugage is too vulgar (maybe you were raised that way) and I don't want to change your writing style, but can you please go clean?

    Thanks, just a suggestion.

  43. Robin Dale Meyers says:

    Dear Ernie, I love that you love my post. However, to ask me to change my writing style is the equivalent of asking me to be the way *you* want me to be. Would you like it if I suggested you write in a different style or about different topics? As bloggers, we have the inherent right to express ourselves the way we want to. So, no, sorry, I simply won\’t change who I am because you\’ve asked me to.

  44. Ernie says:

    Hi, I just saw that my child's parental controls suggests that your blog contains pronography… I'm sorry, I cannot subscribe to this…

    This is not to put you down, but to let you know, I'm a devout Christian, and this is way out of my league.

    PS: You're such a talented writer, don't burry that, or use that for bad.

  45. Robin Dale Meyers says:

    Oh, Ernie, my blog does not contain pornography. It contains some *swear* words and I refer to male genitalia using some funny language. But my blog does not contain pornography except by the standards of your parental controls. I appreciate that you think I\’m a talented writer; thank you for the compliment. But just because I use words you don\’t like, doesn\’t mean I\’m using my words for *bad*, as you say. Since you are a devout Christian, then my blog is probably not for you. But that doesn\’t mean I or my words or my opinions are *bad*. They are simply different from yours.

    Good luck to you in your blogging; I promise I won\’t read your posts and tell you how or what to write.

  46. a good penis says:

    boy am i happy my sperm count is high as ever lol.

    but addressing the post, i have never understood why religious people would want to force women into keeping a baby they dont want. Because if they dont want it then its going to be alot more harder to raise that child with real love.

  47. Guest says:

    That's awesome! I love the Patriotic Penis Proposal! I'm sure Rush Limbaugh will be the first to sign up.

  48. Jessica says:

    Abortion is not a good thing. It is type of murder. But sometimes woman is helpless, they have no another choice. Abortion is last way for them. So that, abortion is not bad always. Thanks for sharing this post.

  49. Glennnarie says:

    top nfl kick returners cheap jerseys

  50. mistywg16 says:

    Original work
    pichle porn thai girl porn free porn strapon women fucking men gay brothers sex porn arab auty porn tube

Leave a Reply