Parsing Alyssa Milano’s Call for a ‘Sex Strike’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The internet is having a great time responding to Alyssa Milano’s call for a “sex strike” until Georgia’s fetal heartbeat bill is overturned. But while it’s easy to mock her words, they deserve to be parsed carefully, since they articulate the pro-abortion philosophy of the left.
Milano tweeted, “Our reproductive rights are being erased. Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy. JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back. I’m calling for a #SexStrike . Pass it on.”
What, exactly, does Milano mean by “reproductive rights”?
If you were just learning the English language, you might safely deduce that this phrase meant “the right to reproduce.” But that would be a logical deduction, and there is nothing logical about the Orwellian reasoning of the left.
Instead, “reproductive rights” means a woman’s right to kill the baby in her womb.
This is classic doublespeak, but in an especially deadly form, as “reproduction” here means “termination.”
“No sex until we have the right to kill our unborn!”
Milano, of course, references a woman’s “legal right” over her body, reflecting the pro-abortion mentality that the baby is not an independent human being who has a “legal right” to life. Instead, the baby is an appendage of the mother’s body.
Some have even likened the baby in the womb to a tumor or a growth or a clump of cells. Mothers should have the “legal right” to dispose of such intrusions. This is what Milano also means by “bodily autonomy.”
In contrast, the baby has no autonomy. If the child wasn’t planned and isn’t wanted, it has only one choice: to meet with a violent end. To be a casualty. The unborn have no rights.
And note carefully what Milano is saying: It’s not worth having sex if you have to “risk pregnancy.” So, it’s sex for recreation, not procreation, and abortion is just another form of birth control.
Of course, the left doesn’t normally put things so plainly (and honestly).
Instead, pro-abortionists will remind us of the (very difficult) cases of a woman carrying a severely disabled baby, or a 15-year-old rape victim, sexually abused by her own step-father.
Cases like that are meant to evoke compassion and sympathy, and rightly so.
But Milano let the cat out of the bag. That’s not the main concern with most who are “shouting” their abortions today.
The issue is that recreational sex just might lead to an unwanted pregnancy, and abortion is the simple solution. It’s birth control after conception rather than before conception, just a little messier and bloodier.
But not to worry. If you don’t want the baby, don’t have the baby. And if that choice is taken away from you, Milano argues, then don’t conceive the baby. (For the record, that’s called abstinence, as others have gleefully pointed out, including this tweet : “Not sure this was thought through, but the pro life crowd supports your call to abstinence to prevent abortions. Well done!”)
It would seem that Milano is intending to punish men as well, withholding sex from them – after all, this is a “strike” – since all men are somehow guilty. After all, it was mainly men who voted for Georgia’s pro-life bill and a male governor who signed it.
So, Milano apparently reasons, let’s hit these men where it hurts and withhold sex.
Bette Midler, though, seems to have taken this one step further, tweeting , “I hope the #womenofGeorgia stop having sex with men until these indignities are overturned.”
In other words, lesbian sex is fine, since it cannot result in a pregnancy. Plus, women are not the culprits in passing this new law. Instead, punish those evil men, but let the ladies have fun as they please. (Am I reading too much into the words “stop having sex with men”? I think not.)
What Midler and Milano fail to grasp is that there are millions of couples in America who have sex to be intimate as well as to reproduce. For them, the greatest news a wife could share with her husband would be, “I’m pregnant!” And millions of Americans welcome children into the world every year, with tears of joy and gratitude.
All that is lost on the radical left, for whom pregnancy is a “risk” you take when you have sex, abortion is a method of birth control, and “reproductive rights” refers to the right to stop reproduction.
The left has made itself perfectly clear, and the logic is positively deadly.
And so, while some of Milano’s followers and colleagues will go on strike, abstaining from sex and producing no offspring, pro-lifers will continue to have sex and have babies.
It works out well after all.
“What Midler and Milano fail to grasp is that there are millions of couples in America who have sex to be intimate as well as to reproduce. For them, the greatest news a wife could share with her husband would be, “I’m pregnant!” And millions of Americans welcome children into the world every year, with tears of joy and gratitude.
All that is lost on the radical left, for whom pregnancy is a “risk” you take when you have sex, abortion is a method of birth control, and “reproductive rights” refers to the right to stop reproduction.
The left has made itself perfectly clear, and the logic is positively deadly.”
the first paragraph is true and I am happy for those families
Not everybody wants children or can properly take care of them, or give them the love and support a child deserves.
The situation is often not right for those who would be great parents at a better time
when a child is not really wanted, "I'm pregnant" is not a happy statement.
And that’s when they call Terminix to deal with the unwanted infestation....
and then things are good again. House call abortions would be a great idea.
Really...A human baby no more than a termite or rat infestation, a problem to be eradicated?
Pregnancy is an unwanted result of the desire filled action that they participated in. Nothing more than a clump of cells...as far as they are concerned.
Women who turn to abortion as a method of birth control are angry that when they participate in sex...they are the ones that become pregnant...not their male partners. Abortion gives them control and the ability to have sex without an undesired result.
Ms. Milano and Ms Midler think that withholding sex will show them all!
Girls just wanna have fun!
No not really, a fetus or embryo. And it is not our decision to make one way or another.
How many women do you know who use abortion as a method of birth control? I know of none. It's a stupid thing to say.
It's more like a parasite actually. And if it's not wanted, why should a woman have it. And it's not a baby until it's born.
Yeah, ask any woman who has miscarried what she lost. I bet you good money she doesn't ever say "I lost a zygote or fetus".
Wow, what a sweeping generalization, with a hint of misogyny.
Possibly because she wanted to continue a pregnancy. Not all women do. And regardless of what one wants to call it, it's still a zygote/embryo/fetus.
Nice mansplaining.
Just simple fact.
If it is just simple fact as you would have us believe, then why on earth would women get upset or emotional over just a zygote?
Is it your position that women overblow miscarriages?
Ask women that question. Some might get emotional. Some might not. And yes, it is a simple fact. I don't get emotional about it. If people do, that's on them. Makes no difference to me and doesn't change the facts.
Shouldn't children be planned and wanted by both parents?
If so, shouldn't the focus be on preventing unplanned pregnancy via education and access to reliable contraception so there are fewer abortions?
I think that, but am sure you will get some pushback from those who think it is ONLY a woman's decision.
I believe the optimal situation for ALL involved is for children to be planned and raised by two parents in a stable relationship whether it is a heterosexual couple or homosexual couple.
It is ULTIMATELY the woman's decision because it is ONLY her body that is being risked by carrying a pregnancy to term.
If the woman is not in a stable situation with the sperm donor and encounters an unwanted pregnancy then it may not be in anyone's best interest to even tell him about the pregnancy. Every situation has nuances that are best left to the woman to decide on what is her best outcome.
Both should be involved in family planning, but ultimately it's the woman who has to carry and give birth so the final decision would be hers to make. If a husband was discussing with his wife the possibility of getting a vasectomy, I think it reasonable that the final decision rests with the guy getting snipped. So while the family planning and debate should be shared, the final decision should rest with the person whose body is directly being effected.
So, exactly what I said--it is solely the woman's decision.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
So, we agree--it is solely the woman's decision.
Agreed.
If a man does not wish to have a woman have this much power over his sperm, then he should not deposit it in her body.
So then the talk about both potential parents being involved in the decision making is really a moot point.
We have both already agreed it is solely a woman's decision. So it clearly means that the man has no input.
You would be correct here. Just as I do not have input into the health decisions of my husband. We discuss them, but what is done to his body is his decision. I would have liked for him to get a vasectomy after our son was born. We talked about, but he decided not to and we used alternative birth control methods. No one should tell you what to have done to your body.
Short of a hysterectomy there is no form of birth control that is 100% effective. Shit happens.
What is clear is that you cherry picked my earlier comment to fit your desired conclusion.
When "ONLY" did not fly, you substituted "solely". I allowed it and shouldn't have because it absolutely is not what I had stated because it is not how I feel.
Children should be planned and wanted by both parents for the well-being of all involved. That way the child is not "blamed" for forcing two people to interact for any reason. The child is not used to spy on the other parent. The child is not involved in custody tug of war. The child is not mistreated in any number of ways that children are mistreated when they are born in unstable relationships.
Women are people, not broodmares, and should be respected as people. People, who are capable, and have the right to make their own life decisions without interference by bystanders who seek to use them as broodmares.
You know that solely is an anonym for only?
A man has no input. Only after the woman makes a decision can a man have any input --and that would only be dependent on the woman sticking with a decision to keep a child she was carrying, and only regarding the child after birth.
His ONLY decision is whether to input his sperm into a woman or not. Once he makes his input, then it becomes ONLY the woman's decision on what to do about it if an unwanted pregnancy results.
So the man does have a decision to make about whether to "input" or "not to input" his sperm into a receptacle that might prove to be unwilling to host it for life on a mostly permanent basis.
What about if the man made the decision to sleep with a woman and he uses a condom--a clear signal of what his intentions are. And say the condom breaks? I contend that a man should have some input if the woman becomes pregnant. I realize tht isn't a popular opinion, especially to some women, but that is all it is--my opinion.
Why? Will he put his health at risk? Will he put his employment at risk?
Frankly if he used a condom properly the first thing he should ask for is a DNA test.
If it is ending a birth....it is birth control.
He still made the decision to risk inputting his sperm into a hostile environment. He should have just said "No, I am saving my sperm for a committed relationship where it will be welcomed."
Men should have these conversations before having sex or STFU about what happens afterward. If they are not capable of talking about sex and/or using self-control of their own body, then how in the Hell are they qualified to be a parent?
Conversation??????? You want them to discuss it????? It takes away from the spontaneity.
Birth control doesn't end birth. It prevents it from occurring.
Spontaneity? When did a man accidentally have sex?
If intelligent conversation was a prerequisite for having sex, it would probably make all of our lives easier and improve the gene pool at the same time.
We would no longer be having conversations with men who viewed women as broodmares or as a replacement for their momma.
We would avoid these types to begin with if conversations about what could occur from a dalliance.
What most people do think of as birth control prevents a pregnancy, an abortion prevents a birth.
Almost half of women who have had an abortion have had multiple abortions, could be because of a failure of using other methods. I am not really sure, but it isn't uncommon for women to have multiple abortions.
Exactly! Women are condemned for having sex while using contraceptive.s When she gets pregnant because it failed she's condemned again because she wants an abortion. Can't have that! You chose to have sex! You knew the consequences of having sex! Oh you were on the Pill and still got pregnant? That's your problem! No, you can't have an abortion!
Which is why I'm down with Ms Milano. These same men who don't want us to have birth control and no abortions should be denied sex.
Birth control prevents a pregnancy. Abortion ends a pregnancy. There is no birth occurring. And so what if a woman has multiple abortions? That's her choice, as it should be.
Do you have a link for that?
Abortion is not birth control. It's birth prevention
Did I say it did....do you have a point or just poking for no reason?
Well, when you're right I'm not afraid to say it.
You were right. And good for you for getting the proof
But that doesn't mean it is from being irresponsible. Its a factor of how long a woman has been alive. Important to know, and yet another reason to make sure ALL women have access to basic reproductive healthcare, including contraception. Stopping the slut-shaming and trying to isolate fertility from the rest of female physiology would be another aspect. If one really cares about minimizing the need for abortions, show it by working to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Which always fall on the most vulnerable women.
Excuse me...did I say otherwise?
I was making an observation, isn't that what we do here?
It isn't uncommon for women to have multiple abortions...good grief can you handle that tidbit without going ballistic?
Someone holding sex from you? lol
Solely: adverb - not involving anyone or anything else
When a group of engineers gets together to design something, they all consult with each other during the planning, but the chief engineer makes the final decision. Would anyone really say that the building was designed "solely" by the chief engineer? Of course not. And in a family, a couple can spend lots of time planning before coming to a decision, which, when it comes to pregnancy, should be up to the one whose body will host and give birth to this collective decision. Also, the male doesn't have to abide by the woman's decision, he's not being forced to impregnate her. He can go get a vasectomy if he wants, though that should also be discussed as a family if he wants to be a responsible spouse, but he's not forced to, the final decision rests with him as to whether he wants to be a father or not. But once his genies have left the bottle he no longer has the same rights to them and then it's the woman's choice to keep her egg regardless of whether its fertilized.
Please note that if sex ed and birth control was easily accessible then repeat abortions will be lessened - possibly significantly.
People, who want to eliminate abortion, should promote sex ed and birth control accessibility.
From Sunshine's link... (That is good article on why there are repeat abortions. Please read it.)
Note: The FDA, however, allows men to purchase emergency contraception for their partners. What's next? Will US women be issued a male guardian in order to access healthcare like the women in Saudi Arabia are required to do?
It will show them a good reason to avoid relationships with angry leftists.
The Meaning of the Word Fetus Shows the Humanity of the ...
Or her parasite...
So are you suggesting that men withhold sex from any woman unwilling to bring an unplanned baby to birth? I do agree that no man should have sex with any women he is not in a committed relationship with.
" the ability to have sex without an undesired result."
" Girls just wanna have fun!"
There is nothing wrong with that
Or as the Guttmacher Institute phrased it ;
.
So, one could read the data results and conclude, "In 2014 women were competing to see who could have the most abortions", or , "In 2014 some women having abortions had had a previous one earlier in her life".
The difference between Potato & Potahto I guess.
You know like the difference between a women making her legal choice and a baby killing whore, it's all just semantics.
Oh for fuck's sake.
Yes, it is "literally" for fucks sake.
Spot on with this one Tessy. Good job!
I am not suggesting it, I am stating it as it should be mandatory.
This will be beneficial for everyone involved.
I don't. I believe that no man looking for a broodmare should have sex outside of marriage to a woman who has agreed to be said broodmare.
I believe that consenting adults should be able to have sex just because they want to. It is no one else's business. Zip, zero, nada.
However for the forced birth crowd, they should be gleefully check in on the world population clock every hour and celebrate all of the births of 300,000+ babies every single day.
Here is the live US population clock. In the US, we have added 7840+ babies to our population before noon CST. How many are the forced birthers willing to feed, clothe and educate? And even if the answer is every single one, why should any women be forced to be a broodmare for any reason? Would this ever even be questioned if we did not have religious zealots trying to control every single person in the world with their religious doctrine?
Weaponizing sex?
What will the moonbats think of next?
God only knows.....or is it only God knows what that will be?
That is exactly what happens when religious hierarchy and their minions restrict contraceptive information and access.
That is exactly what happens when religious hierarchy and their minions preach that sex is "sinful" and praise celibacy, chastity, virginity as the ideal life experience that is pleasing to their god.
That is exactly what happens when religious hierarchy and their minions preach that women are evil creatures responsible for the downfall of mankind. Their god did not know what he was doing when he created a woman so of course it is not their god's responsibility that he was the architect of man's downfall.
That is exactly what happens when religious hierarch and their minions preach that women who have sex should be punished with pregnancy for being lustful, causing men to lust (undermine celibacy) and being evil creatures responsible for downfall of mankind.
Controlling a person's consensual sex life is controlling that person be they male or female. This is unacceptable - period.
No according to Milano it's not.
How so?
Because OBVIOUSLY whoever she is withholding sex from deserves to have sex with her & her saying no is not right. SHe should give it to any MAN that asks. After all all men deserve sex on demand.
Really? You have to ask that?
Yeah, i'm sure you can rant all day on that topic but that IS NOT what i was saying.
Taking normal consensual sex away, simply to get your way, is weaponizing sex.
On what planet is that healthy behavior?
Taking away a woman's right to safe, medical, legal abortion is far more unhealthy to the woman who risks her mental, physical, and financial health for life.
Men, who respect women's right to control their reproductive health, will not be doing without sex because they are not the problem.
Women did it in the 50s to get their husbands to do what they wanted them to do. Isn't the 50s the place we all want to go back to?
Huh, my opinion is a rant but yours is gospel?
How is not putting out unhealthy? On what planet is giving up our rights to our bodies healthy? WE know our bodies better than anyone else & frankly if this is what it takes to get you out of our decisions then so be it.
Is your outrage simply because a woman DARES to tell a man NO?
Maybe she has decided to do what all the right bible thumpers have wanted women to do - save sex until she wants to pump out kids.
Not at all. Not in the least.
Now please answer the question i already posed above.
i suspect we don't disagree on much here but i could be wrong
I think that anyone that decides to withhold sex for whatever reason is not engaging in unhealthy behavior. Why would you consider it unhealthy. Sex is a choice & to refrain from it is also a choice. Funny how these women can't win. When they engage they are condemned - when they refrain (for whatever reason) they are condemned.
Okay, we do disagree. Absolutely in Milano's case here.
No point to carrying this conversation any further.
We are not going to agree.
So why do you think it is unhealthy? Who is it hurting? You only discuss with people you agree with? Explain how denying sex to anyone is hurtful.
Let me ask you this. If my husband and I have an argument and I am angry with him, then he wants to have sex even though I am still angry & he knows I am still angry and I tell him no, we are not having sex is that weaponizing sex? I am withholding sex because of the the argument because I am angry still. Is that unhealthy?
Oh that's right you only discuss things with people that agree with you.
On what planet is it healthy behavior for a woman to have any kind of relationship with a man who does not respect her?
You've been on NT long enough to know the answer to that. That said, when i sense there is probably nothing potentially positive coming from the conversation, yeah i bow out. Base on what i last quoted from you, we are far, far apart on this topic.
One person placing arbitrary conditions like Milano is doing here, on an otherwise consensual act, is about as unhealthy as one can get IMO. It hurts the person having the conditions placed on them and for that matter, it also hurts the person making the conditions more than they know.
Less emotion, more reason.
Thank God most people don't think like Milano.
So if you are angry you should have sex with the person you are angry with?
Also, what is the best way to get people's attention - SEX. See how much of a brouhaha this has become? ALL because a woman states that she thinks if the right want to take our choice away then we should take their sex away. I don't think that is unhealthy at all - I think it is stating a stance. Just because she said it doesn't mean she will do it - but it sure as hell got your attention.
How so?
No emotion.
It is not possible to have a healthy relationship with a man who does not respect women. Relationships based on lust are fun, but marriage usually has real life problems that need to be addressed by other means than sex. If there is not a partnership that can deal for the benefit of both, then the relationship is unhealthy period and usually fails. Hence, the divorces that result as wives flee marriages where their needs are not being met. No one should squander their life trying to jump through hoops to please another person ---unless they are a masochist and this type of abuse brings them some kind of twisted pleasure.
You may not like it, but you are discussing it.
Since I and my significant other treat each other as equals, she still seduces me no matter the strike.
I take it you are against people right to boycott? Taking normal consensual shopping away from businesses you disagree with, simply to get your way, is weaponizing your purchase power and its one of the things America was built on. Don't like everyone avoiding your store or not having sex with you? Then consider listening to what the shoppers and the wives have to say.
No that's not being in the mood for sex. If you don't see the difference then that's on you.
The i'm not having sex because I don't like a law is just more Liberalism demonstrating what cry babies they are because they didn't get their way. Just like the constant whining because they can't get over the fact Hillaryious Hillary lost.
Who's access to contraceptives is restricted?
The religious hierarchy has been preaching on the evils of sex outside of marriage for millennia because it protects the economic interests of married women.
I'm curious if you hold angry leftists as responsible for the things they preach as you do organized religions.
When you get married women to agree with you, it will change. Men everywhere hope you will succeed.
Oh yeah. Most definitely.
Some poor liberal bastard in California is suddenly celibate because his batshit crazy girlfriend is having a tantrum about some law in Georgia that he doesn't agree with anyway.
And you somehow imagine that's "healthy"??
Riiiiight. That's definitely going to improve their relationship. *eyeroll*
On what planet do you imagine Alyssa Milano is sleeping with a conservative??
On what planet do you imagine the legislators who voted for this law don't have overwhelming support from their wives?
See 2.2.20
See 2.2.20
Riiiiight. Because nobody was discussing abortion before. *eyeroll*
Are they already capitulating to the "raising awareness" cop out? How sad is that? Did the whole "sex strike" even last 48 hours?
She's just another angry leftist having another bratty tantrum and then looking up and realizing nobody actually takes her seriously.
And yet here you are discussing it and her. If you truly think it has not had an impact you would not have bothered.
BTW - snarkiness makes you look petty.
I don't spend my life "imaging" about strangers or acquaintances sleeping or screwing habits.
I don't understand why anyone does, but I would guess they are hardwired to do so or need more excitement in their own lives.
No imagination is required. It is easily understood that controlling men have subservient wives.
And yet yours is working overtime, apparently.
Oh good grief.
How many of these women have you actually met? How many actual married women do you know that are supposedly "subservient"?
Nice classic 'bullshit answer' concession.
Alyssa Milano is not dating/seeing/booty calling or otherwise involved with any person who would ever have supported this law. Neither are any other women who would be batshit angry leftist enough to participate in such a "strike".
Great questions!
Why would anyone want to do that to their partner/husband?
She really is an idiot, I can't see how this would change anything in the legislature.
Her husband is probably one of those good ones who don't want to take away her birth control or her access to abortion. He probably gets to enjoy sex with her.
If one's husband is a complete asshole about the whole BC/abortion thing...then he doesn't get his ticket punched on the Horizontal Mambo Train.
That goes for the single dudes out there, too
Both dudes and dudettes who are sexually active should always take mutual measures/responsibility.
Milano's reasons for doing this may seem righteous to some but they amount to nothing more than sexual extortion and have no place in a healthy relationship.
People here will push the usual rationalizations for why it's okay but its not. Not even close.
That okay Tessy, we don't expect you to get the 500 level stuff.
As you were .....
Who is we?
I disagree with YOU.
Much of the NT community at large .... well that and the highly educated mouse i have in my pocket ....
"JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back. I’m calling for a #SexStrike. Pass it on.”
That'll show Politicians she means business.
Now how's that gonna go for your everyday family life missy ! Will the divorce rates go up ?
Instead, “reproductive rights” means a woman’s right to kill the baby in her womb.
Actually it is more along the lines of allowing women the control over their own bodies.
The constant poking of noses into others peoples vaginas and the like is becoming tiresome. Remember that little word that our Country holds its breath over, freedom.
When one get's the "Shivers and Shakes" with anticipation....."Sense" leaves one's brain !
WTF is that supposed to mean? Sounds a lot like something very patronizing and misogynistic.
And yet.....It's NOT !
And yet you can't explain why its not.
"Shivers and Shakes" with anticipation....is Gender neutral !
Did that help ?
Except the comment specifically spoke about women. Not even a good attempt, don't bother. Rhetorical question, I already knew.
Little "Miss Charmed" Comment ?
Sex is over rated anyways...lol.
If that is how you really feel, that is how you feel.
For me, it can be many things from ho-hum mundane to sublime. When it is with the right person who treasures the sensual experience of almost melting into another, it is the most spiritual, fulfilling experience that makes life worthwhile.
The men, who learned to have sex from porn, should mostly be avoided unless they can be re-trained to understand reality of a woman's body vs the fictionalized version that I have often seen portrayed in porn films. It has been over a decade since I have watched porn so I don't know if the films have gotten better.
I was only joking, but I agree with you..
Good to know. I actually felt sad for you if that was true.
When a woman has sex with a man who treasures her body and soul, he is a worthy mate and included in reproductive decisions because he treasures her enough to respect her abilities and limitations.
Sarcasm or serious?
Well, when done like some evangelicals I'm sure it would be rated PG. Lights off, missionary, no noise, efficient and quick. But when done right, it should be NR (Not Rated) where any possible XXX rating just wouldn't do it justice...
Now you're talking
Well even that's better than debating the whole night what gender you are.
But if you get a few more people involved, then its mass debating and who knows where that might lead...
Maybe you're just not doing it correctly with the right person.
You know, no one is stopping the evangelical males from boycotting sex as well. They should just refuse to have sex until abortion is banned. Kind of a 'kill two birds with one stone' sort of thing...
I thought evangelicals didn't have sex until marriage. After all, that would be a sin, right? So it's like they are boycotting anyway, and no one even notices.
You would think so, right? Funny how the statistics show a significantly higher teen pregnancy rate across the "bible belt" than in the supposed "sin cities" and States.
"With data aggregated at the state level, conservative religious beliefs strongly predict U.S. teen birth rates, in a relationship that does not appear to be the result of confounding by income or abortion rates. One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception."
"One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception."
That's right, they have more teen pregnancy because they are less likely to use contraception, not "they have fewer teen pregnancies because they listen to their parents and preachers and abstain from sex".
Oh, there I go thinking again. It's a bad habit of mine, LOL
Mary Sue and Bobby Joe pray before they get it on that they don't make a baby
I wonder if she’s been celibate since she said what she said on the issue. The world would be better off if she never procreates.