The worst part is draconic abortion bans also hurt those trying to have children. No one's getting recreational third trimester abortions. You picked out a name, painted the nursery. Late term abortions are tragedies to all parties, and only ever happen because of life threatening conditions.
I wouldn't want to plan a child when any complication could mean death.
63They know, that's the point.
41How is this a meme?
28Ikr? Lemmy is 99% stuff like this, when really all i want to do on here is laugh
12Yes. It gets tiring. There aren't even breaks in between "zomg! Look what trump and friends are doing! We are so much better" memes over and over and over and over.
5
A meme (/miːm/ ⓘ; MEEM) is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme. A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures. In popular language, a meme may refer to an Internet meme, typically an image, that is remixed, copied, and circulated in a shared cultural experience online.
0It's not and such content should be banned from memes. But Lemmy has nearly no moderation on validity of content. Tbh, I like Reddit a lot better in many ways except for the asshole admins. It has problems, but still lot better controlled than here.
-1
Which is why republicans and conservatives want it gone: they want you to have children.
18They want you to have children, and they want you to do it before you're ready. They want you to be barely surviving so you can't afford to switch jobs or take time off. They want you too powerless to have any leverage over your
owneremployer.15They want having children to be a woman's punishment for unapproved sex, and they want the kid (who had zero responsibility for creating that situation) to suffer through it along with her, with zero help so it's all as unpleasant as possible, cuz apparently that makes Baby Jesus smile. Fucking lunatics.
9New meat MUST be bred to feed the machine of infinite growth.
7
Birth control is nothing more than a form of medical technology. People against birth control and abortion(also medical technology) are Medical Luddites.
They must be afraid of losing their jobs at crisis pregnancy centers, or be afraid they won't be allowed to shame young single mothers anymore.
15Either they are afraid of losing jobs, or afraid of not having hot single moms in their area. Make a pick
1
I know I'm probably wrong here, and I'm willing to be better informed, but I don't like the phrasing of abortion as mere "birth control," as if it were equal to methods that prevent conception or implantation.
Do people really feel it's not a different sort of act, or would people be comfortable using abortion as their sole means of birth control (if it were safe and inconsequential to the woman)? And yes, I understand that the morning after pill is something of a gray area.
Also yes, I am a Christian. But I understand that there are good reasons for abortion remaining legal.
12Abortion is, by definition, a form of birth control, but I don't think most people would ever consider it to be equal to other forms of controlling birth. However, let's not forget that for a lot of people abortion is quite literally the only birth control they may have access to, and even that access may come at huge risk. There are often family, social, religious (this is the big one), or cultural pressures that get in the way of accessing contraceptives until it is too late.
13Absolutely understand, and while it's hard for me to believe that anyone doesn't know about condoms, a religious person who chooses abortion over condoms really makes me scratch my head.
But I guess you mean a kid living in a "religious" household. Man, I wish there was a way to communicate to kids that feeling your old enough for sex means feeling you're old enough to make good decisions about preventing pregnancy.
I mean frankly the whole thing's just too damn big for me. My heart goes out to everyone who finds themselves with these kinds of choices.
3
Well depends what you mean by birth control... is it a way to prevent pregnancy or children?
Since birth is in the name i'd say the term is better suited for referring to anything preventing the birth of a children. But what the term refers to has no barring on what's happening.
It never meant people don't make a difference. Any reasonable women knows and feel the difference.
The fact it's less safe and has worse effects on your health is just another way we realize how serious an abortion is. It will never be inconsequential even if it was safe.
Please do not trust anyone who says people disagree with this. They all have a political reason to lie.
5Abortion as birth control is a lie they've been harping on for decades. No one does that. No one says, "Aw crap! Preggers again, off to the abortionplex!"
I've impregnated two women that had abortions. I won't go into the details, but we talked about it, decided to do it, and they were both emotionally crushed. The second woman lost her ability to ever have children from the procedure.
Abortion is not a thing to be taken lightly, and no one does.
And thanks for sticking your neck out and asking around here. Surprised you weren't excoriated.
4It's just another way Lemmy isn't Reddit. If you try not to be an ass about it, you can ask just about anything.
2
Absolutely. Which is exactly the reason they want to take it away from you.
10No need to sound like a political science textbook. Birth control means you don't have to get pegnorate!
10Gregnant?
5PREG...PREGANANANT?
5
The folk wanting to restrict it probably don't want to respect autonomy too much.
9might be preaching to the choir a little bit
6Republicans:
Ban it
5And mutually beneficially so does UBI et al
4Pro-lifers don't care.
All they care about is the fact that the white population will decrease as no one can afford/wants children, so the best way to remedy that is to force them to.
3How else would one mass-produce gullible, uneducated voting cattle to exploit and fleece?
2I was confused at first, what you meant by professional-lifer
1
Yeah, as long as they deliver a message that is politically Democrat, then it belongs here.
Fun is no longer an option for this feed.
3Pro-lifers do not care a single bit
2Only women.
1this mf spittin!
1You still are a wage slave paying rent to a landed lord.
0Better than committing another soul to the same fate.
3
Not so funny.
-3Well, specifically women, but yes that sign is not wrong.
-5One issue (and hear me out, I do support abortions, birth control and bodily autonomy!) is that, once given a choice when and how to reproduce, people don't do it as much.
Having pleasure of sex without consequences is screwing the natural incentives for reproduction.
Whether we like it or not, there should be something to support fertility if we don't want to end up in a population crisis, with a few young folks supporting the ever growing army of the elderly.
Now, this should NOT be laws prohibiting abortions, or banning any sort of contraception, but there should be some incentives for people to go, and, well, make babies. This part Republicans got right (wow), they screwed with the suggested methods.
Fixing the financial clusterfuck and letting people live in a bright and predictable world where they know their tomorrow will be good is certainly one way, but I'm afraid it's not enough. What could be the other options? I'm interested in people's opinions.
-16What do you mean by population crisis?
In the world it's the other way around, the demographics are still booming.
You know what came before having better birth control and lower birth rates in most developed countries, medicine and lower death rate. In most of them now both are pretty close (most because there are exceptions like Japan).
I'm not really sure i see a problem with a slight decrease in population in a place where there is already a lot of people.
7Demographics is mostly booming in underdeveloped countries, with some exceptions. It is likely many of them will follow the same path going forward, and UN predictions expect just that, as far as I remember. For developed countries, the fertility rate typically sits somewhere around 1,5-1,7, significantly below 2,1 required to have a stable population. I could of course cite something like South Korea with 0,8, but that's an obvious outlier. It's bad enough as it is.
As the world remains divided, this will likely exacerbate the issue for particular countries with lower birth rate. Immigration is one answer, but it doesn't always cover the population loss, and immigrants are likely to send a lot of their income back home anyway (again, this is absolutely not a case against immigrants, I for one welcome them).
Evening out population growth over time would go a long way to maintain a healthy future.
-1
JD, is this you?
6Nah, JD is just fine with banning abortions and counts the issue solved
1
I'll start worrying about the "population crisis" when there are no more orphans because they've all been adopted.
2Those are unrelated, unfortunately.
An orphan, economically speaking, is still a productive member of society.
Of course, from the position of empathy, it is extremely sad people don't commonly adopt children, and I would welcome everyone to do so - along with having their own. Adoption is important to give everyone a family and save them from the horrors of orphan life. New births are important to keep human population stable and the world continuously running.
As much as I want to only come from the empathetic "adopt first" (and I consider doing so myself in a not-so-distant future), we have to have other considerations as well if we don't want to live in a dying world where everyone - from kids to seniors - faces insane, never-before-seen economic crisis, destroying life for everyone. It already gets worse, and we only dropped fertility a little. There are objective economic factors to this, not only capitalist greed (which, however, is also present).
1
Doesn't not having sex do that a little better tho? Like i totally get the point, but also, having sex gives chance of baby right? So, don't do it unless you ready? Maybe I'm wrong.
-17Sex is a basic human need. Having a child isn't. You need to know you are compatible with your partner sexually or it will lead to tons of strife in a relationship. So not having sex unless you are asexual or a version of it isn't an option.
13No, you're not "maybe wrong". You're absolutely and completely wrong seen as abstinence only programs have been shown over and over again to be ineffective. It's a sad attempt at policing people's desire for sex
12Logically, yes. But humans aren't purely logical. They're gonna have sex without access to birth control, even if they don't want a kid. Not all of them, but a lot of them. So why not just let them have both control?
5People fuck for various reasons. Taking away people's access to contraception doesn't stop that, it merely makes it more likely they'll have kids.
Abstinence only programs have shown themselves again and again to just produce teen pregnancies and STDs. Contraception, generally, is the best way to keep yourself from producing a child and the people who are against it tend to be the type of people who want the state to get into your bedroom.
5I've been told by multiple people that if men do not have sex they become fascists.
So, no, not having sex is apparently not an option.
3You have the same worldview and understanding of human sexuality of an 8 year old.
Either your ridiculously naive or just straight up an idiot. Possibly both.
Jesus fucking Christ. I've never read anything so dumb on the internet. And I saw Trump get elected. Twice.
3There are only two reasons any post-pubescent human isn't having sex:
-
They can't find anyone to fuck them.
-
They're legitimately asexual. (A rare thing. And no lemmy, just because you're not getting laid doesn't make you "asexual".)
2-
Your suggestion has at least two severe issues:
- It doesn't scale. The people that can and want to "wait until they're ready" probably are doing that already. Meanwhile, the large, unwashed majority does whatever they feel like, and why would they want that to change?
- It takes away personal liberty and punishes people who "cannot control themselves," giving way to social authoritarianism. To me, that's the exact opposite of what any elected government should do: to make people's lives better.
1Isn't the pill stated to be like 99% effective? Why discourage people from using it that want to plan their futures?
1
Its even simpler, dont sleep around.
-25Sounds awful. Fuck off and let people have bodily autonomy.
4There are people in committed relationships that don't "sleep around" and also don't want to get pregnant.
4Or, maybe, don't impose your beliefs on women and let them make their own decisions with their body
3What a strange way to announce to the world that you're so pathetic a hooman female won't even throw you a pity fuck.
3That's easy for the neckbeard incel that's never even finished a sentence in a woman's presence without sweating to say.
1But nature says fuck! So we fuck!
0Nature also says have kids, or go extinct.
1
It’s a simple fact they don’t want to hear. Zero responsibility.
-18The simpler the 'fact', the more likely it is to be an oversimplification and largely untrue.
In this example, you have to overlook any time someone became pregnant without consent. They never chose it to begin with, so blaming them for "not taking responsibility" for something they never wanted is oversimplifying a complicated subject to the point of falsehood.
It's also especially funny how often this argument comes from people who, in the same breath, will talk about their savior being "of virgin birth". You can't argue that chastity works for everyone when it didn't work for Mary.
1
