• lath@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    A lot of the issues here can be side-stepped with proper sexual education classes.

  • Pandantic [they/them]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    More proof it’s more punishment than concern for the baby. To them, sex is a sin unless for procreation and your punishment for having sex for fun or while poor (or sexually assaulted) is that you have to bear the burden because you sinned. They can’t handle their own sexual shit because it’s not allowed to be talked about, so they make us all deal with it. She doesn’t want to have her 3rd baby, but she’s a good Christian woman who can’t say no to her husband, so she has to have it, and she wants other women to have to have it too. The fawning over babies and speaking to the “sacredness of life” is the facade they wear because it sounds more “Christian”.

    Oh that and, male power over women’s bodies. Because, you never know, that mystery pregnancy you got after the club might just be Jesus! Zeus came as coins ffs, so God may appear to the new Mary as rohypnol. Who knows?

  • daltotron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    You know, as much as I do like this website, I do find it kind of tiring how the top posts tend to just be like. Like this is an NPC meme, you know? This is a chad vs virgin type of meme. This is about a step away from choosing to portray your opposition as a soy wojack. Sometimes I find that kind of funny because of how absurdly idiotic and brainbroken it reveals the creator of the meme to have been, but I dunno, something about the mainstream adoption of this kind of thing is just kind of incredibly depressing. It’s like I am seeing the mainstream consciousness break apart in real time.

    Can we go back to advice animals and rage comics, guys?

    • bleistift2@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      With a minimum wage job ($7.25/hr) you need to work about 5 to 13 hours per day to make that much – before taxes.

      This is the main point of this post. The meme is just a means to gain attention. I believe people are more likely to consume meme posts than plaintext.

  • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s fascinating that this isn’t something that is always thrown back in the so called “pro life” person’s face. They’re only pro birth. They don’t care if the baby that comes out is fed, clothed, housed, eventually educated, etc. Or at least, they don’t believe there’s any collective responsibility to take care of that baby.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      It is. They don’t care because they’re arguing in bad faith to begin with. They don’t care about children. They never did. This was about identity politics and concern trolling.

      They proved this by immediately jumping to “trans panic” the instant roe was overruled by the illegitimate scotus who apparently forgot the 9th and 14th amendments even existed but they sure remembered “tradition & history”

      • feine_seife@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        You do. But not the politicians who actually get it into law. Also who has decided you are the spokesperson of the pro life movement?

        • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          The problem is there is a completely different perspective here. I dont want politicians to give people things like welfare not because I hate people, but because I think it turns them into dependents, and I think it actively harms them.

          • feine_seife@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            I agree that incorrect administration of welfare can lead to that. But thats also the politicians job to manage.

            Thats also comparable to saying I don’t visit doctors I fear a mistreatment.

            • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Its too big or a job for a politian to manage, it has to be run well at the street level.

              Going to the doctor is a bad analogy, it would be more apt to compare it to someone taking pain medication because their back hurts, and they get hooked on the pain pills, but the reason their back hurts is because they are morbidly obese. We need to go after the problem, not enable the problem.

              • feine_seife@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                That is true we need to fix the problem. So in your analogy you would’ve stopped giving the person pain medication?

                And how is the person crippled by pain supposed to stand, walk or excercise without pain medication?

                I get it addition to pain medication is bad. I would assume most people know that, even those addicted. But the alternative is those people succumbing to pain, which would prevent any improvments.

                Hence, yes I agree. Just throwing around money is not going to be the solution, but so is also not giving any.

                • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Sorry, if you are not able to apply that analogy, I dont care to re explain every scenerio.

  • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I know someone with 11 kids and 3 grandkids. He only just received a raise to ~50k which is more than he’s made in his entire adult life. I know many people in similar situations including my own family. While it may be a struggle, children can be raised when household income is at or below poverty level. Don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise. Money (or lack there of) will never justify killing a child.

    At a bare minimum there is adoption. Thousands of couples can’t conceive and would love to adopt.

    • medgremlin@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Adoption is not the silver bullet people seem to think it is. If the baby isn’t white, or has health problems, there’s a much higher chance they’ll end up in the foster care system.

      Separately, carrying a pregnancy and giving birth are extremely dangerous. Depending on which state you look at, American women face the highest maternal death rate in the developed world. Also, the leading cause of death of pregnant women in America is intimate partner homicide, and intimate partner violence frequently escalates during pregnancy. How does adoption fix those problems?

      • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Uncertainty and risk are ever present and bringing a child into adverse circumstances is scary. I don’t have any silver bullets to address the multitude of problems you listed. I do know, however, that if we treat every human life as precious, in utero and out, child and adult, that we will live in a better world. If we live in the truthful acknowledgment of the sanctity of life then we will have to forge a better future for the children that are deserving of their chance in life no matter what hardship awaits them. Our judgment is imperfect and shouldn’t dictate whether anyone, particularly an innocent, dies.

        • survivalmachine@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Y’all need to get cracking on those incubators that can grow a whole-ass child from a couple of cells outside of a human womb. Otherwise, you’re just advocating for modern-day slavery. Poor look, my dude.

        • Seleni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I beg your pardon?

          Every job needs a living wage. Anything else is wage slavery. Seriously, what are you, a 1910 coal mine overseer?

          A living wage for all benefits both people and the economy; that’s been proven over and over again. All people are worthy of being able to support themselves and a family, for heaven’s sake.

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Let me rephrase; what if that person does not bring in enough value to an employer to be worth the amount that you think they should be paid?

            • Seleni@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              And again, that’s just wage slavery done up in a different bow.

              Payment for a job is you not wanting to do it or being unable to do it, so you hire someone to do it. If they do the job, they can’t do something else, so you pay them enough to make it worth their time. You support them so they can help you. If you can’t pay them enough to support them, then do the damn job yourself.

              Seriously, why are you so against people getting a living wage? It used to be even grocery checkstand workers could afford a decent place. Back then our economy was better too.

              We’ve done it before, and it worked. Other countries today do it and it works - see the wages for McDonald’s workers in Denmark as an example.

              The only thing taking away living wages does is force people into wage slavery to line the pockets of the rich to a ridiculous degree. It’s not sustainable and it benefits no-one but a few people who don’t need that money anyways.

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                First problem is that “living wage” is a meaningless term because it will very by multiples depending on where you live and your family size/structure. The next problem is that people dont just do a job that needs to be done, they can literally be worth less than you pay them. If they keep making mistakes, or you cant trust that they will correctly do the job or whatever. It can just not be worth the money or extra labor to employ them.

                • Seleni@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Right, which is, as the other person said, why you fire them if they don’t do a good job. You don’t keep a mistake-maker and pay them less, you hire someone who can do the job and pay them well.

                  And how is it ‘meaningless’? You just defined it: a wage allowing someone to live in the place they’re located. So yes, it changes from place to place. That’s not ‘meaningless’, it’s ‘regional’. And you should still pay someone a living wage.

                  I don’t understand why you’re so opposed to it. Why do you want people suffering and in poverty for providing services? If you work, you should be able to eat and live, full stop. Even if it’s only in the cheaper parts of your town.

    • PunnyName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      “Should” is not the operative word.

      “Have the choice to” get an abortion is the operative phrase.

    • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      It can’t be free.

      What you’re actually saying is that “childcare should be communally funded by taxes”.

      I’m not on board with that unless it comes with limits on reproduction, especially for those who pay zero taxes.

      Stop creating more human lives when you can’t even independently support your own.

      • Camelbeard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        First of all you’ll be really happy with all those babies when you turn 80 and society hasn’t fallen because the average age is 70.

        Second, when childcare is free more people can join the workforce, this increases taxes and productivity.

        But maybe the most important it will make society more equal. When you’re poor working almost doesn’t make sense if you have to spend 80% of your salary on childcare. So more people don’t work, these people are usually women. That really doesn’t help with an equal society, because a big group can’t really work so they can’t really climb any ladders.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        We should prioritise supporting the creation of more human lives