• Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    You’re just doing exactly what conservatives want. Now they will have 20 kids and you will have zero, and the future generation will be further fucked.

        • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s not the government, it’s the republiclowns. They’re in power because of the idiots that keep voting for them because fox “news” tells them to. Nobody besides the rich as shit should be voting red. (the rich as shit are assholes and they at least benefit from the tax breaks) They’re just laughing at you while they piss all over you.

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    this is actually a really based statistic now that i think about it.

    Just sterilize yourself forcibly if you are ok with it. It’s a protest. What are they going to do, force us to have babies?

    • Basrandir@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Also you can have your sperm or eggs frozen in case you do want to have kids in the future. Take control of your reproduction and fuck these conservatives.

  • TheDeepState@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I support any person who chooses not to have children. It’s saving the planet. There are way too many people.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        i have a theory that the food shortage is a sort of example of the overpopulation at play.

        The sheer fact that there are so many people in this one place, that we can produce too much food, and then not distribute it effectively, implies to me that there are simply too many people in one place for it to be effectively distributed. I.E. over populated.

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              If people in a city starve, it’s not because there are “too many people in one place” - it’s because the people who has control of the food distribution systems of that city chose to let them starve.

              Pick a famine - Irish, Bengal, Ethiopian, the current ongoing one in Gaza… you name it. All preventable. All of them not prevented because the people who had control of the food distribution system saw fit not to prevent it because doing so didn’t serve their interests.

              It has absolutely nothing to do with there being “too many people in one place.”

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                that’s the thing though, it’s not people in a city starving. It’s people across the world starving. I mean sure homeless people are starving and food security IS an issue in the states. But that’s also a macro level issue type deal.

                Pick a famine - Irish, Bengal, Ethiopian, the current ongoing one in Gaza… you name it. All preventable. All of them not prevented because the people who had control of the food distribution system saw fit not to prevent it because doing so didn’t serve their interests.

                It has absolutely nothing to do with there being “too many people in one place.”

                yeah, no shit, that’s not what im talking about. You could argue an abusive mother not feeding their child one night is also proof against that claim.

                My point is that currently, in our collective society, globally, i do not think that our system is capable of supporting the amount of people that exist, in a functional manner. For example, if there were less people in the israel/palestine region, and the rest of the middle east, since they seem to love proxy wars so much. There would likely be a lot less war leading to famine. These wars are cropping up LITERALLY over territorial disputes, gaza especially is done for this reason. Seems like the Irish famine you referenced was in part, due to unsustainable population growth. Again, the Bengal famine, was in part, due to an increase in population, which was unsustainable. Ethiopian famine is actually a little bit different, seems to be both in part due to war, and drought, or just drought, but it seems like another significant factor at scale was the food being grown being sold to other parties. As well as political shenaniganry. Though this was also happening during a civil war. Probably also in part, due to well, people existing over top of eachother.

                But yeah no, those were absolutely preventable. Just give them food. Then they won’t starve. It’s that simple.

                • masquenox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It is very discouraging to see someone with a presumably functional brain make an argument like this. Back in the 80s this could be written of as simple ignorance - but not today, when we have the information available at our fingertips.

                  There would likely be a lot less war leading to famine.

                  So how do you explain the very same kind of genocidal colonialist wars of the previous three centuries when there were a whole lot less people around?

                  These wars are cropping up LITERALLY over territorial disputes

                  Colonialism is not merely a “territorial dispute.”

                  Seems like the Irish famine you referenced was in part, due to unsustainable population growth.

                  No, genius - it wasn’t. Stop trying to apologize for colonialist exploitation by hiding behind right-wing “overpopulation” myths.

      • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Exactly what part of that is eugenics? Deciding not to have kids, or recognizing the environmental impact of the choice?

        • Dearth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          “There’s too many people on earth” is a eugenicists talking point by affluent westerners. It’s a short slippery slope from there to completely dehumanizing humans born in nations deemed “lesser than”

          • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            My main argument for antinatalism is that there are too many idiots willing to reproduce and raise children as bigger idiots than they are.

            • Dearth@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Instead of dehumanizing people for being born in a crowded, exploited region you dehumanize them for being less educated than you.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        It can be. The system is intentionally bogged down with a lot of red tape to discourage people who aren’t fully committed to raising a child, especially one that isn’t their own biological offspring. The thing is, raising kids is expensive in general. You’ll shell out millions over their lifetime for basic necessities, education and enrichment. If somebody balks at the cost of adoption, they probably aren’t ready for kids yet anyway.

  • Birdie@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I knew of a girl when I was in high school. She was a senior and I was a sophomore. Word began rushing through the school that she (head cheerleader) was pregnant by the quarterback on the football team. He came from a super wealthy family, and honestly we all expected an immediate marriage and a ‘premature’ baby.

    What happened instead was an announcement that she had died during emergency surgery and let’s all pray. She had had a (what we called) backstreet abortion and hemorrhaged.

    We all knew how to access an illegal abortion, we knew the risks, and this girl just was the unlucky one.

    She was super smart, in the Latin club, debate, 4.0, just destined for success. And instead she died.

    This was in 1969, and I cannot believe we as a nation are willing to go back over 2 decades in women’s healthcare.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      She had had a (what we called) backstreet abortion and hemorrhaged.

      Banning abortions doesn’t stop abortion, it only stops safe abortions.

    • Mirshe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      You can blame the Moral Majority. So many of them would look at your story and go “well that’s what she deserved for having premarital sex”.

    • Nevoic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      You know 1969 was 55 years ago? While that is technically “over 2 decades” that’s an interesting way to describe 55 years lol

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I wonder what would happen if even just 50% of all women of child bearing age moved out of the states that added these abortion restrictions, that would basically destroy the states population in a few generations.

    I wonder what the response would be…

    Probably something terrible, and possibly illegal that would still somehow be permitted…

    I am just a guy from Scandinavia looking at the US with complete disbelief that this shit happen in the west in this day and age.

    To everyone fighting for this to be repealed I wish you all the best, and to all of those in favour of these restrictions, just stop voting, and go away.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      What I have understood as a non American, the state would still have the same voting power though? So -75% of people, leaving just angry men I guess.

      • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Sorta, but that’s not the whole story. We have two legislative bodies, the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the senate, every state gets two senators. In the house, every state gets at least two representatives, plus some amount based on population - california has 52, for instance.

        The original idea was to “make sure rural voices were heard”. In practice, it very much has been what you stated - if you’re educated but not rich enough to benefit from republican policies, you flee red states en masse, leaving mostly rich assholes and uneducated chucklefucks who are hurt most by the very people they elect. They then have a massively disproportionate effect on policy versus any joe schmoe in california.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          The problem is moving isn’t free and there aren’t good jobs in rural areas, meaning… Move with what money?

    • x86x87@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      A few generations? One generation is enough. The population would collapse and they would be fucked.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah any significant change in gender demographics of an area will cause problems. Too few men will cause some issues but our cultures have developed defenses around this problem thanks to cataclysmic wars happening every few generations. Too few women on the other hand will get real bad real fast especially since this will be a situation of existing misogyny driving women away. Some men will get real violent and those capable of living in either society will flee because they won’t get laid otherwise.

    • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      (Sarcasm) Don’t insult the west by lumping the US in with sane respectable nations. (/Sarcasm) The US is a third world country with some lipstick on at this point. We keep hoping to turn things around and put us back on course but. Damn is it exhausting.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m in the USA and we’re a garbage country. Don’t get me wrong, there are good areas and good people. But our broken system allows the craziest minority to have an outsized degree of power and they absolutely take advantage of it.

        How a state like Wyoming, with fewer than a million people, can get as much say (in the senate) as my state of California is beyond me. We have almost 80x their population, yet they get an equal number of senators. I want a revolution that adjusts their voice to be proportional to their goddamned size.

        • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Did you miss civics class? Having both a senate and a house was a compromise between the smaller and bigger states. Small states could have been railroaded by bigger states with strictly proportional representation. It’s almost like you’re repeating something you heard without thinking about it much…

          • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            It’s a stupid compromise to make. It might have made some sense at the time, when society expected them to behave as gentlemen with regard for their honor. Now a much smaller group gets to bully the rest of the country as a result.

        • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I am too. There’s a reason I chose a lemmy host outside our borders.

          (OK, it was mostly so the government has free reign to accidentally spy on my international traffic because FISA/PATRIOT act are just so cool and down to earth. /s)

  • force@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Next step for Republicans: Ban sterilization. I mean plenty of doctors already refuse to agree for a patient to have a vasectomy/get their tubes tied, especially young (and white) patients, because of shitty personal beliefs. Why not go a step further? These working class heathens need to be forced to stay in line.

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

      My mum, when she was in her mid40s, went to get her tubes tied. Dr refused, “still of child bearing age.” Her response: I’ve got 6 kids, tie these damn tubes or I’ll do it myself!

      Edit: a word

      • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean, if she wasn’t ‘of child bearing age’ anymore there wouldn’t be any point in tying her tubes anyway, so that’s a pointless reason.

      • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        As a male, (who thankfully doesn’t need it, yet) I agree with this 100%. If these clowns are going to force their beliefs on others, they should have to face the same consequences. Make it illegal, not enough to ban it.

      • FJW@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Can we please not do the “it hurts the other side more”-bullshit? Especially in light of the fact that Viagra has legitimate medical uses outside of ED and that ED can also be caused by factors that affect conservatives a lot less, such as HRT for trans women.

    • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      As someone who was single and looking on dating apps a year ago I wish they did. Would have made my job easier since I don’t want kids and not everyone puts that on there. I was extremely upfront about being a loser gamer (I play league) that doesn’t want kids. You’d be surprised about the amount of people who still contacted me based on looks alone and didn’t bother to read the bio.

      I was extremely upfront cause I know who I am and what I want and I’m not hiding it. Take me or leave me. Turns out It worked and I found my fiancee that way.

  • june@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Dunno if I’m ‘young’ but I did get snipped 3 years ago. No kids for me.

      • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        “I forego the ability to have children in case I get raped and do not take the morning after pill”

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          yes, exactly, you figured it out, congratulations.

          People would genuinely rather not being able to have children (it’s reversible most of the time, though not always) than be raped and have to support a child they are simply not capable of or ready to support.

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              probably because the morning after pill is potentially illegal, or possibly, soon to be illegal. As well as all of the potential red tape surrounding it.

              Getting sterilized now, and not having to answer questions in front of a judge asking you why you took a morning after pill after getting raped is always going to be preferable. Plus a lot of these people already don’t want children. So it’s not like it makes a difference to them.

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

      No thanks, I’ll just fuck a fleshlight instead. Much better than a real vagina with a condom.

      BTW condom dissent is majorly censored all accross the internet, even though it is an almost universally held belief that condom sex is shit sex not worth having.

  • Emerald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I feel like people treat fertility way too seriously. So many doctors will refuse to sterilize people because “what if they want kids in the future”. Well then they can get a sperm donor or adopt. It’s not the end of the world.

  • TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    That’s probably the thing conservatives are going to go after when they’re done banning birth control medication.