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?
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.
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"
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.
Honestly, I hope this all gets pushed through. My salary adjustment would be glorious. Otherwise, I'm quitting my job and watering flowers at Lowe's. No need for all the stress when I'm barely making above minimum wage at that point.
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?
Memes have become a sort of coping mechanism/method of communication, and it just reflects the the broader state of the world around them.
Places like Lemmy have becomes bastions for people to share their thoughts and opinions, because the overwhelming consensus is the acknowledgment of being helpless and this is a way to vent and share (what should be) obvious solutions to the problems we're facing.
Sure, we go out and vote and talk to friends and family about the things we can do to make change, but we're not in the class of people to make that change happen.
So I say fuck it, post away the neo-nilhism memes, I'll upvote em and laugh away the enormous issues the world has.
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.
There are two completely separate issues that dont make sense to combine unless you just want to use it as a weapon. The question is if the fetus is "sacred" and deserves rights, if so then you cant kill it.
Bullshit. You can't deem life "sacred" for fetuses while completely ignoring the existing lives that are snuffed out, violated, exploited, etc. How can life be sacred at birth without life as a whole being sacred as a prerequisite?
And yet, we ignore the fact that there are children who literally don't get to eat food every day in a country that calls itself the greatest on earth... Children who can't access healthcare, children who die in shootings, children who die because people won't vaccinate their own kids, children who commit suicide feeling they can't be accepted. Are their lives no longer sacred, now that they've emerged from the womb?
If potential life is being considered as sacred, then existing life must first be considered sacred.
I'm not advocating insane gop'ers, it's up to the woman, but they'd say it's about not killing a kid. They'd go up for adoption which is very successful in the US. They are insane assholes but this is a pretty weak argument IMO.
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.
What you're doing here is the exact same as them: no discussion possible. The only valid viewpoint is yours. The end. And you also add a verdict to your sentence.
I agree with them. You dont kill (cull) a child because of money. You never kill a child.
I also agree with you that a fetus is not a child. And that abortion is not evil or bad.
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?
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.
OP didn't say that at all... They only pointed out how expensive raising a child is and that people will make the decision that is in their best interests.