Republicans wanted fewer abortions and more births. They are getting the opposite : childfree

[–] Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

My daughter is scared of getting pregnant. What if the baby has something incurably wrong with it and these trash humans try to force her to have it. I call them trash humans because that is what they are. The type of trash who think they have a right to decide for everyone else. These same garbage humans get offended when anyone suggests they have to follow any rules. They are the ultimate hypocrites and if they really believe in a judgement by a god they should be terrified of it.

[–] FlockAdmiralEmu@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

You had me at trash humans. Though I hesitate to even call them humans since they lack any sort of empathy.

[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Better to not de-humanize your opposition, that tends to lead to very bad places (like Alligator Auschwitz). They are trash humans, but they are still humans.

[–] FlockAdmiralEmu@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago

That's a very valid point. Time to go self reflect now I guess

[–] Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I don't deny their humanity. Just point out their place is at the bottom of the moral pool.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago

I think it's important to remember that everyone is human. Not because of some sort of innate goodness people have, but viewing people as demonic or monstrous is, in my opinion, magical thinking and should be avoided. It's tempting to believe some people are irredeemable monsters who will never do anything good and it's tempting to believe that evilness comes from outside of humans and wages war against us, but no. People are people. I'm aware that just saying "I don't view them as humans" isn't really throwing your hands up and saying there's nothing you can do, it's correlated with that type of stuff and I think it's dangerous.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 103 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Very good article. I wish it would have connected the dots just a bit more though. You know what stops me from having children?

That daycare is unaffordable so one of us would have to work fulltime just to pay for childcare.
The public school system is constantly being underfunded or worse, defunded, and if I had a child they would deserve an education.
That PBS is being defunded so the few actually educational programs (the ones I even grew up with) are at risk
College is completely unaffordable without massive parental help
The job market is at best, iffy over the next few decades
Housing is so unaffordable that it would take too much away from my child to pay for mine, let alone if they want to have a home
The giant huge fucking elephant in the room of the climate disaster - sitting here in a heatwave that is somehow again "Once in a century" for the umpteenth time while we do absolutely nothing to curb it. I'm not bringing a child into a dying world for their profit.
I want us to be able to get an abortion if it comes to that, I don't want to see my spouse die just because she's pregnant and some politician says that the unborn child's life is worth more than hers.

Seriously, all of these are fixable problems and they've been doing the exact opposite! If they implemented even half of these it would completely change my mind about having kids, but no I guess having a 200 dollar annual tax credit bump is enough in their minds after defunding everything else I would depend on.

[–] invalidname@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It’s a bigger loss for them if those problems were fixed because smart/intelligent people are harder to control. Hence the gutting of any sort of education. They want old style slavery in a modern world.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Okay that's true I admit, I'm well educated, and I want others to be too. Just like Idiocracy told us though people who don't see how bad it is won't be bothered and will have children anyway. 200 bucks ho boy let's get busy!

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 days ago

I'm kinda counting on the following outcome:

Stupid people who adhere to Trump-like mindset including "we need higher birthrate" are going to have more children, but then are gonna be too poor to move, so they're stuck in the countryside in bumfuck nowhere and then poverty proliferates there, since they can't actually take care of their children. This leads to a localized concentration of poverty.

It's a localized, self-inflicted, self-deserved punishment. I think it's fair.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemmy.zip 12 points 3 days ago

"I don't want to live in a society where everyone is a goddamn moron."

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago (1 children)

But how do you implement all that to only help white Americans?

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

We are way past that point... the whites now get treated like the rest of the undesirables. Serves them right for picking the wrong side during the civil rights period.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Okay how about only for rich white Americans?

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 7 points 3 days ago

The rich already get everything that's best. They don't need government to create systems for them, sorry social systems. Goverments job is to create "good" regulatory regimes and tax code that taxes the peasants heavy while not taxing them much.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world -4 points 3 days ago

I also enjoy generalizing

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 52 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Who knew that creating a bleak hostile world creates a mindset that you don't want to bring more life into this hellhole?

You know what would create a mentality of wanting to be a parent? Having food assistance. Having a stable job and ecconomy. Having a life where you don't worry about becoming homeless if one thing goes wrong while the president creates and deletes tarrifs on an hourly basis to manipulate the ecconomy for his own personal playtoy.

Imagine living in a world created for EVERYBODY to have a bright tomorrow. Not just 1%. Maybe then people would want to bring life into that world.

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 25 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Haha these Nazi dumbasses didn't realize we just wouldn't have children...it's a choice...want more kids, make raising kids viable.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago

it’s a choice

not for long!

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world -4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The wealthy have been wriiting about eugenics since before this country was founded. And the wealthy arent having any problems having kids, in fact they are averaging higher than replacement unlike the rest of us

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Cool. Let them farm, build, clean, and repair everything. Cause my nonexistent kids or their nonexistent descendants aren't going to do that.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Since your poverty of thought is so grand, I'll share with you what Kings did; The lesser rich become the new labor class. The children of lawyers and doctors will be who the truly wealthy pay to clean, build, and repair everything

The guy who wiped the king's ass was usually the son of a duke at least. It was considered a great honor to be 'The Groom of the Stool'.

And they only need us pitiful poor laborers until robotics advances a bit more.

I find it so funny when people use the threat "Ok well then I'll just die off and then who will empty your trash!"

It's not the barb you think it is...

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Whatever. Not my monkeys, not my circus.

And shove your grandstanding where the sun doesn't shine.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The way we are heading within 30 years either your family will serve the ultra rich or they starve

And everyone like you pretending this is just a casual economic discussion and not an active existential threat is helping to bring that day closer

You think 'yeah stuff is weird now but it'll all work out in the end'

That's not what's happening here, we are well past the cusp of catastrophic social collapse, WELL past

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You think ‘yeah stuff is weird now but it’ll all work out in the end’

That’s not what’s happening here, we are well past the cusp of catastrophic social collapse, WELL past

I'm kinda glad that somebody else sees it that way too. I've been thinking it for a while now. I (for reasons i can't explain) believe that women can feel the future (somehow) and intuitively don't want to have children anymore. If i look around and ask anybody i know, very few people my age (20 - 30) say that they intend to ever have children.

Now, i agree with you that automation, and more importantly the end of growth will make workers largely superfluous. I suspect that instead of some kind of retirement or subsidy-based living, the rich actively try to kinda "terraform" the whole population by getting rid of the workers and only keeping everybody else, and i suspect that we're gonna see a population decline as steep as we saw an ascent during the last centuries:

Just in reverse, i.e. in 2200, we might have 1 billion people on earth again.

The reason will largely be unemployment (or rather underemployment - not earning enough to make a living) instead of a resource shortage (such as agricultural shortages).

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I know this is a really difficult topic to discuss, and i'm trying to be careful while talking about it, but i'm kinda looking for somebody to talk to about this, so here goes some more thoughts:

Contrary to the 19th and 20th century where a labor shortage was a constant theme, in the next 200 years (assuming the population really does go down symmetrically) there'll be a labor excess, i.e. functional underemployment (i.e. wages being too low to sustain a proper living). Social spending like UBI (universal basic income) are really just a patchwork and leave the population at the whims of the government, which is why people don't like it so much, but still recognize its necessity. Long-term, matching labor supply and labor demand is the only meaningful way, i.e. drastically reducing labor supply.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

I think you're right about women and birth rates, but I don't think it's anything mystical, rather it's just an unconscious perception

Like that eerie feeling you get when you feel a place 'isn't right', it's usually several red flags you don't even consciously know but your brain is saying 'Ok a lot of things here match with a bad thing that happened in the past, be careful'

And I feel our current and coming economic collapse is creating these subconscious red flags that women intuitively feel:

The necessities for life are more and more difficult to acquire, women's rights to healthcare is being attacked, and authoritarianism which is inherently misogynistic is on the rise

Honestly it just makes sense that women don't want to bring babies into this messed up world.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

exactly. republicans are not pro-life. republicans are pro-wedge-issue because that's the only way they get votes from lower/middle class people.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 4 points 3 days ago

It works and their owners love it.

[–] ArgentRaven@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah but the rich elite don't want happy, hopeful people that are optimistic about the future. They want people that work for them because they have no choice. Slaves. They want your kids to be slaves. Zuckerberg's bunker needs tending by dumb people that just want steady food and water.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 4 points 3 days ago

They want people that work for them because they have no choice. Slaves.

Always has been this way, the question is of the degree. We have been seeing a trend reversal for the last 40 years, and the fuckening is getting unbearable.

Socio-economic conditions result in the this headline but the leadership can't admit it since it would require some sort of response that would benefit the peasants.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

The rich are finally getting their wish to completely crush all the lower classes and you're here telling us to imagine a world where the most wealthy aren't the most greedy and vicious...

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 35 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The rate of voluntary sterilization among young women jumped abruptly after Dobbs, and there’s no reason to believe it will drop off

whelp, now we know the next thing in their crosshairs.

[–] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 27 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

Men can get vasectomies.

If any guy out there is thinking about it, it's a simple, easy procedure that actually isn't that painful.

Edit: I blocked Angry_Autist@lemmy.world ages ago but apparently they're still following me around and downvoting.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 20 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

To expand: Got mine several years ago. I was literally in a cold sweat shaking in fear when I got into that doctor's office and it ended up being a total cakewalk. You basically get one pinch that feels like someone snapped you in the groin with a rubber band, and then you're pretty much done. I was way more worried than I needed to be. Sat in a lazy boy with peas on my junk for a few days and was right back at it.

Also, don't make your lady get sterilized just because you're a bitch. The female process is so much more invasive/painful.

Edit: fun fact, those stirrup things on the doctor table are actually kinda comfy. I dont understand the complaints.

[–] medgremlin@midwest.social 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Speaking as a woman who has had some terrible gynecologists over the years, the stirrups are worse when you have to scoot yourself down the bed until you're practically falling off of it and are getting painful procedures done to you without anesthesia. I had to get a biopsy of my cervix one time and the most they did for me was to tell me to take some ibuprofen before the procedure. Women's healthcare is still barbaric a disturbingly large amount of the time.

I was so happy to get to work with a very modern and compassionate OB/Gyn for my 3rd year medical school rotation. She offered her patients valium and local anesthesia for things like IUD insertions (and didn't scold her patients for expressing pain when they did feel it.)

[–] FlockAdmiralEmu@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Ibuprofen.... Are you fucking kidding? I'm actually enraged. I got a months worth of oxy for my vasectomy and only 'needed' two doses. They even gave me something to take before it to relax, though I don't remember if it was Valium or Xanax.

[–] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 6 points 4 days ago

Same! The really important part is the after care. If you ignore the doctors instructions you can have blood pool up in your scrotum and if it's bad enough they'll have to extract it.

[–] Fingolfinz@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’m very glad I went ahead and got my nads snipped over my spouse having an incredibly invasive surgery for sterilization. Any guy afraid to get one is being a baby about it

[–] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Some people are really averse to medical procedures, we shouldn't judge others for their bodily autonomy.

That said, I did similar to you. My wife has some ovarian cysts and was warned that a tubal ligation would likely cause more and then she'd probably have to have surgery, maybe even an oophorectomy.

I had concerns about the risks of tubal ligation already but that sealed it for sure. Got snipped right after my 40th birthday.

[–] krox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Vasectomies can also be reversed, that's correct right?

[–] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 15 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Yes, and they're safer than women getting their tubes tied by a wide margin. There is no guarantee a reversal will work though so if you're on the fence about kids either wait or freeze some of your sperm and plan for IV or something like that.

[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is good but to add on, it's generally safe but is still a surgical procedure and can lead to complications.

Anyone should still do their due diligence to make sure this is the right move for themselves.

[–] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 2 points 3 days ago

This is a good call out. It's one of the lowest risk surgical procedures you can have but low risk ≠ no risk.

There is the high level info from the provider that I went to in case anyone is curious, it can be found here.

[–] Zirconium@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

Unless you want to pay child support for 200,000 children, I would hold off on freezing /s

[–] IvyisAngy@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Yes. And actually often reverse themselves over time as it heals, so make sure to go to your checkups to make sure you're still shooting blanks.

[–] BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz 10 points 4 days ago

HMM! Have they Tried MAYBE taking money AWAY from Childcare Services so Jeff Bezos can buy a New Jet? That MIGHT help Solve the Problem! If it doesn't maybe taking AWAY Healthcare from the Parents could ALSO help ~~Jeff afford a New Jet~~ this baby making problem!

[+] FuckFascism@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

[deleted]