328
Heavens forbid a young woman have some agency in her fucking life beyond being barefoot and pregnant for some asshole.
I.......what?
I don't even understand what's being argued. Usually I can argue against a stance, because I see their logic and disagree with it.
In this case, I don't even get the logic.
Because there is none. None whatsoever.
Some old bastards read an old book of fairytales and in that book of nonsense it says women are nothing more than brood mares and fuck puppets for men. Then they decided to take that book of fairytales and turn it into the law of the land. At a time when humans CAN GO INTO FUCKING SPACE we still have to deal with these shrimp brained fuckwits.
We are touching the edges of Fusion Energy and we've still got to deal with these morons.
Simple: they're now mask off about wanting women to become de facto brood mares and house slaves before they turn 20.
#JustFascistStuff
Is that the legit reason? I mean, in the times I grew up in, I would assume you're being dramatic to prove a point.
But it's 2024......the absurd is reality. What you said has just as real of a chance at being true as anything else with these people.
Trump is over here talking about using the American military against American citizens for being against him. Meanwhile republican voters are in pure denial that he would ever do that, despite him saying so. Word for word. AND he has attempted to do exactly that in the past.
So I don't have the luxery of being able to use common sense to dismiss things as being not credible to be reality. We live in the dumbest timeline. You could make up any dumb shit, and I have no way of dismissing it as being too dumb to be real.
"Hey, Trump just shot Kamala Harris with a gun on stage at a debate"
And the ONLY thing that makes that stand out as obviously false is the fact that trump is too scared to debate now.
This is the time we live in.
Is that the legit reason
With a very high degree of certainty, yes. They've really tripled down against women's rights and for returning to the 50s (1850s, that is) in recent years and saying shit like this out loud, rather than being ashamed of privately thinking it, is completely in step with that tendency.
I mean, in the times I grew up in, I would assume you're being dramatic to prove a point
I know exactly what you mean!
I'm not old enough to remember the Reagan years clearly, but was growing aware of US politics a few years before Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich really kick started GOP's turn towards more and more demagoguery and extremism.
With the Dems utterly failing to stop them pulling the Overton window ever rightward and the well-established GOP policy of ignoring or denying any inconvenient truth, the current fascist lunacy was sadly the inevitable outcome.
"Hey, Trump just shot Kamala Harris with a gun on stage at a debate"
And the ONLY thing that makes that stand out as obviously false is the fact that trump is too scared to debate now.
This is the time we live in.
Yup 😮💨
As a little bonus info in case you don't loathe him already: this is also the AG who tried to block the release of at least two exonerated death row inmates in the last few months.
Is that the legit reason? I mean, in the times I grew up in, I would assume you're being dramatic to prove a point.
Have you considered that you always misunderstood people's goals and they were actually trying to warn you of this exact coming situation?
This isn't some stupid timeline, it's the result of 50 years of very specific effort by the right that the people you thought were being dramatic were just plainly warning you about with the appropriate level of urgency.
I really don't understand how in the face of all this people still choose to bury their heads in the sand.
Wait Trump is talking about using the military against American citizens??? (Maybe I missed this, I am Dutch so I don't watch American news all day)
Do you think he will actually do that, or is it just an empty threat?
He would 100% try. He tried last time. Whether the chain of command below him actually does it is a different matter.
He would do it pretty sure.
He say out loud everything that he will be and want to be and those dumb fuck still vote for him so i can't find a reason why he would not
I must add i'm from Canada not the US but we can't escape US news here and a big part of Canadian dumb fuck want trump to be their president too
Why do you think they’re going after contraception next?
I'm confused how you don't see the logic. It says right there.
He claims that the lost "potential population" from teen parents will cost the state revenue and political representation.
A person pays taxes. Less people = less tax income. More people = more tax income.
It's entirely idiotic, but it's not hard to understand?
I guess from an ultra-rightwing christian fundamentalist perspective, abused post-pregnancy teens are what you want. They're the easily impregnable (in all senses of the word) future hardline voters.
You phrased that way too tame for how they're thinking about it.
More teen pregnancies = more mouths to feed = poverty = more wage slaves
Of course, but I'm talking about what was literally said. The further reasons, like you describe, are easy to deduce as well, but I was just responding to the comment that didn't seem to understand anything, neither the overt nor the covert reasons.
So he's agreeing to socialism? Or he's openly stating that they would like to manipulate the country by brutally oppressing the people in their state...
He's admitting to brutally oppressing people. Unfortunately, there are enough hateful/stupid people in the (heavily gerrymandered) key voting districts, it doesn't matter.
So, to restate your point hopefully in a way that I understand it better, he wants more population to suck money from the federal government but doesn't give a living s*** about helping his constituents.
From the article:
...the attorneys general contend access to mifepristone has lowered “birth rates for teenaged mothers,” arguing it contributes to causing a population loss for the states along with “diminishment of political representation and loss of federal funds.”
I think the population loss in these states is directly related the totalitarian theocratic governments that have been scaring people into leaving.
We need more teen pregnancies because we need more babies to become low wage grunts to work and pay into our social services systems so old people can retire…?
I assume it's similar to the argument Texas or Alabama or whoever used to argue they have standing against federal student loan forgiveness.
Yeah. Same. There no nuance to this at all. The quiet thing was said far more than just simply out loud.
It was shrieked from the mountain tops.
Ah yes, teen pregnancies, the true driver of the GDP. How could I forget? 😂
It's a driver of poverty and rich people get richer by exploiting poverty.
I remember in the late 90s and early 2000s when Christian conservatives said that sex Ed was increasing teen pregnancy rates when in reality they had been dropping since sex Ed was introduced. ..
We also used to have the Fairness Doctrine, which demanded at least some essential elements of truth. Now our media are Billionaire mouthpieces.
Has been that way since the mid 80s.
The war against the fairness doctrine was started after the Nixon Watergate scandal and how there was no media apparatus that was 100% on Nixon's side and calling the other side monkeys and bastards.
Our state attorney general is a motherfucker, no doubt, but it was still a tad surprising he said this, publicly, out loud, prior to the abortion amendment vote in two weeks.
Vote yes on 3, I guess.
I've been seeing a lot of "No on 3" signs in people's yards, right next to trump/vance signs.
Vote yes on 3 and no on Bailey!
Fucking lol, wtf
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
328 points (99.4% liked)
Not The Onion
12140 readers
923 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS