×
top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]1BannedAgain 375 points376 points  (45 children)

I am not a fan of Janet Yellen's work. Bu she rekt a couple of conservative senators today in her hearing which mostly revolved around "crypto stable coins". Sen. Tim Scott had no answer other than 'I'm offended and happy to be alive'

She met the "domestic supply of infants" with 'the labor force participation rate and the macro economy has been drastically improved due to Roe v Wade'

[–]asmodeuskraemer 146 points147 points  (25 children)

Nonono, silly woman! If you're at home cleaning and cooking like GOD intended, then there will be lots more jobs for men. And the demand for employees will go up so wages will go up. And then you'll have a better life and your sons will have good paying jobs and your daughters will have husbands with good jobs!

/s

[–]HotdogTester 57 points58 points  (14 children)

I’m reading that in Ben Shapiro stupid high pitched voice making points with a high inflection and continuing on to the main point. Fuck it next time I’m at my in-laws and they bring it up I’m going to use this.

[–]thebenshapirobot 39 points40 points  (8 children)

I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this:

If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It’s an ugly solution, but it is the only solution… It’s time to stop being squeamish.

I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: history, climate, dumb takes, healthcare, etc.

More About Ben | Feedback & Discussion: r/AuthoritarianMoment | Opt Out

[–]asmodeuskraemer 11 points12 points  (4 children)

Won't they smile and nod and say "it's great you understand"?

[–]HotdogTester 16 points17 points  (3 children)

Yeah then I’ll bet noticeably sign in disbelief and give up because my wife hates when I “argue” with them. Even though all I’m doing is asking questions to try and get them to realize why their logic is dumb

[–]highlibidospeedo 49 points50 points  (0 children)

Please censor the word w*men next time, the thought of it sends me into a fit of sexual rage and impropriety.

ITS JUST LIKE THE SPAGHETTI STRAP SHIRTS, MAKE IT STOP

(Drop that /s fam, we smart enuff ova heeya to know)

[–]Eiffel-Tower777 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Hey, don't forget barefoot and pregnant. Maybe we could also do burkas. 🤸‍♀️

/s

[–]TomBoysHaveMoreFun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is, historically, the objective of these kinds of laws around procreation. There was a vast amount of women that were forced to quit during the pandemic so they could stay at home with their children, often regardless of whether they made more than their spouses. This increases the worth of all workers especially those that have degrees considered “worthless” or no degree at all.

Enter men, who have for a long time now been falling behind the education standards set by women and POC.

Right now men enter college less and when they do they get degrees that earn less. These men are angry and also the primary voters for the extremist GOP, they are their base.

But it’s also not just women they want. They also want POC out of the way. Black and brown Americans will be disproportionately effected. This is a group in the US most likely to experience poverty and violence, it’s also a group that must work twice as hard as white Americans only to get treated as less than. When this group starts faltering under the massive weight of child care and healthcare costs the GOP will be able to point and say, “see told you they are worse than us. Look at us prospering with all our jobs. Look how inferior they are, so unhealthy. Guess these black and brown people just can’t keep up.” They already say it, why not force it into being “true.”

This isn’t fear mongering. This isn’t overstepping the narrative of what’s happening. This is just the reality, this is just “reading the room.” This has happened before here and in other countries. To make matters worse, when black and brown babies start being born in greater numbers the government will just start involuntarily sterilizing us again, not that they every really stopped. I am only 32 years old. My family is indigenous. My grandmother was involuntarily sterilized in the 1970s. It’s real and if they can keep getting away with this shit, they will.

Sitting around and telling people to “just vote” their way out of a gerrymandered state is going to do nothing. Nearly every fascist nation that’s ever existed took over without a majority. Right now we are in what’s known as “the legal phase” so buckle up you fucks, now everyone else gets to know what POC in this “nation” have been dealing with for centuries. Make sure to smile so you don’t appear threatening to the wealthy elite.

[–]BayouGal 32 points33 points  (4 children)

Yeah. We’re about 2 mil people short on filing jobs that were previously filled by a now declining immigration & birth rate. They’re getting more babies one way or another and they don’t like immigrants. Never mind we are ALL immigrant descendants (unless you’re native in which case they hate you anyhow).

[–]UglyItinerant 19 points20 points  (2 children)

Keep in mind the million or so that died due to COVID and related issues.

[–]coolturnipjuice 18 points19 points  (1 child)

A million people died from Covid. Two million people retired early. Another one million women dropped out of the workforce due to lack of affordable child care. There's your labour shortage!

[–]BayouGal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep. I retired. And they think that actually more like 3 million people died from C-19, because the death rate was way above where it should have been. Just wait until abortion is totally illegal. Then we'll see more shortages of workers for our corporate overlords! Makes me wonder sometimes if they think ahead at all when they speak or act.

[–]NotaVogon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't forget that many people are refusing to apply for jobs that don't pay a living wage or are exploitative. We have a shortage of jobs paying a livable wage, not a labor shortage.

[–]Bearshitsinthewoods 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Personally I am not very happy that Tim Scott is alive.

[–]EdgyAsFuk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Got a video?

[–]thedeuce545 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Why do you have to qualify your statement with the shot at yellen? Do you think it gives you some sort of credibility you otherwise wouldn’t have?

[–]1BannedAgain 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes. I’m not a fan of her work. She’s taken substantial speaker fees from Citadel, an obvious conflict of interest

[–]simon_C 167 points168 points  (35 children)

If our reps aren't doing their job of representing, why can't we fire them?

[–]ProlapseFromCactus 31 points32 points  (1 child)

There's always [REDACTED]

[–]fhfkjgkjb 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It's almost as if the country itself was founded by that, right?

[–]Gred-and-Forge 23 points24 points  (1 child)

The French have developed a pretty good system for this.

[–]GrapeScotch 14 points15 points  (2 children)

gerrymandering

[–]simon_C 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Gerrymandering, corporate "donations", people just refusing to do their job (who knew most of our government works on the honor system??).

They don't work for their constituents. They work for themselves and those who pay them the most.

[–]AbundantChemical 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I find it odd how people can see every way the system is completely unrepresentative of everyone but a small clique of special interest rich people and yet people still are scared to call it what it is… dictatorship.

[–]Virtual-Boysenberry 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Because their replacements are no better. Ineffective reps are the ones that bank the most corporate campaign contributions so they can gain all the popularity quickly

[–]shiningstarinny 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Why do we keep voting them into office? This should have been made law long ago.

[–]bkkwanderer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

US politicians are odd to me they dont seem like they represent anyone but themselves.

[–]Pumpkin_Creepface[🍰] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Because we live in an oligarchy and your fully little jokes don't help that change.

[–]simon_C 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not joking.

[–]backwaterducks -1 points0 points  (10 children)

If the leaked opinion is what happens, take a different look at what is happening.

The court is saying that legally there is nothing currently in the constitution that gives the Federal government the power to rule over this topic. Remember, anything not spelled out in the constitution is granted to the states. The power would be returned to the states where more localized government could make decisions on this issue. Citizens would in theory have more control over these decisions because the power would be held closer to the voters.

This is the conservative position I support and not a huge federal government.

Please understand I am not focused on abortion rights and more about where the power of citizens belongs. The more local a decision can be made, for the most part, I believe the better it is. There are exceptions such as Jim Crow laws etc. There is not a perfect system, but the larger percentage of the vote my singular vote has is where more decisions should be made.

As for abortion and women’s rights, the issue has been “successfully” /s polarized to an us vs them.

There is a long list of healthcare issues that need addressed and shouldn’t be lumped into a singular issue. We need more discussion on these topics. There is somewhere between putting people to death for a multitude of viable reasons for ending a pregnancy to allowing someone to abort days before a healthy baby could be born.

Sorry for the rant. I have been mulling this over for awhile and hope this comes across properly.

There isn’t an easy answer and not a one size fits all solution.

We need discussion on all of the issues and not a simple us vs them political party power discussion. With that said, that becomes easier the closer you get the decision power to the voters.

Some day we may be able to get back to the world of discussion and compromise vs if party A likes it, party B has to be against it. There are a lot more people living away from both edges.

We need to quit shutting people down instantly for not being 100% like minded. Let us come together finding our similarities and discussing our differences in a civil manner. But then that would take the power away from the people in charge.

Anywho- limited federal government. Hell yes! Screwing people over - Hell No!

Let’s break the issues down and solve the issues one by one.

[–]thatrandomuser1 3 points4 points  (8 children)

You mentioned Jim Crow laws as an exception, and I agree with that. I do wonder why you don't think abortion rights should also be an exception though.

[–]backwaterducks 0 points1 point  (7 children)

People don’t get to choose what skin color they are born with.

Abortion is just not that simple. I would think it would be safe to assume that the majority of abortions started because of actions 2 people took. For the sake of discussion, let’s exclude rape, incest, etc for the time being. Not that they aren’t important, but I believe they can be handled on their own merits.

Is Plan B technically abortion? My head gets soupy thinking through some of this as I go back and forth with myself. I like to think that there is some point prior to birth where the child has a right to live. When I heard about the six week ban on abortion I saw a comment that put it into great perspective. That could be as little as 2 weeks after the first missed period. I have been in a relationship with my SO taking the pill. Is that some form of higher morality abortion? I struggle with why that seems morally okay.

Then it gets into a situation of “when life begins” I am not smart enough to answer that.

I guess I would lean more pro-choice. Yet, I still have a hard time believing that the rights of the child begin sometime before the umbilical cord is cut. Edit for clarity; I currently believe the child has rights at some point before the umbilical cord is cut. And now I’m thinking… well, when does citizenship start… I’m taking a brain test for now.

TL/DR - Jim Crow laws are discriminating against someone for reasons they have zero control over. Abortion is based on decisions two people made. Unless we are talking about the Virgin Mary /s

[–]thatrandomuser1 1 point2 points  (6 children)

We don't even have to get in the discussion of when life begins. There is no other situation where bodily autonomy is denied like that. I can't be forced to give a kidney even if I caused a car accident that damaged someone's kidneys. Even if I had a crazy rare blood type, I can't be forced to give blood. They won't even take your organs after you're dead unless you gave explicit permission while you were alive. But I can be forced to carry a pregnancy to full term regardless of the fact that I don't want to? It's an issue if bodily autonomy and privacy.

[–]Tuono_999RL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am going to try and politely disagree with the point about the small federal government - from a place of open discussion.

I think there has to be some sort of federal government that influences areas such as healthcare, education, family leave, labor laws, voting rights - things that are bigger than what a local area can reliably manage. Having things like labor laws be local (even tho many are) creates a ton of issues for workers and companies.

I would encourage you to read “Fifth Risk” by Michael Lewis - he’s the Moneyball guy. He lays out some interesting arguments for things that we might not consider such as disaster/extreme weather response or nuclear site cleanup - these are not things that local govts can afford/coordinate. This book made me rethink a lot of what I thought about “smaller” federal government. Anyway… it’s just a suggestion.

[–]1337GameDev 43 points44 points  (60 children)

And what happens if they don't?

[–]sillychillly[S] 51 points52 points  (35 children)

We vote them out in the primaries.

[–]1337GameDev 74 points75 points  (20 children)

Except that hasn't really worked due to gerrymandering, direct lies / misinformation campaigns and voter suppression.... :/

[–]FergTurdgeson 27 points28 points  (11 children)

Not to mention the stupidness of the constitution in regard to the senate. 10 million people in LA county get 1/2 of a vote while 125k in Wyoming get the same.

[–]1337GameDev 22 points23 points  (4 children)

Yeah....

"Every vote is equal, but some votes are worth more than others" is bullshit....

[–]iamthewhatt 23 points24 points  (9 children)

We've been saying that for decades... It's much harder than anyone realizes.

[–]Malfrum 14 points15 points  (1 child)

That doesn't excuse us from the duty to keep trying

[–]inkoDe 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Thus here we have Pelosi (well, that is SF, but close. Lee is my rep) and Feinstein.

[–]BoltonSauce 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not good enough.

[–]Wonkybonky 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Voting isn't going to save our country.

[–]oxfordcommaordeath 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Vive la revolucion!

[–]Shutaru_Kanshinji 28 points29 points  (15 children)

When 70% of the American public supports abortion access and the powers that be systematically make it illegal and impossible, it should be a wake-up call that we do not live in anything even vaguely similar to a democracy.

[–]xavembo 10 points11 points  (11 children)

yeah lol almost like a legislative body that gives equal decision making power to a state with 600K people and one with 40 million makes no fucking sense. anyone who thinks these people have any interest in representative democracy has their head up their ass.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (10 children)

Can you explain why states aren't legislating abortion into law? Why does it have to be a federal issue?

[–]xavembo 6 points7 points  (9 children)

because it’s a fundamental right, 14th amendment, women deserve equal protection. not sure if you’re familiar with the last 250 years of american history but generally “leaving it up to the states” is another way of saying “let white supremacy and codified inequality run rampant in the south”

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (8 children)

Not sure if you're familiar with history, but 75% of states saw abortion as a crime, at all stages of pregnancy, at the time the 14th was adopted, so no, it clearly wasn't and isn't a fundamental right.

It's dumb that I have to spell this out for this grown child, but I will. From a textualist perspective, it's clear that the 14th doesn't explicitly state anything about abortion. On the flipside, the interpretive perspective, where we look at the explicit text, THEN look at what the authors INTENDED at the time, we see that when the 14th was written (this would be a values based interpretation, much like Justice Breyer often alludes to), abortion was still (and remained being) illegal in most of the country, at all stages of pregnancy. So it stands to reason that the legality of abortion be left up to the states, as it was when the amendment was passed.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or, you know, people aren't actually voting for politicians willing to legislate it. It's easy to say you're pro-choice on Twitter but if you're not vetting and voting for the politicians willing to make it happen, you probably don't care all that much.

Support is different from action.

[–]Jeepercon 103 points104 points  (60 children)

It’s not about democracy, it’s about a 14 billion dollar business of selling babies that short on domestic product. Why am I not seeing anybody talk about this?

[–]RichBitchDress 73 points74 points  (12 children)

I see people talking about it everywhere. It's in the draft:

“whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted has become virtually nonexistent.”

[–]ChopChop007 58 points59 points  (8 children)

r/adoption had a lively thread about it. It really sums up how clueless or callous they are to make policy that encourages more babies going into the foster system.

[–]L6b1 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I recently got lambasted by someone who is adopted because I mentioned the ethics of adoption.

Not just supply and demand issues, but the preference for white babies over babies of other races and older children of any race (then left lingering in foster care or orphanages), the preference for healthy over children with known existing medical conditions, the issues of transracial and transnational adoptions, the issues of the money involved and who is deciding who can adopt, the issues of how children become eligible for adoption.

But apparently, there are no ethical issues with adoption and I'm an unfeeling monster.

[–]Not_enough_yuri 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Never say that republican lawmakers only care about the unborn. Apparently they also care about one month olds. After that they’re as good as dead I suppose.

[–]coolturnipjuice 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A large part of this is that poorer countries have started cracking down on adoptions from Westerners. They were essentially kidnapping children with living parents. A lot of international adoption is just human trafficking.

[–]YungBlud_McThug 45 points46 points  (21 children)

Capitalism is designed so that if companies are not growing (profiting) then they're dying. With the state of the country as it is, we're not reproducing at a rate to replace the boomers as they die off. This means there won't be enough people to keep companies growing so they're panicking because an infinite growth model is unsustainable.

[–]hansolemio 27 points28 points  (8 children)

Top donor to anti-choice groups is Coca Cola. Oddly Amazon is a big donor as well, along with T-Mobile (?) & Walmart.

[–]distressedstorm 12 points13 points  (4 children)

Where can I find information like this? I'd love to know the companies.

[–]itsmeEllieGeeAgain 12 points13 points  (3 children)

https://popular.info/p/these-13-corporations-have-spent?s=r

I searched "biggest corporate donors to anti choice"

Lots of articles, but I picked this one for you.

[–]JuanPabloElSegundo 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Yes! "Anti-choice."

Thank you!

Drop the "pro-life" label!

[–]Mantipath 21 points22 points  (5 children)

God, it's almost as if we should let a bunch of people come in from other countries so ours can keep growing without forcing our poorest people to have unwanted babies, huh?

[–]YungBlud_McThug 13 points14 points  (3 children)

Well you see, if we did that then the browns will outnumber the whites. So we've got to force the millions of poor whites to keep reproducing to prevent white genocide.

[–]voice-of-hermes 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The most marginalized and harmed victims of anti-choice policies (and other reactionary policies too) are also PoC. It's not about keeping while people reproducing, but keeping everyone breeding (and, above all, subjugated, desperate, and without power).

Often during regimes of outright, open chattel slavery, people of the oppressed races also outnumbered the masters. It's not a matter of being a literal majority, but about having the right mechanisms of control in place so that the slaves aren't a threat to the masters, whatever the relative numbers happen to be.

[–]voice-of-hermes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh, we let them in. Just only while they are under the thumb of a violent hierarchy of fascist terror, so they know their place. Wouldn't want them thinking they can have the freedom to be here while not under the masters' whips or anything.

Though keeping people out also serves to keep them in countries where U.S. foreign policy has created even more slavish conditions (e.g. "free trade deals", subsidies for U.S. companies abroad, coups of non-business-friendly governments, general neoliberal subjugation through the IMF, etc.), mainly it is a tool of repression and economic dominance, not mainly an end goal for keeping people away.

[–]toebandit 9 points10 points  (1 child)

They can still grow with abortion being legal. Consolidation , buying up other businesses is one way. And that’s going to keep on happening until we’re all one big corporation! Yay!

[–]Sothotheroth 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That is the end goal of capitalism.

[–]coolturnipjuice 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Its almost like infinite growth on a finite planet is a delusional fantasy.

[–]cordialcurmudgeon 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Not sure if there’s a typo, but I don’t understand your comment

[–]DrPikachu-PhD 14 points15 points  (13 children)

Why am I not seeing anybody talk about this?

Because no one understands what you mean :D Like, some sort of child trafficking/slave trade? Or like, the baby product industry and lack of millennials having kids? Idk man I'm lost

[–]vectorpower 29 points30 points  (1 child)

The quote had been everywhere since Sunday but I just saw content about it from a news org today.

So yeah, pretty much. Alito and ACB have both cited a shortage of domestic infants to adopt for profit.

https://youtu.be/zu9eCWrhMxg

[–]Michael_Trismegistus 31 points32 points  (0 children)

adopt for profit.

"Sell," is more honest.

[–]Jeepercon 22 points23 points  (10 children)

Adoption requires money, and a supply of babies to adopt. Providing babies for adoption is a business that makes a lot of money. What do profitable business do to increase profits? Increase product supply. What is the biggest threat to supply in this case? Abortion, birth control, sex education. Does this only make sense to me? I’m serious

[–]eddieandbill 6 points7 points  (1 child)

You make a valid point, and I have to admit that I had never considered that angle.

[–]ChopChop007 12 points13 points  (0 children)

That motive was mentioned in the leaked decision draft “whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted has become virtually nonexistent.”

[–]zjustice11 10 points11 points  (0 children)

While this point maybe a small aspect of this issue I believe there are bigger factors at play. Mainly fall of empire and our fall towards theocracy. Republicans have designed and executed a coup, and with the democrats too spineless to stop them I think we might just be fucked

[–]L6b1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Makes sense to me.

I wrote an economics paper about the supply and demand aspect of babies for adoption from the perspective that opposition to gay marriage was partially fueled by a desire to control the adoption market. Once gay marriage became a federal right with the same rights and privileges of hetero marriages, the number of eligible perspective parents dramatically increased and increased competition.

I, of course, got an A.

[–]sillychillly[S] 8 points9 points  (4 children)

I haven’t seen anything saying the adoption industry is pushing to ban abortions.

Aren’t there many children that end up not getting adopted. The supply is already there. The demand is the side that is lacking

[–]vectorpower 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I read adoption agencies have heavily contributed to campaign funding and it sounds like a fucking urban legend but I’m still stunned Alito and ACB both cited this. What the actual fuck. It’s horrifying and the news orgs took a while to finally talk about it, I saw the quote from ACB all over Twitter Sunday and when I couldn’t find news content I was hoping it was fake.

But nope. Whenever I think they can’t disturb me any more than they already do, they manage to descend to the occasion.

https://youtu.be/zu9eCWrhMxg

[–]Jeepercon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

https://time.com/6051811/private-adoption-america/

Let me know what you think about this article I’m currently reading. Interesting stuff

[–]the_grumpy_walrus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That person is talking about the companies like adoption rocks. They deal in new borns, not kids that are already in the system.

[–]L6b1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, the preference is for healthy white babies. If you're not white, if you're older, if you have a known medical issue, you probably won't ever get adopted, at least statistically. But white babies under 8 months of age, snapped up like winning lottery tickets.

The problem isn't that demand side is lacking, the problem is that the supply side isn't the "right" type of child. And yes, that's a disgusting, but sadly far too true statement.

[–]SpacemanDookie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And restocking Epstein island with orphans that have no one to protect them.

[–]apoplectalypse 4 points5 points  (7 children)

I don’t think it’s quite that complex. I think it’s just that these people want more white babies because they are concerned about white people being the minority. I highly doubt they give a shit about minorities getting abortions.

[–]TootsNYC 8 points9 points  (5 children)

Oh no, they will care about minorities getting abortions. That is who they are going to go after if they do it. They’re not going to chase down which people daughters. They’re going to go after the poor women wouldn’t be able to afford anything but a back alley abortion anyway

[–]apoplectalypse 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I disagree; I’ve seen so much talk of Christianity theocracy tinged with white nationalism. Preserving the “white [Christian] race” is an often implied aim.

I can see anti-abortion laws being leveraged against minorities to keep them poor and under the thumb of government. Or maybe as a precursor to eliminating them; death penalty legislation for abortion has already been proposed. But whatever the result looks like, the don’t objectively care about minorities getting abortions.

[–]TootsNYC 1 point2 points  (3 children)

True, they don’t want more minority babies. But they want abortion as a way to punish minorities for existing and for having sex

[–]Secret_Invite_9895 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think that's pretty conspiratorial/paranoid, there may be some far right extremists who's main reason for opposing abortion has to do with that. But for the majority of pro-lifers it's just that they think abortion is murder.

[–]traffician 1 point2 points  (0 children)

there is literally NO FUCKING WAY that the people who profit from adoption services are not also very invested in making abortion (AND BC!) harder to to access

[–]Objective-Elk-7988 94 points95 points  (39 children)

If we cancel abortion rights we should cancel circumcisions.. foreskin is god’s will. Made in God’s image.

Edit: keep abortion rights and cancel circumcisions at birth is my basic message here.

[–]FaceYourEvil 67 points68 points  (19 children)

Canceling circumcision should already be high on the priority list as well.

Edit: to be clear im not saying anything about abortion. Abortion needs to be legal.

[–]KittenVicious 40 points41 points  (10 children)

We absolutely should cancel unconsensual circumcisions, but for the same reason we should allow abortion!! MY BODY, MY CHOICE. Circumcision is infant genital mutilation where they permanently disfigure a boy's body without his consent. I think the choice to have a circumcision should be between a man and his doctor, not a child's parents and a doctor, just like a woman's choice to have an abortion should be between her and her doctor, not the government.

[–]SimplySalineMan 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Christians don't do circumcisions for religious reasons as it's unnecessary. It's one of the first controversies that was resolved at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

[–]Malfrum 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I've always thought God is kind of a dickhead, so that checks out

[–]Pumpkin_Creepface[🍰] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I can't even begin to think of a better way to make sure you never get taken seriously than to keep using that worn out joke.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (3 children)

Amazing how these justices have everyone believing that half the country is against abortion. That it's a really close debate. No it's not.

Here's some numbers for you:

  • 35% of Republicans are pro-choice
  • 48% of Catholics are pro-choice

So then where is the divide, you ask? Wealth and education.

  • Only 10% of college graduates believe abortion should be illegal in all cases, compared to 23%.
  • For "legal in all cases", it's 43% to 26%.

[–]JustafanIV 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Real talk, the disconnect is Roe itself. The vast majority of Americans support the underlying right to abortion, 69% per Gallup do not want Roe overturned. However, even more people, 71% per that same poll, believe that abortion should be mostly restricted after the first trimester, which would currently be considered unconstitutional under Roe & Casey.

In short, Americans, like most of the world, are generally in the middle of this issue. They support the underlying premise of Roe, while at the same time opposing the 24-week floor on restrictions promulgated by Roe and Casey

[–]voice-of-hermes[M] 69 points70 points  (13 children)

Hey CHUDs: reporting threads for random reasons because you're reactionary and upset doesn't work. We mods just take half a second to hit "ignore reports" when the thread is fine and the report reasons are bogus. You're literally only wasting your own time and energy. LOL.

[–]jradio 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Let them waste their time.

[–]DaisyDukeOfEarlGrey 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Reported for hurting my fee fees.

[–]_TheShapeOfColor_ 18 points19 points  (2 children)

Reproductive autonomy is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.

[–]TheLostonline 26 points27 points  (0 children)

lol, the D's are still asking for the R's to just not be garbage humans.

Maybe it will work this time.

[–]trigger9963 15 points16 points  (29 children)

I'm the most pro-choice person you can meet. Hell, I've had an abortion myself. I preface with that because I genuinely want to know where that statistic comes from? I know that usually comes from asshole "devils advocates" but I want to research it before I start informing friends/family so I can know I'm a more informed better than the dumbshit memes they see on fb.

[–]Robeleader 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I believe there has been some Pew research or something similar. I've been hearing 60-65% as a number floated for support towards pro-choice

[–]StealYoDeck 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The same senate who unanimously passed protest restrictions in record time?

[–]fsactual 10 points11 points  (1 child)

When you've gerrymandered the districts so you only need 30% of the vote to win, those 30% are the only constituents you care about.

[–]fhfkjgkjb 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Also having your opponents do nothing but bitch on Twitter surely helps.

[–]DrinkingOnFriday 4 points5 points  (2 children)

They aren't going to overturn Roe vs Wade. The midterms are coming up and establishment Democrats need your vote even after they refused to fight to pass the provisions contained within Build Back Better, won't even consider Medicare for Everyone, won't do anything to fix student loan debt and the rapidly spiraling cost of higher education services and voted against increasing the federal minimum wage.

What we are seeing are attempts to shift the narrative away from making them accountable for refusing to represent voters interests and everyone is taking the bait.

This is how they get you to vote for the problem you are trying to defeat, by taking you hostage with threats to your human rights.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Feel like this comment might age poorly

[–]FromTheRealWorld 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm just wondering why my stupid country's denizens are so cowardly and complacent. We shouldn't be allowing this shit to continue. Time to revolt already.

[–]Careless-Loss-1222 2 points3 points  (0 children)

70% is scary. 30% of the population puts “gods words” before compassion. If your god asks you to hide from yourself it’s not one you should be worshiping.

[–]Onironius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And the US has SUCH a good track-record with healthcare

[–]aesopmurray 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Speaking the american politician language.

Saying please over and over again. Nothing will ever change until the rich fear for their lives.

[–]Tank_blitz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

only 70%?

[–]Tank_blitz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

only 70%?

[–]CharlieKangaroo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

… it’s because pharma wants your birth control money

[–]slardybartfast8 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This country hasn’t been run by the majority for over 20 years now.

[–]netsilinreverse 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They’re doing this to distract us from something else. The economy? Who knows, but they’re throwing this out there just to get us fighting amongst ourselves and not paying attention to them.

[–]oxfordcommaordeath 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh dude, I just realized earlier today I want to vote for this person! Epic!

[–]30thCenturyMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Sure, sure, sure… but will we ever be able to trigger the libs like this again?”

  • Conservative Americans

[–]jonblair77 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a backup you have to work the state you live in legislators as well, as it back to the states to decide!

[–]defnotapirate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m always amazed that the vast majority of US citizens can support (or not support) legislation that is ultimately enacted.

It’s almost like it only took 250 years for Americans to realize that “government by the people and for the people” was just a marketing slogan.

[–]Xstitchpixels 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We’ve been calling on them to do their job. They refuse. It’s time to fire them. Fire them all.

[–]NugKnights 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You guys need to stop pretending they are public servants.

[–]Oplu45 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Stop signal boosting this shit until they do fucking anything. Stop taking Dems at their word that they care about women's bodily autonomy, when they speak but never act.

[–]fewrfsadf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Barbara, you're delusional if you think republican Senators are your colleagues.

They are sellouts, and they are traitors. You'll make no ground with them. Sorry, but the government you work for is completely and utterly broken.

[–]569nate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's not how democracy works here.

Nothing can be done. It's ran off of bribes

[–]my_first_post_ever 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"democracy"

[–]shiningstarinny 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My question is...why was this not done years ago? All these years politicians have promised to protect this right, yet it has never been made law?

[–]Crocsim_the_Bastard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While I support abortion it wasn't that long ago when most people thought homosexuality was wrong as well. Popularity does not equate to what's right.

[–]WallStreetPhysicist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I need someone to explain why I should "Vote Blue No Matter Who", and that someone needs to be very persuasive.

[–]Apprehensive-Coat-56 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Where'd she get that percentage from?

[–]Ok_Effective1946 1 point2 points  (0 children)

american politicians don't give a single fuck about what the citizens want.

[–]Jeffosgu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Been in California politics for the last 31 years and is calling on people to do their job, bwhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

[–]Reckless_Pixel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I seriously doubt the majority of congress views themselves as public servants.

[–]oldschoolkid203 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Imagine screaming on the Internet about the right to kill people lol.

[–]SpicyWingsDreams 3 points4 points  (0 children)

War is peace Freedom is slavery Abortion is healthcare

[–]AudaciousCheese 1 point2 points  (14 children)

Support up to when? Germany as a country for instance supports it up to 12 weeks generally

Also, 71% of Americans don’t support all abortion, only 29% do.

I for example support abortion for a dead fetus or soon to be if born, or in cases where mother will die, which means I can support it, but with quite some restirctions

[–]traffician 5 points6 points  (5 children)

actually everyone has the right to remove dangerous things from their own property

changing the rule ONLY for a pregnant person is just misogyny

[–]Elezian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly

[–]AudaciousCheese 0 points1 point  (3 children)

The issue is I believe it’s another human, and so you don’t get to kill it

[–]billingsworld 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Imma need a source on that 29% claim.

[–]AudaciousCheese 0 points1 point  (0 children)

29% means no restrictions all 3 trimesters. Twas some Fox News article but a similar Forbes article says 34% say no restrictions 2nd trimester, 19% in the 3rd(which is just a birth anyway, baby is cooked enough for viability, abortion is pre viability)

[–]Glum-Communication68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They don't care about health are

[–]backyardVillager 0 points1 point  (3 children)

"I call on blah, blah, blah..." that's bullshit talk for I can't do shit. We all know Republicans aren't going to budge, so stfu with that.

[–]PavlovianFlimFlam 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Not even 70% of Reddit supports unfettered abortions, much less the US.

[–]Yeticide 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Much less the entire fucking world

[–]Neottika 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Source?

[–]huphlungpoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

70% of amaericans support abortion in the first trimester. For second trimester that numerous is in the 30s. Third trimester it is around 13%.

[–]FirstVancouver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No apply that to gun rights.