this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

45724 readers
55 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

Absolutely. Which is exactly the reason they want to take it away from you.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

might be preaching to the choir a little bit

[–] chris@lem.cochrun.xyz 0 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Doesn't not having sex do that a little better tho? Like i totally get the point, but also, having sex gives chance of baby right? So, don't do it unless you ready? Maybe I'm wrong.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 0 points 1 day ago

Logically, yes. But humans aren't purely logical. They're gonna have sex without access to birth control, even if they don't want a kid. Not all of them, but a lot of them. So why not just let them have both control?

[–] gravityowl@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago

No, you're not "maybe wrong". You're absolutely and completely wrong seen as abstinence only programs have been shown over and over again to be ineffective. It's a sad attempt at policing people's desire for sex

[–] BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (9 children)

Sex is a basic human need. Having a child isn't. You need to know you are compatible with your partner sexually or it will lead to tons of strife in a relationship. So not having sex unless you are asexual or a version of it isn't an option.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Birth control is nothing more than a form of medical technology. People against birth control and abortion(also medical technology) are Medical Luddites.

They must be afraid of losing their jobs at crisis pregnancy centers, or be afraid they won't be allowed to shame young single mothers anymore.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lemmus@szmer.info 0 points 2 days ago

Not so funny.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 0 points 2 days ago (3 children)

One issue (and hear me out, I do support abortions, birth control and bodily autonomy!) is that, once given a choice when and how to reproduce, people don't do it as much.

Having pleasure of sex without consequences is screwing the natural incentives for reproduction.

Whether we like it or not, there should be something to support fertility if we don't want to end up in a population crisis, with a few young folks supporting the ever growing army of the elderly.

Now, this should NOT be laws prohibiting abortions, or banning any sort of contraception, but there should be some incentives for people to go, and, well, make babies.

Fixing the financial clusterfuck and letting people live in a bright and predictable world where they know their tomorrow will be good is certainly one way, but I'm afraid it's not enough. What could be the other options? I'm interested in people's opinions.

[–] Funkytom467@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What do you mean by population crisis?

In the world it's the other way around, the demographics are still booming.

You know what came before having better birth control and lower birth rates in most developed countries, medicine and lower death rate. In most of them now both are pretty close (most because there are exceptions like Japan).

I'm not really sure i see a problem with a slight decrease in population in a place where there is already a lot of people.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 0 points 1 day ago

Demographics is mostly booming in underdeveloped countries, with some exceptions. It is likely many of them will follow the same path going forward, and UN predictions expect just that, as far as I remember. For developed countries, the fertility rate typically sits somewhere around 1,5-1,7, significantly below 2,1 required to have a stable population. I could of course cite something like South Korea with 0,8, but that's an obvious outlier. It's bad enough as it is.

As the world remains divided, this will likely exacerbate the issue for particular countries with lower birth rate. Immigration is one answer, but it doesn't always cover the population loss, and immigrants are likely to send a lot of their income back home anyway (again, this is absolutely not a case against immigrants, I for one welcome them).

Evening out population growth over time would go a long way to maintain a healthy future.

[–] whyalone@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago

JD, is this you?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You still are a wage slave paying rent to a landed lord.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 0 points 2 days ago

Better than committing another soul to the same fate.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 0 points 2 days ago (3 children)
[–] Grumpy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago

It's not and such content should be banned from memes. But Lemmy has nearly no moderation on validity of content. Tbh, I like Reddit a lot better in many ways except for the asshole admins. It has problems, but still lot better controlled than here.

[–] starbrite@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ikr? Lemmy is 99% stuff like this, when really all i want to do on here is laugh

[–] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago

Yes. It gets tiring. There aren't even breaks in between "zomg! Look what trump and friends are doing! We are so much better" memes over and over and over and over.

load more comments (1 replies)

The worst part is draconic abortion bans also hurt those trying to have children. No one's getting recreational third trimester abortions. You picked out a name, painted the nursery. Late term abortions are tragedies to all parties, and only ever happen because of life threatening conditions.

I wouldn't want to plan a child when any complication could mean death.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I know I'm probably wrong here, and I'm willing to be better informed, but I don't like the phrasing of abortion as mere "birth control," as if it were equal to methods that prevent conception or implantation.

Do people really feel it's not a different sort of act, or would people be comfortable using abortion as their sole means of birth control (if it were safe and inconsequential to the woman)? And yes, I understand that the morning after pill is something of a gray area.

Also yes, I am a Christian. But I understand that there are good reasons for abortion remaining legal.

[–] Funkytom467@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Well depends what you mean by birth control... is it a way to prevent pregnancy or children?

Since birth is in the name i'd say the term is better suited for referring to anything preventing the birth of a children. But what the term refers to has no barring on what's happening.

It never meant people don't make a difference. Any reasonable women knows and feel the difference.

The fact it's less safe and has worse effects on your health is just another way we realize how serious an abortion is. It will never be inconsequential even if it was safe.

Please do not to trust anyone who says people disagree with this. They all have a political reason to lie.

[–] Sabre363@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Abortion is, by definition, a form of birth control, but I don't think most people would ever consider it to be equal to other forms of controlling birth. However, let's not forget that for a lot of people abortion is quite literally the only birth control they may have access to, and even that access may come at huge risk. There are often family, social, religious (this is the big one), or cultural pressures that get in the way of accessing contraceptives until it is too late.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Absolutely understand, and while it's hard for me to believe that anyone doesn't know about condoms, a religious person who chooses abortion over condoms really makes me scratch my head.

But I guess you mean a kid living in a "religious" household. Man, I wish there was a way to communicate to kids that feeling your old enough for sex means feeling you're old enough to make good decisions about preventing pregnancy.

I mean frankly the whole thing's just too damn big for me. My heart goes out to everyone who finds themselves with these kinds of choices.

[–] Sabre363@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago

Yeah, I was getting at living in a religious household, but I can say from experience that it goes far deeper than that. There is way too often a toxic and parasitic mentality that constantly says things like birth control are evil and aren't to be talked about. When that kind of thinking permeates every aspect of one's life or community, it can make it difficult, humiliating, or outright dangerous for people to seek out things like contraceptives.

Also, I know this thinking doesn't hold true of all religious folks, and it's refreshing to see someone genuinely curious and asking questions rather than judging automatically, so thank you.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago

You're making some huge assumptions about the quality of sex and health education that those kids have had access to. It's easy to point a finger and say, well you should be more responsible, but the reality is that adolescents are still learning and developing. So even with great education, they make bad decisions. They won't have adult brains until their early to mid 20s. And there's no reason why those decisions should ruin lives, when modern medicine can resolve the dilemma in minutes.

In other words, you're making an argument for much better and more widely available sex and health education. Which religious types are likely to oppose. Can't have it both ways- either the kids are fully informed and made an error, or their guardians failed them and set them on a track with a veil of ignorance.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Naadan@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago

The folk wanting to restrict it probably don't want to respect autonomy too much.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

And mutually beneficially so does UBI et al

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago

Republicans:

Ban it

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

Well, specifically women, but yes that sign is not wrong.

[–] kabi@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Well, specifically women

How do you figure?

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

....Are you being purposely obtuse?

[–] kabi@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

....Are you being purposely obtuse?

Do you think an unwanted pregnancy doesn't affect the biological father's life in any way?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Simbomba@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago

It's probably due to the fact that the majority of Chile bearing people are womem Wouldnt want to haphazardly sum up many groups of people with one word but I would See the viewpoint

[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

They know, that's the point.

[–] mEEGal@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Memes don't have to be jokes

[–] Awesomo85@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago

Yeah, as long as they deliver a message that is politically Democrat, then it belongs here.

Fun is no longer an option for this feed.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Name another unfunny one so I can back you on that

[–] Rubisco@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Memes don't have to be funny to be a meme.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago

I'm backing you now.

Memes don't have to be funny to be a meme.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›