Some friends I just can’t shake
hard enough
around the neck
with a firm grip
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
1246 points (99.9% liked)
196
16488 readers
1692 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yyeap that is how it feels to be a conservative today..... Cant say you are a conservative cause people will call you "rasist" "bigot" "sexist" "transphobic" and so on. Just because you think a 9 month old baby should have the same rights as a newborn. Or because you think we should have rules (and we do) behind how people cross the border. Or because you think people should pay money back if they barrow money.
Just some thoughts that will get you banned from social media.
Or because you think people should pay money back if they barrow money.
Except of course PPP loans. Student loans for sure need to be paid back, but the free money the wealthy got from the gubermint is fine.
Not not saying its fine, all Im saying its you should be responsable its all. Seems like its not a popular opinion today....
If people are calling you racist, bigoted, sexist, and transphobic simply because you identify as a conservative, you should probably reevaluate your positions and if you truly identify with conservative values.
Nobody is aborting 9 month old fetuses outside of exceptional medical emergencies, and denying women bodily autonomy is incredibly authoritarian.
Nobody thinks there shouldn't be any rules about crossing borders, even the fringe people that are for open borders. What people disagree with is intentionally drowning people via razorwire as a deterrent, and instead want an easier path to citizenship.
Everyone thinks paying debts is a good thing, but may disagree on what constitutes a faulty, predatory system of debt that ought to be abolished in the first place, like medical debt and school debt.
The thoughts you listed alone will not get you banned from social media (outside of specific communities for specific purposes), what would is how you express those views, which can in fact be sexist, bigoted, or perhaps even racist or transphobic.
Nobody is aborting 9-month-old fetuses at all. Unless that fetus is already dead or dying, 9 months is well past the point of viability.
24 weeks (5 months and some change) is when a fetus could viably survive outside the womb with medical intervention. 9 months is at the point of being fully developed, even if it is a couple weeks premature.
Almost all abortions happen at 10 weeks or less, well before the point of viability. Almost no abortions happen after 24 weeks. Definitely none happening at 9 months.
Yes, absolutely correct, thanks for expanding.
What 9 month old baby has less rights than a newborn? Edit: or vice versa.
I'm gonna charitably guess he means a unborn baby at nine months, but... Does he think those are aborted or some?
You are somehow correct. I do mean nine month unborn baby, its not my opinion if they are killed or not, depends on the state some will allow you to kill your 9 month old baby.
No they fucking don't. Unless there's lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother, no one is aborting babies at 9 months. Ffs turn off Fox News already.
I wish you were correct. That is not thw case :( (No limit: Six states and Washington, D.C., do not impose any term restrictions. That has not changed since the overturning of Roe.)[https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court]
fyi you keep linking to this site but it says the article no longer exists
Sorry but that's not true... either emergency c section at around 7 months onwards or regular delivery etc. No such thing as an abortion as far as Im aware. Is this what you think a "late term abortion" is?
No, this is what I mean: [ Viability: 14 states ban abortions after the fetus is considered viable. Some laws that don't specify a limit say it's up to the abortion provider's "judgment" to determine whether a fetus is viable. Third trimester: Virginia is the only state that prohibits abortions in the pregnancy's third trimester, which starts at around 25 weeks, per Guttmacher. It's also the lone southern state that hasn't banned or restricted abortion since the end of Roe.
No limit: Six states and Washington, D.C., do not impose any term restrictions. That has not changed since the overturning of Roe.](https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court)
Sure, but you have the logic backwards. Viability isnt used so that people can get an abortion even though the baby can survive, its so the physician can make the judgement to deliver a baby that can survive instead of attempting an abortion - when the mothers life is in danger.
There is no magic cut off date, where all babies are ready to deliver or will die. So basically the math goes like this: physician determines the mother will die if the baby does not come out. If they determine the baby is viable --> the baby comes out and is alive via medical procedure (not abortion). If they determine that the baby is not viable --> the baby comes out and cannot survive via medical procedure (abortion). Fyi, in case you think oh well, keep the baby in: the mom dies, the baby is not viable to survive and dies too. Thats it. No one is aborting babies that could be birthed and survive.
“Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Because this point may differ with each pregnancy, neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering into the ascertainment of viability – be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor – as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest in the life or health of the fetus.” Colautti v. Franklin (1979)
This is a different situation than early pregnancy abortions. Different areas of focus, rights, benefits, ethics etc. Dont treat both rights as requiring the same logic to support.
It seems to me, at least, no matter what someones position is on early term terminations, late term is a slam dunk obvious answer. Leave the decision to the parents and their physicians, not lawyers and legislators.
Depends on the state, some mothers are able to kill their 9 month baby (does notmatter what the father opinion is)
Patently false. Nobody is aborting 9 month old unborn babies unless there's an immediate medical danger.
There is no restriction on some states. No matter if there are medical danger or not :( Really sad to be honest https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court
Have you ever considered that, at that late in the term, most of those mothers wanted their babies but had to abort to survive or because the fetus was already either dead or may as well have been? You talk like they’re just wantonly killing babies (just to spite men for some reason) because, idk, this is the future liberals want, drink blood, hail gay satan, whatever
Do you know how they abort a 9 month old baby? A 6 month old, even?
They induce delivery or do a c section. You can't just vacuum it out or poison it or something - it's several pounds of flesh and bone, and (as always) the biggest issue is the skull. It's gotta come out, or the mother will die... Babies can die at any moment, and it will decompose. All that bacteria gets into the blood, and that bacteria poisons the blood... Sepsis is a death sentence - whether it's an organ or a fetus, it has to come out or your chances aren't good.
So you have to get the skull out - it's the widest part. So either induced delivery (the quicker, easier option), or it's surgery.
A C section is something that is extremely common and relatively safe - there's not really a third option unless the mother is likely to die from that or induced birth.
There's a whole approval process for non-standard procedures (or you'd lose your license and be begging for malpractice to drop you), and you'd need a specialist, probably a pediatric surgeon who does en-utero surgery. They'd also have to go through review and defend why it was medically necessary - they'd be risking their license and being dropped by malpractice insurance if they didn't have a very good argument.
It would be grueling too - it would be a long, physically intensive surgery for everyone involved. Extremely expensive too...
So you're doing an induced birth or a c section. It's also likely going to be automatically classified as a risky birth, because it's premature, so you'll be getting a more experienced surgeon and experienced nurses who have specialized in pre-mature births (possibly a special team, depending on the size of the hospital... But it'll be the most experienced people available).
These are going to be the people who devoted their life to giving babies every chance possible. I know several well... Let me share a couple stories I've heard.
An older couple was almost 9 months into the pregnancy, and very much wanted the child, especially knowing it was probably their last chance. It was an at risk pregnancy so they were watching closely, but seemed to be going along pretty well... They'd picked out a name and decorated the nursery, it could come any day now. Then suddenly, the woman felt pain, and they rushed in... The baby had died without warning. They were crushed, but they had to induce delivery. The nurse was delivering the corpse, and as the head came through it fell off.
The nurse blocked their view as she delivered the body, and took it over to the washing station. In cases like this, she'd clean and dress it, take a footprint and picture to give them something to keep, and let them hold their child once to give them a chance to say goodbye. So she did all that, bundled it in a blanket and covered the neck with a ribbon, and gave them that chance without them ever realizing.
In another case, a younger mother's health was going downhill midway through the pregnancy and she came in - the baby had died inside her some time ago, and she didn't realize. She was in bad shape because of sepsis, so immediately they induced delivery. It had rotted... The arms had already fallen off, and she delivered it in decomposing pieces. The nurse did a footprint, but didn't show the body.
But mostly, she delivered pre-mature births - babies that may or may not make it if she did everything she could. Even if it wasn't breathing or the heart wasn't beating, she put it on a ventilator and do infant CPR. Over the years she even learned to do weird things as a last ditch effort, like pricking the baby's foot with a needle or holding them at a certain angle... Giving dying babies every chance is what she's spent her life doing.
I did also ask about what they do in that situation, with a super late term abortion - they'd deliver the baby, and as soon as it was stable she'd whisk it away to the NICU. They then never mentioned it to the mother unless she directly asked... Apparently the mother usually doesn't, and so if it survives it goes up for whatever processes for adoption. If there's any kernel of truth in these stories, women might be leaving the hospital thinking their child is dead.
So I mentioned non-standard procedures risking everything - so there's a clear line here too. Part of the modern Hippocratic oath is to minimize harm... They can prioritize the mother's autonomy or health over the baby, but the baby has to come out. Maybe there's some crazy situation where killing the baby would improve the mothers chances, but without a pressing reason, the baby is going to get any chance they can give it.
But forget the laws. There's no way in hell they're killing babies just because the mother told them to... I've heard them talk shit about weird or stupid parents, but the only complaint I've ever heard about the babies is "it was really troublesome, it kept trying to die every time I looked away"
I would agree that some people have become hyper-sensitized towards any statement that might be interpreted as "racist", "sexist" or "transphobic", no thanks to a definite rise of those sentiments, mainly amongst conservatives. But I firmly believe this "they call anyone conservative a nazi/a racist/a transphobe/a xenophobe" claim is a persecution complex installed onto conservatives by the media to disarm the accusations and instead turn them into anger against the "other side."
If this is about the USA, abortion used to be legal up to 12 weeks after conception, 9 months would be crazy. Also, there is no open border, nor does the current government want that (they merely insist on proper procedure, aka rules, rather than letting people drown). Republicans will likely continue to reject border deals in order to keep the topic cooking until election day and to aid America's enemies in Russia.
I agree with a lot of your opinions here, I just don't understand what makes these examples intrinsically conservative.
I'm a liberal, but I don't believe in the breakdown of structure. A lot of those rules are in place for a reason - I'd argue the difference lies more in response.
...you were banned from a social media site for saying someone should pay back a debt?Which one, I'll stay as far away as possible, that's crazy fr 😯
I'm assuming he's referring to student loan forgiveness. I could see him getting banned from certain communities for saying he's against it.
Yeap that is correct. Creating irresponsable individuals (in my opinion you should be responsable for your acctions)
I think two things make up the core of the student loan problem.
Kids in high school are surrounded by rhetoric from every adult they might trust near-constantly insinuating that if you don't go to college you'll never make anything of yourself (this has been better recently, with more and more high school graduates being made abundantly aware of non-college options available to them)
Student loans are designed to spiral into lifelong debt. This one is a bit more anecdotal for me but a good few of my high school friends have paid back well beyond the initial sum of their student loans, yet their remaining balance is greater than they started.
Now I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but those who frame the issue as purely one of personal responsibility (i.e. "you took out a loan pay it back") are at best being unhelpfully reductive and at worst gaslighting.
Set aside, just for a moment, the abstract moral aspect of this position, and consider the purely utilitarian side. If such a huge portion of an entire generation's earnings are being funneled up to banks that talked them into a maybe-not-so-necessary college education when they were 17, they're not exactly enabled to spend money in local commerce. Money spent in local commerce is pretty good if you want an economy to thrive, and if you ask me, student debt forgiveness would substantially contribute to that. If you disagree then you disagree, but framing that disagreement as a moral superiority is immature.
From a non-US standpoint I'd have to ask you why university costs money to attend in the first place. Shouldn't you instead give students money to cover living expenses etc. so that they can focus on their studies? So that everyone who might be able to graduate gets a go at it, regardless of their socio-economic background?
Universal education isn't exactly a new, radical position, Luther was advocating for a broad education for everyone back in the 1500s.
I wish nobidy had to work and everything was "free", but as they say everybody has to " eat". Profesors, personal, etc... Not to take in to account the equipment needed to run the clases (labs etc...).
Nothing is "free"
Indeed not. Streets, for example, need building and maintenance... yet they are free to use. Why would you handle education any differently?
Why stop at education? Why not housing, or food, or cars, or vacation? Why work at all?
Why work? To fulfil your ambitions. To give to your fellow human beings.
It's really a funny thing: If you look at polls surrounding providing a universal basic income you see an overwhelming majority answer "I'd work about the same amount, maybe a bit less but not much" while the same majority also says "Most people would park themselves in front of the TV with a beer". The general attitude is "everyone is a lazy bum but me", see what capitalist realism has done to us. One of the worst innovations ever, conservatives really should rail against it given that it's new and harmful.
More into details: Education, housing, food, yes. Access to information and entertainment (internet), and healthcare. Cars, no, we should have proper public transport, vacation, depends: Do you want to spend money or visit balconia?
Hahahh so work so you feel good about yourself? Oh God....
I pity you.
Housing, food, and transportation should indeed be decommodified. Vacation is a luxury, and doesn't need to be free at point of service.
People work because they still need to. Do you get paid to clean your room? Even then, you'd still get paid, but certain things should not be extorted by profit.
Are you anti soup kitchen too lol
wait you probably hate the unhoused too
Yeah but from the perspective of a government paying for your citizens education reduces crime, increases revenue and helps your country stay on top from a technology point of view. It's a pretty safe investment that pays for itself. I graduated 5 years ago, university and college isnt free where i am but is subsidized (and also access to low interest gov't loans) I have already paid in taxes more than my education cost the government. If I work for another 20yrs that's easily a 4x on the initial investment.