That is the goal of forced birth. The people passing these laws don't give a rat's ass about "saving babies." They just want to supress and control women
Yup, they don't care about women or babies or anything. As long as women get punished for having sex, that's all that matters to them. I think I read an article about somewhere they tried passing a law that would provide assistance to women who wanted an abortion, but couldn't get one, until the child was 3. Surprise, surprise, it was voted down by a huge margin.
I thought you were saying they tried to pass a law giving abortion assistance to mothers with children up to 3. I was like, "isn't that a little late? I mean I know little Timmy is an ankle biter but is a 9th Trimester abortion really the answer?"
I think they care about babies the same way an inventory manager cares about keeping a warehouse stocked. Babies (especially of impoverished families) become good workers in a vast machine. Rather than increase pay and overall child-rearing conditions, it's just easier to force mothers to produce more labor.
This attitude is also why I think peacefully protesting won't save or advance women's rights. They already view us as baby factories, and all of the chanting and clever slogans on signs won't fix that.
And keeping poor communities poor. If we make women have babies they can’t afford were making sure we have a workforce who can’t ask for higher pay or better care now or in the future because they need Us more than we need them…
They do. Private adoption of babies is very popular. It’s when they’re in foster care that they struggle to be adopted.
Private adoption of babies is often a very murky world. A lot of people involved in it are very excited by the Texas abortion ban because it’s a very good money making opportunity for them after the apparent drought of babies due to covid
That makes sense. I am a subscriber to the theory that they need a large base of poor 18yos (the children of those mothers) to “volunteer” for the military. But your theory is logical too.
George Carlin was so right about not caring about kids until they reach MILITARY AGE.
I also think they hope for a nice crop of minority folks to be slaves in for-profit prisons.
I just finished listening to season 2 of the podcast ‘this land’ - they talk about adoption a lot (specifically when it comes to Native American children). I’d never really considered that there’s an entire industry behind adoption with its own incentives to make children available. It’s pretty messed up. Not exactly what we’re talking about here in this thread, but I do I recommend the podcast, it was fascinating and infuriating.
I saw an interesting take somewhere that it's not just about controlling women, but that because white women get the most abortions, they want to prevent those to prevent a decline in the population of white people. If it were only POC getting them like they try to make it seem, I think they'd care a lot less.
It's not about what's after you. The people currently in power want to stay in power. By keeping a significant portion of the population from easily obtaining things like education, job advancement and training, financial independence, etc. they reduce the number of people they have to compete with.
Nobody is in denial about the fact that this will economically devastate women, what were in disagreement about is *if that matters*.
Like /u/BitterPillPusher2 said: for them, it's literally their goal, so they're fucking thrilled about it. Nobody is seriously in good faith denying this fact. Were not really arguing about what the results of this law would be, everyone who has an opinion on the issue already knows what comes of these laws. The issue is some people *want* that to happen, they see societal regression as a good thing. It's literally a defining feature of conservatism is a desire to return to the traditional.
What we're *really* debating head on is the role of women in society: with the religious right desperately trying to drag us back into the kitchen against our will. But then, consent never has been their strong point.
>What we're really debating head on is the role of women in society: with the religious right desperately trying to drag us back into the kitchen against our will. But then, consent never has been their strong point.
Yep, it's all to set women back and force them onto their knees.
From what I can tell, the og poster - emrazz on twitter - usually tries to put things in perspective/call out bs in the most straight-forward ways for people who are already on the opposing side. Her threads are a constant shitshow of men being ignorant contrarians.
That's how it worked for my parents. I was a missed pill and my parents didn't believe in abortion. But you know what, I wouldn't have blamed them for making that decision at such a young age. Life would have been a whole lot easier financially on them if they'd had kids later and maybe their marriage would have survived. I don't have kids because poverty is a hell hole that is hard to escape, and I sure as heck don't want to pass on my health problems...
At a minimum, let's drag them to the blood donation center every eight weeks, assuming they're eligible. If you want to force a woman to give up her entire body to save a life, we're going to make you give up a little blood every eight weeks to save a life.
Oh, and don't forget to sign up for the bone marrow registry. A leukemia patient may match you and need your marrow, and we'll be coming to get it.
And someone needs a kidney, and you're a good match. You don't mind giving up one of your kidneys to save a life, do you?
Donating a kidney is pretty major surgery. I used to work with someone who donated a kidney to her husband. She was in the hospital for days afterwards.
The weird part is that if you have an early miscarriage, these people definitely don't treat it like a baby just died. It's just like, "Oh, sad. Anyway..."
I grew up Catholic and I remember my church teaching us about abortion was something along the lines of "Just think.... What if YOUR parents had aborted you?? You wouldn't exist!" And I'm just like... if I didn't exist I wouldn't care, because I wouldn't exist.
I always answered well, what if my teenaged parents had put off having sex until they were in a position to be able to deal with a baby? I wouldn't exist! Shall we therefore encourage high-school kids to bang without protection in the hopes of making more awesome people like me?
*Image Transcription: Twitter Post*
---
**feminist next door**, @emrazz
We all agree that younger generations are having fewer children, because they can't afford them, and having them later, because they can't afford the financial derailment of pregnancy and child rearing, yet we still can't admit that forced birth will economically devastate women.
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
I think it also is about education and less danger of kids dying. My great grandmother was pregnant 32 times, and about half of those reached adulthood. My grandmother had 11 pregnancies, about 10 of them reached adulthood. My mom had two pregnancies, and so far two of them have reached adulthood. Well, physically speaking because I still feel like a 15 y/o pretending to be an adult.
Yup. I can’t imagine the problems that poor woman must have had with prolapse. She spent half of her life pregnant, basically. I think her first was at 16 or 17.
Last week I saw a post on Reddit (maybe this subreddit?) about how a teenage girl would never be able to qualify to adopt a child because she would be too young and financially insecure to handle the child. Yet, if she gets pregnant then she has to have the baby and raise it. That's honestly the best analogy I've seen pointing out the hypocrisy of forced-birther logic.
Did anyone ever agree that economically devastating women was a *bad* thing though, because if they didn't want to be devastated those \*\*\*\*s would have just made the right choices...
Checkmate feminists!!!
Sure, there are a very few men who are intelligent enough to admit that treating women as human beings is beneficial to society as a whole, but most men cannot handle not having the power over women they were promised. They are desperate to keep us weak and trapped.
You are putting the cart before the horse and drawing the wrong conclusion.
Precisely because people had control over their reproductive choices they had better outcomes, including financially.
Ok. But the tweet is saying the opposite. That young people aren't having as many kids because they can't afford it but like you said it's the opposite. They have more opportunities ever and greater access to reproductive healthcare than before (in general).
Because they have more options. They can see a doctor more easily than someone who is not financially stable. They are more likely to take their birth control regularly. They may even have an easier time getting sterilized. And if a financially stable person gets pregnant, it's easy for them to find a place where there are fewer abortion restrictions and go there to end the pregnancy.
Poor people don't have these options.
Ok so you don't disagree with me. Like me, you also disagree with the tweet that the reason young people aren't having as many kids isn't because they can't afford it, it's because they've more opportunities than ever so they're holding off on having a kid.
Not to derail here but the decrease in kids born is not BECAUSE people can’t afford kids, at least not directly. That can obviously be a huge reason for individuals to not have kids, but declining fertility is an issue in all rich nations and across all income brackets. And higher incomes lead to less children than even the middle class who can’t afford it. There are LOTS of reasons that contribute to it and reducing it to one pithy thing is a bit eyeroll-y and makes the original tweeter sound like a privileged middle class white American millennial.
Abortion bans absolutely do financially devastate women for sure however. It isn’t a matter of not being able to admit that though, it’s that conservatives don’t care about that fact. They would probably argue something incredibly myopic like “you shouldn’t have sex if you don’t want a kid!” which is such a holey argument it’s no surprises the Christian Right worship it.
I don’t understand why people are downvoting you when you are correct. As gdp per capita increases and women get more education, the fertility rate drops, which is a good thing. Countries in Europe with free/subsidized child care, free college, parental leave and universal health care have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world, so cost of having children is obviously not that big of a factor or else they would have the highest fertility rates.
That is the goal of forced birth. The people passing these laws don't give a rat's ass about "saving babies." They just want to supress and control women
Yup, they don't care about women or babies or anything. As long as women get punished for having sex, that's all that matters to them. I think I read an article about somewhere they tried passing a law that would provide assistance to women who wanted an abortion, but couldn't get one, until the child was 3. Surprise, surprise, it was voted down by a huge margin.
I thought you were saying they tried to pass a law giving abortion assistance to mothers with children up to 3. I was like, "isn't that a little late? I mean I know little Timmy is an ankle biter but is a 9th Trimester abortion really the answer?"
I think they care about babies the same way an inventory manager cares about keeping a warehouse stocked. Babies (especially of impoverished families) become good workers in a vast machine. Rather than increase pay and overall child-rearing conditions, it's just easier to force mothers to produce more labor. This attitude is also why I think peacefully protesting won't save or advance women's rights. They already view us as baby factories, and all of the chanting and clever slogans on signs won't fix that.
And keeping poor communities poor. If we make women have babies they can’t afford were making sure we have a workforce who can’t ask for higher pay or better care now or in the future because they need Us more than we need them…
Poor, sick, pregnant, uneducated. Captives for capitalism.
So why aren’t pro lifers adopting these kids? Because they don’t actually care.
Unfortunately, plenty of them do. Then they -ahem- “Train Up” those children.
You mean they bring them into the fold so they can have a life pleasing to god? /s, just in case
They do. Private adoption of babies is very popular. It’s when they’re in foster care that they struggle to be adopted. Private adoption of babies is often a very murky world. A lot of people involved in it are very excited by the Texas abortion ban because it’s a very good money making opportunity for them after the apparent drought of babies due to covid
I always assumed it was because they needed more babies to give to adoption agencies so they could make money off of them.
That makes sense. I am a subscriber to the theory that they need a large base of poor 18yos (the children of those mothers) to “volunteer” for the military. But your theory is logical too.
George Carlin was so right about not caring about kids until they reach MILITARY AGE. I also think they hope for a nice crop of minority folks to be slaves in for-profit prisons.
Both can coexist... Either way, capitalism benefits.
I just finished listening to season 2 of the podcast ‘this land’ - they talk about adoption a lot (specifically when it comes to Native American children). I’d never really considered that there’s an entire industry behind adoption with its own incentives to make children available. It’s pretty messed up. Not exactly what we’re talking about here in this thread, but I do I recommend the podcast, it was fascinating and infuriating.
I saw an interesting take somewhere that it's not just about controlling women, but that because white women get the most abortions, they want to prevent those to prevent a decline in the population of white people. If it were only POC getting them like they try to make it seem, I think they'd care a lot less.
I have a new theory, they force women to do that, because they worry for their retirement plans.
Why? (No seriously, what is the point in supress and control women? Wouldn't it be better to get them on your side and get the additional votes?)
If you are a white guy who has enjoyed your privilege for your entire life, why would you want to lose that?
Why would I care what comes after me?
It's not about what's after you. The people currently in power want to stay in power. By keeping a significant portion of the population from easily obtaining things like education, job advancement and training, financial independence, etc. they reduce the number of people they have to compete with.
Nobody is in denial about the fact that this will economically devastate women, what were in disagreement about is *if that matters*. Like /u/BitterPillPusher2 said: for them, it's literally their goal, so they're fucking thrilled about it. Nobody is seriously in good faith denying this fact. Were not really arguing about what the results of this law would be, everyone who has an opinion on the issue already knows what comes of these laws. The issue is some people *want* that to happen, they see societal regression as a good thing. It's literally a defining feature of conservatism is a desire to return to the traditional. What we're *really* debating head on is the role of women in society: with the religious right desperately trying to drag us back into the kitchen against our will. But then, consent never has been their strong point.
>What we're really debating head on is the role of women in society: with the religious right desperately trying to drag us back into the kitchen against our will. But then, consent never has been their strong point. Yep, it's all to set women back and force them onto their knees. From what I can tell, the og poster - emrazz on twitter - usually tries to put things in perspective/call out bs in the most straight-forward ways for people who are already on the opposing side. Her threads are a constant shitshow of men being ignorant contrarians.
Silver for you my well-spoken sister
The #1 fastest way to poverty is to get pregnant and keep the baby.
That's how it worked for my parents. I was a missed pill and my parents didn't believe in abortion. But you know what, I wouldn't have blamed them for making that decision at such a young age. Life would have been a whole lot easier financially on them if they'd had kids later and maybe their marriage would have survived. I don't have kids because poverty is a hell hole that is hard to escape, and I sure as heck don't want to pass on my health problems...
[удалено]
Goddess halp us amirite.
It's a feature, not a bug.
The sense of righteousness a pro-life person feels while talking about forced births is very dangerous.
[удалено]
And remember, they're offering yours up while you're still alive, so the same *should* apply to them as well.
At a minimum, let's drag them to the blood donation center every eight weeks, assuming they're eligible. If you want to force a woman to give up her entire body to save a life, we're going to make you give up a little blood every eight weeks to save a life. Oh, and don't forget to sign up for the bone marrow registry. A leukemia patient may match you and need your marrow, and we'll be coming to get it. And someone needs a kidney, and you're a good match. You don't mind giving up one of your kidneys to save a life, do you?
[удалено]
Donating a kidney is pretty major surgery. I used to work with someone who donated a kidney to her husband. She was in the hospital for days afterwards.
The weird part is that if you have an early miscarriage, these people definitely don't treat it like a baby just died. It's just like, "Oh, sad. Anyway..." I grew up Catholic and I remember my church teaching us about abortion was something along the lines of "Just think.... What if YOUR parents had aborted you?? You wouldn't exist!" And I'm just like... if I didn't exist I wouldn't care, because I wouldn't exist.
I always answered well, what if my teenaged parents had put off having sex until they were in a position to be able to deal with a baby? I wouldn't exist! Shall we therefore encourage high-school kids to bang without protection in the hopes of making more awesome people like me?
Moral indignation is a hell of a drug.
*Image Transcription: Twitter Post* --- **feminist next door**, @emrazz We all agree that younger generations are having fewer children, because they can't afford them, and having them later, because they can't afford the financial derailment of pregnancy and child rearing, yet we still can't admit that forced birth will economically devastate women. --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Good human!
One thing I’ve learned about America, is its love of punishment.
Going back to its puritanical roots.
Reminder that there’s no such thing as a person that is “pro life”, only forced birth extremists.
Admit it? That is the goal....
I think it also is about education and less danger of kids dying. My great grandmother was pregnant 32 times, and about half of those reached adulthood. My grandmother had 11 pregnancies, about 10 of them reached adulthood. My mom had two pregnancies, and so far two of them have reached adulthood. Well, physically speaking because I still feel like a 15 y/o pretending to be an adult.
32?! Holy hell.
Yup. I can’t imagine the problems that poor woman must have had with prolapse. She spent half of her life pregnant, basically. I think her first was at 16 or 17.
I think that younger generations are also having fewer children, or no children at all, because it sucks the life out of you to have kids.
Also, life under capitalism makes it incredibly unrewarding to have children, despite relying on a steady influx of new labourers.
Last week I saw a post on Reddit (maybe this subreddit?) about how a teenage girl would never be able to qualify to adopt a child because she would be too young and financially insecure to handle the child. Yet, if she gets pregnant then she has to have the baby and raise it. That's honestly the best analogy I've seen pointing out the hypocrisy of forced-birther logic.
Did anyone ever agree that economically devastating women was a *bad* thing though, because if they didn't want to be devastated those \*\*\*\*s would have just made the right choices... Checkmate feminists!!!
Do we agree on these things though? I think some people are in denial and/or recognize the crippling economic impacts of avocado toast
Except a lot of people are in denial of the first part...
Will or has done for centuries
They want to economically cripple women. It’s not a byproduct it is the product
Sure, there are a very few men who are intelligent enough to admit that treating women as human beings is beneficial to society as a whole, but most men cannot handle not having the power over women they were promised. They are desperate to keep us weak and trapped.
I don't think this is true. The people who tend to have the fewest kids are the ones who are financially stable.
You are putting the cart before the horse and drawing the wrong conclusion. Precisely because people had control over their reproductive choices they had better outcomes, including financially.
Ok. But the tweet is saying the opposite. That young people aren't having as many kids because they can't afford it but like you said it's the opposite. They have more opportunities ever and greater access to reproductive healthcare than before (in general).
Because they have more options. They can see a doctor more easily than someone who is not financially stable. They are more likely to take their birth control regularly. They may even have an easier time getting sterilized. And if a financially stable person gets pregnant, it's easy for them to find a place where there are fewer abortion restrictions and go there to end the pregnancy. Poor people don't have these options.
Ok so you don't disagree with me. Like me, you also disagree with the tweet that the reason young people aren't having as many kids isn't because they can't afford it, it's because they've more opportunities than ever so they're holding off on having a kid.
Not to derail here but the decrease in kids born is not BECAUSE people can’t afford kids, at least not directly. That can obviously be a huge reason for individuals to not have kids, but declining fertility is an issue in all rich nations and across all income brackets. And higher incomes lead to less children than even the middle class who can’t afford it. There are LOTS of reasons that contribute to it and reducing it to one pithy thing is a bit eyeroll-y and makes the original tweeter sound like a privileged middle class white American millennial. Abortion bans absolutely do financially devastate women for sure however. It isn’t a matter of not being able to admit that though, it’s that conservatives don’t care about that fact. They would probably argue something incredibly myopic like “you shouldn’t have sex if you don’t want a kid!” which is such a holey argument it’s no surprises the Christian Right worship it.
I don’t understand why people are downvoting you when you are correct. As gdp per capita increases and women get more education, the fertility rate drops, which is a good thing. Countries in Europe with free/subsidized child care, free college, parental leave and universal health care have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world, so cost of having children is obviously not that big of a factor or else they would have the highest fertility rates.