I solemnly swear if you take away any more of my daughters’ rights I’ll take a jack hammer to the I-10 every morning.
What? And improve it? How will that punish anyone?
Maybe just take the jackhammer to a billionaire.
If 750 of us do it in the US we’ll finally see some trickle down economics for the first time ever!
Jack hammer a billionaire. Trending.
deleted by creator
People generally hold that one has a right to have children (consider that things like government enforced sterilization of low income or minority groups are generally considered to be egregious breaches of the rights of the people affected.) IVF is used to assist people who wish to have children but who for medical reasons have been unable to do so, thus prohibiting it denies the people who need it in order to have kids the right to have them, thus it must be a right by proxy. Yes, things like housing and food should be rights too, but those are irrelevant to this discussion, given that it is possible for more than one thing to be an issue at a time.
Dude is on @monero.town. no way this is good faith discussion.
What’s monero.town? I’ve not seen it before
Monero is a cryptocurrency. So its probably a libertarian tech bro hive.
Fun fact: on some lemmy apps you can press-and-hold the username to never see them again.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
All rights require assistance to a lesser or greater extent to have any practical consequence. For example, if I were to make it illegal to share any information about where polling places are and then move them somewhere one would be unlikely to find by chance, it is technically still possible to vote if you manage to find the place to do it, but if I were to then argue that what I was doing wasn’t violating your right to vote because you aren’t entitled to assistance in exercising that right, you’d rightly call bullshit on that argument.
Further, “rights” do not exclusively refer to things spelled out as part of the constitution like the right to vote. There isn’t any explicit right to walk in the constitution that I can think of, but were I to make canes and crutches illegal, it’d absolutely be fair to say that i was taking away disabled people’s right to walk.
Republicans try to increase birth rates, but end up blocking IVF instead:
“It hurt itself in its
confusionstupidity!”Because conservatives don’t consider it the correct way. A child must be conceived when a mommy, a daddy, and an Abrahamic god love each other very much and sleep together. The child can only be born vaginally or the mom isn’t a real mommy.
This is not a joke, they believe this.
The GOP hates IVF because a man doesn’t get sexual gratification from the process… Well, not in the way they want anyways. And to think, a woman could get pregnant without a man. Or even worse, two gays could have a kid. The GOP is a sad organization that literally wants the elimination or subjugation of all nonwhite-nonmale-nonchristian-nonstraight people.
Its the Amerikkkan way
If a fetus is a person then I expect that pregnant women will be able to claim them on taxes, ride in the family lane, all that kind of stuff
Most likely not and the child will have less rights as soon as its born. Its always been about forced birth to maintain a population of poor folk that they can exploit as a cheap labor source.
Republicans TOTALLY would SUPPORT IVF but those DAMN Democrats had to Block it!
-Fox News. Probably.
Back in 2001, Right To Life President George W, Bush ruled that fetal stem cell research, which involves aborted humans, was fine and dandy. This came after Right To Life former First Lady Nancy Reagan discovered that stem cell technology might help Ronnie’s dementia.
They have no problem playing both sides of the issue.
This is incorrect. Bush banned new lines of fetal stem cells from being used. This was a step backwards for research.
Read more here:
