• cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s funny that Republicans want to force women to have babies but then also complain about women that have too many babies and refer to them as “welfare babies” but also want to defund social aid programs and not provide additional resources to foster kids and orphanages.

      (I know that was a run-on sentence.)

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        It all makes sense when you realize it has nothing to do with children. They just hate women who have sex and want to punish them for it.

      • Sidhean@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        Well, it was a run-on thought! It really does feel that convoluted when you try and figure it out, but rest assured, you’ve now thought about this in more depth than most conservatives!

      • scoobford@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        They want the right kind of babies.

        “Welfare babies” are babies born to poor and working class parents.

        They want middle class white people breeding like rabbits, though.

        • Rampsquatch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          If they want that they should make it financially viable to do so. I want kids, but realistically I can’t afford it. I’m not going to be irresponsible and inflict existence on somebody if I can’t care for them properly.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’d like to see how many people who have abortions later on choose to have a child. I think the “what if” logic for not having an abortions should also be applied to when having an abortion.

      • bitcrafter@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        4 months ago

        Choosing to have a child later on generally has fewer negative consequences than unchoosing a child you have already had.

        • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          4 months ago

          Many abortions are also due to miscarriages, a child is wanted but that pregnancy was not viable, while later ones are.

          Which is why even discussing the idea of these nonsense data points is useless.

        • danc4498@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Right. People use the “what if” as an excuse to ban abortions. But they don’t realize their logic can and should be used both ways.

      • braxy29@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        more than you’d think, i’m guessing.

        anyway, what’s it to you? if someone has an abortion and never chooses to have a child, why does that matter to anyone else?