this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
674 points (96.9% liked)

politics

18780 readers
4095 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Alteon@lemmy.world 221 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the "Fuck you, got mine" the Boomer Conservatives are so famous for.

[–] SamsonSeinfelder@feddit.de 74 points 6 months ago (3 children)

AKA the "tree house ladder"-principe: when you are in it, pulling up the ladder so noone else can follow

[–] Shirasho@lemmings.world 26 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Aptly named because while they think they are living in the clouds the house sits on a rotting branch that is just waiting to snap under the weight.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Also they forget people can climb trees. And have saws.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

Don't forget fire!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jerkface@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Then Lindsay Graham puts out the sign that says

"No girlz allowed!"

[–] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 9 points 6 months ago

I believe he has that tattooed on a body part.

Of course it is his hypocrisy and hatred of everyone else that makes him worthy of ridicule not his sexuality but that joke was just on a platter.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Xariphon@kbin.social 91 points 6 months ago

"Fuck you, got mine" is pretty much a cornerstone of their platform...

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 77 points 6 months ago (2 children)

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

-- Frank Wilhoit

[–] thechadwick@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

"The King can do no wrong" bit also lays up really nicely with "The President must have absolute immunity". It's an insightful commentary all around.

https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Omfg that's spot on

[–] ATDA@lemmy.world 58 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I feel like we're REALLY seeing the consequences of leaded gasoline on a generation or something...

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 26 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Have you ever thought about the crazy stupid things people did in the past? From using lead pipes in ancient Rome while knowing it was toxic, to blood letting, to witch trials? I used to think, "Man, we humans sure used to be stupid."

No. We still are and have always been collectively stupid. Now, the stupidest of us just have the same potential platform as the rest of us to reach out to the other stupid people via the internet.

That said, the leaded gasoline certainly did us no favours...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 41 points 6 months ago

In this episode of Rules for Thee not Me...

[–] MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml 41 points 6 months ago (14 children)

Wait, why are they banning IVF? I thought their primary goal was to get as many women to give birth and all that jazz... wouldn't IVF be something forced-birth supporters want?

[–] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 82 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You see, your first mistake was expecting a logically-consistent platform from conservatives.

[–] MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml 11 points 6 months ago (11 children)

I know that conservatives tend to go backwards with their ideology construction; instead of starting from axioms to construct their position, they just reach their position from their preconceived notions of what is desirable and good without actual logic behind it... But this is bizarre since their religion (the primary source of their ideology) says to reproduce and have many children as a goal, so wouldn't a party of Christian values be pro-IVF?

Maybe I'm expecting too much of them, and there are more Jesse Lobotomy Peterson than I thought...

[–] Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml 16 points 6 months ago

Their religion also says, essentially, to be a socialist, like Jesus was. It's literally all about forgiveness and making sure the least among us have everything they need. The facts about their religion are only relevant if they support what they were going to do anyway.

[–] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I see your confusion. You expected them to actually read the Bible instead of just using it as an excuse to hurt their opposition.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world 35 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They don’t give a shit about children, or birth. They think that women who have sex for fun deserve punishment, and that childbirth is just punishment for “immoral” sexual behavior.

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Also that children who were raped should be forced to carry to term and that it's a gift from god.

[–] lovesickoyster@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)

they only want unwanted children, daaa!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm a little out of the loop, but I'd guess they're trying to build precedent such that if an IVF embryo has 'fetal rights' or whatever they term it, then the same will apply to pregnancy at the earliest stages. And they can say: No abortions 1 day after pregnancy or something like that.

The attack on reproductive rights is unconscionable

[–] MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Makes sense. It just seems like an unwise move, because they would be losing support from any voters with fertility issues who are trying for kids who might otherwise be anti abortion and generally conservative.

[–] BackOnMyBS@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

they've probably ran polls and figured out it would be worth it

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

IVF allows doctors to test embryos for genetic abnormalities, then implant only the ones that are healthy.

The Goidels were on track to freeze embryos later this month, and they planned to only store the ones that were genetically normal.

But on Friday, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created through IVF are considered children under state law, meaning that people could theoretically be sued for destroying an embryo.

Because their idea of abortion is so fucking inanely stupid they think this counts. I mean, not for rich people or Republicans. That's why the DA Steve Marshall said he wouldn't prosecute IVF families. Which has no legal weight behind it at all so he can feel free to prosecute anyone who can't defend themselves, which is 99%.

[–] MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 months ago

Idiocracy was a documentary after all...

[–] BeardedSingleMalt@kbin.social 17 points 6 months ago

Control. It's about nothing more than control.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This particular person is doing the general Republican thing where they say they support something but their actions make the thing impossible to do. Like treating IVF in a way that makes hospitals cancel IVF services because of the threat of legal action when it doesn't go perfectly.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 9 points 6 months ago

Alabama supreme court recently ruled that any IVF embryos are actual human beings. That means if you use IVF and dispose of embryos you are a murderer. Since it's almost impossible to do IVF with no 'lost' embryos they just want to ban it for everyone.

Also, some religious folks were already against it because it involves men ejcaculating into cups, and that's against the Bible.

[–] Beefytootz@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

They think the embryos used for IVF are the equivalent to children birthed from the womb and therefore it's child abuse. Mind you, these are the same morons who are pushing to remove any recreation from sex. Their goal is for sex to be only for procreation. They're actively trying to push us into their weird world of having sex through a hole in a bedsheet only for the purpose of bearing children. They want to outlaw all forms of contraceptives. Hell, Maggy Taylor Greene wants to push legislation so that women stop tempting Christian men. We're regressing as a country

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

Many think that artificial insemination is "subverting God's will". If they were meant to have kids, they could do it naturally. It's the same line of thinking that they didn't need a vaccine and could just pray their way to COVID immunity.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world 36 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Headline is an outright lie. The article literally quotes her saying she supports IVF. The author speculates that a bill she is co-sponsoring (that does not mention IVF) may accidentally ban IVF (if it passes and Biden signs it).

Certainly you could denigrate her intelligence, performative politics, or the logical incoherence between her abortion and IVF positions. But you cannot say she wants to do something contrary to her actual explicitly stated desire.

[–] drmeanfeel@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

This is how it always happens, lip service doesn't mean anything. They will be QUOTED as being in support of "women's health and safety" and "emergency exceptions" all day long as they vote to overturn Roe and strip down exceptions to meaningless inactionable jargon

They're not going to say (I guess some of the house bombastic ones might) "I'm a Republican in support of preventing your wife from bearing children"

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Curiosity question, if we are saying embryos are children, would it not be illegal to buy and sell them?

[–] IMongoose@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Can't wait for women to declare 300 dependents on their taxes.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 29 points 6 months ago

That’s fine— just throw your tainted IVF kids in the trash to show your conviction.

THEN we’ll talk.

[–] SGG@lemmy.world 28 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

Of course this happens. The exact same bullshit happens with abortions as well, they just call the procedure something else (I forget what, basically sounded like cleaning out the lining?). When asked why they go "my case was a special case, it was the only legitimate abortion ever".

[–] BeardedSingleMalt@kbin.social 17 points 6 months ago

My case was special because I cheated on my husband and didn't want him to find out. But the 14 year old who was raped by her uncle and the pregnancy went ectopic and threatens the life of the underage mother...that should be illegal!!!!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] comador@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So, another Sarah Palin...

[–] rob64@startrek.website 23 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I mean, what sane woman would be a Republican?

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 12 points 6 months ago

Just grifters. Like the rest of the party.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] daikiki@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago (2 children)

"Apres moi le deluge" might as well just be the GOP's official slogan at this point.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Dalvoron@lemm.ee 16 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Can someone explain why this bill prevents IVF? So OK it says that the embryo in the petri dish or whatever is a human. Is the point that therefore other various laws apply to it and so it can't be implanted? Or is it other parts of the process are now forbidden like the freezing others have mentioned?

[–] Senshi@lemmy.world 51 points 6 months ago (2 children)

During IVF, you don't prepare a single embryo. You prepare dozens at once.

IVF is used when for whatever reason the natural process fails. This can be due to had sperm, bad eggs, trouble with the path to the womb, hormonal imbalances, and a large number of illnesses that fuck up this delicate process. So IVF has to fight a steep uphill battle, and you want multiple fighters in the ring to increase the odds. Why do it all at once and not over after the other? Extraction of the eggs requires intense, weeks to months of hormonal therapy. The extraction is also a surgical procedure, requiring a surgeon to access the ovaries. This is painful and has health risks, you don't want to this every week. Less time and less procedures also help reduce costs. IVF is expensive, quickly costing many thousands of dollars. Last but not least, IVF is an intensely stress- and painful time for the couple on a psychological level alone. Every failed attempt weighs heavy, every miscarriage is a huge loss. Those emotions should not be toyed with and it's clearly ethical to follow the medical process with the highest success chance and least suffering.

Explaining the process: You extract many eggs and fertilize them with sperm at once. Then you wait for them to do their first couple cell divisions, usually until they are a count of 4, 8 or 16 cells, varies by nation and its laws. The more splits, the easier to qualify the health and success chance of the embryo.

Even during this early stage, multiple of the embryos typically fail to divide properly and are then discarded.

Then, the most vital and hopeful embryos are selected and implanted during another surgical procedure directly into the womb. Again, always multiple. This is because some embryos will die during the process, others will not attach. In the end, you only need one embryo to attach and get supplied by the womb, then you're on track to getting pregnant.

All the other good candidates are frozen, so you have them ready for possible future implantation attempts. It's common that the attachment process doesn't work at first try.

Once your pregnancy is carried out (miscarriage is always a big risk up until the end during IVF) and you are certain you don't want more kids, the rest of the frozen embryos are discarded.

With this new interpretation of the law, doctors and lab techs would be mass murderers.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

If the embryos are people, just ask them if they don't mind being thrown out. If they say nothing, then it's fine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dalvoron@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

All makes perfect sense, thanks for explaining!

[–] Senshi@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

As a bonus fact: because multiple embryos are implanted at once, IVF has a much higher chance of having multiple embryos take hold at once. So while getting pregnant is hard on the first place, if it works, there's a higher than usual chance to get twins ( or even more, though much less likely).

This "risk" is clearly communicated in the preparation phase and the potential parents have to ok and accept this for IVF to go ahead at all.

[–] fidodo@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)

IVF isn't always successful. Nobody is going to perform it if an expected failure is going to result in a murder charge.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

Take the kids back

load more comments
view more: next ›