In related news: Duh.
this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
608 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4534 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
More legal slaves for the moneyed and political class!
Conservatives are just going to tell them personal responsibilities not to be horny and all that.
Also Jesus
Remember how the cons were gaslighting about how no rights are really going to be taken away? They were just Deeply Concerned (TM) about how Roe had created rights, not that women actually had those rights.
Because they had so many issues with Roe because of "judicial activism" and for no other reason.
Yeah....
More workers! Definitely need to keep that minimum wage low!
https://www.prb.org/resources/new-study-claims-abortion-is-behind-decrease-in-crime/
Excat opposite of this,
(January 2000) Abortion is a divisive and emotional issue. Add racial overtones and the implication that public officials do not deserve all the credit for reductions in crime during the 1990s, and combustion is inevitable. Informed debate is not. Stanford Law School professor John J. Donohue III and University of Chicago economist Steven D. Levitt ignited a debate last August when they released a study on the relationship between abortion and crime. Their findings suggest that legal abortions have prevented the births of many would-be criminals. The absence of these people, according to their research, is behind at least half of the dramatic drop in crime rates seen between 1991 and 1997.
i mean, that basically could be boiled down to
"people that cant support children are more likely to chose not to have them, leading to fewer impoverished children, teens, and young adults", and when phrased that way, i think noone would be surprised.
Mind. Blown.
I'm shocked :0 Who could have seen this coming
Isn't that exactly what they wanted? This is a success story for them and a reason to press on.
Yup. More broke mothers, leading to more broke children to throw into the military/prison systems, for the mega rich to exploit via wars and legalized slavery. Capitalism is a blood-god, and it always requires more blood.
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!
Khorne: "Hol' up. Don't put that slavery shit on me. I just want blood, slaughter, and great honor on a battlefield turned into a sea of viscera from the fallen, not suffering."
well hopefully we start see some dna tests resulting in criminal charges.
Kids having kids is EXACTLY what Jesus would have wanted!
He probably wouldn't have a problem. Mary was 12-14 years old according to some sources and 15-16 in others when she was pregnant.
Mary was 12-14 years old according to some sources
There is absolutely zero actual archeological evidence of Mary existing, much less records that might match her age at the time of her son's birth.
She could have been 14 or 40 (or an entirely fictitious amalgamation of folk legends).
These "estimates" inevitable come from cranks whose guesstimates are plus or minus a decade and freaks who want to justify their desire to knock up teenagers.
I find it hard to believe there's no evidence, I mean, the Romans ruled half the world and were meticulous and methodical in their record keeping. I find it difficult to imagine they have no historical records of Iesus Nazaretum.
the Romans ruled half the world and were meticulous and methodical in their record keeping
Which is why a high profile trial of a famous Rabbi initiated by another famous Rabbi that involved the governor pardoning a known mass murderer to appease a mob just... not making the histories... would be bizarre.
Of course, this is also two millennia in hindsight and on the eve of a nasty uprising of Jewish dissidents at Masada.
It isn't unreasonable to believe the histories of this period were deliberately purged or suppressed, and only survived as oral tradition, for the next two centuries.
view more: next ›