Love how the Republicans are “so” focused on the birth of babies, yet not even talking about the massive drop in sperm count which is trending to zero in the next decade or 2.
Without any evidence. Did you read the paper or just the headlines? I am concerned with falling sperm counts as is the UN and many governments, but I guess you know best.
That is not evidence that the other papers are a minority in 2024.
So yes, without any evidence.
You brought up climate change. If you restrict scientific papers on climate change within a certain time frame and years before now, you can manipulate the results in a similar dishonest fashion.
It is due to people like you that we are not talking about real issues. Why are you so blatantly denying a real issue? Trolling?
For others reading this thread, here are 4 recent 2023/2024 papers all noting a concerning trend with male falling sperm counts. It is a very real issue that some are committed to sticking their head in the sand about.
yes, exactly, you figured it out, congratulations.
People would genuinely rather not being able to have children (it’s reversible most of the time, though not always) than be raped and have to support a child they are simply not capable of or ready to support.
probably because the morning after pill is potentially illegal, or possibly, soon to be illegal. As well as all of the potential red tape surrounding it.
Getting sterilized now, and not having to answer questions in front of a judge asking you why you took a morning after pill after getting raped is always going to be preferable. Plus a lot of these people already don’t want children. So it’s not like it makes a difference to them.
No thanks, I’ll just fuck a fleshlight instead. Much better than a real vagina with a condom.
BTW condom dissent is majorly censored all accross the internet, even though it is an almost universally held belief that condom sex is shit sex not worth having.
Yes, it’s not even a contest which feels better. It’s real easy to find why, the condom moves -with- you, the fleshlight doesn’t. And the slick slippery surface of the condom dulls the texture.
If you are going to have casual sex, you still need to wear a condom, what are you talking about? The lack of sex education in this thread is incredible.
The most cynical view is likely the right one when trying to understand management decisions. They come with disingenuous anecdotes rather than hypotheses that can be falsified by data and real measurable transparent business outcomes.
Self-inflicted 10 rounds to the head, but unfortunately the police body cameras were malfunctioning just at that moment and didn’t record the incident.
It’s legal in Finland. It’s pretty damn rare. I wouldn’t consider it a hugely shocking thing though, cousins usually aren’t very close here. Would make for weird family relations though.
New and used car prices are definitely up, so cost of replacement could affect insurance costs. Like everything else the reason is probably, “because we can”
I don’t really have a strong opinion as to the right way to go on this, but from a purely legal-technical standpoint, is there a good reason for having the rule made at the state level rather than the local?
I mean, ordinarily I’d think that it tends to make sense to let things be legislated at a low level unless there’s a reason not to.
If a locality over-protects workers against heat then, okay, they suffer economically and maybe people and business head to the next town over. I’d think that that’d self-resolve without the state getting involved.
And if a municipality underprotects against heat? What happens?
People die of heat stroke, that’s what happens. And the municipality maybe changes the law, but only after someone dies.
Protections in this situation are at the federal and state level because the consequences of doing them wrong are much more than just “suffering economically.”
And because worker deaths aren’t always a strong enough motivator at the local level. Frankly, not every town cares about their migrant workers and other working class folks, especially if labor is divided along racial and/or class lines.
Government pay is garbage. If you’re lucky enough to find a job that gets you to GS-13 you might crack $100 grand. And in most cities, that isn’t enough anymore.
Won’t this potentially contribute to an increasing population of people supportive of, or otherwise apathetic about, abortion restrictions, supposing those taking this course are largely against abortion restrictions?
Support for abortion is not a genetic trait, and seeing firsthand the effects of criminalizing abortion is a quick road to being militantly supportive of it.
Support for abortion isn’t a genetic trait, but religious parents tend to raise religious kids due to environmental factors.
I don’t think it with be a big enough difference to matter given how much more liberal people get over time, but it is possible this will happen a bit.
Sorry, I should have been clearer, as I wasn’t aiming to suggest it was a genetic trait. As another commenter indicated below, as well as another in this thread, I was asking in relation to the upbringing perspective.
Although I’m well aware upbringing isn’t brainwashing, and so even those anti-abortion parents couldn’t prevent their children from being for bodily autonomy, but I thought it worth asking about to see what others might think. If you read through some conservative leaning texts, some of them unambiguously talk about having children for the express purpose of perpetuating their beliefs, so at least some will view this trend as in their favor.
Also to be completely clear here: I’m pro-choice, and for bodily autonomy.
Yeah, coming from a deeply conservative community in the rural south I’m very familiar with the way parents there believe their children exist to be extensions of themselves.
Anyone under 60 who is anti-abortion only knows what it’s like to live in a post-Roe society, their stance is essentially theoretical and untested until now. When their friends and relatives start getting sick and dying from back alley abortions, miscarriages left untreated, or ectopic pregnancies there are going to be a lot of people singing a different tune.
No. This will lead to population collapse. It does not matter what policies/laws you have if you literally run out of people that can sustain the society with their… wait for it… work!
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.