this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
408 points (99.0% liked)

News

25312 readers
3514 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Measure allows parent to seek child support up to a year after giving birth to retroactively cover pregnancy expenses

The Republican-led Kentucky senate voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to grant the right to collect child support for fetuses, advancing a bill that garnered bipartisan support despite nationwide fallout from a controversial Alabama decision also advancing “fetal personhood”.

The measure would allow a parent to seek child support up to a year after giving birth to retroactively cover pregnancy expenses. The legislation – Senate Bill 110 – won senate passage on a 36-2 vote with little discussion to advance to the House. Republicans have supermajorities in both chambers.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 147 points 11 months ago (7 children)

One more gentle nudge towards only stupid people reproducing.

But that’s probably the conservative goal. Playing the long game, expanding their base.

[–] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 64 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Yup. That's why they ban books and cut funding for public education. They want uneducated people to keep voting for Republican candidates who put their own kids into private schools, and the cycle continues.

[–] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Neofeudalism, having fun yet?

[–] negativenull@lemmy.world 37 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] mPony@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Jokes on her: I know Smoothie when I see 'm

[–] thallamabond@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

This comment makes me Happy!

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago

My dude, they are forty years into the long-term plan. It’s going really well

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago

Definitely that, but it's a two birds thing. Their base is horribly ignorant, but they are not. They are 100% malicious. Not only do they get to control the rights of people they've never empathized with, they get to do exactly what you said over time.

[–] GomJabbar@lemmy.myserv.one 10 points 11 months ago

Exactly. The goal in red states is to cultivate a large population of angry and unintelligent people by essentially forcing the impoverished to have kids and sending them through dismantled education systems. They are creating a feeder system for the military and for Republican votes. That's just my conspiracy theory.

[–] Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

'Only stupid people reproducing' rhetoric unfortunately is veeeery close to eugenics talking points

[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not at all. Everyone should be entitled to a safe, healthy life no matter their traits or attributes. Restricting people's reproductive choices is insidious and people can't be trusted to do it properly, even if there was a 'fair' way to do it. It doesn't stop conservatives from constantly doing just that, though.

What I am getting at is, the more stupid laws that get passed to 'punish' people for having sex, the more people on the end of the spectrum that have good critical thinking skills will choose to delay or avoid having kids in that place that's making the stupid laws. It's strictly about incentivizing behavior through policy.

[–] Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's all true and fair. And I'm certain that's part of the plan of Republicans. That doesn't mean we have to also think the way they do about it. It creates a narrative of reproduction of certain people being less desirable as that of others. While that doesn't restrict those people's reproductive rights per se, it creates an ethical conundrum about who should and shouldn't reproduce. Again, I'm sure rightists believe those things, but aren't we above that? It also reinforces the narrative that things like rational thinking skills are genetic rather than the result of education or lack thereof, which is a wholly separate issue that also has to be solved. Can't we focus the discussion on this, simultaneously making sure more people realize what we perceive as intelligence is mainly an issue of education and not much of genetics?

[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's all true and fair as well. But I think you're arguing against a point I wasn't trying to make. I never wanted to imply there was a 'should' group and a 'shouldn't' group. I don't believe the government (or the church) has any business in how many kids someone has. I do believe that laws like this add to the pile of reasons certain groups of people will delay or refrain from having kids at all. I know because I'm in that group.

The education part is a whole other conundrum, and you seem to feel that has a much bigger impact on the situation. I agree with you, if so. Access to a good education is the real equalizer in life, if you can say such a thing exists.

Great discussion!

[–] Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sorry I phrased it in a way that made it sound like YOU were saying certain groups should or shouldn't have kids. What I'm trying to say is that I personally feel like even just pointing out that something is making more 'stupid' people reproduce keeps the narrative of who should or shouldn't have kids alive, even if that's not the intention. I think we should try to let that narrative die. But yeah I think we agree about pretty much everything else. I know it's a big current problem that people delay or even refrain from having kids. And I find it quite heartbreaking, I'm very sorry you have to consider all this in your family planning.

All I'm trying to say is maybe we should consider how we speak about these issues, because prejudiced individuals and groups could read it like we're agreeing with their prejudice, which reinforces their prejudice. I hope I'm making sense? We're trying to say republicans are trying to keep the masses dumb, and by this we mean they like that those who can't access the education necessary to form critical thinking skills are having kids who also won't be able to access this education. But without this clarification, it could sound like we're saying that certain people having kids leads to a dumber population, which is good for rightists and bad for us. Am I being overly cautious maybe?

And yes, that is what what I was trying to say about education being a driving factor!

And yeah, I'm enjoying this discussion too!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think there are many people here who think the solution is for stupid people to stop reproducing, rather that our education system stop producing so many stupid people.

[–] Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

I didn't specify in my original comment that you replied to. This is exactly my thinking. I just worry the original phrasing might be playing into eugenicists cards and feel we'd be safer if we specified that we mean exactly what you said.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 131 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The original version would have allowed a child support action at any time following conception, but the measure was amended to have such an action apply only retroactively after the birth within the time limit.

Weird, it's almost like there's a huge difference between a fertilized egg and a baby.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago

It also dodges issues with abortion and child support.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 65 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Any young buck reading this: If you have insurance, they'll usually cover vascectomy with a minimal co-pay. Do it. Contact your doctor, your insurance company, figure it out and do it. Yeah, it's a little weird having someone shave your junk, and you're achy for a few days after, but think about it. A lifetime of less stress and more money. Just do it. You'll thank me in your dotage.

[–] june@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I didn’t even have a co pay for mine.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Same. The whole thing was covered by insurance.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 10 points 11 months ago

I think my co-pay was $20.

[–] Sodis@feddit.de 13 points 11 months ago (14 children)

There are still people, that want to have kids at some point.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

I second this. This is good life advice for pretty much any guy out there right now.

[–] Sacreblew@lemmy.ca 10 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Shave it yourself before the appt

[–] frickineh@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

They still have to shave it again at the doctor. My mom said she wished people wouldn't pre-shave surgical sites (she's a nurse, not just a weirdo offering to shave people for fun).

ETA: If your doctor tells you to shave before a procedure, do it. It's probably just a good bet in general to always follow whatever pre-op instructions you get from your specific provider because every doctor is different.

[–] Bob_Robertson_IX@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Fuck my doctor. He didn't mention prepping the area, so I didn't shave, figured they'd take care of it. Nope. Didn't shave, just cut then applied glue to my sack.

The glue on my hairy sack was the worst part of the whole experience, and it lasted for 2 weeks. I left feedback but it works have been a much better experience of they'd just told me to shave.

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

Holy shit. Apparently a lot of places don't do it there and will tell people to do it themselves a couple days before (not sure if it's practice to practice, doctor's preference, or what) but I've never heard of anyone just doing a vasectomy on hairy skin. That suuuucks.

[–] this_1_is_mine@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] frickineh@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

She said it just makes the skin more irritated because they have to go over it make sure there's no stubble, missed spots, etc, and shaving over freshly shaved skin is just kind of harsh. Especially in sensitive areas.

[–] SmokumJoe@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Mine told me not to. Had a decent looking nurse take care of it beforehand. It was an odd, but not terrible experience.

[–] gaael@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Why would you feel the need to comment on the nurse's appearance ??

[–] SmokumJoe@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

BECAUSE PRETTY PEOPLE UNSETTLE ME WHILE THEY'RE SHAVING MY BALLS!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

It's also not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. Once I told the Dr to stop telling me what he was doing down there and talk about movies or some shit it was no big deal. Best investment I've ever made.

[–] solrize@lemmy.world 38 points 11 months ago

What about child tax credits for frozen embryos?

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Ok here is an idea: get some sperm and with IVF get it fertilized. Now you have a frozen child. Since the age starts at birth as long as the child isn't implanted it will never hit 18. Meaning you can still collect child support until the IVF facility has an accident or the father dies. For bonus points you can implant two eggs which, according to what I just read, is about 40% of the dad's income up to 120k a year on average. For extra bonus points you can demand that the father puts you under a family insurance plan saving you about 8k a year on insurance.

If you pull this off right you can grab about 50k a year tax free.

Now all I need is some eggs and rich guy sperm, never have to work again. So ladies if you are angry about being reduced to less important than a cluster of cells you now know how you can exploit the situation. Just make sure you don't let him flush the condom after you find some rich guy at a bar.

[–] ninja@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

summary of the bill:

child support may be retroactive to nine months prior to the date the child is born if the order is entered within the first year after the birth of the child.

Even shitty lawmakers think of things like that.

[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Aaaaaaand in 3... 2... 1... abortion rights are about to become a bit more popular at the polls

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

They always strum up abortion rights because they have nothing else to create discourse. Their whole strategy is not to cooperate to create arguments and get votes through hate. It helps no one. Especially the people.

[–] SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Well. They are consistent at least.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 5 points 11 months ago

Kentucky trying to bankrupt itself, about par for course with republicans. In a short lived Anarchy their biggest donors are the clear winners.

load more comments
view more: next ›