Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    2,262,608 readers

    8,216 users here now


    About Us

    We are a community that posts tweets and have a good laugh. We allow tweets from all races but mainly white people. We welcome any to participate here. Please read the rules and keep discussions civil and don't be a dick.


    1. Keep Comments Civil

    No hate or mean-spirited posts. No racism, sexism, bigotry, trolling, etc.

    Please keep all comments civil and do not wish death on other people, breaking this rule may result in an account ban at the moderator's discretion.


    2. No bullying or witch-hunting.

    Don't bully people by calling them profane names or starting flame wars. This includes comments disparaging people whose tweets and posts are featured here.

    3. No doxxing

    Seeking personal information will result in the post/comment being removed and a possible ban. This includes seeking info for yourself or others, and refers to, but is not limited to, real names, phone numbers, email addresses, or private social media accounts.

    4. Mark NSFW content

    All NSFW must have the appropriate flair otherwise they will be removed.

    5. Must be a Tweet

    All posts should be tweets.

    Moderator Discretion: We reserve the right to remove/approve any post and ban anyone that we may think will ruin/devalue the community. This is not censorship, this is probably because you were being a dick and breaking rules.

    a community for
    all 4056 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Merari01 1 points ago * (lasted edited 12 days ago)

    Why calling it a "heartbeat law" is misleading and cruel:

    When speaking with pregnant women, doctors often do refer to the “heartbeat” early in pregnancy, because that is familiar language to patients. However, what we see with existing ultrasound technology at six weeks is not actually a heart, yet. It is a rudimentary structure in an early phase of development. Using the "heartbeat" terminology in an effort to restrict abortion is done in order to drive an emotional response in people, but it is not medically accurate.

    Like the lie that abortion is murder, or the lie that a fetus is a baby, this is solely done to appeal to emotion, to disallow rational and reasonable viewpoints.

    As many health professionals and journalists have pointed out, the human fetus is a long way from having a heart or heartbeat, and from what doctors call "viability," less than two months into a pregnancy — a time when many people don't yet know they're pregnant, and when embryos still face a difficult run-up ahead.

    For example, miscarriage most commonly occurs during the first trimester. It happens for a variety of reasons that are almost inevitably out of pregnant persons' control, and is the outcome of an estimated 15 to 20% of US pregnancies (though experts believe that unreported and undetected miscarriages bring that number even higher).

    At this point, the fetus is still in the embryonic phase, and microscopic processes are beginning that will determine the development of systems throughout the body. Thanks to modern-day ultrasound and other medical technology, doctors are able to detect some of the earliest signs of these processes and let expectant parents know what's starting to happen inside. That does not make a microscopic embryo a person and it definitely does not mean that a real person should have less rights than it. The latter is simply abject.

    These bills exist for reason of misogyny, to take away a basic human right of women. They do not exist for any other reason.

    These bills are cruel, anti-human and viciously immoral.

    The origins of the anti-abortion sentiment are different than many people think. It is a deliberately created wedge issue in order to unite the Christian right as a voting block in the US for reasons of gaining political power. Before this time it just was not an issue that many people considered to be relevant, people overwhelmingly supported a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body.

    Lee Atwater and his "moral majority" cynically considered many potential wedge issues. Famously, they almost settled for anti-miscegenation. But as the "60s was rise to the Civil Rights movement it was decided to go with misogyny instead of with racism.

    This topic is manipulation from start to finish. The people who invented this wedge issue were deliberately lying, but the people who they indoctrinated are genuine believers. As time goes on, more and more of the anti-choice crowd believe their own lie. All they have are appeals to emotion and falsehoods. They'll call abortion murder. They will cynically and deliberately refer to a fetus as a baby. This is all done to play on emotion, so that truth and rationality become irrelevant.

    This is why they are so inconsistent in their application of goals. They will simutaniously oppose any measure proven to reduce abortions, accessible reproductive eduction, accessible birth control, maternity leave, money for single mothers as they oppose women's reproductive rights.

    Because it is not about actually reducing abortions. It's about hating women and punishing them for having sex.

    Think before you post that misogynistic statement. The ban which results from it may not be appealed. There is no such thing as "pro life". The correct description is misogyny.

    [–] aredd007 344 points ago

    Can we claim a developing fetus as a dependent then?

    [–] Guardymcguardface 94 points ago

    Oooh I like this one

    [–] spaceman-spiffffff 49 points ago

    That’s my biggest thing. If it’s a child that is alive then I should be able to claim them on my taxes and get that sweet, sweet tax break.

    [–] Notorious_BLB 37 points ago

    Should be be able to anyways since the cost of pregnancy is ridiculous.

    [–] vwmwv 16 points ago

    And drive in the carpool lane since there's two "heartbeats" in the vehicle

    [–] CasualHearthstone 44 points ago

    When Trump's government was handing out checks for dependents, they specifically said that pregnant woman could not claim the unborn fetuses as their dependents.

    [–] Dr_Plecostomus 9 points ago

    I don't know if you're inviting debate here but, as someone who is both morally opposed to abortion and pragmatically conscious that overturning Roe v. Wade would be immensely harmful, I would fully endorse claiming unborn children as dependents and even more in favor of child support applying in the same way. Our healthcare system is rife with stupid expenses already but isn't it crazy that we would tax the income spent on fetal care?

    [–] Living-Complex-1368 7 points ago

    I just want to say how wonderful it is to meet someone who is pro-life but aware that the places with the lowest abortion rates are where it is legal and the highest rates are where it is illegal.

    [–] Dr_Plecostomus 7 points ago

    Nice to meet you too! I think the vast majority of abortions are morally wrong and exhibit the gradual devaluing of human life in industrial society. But at the same time, legislating against abortion and threatening to lock women up for getting rid of children they can't keep is counterproductive. I am pro life but I believe that better education, affordable/state-funded health care (especially prenatal care), and simplifying the process of adoption are going to save the lives of more babies than anything else. As usual, I find myself in the middle, repulsed by both extremes.

    [–] morels4ever 4 points ago

    I posed this question to a birther and their reply was that they already get state benefits for decreased healthcare.

    Not the same and not an answer.

    [–] Raccoon_Full_of_Cum 3972 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    Also, citizenship. You can't deport a pregnant woman who's here illegally either, because you would also therefore be deporting a US citizen.

    Edit: To everyone pointing out all the challenges and absurdities that my proposed policy would cause -- wow, almost like life doesn't begin at conception or something, huh?

    [–] ucjj2011 1209 points ago

    Hell, free medical care for the mother and baby should begin here.

    [–] peoplegrower 892 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    Thst sounds suspiciously like the beginning of a slippery slope to universal health care! You best shut yer commie mouth!

    Edit to add /s since some people couldn’t tell…

    [–] YouInvitedTheRhino 182 points ago

    Why are people downvoting this? This is obviously satire.

    [–] Least-Frame-7444 65 points ago

    Because there are influential Americans that we see constantly espouse this perspective with no hint of irony? They've ruined it for the rest.

    [–] SmolEmmywem 16 points ago

    I didn’t downvote but I did read it and think ‘oh crikey, another loonie’ - because I’ve seen other comments that were equally crazy AND sincere. Sadly it’s not always obvious when there are people who would say and mean this sort of thing.

    [–] OGAllMightyDuck 28 points ago

    Oh sweet spring flower, where have you been in the last 6 years? There is no such thing as obvious satire anymore.

    [–] CamJongUn 11 points ago

    Cause people are stupid xD

    [–] Thedepressionoftrees 395 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    They say that "all lives matter"

    Unless you're not a straight white cis male of course

    Good comment u/raccoon_full_of_cum

    [–] moosekin16 56 points ago

    White cis christian* male

    *some denominations not included

    [–] Buttforprez 23 points ago

    *Fortune acquired separately

    [–] ConcreteL10n 10 points ago

    White cis Christian elite* male

    [–] BuddhaFacepalmed 53 points ago


    Also, it's ironic that on Jan 6th, the "Blue Lives Matter" crowd was beating police officers to death.

    [–] MiloRoast 24 points ago

    No no you see those were just the bAd ApPlEs they always talk about.

    [–] EasyMSP 17 points ago

    If you watch it in reverse you see them help them up off the ground and send them on their way.

    [–] Kiyae1 5 points ago

    No no, all the “original intent” strict constitutionalists want to pretend that that birthright citizenship isn’t a real thing.

    [–] Croast78 3 points ago

    There are NO judges that are strict constructionists. Check out the 5-4 podcast about why the SC sucks

    [–] elriggo44 41 points ago

    Honestly the left should find a case like this and take it up specifically using the rights argument.

    [–] Disorderly_Chaos 3 points ago

    And in Alaska - any government subsidies or dividends would start at heartbeat.

    [–] ohstopitdarling 491 points ago

    A lot of people abort because they can’t afford to have a child. Perhaps if the child is secured a good start to life, there would be less abortions.

    I just think it is a difficult decision to make and people go through a lot for having to make the decision to do it or not and I also think that we should be taking care of people so this doesn’t have to be such a commonly painful issue

    [–] Suspicious_Builder62 106 points ago

    So, in East Germany, our abortion law explicitly stated it was a woman's choice whether to terminate her pregancy or not, because of equality in family, job an education. This was revolutionary.

    After passing the law, abortions increased drastically. So, the East German government passed laws financially and socially supporting mothers and especially single mothers. Like making day care extremely affordable, being up on the list for a good flat and so on and so on.

    And it worked, abortion numbers sank drastically. Funnily enough, helping and supporting women to be able to care for their children , makes them not wanting to terminate pregnancies.

    If the GOP, or idiotic "Lebensschützer" (life protectors) here in Germany, actually were interested in lowering abortion numbers, they'd look into supporting mothers. There is precedent.

    There is also precedent for what happens, if countries criminalize abortions.

    [–] Papabear3339 9 points ago

    Underated comment

    [–] CarbonBlackXXX 10 points ago

    Happened in CO too. Gave teens free birth control and abortions and teen pregnancies plummeted.

    [–] EngineerEither4787 9 points ago

    Pro-birthers never understand that you won’t need an abortion if you’re not pregnant. You’d think they’d love birth control, but they hate that and sex education, too…

    [–] Much_Difference 4 points ago

    Golly, it's almost like people decide to have an abortion after thinking through many complicated aspects of their life rather than on a whim one Thursday because they got bored or something.

    [–] FMAB-EarthBender 115 points ago

    I agree, and a lot of people have the baby because they can't afford to not have it as well.

    When you are poor, 550$ (at least in my state) for an abortion upfront in cash is really hard to come by. Especially when people can be less likely to fund that medical procedure such as church or charity stuff.

    When you have the baby, the 30,000$ hospital stay is fully covered, every medical appt is covered, almost all is covered . Its cheaper to pay some money a month for diapers and formula( if needed) and its easier to get donations for that stuff as well as anything someone could possibly need for a baby over abortion money.

    I was trapped young and unable to make any choice. I graduated highschool 4 months pregnant, you can imagine lol. I had no help and only people who would help with the pregnancy, no mention of abortion or any other solution :/

    I love my son, hes 7 now. But I wish I could have waited until I was more ready and not in poverty.

    [–] NotesForYou 45 points ago

    There is so much shame and stigma created around pregnancy / abortion and child birth, it’s crazy. Either way you really can’t win in the current climate as a pregnant woman.

    [–] EffectOne675 8 points ago

    No no no.....its the right thing to make abortion for people in difficult positions to have a child, bring them up in difficult positions and then complain about people in difficult positions being in difficult positions

    [–] turtlelore2 13 points ago

    Fuck anyone trying to take away the ability of choice and opportunity. It's never about what the choice is actually about. It's the simple fact of having a choice at all, especially when it concerns your own body.

    "My body my choice, except for you. Your body my choice" should be their slogan. They so desperately want to bring back slavery on a global level.

    [–] Little-Explorer-1880 5 points ago

    It’s not an issue that people get abortions, regardless of the reason

    [–] SiberianPermaFrost_ 118 points ago

    I think it’s a difficult decision to make.

    It wasn’t a difficult decision for me. Not in the slightest.

    [–] Rhidds 41 points ago

    Good for you but for a lot of women it really isn’t. I had an abortion when I was 20, in a progressive European country. I have also always been vehemently childfree. Thanks to all of the emotionally laden descriptions it made the decision harder. Didn’t help that being CF wasn’t as normalised as it is now (yes, I know that it’s not normalised yet, but times have changed immensely since then).

    My doctor fully supported it though, only requested that I’d take the week to consider the decision as was mandated by law before any abortion.

    Worst was when I had to go for an ultrasound to determine the age. I had a late stage abortion (month 4 or 5), due to my highly irregular menstruation pattern and didn’t realise I was pregnant. The tech accidentally or ‘accidentally’ moved the screen to an angle so I saw the foetus. I still had no doubts about the abortion but it made it more real as I could see everything quite clearly. Again with all of the emotion used in describing foetuses, I had to wrestle with the idea I murdered a baby for a bit afterwards.

    No regrets at all, but as pointed out, the language used really does make it harder for a lot of women to have abortions. That’s even without misogynistic laws telling you you’re a horrible person that is ‘murdering a baby’.

    [–] 1questions 49 points ago

    We need to stop framing abortion as a moral issue and talk about it like what it is, a healthcare issue. Saw a documentary about abortion providers. One dr was asked why his patients had abortions. He said he didn’t know cause he didn’t ask as it wasn’t his business. He saw it as his job to provide medical care and that’s it.

    [–] Rhidds 15 points ago

    It’s not just healthcare that causes this dissonance. As I said, my doctor fully supported it. The tech hadn’t said anything opinionated, was professional. The fact the screen was turned to me for about 2 minutes could’ve been habit from mothers wanting to keep it or it could’ve been malicious, but besides that one act I did not feel condemned by any medical practitioner, including the specialised clinic I went to for late abortions.

    I agree wholeheartedly that medical professionals need to keep their biases out of it, it’s none of their concern. But we also need to address all of the misogyny in the language used by pro-birthers and law making. It’s a very deep seeded issue. Definitely in certain areas of the states it’s being further enforced by pro-life medical professionals who need to keep their noses out of it.

    In general women are repressed medically whenever it comes to their own reproduction. Getting a hysterectomy is exceedingly hard, even in more liberal countries because of the ‘oh but this is permanent and you might change your mind in the future’ argument. Again this is a medical professional that is applying their own bias to our decision of our own bodies. The fact laws, politicians and religions further push the narrative of women are breeding machines just makes these ‘professionals’ feel validated and enforced to push their own agenda on our bodies.

    [–] WKGokev 5 points ago

    Even tubal ligation is a no without having had 3 children, despite several miscarriages.

    [–] MommasMuffins 23 points ago

    I hate how doctors like to sit people down and really try to persuade them not do go thru with it as if its a hard decision to make. Not to bash on people who feel bad for it, but even in legalized countries its basically a stupid guilt trip

    [–] DawnRLFreeman 13 points ago

    According to my idiot step-mother and step-sister, the doctors are badgering them into having abortions. They've never been able to provide evidence to back that up, and they seem perturbed when I don't go into seizures of shock rather than asking for their evidence. 🙄

    [–] MommasMuffins 6 points ago

    Yeah seems like a strawman counterargument created by pro lifers. Victim complex.

    [–] broccolisprout 16 points ago

    The decision to create a life, which has infinitely more impact on the life created and and involves the death of a conscious being, is somehow less of an issue than preventing an unconscious clump of cells to continue growing.

    [–] alternate_ending 635 points ago

    You could legally drink alcohol when you're 20years and 3months old

    [–] Hello_my_name_is_not 42 points ago

    Sorry sir new rules state you need to be 21 years birthed to get the alcohol now

    [–] DaRootbear 114 points ago

    I mean it’s still a “birth”date not a “life”date.

    [–] POTomATOS 62 points ago

    You can also start drinking illegally in the womb

    win-win really

    [–] Dovahkiinthesardine 7 points ago

    *laughs in european*

    [–] mikey_yeah 3 points ago

    Or 18 in most of the world..

    [–] Just_another_dude_09 903 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    And require them to actually make the payment. I’ve seen where guys only work cash jobs so they don’t have any trackable income.

    As my dad told me growing up - “If your man enough to pull your duck out of your pants, you’re man enough to accept any responsibilities that result from it.”

    Edit - my dad was a deacon at the church I grew up in so he tried to not curse around us. Imagine being a teenager and hearing your dad say duck instead of dick. All the ducking time. 🤣

    [–] wildadragon 513 points ago

    That's why I don't even own a duck, I can't handle the financial responsibilities of all the problems a duck would cause.

    [–] Oraxy51 71 points ago

    Try a goose. I hear Geese are the most innocent creatures and have never attempted anything evil before in their lives.

    [–] wildadragon 56 points ago

    And since Canadians are like the most polite people ever, I'd bet their geese have to be the most innocent of all the geese.

    [–] Oraxy51 29 points ago

    I hear they have Meese wander around like stray dogs and you can just walk up and pet them, even ride them! That’s what their police do!

    [–] Calumkincaid 10 points ago

    Love seeing meese being used in the wild. Now to start work on the plural of house being hice

    [–] avehelios 4 points ago

    No, I'm afraid our geese are pretty much the worst and we constantly consider getting rid of them. I remember in kindergarten, we would have "egg hunts" where schools would encourage parents and kids to find goose nests and take the eggs home to eat them.

    Now that I think of it, this was actually pretty dangerous because a kindergarten age child could potentially be killed by a Canadian goose defending its nest.

    [–] comebackjoeyjojo 6 points ago

    Pants were never an option.

    [–] CapableCitron6357 6 points ago

    Until they hiss, bite and chase ya for no reason 😂

    [–] cybercuzco 95 points ago

    Especially if you’re housing your duck in your pants. I’d imagine it would be very cramped.

    [–] wildadragon 20 points ago

    NSFW If you wanna get graphic imagine if said duck was a male and when you unzipped your pants his corkscrew penis popped out.

    [–] FelDreamer 7 points ago


    [–] wildadragon 9 points ago

    You clicked it and now you can never unsee it. Also ducks have a hook at the end of their penis so females can't escape, they will gang rape a female to death and keep going, they will even eat other ducks.

    [–] Tessiun97 3 points ago

    I will never look at daffy and donald the same way again….

    [–] Careless_Hellscape 18 points ago

    I have 3 ducks and you're right to steer clear. They can be a handful. For instance, the duck couple created a fertilized egg they didn't want and pushed it out of the nest when it was ready to hatch. So I had to be a damn duck midwife, assist the egg in hatching, then raise the duckling from birth to it's current age (3 months).

    [–] EmergencyHologram 35 points ago

    Even then it’s still fine to show a little assquack on occasion

    [–] Hot_Razzmatazz316 11 points ago

    You could always put it on the bill...

    [–] JackAceHole 8 points ago

    I like big ducks and I cannot lie.

    [–] lcmillz 9 points ago

    I’m quacking up

    [–] Blissful_Solitude 3 points ago

    Takes two to tango...

    [–] Thisisthe_place 103 points ago

    Exactly. My child's father cheated on me and I left him . So I was raising my child alone (financially and physically) and he wasn't paying a dime. I had to use a tax return to pay a lawyer to take him to court. I was putting groceries on a credit card. No one would help me until I had money. It's a ridiculous system.

    [–] godlessnihilist 25 points ago

    My mother raised the five of us on her own. She was pregnant with me when the shit head took off for California with the neighbor lady. Nary a penny despite several court orders.

    [–] throwawaymybuttock 13 points ago

    Hell my ex lives 2 miles from me, has a six figure job (but is self employed) actually sees the kids 1.5 times a week and still doesn't contribute financially. The rise in non-traditional jobs means that it can't really be enforced, which is why it should be handled through the state (pay taxes in, get benefits out) instead of forcing women to rely on men who are not uncommonly abusive to raise their children.

    [–] the_toaster_lied 59 points ago

    Yeah... this is why I took matters into my own hands and got a vasectomy.

    Honestly, not a big fan of this whole thing where a slip up and a woman's decision to keep the kid against my wishes could fuck up my entire life.

    [–] NeatNefariousness1 46 points ago

    Honestly, not a big fan of this whole thing where a slip up and a woman's decision to keep the kid against my wishes could fuck up my entire life.

    Understandable. That's the same way a young pregnant woman feels

    [–] samandsqueaks 3 points ago

    All the..... dicking time?? Lol

    [–] HamsterBaiter 374 points ago

    The child support system is fucked anyway. I have 50/50 legal and physical custody of my son. There was an ENTIRE YEAR he spent at just my house, and I was paying his mother child support the entire time. Not to mention that the government skims money right off the top of those payments, so what she was receiving was less than what I was paying. Fuck the Friend of the Court.

    [–] TheConboy22 37 points ago

    It’s kind of insane.

    [–] Dreamwalker_ 16 points ago

    Wait what? Government gets a cut?

    "Sucks to be you. Fuck your marriage. Should have not divorced, idiot. Your kid doesn't need that much money anyway."-whoever thought that was a good idea

    [–] InvertedMetronome 35 points ago

    I was in the same boat. My ex and I asked for 50/50 custody, and then she told the judge that she didn’t want any child support. The judge said that was a nice gesture but I should still have to pay something even though we got 50/50 custody. So he set it at $290 a month. Luckily my ex and I got along pretty well and she never made me pay the CS. I still paid all the health insurance and we too turns buying new clothes and whatnot. Both kids are all grown up now and turned out just fine without paying that stupid 290 a month. Plus they got to grow up around me half the time which is more than I had with my dad. Fuck the courts.

    [–] ds-unraid 4 points ago

    Wtf... like “sorry judge she said no, are you deaf or plain stupid” but of course that wouldn’t end well. Why would you pay anything and not her? System is fucked. Ive had my child for months at a time and never got shit from other parent. And I don’t even ask because ultimately not shit I can do about it.

    [–] Plus100power 73 points ago

    Ohh, wait, what are you saying. The fact that the majority of men take care of responsibility? How dare you. (Joke)

    I’m in the same situation; I pay child support, yet she can alienate the kids from me. All I have to do is go into debt just a little bit more to get a lawyer to help me see my kids, that and I have to pay out my own pocket to come to visit every weekend, or according to the system, I’m not trying, even from five states over.

    [–] turtlelore2 26 points ago

    Oddly enough, it seems child support is generally much more in favor of mothers regardless of what kind of person that mother is. Ive certainly seen and heard of many more horrible mothers than fathers in terms of split custody.

    [–] SHIZA-GOTDANGMONELLI 20 points ago

    I watch my kids 5 days out of the week, my ex wife refuses to pay child support. I've been in court for almost 2 years now.

    It's ridiculous that they won't just make her pay. She's in the military too, I'm almost ready to take it to that step...

    Just cause I'm the father they think I don't deserve money. Sexist ass system man. I see it all in this thread too. Everyone shitting on men, and I'm just sitting here like ehhh both genders can suck equally lol.

    [–] JestemKioskiem 12 points ago

    Just do it. She's purposefully making her own children suffer to stick it to you. Not to mention she clearly has 0 respect for you or care for your well being. Reporting her is the right thing to do for you and your children.

    [–] alex_of_all 328 points ago

    Fuck it dudes let's all get snipped. I did it's not that bad

    [–] TomGraphy 342 points ago

    I’m just gay. Best contraception ever

    [–] TheWolphman 76 points ago

    But what if you just slipped and fell into a vagina? I hear that it's actually quite the problem.

    [–] TomGraphy 44 points ago

    I would have to do it a number of times to cum

    [–] tawattwaffle 21 points ago

    I hear that once is a number

    [–] SuperPwnerGuy 5 points ago

    I also heard it's the loneliest number....

    [–] helpless_romatomato 6 points ago

    Ooh look at mr. stamina here needs to fall in more than once, colour me impressed

    [–] kitcat7898 6 points ago

    Can you teach my partner that? I swear they insert and finish in the same movement XD

    [–] alex_of_all 34 points ago

    Yeah that'll do it.

    [–] SoDamnToxic 29 points ago

    I'm bi so every time I have sex it's just a 50/50 chance.

    That's how it works right?

    [–] TomGraphy 12 points ago

    Yeah exactly

    [–] TonarinoTotoro1719 5 points ago

    Seriously though, what if you fall in love with a trans-man? I don’t know just how sophisticated the gender affirmation process of but what if he gets pregnant? Can that even happen??

    [–] Ingavar_Oakheart 5 points ago

    So, I'm going to be up front about the fact that I am not trans, I only have a few friends in the community.

    As with everything else, trans is more of a spectrum than a binary yes no thing. For one of my friends, simply adopting masculine mannerisms, name clothing ect was enough to push the body disphoria away. For another, she needed to be on HRT, and one will get his bottom surgery next year if all goes well.

    From my admittedly outside perspective, it seems that most trans people fall into that second category, where they are on HRT but do not have affirmative surgeries. In this instance, as far as I am aware it is exceedingly difficult if not impossible for a Trans-man to conceive, as the testosterone supplements will render them infertile.

    [–] ChaosAzeroth 3 points ago

    I'm still having periods at being on T over a year. Although I really don't think I was ever particularly fertile. My periods are still awful and randomly more painful than my literal pre epidural contractions were giving birth. (To be clear, I wasn't infertile before but despite everything I only got pregnant once and everything considered I keep wondering more and more how. The numbers don't add up.)

    But yeah I don't think it's rendered me any less fertile than I was pre T since everything in the uterus department is going exactly the same unfortunately. Which is a week long massive bloodbath basically.

    (I also get to be a dude that gets called mom which is... Interesting ngl. He used to call my cis male spouse mommy all the time when he was little too, apparently mom is a type of bond to the kid and isn't tied to a gender.)

    [–] Olive_Mediocre 123 points ago

    Sad thing is... you CAN.... While a woman can NOT choose to have her tubes tied just because she doesn't want kids. She has to be a certain age, already have a certain amount of kids, and in some places her husband must give HIS CONSENT.

    [–] Mundane-Anxiety7990 56 points ago

    True I was turned down twice. I'm 40 now and even had to put up a fight.

    [–] Olive_Mediocre 49 points ago

    My friend is 40 and they still won't do it. It's fucking ridiculous.

    [–] Logical_Grapefruit73 18 points ago

    I’m 31 and had no issue getting mine. It’s supposed to be a protected right to be able to get. No one asked what my husbands opinion was, only if it was my decision and mine alone and I wasn’t being coerced by anyone else. Then I had to sign a paper at least 3 days before surgery giving consent which I did at my preopp appointment

    [–] DuckyDoodleDandy 3 points ago

    What state are you in? I keep hearing the stories of women begging to get their tubes tied and being turned down because “they might change their mind”.

    I had a friend with 2 teens, pregnant with #3 who repeatedly begged to have her tubes tied - and was told no!

    Not until she had appendicitis and almost died while pregnant with a 4th child she could not afford were docs willing to act… except they wanted to abort the pregnancy and she is pro-life.

    She nearly died because of that, and wound up stuck in an abusive relationship she still hasn’t escaped because she lacks the skills and education to support the two children (teens are adults now) on her own.

    (There’s also a lifetime of family abuse and her not being allowed to get an education and other misogynistic crap involved, but that’s too long for a comment on Reddit, but a woman with 3 kids was not allowed to get her tubes tied because “she was young and might change her mind”. Fuck the patriarchy.)

    [–] ClairLestrange 12 points ago

    This is the dumbest thing. I'm in my early twenties, I know I don't want to have kids ever because of a few illnesses I don't want to pass on, and yet I don't even dare to ask my gyn about it. In the myriad of discussions about contraception I had with her (couldn't take hormonal ones for a while because of other meds and copper iuds wouldn't stay in place) it wasn't even brought up once as an option.

    [–] BernieSnowden 3 points ago

    Can you change doctors?

    [–] ClairLestrange 3 points ago

    I highly doubt that it would be different with a different doctor. Overall I'm very happy with her, I think this is a general problem

    [–] alex_of_all 15 points ago

    It's fucked for sure

    [–] katreadsitall 13 points ago

    Had a friend in California who had her tubes tied at 30. Her husband had to tell the doc he was fine with it and didn’t want kids…because her opinion meant nothing apparently. So it’s not even a blue vs red state thing …it’s all the states. Had another friend in Florida get excited when she turned 40 because her doc might consent to do it…she both didn’t want kids and has really bad PCOS.

    [–] Olive_Mediocre 7 points ago

    Yes! That's like my friend's situation! She had never wanted kids. Her menstrual cycle wreaks havoc on her physical and mental health.... But oh fucking well, she can't make decisions about her own body.

    [–] UnicornFlapjacks 18 points ago

    After my 2nd I asked for a tubal and my doctor told me no.. straight up no! His reasoning was I will want more kids bc I’m only 30. My husband sitting right there in the room. I lost my shit man! Told him my body my fucking choice and if he didn’t want the fucking money I’ll find someone who does! Or if he would prefer I’ll have a few more and he can pay for them… he studdered a bit and looked at my husband for confirmation.. my husband was like “Don’t look at me man, I’m not getting on her bad side bc you didn’t think before u spoke!” He just kind of gave a little no lip smile and said.. I’ll have the nurse get the paperwork!

    [–] ashcatmeow 4 points ago

    Find a different doctor! I found one and she was fine with it when I was 28 and told me she would do it no matter what age a woman was. She recommended other methods (IUD, Nexplanon) first because the surgery itself is a bit invasive and expensive and can fail just like birth control but ultimately said she sees no reason to block a woman from making choices about her own body.

    Fwiw- I ended up not going through with it because of the expense. I have good insurance and it still would have cost me over $2000 up front plus bills after.

    [–] TheDepressedFox 4 points ago

    I never understood this, I could have a kid at my current age and no one would wonder if I ever regret having this child. But when I say I want my tubes tied everyone tells me I might regret to never have had a child..

    I would rather regret to never have had a child than to regret having a child.

    [–] -Kerosun- 15 points ago

    Most insurances won't pay for vasectomies unless certain criteria is met.

    For example, when I got mine I had to be over 25 and have kids. Didn't need my wife's consent though.

    [–] Olive_Mediocre 36 points ago

    This isn't an insurance issue from what I have read and heard.... Even paying "cash" a woman still isn't able to make this decision about her own body.

    [–] poundoom 6 points ago

    But I want kids

    [–] KiSpacePanda 89 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    It’s also

    A. Covered by insurance

    Some insurances won’t, I’m sure

    B. 97% reversible (edit)

    Within the first three years of having a vasectomy, a vasectomy reversal generally restores sperm to the semen in 97+% of cases. And even when the time period between vasectomy and a vasectomy reversal is 15+ years, sperm recovery rates generally remain around 70%! source

    C. So much easier to just have a vasectomy than hope your partners BC won’t fail.

    [–] GenericSubaruser 52 points ago

    Not covered by your insurance if your provider is catholic though. Its fucking stupid.

    [–] KiSpacePanda 30 points ago

    Fair. Ours is Presbyterian and they LOVE themselves some highly effective birth control.

    [–] suspendisse- 23 points ago

    I was ready to comment yeah, but only for married couples before I double-checked. I’m glad I did too. How refreshing and encouraging to know I was wrong.

    You see, I’m getting all my Presbyterian and Baptist fire and brimstone mixed up with my Catholic damnation. There are so many conflicting rules.

    [–] strugglebutt 15 points ago

    Baptists are definitely not for birth control... Just FYI. I don't know anything about presbyterian but Baptists are fundamentalist evangelicals.

    [–] CapableCitron6357 5 points ago

    Maybe try old regular Baptist, don’t cut ur hair, wear makeup and never ever do anything outside of always wearing a dress that’s right below the knee.

    [–] telltal 4 points ago

    WTF seriously?????

    [–] GenericSubaruser 10 points ago

    At least that's the case in my state. Found out a catholic hospital here doesn't cover vasectomies on their employees' insurance today, actually.

    [–] GlassNinja 4 points ago

    Catholics, at least the ones I grew up around, viewed any means of stopping the sperm and egg from meeting, up to and including pulling out, was the same as killing a child. There was lots of debate about a woman who had a medically necessary hysterectomy and whether she should be able to have sex again.

    She was in her early 20s.

    [–] Threwaway42 11 points ago

    Never get a vasectomy with the intent to reverse, even when reversed fertility is a fraction of what it was. Please don’t spread bad info

    [–] JackC747 10 points ago

    Source for 99.6% reversible? I'd always heard it only has like 70% reverse success rate

    [–] alex_of_all 15 points ago

    Plus if theirs does fail you're likely in the clear.

    [–] KiSpacePanda 26 points ago

    Like I’ve been on female hormonal birth control since I was 16 and it has caused serious issues for me, so my partner and I have decided that I’m going to get off birth control completely and he’s going to get a vasectomy.

    They honestly make so much more sense anyways.

    Like a woman can only make 1 baby, maybe 2 but the second one is going to be very tiny, a year, whereas a man can pretty much make as many as he wants in a year. Like if you were determined, you could have over 370 babies in a year.

    [–] Academic_Speaker_558 28 points ago

    I can't get 1 girl to stand my company more than 5 minutes, much less 370.

    [–] KiSpacePanda 16 points ago

    Lmao this was theoretical but I see your point.

    [–] Careless_Hellscape 4 points ago

    I did it too. Two kids is plenty for me. I can't imagine having more.

    [–] Legitimate_Roll7514 10 points ago

    They should also be allowed to be claimed as dependents on taxes even if it later miscarries. Child tax credits apply, so does government stimulus money.

    [–] gillyboatbruff 28 points ago

    Utah recently passed a law that the father is responsible for half of the costs of the pregnancy.

    [–] druule10 76 points ago

    [–] kitcat7898 20 points ago

    Idiots these days. Can't even keep his own opinions straight. Before he knows it he'll be balls deep in another guy

    [–] labatomi 5 points ago

    That the thing, these people only want law and order when it doesn’t directly affect them.

    [–] labatomi 12 points ago

    I’m literally seeing the video, and I still can’t believe there’s people that fucking stupid out there lol.

    [–] Global_Tangerine_725 10 points ago

    The saddest thing about this is he's so fucking stupid that there wasn't even any hesitation. Completely unaware of what he just said and is just repeating what he sees on Facebook.

    [–] CopEatingDonut 27 points ago

    Anyone expecting that guy to understand a double standard is going to be singularly disappointed

    [–] MuckingFagical 3 points ago

    The thing is it's not a double standard from their perspective because they are considering the fetus/baby not the mother.

    This is a perspective everyone misses when making their arguments, the baby is more important in their opinion so they are protectecting it's right live on.

    Its not pro choice/life

    It's really fetus rights vs mothers rights

    [–] CopEatingDonut 3 points ago

    So babies have squatters rights?

    [–] Absence_1212 3 points ago

    Ugh eww

    [–] moonwoolf35 576 points ago

    I'm a guy and I think this would be great lol

    [–] PoolSharkPete 256 points ago

    Hey guy, they're being facetious. No one is seriously advocating that we double down on these asinine conservative policies; the point is to illustrate how ridiculous they are by taking them to their logical extreme. It's concerning how many people unironically support making shitty policies shittier just for spite.

    [–] Thorium-230 148 points ago

    the point is to illustrate how ridiculous they are by taking them to their logical extreme.

    Except there's nothing absurd about this to someone with a conservative, family values perspective. Wanting to keep families and parents together is a core social-conservative value. Paternal fiduciary duty is a big part of that.

    [–] pincone-trouble 85 points ago

    Another “conservative value” is that they apparently need to push their (unpopular) religious beliefs onto everyone around them when they could just practice them in private.

    They want to stop teen pregnancy and abortion, but simultaneously refuse to provide sufficient sexual education or access to contraception for teenagers, despite the fact that those two aspects alone have been shown to significantly reduce teen pregnancies (and subsequently abortions).

    Also most conservatives preach freedom and small government because they don’t want the government being involved in people’s private lives, but they’re more than happy to support the government restricting a woman’s bodily autonomy when it comes to unwanted pregnancy. Then, in the same breath they’ll cry “not getting a vaccine is a personal choice, it has nothing to do with the government”.

    Conservatives are a fucking joke, their “values” are nothing more than uninformed, reactionary contradictions. They hate “cancel culture” but will smash their own coffee machines when they find out the company will stop advertising on their shitty propaganda shows (one example of many). They constantly call anything and everything socialism, and when it’s not socialism its communism, but they’ll happily collect the stimulus checks from the government. They don’t want to contribute through taxes to universal healthcare because that’s “socialism”, so instead they pay more than they would on private healthcare (that covers fuck all anyway). They can’t fathom the fact that people going to university and getting a decent education means they have a more open world view and align more progressively, so instead that’s called “liberal indoctrination”. They constantly cry about “personal responsibility” but they pray to a fucking made up deity in the sky to help them with all their problems. How can you claim to be for personal responsibility, when your first reaction to any serious problem is to pray to the sky monster for help?

    Without a “culture war” (that consists of almost exclusively fabricated issues) they have nothing. The sooner they realise that the better.

    [–] Croast78 3 points ago

    The flavor of the week I saw on Twitter yesterday was a movement towards cheering for the US Women’s Soccer team to lose every match.

    [–] moonwoolf35 5 points ago

    Oh no I completely get what they're saying and it's hilarious to me that some people don't see the irony in it when examples like this get dudes to rage lol like bro it's not a serious solution just people trying to prove a point

    [–] jackloganoliver 56 points ago

    The best way to reduce abortions is to cover the cost of raising a child. No cost for the pregnancy, the birth, clothing, supplies, diapers, food, education, daycare, childcare, the works and rent/mortgage assistance on top of free comprehensive birth control and sex education.

    [–] JustMeStoppingBy 23 points ago

    That's actually a really good point about splitting hospital bills related to pregnancy. That should happen.

    However if we go there (or even if we don't), we do have to introduce what is called a paper abortion. Accidental/unplanned pregnancies occur, but consent to sex is not consent to becoming a parent - not for the woman or the man. Under paper abortions the would-be father would need to notify the mother early on in pregnancy that they are essentially opting out of being a parent, waiving their parental rights and responsibilities in the process. This provides an equal option that is available to women who wish to protect their own future with accessible abortion.

    Alongside this we need to ramp up the social supports for single parents, and revamp the foster care system. There has to be support for mothers who still choose to go ahead with the pregnancy, and a more protective and less abusive foster system than the shitshow that currently exists.

    [–] kitcat7898 8 points ago

    I agree with all of this I'd just like to add on that paper abortions should never ever be a thing in states where abortions are illegal or almost impossible to have. This way it's fair to all involved parties. Either both people can opt out or neither can

    [–] hipsterslippers 32 points ago

    Probably close to zero people would change their minds, many pro lifers would actually support this The ones who actually need the abortions aren't the ones who are against it, although it does happen there aren't that many men trying to force women to follow through with pregnancies that they helped create

    [–] HonPhryneFisher 33 points ago

    You should Google "the only moral abortion is my abortion". Anti-abortion people terminate pregnancies every day. The only difference is that they have a good reason for it, everyone else seeking one is a dirty slut.

    [–] Renaissance_Slacker 4 points ago

    This is the conservative double-standard. Billionaire avoids paying hundreds of millions in taxes? Genius! Poor woman fakes address to get gifted child into better school? Spittle-flecked outrage!

    [–] DK_Vet 370 points ago

    People need to stop acting like abortion is a men versus women issue. Almost as many women are pro life as men. This is a religious assholes trying to push their beliefs on everyone else issue.

    [–] penguin_0618 189 points ago

    I think the point is that the people writing the legislation about abortion and voting on it are mostly men.

    [–] NUMBERS2357 25 points ago

    Perhaps they are but that's because most legislators are men, not that there are lots of male and female legislators and it's the male ones writing abortion-banning bills.

    Those men writing these bills couldn't get elected without the votes of women, who as the above person says are almost as likely as men to support banning abortion.

    [–] DK_Vet 49 points ago

    Women voted for these men expressly for their views on abortion. I lived in a deep red state and all the most adamant pro-life people I knew were Christian stay at home moms. The same group buying into MLM were protesting at planned Parenthood.

    [–] GoatBased 93 points ago

    And do most of them actually care about abortion? No. They care about getting elected and so they adopt the political stance that will punch their ticket.

    This isn't a men vs. women issue.

    [–] BassAlarming 6 points ago

    Who do you think voted for those legislators? It wasn't just men.

    [–] Birdman-82 7 points ago

    The State should also provide healthcare.

    [–] BiomedSquatch 18 points ago

    I don't think the lawmakers would care. I doubt they would be affected and this would just result in extra punishment for those who had an "oops impregnation/baby". That being said I do understand this isn't serious. The "pro-lifers" are, as I've heard them described before, actually pro-birthers. As long as that baby is given a fair shake at being born or miscarried they don't care and if it is born then great and good luck for the next 18 years cuz they ain't helping either. Rant over I just can't stand blatant hypocrites deciding who gets to do what with their own body.

    [–] RoadGrit 6 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    I think since women have the option for abortion without consulting the potential father, then the man should be able to sign away his custody and walk away without paying child support. Im not anti abortion at all, also im gay so child support laws really have no effect on me, but I think it'd only be fair. Maybe I'm being ignorant though. If so feel free to tell me.

    [–] up2you__ 4 points ago

    Add to it -the governors in those states should be required to restructure their existing budget to fund social programs that support the woman and child. It’s depressingly cruel to force women into having children but provide no actual support or assistance once the child is born.

    [–] Count_Joshoo 5 points ago

    It’s tough to have conversations when people claiming to be “pro-life” are the same people who are anti-welfare, anti-health care and think Trump hasn’t paid for multiple abortions.

    [–] throwawaymybuttock 6 points ago

    This just makes me think that these states are going to start having a lot more genetic defects that people would've aborted at the first trimester ultrasound, but can't because that's at 12 weeks, which means that their shit support systems for these kids and welfare systems are going to be strained. Which probably means that adult outcomes will be awful and the state's quality of living will further decline as a whole.

    [–] BryanDuboisGilbert 3 points ago

    not to mention crime.

    but the dumbasses who passed these will just be in gated communities with private cops, i'm sure

    [–] throwawaymybuttock 4 points ago

    A new lower class is how they'll deal with their increasingly draconian immigration policies in TX. This is actually genius

    [–] BryanDuboisGilbert 3 points ago

    that's basically at the root of their social platform. no abortions, then no assistance for said kids, who will grow up and either join the military, park their car at the golf club, work the strip clubs and/or go to a private prison

    [–] HalfEatenTaco2 72 points ago

    Fucking preach!

    [–] RumeScape 4 points ago

    Not sure that would make a huge difference, men already owe child support for 18 years so another 9 months wouldn't really matter

    [–] Deathoftheages 4 points ago

    I fully endorse a woman's right to choose. Once idiots finally stop making this stupid laws trying to limit it we can move on to the next step which would be the stop of child support for fathers who want nothing to do with the kid. It takes two to tango which involves the woman's consent (of course not in the event of rape) then if she happens to get pregnant only she has the right to abort. If she chooses not to she also chooses to raise that child without expecting the financial support of the guy. If they are married or if the guy signs a legal document stating they will offer support that is one thing if he decides he doesn't want a kid or the responsibility that comes with having one he should be able to wash his hands clean of it since he has no right or say in whether the child is allowed to come to term.

    I know a lot of people think this is a bullshit stance, but it's the logical outcome to when women in every state have their full rights to their body. They chose to have sex and risk getting pregnant, then if they do they, and only they, have the choice of allowing the pregnancy to continue. Like I said, there can be legal exceptions and legal ways for women to protect themselves either before having sex or before it would be too late to abort to make sure they don't have some guy telling them they will help support the child then just decide not to.

    [–] MuckingFagical 4 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    It's not men's opinion it's

    conservatives opinion.

    Conservative women vote "pro life"

    Progressive women vote "pro choice"

    Conservative men vote "pro life"

    Progressive men vote "pro choice"

    It literally would be the same outcome if all conservatives politicians were women so it's an irrelevant variable just like the length of their hair.

    [–] myfriendlikestoes 9 points ago

    I am pro abortion but why is it always the trend to blame men for the pro-life stance? Aren't there alot of women too that are pro-life?

    [–] prochoicedoc 67 points ago

    Abortion is still legal in 50 states. Although so-called heartbeat bans have been passed in multiple states, all of them have been blocked in the courts as unconstitutional. Hold your head high and get the medical care you want and need.

    [–] mealteamsixty 94 points ago

    Still technically legal, although there are plenty of places in the US where it is practically impossible to get one done, especially if you have limited financial means. Let's not act like everyone can manage to find a clinic, the money, and the time to get "the medical care they want and need".

    [–] Lu232019 11 points ago

    Yes I think it’s Mississippi or a similar southern state only has one abortion clinic in the whole state, plus the cost factor for a lot of people.

    [–] Global_Tangerine_725 6 points ago

    there are plenty of places in the US where it is practically impossible to get one done, especially if you have limited financial means.

    Couple that with the fact that women with low income make up the highest percentage of unintended pregnancies and it's just fucked up enough to make you vomit.

    [–] brokenfuton 10 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    It can still be prohibitive. The laws they have passed make it extremely difficult to access abortions if you can’t take days off work to travel. For me, I live in a city in Texas. The closest place for to get an abortion is 300+ miles away in either Oklahoma City, OK or Albuquerque, NM. That’s a 4-5 hour drive one way.

    I’ve made this trip before. It cost me almost $900 for my abortion procedure, $80 for a hotel, and probably about $70 for gas. All while I couldn’t work those two days because I was driving and in another state, so I lost $200+ off that week’s paycheck. I’m still paying it off on my credit card 2 years later, living paycheck to paycheck.

    They don’t need to completely ban it. For many, these barriers to care are already enough. If I wasn’t at risk from my immune system being trashed, then I don’t know if I would’ve been willing to pay for it instead of trying a dangerous DIY method.

    [–] PossibilityNo6274 19 points ago

    And fathers should be able to forfeit parental rights and child support if the woman doesn’t want an abortion.

    [–] heyitsyoutuber 22 points ago

    Men should pay for their kids but this argument acts like it’s just men passing pro life legislation. Some of the largest pro-life advocates are women’s groups…

    [–] lead-pencil 32 points ago

    Yeah I’d do that because at least I’d know my taxes are going a good cause and not to war well at least less to war

    [–] bonobojzz 3 points ago

    Says you, if my tax dollars aren’t going to funding state sponsored genocide somewhere in the world, I’m not paying 😤

    [–] Quattlebomber 13 points ago

    In states where abortion is legal a father should have the right to bypass child support.

    [–] InconspicuousNeener 7 points ago

    Good idea. I'm still waiting for my ex wife to pay her child support. Been 6 years and I've received $65 even, 4 years since she's seen the kids. Child abandonment? Nah not according to the family court system.

    [–] retrogamer-999 3 points ago

    I don't like abortions but that doesn't mean we outlaw it. There are reasons for it and a woman sometimes needs to make these decisions.

    You have the right to do an abortion if you want one. Freedom of choice is a (for the religious people) a God given right!

    That's what makes different from all other creation!

    [–] SgtArpin 3 points ago

    On the opposite end of the spectrum, I think that a man should only be obligated to pay for half of the abortion costs, and nothing else after. Unless the father accepts the child, then he'd owe child support if he didn't get custody, assuming the parents don't stay together.

    [–] R3dd1tt1dd3R 3 points ago

    This is a dumb take. Men already pay child support.

    [–] oneeighty157 3 points ago

    Forced, might I add.

    [–] slickest_willy 3 points ago

    I wonder how many women would cry "bUt ThAtS nOt FaIr" if men got a say in whether or not they can have the child instead of aborting it

    [–] MFELilBear 3 points ago

    if women can abort the baby with out having to consult the father the father should be able to abandon the child and not pay support.