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

News

36086 readers
3074 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sodis@feddit.de 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

[–] Halosheep@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Fortunately, most vasectomies are reversible.

[–] Patches@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz -5 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Imagine the gall to look around at this world and be so blinded by, I don't know, narcissism, self-centeredness, hubris and think,"Yeah, what we need here is another fucking human."

[–] Plavatos@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Strongly disagree. Your position is that the current age-bearing demographic forego the experience of having children?

I don't think this is sarcasm but maybe I'm eating the onion?

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I forgot the name of the movement but some people think it's abuse to have children. Mind you this was years before COVID and the current wars, maybe someone else remembers them.

[–] Plavatos@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do you recall American sentiment on China's 35 year long One Child Policy?

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

Most of the Americans I knew understood the reasoning behind it, but didn't like the Chinese bullshit of killing off a female child so that they could have a male.

[–] SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No civilized and intelligent being should enjoy bearing offspring as we currently do, anyway.

If the instinct alone is enough to overcome their reasoning, then they are not truly mature.

[–] Plavatos@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago

I think there's likely some zeitgeist in play here that younger generations know they can't afford kids. And I also imagine there's animosity there. While having kids isn't a prerequisite for personal joy (to each their own) it's often a tremendously enjoyable experience. So who should they turn to for being put in this situation: the generation that should really skip having kids, sorry....

Now, when I walk around stores on my day off and see homeschoolers with 5 kids I can agree with this sentiment: that feels stupidly selfish and excessive.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wow, I can u derstand some people might not want kids, but self-centeredness? It’s self- e entered to devote so much of your ti e and attention to someone else’s needs, for two decades of your life?

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

You're not having a kid for the kid's sake. You're having to kid for your sake. Your self-centered sake. Not YOU, but like the general you.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The world is better now than at any point previously in history (except maybe the 90s). The only reason things sound worse is that we have global news now.

What point is there in trying to make a better future if none of us have kids? Who are we trying to fix climate change for, our geriatric asses?

Kids are emblematic of hope for a better future -- that society can build and create something that we won't benefit from, but our descendants will. I'd go as far as to say they should be the mascot of leftism and progressives. Everything we do should be to give them a better world than we had. It's all moot otherwise.

[–] Plavatos@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

How is this down voted? You hit the nail on the head.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

Everybody, get a load of this take!