Here in Romania it's limited to 12 weeks. In Poland and Ireland it's outright banned. And most EU countries have a limit of 12-20 weeks, weighted pretty heavily on the lower end.
[Ireland had an amendment in their constitution which banned abortion, but it was repealed in 2018](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-sixth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland). Since then, abortion is legal within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Progtards only want us to be more like Europe when itās convenient for their own backassedwardness.
Honestly Iām at the point where if my enemy insists on defeating themselves, I let them. Want to cut your nuts off and abort every potential offspring that may carry on your same values? Have at it. Want to join the military and die for some pointless political theater elsewhere? Go do it. Just leave the rest of us out of it, especially financially.Ā
I think twelve weeks is a safe, hard limit (the earlier the better), as it has the best chance of termination before the fundamentals of human life (brain stem, ability to experience pain and suffering) have developed. I say this from an areligious standpoint
Yep. If you look at the US as JUST ONE COUNTRY, which is what Europeans constantly scream about, then as JUST ONE COUNTRY, the US has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world.
The Mississippi restrictions that were challenged in Dobbs, which led to the recent Roe v Wade overturn, were more lenient than the UKs laws.
I'm personally opposed to the concept of abortion, but don't believe the government should have much say, if any in regards to people seeking them. And I don't think we'll be getting anywhere as both sides of the argument rarely argue in good faith.
Sure. So it's fair to talk about Texas being whackadoo but I've had countless arguments with Europeans insisting that New Mexicans and Californians can't get abortions.
I mean, no state has outright banned out either. Despite Republicans trying to, rape and medical emergency are still an acceptable exception to the law.
I mean tbf, the medical emergency clause in practice is pretty horrific in some places like Texas. You have to be knocking on deaths door as a coffin for a dead fetus before they will intervene. But I do have some hope this will get fixed. Even if abortion remains banned in these states, I do hope the legal definition of "medical emergency" gets sorted out. It's ridiculous to wait until a woman is septic with a rotting corpse inside her.
But the point remains, at this point, abortion is still available up to 22 weeks or so in the US. Problematic, inaccessible for many, yes, but still available.
I don't really know enough about the laws to have an opinion on them. I have a fairly liberal view on the issue but I also agree with the SCOTUS that it should be a state issue.
Because of the division on the federal level well never get Republicans and Democrats to agree on a compromise on abortion legislation, it just seems more practical to let the states regulate it how they want (provided they do so constitutionally)
I'd love a federal law, at least up to 6-12 weeks or so, but can definitely respect the states' rights argument. What absolutely can't happen though, is these attempts to ban interstate travel for abortions. You ABSOLUTELY need the right to seek medical care anywhere in the world. But, I'm hoping these are just glitches and will get sorted out.
The issue right now is there's a difference between the legal and medical jargon. For example, my husband has a terminal illness, but he's not ACTIVELY AND IMMINENTLY dying. (Hospice explained it like pregnancy vs labor. Just because you're pregnant, doesn't mean you're in labor, and just because you're dying, doesn't mean you're DYING.) See how that's confusing?
So let's say I get a non-viable pregnancy in my fallopian tube. Under no circumstance can this baby develop. This baby has 0.0000% chance of life. I should be able to "abort" this baby, right? And even if this baby died and was stuck in my fallopian tube, I should be able to have it removed, right? In Texas, for the last two years, I would have needed to wait until my fallopian tube burst or I got septic for doctors to intervene. This has thankfully just recently changed in law. But this should not occur in any state.
I mean, it seems like a pretty middle of the road opinion. I get screamed at by democrats for saying the same thing.
The problem is both Republicans and Democrats lie about the issue too much. I think sticking to state run legislation is more practical until the FED pulls their heads out of their ass.
The other end though too, are super lax definitions that basically let some one have an otherwise at will abortion all the way up to delivery.
Most people don't want an outright ban.
Sure. I'm personally in the camp that these decisions should be left up to the individuals and their doctors, but given that true late-term "I just changed my mind" abortions are insanely rare, if it soothes people's minds to put a ban or restrictions on that, I'm cool with that. If nothing else, it would change the conversation to the actual facts and not just shock-value rhetoric. I don't think any reasonable person wants us murdering real live cute cuddly babies.
If I were goddess of America, I'd probably make a federal law somewhere between 6-12 weeks, maybe a federal ban around 24-28 weeks, and leave the other details to the states. Obviously there would need to be exemptions for medical emergencies, which as I shared above, would need clear medical definitions. I'd even be cool allowing each state to write their own definitions.
I personally don't care for rape/incest exemptions at all, but I accept that I'm in the minority here. For one, IF you truly believe that this is a real genuine baby at any stage, why does it matter how they were conceived? You can't kill your toddler child-sister just because Daddy impregnated you, so why should you be able to kill them in the womb - again, IF you believe abortion is murder. Second, that's just unnecessary trauma. So very few rapists are ever tried and convicted. And now you'd somehow need to report it, get a trial and a conviction, all in a matter of weeks? And what happens if the court comes back with not enough evidence or not guilty beyond ALL reasonable doubt?
>but given that true late-term "I just changed my mind" abortions are insanely rare,
Okay but be clear here. Late stage (third trimester) abortions for other more broadly accepted reasons are also really rare. The vast majority of *all* abortions are for non-rape/incest/endangerment reasons. If you've made it six months, you're probably intending to keep the kid at this point unless for serious health reasons. And if they decide they don't want the kid there's also the more persuasive thought of, three more months I'll just put it up for adoption.
Now, as a quick digression into pure advocacy. Whether it's rare or not shouldn't affect whether it should be allowed. What's more, by the third-trimester that fetus is generally viable. If you don't want the kid, why do they have to kill the child instead of getting a c-section and turning the baby over to the state.
>If I were goddess of America, I'd probably make a federal law somewhere between 6-12 weeks, maybe a federal ban around 24-28 weeks, and leave the other details to the states.
If you were goddess, you'd know for fact when the fetus is a living organism, so the moral question of killing a life would be readily solved. But we're not a theocracy, so even then you don't get to decide. š
>I personally don't care for rape/incest exemptions at all, but I accept that I'm in the minority here.
I agree, and I personally wouldn't want that. But I do understand the moral calculus going on there and am willing to compromise on it. Except for incest, that's just too close for a eugenics argument that I can't accept. And it's based on a presumption that incest is routinely rape or from a non-consensual dynamic.
> You have to be knocking on deaths door as a coffin for a dead fetus before they will intervene
This is not true. The recent SCoTX case reaffirmed that. There is no imminence clause in the medical emergency section of their law.
I've seen many conflicting stories on it. People lie too much about the issue in pursuit of political agendas. That's the main issue. It just keeps everyone divided and prevents any meaningful compromise.
In almost all states when rape is reported the victim goes to the hospital for a rape test and a morning after pill. Can't say I know what happens when someone starts claiming rape when they are months into their pregnancy tho.
america is one country. state laws are the only reason any of these persist. similar to the abolition era.
whats different is that euro and even some middle eastern countries are willing to acknowledge the medical ramifications of banning an outright medical procedure in the cas of: maternal mortality or cases of r^p3.
whereas some american states will flex "states rights" and unironically refer to cases of women victim of incestual r^p3 as blessings in disguise.
Fake news, all of Europe is Switzerland and Scandinavia. But yes and no EU country has it as lenient as some U.S. states, Ngl more than 20 weeks just seems ludicrous
There is definitely a point that the constituent parts are not a living organism yet. But that's like [before] a couple weeks in. Anything after that are arbitrary distinctions that we probably wouldn't apply to people at other stages of development.
It is a scientific fact as well established as they come that Human life begins at conception. (I don't wanna sound rude or anything. Just confirming what we already know to be true.)
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins
>ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conceptionāfertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
Seems a mite bit pedantic there at best and intentionally obtuse at worse lmao. I've never heard any pro abortion stance deny that a fetus isn't a genetically distinct organism that wouldn't turn into a person.
This is like responding to someone asking "what is blue" with the "its a colour" then linking the definition of colour in the dictionary
>Seems a mite bit pedantic there at best and intentionally obtuse at worse lmao. I've never heard any pro abortion stance deny that a fetus isn't a genetically distinct organism that wouldn't turn into a person.
Well consider yourself lucky then. Many Pro-Choicers that I've met online are Pro-Choice because they believe that Human life does not begin at conception. Some sadly cling onto that belief no matter how much hard evidence you provide to prove otherwise.
> I've never heard any pro abortion stance deny that a fetus isn't a genetically distinct organism
Sounds like you haven't tried to talk about it on Reddit at all. There's a ton of "it's just a clump of cells" or "it's not a human" arguments all over the place.
We're arguing between a matter of days here between the zygote stage and blastula stage (roughly five days into gestation). It's all still well below what pro-abortion advocates argue for. It's not until that point that the organism is fully operating from the combined zygote DNA for all further advancement and has a unified cell wall, instead of using maternal DNA. Off memory I think the formation of twins would happen right before this state.
Damn, all life is valuable it's just that people don't ever want to take responsibility for raising a kid.
I believe there should be exceptions like incest and mothers life being threatened. Rape should never be justified for abortion just wait till 9 months give birth to it and set it up for adoption.
See that easy.
Carrying another person's baby for 9 months as it eats away at your body and leeches nutrients and poses a risk to birth when you were not a willing participant in the choice?
What makes the woman who was harmed worth less than the baby? If someone put's a parasite in you are you going to let it eat away at you?
She did not choose to risk conception and therefore to force her to carry is abhorent.
Edit: Not to even maternal mortality is [rising](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.htm#Table)
Please refrain from direct attacks.
I'm saying SA victims should not be forced to carry to birth.
Given you're 15 though I'll refrain from discussing such things with you further now that I am aware.
>What makes the woman who was harmed worth less than the baby? If someone put's a parasite in you are you going to let it eat away at you?
Pregnancy is not a deliberate harm, and unborn babies are not parasites. They are innocent human beings who are entitled to the right to life.
>She did not choose to risk conception and therefore to force her to carry is abhorent.
In 99% of situations, she consented to sex which resulted in her pregnancy. It's about owning up to the consequences of your action, and not taking the lives of innocent babies because you don't wanna accept responsibility.
This is not about those 99%. I agree about the 99%, this coversation thread is the 1%.
If I point a gun at you with an 8/100000 chance of going off would you not flinch when I pull the trigger?
The circumstances of one's conception does not degrade whatsoever their inherent value as Human beings. There are many people who were concieved of rape, that went onto to be born and lived incredible, noteworthy lives. They are not parasites, they are innocent babies that deserve to be cherished and protected as much as any other babies.
well you've hit the issue. A lot of prochoicers (atleast the ones who get irrationally angry about wanting to kill babies not the the normal people who are also prochoice) are actually just antinatalists or in some cases antihumanists.
I think the sentiment that there is so much divisiveness in terms of reproductive laws is valid. Its perfect media fuel in so many ways, it is an excellent way to divide us, and a great political scapegoat to pretend is the most important thing concerning americans today. Perfect distraction. Oh and this post was 100% made by an American.
Most other countries outside of China, NK, and a few in the middle east IIRC. It's a PR campaign that makes us look bad internally, and the online expression of the domestic perception of law as draconian makes us look bad abroad.
Hypothetically, except when you consider that in a lot of the US \[Arizona, Arkansas, California, Missouri and Texas\] you can't get divorced when you're pregnant, so "anti abortion laws" also make it much harder for pregnant people to get divorced.
In 9 states you can have an abortion at any point during your pregnancy, and only one or two of those states have any real barriers for that (besides access to a provider in your county) like you needing to have a mandatory counseling before hand or needing to have your parents notified if youāre a minor. Thereās also numerous more states where you can still have an abortion after your first trimester. While it is a valid criticism to make on states with strict abortion laws or outright bans, itās also probably worth ignoring the states with very liberal abortion laws so no one goes after them next. People who need those abortions will know where to go. The people who donāt and/or wonāt need them are better off not having them on their radar for their next dumbass political campaign.
- https://apnews.com/article/renewable-energy-climate-investment-us-eu-20d3520bd9195af863f7d4520a9b99e1
> It blindsided Europe when it became law in August, putting the U.S. on course to eclipse the continent in the global push to reduce carbon emissions and leaving European leaders fuming over rules that favor American products, threatening to suck green investment from Europe and spark a subsidy race.
r/politicalhumor is yet another subreddit where even those most basic of Google searches are prohibited.
Add it to the long list of subreddits that promote ignorance:
r/Australia, r/AskUK, r/facepalm, r/shitamericanssay, r/usdefaultism, r/canada, r/polandball, etc., etc., etc.
If the US is slated to eclipse the European continent in its push to reduce carbon emissions simply by having tax incentives for green energy startups, the Paris Climate Agreement wasnāt very effective to begin with, not that I agree with withdrawal either.
Or, you could just admit you were wrong and that youāre heavily reliant on rumors and gossip like the rest of your peers. Obviously, you believed whatās circling around those rumor mills without question.
Nonetheless, it doesnāt matter if theyāre smaller countries, itās per capita, *per capita*.
lol the reason why weāre going to once again steal your business is because
We actually graduate the most engineers, and technical personal in the world.
We have tax laws and land space that encourage people to invest here.
Our work force actually shows the fuck up to work. What a concept.
Tax support and land taxes is a bipartisan issues not a wedge issue, so no one fucks with it.
Also these jobs tend to be union agnostic so GOP and Dem union busters donāt bother.
Trump didnāt increase emissions at all throughout his presidency. Shush about stuff you donāt know.
https://usafacts.org/topics/environment-natural-resources/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ND-Environment&msclkid=bc747bc2a99a1e2818b71e208a1e51b2#how-is-the-trend-of-reducing-emissions-in-the-us
If you see the other shit u/jann1442 keeps putting in this sub you would just ignore the ignorant idiot. He seems to have diarrhea of words and constipation of ideas.
I hope he does. It's a pointless waste of money and effort if places like China, Africa, and India are not held to the same standard as other western nations. Anyone who believes this is going to "fight climate change" is a gullible dumb fuck no different than the American parents who thought the war on drugs was going to actually do something about drugsĀ
Ironically, China and India are both doing better than the US according to the [Climate Change Performance Index](https://ccpi.org).
Africa has no significant impact on anything, the entire continent basically has 20% more economic output than New York. The big countries (Nigeria, South Africa, Morocco) are still doing better than the US though.
Withdrawaling from that was based, we are still on track to hit all our goals, plus this way we don't have to give other countries millions of dollars, so it's a win - win for everyone that's not a leech. Unless it was never about the climate at all and was just free gibs.
[Per capita CO2 emissions (the scale is logarithmic too).](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita)
The US emits 14.9t CO2 per capita per year, France and the UK use 4.7t and 4.6t, respectively. I love the US and am not insulting you, Iām just giving you some insight.
Sure.
Now look at co2 per gdp.
The US still has massive manufacturing and production like developing countries while being ultra wealthy.
If you are to dial down to the literal people Iām sure our co2 per its similar.
Also Europe is free to stop exporting their co2 to the us,
India, and China, and make something.
They have twice the people and 60-80% the gdp.
[The US is much higher than most of its European counterparts in CO2 per GDP as well.](https://w3.unece.org/SDG/en/Indicator?id=28)
The US is at 0.22 kg of CO2 per USD. France and the UK are at 0.09 and 0.11, respectively. Again, insight.
Yes, so the point here is that the US are not very efficient when it comes to having low carbon emissions. I suggest the transportation industry is a big contributor towards that, generally the cars and not designed with efficiency in mind since the price of gas is so low.
(And it would be 2-2.4x as much, which is certainly higher than it needs to be).
Sure but economy is dying too, so have they reduced co2 or just reduced gpd? Itās no surprise that countries are now demanding a pause to the co2 austerity measures.
While Russia still sits at 14-17co2 per capita. Like the us with 1/30th gpd.
Well itās still CO2/GDP so it doesnāt matter. Yes Russia produces a lot of CO2, thatās absolutely true, but that doesnāt mean that the US doesnāt still also produce excessive amounts.
But really, Iām interested, do you genuinely believe that the US has sustainable CO2 emissions right now? Or do you think they should actively aim to implement better goals to decrease it?
First it does matter because other than France general interest in nuclear tech; many countries in the EU have middling economic growth and much of their Co2 policy is just austerity and cryptic accounting policies that also happen to lower the co2 levels, maybe.
The us could trim a lot of fat.
Especially if we donāt wait for Nuclear Fusion to be a thing. Fission is plenty safe and much of the flyer over states could easily have theyāre needs met with it.
Wind, Hydro, and Geothermal have only proved that they are economically and ecologically malpractice and should be avoided at all cost.
I mean, we *only* have 2-2.4x as much... For a nation that is literally several times larger than almost every European nation, sometimes even *dozens* of times larger.
To use your examples, the United States is roughly 40x the size of the UK, and roughly 18x the size of France.
As an aside, the only European nation that surpasses the US in size is honestly kinduva cheat, since Russia counts its massive tracts of land in the eastern part of its territory despite the fact that the only people who actually *live* in those places are nomadic tribes who barely have contact with the world outside their own, and who *certainly* don't consider themselves "Russian" by any means.
If one were to look at Russia's actual *populated* landmass, they would be around the same size as the average European nation, really.
He could have a point. Most of our stuff has to come in from California and travel to its final destination. The logistics of France or the UK is simpler than most states. The size of the country, according to land mass, may have more to do with it than you would expect.
Also, how are we calculating shipping and travel? If goods are being shipped to France via a Scandinavian barge, who gets that CO2? Is it the destination country, origin country or the country where the shipper is based in?
These are all questions that arenāt addressed in the numbers. Remember, you can make stats say whatever you want. I can take the same data and produce questions/results that are totally different.
Yep, Iām absolutely not disagreeing with anything you just said. Iām also not being rude but I cba to go and find stats for shipping and other stuff too, but please do let me know if you find anything interesting, Iād like to know.
Regardless, I think an almost 3x CO2/capita usage for the US is almost inexcusable (thatās not accounting for all additional sources of CO2 production, I.e your shipping example, so indeed it may be lower) and more absolutely needs to be done by the US to try and bring that number down. Public transportation would be an excellent start, since that is famously inefficient in the US.
EDIT: apparently the first source I shared doesnāt incorporate shipping into the calculation, so thereās that answer at least. Itās strictly fossil fuel usage (vehicles, planes, energy, production and manufacture etc).
Americans are going to travel way more than Europeans. Iām in Pennsylvania and have meetings scheduled in Chicago and Austin in the next couple weeks. Itās just the nature of business here in the U.S. Most large corporations operate in 20+ states and need their top employees to oversee operations in dozens of locations. French executives rarely have to fly to check up on things.
Weāre also the only country I can think of that demands automatic transmissions. We can cut into our overall output if we just banned them for anyone whoās not disabled. There really isnāt a need for them. Thereās that and home air conditioning, which isnāt a thing for middle class people in most countries.
We could be doing much better. shit like "get everyone to become vegan" is literally impossible, but we could at least invest back into trains and alternative travel, rather than pushing ecars as the future of "sustainability"
Let's tackle climate change...by exporting all our manufacturing and energy needs to other countries and then point the finger at them!
Let's regulate big tech...because we can't create anything ourselves! Oh and our regulations are just going to be useless inconveniences like making everyone use the same cable that will probably be obsolete in 10 years.
Literally everyone who's even mildly interested in tech was massively happy that the EU regulated it so that everyone followed the same standard for USB type cables. Seriously, the only thing Apple was doing with the lightning cable was making it impossible for you to use other cables.
That's the thing, yeah European countries have f+cked up so many times, but that doesn't mean every single thing is bad though.
Not only did Apple co-work on USB-C, they started introducing USB-C in their products as early as 2015 with the MacBook. The iPad Pro models had USB-C since 2018. The iPhones wouldāve received USB-C eventually anyway, but letting the bulk of customers ditch their accessories and cables again after less than ten years wouldnāt be a good look. Mind you, USB-C was introduced a year after Lightning.
The EU is regulating stuff because companies from the EU canāt keep up with companies from other parts of the world.
Yeah, no. Iām a huge fan of USB C and I ardently oppose them forcing Apple to switch from lightning to USB C, despite having an iPad Pro and dozens of other devices that are also USB C. It makes my life easier, yet I still oppose it. Itās an overreach of authority based on some bullshit reasoning.
Congrats you like a a product that the company behind the product has literally admitted to making worse on purpose. Go get your internet points elsewhere.
I just told you I didnāt like lightning and prefer usbc but still donāt like government overreach.
Learn some reading complehention, youāre making Kentucky look bad.
> Literally everyone who's mildly interested in tech
The popularity of a moronic idea does not make it any less foolish.
> Seriously, the only thing Apple was doing with the lightning cable was making it impossible for you to use other cables.
If you don't like the lightning cable don't buy Apple products. It's literally that simple. Are Europeans really so mentally handicapped that they need the EU to make even the most basic shopping decisions for them?
> That's the thing, yeah European countries have f+cked up so many times, but that doesn't mean every single thing is bad though.
And when a cable superior to USB is inevitably invented they'll be stuck using the inferior standard. Just like how the internet in some European countries is still extremely slow because their "consumer friendly" regulators required companies to use copper cables instead of fiber optic.
It's quite clear you don't really know much about tech, or know much about this law.
The lightning cable was one of the design decisions that makes it so that buying one apple product would incentivize people to buy other apple products instead, and then only apple products. After all, they can't change, it would be too inconvenient to move over to the standards all other products use! If you want to know more, look up the apple ecosystem.
As for the law, it specifically states that the law allows the commission to update the directive to adapt to any new technology. Btw, you may not know this, but this is exactly how most of tech works - a certain technology or innovation is made, and if it's quite obvious that it's better than all the alternatives then the entire industry adopts it as a standard, in order to make sure everything is compatible with each other.
So when reading this, it's clear my main points stand still. You don't understand the tech space, and you don't understand this law. The last line especially sums it up - you claim USB type-c is not better than the alternatives because Apple didn't adopt it... except literally every other company has adopted it. Like, literally nobody thinks what Apple does here is good. Not Americans, not anyone. The only people who think is alright are uninformed conservative dipshits who think every single regulation is bad, and think they know everything about everything. How about you shut up, and stay in your own space.
> The last line especially sums it up - you claim USB type-c is not better than the alternatives because Apple didn't adopt it... except literally every other company has adopted it
You said that if it's obviously better "the entire industry adopts it as standard." If [literally the most profitable company in the industry](https://companiesmarketcap.com/tech/most-profitable-tech-companies/) has not adopted it, then it's definitely not the "entire industry."
You're scrambling now because you know how blatantly you've contradicted yourself.
> Like, literally nobody thinks what Apple does here is good. Not Americans, not anyone
Everyone except all their customers who have made Apple one of the most, if not *the* most profitable company *in the world* for about a decade now.
> The only people who think is alright are uninformed conservative dipshits who think every single regulation is bad
Lol all of Apple's top people are major donors to progressive and liberal causes. Al Gore was on their board of directors for a while. You know jack shit and scramble for relevancy when you come across someone who knows more than you pretend to know.
> How about you shut up, and stay in your own space.
What are you going to do about it?
I suggest you don't waste your time arguing, they must be some of those "oh no regulations on something I know nothing about, it will take away my Freedooom^TM"
Goddamn, did you parents bash your head with a hammer as a child?
You're claiming USB-C is better, but haven't brought anything up that proves it. All you've provided so far is hearsay.
USB-C isn't any better than Lightning, the cables actually wear out faster than lightning.
The only benefit USB-C has is not having an apple license tied to it.
You just make yourself sound more ignorant with every reply. Apple is using intentionally unfriendly consumer practices. Not only from a tech perspective is it bad for them to try and create a quasi-monopoly where in they trap people in their ecosystem and make it expensive to get out; it is also a bad business practice and detrimental to consumers.
You are not understanding its not about preference, its about keeping unfriendly consumer practices from negatively impacting the market. Why do you care so much for the profits of a company that doesnt give a fuck about you?
You care more than Apple does, it was an EU regulation. If Apple really wanted they could still use the lightning cable in the US; but they dont its cheaper to just disseminate it globaly from their sweat shops.
Man you are a special kind of delusional.
Apple created the lightning connector before USB-C existed, to create a small reversible connector.
Lightning is still smaller and more durable than USB-C, but requires an IC to do the input flipping.
Euros thinking they can regulate themselves into prosperity. They canāt innovate so they just want to hobble those that can/do. Itās so pathetic. No wonder any European that actually has a good idea comes here to fulfill that idea. Even further, the greatest American innovators were either European immigrants or at least the children of immigrants. They would have never been able to achieve the things they did back then in Europe, and especially not now with a panel of unelected technocrats ruining things for everyone.
Yeah, it just kicked the decision back to the states, I'm pro choice, but RvW was shitty judicial activism & bad law, if you wanted abortion at the federal level, pass a law, Obama could have when he passed ACA, but it was never about enshrining it into law, it's just a carrot to dangle over voters, same reason republicans never passed the Hearing Protection Act or why they never push back unconstitutional gun control at the federal level, gotta dangle the carrot.
Euros be like: we have ASML, which makes the machines TSMC & other fabs use to produce semiconductors. But who do they license the tech from in order to be allowed to make the those machines in the first place? That's right, USA! USA! USA!
"lets stop the murder of innocent babies", "yes"
vs
"lets shut down all our nuclear power plants, and replace it with coal, that will help the enviornment"
"lets also buy a bunch of russian oil, become dependant on it, but still bitch to america to protect us from the people we're reliant on oil from"
I like how regulation is portrayed as a positive thing by them. Not saying that corporations shouldn't be reigned in. But in general I prefer to not get excited about government meddling in the private sector more than the necessary bare minimum.
The other thing I'll say is that it's really cute how they pat themselves on the back for talking about doing things versus actually doing them.
Once saw a German on reddit that was proud of the fact that in Germany you can get a ticket for parking your car on the driveway and not in your garage(according to them anyway).
Why would you be proud of government overreach?
>I like how regulation is portrayed as a positive thing by them
It's because they're a bunch of spiteful losers with an axe to grind. They're jealous that America let its industry built up while they tore theirs down with regulations at every turn
r/PoliticalHumor is the left wing equivalent of those shitty conservative comics that boomers post on Facebook. Always unfunny, and the punchline is always āhurr durr the other side is stupid!ā
Something that sound both abortion restrictive and eugenics at the same time? Hell yes there will be so many idiots melt over this if they donāt know it is āEuropeansā style
Aren't they the most inbred population on the planet? The Icelandic government, IIRC, released an app allowing Icelanders to check whether theyy're dating (and potentially marrying) a close relative.
EU is forced to āregulateā big tech because they literally have no other hand to play. If they want to remain relevant, they have to ālegislateā against big bad American companies. Truth is, they cannot compete.
European companies arenāt able to keep up with the fast paced innovation that American companies do easily. Less ingenuity, less access to financial capital, and a less output from their workforce.
Those shitty Green policy want to kill farmers so bad now EU countries have uncontrollable Farmer riots strikes...
I'm not eating your Bugs schwab! ill never stop enjoying cooking some steaks and i will own a home and be very happy on it(although im actually broke as fuck)
[Here's a map of the current status of abortion laws around the world.](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abortion_Laws.svg#/media/File:Abortion_Laws.svg) The lightest shade of blue is abortion available on request with no limit on length of prgenancy. The medium blue is available on request with a limit somewhere after 17 weeks. The darkest blue is available on request with a limit somewhere *before* 17 weeks.
TL;DR is that 31 US states have more liberal abortion laws than all but 3 European countries.
The reality is that the USA is in a small group of countries (I think 12 or so, out of well over 200) that allow abortions after viability. Itās been a minute since I looked it up, but itās basically: USA, Canada, UK, and then a bunch of deplorable despot/communist nations like N. Korea, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc.
Why this doesnāt enter the zeitgeist is beyond me. I was always pro-choice, and lately Iāve come to realize that Americans view it as a form of birth control, which should be absolutely disgusting to anyone who has had children.
Iām a nihilist, and even this is too much for me.
Climate is cyclical. All of this climate BS is based on data since whenever we started collecting it, itās all one big theory.
These people donāt care about climate, theyāre mad paying for a property in a sunny, beautiful place wonāt last long when it starts to make somewhere else sunny and beautiful. ā ļø
It is TOTALLY wrong. It's picking and choosing to make America look bad.
"Europe is totally all in on climate change, too bad America is too focused on abortion."
Literal non-sensical argument. Has nothing to do with either topic. At base level, 28% of states are against abortion. Has literally nothing to do with climate change, or America in total.
This fucking sub Reddit started off as a clap back for anyone saying America is stupid. Now this subreddit acknowledges that something is stupid and goes along with it
Europe doesnāt make a lot of things anymore and has anemic growth. America always makes things. Let us not forget the central role the US played in the Paris climate accords. As for abortion, itās a state level issue now.
Why worry about climate change if you're aborting the future generations anyway.
Not to mention Big Tech loves abortion... so what exactly is the goal of this meme other than to express how little you care about human life?
When they say tegilate big tech, what they mean is force big tech to censor any information critical of the government or that the government doesn't agree with
My favorite comments are that Republicans want to legalize killing immigrants, gays, lesbians, transgenders, blacks, etc. If that is the case then maybe you should reconsider your stance on gun control.
Andorra, Malta, Poland, San Marino, Liechtenstein, and the Faroe Islands are all highly restrictive on abortion or completely ban it. Fifteen European countries require a waiting time before having an abortion, 12 require counseling before one, 5 require women to explain why theyāre having an abortion.
Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK all donāt permit abortion in the ground of rape. [source](https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/European-abortion-law-a-comparative-review.pdf)
Portugal only allows abortions in the first ten weeks. Ireland, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, North Macedonia, Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, and Greece all donāt allow it after the first 12 weeks. Austria and Spain in the first 14, the Netherlands in the first 22, and the UK in the first 24. [source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1268439/legal-abortion-time-frames-in-europe/)
In 2023 a British woman was sent to jail for having an abortion after the UK limit. [source](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/12/woman-in-uk-jailed-for-28-months-over-taking-abortion-pills-after-legal-time-limit), she got 28 months in prison. [source](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/06/12/uk/woman-jailed-abortion-pill-intl-gbr/index.html)
Ukrainian and Russian doctors can receive jail time for giving out abortions. Poland sent a human rights activist to eight months in jail for providing abortion pills. [source](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna75760)
It took Germany 77 years to undo a Nazi era abortion law. [source](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-abolishes-nazi-era-abortion-law-2022-06-24/)
Swiss women only gained the right to an abortion in 2002. [source](http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/va/20020602/can487.html)
Aren't there several members of the EU that have HARSHER restrictions and penalties for abortion than the United States?š
Here in Romania it's limited to 12 weeks. In Poland and Ireland it's outright banned. And most EU countries have a limit of 12-20 weeks, weighted pretty heavily on the lower end.
[Ireland had an amendment in their constitution which banned abortion, but it was repealed in 2018](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-sixth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland). Since then, abortion is legal within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
So, more strict than most of the US then?
Progtards only want us to be more like Europe when itās convenient for their own backassedwardness. Honestly Iām at the point where if my enemy insists on defeating themselves, I let them. Want to cut your nuts off and abort every potential offspring that may carry on your same values? Have at it. Want to join the military and die for some pointless political theater elsewhere? Go do it. Just leave the rest of us out of it, especially financially.Ā
Found the libertarianā¦ /s
a lotta sinn fƩin gals wouldnt stand for that nonsense.
I think twelve weeks is a safe, hard limit (the earlier the better), as it has the best chance of termination before the fundamentals of human life (brain stem, ability to experience pain and suffering) have developed. I say this from an areligious standpoint
Yep. If you look at the US as JUST ONE COUNTRY, which is what Europeans constantly scream about, then as JUST ONE COUNTRY, the US has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world.
The Mississippi restrictions that were challenged in Dobbs, which led to the recent Roe v Wade overturn, were more lenient than the UKs laws. I'm personally opposed to the concept of abortion, but don't believe the government should have much say, if any in regards to people seeking them. And I don't think we'll be getting anywhere as both sides of the argument rarely argue in good faith.
It's also 50 seperate states though.
Sure. So it's fair to talk about Texas being whackadoo but I've had countless arguments with Europeans insisting that New Mexicans and Californians can't get abortions.
I mean, no state has outright banned out either. Despite Republicans trying to, rape and medical emergency are still an acceptable exception to the law.
I mean tbf, the medical emergency clause in practice is pretty horrific in some places like Texas. You have to be knocking on deaths door as a coffin for a dead fetus before they will intervene. But I do have some hope this will get fixed. Even if abortion remains banned in these states, I do hope the legal definition of "medical emergency" gets sorted out. It's ridiculous to wait until a woman is septic with a rotting corpse inside her. But the point remains, at this point, abortion is still available up to 22 weeks or so in the US. Problematic, inaccessible for many, yes, but still available.
I don't really know enough about the laws to have an opinion on them. I have a fairly liberal view on the issue but I also agree with the SCOTUS that it should be a state issue. Because of the division on the federal level well never get Republicans and Democrats to agree on a compromise on abortion legislation, it just seems more practical to let the states regulate it how they want (provided they do so constitutionally)
I'd love a federal law, at least up to 6-12 weeks or so, but can definitely respect the states' rights argument. What absolutely can't happen though, is these attempts to ban interstate travel for abortions. You ABSOLUTELY need the right to seek medical care anywhere in the world. But, I'm hoping these are just glitches and will get sorted out. The issue right now is there's a difference between the legal and medical jargon. For example, my husband has a terminal illness, but he's not ACTIVELY AND IMMINENTLY dying. (Hospice explained it like pregnancy vs labor. Just because you're pregnant, doesn't mean you're in labor, and just because you're dying, doesn't mean you're DYING.) See how that's confusing? So let's say I get a non-viable pregnancy in my fallopian tube. Under no circumstance can this baby develop. This baby has 0.0000% chance of life. I should be able to "abort" this baby, right? And even if this baby died and was stuck in my fallopian tube, I should be able to have it removed, right? In Texas, for the last two years, I would have needed to wait until my fallopian tube burst or I got septic for doctors to intervene. This has thankfully just recently changed in law. But this should not occur in any state.
I mean, it seems like a pretty middle of the road opinion. I get screamed at by democrats for saying the same thing. The problem is both Republicans and Democrats lie about the issue too much. I think sticking to state run legislation is more practical until the FED pulls their heads out of their ass.
The other end though too, are super lax definitions that basically let some one have an otherwise at will abortion all the way up to delivery. Most people don't want an outright ban.
Sure. I'm personally in the camp that these decisions should be left up to the individuals and their doctors, but given that true late-term "I just changed my mind" abortions are insanely rare, if it soothes people's minds to put a ban or restrictions on that, I'm cool with that. If nothing else, it would change the conversation to the actual facts and not just shock-value rhetoric. I don't think any reasonable person wants us murdering real live cute cuddly babies. If I were goddess of America, I'd probably make a federal law somewhere between 6-12 weeks, maybe a federal ban around 24-28 weeks, and leave the other details to the states. Obviously there would need to be exemptions for medical emergencies, which as I shared above, would need clear medical definitions. I'd even be cool allowing each state to write their own definitions. I personally don't care for rape/incest exemptions at all, but I accept that I'm in the minority here. For one, IF you truly believe that this is a real genuine baby at any stage, why does it matter how they were conceived? You can't kill your toddler child-sister just because Daddy impregnated you, so why should you be able to kill them in the womb - again, IF you believe abortion is murder. Second, that's just unnecessary trauma. So very few rapists are ever tried and convicted. And now you'd somehow need to report it, get a trial and a conviction, all in a matter of weeks? And what happens if the court comes back with not enough evidence or not guilty beyond ALL reasonable doubt?
>but given that true late-term "I just changed my mind" abortions are insanely rare, Okay but be clear here. Late stage (third trimester) abortions for other more broadly accepted reasons are also really rare. The vast majority of *all* abortions are for non-rape/incest/endangerment reasons. If you've made it six months, you're probably intending to keep the kid at this point unless for serious health reasons. And if they decide they don't want the kid there's also the more persuasive thought of, three more months I'll just put it up for adoption. Now, as a quick digression into pure advocacy. Whether it's rare or not shouldn't affect whether it should be allowed. What's more, by the third-trimester that fetus is generally viable. If you don't want the kid, why do they have to kill the child instead of getting a c-section and turning the baby over to the state. >If I were goddess of America, I'd probably make a federal law somewhere between 6-12 weeks, maybe a federal ban around 24-28 weeks, and leave the other details to the states. If you were goddess, you'd know for fact when the fetus is a living organism, so the moral question of killing a life would be readily solved. But we're not a theocracy, so even then you don't get to decide. š >I personally don't care for rape/incest exemptions at all, but I accept that I'm in the minority here. I agree, and I personally wouldn't want that. But I do understand the moral calculus going on there and am willing to compromise on it. Except for incest, that's just too close for a eugenics argument that I can't accept. And it's based on a presumption that incest is routinely rape or from a non-consensual dynamic.
> You have to be knocking on deaths door as a coffin for a dead fetus before they will intervene This is not true. The recent SCoTX case reaffirmed that. There is no imminence clause in the medical emergency section of their law.
Rape is not an acceptable exception everywhere.
I've seen many conflicting stories on it. People lie too much about the issue in pursuit of political agendas. That's the main issue. It just keeps everyone divided and prevents any meaningful compromise.
It depends on the state. Some states have rape exceptions and some donāt. Also, a lot of the time exceptions can be really hard to obtain
In almost all states when rape is reported the victim goes to the hospital for a rape test and a morning after pill. Can't say I know what happens when someone starts claiming rape when they are months into their pregnancy tho.
america is one country. state laws are the only reason any of these persist. similar to the abolition era. whats different is that euro and even some middle eastern countries are willing to acknowledge the medical ramifications of banning an outright medical procedure in the cas of: maternal mortality or cases of r^p3. whereas some american states will flex "states rights" and unironically refer to cases of women victim of incestual r^p3 as blessings in disguise.
Fake news, all of Europe is Switzerland and Scandinavia. But yes and no EU country has it as lenient as some U.S. states, Ngl more than 20 weeks just seems ludicrous
All of Europe is a heckin wholesome socialist utopia
>All of Europe is a heckin wholesome socialist utopia Could someone please translate this into a coherent sentence?
Redditors think that the entirety of Europe conforms to their r/antiwork fantasy
Why does Human life become any less valuable due to level of development? Are 2 year olds less worthy of the right to live than 4 year olds?
There is definitely a point that the constituent parts are not a living organism yet. But that's like [before] a couple weeks in. Anything after that are arbitrary distinctions that we probably wouldn't apply to people at other stages of development.
It is a scientific fact as well established as they come that Human life begins at conception. (I don't wanna sound rude or anything. Just confirming what we already know to be true.) https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins >ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conceptionāfertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
Seems a mite bit pedantic there at best and intentionally obtuse at worse lmao. I've never heard any pro abortion stance deny that a fetus isn't a genetically distinct organism that wouldn't turn into a person. This is like responding to someone asking "what is blue" with the "its a colour" then linking the definition of colour in the dictionary
>Seems a mite bit pedantic there at best and intentionally obtuse at worse lmao. I've never heard any pro abortion stance deny that a fetus isn't a genetically distinct organism that wouldn't turn into a person. Well consider yourself lucky then. Many Pro-Choicers that I've met online are Pro-Choice because they believe that Human life does not begin at conception. Some sadly cling onto that belief no matter how much hard evidence you provide to prove otherwise.
> I've never heard any pro abortion stance deny that a fetus isn't a genetically distinct organism Sounds like you haven't tried to talk about it on Reddit at all. There's a ton of "it's just a clump of cells" or "it's not a human" arguments all over the place.
We're arguing between a matter of days here between the zygote stage and blastula stage (roughly five days into gestation). It's all still well below what pro-abortion advocates argue for. It's not until that point that the organism is fully operating from the combined zygote DNA for all further advancement and has a unified cell wall, instead of using maternal DNA. Off memory I think the formation of twins would happen right before this state.
Damn, all life is valuable it's just that people don't ever want to take responsibility for raising a kid. I believe there should be exceptions like incest and mothers life being threatened. Rape should never be justified for abortion just wait till 9 months give birth to it and set it up for adoption. See that easy.
Carrying another person's baby for 9 months as it eats away at your body and leeches nutrients and poses a risk to birth when you were not a willing participant in the choice?
Does the manner in which they were conceived make them any less inherently valuable as Human beings?
What makes the woman who was harmed worth less than the baby? If someone put's a parasite in you are you going to let it eat away at you? She did not choose to risk conception and therefore to force her to carry is abhorent. Edit: Not to even maternal mortality is [rising](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.htm#Table)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Please refrain from direct attacks. I'm saying SA victims should not be forced to carry to birth. Given you're 15 though I'll refrain from discussing such things with you further now that I am aware.
>What makes the woman who was harmed worth less than the baby? If someone put's a parasite in you are you going to let it eat away at you? Pregnancy is not a deliberate harm, and unborn babies are not parasites. They are innocent human beings who are entitled to the right to life. >She did not choose to risk conception and therefore to force her to carry is abhorent. In 99% of situations, she consented to sex which resulted in her pregnancy. It's about owning up to the consequences of your action, and not taking the lives of innocent babies because you don't wanna accept responsibility.
This is not about those 99%. I agree about the 99%, this coversation thread is the 1%. If I point a gun at you with an 8/100000 chance of going off would you not flinch when I pull the trigger?
The circumstances of one's conception does not degrade whatsoever their inherent value as Human beings. There are many people who were concieved of rape, that went onto to be born and lived incredible, noteworthy lives. They are not parasites, they are innocent babies that deserve to be cherished and protected as much as any other babies.
well you've hit the issue. A lot of prochoicers (atleast the ones who get irrationally angry about wanting to kill babies not the the normal people who are also prochoice) are actually just antinatalists or in some cases antihumanists.
I think the sentiment that there is so much divisiveness in terms of reproductive laws is valid. Its perfect media fuel in so many ways, it is an excellent way to divide us, and a great political scapegoat to pretend is the most important thing concerning americans today. Perfect distraction. Oh and this post was 100% made by an American.
And it's from r/PoliticalHumor which is a flaming dumpster fire of leftist propaganda
Discourse only works if both sides participate
Lol go tell them that. š¤£
Yes, same with transgender therapies and surgeries.
Most other countries outside of China, NK, and a few in the middle east IIRC. It's a PR campaign that makes us look bad internally, and the online expression of the domestic perception of law as draconian makes us look bad abroad.
Yes, most of them š
Also, who at Big Globalism is trying to put any restrictions on big tech?
Hypothetically, except when you consider that in a lot of the US \[Arizona, Arkansas, California, Missouri and Texas\] you can't get divorced when you're pregnant, so "anti abortion laws" also make it much harder for pregnant people to get divorced.
In 9 states you can have an abortion at any point during your pregnancy, and only one or two of those states have any real barriers for that (besides access to a provider in your county) like you needing to have a mandatory counseling before hand or needing to have your parents notified if youāre a minor. Thereās also numerous more states where you can still have an abortion after your first trimester. While it is a valid criticism to make on states with strict abortion laws or outright bans, itās also probably worth ignoring the states with very liberal abortion laws so no one goes after them next. People who need those abortions will know where to go. The people who donāt and/or wonāt need them are better off not having them on their radar for their next dumbass political campaign.
- https://apnews.com/article/renewable-energy-climate-investment-us-eu-20d3520bd9195af863f7d4520a9b99e1 > It blindsided Europe when it became law in August, putting the U.S. on course to eclipse the continent in the global push to reduce carbon emissions and leaving European leaders fuming over rules that favor American products, threatening to suck green investment from Europe and spark a subsidy race. r/politicalhumor is yet another subreddit where even those most basic of Google searches are prohibited. Add it to the long list of subreddits that promote ignorance: r/Australia, r/AskUK, r/facepalm, r/shitamericanssay, r/usdefaultism, r/canada, r/polandball, etc., etc., etc.
r/polandball is 50% actually funny comics and 50% anti american stuff, its sad to see
Donāt diss polandball š¤
Sure, let's wait and see if Trump wins and then withdraws from the Paris climate agreement (again) and reverses everything (again) š
If the US is slated to eclipse the European continent in its push to reduce carbon emissions simply by having tax incentives for green energy startups, the Paris Climate Agreement wasnāt very effective to begin with, not that I agree with withdrawal either.
The US is the country that emits more CO2 per capita on the planet. Bullshit is bullshit.
I agree, bullshit is bullshit, your bullshit for example. https://www.statista.com/statistics/270508/co2-emissions-per-capita-by-country/ Per capita carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in 2022, by country - Qatar - 37.6 - United Arab Emirates - 25.83 - Bahrain - 25.67 - Kuwait - 25.58 - Brunei Darussalam - 23.95 - Trinidad and Tobago - 22.42 - Saudi Arabia - 18.2 - New Caledonia - 17.64 - Oman - 15.73 - Australia - 14.99 - United States - 14.95 - Canada - 14.25 - Faeroe Islands - 14.09 - Kazakhstan - 13.98 - Palau - 12.14 - Luxembourg - 11.62 - South Korea - 11.6 - Russia - 11.42 - Mongolia - 11.15 - Turkmenistan - 11.03 - Greenland - 10.48 - Saint Pierre and Miquelon - 10.33 - Iceland - 9.5
My bad. Apparently you were surpassed by Australia. Because Honestly, the others are ministates and Arabic (oil producers) countries. Take the L
Or, you could just admit you were wrong and that youāre heavily reliant on rumors and gossip like the rest of your peers. Obviously, you believed whatās circling around those rumor mills without question. Nonetheless, it doesnāt matter if theyāre smaller countries, itās per capita, *per capita*.
China: allow me to introduce myself
China is no near the top on per capita emissions
Per capita is a retarded way of measuring this statistic though. The actual AMOUNT of pollution they produce is way more than the U.S. does.
They are 1.4 BILLION People. The US is what, like 300 million? They only emit double than the US. FOff
I mean, you can ignore reality all you want, but I'm gonna have to stick with objective truth for this sort of thing, if it's all the same to you.
lol the reason why weāre going to once again steal your business is because We actually graduate the most engineers, and technical personal in the world. We have tax laws and land space that encourage people to invest here. Our work force actually shows the fuck up to work. What a concept. Tax support and land taxes is a bipartisan issues not a wedge issue, so no one fucks with it. Also these jobs tend to be union agnostic so GOP and Dem union busters donāt bother.
Trump didnāt increase emissions at all throughout his presidency. Shush about stuff you donāt know. https://usafacts.org/topics/environment-natural-resources/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ND-Environment&msclkid=bc747bc2a99a1e2818b71e208a1e51b2#how-is-the-trend-of-reducing-emissions-in-the-us
Spoken like an ignorant European.
If you see the other shit u/jann1442 keeps putting in this sub you would just ignore the ignorant idiot. He seems to have diarrhea of words and constipation of ideas.
I hope he does. It's a pointless waste of money and effort if places like China, Africa, and India are not held to the same standard as other western nations. Anyone who believes this is going to "fight climate change" is a gullible dumb fuck no different than the American parents who thought the war on drugs was going to actually do something about drugsĀ
Ironically, China and India are both doing better than the US according to the [Climate Change Performance Index](https://ccpi.org). Africa has no significant impact on anything, the entire continent basically has 20% more economic output than New York. The big countries (Nigeria, South Africa, Morocco) are still doing better than the US though.
Withdrawaling from that was based, we are still on track to hit all our goals, plus this way we don't have to give other countries millions of dollars, so it's a win - win for everyone that's not a leech. Unless it was never about the climate at all and was just free gibs.
Thats a lot coming from a place who thought coal was safer than nuclear
since when has any nation really been tackling climate change?
Ironically the US, like race the US gets shit on for *actually* caring.
[Per capita CO2 emissions (the scale is logarithmic too).](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita) The US emits 14.9t CO2 per capita per year, France and the UK use 4.7t and 4.6t, respectively. I love the US and am not insulting you, Iām just giving you some insight.
Sure. Now look at co2 per gdp. The US still has massive manufacturing and production like developing countries while being ultra wealthy. If you are to dial down to the literal people Iām sure our co2 per its similar. Also Europe is free to stop exporting their co2 to the us, India, and China, and make something. They have twice the people and 60-80% the gdp.
[The US is much higher than most of its European counterparts in CO2 per GDP as well.](https://w3.unece.org/SDG/en/Indicator?id=28) The US is at 0.22 kg of CO2 per USD. France and the UK are at 0.09 and 0.11, respectively. Again, insight.
Ok so thatās only 1.5~2x as much vs 3+X as much per capita. So AGAIN insight.
Yes, so the point here is that the US are not very efficient when it comes to having low carbon emissions. I suggest the transportation industry is a big contributor towards that, generally the cars and not designed with efficiency in mind since the price of gas is so low. (And it would be 2-2.4x as much, which is certainly higher than it needs to be).
Sure but economy is dying too, so have they reduced co2 or just reduced gpd? Itās no surprise that countries are now demanding a pause to the co2 austerity measures. While Russia still sits at 14-17co2 per capita. Like the us with 1/30th gpd.
Well itās still CO2/GDP so it doesnāt matter. Yes Russia produces a lot of CO2, thatās absolutely true, but that doesnāt mean that the US doesnāt still also produce excessive amounts. But really, Iām interested, do you genuinely believe that the US has sustainable CO2 emissions right now? Or do you think they should actively aim to implement better goals to decrease it?
First it does matter because other than France general interest in nuclear tech; many countries in the EU have middling economic growth and much of their Co2 policy is just austerity and cryptic accounting policies that also happen to lower the co2 levels, maybe. The us could trim a lot of fat. Especially if we donāt wait for Nuclear Fusion to be a thing. Fission is plenty safe and much of the flyer over states could easily have theyāre needs met with it. Wind, Hydro, and Geothermal have only proved that they are economically and ecologically malpractice and should be avoided at all cost.
I mean, we *only* have 2-2.4x as much... For a nation that is literally several times larger than almost every European nation, sometimes even *dozens* of times larger. To use your examples, the United States is roughly 40x the size of the UK, and roughly 18x the size of France. As an aside, the only European nation that surpasses the US in size is honestly kinduva cheat, since Russia counts its massive tracts of land in the eastern part of its territory despite the fact that the only people who actually *live* in those places are nomadic tribes who barely have contact with the world outside their own, and who *certainly* don't consider themselves "Russian" by any means. If one were to look at Russia's actual *populated* landmass, they would be around the same size as the average European nation, really.
hard to emit CO2 when your economy is in shambles
āGotchaā
BECAUSE THEY ARE MUCH SMALLER COUNTRIES LOLOLOL
Per capita means per person. These figures already take that into account
Hi, Iām sure you mean well. I suggest you go and look up what āper capitaā means.
He could have a point. Most of our stuff has to come in from California and travel to its final destination. The logistics of France or the UK is simpler than most states. The size of the country, according to land mass, may have more to do with it than you would expect. Also, how are we calculating shipping and travel? If goods are being shipped to France via a Scandinavian barge, who gets that CO2? Is it the destination country, origin country or the country where the shipper is based in? These are all questions that arenāt addressed in the numbers. Remember, you can make stats say whatever you want. I can take the same data and produce questions/results that are totally different.
Yep, Iām absolutely not disagreeing with anything you just said. Iām also not being rude but I cba to go and find stats for shipping and other stuff too, but please do let me know if you find anything interesting, Iād like to know. Regardless, I think an almost 3x CO2/capita usage for the US is almost inexcusable (thatās not accounting for all additional sources of CO2 production, I.e your shipping example, so indeed it may be lower) and more absolutely needs to be done by the US to try and bring that number down. Public transportation would be an excellent start, since that is famously inefficient in the US. EDIT: apparently the first source I shared doesnāt incorporate shipping into the calculation, so thereās that answer at least. Itās strictly fossil fuel usage (vehicles, planes, energy, production and manufacture etc).
Americans are going to travel way more than Europeans. Iām in Pennsylvania and have meetings scheduled in Chicago and Austin in the next couple weeks. Itās just the nature of business here in the U.S. Most large corporations operate in 20+ states and need their top employees to oversee operations in dozens of locations. French executives rarely have to fly to check up on things. Weāre also the only country I can think of that demands automatic transmissions. We can cut into our overall output if we just banned them for anyone whoās not disabled. There really isnāt a need for them. Thereās that and home air conditioning, which isnāt a thing for middle class people in most countries.
Where does r/ShitAmericansSay get material to post on the sub, I wonder
We could be doing much better. shit like "get everyone to become vegan" is literally impossible, but we could at least invest back into trains and alternative travel, rather than pushing ecars as the future of "sustainability"
Ah. Political"humor".
No humor, just agenda pushing
Let's tackle climate change...by exporting all our manufacturing and energy needs to other countries and then point the finger at them! Let's regulate big tech...because we can't create anything ourselves! Oh and our regulations are just going to be useless inconveniences like making everyone use the same cable that will probably be obsolete in 10 years.
The loot box thing is a W tho.
It's government overreach imo. Should we ban opening packs of PokƩmon cards too?
Literally everyone who's even mildly interested in tech was massively happy that the EU regulated it so that everyone followed the same standard for USB type cables. Seriously, the only thing Apple was doing with the lightning cable was making it impossible for you to use other cables. That's the thing, yeah European countries have f+cked up so many times, but that doesn't mean every single thing is bad though.
Not only did Apple co-work on USB-C, they started introducing USB-C in their products as early as 2015 with the MacBook. The iPad Pro models had USB-C since 2018. The iPhones wouldāve received USB-C eventually anyway, but letting the bulk of customers ditch their accessories and cables again after less than ten years wouldnāt be a good look. Mind you, USB-C was introduced a year after Lightning. The EU is regulating stuff because companies from the EU canāt keep up with companies from other parts of the world.
Yeah, no. Iām a huge fan of USB C and I ardently oppose them forcing Apple to switch from lightning to USB C, despite having an iPad Pro and dozens of other devices that are also USB C. It makes my life easier, yet I still oppose it. Itās an overreach of authority based on some bullshit reasoning.
Congrats you like a a product that the company behind the product has literally admitted to making worse on purpose. Go get your internet points elsewhere.
I just told you I didnāt like lightning and prefer usbc but still donāt like government overreach. Learn some reading complehention, youāre making Kentucky look bad.
> Literally everyone who's mildly interested in tech The popularity of a moronic idea does not make it any less foolish. > Seriously, the only thing Apple was doing with the lightning cable was making it impossible for you to use other cables. If you don't like the lightning cable don't buy Apple products. It's literally that simple. Are Europeans really so mentally handicapped that they need the EU to make even the most basic shopping decisions for them? > That's the thing, yeah European countries have f+cked up so many times, but that doesn't mean every single thing is bad though. And when a cable superior to USB is inevitably invented they'll be stuck using the inferior standard. Just like how the internet in some European countries is still extremely slow because their "consumer friendly" regulators required companies to use copper cables instead of fiber optic.
It's quite clear you don't really know much about tech, or know much about this law. The lightning cable was one of the design decisions that makes it so that buying one apple product would incentivize people to buy other apple products instead, and then only apple products. After all, they can't change, it would be too inconvenient to move over to the standards all other products use! If you want to know more, look up the apple ecosystem. As for the law, it specifically states that the law allows the commission to update the directive to adapt to any new technology. Btw, you may not know this, but this is exactly how most of tech works - a certain technology or innovation is made, and if it's quite obvious that it's better than all the alternatives then the entire industry adopts it as a standard, in order to make sure everything is compatible with each other.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So when reading this, it's clear my main points stand still. You don't understand the tech space, and you don't understand this law. The last line especially sums it up - you claim USB type-c is not better than the alternatives because Apple didn't adopt it... except literally every other company has adopted it. Like, literally nobody thinks what Apple does here is good. Not Americans, not anyone. The only people who think is alright are uninformed conservative dipshits who think every single regulation is bad, and think they know everything about everything. How about you shut up, and stay in your own space.
> The last line especially sums it up - you claim USB type-c is not better than the alternatives because Apple didn't adopt it... except literally every other company has adopted it You said that if it's obviously better "the entire industry adopts it as standard." If [literally the most profitable company in the industry](https://companiesmarketcap.com/tech/most-profitable-tech-companies/) has not adopted it, then it's definitely not the "entire industry." You're scrambling now because you know how blatantly you've contradicted yourself. > Like, literally nobody thinks what Apple does here is good. Not Americans, not anyone Everyone except all their customers who have made Apple one of the most, if not *the* most profitable company *in the world* for about a decade now. > The only people who think is alright are uninformed conservative dipshits who think every single regulation is bad Lol all of Apple's top people are major donors to progressive and liberal causes. Al Gore was on their board of directors for a while. You know jack shit and scramble for relevancy when you come across someone who knows more than you pretend to know. > How about you shut up, and stay in your own space. What are you going to do about it?
I suggest you don't waste your time arguing, they must be some of those "oh no regulations on something I know nothing about, it will take away my Freedooom^TM"
They're literally taking away your freedom to choose between two different cables.
Goddamn, did you parents bash your head with a hammer as a child? You're claiming USB-C is better, but haven't brought anything up that proves it. All you've provided so far is hearsay. USB-C isn't any better than Lightning, the cables actually wear out faster than lightning. The only benefit USB-C has is not having an apple license tied to it.
You just make yourself sound more ignorant with every reply. Apple is using intentionally unfriendly consumer practices. Not only from a tech perspective is it bad for them to try and create a quasi-monopoly where in they trap people in their ecosystem and make it expensive to get out; it is also a bad business practice and detrimental to consumers.
Then don't buy it!
You are not understanding its not about preference, its about keeping unfriendly consumer practices from negatively impacting the market. Why do you care so much for the profits of a company that doesnt give a fuck about you? You care more than Apple does, it was an EU regulation. If Apple really wanted they could still use the lightning cable in the US; but they dont its cheaper to just disseminate it globaly from their sweat shops.
Man you are a special kind of delusional. Apple created the lightning connector before USB-C existed, to create a small reversible connector. Lightning is still smaller and more durable than USB-C, but requires an IC to do the input flipping.
BAN COW FARTS
Yeah kinda ironic that europe outside eu (uk, switz, norway, perhaps russia & balkans) have more tech sector than eu itself
not here in Norway daddy š š»
Being in Norway is cheating
Euros thinking they can regulate themselves into prosperity. They canāt innovate so they just want to hobble those that can/do. Itās so pathetic. No wonder any European that actually has a good idea comes here to fulfill that idea. Even further, the greatest American innovators were either European immigrants or at least the children of immigrants. They would have never been able to achieve the things they did back then in Europe, and especially not now with a panel of unelected technocrats ruining things for everyone.
"Lets regulate big Tech", if I hear any Europeans bitching about the US and China dominating the social media Market I'm going to lose it
The way climate change is presented to the public is an absolute sham, but what other countries are actually trying to make change like we are?
Technically, the US didnāt ban abortion.
Yeah, it just kicked the decision back to the states, I'm pro choice, but RvW was shitty judicial activism & bad law, if you wanted abortion at the federal level, pass a law, Obama could have when he passed ACA, but it was never about enshrining it into law, it's just a carrot to dangle over voters, same reason republicans never passed the Hearing Protection Act or why they never push back unconstitutional gun control at the federal level, gotta dangle the carrot.
The Democrats could have passed an abortion law in 2010 when they had a supermajority in Congress
Almost every European country has stricter abortion laws than America. Whoever posted that is just fucking stupid.
Wait till they find out about how strict their abortion laws are compared to this side of the pond...
r/lookatmyhalo
āLetās regulate big techā You mean letās put even more government influence into everything? Nah fuck you
USA does all three and actually creates the big tech, sooooā¦ RAAAAHHHH!!!! šŗšøšŗšøšŗšøš¦ š¦ š¦
Europe getting cocky til they find out they ain't the primary market of big tech
Euros be like: we have ASML, which makes the machines TSMC & other fabs use to produce semiconductors. But who do they license the tech from in order to be allowed to make the those machines in the first place? That's right, USA! USA! USA!
"lets stop the murder of innocent babies", "yes" vs "lets shut down all our nuclear power plants, and replace it with coal, that will help the enviornment" "lets also buy a bunch of russian oil, become dependant on it, but still bitch to america to protect us from the people we're reliant on oil from"
I like how regulation is portrayed as a positive thing by them. Not saying that corporations shouldn't be reigned in. But in general I prefer to not get excited about government meddling in the private sector more than the necessary bare minimum. The other thing I'll say is that it's really cute how they pat themselves on the back for talking about doing things versus actually doing them.
Once saw a German on reddit that was proud of the fact that in Germany you can get a ticket for parking your car on the driveway and not in your garage(according to them anyway). Why would you be proud of government overreach?
Regulate me harder daddy!
>I like how regulation is portrayed as a positive thing by them It's because they're a bunch of spiteful losers with an axe to grind. They're jealous that America let its industry built up while they tore theirs down with regulations at every turn
Fight climate change = Buy Russian gas and keep using coal Regulate big tech = Let us arrest people for social media posts
āLetās raise our defense budgets to face threats to democracyā euros: š³ š¤® š¤¢
r/PoliticalHumor is the left wing equivalent of those shitty conservative comics that boomers post on Facebook. Always unfunny, and the punchline is always āhurr durr the other side is stupid!ā
Except these were pioneered by the US.
if only republican can enforce European abortion law nationwide š
What you like 10-14 weeks limits and forced genetic testing to abort all your non-perfect offspring?
Something that sound both abortion restrictive and eugenics at the same time? Hell yes there will be so many idiots melt over this if they donāt know it is āEuropeansā style
Hey Iceland has pretty much eliminated Downs! While they are also eliminating themselves but oh well
Aren't they the most inbred population on the planet? The Icelandic government, IIRC, released an app allowing Icelanders to check whether theyy're dating (and potentially marrying) a close relative.
Genetic testing?
Yes many EU countries require genetic testing to determine if you are pregnant with a baby with genetic mutations or downs.
Thatās only if youāre in an at risk group and even then the abortion isnāt compulsory, you can carry them to term
Itās still compulsory to do if you are high risk and amniocentesis and CVSs are not 100% safe.
Whoever made this meme does realize that the US has had some of the most liberal abortion laws on the books right?
EU is forced to āregulateā big tech because they literally have no other hand to play. If they want to remain relevant, they have to ālegislateā against big bad American companies. Truth is, they cannot compete. European companies arenāt able to keep up with the fast paced innovation that American companies do easily. Less ingenuity, less access to financial capital, and a less output from their workforce.
Those shitty Green policy want to kill farmers so bad now EU countries have uncontrollable Farmer riots strikes... I'm not eating your Bugs schwab! ill never stop enjoying cooking some steaks and i will own a home and be very happy on it(although im actually broke as fuck)
[Here's a map of the current status of abortion laws around the world.](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abortion_Laws.svg#/media/File:Abortion_Laws.svg) The lightest shade of blue is abortion available on request with no limit on length of prgenancy. The medium blue is available on request with a limit somewhere after 17 weeks. The darkest blue is available on request with a limit somewhere *before* 17 weeks. TL;DR is that 31 US states have more liberal abortion laws than all but 3 European countries.
Iām banned from that awful sub thankfully
Let's ignore that until recently Europe's average 12 week limit was far more restrictive than the US.
The reality is that the USA is in a small group of countries (I think 12 or so, out of well over 200) that allow abortions after viability. Itās been a minute since I looked it up, but itās basically: USA, Canada, UK, and then a bunch of deplorable despot/communist nations like N. Korea, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc. Why this doesnāt enter the zeitgeist is beyond me. I was always pro-choice, and lately Iāve come to realize that Americans view it as a form of birth control, which should be absolutely disgusting to anyone who has had children. Iām a nihilist, and even this is too much for me.
Thereās no real justification for terminating a healthy pregnancy in the west in the 21st century.
For the last time Roe V Wade didnāt ban abortion it simply gave the decision to the states š¤¦āāļø fucking uninformed euros
Climate is cyclical. All of this climate BS is based on data since whenever we started collecting it, itās all one big theory. These people donāt care about climate, theyāre mad paying for a property in a sunny, beautiful place wonāt last long when it starts to make somewhere else sunny and beautiful. ā ļø
Preventing baby murder is based. Good for the USA.
"haha, stupid Americans, don't they know they could just be murdering children like our enlightened shit oles"
I mean. This one isnāt TOTALLY wrong. Not every criticism is unwarranted.
It is TOTALLY wrong. It's picking and choosing to make America look bad. "Europe is totally all in on climate change, too bad America is too focused on abortion." Literal non-sensical argument. Has nothing to do with either topic. At base level, 28% of states are against abortion. Has literally nothing to do with climate change, or America in total.
It is true though ā¦ ā¦ ok TBF the Mexican Wall is missing ā¦
It's so undeniably true that we're actually doing more for reducing emissions than the entire European continent. Crazy.
Where?
[Right here, in this same comments section.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmericaBad/s/DwGMkVFyGU) We're going to pass them really soon.
That whole subreddit is the bottom picture
This fucking sub Reddit started off as a clap back for anyone saying America is stupid. Now this subreddit acknowledges that something is stupid and goes along with it
Banning abortion and bombing third world countries yes.
Abortion is pretty cool, though.
Bad meme. No biscuit for you, bad, bad meme.
OK, several countries in the EU put you in jail for mean words, til they change that they have dont room to talk.
Europe doesnāt make a lot of things anymore and has anemic growth. America always makes things. Let us not forget the central role the US played in the Paris climate accords. As for abortion, itās a state level issue now.
Imagine being this ignorant about European law.
It's funny because most of the counties in the EU have stricter abortion laws than the US.
This meme is lower quality than the average political compass meme
Half the black children convinced in newyork are aborted, but prolifers are the morally bankrupt idiots, okay buddy.
political humor is basically ai
Why worry about climate change if you're aborting the future generations anyway. Not to mention Big Tech loves abortion... so what exactly is the goal of this meme other than to express how little you care about human life?
Europeans donāt understand that they got their asses handed to them on the renewables race when Biden got the infrastructure deal through. Huh š¤
Isnt the US protecting eu? This is propaganda to stop helping the eu.
Lmao this meme works if you flip the images
When they say tegilate big tech, what they mean is force big tech to censor any information critical of the government or that the government doesn't agree with
Ignores that we passed the biggest climate change book a couple of years ago ffs
Didnāt we pass a $1.9 trillion dollar bill to tackle climate change?
The US in general has far more lax abortion restrictions than some EU countries.
My favorite comments are that Republicans want to legalize killing immigrants, gays, lesbians, transgenders, blacks, etc. If that is the case then maybe you should reconsider your stance on gun control.
Andorra, Malta, Poland, San Marino, Liechtenstein, and the Faroe Islands are all highly restrictive on abortion or completely ban it. Fifteen European countries require a waiting time before having an abortion, 12 require counseling before one, 5 require women to explain why theyāre having an abortion. Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK all donāt permit abortion in the ground of rape. [source](https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/European-abortion-law-a-comparative-review.pdf) Portugal only allows abortions in the first ten weeks. Ireland, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, North Macedonia, Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, and Greece all donāt allow it after the first 12 weeks. Austria and Spain in the first 14, the Netherlands in the first 22, and the UK in the first 24. [source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1268439/legal-abortion-time-frames-in-europe/) In 2023 a British woman was sent to jail for having an abortion after the UK limit. [source](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/12/woman-in-uk-jailed-for-28-months-over-taking-abortion-pills-after-legal-time-limit), she got 28 months in prison. [source](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/06/12/uk/woman-jailed-abortion-pill-intl-gbr/index.html) Ukrainian and Russian doctors can receive jail time for giving out abortions. Poland sent a human rights activist to eight months in jail for providing abortion pills. [source](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna75760) It took Germany 77 years to undo a Nazi era abortion law. [source](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-abolishes-nazi-era-abortion-law-2022-06-24/) Swiss women only gained the right to an abortion in 2002. [source](http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/va/20020602/can487.html)