view the rest of the comments
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:

- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
(Edit: Please see edit first for where I just realized this disconnect between reading and viewing might be coming from.)
Yeah, I really think it is. It's more evident if you watch the whole video (and I really think you should). I think he was implicating 15 to 19 rates as partial evidence that ages of pregnant women are climbing – but not problematic unto itself. Later in the video, he makes the claim that people are gravitating to waiting until they're into their 30s to have kids. I.e. the "problem" isn't that underage teens are getting pregnant less; a drop in teen pregnancies is just used as a symptom of the reasons people are waiting until late 20s, 30s, or never to have kids.
Points that he makes throughout the segment are things like advances in medical technology making late pregnancies much more viable, and that certainly isn't targeted at teen pregnancies.
Keep in mind that I have zero respect for this guy and would have no reason to doubt he would support teen pregnancies as "god's will" or whatever the shit: the cover of his book shown in the segment tells it all. Even through that lens, I just don't see it as anything more than a poor choice of words that can be easily quoted without the full surrounding context. I don't blame anyone who comes away from this thinking I'm wrong; he's earned not having a slip-up taken charitably.
EDIT: We weren't even talking about the same "it" here. Something I just noticed reading that again (and maybe why I didn't think it was fucked-up watching it): that Mediaite version of the quote gets it wrong in a subtle but very important way. The real quote is: "But the problem is teens and young adults. [keeping in mind 18 and 19 are teens] From ages 15 to 19 – the fertility rate is down seven percent [...]" Notice that there's a full stop in there. That's the way he says it. "Teens and young adults" in a healthy-ish sense of pregnancy (I don't think pregnancies at 18 are a great idea, but you do you, queen) would, to me, refer to 18 to 25-ish. Whereas the lack of a full stop (that's definitely present in his speech) implies "teens and young adults" means "15 to 19 exclusively". That distinct cut-off actually changes the meaning of what he's saying.
The "it" I was talking about was having them so close together. The "it" you were talking about was having 15 to 19 being a problem.
I really tried not to. I even paused the segment when it showed his book to find out it was talking about "healing through God" – which to me grossly crosses a line for what a medical doctor should be doing. I didn't go into the video thinking "this is bullshit"; I went into it because that's standard practice I have for reading "person says X"-type articles like this. That's why I was in such disbelief.
I don't even like his rhetoric about how waiting for stability is some problem in need of solving because young people need to sacrifice their lives for ~~the greater good~~ muh birthrate.
In sum, I think this guy's a shithead. What I don't think is that this guy is advocating for 15-year-olds getting pregnant like the headline and the ever-convenient typo in the quote suggest.
The media spin machine works on both sides.
Capitalism needs to constantly be fed, or the entity dies (reporter, newsroom, media company, etc.).
Unfortunately, it often turns to more unethical means to accomplish its goals - even here on the Threadiverse.
Just imagine why so many people vote conservative: they listen to false reporting, and after digging in GREAT depth, find out that the left has lied. Until they learn that the right ALSO lies, they are vulnerable... and also quite justified in their claims that the other side has lied to them. It's juvenile stuff, which somehow also predates humanity itself.
The spin-masters have harnessed this natural law and turned it to their own gain.