Conservative logic

Why should a woman have to go through 9 months of caring something inside her that she doesn't want and then have to go through extremely painful child birth? The adoption system in this country is horrible as well.

If you believe. The fetus is a human person then it is worth it. If not then its not worth it. That is the crux of the abortion debate. If the fetus a human being or not.

In my opinion if it feels pain and consciousness it's considered a living being. But informations about if a feotus feels pain at third trimester says all different things..

Plus, a drastic majority of abortions are first trimester, not to mention that a lot of attempts are made also at banning morning-after pills, which simply stop an embryo from implanting (before it even has more than a few thousand cells).

95%-98% of abortions are first trimester with a small amount falling under the second trimester. Third trimester abortions have been ruled prohibited by the Supreme Court.

But they happen often. So do partial birth abortions.

This is true. It's worth noting, though, that when we restrict access to reliable providers, the percentage of later term and attempted self-abortions goes up. It takes time to save up the money to travel long distances or out-of-state, and definitely to get desperate enough to try shit on your own. Texas is facing a lot of this right now - the trend seems to be trying "herbal" and other abortifacient techniques. So instead of removing recently-implanted embryos that have yet to develop an independent bloodstream, we end up with a greater number of actual dead fetuses.

Ok I may be lost here. Are you saying that since women are going to do it anyway we need to make it legal?
Since people are going to od on meth anyway should we make it legal? Since people are going to kill each other anyway... well you probably get where I'm going. I hope I'm misunderstanding your point, because if not that is an absolutely asinine excuse for allowing abortions.

I'm saying that it depends on where you draw the line. If you think a bundle of undifferentiated cells with human DNA is the same as a newborn human, then yes, you'd morally have to try to ban all abortion. However, if you, like me, believe that the *potential* to be human entity does not equal *being* a human entity and that that distinction falls somewhere between trimester two and three, when the neural capacity to do important things like respond to stimuli on a semiconscious level is developed, then by restricting early access to abortion providers you're actually creating a situation where *more* humans are killed.

To be honest I do not have a certain age (for lack of a better term) in mind where "ok" becomes "murder," and nor do I oppose abortion outright like many religious fanat... people do. There are certain circumstances where it is necessary. I do, however, oppose the cavalier attitudes that we seem to have toward it, and the utter lack of regard for human life while it is still as innocent as it could ever be while we protest the death penalty for the worst of the worst among us. We screech and howl about video games turning our children into violent sociopaths, while we think nothing of having their unborn brothers and sisters ripped from their wombs and dissected simply for our convenience. If there is really such a thing as a soul, we, as a society, are rapidly losing ours.

A person seeking an abortion in America is extremely unlikely to have a cavalier attitude about it.
In the first place, when we get pregnant without planning it? It's fucking terrifying. If you weren't considering implantable or permanent birth control options before, you are now.
In the second place, as much bullshit as we put up with with the Monthly Uterine Purge? Abortion's like that, times ten, with either a surgical procedure slapped on top or, if you catch it early enough to do a hormonal (non-invasive) procedure but not within say, two weeks, with little gobbets of flesh lumped in. I had a friend who was going to have to abort (for life-threatening medical reasons) miscarry, and while it wasn't exactly recognizably human... she didn't sleep for a while, let's say. The official line about it is "large blood clots or tissue."
And in the third place, there's also the decent chance you get to walk the gauntlet of protesters screaming at you about being a murderer and a slut.

I. Was. Talking. About. Society. Perhaps you've been around a conversation or two on the subject?
And not for nuthin but I've never known anyone who's had an abortion that didn't regret it. Unless one is a completely heartless and callous shell of a human being, it is something that will haunt you. Doesn't seem all that great a thing to me.

Well, "society" treats a lot of things with a cavalier attitude that aren't a cavalier subject for the people directly involved with them - rape, gender identity, sexuality, racially-based inequality - and normally when someone suggests that we not treat *those* subjects with a cavalier attitude, they're told not to be so sensitive.
I've known very few people who have had an abortion and not been *haunted* by it, but those I've known who've had them generally have to look at their lives and say yeah, I and/or my family would almost certainly be homeless/trapped in a jobless town/paraplegic if I hadn't done it.

Rubbers are cheap insurance. But seriously, paraplegic? I know kids cause crippling debt but literally crippling?

She's got a spinal defect. Carrying to term would probably have crushed a disc and a substantial portion of the nerves to her lower extremities. And both condoms and the pill have a 98% effectiveness rate, assuming perfect use - which means 1 in 50 women who use them perfectly will still get pregnant. Combine that with shitty US sex education, and the efficacy rate of condoms is really more down around 80-85%, because 1) "not remembering to pinch the reservoir at the end of the condom when applying" and other less obvious errors count as "imperfect use," and 2) the person applying the condom is also not always the person who cares if it works. Plus, I personally know someone whose boyfriend has sneaked off the condom during sex because it felt better. Dickbag.

Who's the dickbag?

The guy who would put on a condom and then sneak it off during sex.

That's what I figured. I hoped it wasn't me!
Yeah I agree there are definitely legitimate reasons for abortion, I just don't think convenience is one but I think the answer lies in changing people's values and attitudes, not in changing laws. I'm more concerned about where we are heading as a society though; I see abortion and just about all of these other "social issues" as symptoms rather than causes. Perhaps we (society at large) are merely having growing pains, perhaps we're circling the drain.

I tend to think it's growing pains. Honestly, most of the globe right now is in completely new territory technologically, both in terms of physical and social technology. If nothing else, the existence of the internet moves humanity out of an information scarcity environment, and I don't think we've ever NOT been in an information scarcity environment before. A LOT of things going on right now make it a Brave New World. Whatever comes out the other side may not exactly be recognizable, but it'll be something functional in the new environments. I just also hope it's not something without human empathy.

I hope you're right. It's easy to think things are worse than ever, or we've never seen such coarseness in our public discourse, or politics has never been so nasty or... whatever, but studying history it starts to become clear we really have been here before. Hell, politics used to be literally physical fights and even duels! But we never had the overwhelming amount of information and disinformation we have today, so we really didn't know about it and what we did know took time to get out and we had time to digest it before the next over hyped scandal hit us.

We worry that chaos exists in social settings today and manners are going down the tubes, but in a lot of ways, that's actually a good sign. Societies with rigid rules usually have those rules to regulate strong destructive impulses and forces; historically, societies that place a lot of value on politeness and social structure/roles, i.e., rigidly following social rules like "don't swear," "a man must open the door for a lady," etc., especially if they have heavy penalties for disobeying those rules (extreme example: a peasant who does not bow "low enough" for a samurai may be beheaded for the offense) also have the greatest inequality problems and degree of violence. So really, as long as it doesn't end up all going one way, it's kind of a good thing that we spend a lot of time yelling at each other about both things that do and do not matter.

Simply curious, but isn't there a movement against free birth control for women? From the Republican side? When I was reading this that's what I thought, instead of "birth control shouldn't be legal"

You two could get into real trouble for having opinions and stating facts. Good luck, I've got your 6.

Yes. There is outcry against taxpayer funded contraception. We need to stop back and re-evaluate what is important and prioritize spending.

Catholics usually go for Natural Family Planning. Basically you just pay attention to the cycles of your body, and can do the do when it's impossible to have a baby. The main difference between this and birth control though is that the couple must still be open to the possibility of having a child. And birth control isn't outright banned. If it's used for medical reasons, or the circumstances you live in make a situation where having a baby would threaten the livelihood of the mother or the child, birth control is encouraged. There's a surprising amount of exceptions to Catholic laws, but people usually end up generalizing. But yeah, we're not idiots. If you can't allow yourself to have a baby, by all means, do what you need to do.

for the record, it's possible to have a baby no matter where you are in your cycle, just incredibly unlikely during certain parts. like, that's meant to be friendly caution :). And we do need to reprioritize spending, I feel like putting it in the right places will help get rid of the need for many of the programs we have no and save more money in the long run.

What ever happened to the drug test movement for people using the assistance? I thought that was a decent solution for the most part. As for the children, if they need assistance and at the time contraceptives weren't free, I can understand them having children even with careful planning

I love the guys at work with that cry poor every other day but always have cigarettes, beer, data plans and fresh ink. Budgeting and prioritization need to become things again.

The left keeps crushing the drug test proposals and public service proposals calling them racist and bigoted.

How about people don't have sex if they can't afford to raise a child?

Because sex doesn't always happen with the intent for children. For a lot of relationships, it's necessary to maintain intimacy and romance, which often play a factor in successful relationships. It's healthy to have sex, both mentally and physically. You can't deny someone a basic right because of an accident that MIGHT happen, and is more unlikely the more preventative measures are taken. That's not the right type of solution here.

@kayt68 this is why the drug test for welfare recipients thing stopped.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/

Basically it cost millions and only found less than 1% to around 8% of welfare recipients who use drugs.
On the contrary, they found people with more money tend to be more likely to do drugs.

@garlog, have you ever had sex? It's kinda nice. Rubbers are cheap insurance. Just shrink-wrap it and it's all good. Helps avoid things dripping and burning too, so really just common sense.

@fiestycricket thank you for the source and the summary. I very much appreciate it.

@fiestycricket is right. It was an idea. Not a good idea; just an idea. Someone somewhere got the idea that drug use among welfare recipients was a problem, so instead of actually checking if it really was, the bureaucrats just decided to waste more money. (That never happens in Washington!) Whatever size the problem may or may not be, the welfare recipients just did what everyone else does: get someone "clean" to go for you, sneak someone else's pee in with you, or put the checks in someone else's name who doesn't use. There actually was an issue with people selling their (paper) food stamps for cash, which is part of the reason they use debit cards now, but no one has ever come up with a real answer to welfare abuse.

Send them rice, bread, potatoes, and meat instead of money. Along with supplies that are needed on a daily basis and track home much us needed and how much is given and to who.

And milk. Can't forget that Vitamin D and Calcium :D

The problem with that is that people have allergies and intolerances to certain foods, and keeping track of what to send where will take a lot of time and resources, along with figuring out how to supplement what they'll be missing with other foods.

If they have allergies and intolerances they get special items. It would cost less then drug testing them. And you can live your entire life on potatoes and milk. It has all the nutrients you need to live. The ability to choose is a privilege. Not a right. If I work for that ability than I gain that privilege. But if I waste my noney on other things I lose that. I am a college student who had to live on peanut butter bread and milk. For 6 months. Not because I wanted to, but because I had other bills to pay. It's all about prioritizing. All I did was pay for school, housing, utilities, and peanut butter bread and milk.

It is possible

Not 100% sure on all the states programs for welfare, but i know in my state they have food stamps and cash welfare seperate. So one card is ONLY food/ drinks, and that covers anything not cooked with a sorce of nutrition.

I think the problem with tracking food that was bought is it's an invasion of privacy and leaning toward a surveillance state. Most people are sick of the NSA tracking, this would just be another tally in that direction.

While I understand that, and it is a valid point, you'll still run into efficiency problems. Potatoes and milk are fine for a family of three with no allergies or in need of special dietary foods. But many families need too wide an assortment to just be lumped into it being cheaper. You still have to fund the people who deliver the food, the cost of all the different types and amounts of foods, the people who figure that out, and the family would still partly go hungry. Parents wouldn't eat their portion of potatoes or drink their milk because their kids still may be hungry. the government cant allot for growth spurts and feelings and pain of hunger unless they spend even more money than what they spend now. My point is every solution has flaws, but some solutions may be better than others. I honestly like yours, and if we could find it to do it correctly and ensure the families received proper nutrition despite dietary restrictions I feel it's one of the best options.

Actually, if you dared to read the study where only 1% of welfare recipients tested positive for drugs, it was because the study was voluntary. So, essentially they asked welfare recipients if they would volunteer, and a couple of people STILL tested properly survive.

also immediately before the drug test was issued in certain states a bunch of recipients went to states that were not testing. THAT says a lot too.
plus every day food stamp recipients trade the stamps for money and use it on other items that they don't need.
there are even people who claim they need more money for food because they're obese and healthy food is too expensive so they can only get bad food.

I just want to state that, for the record, healthier foods are expensive. And to them, if they have a specific amount of money to work with, frozen and processed foods will feed their families for longer periods than fresh meat, fruits, and vegetables. It's not ideal and you also should consider they don't understand how unhealthy it is, they know it's not the best but it's better to have unhealtjy food every day rather than healthy food for a few days and go hungry the rest

true fresh foods are more expensive and don't keep as long as frozen foods. but there are plenty of frozen/non perishable foods that are very healthy. and unfortunately there are many people who use food stamps to buy doritos and mountain dew. I've seen it. that's why I like the WIC system. it can only be used for certain foods like vegetables and stuff.

I don't understand why the policies of wic dont get carried over to food stamps. I understand the government can't tell us what we spend resources on, however the state of nutrition in a lot of malnourished homes would skyrocket if it was regulated and families were taught how to use the healthier foods to make them last

That's exactly why I don't think the government should be the ones we look to for help. They don't do anything efficiently

Politics. The "war on poverty" is a real money maker for the Democrats, and with over half of the population on some form of government assistance that's one hell of a solid voter base.

@jmvail don't they need an ID to get a state welfare program? How could they just hop states to avoid drug tests?
Though I agree that government in the US is largely useless, I don't think anarchy and telling the poor to just figure it out is a good solution either. That will just invoke outrage, riots, looting, and chaos.
@kayt68 interestingly enough thats similar to what france has (at least from what I understand). Its in schools though and not government assistance, basically lunch is a class that teaches kids how to eat healthy and different types of food/ cooking styles.
I think above all we should invest in the people. Education is always key.

No. Illegal immigrants get food stamps. There are no background checks. Also anarchy isn't a good idea either.