@westside-steve said:

Doesn't seem all that much different from partial birth abortion for hair color selection.....

WSS

Which happens all the time.

Or maybe never in recorded history.

@vaportrail said:

I think you might be onto something with the pillow thing.

Doesn't seem all that much different from partial birth abortion for hair color selection.....

WSS

once you settle the pregnancy thing then you'll need to settle the VD thing.

irresponsible is irresponsible we'll end up footing the bill for a massive syphyllis outbreak or HIV epidemic.

Could boost pharmacy sales though.

If you want to lower the amount of unintended pregnancies and abortions then you're going to have to do something else. So what do you want to do? A public service campaign reminding everyone to wear condoms? I think we've done that.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

To quote Dr. Phil, "How's that working out for ya?"

This is the situation we're in now, which we're trying to change, right? Condoms are readily available, and yet half the pregnancies are unintended. Again, if the point of these conversations is to complain about people who aren't responsible, then let's start calling the board "The Place Where We Bitch About People We Don't Like."

If you want to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, the most effective way you can do that is to make contraception more available to women, and easier to pay for, or free. That's the policy choice. (One of them anyway.)

Or are we just here to grumble about people who just won't pull out and jizz in the towel like they're supposed to? Let me know. Because again, we're getting at the heart of our differences on this board.

Resentment - racial resentment, class resentment, tribal resentment, religious resentments - are all perfectly fine topics to discuss. But they're not policy discussions and they don't lead anywhere. So do you want to vent that people don't use condoms enough, or try to see what might actually reduce abortions?

I'm not sure what condom use has to do with racial resentment. I feel like you're really reaching for an answer that's right in front of your face. The easiest form of contraception requires no health care coverage.

@the-cysko-kid said:

You don't need coverage to buy condoms heck. Why is this always so easily forgotten? The single easiest thing you could possibly do to avoid pregnancies requires no health care coverage at all. Or are all the evil republicans out to get Trojan as well?

To quote Dr. Phil, "How's that working out for ya?"

This is the situation we're in now, which we're trying to change, right? Condoms are readily available, and yet half the pregnancies are unintended. Again, if the point of these conversations is to complain about people who aren't responsible, then let's start calling the board "The Place Where We Bitch About People We Don't Like."

If you want to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, the most effective way you can do that is to make contraception more available to women, and easier to pay for, or free. That's the policy choice. (One of them anyway.)

Or are we just here to grumble about people who just won't pull out and jizz in the towel like they're supposed to? Let me know. Because again, we're getting at the heart of our differences on this board.

Resentment - racial resentment, class resentment, tribal resentment, religious resentments - are all perfectly fine topics to discuss. But they're not policy discussions and they don't lead anywhere. So do you want to vent that people don't use condoms enough, or try to see what might actually reduce abortions?

@westside-steve said:

Here's another place where DNA on file would be handy.

Find the baby daddy and charge him child support.

Just like you would any dead beat dad.

Then he's got at least some financial stake in being a little more responsible.

By letting the imaginary thousands of marijuana possession criminals out of jail you free up space for him and his like.

WSS

They do this already. We don't have a universal DNA database, but we establish paternity and force child support payments.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

So would snuffing the babies out with a pillow, but we don't do that either.

Ah yes, the fourth trimester abortion.

Find the baby daddy and charge him child support.

Just like you would any dead beat dad.

Then he's got at least some financial stake in being a little more responsible.

By letting the imaginary thousands of marijuana possession criminals out of jail you free up space for him and his like.

WSS

@heckofajobbrownie said:

So would snuffing the babies out with a pillow, but we don't do that either.

Not everyone is going to be responsible in the way you or I would like. Hell, we're not as responsible as you or I would like. Unintended pregnancies happen. It's about half of all pregnancies. You're going to have even more among populations without health care/access to contraceptive coverage. This is the reality.

And that's what's always fun about walking you through past the political rhetoric, because what would it take to actually reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions? Stuff most people don't want to pay for, and stuff that many people are offended by.

What's left? Yelling at those people for being irresponsible.

You don't need coverage to buy condoms heck. Why is this always so easily forgotten? The single easiest thing you could possibly do to avoid pregnancies requires no health care coverage at all. Or are all the evil republicans out to get Trojan as well?

Not everyone is going to be responsible in the way you or I would like. Hell, we're not as responsible as you or I would like. Unintended pregnancies happen. It's about half of all pregnancies. You're going to have even more among populations without health care/access to contraceptive coverage. This is the reality.

And that's what's always fun about walking you through past the political rhetoric, because what would it take to actually reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions? Stuff most people don't want to pay for, and stuff that many people are offended by.

What's left? Yelling at those people for being irresponsible.

But let's get past the first layer of this debate because once you start walking through it it's pretty interesting.

Around half of pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Around half of those end in abortion.

So here are the ways we know you can reduce the number of abortions, and after looking at them you get to see the bind you start getting in:

- Access to free contraception. We know this works. It's been studied. It also costs money to provide. Obamacare, of course, famously requires this coverage as a part of women's health insurance plan. Republicans are against this, both for reasons of religious liberty and for reasons of "not wanting to pay for someone else's fucking." So there you go: a surefire way to reduce the number of abortions, but not supported by the Party that would seemingly want to reduce abortions. Instead, they favor a total ban, or a ban with exemptions.

- Provide financial support to lower-income mothers who become pregnant. One of the top reasons women have abortions is because they don't feel they can financially support another child. Offering government money for things like health and day care services and food and other costs associated with child rearing has been shown to reduce some number of abortions in countries with greater social safety net protections for mothers and their children. But this is highly unlikely to be a solution that is politically feasible in the United States.

- Comprehensive sex and contraceptive education for teens. Also shown to lower the number of unintended pregnancies. Also not something many parents want taught in their schools. Also costs money to provide.

- Adoption services and counseling. This is done in many places, given to women as another option, but this hasn't been shown to reduce abortion levels significantly, or at all. You also have to pay for this, of course.

...So next time you hear a politician talk about wanting to reduce the number of abortions, you might notice they never actually say what that might entail because many people don't want to do what it actually entails. It's almost always lip service. However, the first choice - access to free contraception - is the most effective and is also about to become the law of the land. You can be for it or against it, but it's likely to reduce the number of abortions.

@vaportrail said:

1-time $1500 government paycheck for women 16-21 who get their tubes tied.

I'll go with this, but sweeten the pot. 5000 dollars one time no kids ever. You can have all the promiscuous unprotected sex you want.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Oh, no. Absolutely not.

It's unlikely you're going to have that kind of compromise on abortion because that'd just be seen as mostly the Republican position. It's simply not a tenable compromise. And the politics are such that it's such a base issue for both sides, a big fundraiser and vote getter, that the people most invested in it have no desire to compromise anyway.

If the Democrats offered a compromise position it'd be something like in Germany, where abortions are banned after the first trimester except in cases where the mother's life or health are in danger. But that wouldn't satisfy anyone on the right because that's essentially what we have now. So you're stuck.

I'd look for compromises elsewhere. Or look for ways we can reduce abortions.

1-time $1500 government paycheck for women 16-21 who get their tubes tied.

It's unlikely you're going to have that kind of compromise on abortion because that'd just be seen as mostly the Republican position. It's simply not a tenable compromise. And the politics are such that it's such a base issue for both sides, a big fundraiser and vote getter, that the people most invested in it have no desire to compromise anyway.

If the Democrats offered a compromise position it'd be something like in Germany, where abortions are banned after the first trimester except in cases where the mother's life or health are in danger. But that wouldn't satisfy anyone on the right because that's essentially what we have now. So you're stuck.

I'd look for compromises elsewhere. Or look for ways we can reduce abortions.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

They're very willing. Watch what happens in the next few weeks.

Or read about the negotiations for the grand bargain. Look at what Obama put on the table.

I'd love for that to happen, that would be just fine. The New Deal was well hated by the right and we got through that. The world war didn't hurt, though. Lots of jobs in a world war.

Or read about the negotiations for the grand bargain. Look at what Obama put on the table.

There aren't that many. Every time one goes away, like a Richard Lugar or a John Warner, the Republican taking their place is almost always more conservative, more ideological, and less willing to compromise.

I'm hardly the only one making this critique of the Republican Party's draft to the right, or even to crazytown. You can find it pretty much everywhere.