Of course, pro-life politicians will just advocate for increasing the cost of abortions instead

Evidence?

Anecdotal.

Here is why that doesn’t work.

“Illegals NEVER use all of our public system for FREE and never have. I went by my emergency room and it was virtually empty. My friend is a nurse and hasn’t seen a single illegal in a hospital. Of course, they never bothered to ask for proof of citizenship. Mostly because that doesn’t matter to them.”

Now that is also anecdotal.

Could what you be saying true?

Yes.

Could mine?

Equally, yes.

But you show me some statistics that back up your claim that illegals “pay nothing” and I’d be more willing to believe it.

Or we keep abortion on the table and make them pay the $750 and live with the guilt, if any.

Vasectomies are free at planned parenthood.

Ewww no just NO

When you’re advocating sterilization then you’re likely on the losing end of an argument.

Even if vasectomies can be undone in most cases.

You don’t play with a loaded gun unless you are willing to accept that it may go off and kill you, or someone else.

It’s a nice analogy but intimacy isn’t a loaded gun but a necessary component to a functioning marriage.

Abstinence may certainly be effective in theory but not in actual practice because it’s natural for human beings to desire to have sex. And while promoting abstinence is certainly a healthy way to prevent premarital sex; it doesn’t do much once a person is no longer adolescent.

Nor would I be so inclined as you might be to promote abstinence in order to keep a family together.

https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs-are-ineffective-and-harmful-young-people#:~:text=In%20theory%2C%20abstinence%20is%20100,when%20they%20do%20have%20intercourse.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/316593

https://www.ksl.com/article/27617437/struggles-from-abstinence-to-intimacy-after-marriage-common-study-says

https://www.verywellmind.com/why-should-you-have-sex-more-often-2300937#:~:text=Sex%20in%20a%20monogamous%20relationship,with%20a%20lower%20divorce%20rate.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/201910/can-sex-survive-marriage%3Famp

https://www.medicinenet.com/does_sex_make_a_relationship_stronger/article.htm

Intimacy is way different than sex and sex is not a necessary component to a functioning marriage. Intimacy, on the other hand, is. Some heart patients can’t take pills like viagra and are unable to have sex for the rest of their lives. I know two guys I served with who lost their private parts from IED’s. Some Paraplegics are unable to have sex. That doesn’t mean that any of these men can’t have intimacy with their partners.

True, but not everyone is so lucky.

According to the facts, statistically speaking, a lack of sex can sufficiently damage a marriage.

What facts and statistics are you referencing?

I actually took the time and read every one of those articles. Those aren’t facts, they are opinions. Moreover, in the key studies, one of the requirements was safe sex, while the other stated that older people had less sex but great relationship value.

Do you have kids?
Based on that I can tell you don’t
When you have kids if your not a total psycho you’ll do anything for them no matter the cost
If your not in a position to pay for hospital bills don’t get pregnant and if you do theirs financial aid out there

I bet you enjoy all those taxes going for public Medicaid, and enjoy being taxed for overcrowded jails housing baby daddies who don't pay child support.

Irrelevant if I have kids and your assumption that every parent is willing to do anything for their children is anecdotal.

I’m proposing constructive solutions.

You’re banking on the government to solve your problems by enforcing your opinions and collecting entitlements through welfare programs.

I’m not a proponent of government programs
People who actually need them should receive them for a short period if their eligible to work
If they are disabled is a different issue
And enforcing my opinions isn’t what I do
I’m simply telling you that theirs ways to prevent becoming pregnant accidents happen yes but the chances are minuscule compared to the chances of pregnancy without contraception

2019 we had 4,375,438 recorded pregnancies. 3,745,540 resulted in births and 629,898 resulted in legal abortion. 14% of pregnancies resulted in abortion in 2019.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/how-effective-contraception/#:~:text=than%2099%25%20effective.-,Fewer%20than%201%20in%20100%20women%20will%20get%20pregnant%20in,get%20pregnant%20in%20a%20year.

Given that in practice something between 9%-18% of people who use contraceptives will result in birth per use. It seems that 14% of pregnancies resulting in abortion, while tragic, is an acceptable compromise if a majority of people are practicing safe sex.

And that any limitations on the medical procedure is an example of not just government overreach but could have catastrophic health risks for about the same fraction of women who no longer have the medical option available.

It is better to let it be or find alternative solutions to bring abortion down. Decades of this attempt have proven fruitful. By leaving it to the states to create a chaotic legal avenues; we may see the number of abortions per year rise rather than continue to spiral downwards as they have in the last decade.

Again coming from the mouth of someone without kids
Have a daughter then tell me you’re pro abortion
If you still are your either lying or are clinically insane

Try addressing the argument rather than relying on strawman fallacies.

If you can’t, then opinion on abortion has no basis in fact or logic. And any representative that makes decisions like that on complicated issues like that is not a representative any rational, logical, or reasonable person would willingly choose.

So the love for your child is a straw man fallacy?

Since I’m not “pro-abortion” and you think I am, means you are guilty of a strawman.

I believe abortion should be limited and regulated; not criminalized. And I’m open to alternative solutions that produce real results.

Criminalizing all or most abortions is not a real solution.

Last time I researched it, the same place that provides free abortions, also provides free condoms.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/how-effective-contraception/#:~:text=than%2099%25%20effective.-,Fewer%20than%201%20in%20100%20women%20will%20get%20pregnant%20in,get%20pregnant%20in%20a%20year.

No contraceptive is 100% effective.

No vaccine is 100% effective. But we still use them.

Good, I’m glad you concede the argument that some abortions should remain legal.

I’ve been consistent in stating that rape, incest and detriment to the mother should always be exceptions to the rule.

Then why does the statement that high medical costs may be a significant contribution to current abortion rates offend you?

Certainly, you do not think it should cost $30,000 - $50,000 to have a baby? Could we at least agree on that? And agree that if those costs were somehow brought down it might have a better chance to send the financial need for abortion into a spiral.

And… these aren’t just inflation numbers. These are pre-2019 numbers.

Have you had a child?

Have you had sex?

Ah, deflection. Lmfao. Unlike you, I’ll answer the proffered question. Yes, I have had sex and I have two children. I’ve also been married 27 yeasr, It’ll be 28 in July. Have you any children?

imgflip.com/i/6ff1n3?nerp=1652077589#com18840971

Thank you for intellectually honest answer. Though I disagree, I’ll upvote this.

Yes, your question as to whether I’ve had children was deflection. It’s on par with those screeching feminists who claim that men cannot dictate their reproductive rights. They very obviously can. Just as I can argue my point of the relevancy of poverty that may effect such a decision.

I have no real interest in using such ways to shutting people out with anecdotal relevancies because, as you’ve witnessed, they are a thoroughly ineffective defense and only festers ignorance.

In fact, the people I’m much more concerned are the people who’ve not only had children, and have engaged in safe sex and STILL have an unwanted pregnancy. That those people in addition to victims of rape, incest, and health exceptions are just as valid.

Indeed, you’ve had two children. And if you had a third before July, would your wife still have no reservations about giving birth a third time despite having protected sex? You need not answer this. It really doesn’t matter if you do or not. Other people may not be so inclined.

And while you’ve been forthcoming with answering one of my questions, you’ve failed to answer my precious questions in the comment preceding yours which were actually more relevant to the discussion.

And if you continue to refuse to answer them, or try to utilize your next comment without resorting to poultry irrelevant allusions to my character (or lack thereof as you may incorrectly perceive); then I must assume that you again forfeit the debate. That you do agree that poverty does indeed play a significantly and unfortunate role in abortion being as high as it is. And that tackling that would be more constructive than overturning Roe v Wade.

So what will it be, I wonder?

Snarky comment or an intellectual honest answer?

Choose wisely.

I don’t think poverty has anything to do with abortion. I think that a lack of self worth, poor morals, parents setting a bad example, ease of obtaining an abortion, social acceptance, irresponsibility and promiscuity are all the leading factors. Are their exceptions? Of course. But for the most part, these people want to do the crime but don’t want to do the time…especially when there a a multitude of free (or almost free) ways to avoid doing the crime.

Abortion is MURDER

No shit.

It’s also murder to deny medicine and surgeries to women who need it.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Not for long.

Contraceptives are next.

https://www.azmirror.com/blog/gop-senate-candidate-blake-masters-wants-to-allow-states-to-ban-contraception-use/

You, obviously, didn’t even read the whole article you posted. Obviously.

So, you’re saying that no Republicans have a contraceptive ban agenda or are you saying those who are like Blake Masters are the minority?

Should I remind you that as a conservative and Republican voter who gullibly believed that we would not overturn Roe v Wade at the very least; that now that we’ve erased the line of compromise anything is on the table.

We’ll need new talking points after all if Roe v Wade is overturned.

LifeStyles Ultra Sensitive Natural Feeling Lubricated Latex Condoms, 40 Count https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004TTXA8C/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_i_196Y9KN6KPK98PZW18VY

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/how-effective-contraception/#:~:text=than%2099%25%20effective.-,Fewer%20than%201%20in%20100%20women%20will%20get%20pregnant%20in,get%20pregnant%20in%20a%20year.

No contraceptive is 100% effective.

Neither is the vaccine, so you support those that don't get it.

Makes sense if you don’t think about it

That’s what most politicians want. So if you’re thinking politicians trying to ban abortions will solve all your problems then you haven’t been paying attention.

The difference is the OSHA mandates are temporary. And only apply to businesses with 100 employees or more. Small businesses and employees remained largely unaffected. Further, as I find big businesses to be largely antithetical to a thriving economy, the option to regain employment through a smaller businesses without jeopardizing the principles of the few is an acceptable compromise.

That is a more practical choice rather than simply forcing people to pay five figures or not have sex at all.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20220303.102051/

Not everything has a price tag
The cost of having kids on a emotional level outweighs the cost of any amount on a piece of paper

Sorry, but I live in the real world and couldn’t give two shits about your emotional feelings.

The fact you think I’m hurt by the argument based on price tags rather than emotional connection with a child demonstrates just how blind you are to the world around you
Parents are protectors of their children
They love them with all of their hearts and will do anything to protect them
Try pulling you head out of your ass and stop worrying about dollar marks on a paper and show some compassion to the people who’s kids take up their entire lives

I don’t think you’re hurt at all. I think you’re failing to look at the argument rationally.

The fact you think that a love between a parent and child is an absolute demonstrates just how blind you are to the world around you,

I’m a capitalist. Like any real red blooded American. Everything has a cost. Intended or otherwise.