But that's why I think we should put more effort on addressing the reasons people get abortions. Not being able to afford a kid, it interfering with their career, etc., etc. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong here, there were surveys at abortion clinics showing that a significant portion got them for reasons other than simply not wanting a kid.
Do you think its valid to argue that those cases shouldn't be addressed first, considering they're infinitely more electorally popular and reasonable?
My arguments aren't based on the morality of it; I'd rather it didn't happen. If people want to argue morality, there's a lot going against a ban because of the downstream outcomes as well.
I don't know if I would agree with these recent ban attempts. As mentioned earlier, I think addressing fetuses with organs is much more reasonable than blanket bans.
As far as addressing concerns with child-rearing, Republicans might be able to do more. But it's a complex issue. You don't want to incentivize welfare octomoms. You also have to account for companies working around your legislation, like for instance corporations avoiding female hires or hires likely to have kids to avoid the burden of maternal/paternal leave.
As mentioned earlier, I think addressing fetuses with organs is much more reasonable than blanket bans.
This is fair, and I'd agree, but most people aren't considering the philosophical aspect of "when is it a human".
Important to note that the 'organ' cases are also likely going to be the ones where something is interfering with their ability to reasonably have a child, rather than not wanting one at all.
So only addressing that still leaves the majority of abortions that happen prior to ~12 weeks. People would still likely be upset about abortion, so more would still have to be done in some way.
Republicans might be able to do more
To be fair, its not just Republicans. Democrats don't seem to want to address the things that would be a net benefit to all that would also reduce the need for abortions, thus placating Republicans as well.
If abortions actually were rare like many leftists want you to believe, I doubt most people would make as much of a stink about abortion.
You don't want to incentivize welfare octomoms
Set a lifetime cap; 3-4 kids seems reasonable to me. After a certain point, you're either abusing the system or stupid enough that we don't want more of your genes spreading.
You also have to account for companies working around your legislation
Companies already do this, don't they? The crossover between those that do and those that would be likely do go further if they were required to provide better maternity leave is probably almost 1:1.
And after a certain point, trends start to become noticeable and they'd likely get nailed for discrimination.
Also, remote work becoming more prevalent, especially for HR/payroll, has improved that situation.
This is fair, and I'd agree, but most people aren't considering the philosophical aspect of "when is it a human".
I don't know, are they? That's why I'm wondering what these ban referendums look like. Historically, pro-lifers have been effective in passing state legislation (not referendums).
If Republicans for whatever reason can't accomplish anything, then I would prefer they just not talk about it for bit. But I'm guessing this isn't the case. More likely Republicans are overreaching with the scope of their proposed bans.
To be fair, its not just Republicans. Democrats don't seem to want to address the things that would be a net benefit to all that would also reduce the need for abortions, thus placating Republicans as well.
If abortions actually were rare like many leftists want you to believe, I doubt most people would make as much of a stink about abortion.
That's fair, unfortunately Democrats are evil.
Set a lifetime cap; 3-4 kids seems reasonable to me. After a certain point, you're either abusing the system or stupid enough that we don't want more of your genes spreading.
Hmm, sounds reasonable to me.
Companies already do this, don't they? The crossover between those that do and those that would be likely do go further if they were required to provide better maternity leave is probably almost 1:1.
And after a certain point, trends start to become noticeable and they'd likely get nailed for discrimination.
Also, remote work becoming more prevalent, especially for HR/payroll, has improved that situation.
Well, you just said it: companies need to start getting nailed for discrimination and essentially incentivizing people to get abortions. Our replacement rate is in a bad place, especially for the core demographic of the country.
I'm not foolish enough to think its rare.
But that's why I think we should put more effort on addressing the reasons people get abortions. Not being able to afford a kid, it interfering with their career, etc., etc. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong here, there were surveys at abortion clinics showing that a significant portion got them for reasons other than simply not wanting a kid.
Do you think its valid to argue that those cases shouldn't be addressed first, considering they're infinitely more electorally popular and reasonable?
My arguments aren't based on the morality of it; I'd rather it didn't happen. If people want to argue morality, there's a lot going against a ban because of the downstream outcomes as well.
I don't know if I would agree with these recent ban attempts. As mentioned earlier, I think addressing fetuses with organs is much more reasonable than blanket bans.
As far as addressing concerns with child-rearing, Republicans might be able to do more. But it's a complex issue. You don't want to incentivize welfare octomoms. You also have to account for companies working around your legislation, like for instance corporations avoiding female hires or hires likely to have kids to avoid the burden of maternal/paternal leave.
This is fair, and I'd agree, but most people aren't considering the philosophical aspect of "when is it a human".
Important to note that the 'organ' cases are also likely going to be the ones where something is interfering with their ability to reasonably have a child, rather than not wanting one at all.
So only addressing that still leaves the majority of abortions that happen prior to ~12 weeks. People would still likely be upset about abortion, so more would still have to be done in some way.
To be fair, its not just Republicans. Democrats don't seem to want to address the things that would be a net benefit to all that would also reduce the need for abortions, thus placating Republicans as well.
If abortions actually were rare like many leftists want you to believe, I doubt most people would make as much of a stink about abortion.
Set a lifetime cap; 3-4 kids seems reasonable to me. After a certain point, you're either abusing the system or stupid enough that we don't want more of your genes spreading.
Companies already do this, don't they? The crossover between those that do and those that would be likely do go further if they were required to provide better maternity leave is probably almost 1:1.
And after a certain point, trends start to become noticeable and they'd likely get nailed for discrimination.
Also, remote work becoming more prevalent, especially for HR/payroll, has improved that situation.
I don't know, are they? That's why I'm wondering what these ban referendums look like. Historically, pro-lifers have been effective in passing state legislation (not referendums).
If Republicans for whatever reason can't accomplish anything, then I would prefer they just not talk about it for bit. But I'm guessing this isn't the case. More likely Republicans are overreaching with the scope of their proposed bans.
That's fair, unfortunately Democrats are evil.
Hmm, sounds reasonable to me.
Well, you just said it: companies need to start getting nailed for discrimination and essentially incentivizing people to get abortions. Our replacement rate is in a bad place, especially for the core demographic of the country.