The OP made a blanket statement.... My response wasn't that social policy necessarily equals social policy however the case can be made that one affects the other, but that the state of Texas is not just simply ass backwards because they chose not to have a policy with which that person agrees.

I've read alot of your comments  and think you are smarter than that.  You comment is so simple that it doesn't take into considerations that repubs  give more to charities than progressives.  They supplement numerous programs that support pre and post natal care.  People are so polar that they run on emotion instead of facts

So one party wants to limit abortion,
and another group is trying to make post birth abortion up to three months.

It comes down to which side you are on.
More people are having abortions cause more women are not getting married and don't want children. God bless them. no complaints about them. Thank God for lose women like that.

Real problem is not women who are getting abortions, the discussion should be more about people who should get abortions but won't. now that would be a good discussion. No real good solutions here.

The 20-week thing isn't the problem, but it's the biggest rallying point, so of course that's what conservatives are focusing on.

"The democrats hate this bill because they love killing babies!" they say.

Wrong. (note: I do not affiliate with any party) It's the REST of the bill that's the real problem here. The Republicans know this, so of course they focus on the 20-week limit, a small part of the law overall. They paint the picture that people oppose the new law because they oppose the 20-week limit. This is not correct.

So let's FORGET the 20-week part and focus on the REST of it, which is why I, a Texan, am opposed to the law and thoroughly ashamed of my government representatives. They hide behind the new limit, use it as a shield and a distraction. They claim they have the moral high ground while they aim to close clinics - which do more than just abortions - and makes the state a less safe, less healthy place.

They deceive the people by using controversial, emotional issues to mask their true intentions. They included the 20-week limit along with the rest of the bill so that they could vilify anyone who opposed the bill. IT WORKED. You can see it EVEN HERE, on this fairly liberal board, people debate ONLY the 20-week limit. Their brilliant distraction worked, and that's why I'm ashamed, not only of my representatives for using such under-handed tactics but of everyone in the state, even the country, who focus on the wrong issue and in doing so prevent the real problems from ever getting fixed.

The lurkers on the site are fairly liberal, while the activists in the Politics section usually trend more libertarian or outright conservative.

Forgive me, but it seems as though that is an incentive to not be a successful person.  As in, a disincentive to obtain a career with a higher-paying job in order to obtain "free" health insurance, but at the same time, not have to work very hard for it.  Thus, it leaves the door open for the more industrious to feel "Why am I bothering to work so hard when other's are getting health insurance for doing far less?", even though most are more capable than that?

Let me be absolutely clear.  I am a compassionate person, it seems like you are as well, I just feel very strongly that your philosophy of how this all should be handled is going to create more problems than it's going to solve.  I think in general, that welfare programs, and programs like Social Security and Medicare, are a disincentive to save for retirement, and a disincentive to budget enough money from your own salary to pay for your medical bills.  I don't think it's fair to expect someone to pay for someone else who was, for the most part, less careful about making good life choices and exercising good judgement.

Because we're only talking about the essentials of life as far as income goes. In the welfare state I would advocate, the poorest would get full nutrition, healthcare, shelter, education, and the minimum in clothing, but these are not really the ingredients for a fulfilling life on the whole. If you want a house, a good car, the leisure to watch movies or read books or surf the internet or video games or what have you, you still have to work.

Some people aren't going to work, and are going to exercise poor judgment and yet expect someone to cover for their mistakes, but even they deserve the basics, but how many people are going to be satisfied with the basics? Wealth and success are their own incentives beyond mere survival.

It makes perfect sense. The death penalty is used after someone has been convicted of a serious crime, and more than likely also taken someone elses life. So the person had a chance to live, and a chance to live by the law of the land. They had choices they could make that could lead to the death penalty, or choices they could make that would lead to them living a happy life. They bear the responsibilty for their actions.

On the other hand a child still in the womb of it mother has not had the chance to make the wrong choices that may lead to a bad life. Rather it has had it decisons made ofr it. So it doesn't bear responisibilty for what it has not done. Instead a mother, may at will cease its life for now reason at all.

Now what confuses me is how people can say that women should be able to kill their babies because it is their bodies, but than think that the baby has no say in its treatment of its body. Where is the logic in that? Shouldn't the baby also be able to decide what happens with its body, and if its not shouldn't those decisions be made by someone who has the babies best interest at heart? I always have trouble understanding that logic, and reasoning.

Recreational sex is NOT irresponsibility.

Largely because women of childbearing age are sentient. Babies are not sentient. Sentience trumps non-sentience.