Friends of Akin, a question for you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought "pregnancy crisis centers" were mostly baby dealers.

I think the republicans would like to see us in a Margaret Atwood world, where poor women have no choice but to furnish wealthy folks with babies to adopt. When you cannot choose to terminate, and you cannot afford to raise a child, there's not much left, is there?

Well, you can always go to Mexico and have an abortion on the cheap.

You making a joke, but there was a news report just the other day regarding just this. Women in Texas who live in close proximity to Mexico are going to Mexico to receive abortions. It seems that many of the once available providers in Texas are no longer available.

It is truly sickening.

But one-percenters still need not worry. Even if abortions are illegal in this country, there's always Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But in an ideal republican world, public health would not be funded. Abortion would not be legal. No, of course it won't happen by Feb 2013, but that's the direction they want to take us, right? And in that world, what is a working poor pregnant woman to do? Honest question.

And if the answer is "carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption", how is that different from the Atwood scenario? If you're ok with that, how is the mother to keep a roof over her head and healthy food in the fridge and obtain regular prenatal care while on bedrest for 3, 4, 6 months?

If it is an otherwise healthy white baby, a forty-year old childless woman in DC, NOVA, Bethesda, NYC, SF or Boston will pay for her living expenses until the birth and surrendering of the baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, since there are so many arguments against the details of OP's post, let's distill this down.

Romney/Ryan have won the November 2012 election and in January are sworn in. The Republicans have won enough swing states that they now have both a Senate and House majority. In the first 6 weeks, they push through a storm of bills that defund any organization that supports abortion, including PP. Much like DOMA, the Republicans force through a Defense of Children Act and DOCA is the law of the land making abortions illegal. The Republicans have overturned ACA and it no longer requires people to have insurance. A young black woman who works as a waitress in a small diner, making just enough to pay her rent, utilities and food gets pregnant. She finds out that the child has a birth defect that will be costly for medical coverage, but she has no medical insurance coverage because she cannot afford it. She makes just over the poverty level, so is not eligible for Medicaid. Due to complications, she has to take two weeks off to have the baby. She doesn't get paid. She no longer has enough to pay her rent, let alone medical bills.

What is she supposed to do? If she can make it there, she can eat in a soup kitchen, but for the 2 weeks, she's on bedrest so can't take the bus to get to the soup kitchen. And she doesn't have bus fare anyways. But she's not allowed to abort the baby, she is about to be evicted because she cannot pay her rent and she has no means of child support, so even if she could go back to work, she has no one to take care of her child and has to stay home to care for the baby.

She has someone push her down a long flight of steps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But in an ideal republican world, public health would not be funded. Abortion would not be legal. No, of course it won't happen by Feb 2013, but that's the direction they want to take us, right? And in that world, what is a working poor pregnant woman to do? Honest question.

And if the answer is "carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption", how is that different from the Atwood scenario? If you're ok with that, how is the mother to keep a roof over her head and healthy food in the fridge and obtain regular prenatal care while on bedrest for 3, 4, 6 months?

If it is an otherwise healthy white baby, a forty-year old childless woman in DC, NOVA, Bethesda, NYC, SF or Boston will pay for her living expenses until the birth and surrendering of the baby.

But, in 20 or so years, white babies will be in a minority. And for 'otherwise healthy', each new generation seems to be sicker than the previous one. Then what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought "pregnancy crisis centers" were mostly baby dealers.

I think the republicans would like to see us in a Margaret Atwood world, where poor women have no choice but to furnish wealthy folks with babies to adopt. When you cannot choose to terminate, and you cannot afford to raise a child, there's not much left, is there?

Well, you can always go to Mexico and have an abortion on the cheap.

You making a joke, but there was a news report just the other day regarding just this. Women in Texas who live in close proximity to Mexico are going to Mexico to receive abortions. It seems that many of the once available providers in Texas are no longer available.

It is truly sickening.

But one-percenters still need not worry. Even if abortions are illegal in this country, there's always Europe.

Canada is closer. That's where I would send my niece and daughter. I am no longer in the game personally. Thank God. What a dreary world for future women. First abortions and then BC.

[Anonymous]

The honest answer to OP'a question is that the mom will move in with family who do their best to help her. And the entire family will sink even faster into poverty. More people will be poor and the income inequality will continue to grow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But in an ideal republican world, public health would not be funded. Abortion would not be legal. No, of course it won't happen by Feb 2013, but that's the direction they want to take us, right? And in that world, what is a working poor pregnant woman to do? Honest question.

And if the answer is "carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption", how is that different from the Atwood scenario? If you're ok with that, how is the mother to keep a roof over her head and healthy food in the fridge and obtain regular prenatal care while on bedrest for 3, 4, 6 months?

If it is an otherwise healthy white baby, a forty-year old childless woman in DC, NOVA, Bethesda, NYC, SF or Boston will pay for her living expenses until the birth and surrendering of the baby.

But, in 20 or so years, white babies will be in a minority. And for 'otherwise healthy', each new generation seems to be sicker than the previous one. Then what?

Exactly! That's why they are pushing to overturn pro-choice in abortions. They want the numbers.

[Anonymous]

I respect other people's opinions. I happen to be pro-choice.

How about pro-life women can have all the normal pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies (such as from rape and incest) that they want?

Then how about pro-choice women can control their bodies in the way they choose? (I personally would decline to have an abortion beyond the two-and-a-half month mark.)

One group cannot force women to give birth to children they do not want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The honest answer to OP'a question is that the mom will move in with family who do their best to help her. And the entire family will sink even faster into poverty. More people will be poor and the income inequality will continue to grow.

when we lived overseas we had a Gardner, maid and nanny for a really reasonable price, maybe that will happen in america.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The honest answer to OP'a question is that the mom will move in with family who do their best to help her. And the entire family will sink even faster into poverty. More people will be poor and the income inequality will continue to grow.

when we lived overseas we had a Gardner, maid and nanny for a really reasonable price, maybe that will happen in america.

This would not surprise me in the least.

[Anonymous]

Huckabee has fallen hook line and sinker for Aiken and Blair's GOP

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/huckabee-backs-akin-lashes-out-at-gop?ref=fpb

[Anonymous]

What if the situation does not concern a poor black waitress, but rather the supposedly typical DCUM poster -- 2 income family, HHI $300K, 2 kids in expensive private schools, expensive house, etc. Woman has a birth control failure at 44, gets pregnant with a child that will have serious disabilities. Yes, she could afford to take care of this child, but mentally, she can't. Sympathetic to abortion?

[Anonymous]

Maybe that should be HHI $300-400K, to be more realistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if the situation does not concern a poor black waitress, but rather the supposedly typical DCUM poster -- 2 income family, HHI $300K, 2 kids in expensive private schools, expensive house, etc. Woman has a birth control failure at 44, gets pregnant with a child that will have serious disabilities. Yes, she could afford to take care of this child, but mentally, she can't. Sympathetic to abortion?

Yes, because in all honesty, that woman can also afford to go to Canada or Mexico or Europe to have an abortion and wouldn't be barred from having such a procedure done. When you outlaw abortion here, what you are doing is essentially restricting abortion to those who have the means to go where elsewhere to have it done (where it is legal). You are only barring those with insufficient means from having an abortion. And those are the women who will have the hardest time supporting an extra mouth and finding a way to both work and raise a child on limited resources and most likely that both mother and child will suffer significantly due to circumstance. In a perfect world, I would be extremely anti-abortion, but I know that our country is not perfect and that abortion laws only persecute the poor. Those who stand by their ethics are usually those who have wealth and who either cannot or will not think about the lower SE classes. The current abortion debate is classic class warfare being pushed by the haves onto the have-nots.

Maybe we should have a progressive tax based on your annual income that goes into a fund to care for those babies that cannot be aborted but the mother's do not have the economic means to provide for the child. If were such a fund that guaranteed those children would be cared for, I'd be back in your camp. How much are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But in an ideal republican world, public health would not be funded. Abortion would not be legal. No, of course it won't happen by Feb 2013, but that's the direction they want to take us, right? And in that world, what is a working poor pregnant woman to do? Honest question.

And if the answer is "carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption", how is that different from the Atwood scenario? If you're ok with that, how is the mother to keep a roof over her head and healthy food in the fridge and obtain regular prenatal care while on bedrest for 3, 4, 6 months?

If it is an otherwise healthy white baby, a forty-year old childless woman in DC, NOVA, Bethesda, NYC, SF or Boston will pay for her living expenses until the birth and surrendering of the baby.

How very Handmaid's Tale.