Friends of Akin, a question for you

[Anonymous]

Why is it that pro-lifers have such passion for saving the embryos, but when the embryos grow up to be, say, 19-year-old unemployed criminals who may be on drugs, there is no interest in helping this person's life?

They love the cuddly babies, but could care less about troubled, poor, grown-up human beings. That's why most pro-lifers are hypocrites.

If you want to ban other women from having abortions, you should be adopting some of these children yourself. Put your money where your mouth is.

[Anonymous]

Romney refuses to answer questions on abortion or Aiken. WTF is he afraid of.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/23/romney-tells-reporter-no-akin-no-abortion/

[Anonymous]

NP here. First, I don't think all abortion should be illegal. But the OP's post is pretty silly. It assumes that it's the government's responsibility to provide not just a safety net (which is fine, and I have not heard anyone lobbying to remove) but everything for the kid-- food, childcare, housing, etc.
In the OP's scenario, replace "unwanted pregnant" with "have a six month old and it's so much harder than I thought" and the mom can't make ends meet. Is the solution still to end the life of the child? If no, why not? How is having an unwanted infant different from having an unwanted fetus or embryo? You will say because someone else can care for the child, but that's no different from giving birth then relinquishing the child.

Anyway, the answer would be, what people did before Obamacare (which is brand new, so I'm not sure why people act like not having it is taking away some long-standing right): get help from charities and friends/family, and go on Welfare/kids on Medicaid. I'm not saying this is ideal at all. But it is not starving to death in the street.

[Anonymous]

*pregnancy not pregnant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that pro-lifers have such passion for saving the embryos, but when the embryos grow up to be, say, 19-year-old unemployed criminals who may be on drugs, there is no interest in helping this person's life?

They love the cuddly babies, but could care less about troubled, poor, grown-up human beings. That's why most pro-lifers are hypocrites.

If you want to ban other women from having abortions, you should be adopting some of these children yourself. Put your money where your mouth is.

First, I would argue many want to help both people, but if not, maybe it's because an embryo is completely defenseless and cannot speak, protect itself, decide anything, etc, whereas a 19 is a thinking, decision-making adult human being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that pro-lifers have such passion for saving the embryos, but when the embryos grow up to be, say, 19-year-old unemployed criminals who may be on drugs, there is no interest in helping this person's life?

They love the cuddly babies, but could care less about troubled, poor, grown-up human beings. That's why most pro-lifers are hypocrites.

If you want to ban other women from having abortions, you should be adopting some of these children yourself. Put your money where your mouth is.

First, I would argue many want to help both people, but if not, maybe it's because an embryo is completely defenseless and cannot speak, protect itself, decide anything, etc, whereas a 19 is a thinking, decision-making adult human being.

An embryo is not a person. It is an embryo. End of discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. First, I don't think all abortion should be illegal. But the OP's post is pretty silly. It assumes that it's the government's responsibility to provide not just a safety net (which is fine, and I have not heard anyone lobbying to remove) but everything for the kid-- food, childcare, housing, etc.
In the OP's scenario, replace "unwanted pregnant" with "have a six month old and it's so much harder than I thought" and the mom can't make ends meet. Is the solution still to end the life of the child? If no, why not? How is having an unwanted infant different from having an unwanted fetus or embryo? You will say because someone else can care for the child, but that's no different from giving birth then relinquishing the child.

Anyway, the answer would be, what people did before Obamacare (which is brand new, so I'm not sure why people act like not having it is taking away some long-standing right): get help from charities and friends/family, and go on Welfare/kids on Medicaid. I'm not saying this is ideal at all. But it is not starving to death in the street.

You haven't heard anyone lobbying to remove the safety net? Seriously? You must be hearing-challenged then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. First, I don't think all abortion should be illegal. But the OP's post is pretty silly. It assumes that it's the government's responsibility to provide not just a safety net (which is fine, and I have not heard anyone lobbying to remove) but everything for the kid-- food, childcare, housing, etc.
In the OP's scenario, replace "unwanted pregnant" with "have a six month old and it's so much harder than I thought" and the mom can't make ends meet. Is the solution still to end the life of the child? If no, why not? How is having an unwanted infant different from having an unwanted fetus or embryo? You will say because someone else can care for the child, but that's no different from giving birth then relinquishing the child.

Anyway, the answer would be, what people did before Obamacare (which is brand new, so I'm not sure why people act like not having it is taking away some long-standing right): get help from charities and friends/family, and go on Welfare/kids on Medicaid. I'm not saying this is ideal at all. But it is not starving to death in the street.

You haven't heard anyone lobbying to remove the safety net? Seriously? You must be hearing-challenged then.

To remove any and all welfare, Medicaid, etc? No, I haven't heard that from any mainstream candidates of either party, but I welcome links to articles saying otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting how you avoid the question because of the semantics. That's like not answering a question because there's a typo in the text. It bespeaks a small mind.

I disagree that the perfect storm is impossible. I own a small business and employ about 15 people who fit the description quite closely-- they are mostly one paycheck away from being homeless. I think many people are unaware of the true plight of the working poor.

ITA. My father and I own a small business together and all of our employees are what one would consider the working poor. They are paid $9.75-$14 per hour, no health insurance benefits (we really can't afford it) and they struggles they face on a day to day basis are often insurmountable. They cannot make ends meet at all without government assistance, how are try supposed to live themselves or support a child? It is a very different world from DCUM.

[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 babyu.

Ummm...she makes sure she doesn't get pregnant?! Sex has consequences.....

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why poverty is a good reason to kill a baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why poverty is a good reason to kill a baby.

Because in our country poverty is a trap that is terribly hard to get out of. Not only for the mother but for her children as well. Choice of fertility and child birth can make an enormous difference to the entire households' welfare. Making it easier for women (and men) to control how many children they conceive and bear to term is both individually and socially beneficial. But I honestly don't think Republicans give a rats ass about poverty (cheap labor) or the social consequences of it (schadenfreude). In my mind they must be completely lacking in compassion as they seem to be putting all of their focus and attention on the potential for life and not on actual life. That and I think they are completely misogynist. The fact that they completely miss the idea that women don't want to get pregnant unintentionally and don't want to have to make the decision to end that potential life. They have no idea of the violence and struggle that surrounds these women's lives. And until the Rebuplican party is actually focused on eliminating poverty and unintended pregrancies, I won't believe a word they say about wanting to "protect the sanctity of life." They can kiss my ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why poverty is a good reason to kill a baby.

Because in our country poverty is a trap that is terribly hard to get out of. Not only for the mother but for her children as well. Choice of fertility and child birth can make an enormous difference to the entire households' welfare. Making it easier for women (and men) to control how many children they conceive and bear to term is both individually and socially beneficial. But I honestly don't think Republicans give a rats ass about poverty (cheap labor) or the social consequences of it (schadenfreude). In my mind they must be completely lacking in compassion as they seem to be putting all of their focus and attention on the potential for life and not on actual life. That and I think they are completely misogynist. The fact that they completely miss the idea that women don't want to get pregnant unintentionally and don't want to have to make the decision to end that potential life. They have no idea of the violence and struggle that surrounds these women's lives. And until the Rebuplican party is actually focused on eliminating poverty and unintended pregrancies, I won't believe a word they say about wanting to "protect the sanctity of life." They can kiss my ass.

Here's the difference. Potential life versus actual life.

Pro-lifers believe that the baby is an actual life. Pro-choicers don't.

That's the fundamental disagreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous



I don't understand why poverty is a good reason to kill a baby.

I assume you've adopted a few unwanted babies; if not, you're a hypocrite meddling in other women's lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous



I don't understand why poverty is a good reason to kill a baby.

I assume you've adopted a few unwanted babies; if not, you're a hypocrite meddling in other women's lives.

I think you are well aware that pro-choice people do not think they are killing a baby any more than when an embryo doesn't implant in your uterus. God does not kill babies, and therefore neither do they.