Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are "friends of Akin?" You can be staunch pro-life and think that Akin is a complete douche who should be out of the race.

I can't respond to your hypothetical because it is just hypothetical. To think there will be a perfect storm where all this happens at once is out of the realm of possibility.

I'm in total agreement with what you've written. Personally, I don't know anyone who could support him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And remember, it's possible in the opening scenario that she could have been raped. The Republican National platform is opposing abortion with NO EXCEPTIONS.

Either it's a baby...a human life...and abortion is wrong. Or it's not a baby, and not a human life, and abortion is an option. I understand, but don't agree, with both of those positions. But I don't understand how anyone can believe that abortion is ok in the case of rape, but not ok the rest of the time? If it's a baby, a human being, how does the horrible act of his/her father change that?

This is what makes folks Akin's friends. You look at the act of the father- punish him and the life of the child "not the baby". What about the victim- how about not making her pay for someone else's crime by carrying an unwanted child. I'm pregnant now with a very wanted baby, but with the difficulties I'm having, this would be punishment akin to prison for someone who did not want to have a child.

No it doesn't make me Akin's friend. Rape is HORRIBLE. Unspeakably horrible. But IF you believe that the baby conceived...even in the horror of rape...is a human being, how can you justify ending the life of that baby. The baby didn't commit rape. Ending the baby's life doesn't punish the rapist. I agree that it would be horrible to carry a rapist's baby, and that's something I wouldn't wish on anyone, but the alternative is killing an innocent child.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

but see, as soon as someone says why doesn't the woman just have the baby and put it up for adoption, the pro-choicers scream about how terrible that option is, too (see the multiple references to the handmaid's tale just in this thread). i am reluctantly pro-choice, because i recognize that abortion may be a necessary evil. i wish we could focus more time and energy on finding ways to avoid the need for them. wish we could get to a place where adoption was a realistic solution and not seen as a backwards way of "keeping women down." hell, i'd rather see a law that allowed parents to pay women with unwanted pregnancies to stay health and place the baby (yes, i realize this is selling a child). it just seems to me that people are so focused on finding ONE solution that we miss the opportunity to find multiple options that might work in various different realities (perfect storm or not).

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote: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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all pro lifers such hypocritical liars? Please detail this myriad of services available to the poor beyond a homeless shelter
Now, if the scenario is that the mother does not want to carry this fetus to term, be it due defect, mother's health, financial reasons or personal choice other than planned parenthood which has no funds. I guess it's back to the coat hanger/back room

I think that all pro-lifers would agree with you that a coat hanger back room abortion is a bad thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro-lifers out there, why haven't you answered the OP's question? How will a poor woman with no resources have a baby, keep her job, and pay the bills?

How about preschool, doctor visits, health insurance, clothing, medicine, dental appointments. How about when the child is 14, 15, 16...food bills increase year after year. How will this woman possibly be able to afford this??

And remember, it's possible in the opening scenario that she could have been raped. The Republican National platform is opposing abortion with NO EXCEPTIONS.

Less people would be poor

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And remember, it's possible in the opening scenario that she could have been raped. The Republican National platform is opposing abortion with NO EXCEPTIONS.

Either it's a baby...a human life...and abortion is wrong. Or it's not a baby, and not a human life, and abortion is an option. I understand, but don't agree, with both of those positions. But I don't understand how anyone can believe that abortion is ok in the case of rape, but not ok the rest of the time? If it's a baby, a human being, how does the horrible act of his/her father change that?

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?

Do you really think that people work and donate to crisis pregnancy centers not because they value the lives of the woman and the babies they are pregnant with, but because they hope to create a Handmaids Tale world of baby dealing? You have an extremely poor view of a large portion of the world.

I think you need to consider that even if you don't agree that the baby in utero is a human life, that many many people do honestly believe that. If you believed that millions of babies were being killed each year, what would you do? Might you try to help their mothers so that the mothers have all the resources possible to give birth to those babies? Might you help connect those mothers with resources to parent those babies, but if the mother decided she couldn't parent that baby might you connect her with adoption resources.

What would you expect a caring person to do if they belief that a baby in utero is a human being?

Anonymous wrote:The problem with your question is that to provide a serious answer implies that I agree with your hypothesis that I am a friend of Akin. I think he is a complete and total ass. I am not his friend. I am not his supporter.

I am however pro-life.

Have you never seen a bumper sticker or billboard that says, "Pregnant, need help?" with a phone number.
http://www.lifecall.org/

There are many of us who are pro-life and donate to these resources so that women in the situations you describe have help available.

I repeat again...I am NOT a friend or suppoerter of Akin.