Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the OP - but do you really think this is a "perfect storm" - a rare occurrence that only happens because of the confluence of unlikely circumstances?

Someone who is working poor, and has little or no job flexibility and no health insurance, gets pregnant and has complications - this is not "the perfect storm" or even an unlikely scenario.

Not the pp you quoted, but is it possible that she meant that abortion being illegal, no public health insurance at all, and all women's clinics closed by February 2013 is out of the realm of possiblity?

This.
I am sure the working poor, who has little or no job flexibility and no health insurance do get pregnant and have complications. Abortion is still legal, Planned Parenthood is still funded and there is still publicly funded health care. I just don't see all of those going away overnight even if Akin ( you know he isn't running for President right? Romney doesn't have the same view as Akin) wins.

But he does. He just doesn't call it legitimate rape.

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.

Anonymous wrote:To me, it is completely hypocritical to be pro-choice because you care about the children and also to be for cutting entitlement programs. If you insist that children not be aborted and must be born, then you really should be for the entitlement and welfare programs that will provide food and support to those children. The largest number of affected children that will be born will be welfare babies to the poor who will especially need those benefits. It is just unconscionable to insist that babies must be born, but to cut back on public services to provide for those children that are born.

And yet, the Tea Party does hold these beliefs. To them, the only people who are aborting children are middle class to rich people. They have begun to believe their own party line of smoke and mirrors that all children will be born into homes of means to care for them.

I completely agree with you, PP. However, food is a relatively easy part. Down the road, those children will need to be educated and will have to find employment, and that's where the really tricky part starts.

Anonymous wrote:To me, it is completely hypocritical to be pro-choice because you care about the children and also to be for cutting entitlement programs. If you insist that children not be aborted and must be born, then you really should be for the entitlement and welfare programs that will provide food and support to those children. The largest number of affected children that will be born will be welfare babies to the poor who will especially need those benefits. It is just unconscionable to insist that babies must be born, but to cut back on public services to provide for those children that are born.

And yet, the Tea Party does hold these beliefs. To them, the only people who are aborting children are middle class to rich people. They have begun to believe their own party line of smoke and mirrors that all children will be born into homes of means to care for them.

Actually, the Tea Party doesn't have a stance on abortion. Many members of the Tea Party do, but the Tea Party as an organization doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I answered the original scenario, how does a woman deal with the difficult pregnancy with the pregnancy help line. The OP basically admitted that her original strawman of no place for her hypothetical woman to turn in this scenario was wrong because there was a place for help. OP then expanded it to once the baby was born, and you've now expanded it to when the kid is 16. There are a mirade of resources available...I'm very familiar with them because I've done work assisting poor families for years. But I don't have the time to detail every step in the process for 16 years of a hypothetical, but for early years, the pregnancy help lines have resources, past that I would refer you to Catholic Charities and Lutheran Family Services for the appropriate resources.

I ask you again, what if the woman is NOT Christian. What if she is Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist? Will your supposed christian charities help her?

Yes

To me, it is completely hypocritical to be pro-choice because you care about the children and also to be for cutting entitlement programs. If you insist that children not be aborted and must be born, then you really should be for the entitlement and welfare programs that will provide food and support to those children. The largest number of affected children that will be born will be welfare babies to the poor who will especially need those benefits. It is just unconscionable to insist that babies must be born, but to cut back on public services to provide for those children that are born.

And yet, the Tea Party does hold these beliefs. To them, the only people who are aborting children are middle class to rich people. They have begun to believe their own party line of smoke and mirrors that all children will be born into homes of means to care for them.

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

What are you trying to say? Can you please use proper grammar in your non-arguments?

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.

I answered the original scenario, how does a woman deal with the difficult pregnancy with the pregnancy help line. The OP basically admitted that her original strawman of no place for her hypothetical woman to turn in this scenario was wrong because there was a place for help. OP then expanded it to once the baby was born, and you've now expanded it to when the kid is 16. There are a mirade of resources available...I'm very familiar with them because I've done work assisting poor families for years. But I don't have the time to detail every step in the process for 16 years of a hypothetical, but for early years, the pregnancy help lines have resources, past that I would refer you to Catholic Charities and Lutheran Family Services for the appropriate resources.

I ask you again, what if the woman is NOT Christian. What if she is Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist? Will your supposed christian charities help her?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Let's add to the scenario that OP is not a Christian. THEN who do you want her to call?

You don't have to be Christian to get help from those resources.

p.s. You're not pro-life, you're ANTI-CHOICE.

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.

Let's add to the scenario that OP is not a Christian. THEN who do you want her to call?

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: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.

Wow, you must seriously be a child of privilege. The economic and health circumstances of the person in OP's hypothetical are NOT unusual. The only thing still in question is whether we will have the republican vision of American in a year or two or four. No health care, no abortion, no welfare, no minimum wage, nothing but tax breaks for rich people/corporations. And war, oh yes, always war.

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.

I answered the original scenario, how does a woman deal with the difficult pregnancy with the pregnancy help line. The OP basically admitted that her original strawman of no place for her hypothetical woman to turn in this scenario was wrong because there was a place for help. OP then expanded it to once the baby was born, and you've now expanded it to when the kid is 16. There are a mirade of resources available...I'm very familiar with them because I've done work assisting poor families for years. But I don't have the time to detail every step in the process for 16 years of a hypothetical, but for early years, the pregnancy help lines have resources, past that I would refer you to Catholic Charities and Lutheran Family Services for the appropriate resources.

OP here, and I admitted no such thing.

I still haven't heard how a woman who lives paycheck to paycheck is supposed to pay rent while on bedrest. Much less how she's supposed to continue to work while caring for an infant and then child and then teen she didn't intend to bear in the first place.

Pregnancy help lines are only for women who intend to place an infant for adoption, (Handmaidens Tale) or, perhaps at very best, giving you a stack of brochures about the forms you can complete and the lines you can stand in to get free clinic attention. Pregnancy help lines are NOT in the business of paying your bills for the four to six years til public school, while you can't work because you're gestating and caring for a child.

And I'm afraid it would be far too much to ask for Republicans to consider the well-being of the unwanted child. We all know how many abused and neglected children there are in this, the era of relative choice and relative public assistance. If with these choices and these (somewhat holey) nets, some people are still unable to care appropriately for the children they have, how will things look when termination isn't an option and there's no more public assistance to house and feed the unwanted children?

I'm pro-choice, but I think you are doing a disservice to the other side to suggest that they are ALL against ALL social services and government support. That's certainly not the position of the Catholic Church, which is stridently "pro-life" but has also issued some scathing indictments of Ryan's budget fantasies. And I'm sure there are many non-Catholic prolifers who also would argue for robust societal/governmental programs to provide basic necessities. Demonizing ALL those who don't support abortion rights isn't entirely fair, and it certainly isn't helpful.