Wouldn't an anti-abortion ruling necessitate a welfare program?

[The Backlash Cometh]

I'm just wondering why the Dems don't call their bluff. We all know that it's impossible to take away choice from women, without realistically expecting a higher burden on society to raise or care for the children resulting from the increase in births. So, why aren't the Dems driving this point home? Each time the right pushes their anti-choice opinions, ask them where they see the increases in social cost and how much they're willing to raise taxes to take care of the children who are coming into this world to mothers who aren't prepared to give them the best chance in life?

[DanCa]

1. The gop doesn't care about livng breathing children so no.

Honestly they would rather adopt embryos than kids.

[foreverdem]

3. I agree

They only care about fetuses. Once out of the womb, you're on your own.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. This point needs to be driven home.

I once told a Republican that Republicans believe life starts at conception and ends at birth. He acted like it was the first time he heard it. In fact, he twisted it and made it his own. He said that the Democrats believed that, not Republicans. I said, how can you say that when it was the Republicans who took away welfare from the needy?

We have a great counter point here that seems to be all but forgotten. DRIVE IT HOME!

[Cobalt Violet]

2. Once they're born the GOP doens't care if they die.

Many will be born to die.

[Skittles]

4. not in the minds of conservatives

their concern lasts from conception to the delivery room - end of story

[liberal N proud]

5. Does the need for a program mean that the GOP will do anything about it?

In a word NO!
They don't give a damned about any living soul past their own. A repuke would cut funding to their grandmother as long as they get their $300 tax cut

[fasttense]

6. What about the dead and mutilated girls resulting from back alley

and home-made abortions? Already hospital ERs are starting to see young girls coming in who used bleach douches and back-alley abortionist. This is mostly in real red states that restrict abortions and girls from wacko Christian homes.

When I was a kid (in the 70s), my friend's sister passed out on the kitchen floor when she was about 13. Her parents rushed her to the hospital and turns out she had had a back alley abortion with dirty equipment. She lived, barely, but couldn't pee for six months and could never have children.

But that's ok the fetus lived. Oh wait, no it didn't.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. Dead girls in back alleys won't resonate with the right until there

are photographs to pass around. And unless it's some white cheerleader who went to church every Sunday who had right-wing parents who were abusing her, they won't care anyway.

[w13rd0]

7. They don't care....

...really. They just don't give a shit. It's not about making sure all children that can be born are born, it's about forced pregnancy. To them, women aren't supposed to enjoy sex for it's own sake. Making sure that pregnancies are enforced is a way to cut down on "promiscuous women". Of course, they'd be the last ones to advocate male sterilization. As for the "children", they are secondary. It's their hope that eliminating choice, and restricting access to birth control, will result in women that "know their place".

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. They would as soon let these people starve, I think

for their support is only of the fetus and not of viable children. Right now you see not an increase but a decrease in the number on welfare rolls.

[calico1]

9. That would not work because the GOP

only cares about the unborn. Once a baby is born it can starve, get eaten by rats, whatever.

[mrcheerful]

10. Been there done that and all I heard was

its not our problem how you take care of the kid, you should have thought of that before you got pregnant. Well what about rape victims? Well again not our problem, if she hadn't been dressed like that she wouldn't have gotten raped, after all we know the tramp was asking to be raped and she wanted it. These are repuke replies to anything you ask them about their pro life BS. The bottom line on pro life pukes is no birth control, except for the one where you don't have sex out side of marriage. End of story, they are out to end sex period. Look at the statistics, AIDS is on the raise in christen teens, especially those who took virginity oaths. They just stopped having vaginal sex, but everything else is ok to them, as long as they keep their hymens.

[tanyev]

11. I predict a strong comeback in the poor house and orphanage industry.

[Vogon_Glory]

12. Starts At Conception, Ends At Birth

The Banana Republican Party's and their so-called "conservative" allies'' interest in what they consider to be children starts at conception and ends at birth, although considering their wretched record concerning funding for obstetric and gynecological care for the poorest and most helpless of adults, even there they could be considered negligent parents.

[Orangepeel]

15. In the logic of anti-choicers, the lack of options is a deterrent to sex

It isn't, of course, because biological drives tend to trump thoughts about long term "consequences" in the heat of the moment, but they'll argue that making abortion illegal will scare people (well, women) into not having sex, the same way they argue that keeping birth control hard to get is a deterrent.

[Kansas Wyatt]

16. Back alley abortions, self abortion attempts, etc. etc. etc.

There have to be some records of how many women died, ended up sterilized or mutated for life, and slipped into a dismal abyss. Then there should be records of how many children were actually born disabled and handicapped due to unsuccessful abortion attempts.

Who took care of all these problems back then?

Will the government build institutions to house and care for all of the unpleasant results of banning legalized abortions?

Are the Republicans willing to come up with the money needed for the coming unpleasant results?

If you want to stop the Republicans from capitalizing on it, present the records of what occurred when it was not legal and what was needed to contain the problem.

[ninkasi]

17. With all due respect...

Many of us believe that the conservatives care only for the fetus, not for the child after it is born, or the mother. I have come to think that this is not completely true...they don't care about any of them. The only thing they care about is forcing their own viewpoints on the rest of us.

If they truly cared, they would be for, not against sex education and birth control. It's the same with gay marriage. Why should they care what consenting adults do? Face it, whether they can marry or not, gays and lesbians who love each other will live together anyway, married or not. Denying them the equal rights to which they are entitled doesn't do anything but give the conservatives a certain smug satisfaction in knowing they have imposed their will on others.

These are bitterly unhappy, narrow minded bigots who can't stand to see other people live their own lives. The decision on whether to give birth or not is an intensely private one, and the ultimate judge should be the woman who will face the pregnancy and birth. I doubt that any woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy is happy about it, but sometimes, for reasons of health, or economics, or an abusive relationship, she feels that it is the right option for her.

The so-called sanctity of life argument coming from a group who is pro-death penalty, pro-war, anti social programs and anti helping the poor, rings hollow to me. It's not all about loving the fetus at the expense of the child, though...sometimes it's just plain old hatefulness, a common right-wing trait.

[Yavin4]

18. The Unwanted Children Won't Go Away and They Will Be A Burden

By definition, a woman getting an abortion is not ready to bring a child into the world and care for it. Thus, there will be a spike in the number of unwanted children, and no, adoption is an unrealistic answer as well.

Thus, anti-choice states will see a rise in the number of poor people in their states. Nothing causes poverty faster than over-population. This will create a further economic divide between choice states and anti-choice states. Pro-choice states will balk at paying higher taxes to anti-choice states to pay for these unwanted children.

If you want to see an example of nations with a huge population of unwanted children, see Brazil.