What plans do Republicans have for the children after abortions become illegal?

Question

Since Republicans want to make abortion illegal, I'm just wondering what their plans would be to support the huge boom of unwanted children. More Orphanages, what? We know for a fact they wouldn't considering changing the law so gays could take some of these children. So what's the plan? Or would these children be left to roam the streets uncared for?

Booing and knocking me is not answering the question, repubs. No different than a kid plugging his ears and screaming repeatedly "I CANT HEAR YOU"

Be a grown up and try to give a logical answer if you can.

Taking responsibility would be ideal, yes; But expecting people to do so is impractical and naive thinking they would do so.
There is a huge population of children in our fostcare system already who people simply will not adopt. Why don't people in this country adopt them? I'll tell you why - the majority of people who adopt are white. And they want white kids. Why do you think there is a huge number of folks adopting from Russia? Besides the fact that they can get a child of their own race, the chance of a mother reclaiming her child is null. Whereas is she adopts from the USA, theres a good chance she could loose her child or have to share parenting rights with the birth mother.
These are the facts, as unpleasant as they are.

Andrew M has an excellent point...how can these children learn if Republicans won't let sex education in the classrooms? Clearly the parents are not taking responsibility.

Answer 1

You act like the Republicans haven't thought this through. The rich will still be able to get their abortions, even if they have to fly out of country to do so.

There is a major quandry in the Republican party. If they TRULY don't want immigrants here, they they will have to accept lower profits because Americans will insist upon higher wages and safe working conditions.

So, how can they keep maximizing profits, forcing unions and labor to accept lower and lower wages and benefits if they don't have illegal scab labor to exploit?

They need a burgeoning supply of destitute and desperate people who will be willing to be exploited to survive. A great source would be a population boom amongst those so poor they can't afford to raise the children. Put this together with the gutting of all pubic institutions like the education system and health care, and maybe, just maybe the right-wing can realize their dream of restoring the old-school aristocracy/vassal tiered economic system.

As to the person above who talks about being responsible for the choices, how does that work when the Republicans won't let sound science and facts be taught to kids through comprehensive sex education classes?

Answer 2

Well I guess it could be inconvenient to take care of more children, so lets do away with them! After all it's convenience that matters. Your questions is focusing on the wrong thing. Not if we can take care of them, but is it wrong to end them. Oh and gay people already do adopt. The other thing is that abortions will probably never become illegal. We don't need to make abortions illegal; there are better ways to reduce them.

The other thing is that there are many many people that would love to adopt a child. I personally have 4 couples that are friends of mine that had to go to Russia to adopt a child. Look into the number of people that are wanting to adopt a child. That is who will take care of the children.

Answer 3

How about people take responsibility for their actions? In stead of open sex why not encourage more thought before the heat of the moment. And no welfare for those who want to do what they want and make every one pay. Open free sex is not open and free. Nothing in live is free it all comes with a price tag. And many ways to look at this could be a life of a child, the life of the woman who does this and may later feel guilt and have to live with this. And what about the man he is not taken into the equation like so many things except child support. And if he has no say than take away the pay to play rule. So many things are not looked at when this is brought up only the woman’s right to chose.
And this is the biggest narcissist view of all. If you want to not feel guilt and like the gays you brought up by ramming it down every ones else’s throat tell me what is the difference of the other side telling you not to do a abortion? Their is none as you try to shut out the opposition by the same means and which is right you or them? So until you can show me that it is not a life than I say no.
You say what to do with all the unwanted babies well put them up for adoption as there are many people who can not have a child and do not have the same view of not wanting one.
Or if you want to have this then tie your tubes and go out and have it with how ever you want but do not put it on very one else who is not on the same page as you so you can go do what you want and not pay the price.

Answer 4

Wow, you really stirred up the hornets nest with this one!
Based on the past actions and rhetoric of the majority of the republican party, their only concern with the issue of human life is when it is either that of their own or, as in this case, of political value as a soap box issue.
What will happen is they will get "tough on crime" and lock the majority of them up- you do realize having allowed privatization of the prison system in many states it is a very profitable industry (for the companies themselves) and at the same time a huge drain of taxpayers dollars, more so than when run by government.
The fact of the matter is that Right Wing Republicans consistantly contradict themselves: they value deeply the life of an unborn fetus. In the case of War it doesn't matter how many innocents die as long as we have access to cheap oil. They strongly support the death penalty & value life.
They care deeply for the rights of the unborn fetus, however on the day it is born, if female, they want to have control of it's body (right to abortion)
Their party "supports the troops" while proposing major cuts in combat pay and huge cuts to the benefits of veterans.
All this being done in the Republican belief of limited government. With Republicans calling the shots we havn't been able to exit a War that the majority of the public wants to see end. How limited is that?
The limited government Republicans favor is the government that takes tax dollars and pays a buddy's corporation to do something once done by the government. The sad outcome in many cases is the cost to the taxpayer is much higher for the same service with less safeguards.
The biggest irony that Democrats really need to capitalize on is the fact that Bush likes to run his lie hole about not raising taxes and giving tax breaks- maybe since his Saudi buddies have bailed him out of his many bankrupted businesses he doesn't have the necessary business sense to figure out someone has to pay the bills. Since most everyone can agree we cannot live in debt forever and must pay the bills (national debt) sometime, and since the govenment generates revenue through taxes- Bush by spending like a crack head has already raised everyone's taxes.
We've all had a friend or know of someone whose ex wiped them out and in order to resore their credit they had to either pay the bills or file BK. That's the analogy of the Bush presidency. Bush's companies took the BK route.
The honest answer to your question is they have no plan other than to seek another issue that will further divide the counrty in an effort to win over people to their side.
Plain and simple it is a valueable political issue to those that pull the strings, and the many angry people (like many responding to your question) siding with the Republican view point only fall into the game that is, and has always been, politics in the USA. Funny how everyone loves to complain about politians but the majority love to be played time and time again- because they "know" they are right.

Answer 5

curiously you have chanced on a worse information resource than FOX. they do no longer seem to be attempting to make contraceptives unlawful. it particularly is, on the different hand, unlawful to stress church homes to flow against their sense of right and incorrect by ability of forcing them to pay for contraceptives, sterilization, and the abortion pill. Its against the 1st modification. Contraceptives are basically a part situation of a extra robust situation with federal mandates. i might consider them that existence starts off at theory yet so a procedures as making contraceptives unlawful, I actual have heard no Republican say this variety of situation. i actual hear to what they themselves say. this is amazingly effectual.

Answer 6

I would make it the responsibility of their parents to raise them, but would probably end up supporting them like I already do.
"Republicans" will always do more (proof is in the amount of charitable contributions) to take care of people than liberals who feel murdering innocent babies is OK if the child poses an inconvenience to them.
I'm all for sex ed in the classroom, but to use that as an excuse as to why irresponsible people should be able to wash their hands of taking care of their child is sad. It shouldn't be wholly the school or governments responsibility to teach kids this, this should fall primarily on the parents, again this would be personal responsibility though, which according to you is "impractical and naive," which to me and everyone I know "personal responsibility" is a way of life.

Answer 7

Its not about government taking care of anything, its about personal responsibility.

The vast majority of abortions performed are out of inconvenience-- the woman doesn't feel "ready" to take care of a child-- or a form of birth control-- "It was an accident."

Of course if people didn't have sex unless they were ready to accept ALL of the responsibility that comes with it [including having a child or being infected with a life threating, incurable disease].. then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

Answer 8

I would think that all the Anti abortion people have already filed the necessary paperwork to start adopting these children as they are born, and donating money to the people who have to keep all these children that no one wants. Which would include the cost of health care, education, clothing, and any special Needs they my have. I'm sure President Bush, VP Dick Chaney, Rev Pat Robertson and many others have all ready earmarked Million for this effort.

Answer 9

Being a man, I don`t feel qualified to have a strong opinion about abortion. I wish there was some way we could discontinue the use of abortion and gun control as political footballs. I wish to see less and less of the federal government in our lives and, if necessary, replaced by state and county. All government is a necessary evil.

Answer 10

I would say conservatives would either donate privately to charitable organizations or adopt the children themselves. Academic studies have shown conservatives to be far more generous than liberals by every measure, regardless of income. That includes money, donated time, and even blood donations. Check the article I included.