only some food isn't enough.
and to make the government pay for everything is to much to ask.

Exactly. It's actually a very abused system here. It's a lot like Canada's problem with free health care - people are using it whenever.

i thought what i quoted was wroted down kinda like how nostradamus wrote down his prediction. it sounds nice but it has no real meaning.
so i went to take a closer look and figure out how we could improof these points. then by useing senarios i found out that it does work.

now if you want to explain to me how you see this idea of yours happening in real life. then i might just turn around and support it. but by useing my own logic i dont see it working.

I think you're sort of missing my point. I'm saying instead of voting for illegalizing abortion, pro-lifers should vote for (and suggest and attempt to implement if they are in office) things that benefit motherhood for those that want it. What I meant was that you had quoted what I had said should be the focus of the pro-life movement, and you had shown that you couldn't think of improvements from your own logic. I'm saying that we need to work on the innovation of ideas to ease this burden, rather than stifling the option that people, usually for religious reasons, don't like. Sorry if I didn't specify that.

so WIC cards are also for food.
next up: cloths, toys, day-care, school, sports, etc.

Yeah, I forgot to mention, and thanks for the link Salvidian. WICs are basically a food stamps thing specifically for child care. They limit what food you can buy, sometimes they say you can only get organic food. And you can't get candy or anything like that. They also limit the amount of produce you can get each month.
But I think having funds to pay for things specifically for children, like the WIC card, could be applied to the issues you mentioned above. It's not the goal to completely take over for her, that would be too costly. It's to make the burden manageable for mothers that want to give birth but aren't sure if they can afford to.

only some food isn't enough.
and to make the government pay for everything is to much to ask.

That's fair enough. I wouldn't expect the government to pay for everything, only lighten the burden in what ways it can afford to. I should word it this way. The goal is to make the burden as easy as possible for pregnant women that don't want to abort but will be in financial trouble if they don't, rather than protesting abortion clinics and trying to make abortions more difficult. If the woman simply wants the abortion, and the only way to stop her is to prevent the choice at all, then no one should have the authority to intervene.

Sorry if I didn't specify that.

i'm not following it. i'll try again when i wake up.

I think having funds to pay for things specifically for children, like the WIC card, could be applied to the issues you mentioned above. It's not the goal to completely take over for her, that would be too costly.

only 5% of all these costs would probably be to costly. especially whit the debt high and the economy low.

only lighten the burden in what ways it can afford to

if they gonna spend more on 1 area, they have to reduce funds on a other area.
just how much do you want? then little parts of others can be taken away to pay for these new costs.

extreme example: they can pay for it entirely if they stop paying the army

only 5% of all these costs would probably be to costly. especially whit the debt high and the economy low.

Now probably isn't the time to tackle something like this, XD
In general I tend to think that we're better off trying to solve or improve situations like this when the economy is doing better.

if they gonna spend more on 1 area, they have to reduce funds on a other area.
just how much do you want? then little parts of others can be taken away to pay for these new costs.

It's not that I'm trying to quantify what we need specifically, but rather what we have left over. Nowadays that doesn't translate very well since we're always in deficit mode, but when revenues exceed spending, that's when we should go after the issue. I was just stating that, in general, pro-lifers should spend their time and money advocating things like this instead of making abortion illegal or more difficult.

extreme example: they can pay for it entirely if they stop paying the army

This isn't something I would consider top priority at the moment since we do have other issues that affect everyone to work on, and it certainly isn't something that I would want to take precedence over the army, education funding, etc.

people are already being helped whit that right? atleast they are in my country.
thats why i wrote "extra emotional care"

Psychological help tends to cost money. Considering it's mostly the poor that experience PPD I wouldn't be surprised if the mother skips over receiving help.

you sure this is pro-life? sound allot like anti-life to me. do they want people to have a bad life or what?

That is the position you will find many pro-life advocates taking. As already quoted "If you're preborn you're fine, if you're preschool you're ****ed."

As for what I think? I think many government officials in the US tend to display sociopathic tendencies. And I'm not singling out any one party with that either.

and there are programs that help them to get into shape again. it's up to them to join 1 after giving birth. by the national health care (would be obama-care for you) a few of these trainings are paid for.

Again many of those who are on the pro-life side are also against obamacare or any such help with medical treatment.

Now probably isn't the time to tackle something like this, XD
In general I tend to think that we're better off trying to solve or improve situations like this when the economy is doing better.

but what until then? what would be their best point until then?
it can take a few decades befor the economy and debt are good enough to pull off something like this.

It's not that I'm trying to quantify what we need specifically, but rather what we have left over. Nowadays that doesn't translate very well since we're always in deficit mode, but when revenues exceed spending, that's when we should go after the issue. I was just stating that, in general, pro-lifers should spend their time and money advocating things like this instead of making abortion illegal or more difficult.

but if what they promote can't be realize in real life (yet). they won be taken seriously. they sure dont want that to happen.

Psychological help tends to cost money. Considering it's mostly the poor that experience PPD I wouldn't be surprised if the mother skips over receiving help.

ic.
well here it is free to visit a psychologist if there is reason for it. i dunno, but i think this can fall under that.

Again many of those who are on the pro-life side are also against obamacare or any such help with medical treatment.

we choose the wrong word then. it's not pro-life it's just anti-abortion.

Excuse me for bringing this back up, but I found this article rather interesting.

A fetus is not a person if it costs us money, says Catholic Church

The tone of the article is a bit tongue and cheek but the point it interesting. It's mentions what we have already often see with the religious (in this particular case the Catholics) arguing for the sanctity of life. How this hospital abides by that.
A doctor in this hospital didn't answer his page and the result was a man's wife and unborn twins died.

'Turns out, when a man sues a Catholic hospital for malpractice because his wife and the twins she was carrying inside her died when she turned up in the emergency room and her doctor never bothered to answer a pageâ€"well, things get a little tricky. Yes, the Catholic hospital adheres to the strict Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church, as set forth by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. And yes, those directives include the claim that "[t]he Church's defense of life encompasses the unborn" and a mandate to uphold "the sanctity of life 'from the moment of conception until death.'"'

The interesting thing here is the doctors defense against being liable.

"Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights."

I wonder how many Christians against abortion have read Numbers 5:16-28.

I wonder how many Christians against abortion have read Numbers 5:16-28.

Ha!  But its ok to kill those babies because hey, the husband was jealous

Everything is Ok. i think like that because i just do whatever i want. Problem?