quote:NEW BRAUNFELS, Texas (Reuters) - A Texas legislator has proposed that pregnant women considering abortion be offered $500 not to end their pregnancies.
Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick, who also is a conservative radio talk show host, said on Friday the money might convince the women to go ahead and have babies, then give them up for adoption.
He said during a legislative conference in New Braunfels, 45 miles south of Austin, there were 75,000 abortions in Texas last year.
"If this incentive would give pause and change the mind of 5 percent of those woman, that's 3,000 lives. That's almost as many people as we've lost in Iraq," Patrick said...
posted
I didn't read the article, but did it mention if this $500 would be offered to women who were already planning to give their babies up for adoption? It'd seem odd if it was an offer only for those considering abortion.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But pfresh, then all the women who were already going to give the babies up for adoption can claim they might want abortions too, and then Texas can claim it's stopping even MORE pregnancy terminations!
That's a pretty inflammatory statement to make, Kwea. Calling it disgusting takes it quite a lot further than stating it's a bad idea and it bothers you.
quote:I wonder if they've considered that this will encourage teenagers to have sex, hoping to get $500.
Perhaps they are equally concerned with preventing abortions. I realize for some people in this community, that isn't the primary consideration, but for other people, it is.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder how willing they are to continue to support the child after it's born. If a woman is seriously considering an abortion, for whatever reason, and decides against to based on $500, I would say she's likely in a very poor situation to be raising that child.
The very idea that the "problem" of abortions can be solved with a $500 prize is so wrong-headed, it makes me think that the people sponsoring this look at the abortion itself as a singular act, and have absolutely no perspective.
You just convinced someone who was pretty sure she couldn't deal with a child to have the baby. Then she takes her $500 and she's gone. What happens to that child now, if she woman isn't financially, emotionally, or physically able to care for it?
It isn't a one-event problem. After the abortion doesn't take place, you now have a minimum of 18 years that someone has to be responsible for.
I hope the program offers education, child care, job assistance, big brother/big sister, etc.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it would tip the balance for one pregnant teen who decides she doesn't want to be "fat" at prom.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a silly idea. I don't really have a problem with them trying it, but I don't expect it to solve anything.
They should spend all that money that they're going to use to pay these women to teach safe sex. That way, less pregnancies and less abortions.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The very idea that the "problem" of abortions can be solved with a $500 prize is so wrong-headed, it makes me think that the people sponsoring this look at the abortion itself as a singular act, and have absolutely no perspective.
Who exactly put forth that idea?
Edit: The scare quotes are part of what I'm talking about.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: They should spend all that money that they're going to use to pay these women to teach safe sex. That way, less pregnancies and less abortions.
That's part of the problem though. There's a strong opposition to safe sex education in Texas (to the best of my knowledge from living in the state for the last 12 years or so) and a focus on abstinence-only education. Since there's opposition, the legislators aren't going to change it. So they'll got about different measures, some sort of odd like this.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can kind of see the idea: if you are a young woman who can't afford to miss work and don't have the insurance to pay for having a baby, then that might be what tips you from having a baby and giving it up for adoption to just having an abortion--the money. I don't know that I think this is the best way to go about dealing with that situation, but I don't think it's completely out of left field.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: It isn't a one-event problem.
Neither is abortion a one-event-without-reprecussions solution... even granting the prochoice side the benefit of the doubt.
I'm far more disgusted that the pro-life side has been reduced to this idea than I am by the idea itself.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But those of us who are moms, and especially those of us who didn't have health insurance and good-paying jobs when we first entered into the world of motherhood, know that $500 is NOT going to make that much of a difference.
Assuming we're talking about this money being an incentive to *keep* the child as opposed to bringing it to term and then adopting it out, that $500 is a month or two of baby expenses, maybe more if the new mom gets a lot of help from family and friends and babyshower gifts/hand-me-downs.
If this is an incentive to term and adopt, then we're buying babies. And I do believe that's currently illegal?
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
$500 every 9 months for getting pregnant and giving the baby up for adoption... sounds like a bad idea for public assistance. I bet lots of women will realize that they won't be $500 worth of inconvenienced. That's almost free money.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about we play deal or no deal for the baby? We could get a bunch of women who are considering having an abortion and allow them to play the game, with the explicit agreement being that no matter how much money they win, they wont abort the child. It would be great, and can you imagine the ratings?
Of course, that is disgusting, what I just said is disgusting, but when Kwea says that giving 500 dollars to mothers not to abort is disgusting, it is that way because of the slippery slope and wrong-headedness of the idea. If we are willing to pay women 500 dollars not to abort the child, then why not let them play deal or no deal and get as much money as they need or would ever want? And how do you have any legs to stand on when you say that one is disgusting and the other isnt?
But more than that, these people consider abortion to be murder because the child is a person. Great, but you just bought the child, the person, for 500 dollars. I am not trying to start something, and I am not trying to make a point about pro life/pro choice, but what I am saying is that sometimes the solutions, no matter how innocuous they may seem, are ridiculous in nature.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This idea proposed by the Texas Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick is silly. A $500 stipend will not deter abortion. On moral grounds, I think abortion is wrong, but it has been legal in the US for 34 years. Politically, as a conservative, it think the abortion issue is a mute point. It is the law of the land and will never be overturned.
I have been aware for many years that most women who exercise "their right to choose" could actually afford to support the child they abort. This indicates to me that most abortions are for convenience and not for the financial reasons that many pro-abortion activists continue insist on.
The following statistics by the LA based Westside Pregnancy Resource Center seem to support my position. It’s statistics indicate only 27% of the women who get abortions are actually below the poverty level. WPRC does not indicate any partisan or religious affiliation.
posted
I think it's disgusting to value a life at $500, and I also don't think it would be a very effective program.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Well, wouldn't the costs of doctors visits and the hospital be greater than $500? Even if the mother did give the baby up for adoption after?
-pH
Women who might be so poor they would accept a $500 incentive to change their minds almost certainly qualify for state-funded medical care-- that's free prenatal and delivery.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't expect this to be particularly successful. Best to spend the money on other things, like educating people on how to prevent pregnancies, making sure that everyone has access to effective contraception methods, ensuring good support systems for pregnant women and families in general, and improving or maintaining the adoption system.
Additionally, it would be helpful if there were less of a stigma surrounding unwed pregnancies. How many women have abortions because they are embarrassed or afraid of the repercussions of other people finding out about the pregnancy? (Actually, perhaps it would be helpful if we had a better idea of why most abortions take place. Anyone know of a study?)
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many women have abortions because they are embarrassed or afraid of the repercussions of other people finding out about the pregnancy?
I'm not so sure about that. Sub-sections of society that still have a stigma attatched to unwed pregnancy also tend, from what I can tell, to be fairly opposed to abortion. (The stigma attatched to unwed pregnancy/parenting seems to be waaaay down, even from when I was little, in mainstream American culture.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole thing is ridiculous, mainly for the reason stated above about just telling someone you're going to have an abortion simply to get 500 smackaroos.
If the difference between choosing to kill or not to kill an innocent child is, for you, 500 dollars, then you should be post-birth aborted.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: If the difference between choosing to kill or not to kill an innocent child is, for you, 500 dollars, then you should be post-birth aborted.
This is the kind of statement that makes my irony meter go Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like them to keep that $500 and use it to pay for these pregnant women considering abortion to have ultrasounds so they can see what exactly is growing inside them. The day I witnessed my wife's ultrasound of our unborn child was the day I became anti-abortion. There was no doubt that it was a child, it was alive, and it was a miracle of life growing inside her. If those women could see that, and be forced to confront that, I do believe it would change a lot of minds.
Or just use the money for educating people about safe sex and birth control options. Bribing people to not have abortions just doesn't sound like a good idea.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Maybe some commentary on why this is "disgusting"?
quote:I wonder how willing they are to continue to support the child after it's born. If a woman is seriously considering an abortion, for whatever reason, and decides against to based on $500, I would say she's likely in a very poor situation to be raising that child.
...
You just convinced someone who was pretty sure she couldn't deal with a child to have the baby. Then she takes her $500 and she's gone. What happens to that child now, if she woman isn't financially, emotionally, or physically able to care for it?
It isn't a one-event problem. After the abortion doesn't take place, you now have a minimum of 18 years that someone has to be responsible for.
I hope the program offers education, child care, job assistance, big brother/big sister, etc.
From the article: "Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick, who also is a conservative radio talk show host, said on Friday the money might convince the women to go ahead and have babies, then give them up for adoption."
quote:Damn, I thought some women were already having more kids to get more child support. Now they have even more incentive to get pregnant.
I wonder if they've considered that this will encourage teenagers to have sex, hoping to get $500.
Yeah, right - who's going to get pregnant for a one time $500 payment?
quote:The very idea that the "problem" of abortions can be solved with a $500 prize is so wrong-headed, it makes me think that the people sponsoring this look at the abortion itself as a singular act, and have absolutely no perspective.
This might be at all applicable if anyone had said this would solve the problem of abortion. Perhaps you could point out the place where someone said that?
quote:Assuming we're talking about this money being an incentive to *keep* the child as opposed to bringing it to term and then adopting it out...
No, it's not. The article was explicit about that.
quote:Of course, that is disgusting, what I just said is disgusting, but when Kwea says that giving 500 dollars to mothers not to abort is disgusting, it is that way because of the slippery slope and wrong-headedness of the idea. If we are willing to pay women 500 dollars not to abort the child, then why not let them play deal or no deal and get as much money as they need or would ever want? And how do you have any legs to stand on when you say that one is disgusting and the other isnt?
Who said "deal or no deal" is disgusting other than you?
quote:But more than that, these people consider abortion to be murder because the child is a person. Great, but you just bought the child, the person, for 500 dollars.
It's not buying a child, it's bribing someone not to kill their child.
I'll give you all one thing: it is absolutely disgusting that our government is reduced to outright bribery to protect the most helpless people under its care. Thank you Blackmun.
quote:I wouldn't expect this to be particularly successful. Best to spend the money on other things...
quote:It's a silly idea. I don't really have a problem with them trying it, but I don't expect it to solve anything.
They should spend all that money that they're going to use to pay these women to teach safe sex.
If it's not going to be particularly successful, then it won't waste much money.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'll give you all one thing: it is absolutely disgusting that our government is reduced to outright bribery to protect the most helpless people under its care. Thank you Blackmun.
Ill only say this Dagonee, it's interesting that you phrase the statement like you do. For you, its not even about the act itself anymore, its that you dont like the people, the women who would get an abortion--you dont like the people. You think they should be bribed instead of argued or persuaded, you think so little of them that you think the way out isnt speak of them like humans but to bribe them with a meager sum, the acceptance of which only proves your point about what horrible people these women are in the first place. Dont get me wrong, we liberals do the same thing with gun control, most of the time the liberal argument surrounding gun control, has a caveat that maintains that we dont like the people who have guns. And isnt that just funny? I mean isnt there something wrong with that?
That the crux or implication of both arguments is that, we dont like or trust the people? Hmmm...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many women have abortions because they are embarrassed or afraid of the repercussions of other people finding out about the pregnancy?
I'm not so sure about that. Sub-sections of society that still have a stigma attatched to unwed pregnancy also tend, from what I can tell, to be fairly opposed to abortion. (The stigma attatched to unwed pregnancy/parenting seems to be waaaay down, even from when I was little, in mainstream American culture.)
While this is true, I think, unfortunately, reputation supercedes principle more often than we let on.
I personally know a woman whose parents said "get an abortion or we will disown you..." by which they meant they didn't want the neighbors knowing about the pregnancy.
I also know more than one woman who was perfectly fine with it being public knowledge they were sleeping around, but for whom becoming pregnant out of wedlock somehow meant they were immoral.
There's a lot of confused people out there making these choices.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'll give you all one thing: it is absolutely disgusting that our government is reduced to outright bribery to protect the most helpless people under its care. Thank you Blackmun.
Ill only say this Dagonee, it's interesting that you phrase the statement like you do. For you, its not even about the act itself anymore, its that you dont like the people, the women who would get an abortion--you dont like the people. You think they should be bribed instead of argued or persuaded...
the crux or implication of both arguments is that, we dont like or trust the people? Hmmm...
Humean, have you *read* any of Dagonee's posts on this matter? Not only does what you said not remotely follow from anything Dagonee has said on this topic, but in the face of the *pages* he has written elsewhere on this forum regarding the subject, your point is absolutely laughable.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: Dont get me wrong, we liberals do the same thing with gun control, most of the time the liberal argument surrounding gun control, has a caveat that maintains that we dont like the people who have guns. And isnt that just funny? I mean isnt there something wrong with that?
That the crux or implication of both arguments is that, we dont like or trust the people? Hmmm...
And to actually address what you say, two things:
First off "gun control" isn't what people think it is. In this country it is perfectly legal to own fully automatic weapons, explosives, silencers, etc. if you pay a tax on them. Gun control laws just bring more weapons under this heading. There is also a background check, but, as I recently found out the hard way a huge portion of background checks is your credit rating. The Branch Davidians were not in trouble for owning M-16s, but for not paying the tax on them. That's why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is in charge of those three seemingly incongruous items and also why it is a branch of the Treasury Department.
Owning an automatic weapon or a silencer without these permits is, essentially, the same crime as bootlegging.
So gun control isn't actually about preventing something, but about ensuring that it's a luxury and only available to the wealthy. Kind of like carbon credits WRT wasteful energy consumption-- it's ok if you pay more to make up for it.
SO* point 2-- Abortion is totaly different, not only from what real gun control is (no one suggests that abortion be allowed if you pay the government extra for it), but from what you say it is as well. Being pro-life has nothing to do with not trusting the people with something. It has everything to do with not ending what is, empirically speaking, a human life. The best response pro-choice people have to that is human life is more than the mere empirical definiton and that this thing which is human-but-not isn't so important that a woman shouldn't be allowed to kill it at her convenience. That perfectly justifies it to some, but absolutely not to Dagonee, me, and a few others.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ill only say this Dagonee, it's interesting that you phrase the statement like you do. For you, its not even about the act itself anymore, its that you dont like the people, the women who would get an abortion--you dont like the people. You think they should be bribed instead of argued or persuaded, you think so little of them that you think the way out isnt speak of them like humans but to bribe them with a meager sum, the acceptance of which only proves your point about what horrible people these women are in the first place. Dont get me wrong, we liberals do the same thing with gun control, most of the time the liberal argument surrounding gun control, has a caveat that maintains that we dont like the people who have guns. And isnt that just funny? I mean isnt there something wrong with that?
That the crux or implication of both arguments is that, we dont like or trust the people? Hmmm...
You really should not try to interpret the way I view the world from your hateful, ignorant perspective. Just because YOU would be thinking such stupid things if you supported the idea doesn't mean that I am.
Here are the basic facts:
1) I believe that abortion is the intentional killing of a helpless human being.
2) I believe that government should use its power to protect the helpless.
3) Government has been prevented from doing so by the most tortured constitutional reasoning since Dred Scott.
4) Since government can't do what it should to secure the right to life - what we maintain in one of our founding documents that it should do - because of that decision, then stupid ideas like bribing someone not to kill another human being are all the government is left with.
quote:You think they should be bribed instead of argued or persuaded
Why you think the proposed legislation is incompatible with arguing or persuading is beyond me - I can't imagine the inane premises or tortured logic that allowed you to go from the one to the other, and you haven't bothered to explain them at all.
Ideally, I think everyone should be persuaded not to commit immoral acts. Some acts are so heinous that we don't rely on mere persuasion. Yet that doesn't mean we don't try persuasion while still having laws on the books.
Frankly, I'm betting it's a waste of time to write this. Neither one of your posts on this subject has exhibited the least intent to attempt to discuss this. It's simple name-calling and motive-questioning for you.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ironically, even if Texas were to value the cost of pregnancy at $500, they'd still be putting less of a price tag on a human birth than most blue states.
This is because Texas is a wonderful example of a state that likes to be as miserly as possible with social support for women in need of social medical support for pregnancy and childrearing. Not the worst, of course, but it's still down there.
To the guy who recommended this brain-dead plan to have the state start trying to buy off babies, I could only recommend this similarly ludicrous jab: If you want to really cut down on abortions, the only real solution is to try as hard as possible to adopt liberal policies and emulate a blue state. You will save thousands more children than a measly $500 bribe ever could.
You must hurry, Dan Patrick. Think of the children.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If you want to really cut down on abortions, the only real solution is to try as hard as possible to adopt liberal policies and emulate a blue state."
Why? What do they do that cuts down on the numbers?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are following the logic that the state needs to pay off mothers to try to limit abortions, guess which states offer the most support to would-be parents?
That's the comic angle: Dan Patrick's own plan is simply a ham-fisted attempt to emulate the benefit of what socially liberal states provide better to poor would-be mothers. If Texas were to try to recreate the support networks that very blue states have for poor pregnant women and parents, then they'd be convincing a sight lot more women not to abort, than they would get if they were to wave five Benjies under their nose.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Women who might be so poor they would accept a $500 incentive to change their minds almost certainly qualify for state-funded medical care-- that's free prenatal and delivery.
Not automatically, at least not when I needed it. I made too much money to qualify for Medicaid but my employer didn't offer health benefits. L&D was about $2500. Of course, once she was born, I then dropped below the upper limit because of the new dependant, but they wouldn't help me out with services incurred prior to qualification.
That little bundle of stress and money is now 13 years old.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you have evidence that this lowers the abortion rate, as you claimed in "You will save thousands more children"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is supposed to be what both sides of the issue want. If you're "pro-choice," and you don't think the decision is best for the mother, isn't the reason for your position a belief that it's her choice rather than yours or anyone else's? Since there's no human life at stake, why shouldn't the mother make her decision as she sees fit, whether it's for $500, personal beliefs, or just on a whim? It's *her* whim, after all.
And someone else here has pointed out that government already gives money to poor mothers sometimes, so if someone is "pro-choice" and believes in aid to poor mothers, that person should be even happier that the poor mother has more money and it's more practical for her to do what she really wants to rather than what she has to.
I think it is sad that this is even controversial.
[ March 24, 2007, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not so sure about that. Sub-sections of society that still have a stigma attatched to unwed pregnancy also tend, from what I can tell, to be fairly opposed to abortion. (The stigma attatched to unwed pregnancy/parenting seems to be waaaay down, even from when I was little, in mainstream American culture.)
I don't agree with that at all. Among my family and most people I know there is no, or very little stigma attached to premarital sex, and not that much for abortion (besides no one would have to know you had the abortion, that's the whole point, to get rid of it before it becomes obvious), but there is HUGE stigma attached to unwed motherhood, or even premature, hurried marriages at a young age as a result of pregnancy. If I had gotten pregnant my family would never have forgiven me. I think it may be partially a class thing. The same way that it's absolutely unthinkable not to go to college in some families. My mom also would have disowned me if I had dropped out of college or gotten married before, say, 24 or 25.
Getting pregnant too young would have been like announcing to the world that you were a looser who was too stupid to use birthcontrol properly, or had no ambition, and who wasn't really middle class at all. Not that I agree with that sentiment, but that is the way you would be perceived. You just wouldn't fit in anymore.
I remember one girl who got pregnant at sixteen in my highschool and disappeared for nearly a year to have the baby and give it up for adoption. She was a pariah. She was considered trashy. And it wasn't because everyone else wasn't having sex too.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you have evidence that this lowers the abortion rate, as you claimed in "You will save thousands more children"?
I will go ahead and exhaustively impart the position I am taking.
Dan Patrick's plan is essentially to try to buy off abortions with money. He's assuming that there will be a modicum of women who are in such dire financial straits that $500 will convince them to bring the baby to term anyway and then give it up for adoption for just the promise of that much money to help them get through the process.
And he's willing to support the program by saying 'even if it only saves X number of women, it's worth it.' That's his position. The handouts are justified for even the most macrocosmic 'success' stories.
If one is willing to support the idea that the state should buy off abortions (this is important, this is 'following his logic') they have to recognize that blue states already provide way more to women in the very situation that Patrick is trying to influence with payouts. They also have much better networks of support and resources available to poor mothers. For every decision to abort which could possibly be halted with adoption payouts, welfare systems are halting way, way more by making it easier for women to bring babies to term in situations where they otherwise would be financially unable to.
One could say 'but the blue states have more abortions!' but this isn't a counterclaim. Blue states have more abortions for many reasons that do not involve welfare supporting mothering at all, including a higher percentage of people who are ideologically okay with having abortions, easier access to abortions, welfare itself also covering abortion, less influence by fundamentalist christianity, etc. If you were to take two identical Texases (texii?) that were alike in religious makeup, demographics, minority population, GDP per capita, unemployment rate, etc, and one had a 'decent welfare system' and the other one had Dan Patrick's $500 handout, one of these states would have a bunch less abortions.
Systems which reduce the impact of poverty on potential mothers will prevent abortions. Systems which give better financial assistance to women who are considering abortion due to financial issues will make it so that more of those women will bring those babies to term. The reasons why are startlingly apparent. Anything that Patrick's crude handout would do to prevent abortions, a real welfare system would do better. My guess is that Patrick wanted to go with the handout because 'welfare' has a stigma in states like Texas and he's trying to circumvent that stigma by making this related specifically only to abortion!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd like them to keep that $500 and use it to pay for these pregnant women considering abortion to have ultrasounds so they can see what exactly is growing inside them. The day I witnessed my wife's ultrasound of our unborn child was the day I became anti-abortion. There was no doubt that it was a child, it was alive, and it was a miracle of life growing inside her. If those women could see that, and be forced to confront that, I do believe it would change a lot of minds.
I may be wrong on this, don't hold me to it, but I think in Alabama an ultrasound is required for dating purposes...in other words the clinic must do one to be sure of the date because late term abortions are illegal here. But, there is no requirement that they show the ultrasound images to the pregnant mother. I would love to see that changed, because I agree with you...I think it would change a lot of minds.
And I think it would be something that everyone would agree with...I mean, those who are pro-choice would want the woman to make a fully informed choice, and that includes giving her all the information available on her developing baby.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If one is willing to support the idea that the state should buy off abortions (this is important, this is 'following his logic') they have to recognize that blue states already provide way more to women in the very situation that Patrick is trying to influence with payouts.
Your whole argument depends on the premise that the value to the expectant mother of $500 in cash has the same value to the mother as the difference in medical care between Texas and your blue state, a premise that is unlikely to be true.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'd love to see Samp back that up with numbers.
Does he really need to provide numbers? If women are having abortions because of cost, which is the premise of giving them $500, then it is logical that the more they save, the more money they get when they're pregnant, then the less likely they will be to abort because of cost.
Five hundred dollars won't pay to have a baby, I don't believe. Medical bills cost more than that.
So, if the state offered some kind of medical insurance to pregnant women so they didn't have to pay for it out of pocket, a plan that is usually associated with 'blue state' liberalism, and this saves women more money, then they will be less likely to abort.
If this idea is not true, then I don't see how the $500 dollar idea is true.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
At minimum, he needs to provide evidence that blue states provide more than $500 in care over that provided by Texas - something that would pretty much require numbers.
quote:If women are having abortions because of cost, which is the premise of giving them $500,
No, it is not the premise of giving them $500. The premise of giving them $500 is that some people will choose not to have an abortion if given $500 not to do so. This might be related to cost, but it might not be.
quote: then it is logical that the more they save, the more money they get when they're pregnant, then the less likely they will be to abort because of cost.
So, if the state offered some kind of medical insurance to pregnant women so they didn't have to pay for it out of pocket, a plan that is usually associated with 'blue state' liberalism, and this saves women more money, then they will be less likely to abort.
If this idea is not true, then I don't see how the $500 dollar idea is true.
Beyond the difference in how someone values $500 in cash and free medical care, the mere offer of $500 might make people investigate their options more thoroughly. In doing so, they might discover that, in Texas, adoption agencies can provide medical expenses, legal fees, counseling expenses, and living expenses.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
