Let’s pay women not to abort
Of course, there would be a danger that women could “game” the system. Perhaps some pregnant women with no intention of aborting would claim they want to abort simply to collect a check. The amount paid would have to be large enough for abortion-minded women to choose life but not so large that they’d try it again.
Other questions include: Would participating women be required to give their babies up for adoption? How large of a payment would be needed to save lives? Would it be a lump sum or payments over the course of the child’s life?
If a participating woman gives up her baby for adoption, perhaps the payment she receives could come from donations from the adopting parents. As it is, families sometimes pay tens of thousands of dollars to adopt children, often from overseas.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Let just not pay women who fail to have children. No Social Security for anyone that is childless perhaps?
astonerii on January 23, 2013 at 8:24 PM
I’ll accept checks for not siring any unwanted crotchfruit that I cannot support.
Since this is such a well thought out idea and all.
Jeddite on January 23, 2013 at 8:24 PM
NO! Any woman thinking of abortion is not worth paying!
OldEnglish on January 23, 2013 at 8:25 PM
What the hell, man? Why are people so stupid? Let’s pay people not to murder? How about we just stop letting the media frame it as “choice about my body” and show the truth about killing tiny humans inside the womb?
Living4Him5534 on January 23, 2013 at 8:25 PM
How about instilling responsibility in the women (and their partners). A little morality can go a long way. Afterall, a man never likes a slut for long.
DAT60A3 on January 23, 2013 at 8:26 PM
We already do that.
Its called AFDC and welfare.
cozmo on January 23, 2013 at 8:27 PM
Feelings do not trump life! The desire to not carry a baby to full term is just that, a desire based on feelings. The only time abortion should be acceptable is if the life of both the mother and the child are certain to be in jeopardy.
astonerii on January 23, 2013 at 8:28 PM
There’s a really dark Pixar movie in this, somewhere.
trigon on January 23, 2013 at 8:32 PM
That had better have been sarcasm.
Exactly. Stole my post. Why the discrimination? I wanna be paid for not being a babydaddy!
Sakes alive. I’ve heard some stupid ideas to try and end convenience abortion, but this one takes the cake and runs to Alaska!
It isn’t enough that we already pay every mouth-breather for reproducing 77 ways from Sunday? Now we have to try and bribe every selfish woman and frightened irresponsible teenager not to get their uterus scraped?
MelonCollie on January 23, 2013 at 8:32 PM
There are some stupid ideas out there.
This is one of them.
WisCon on January 23, 2013 at 8:38 PM
In the same sense that women sometimes “game the system” that has the Earth cloaked in oxygen, like for example when they draw breath.
The level of fraud – if you want to call it that – would be well north of 99%.
And that’s all if you discount the overpopulation worry (which, as a person who has read up on basic demographics in *this* millenium, I do).
And *that’s* if you discount the very real, voluminously cataloged deleterious effects of bastardy.
And *THAT’S* all if you discount the devastating consequences and ramifications of child-based headcount welfare and the long fight that was waged (and is still being waged with Obama’s EOs) to end it.
HitNRun on January 23, 2013 at 8:41 PM
Now we know you are a Malthusian, we can spend more time evaluating your posts…
astonerii on January 23, 2013 at 8:42 PM
I thought we already were.
aryeung on January 23, 2013 at 8:43 PM
Just get rid of SS.
aryeung on January 23, 2013 at 8:44 PM
“discount”
HitNRun on January 23, 2013 at 8:44 PM
All for it. I just figure it is a good place to start. Those who fail to create those who will pay the taxes should not collect. Then the “unfairness” of it all will require us to move to the next step, getting rid of it altogether.
astonerii on January 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM
Technically, what we’re paying for is either for them to have illegitimate children until they turn 18 or are locked up in juvie, or for them to kill them and continue being sexually irresponsible.
There is absolutely no financial reward from Uncle Sam for a young woman who’s kept her legs shut or actually read the instructions on whatever method of birth control she was counting on.
MelonCollie on January 23, 2013 at 8:49 PM
Hmm, only 8:45 and I am already too tired to spend enough time evaluating what you wrote.
My Bad.
astonerii on January 23, 2013 at 8:49 PM
By the way… I feel the same way about military pay based on headcount… Same work, same employer, in fact fewer hours because they always allow the marrieds to leave ON TIME if for some reason extra work is required…
Pet peeve…
astonerii on January 23, 2013 at 8:51 PM
I thought some of the food stamp decisions and section 8 housing were influenced in part by how many kids they have.
aryeung on January 23, 2013 at 8:54 PM
I’ll just bookmark this little gem and pull it out any time social “conservatives” try to pretend that they care in the least about anything other than abortion and homosexuality.
Armin Tamzarian on January 23, 2013 at 8:56 PM
And we’ll laugh at you whenever you pretend to be anything other than a snot-nosed child who cares about anyone but himself and anything that causes him inconvenience.
MelonCollie on January 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM
We are already paying women far too much money not to abort in terms of welfare. And anyway I thought that “social conservatives” were worried about the family. When “social conservatives” propose family destroying ideas like this, can’t they just admit that the only reason they have to oppose gay marriage is simply bigotry?
thuja on January 23, 2013 at 9:21 PM
What a retarded idea. But that said, Daniel, you and that mouse in your pocket go right ahead. Ohyou meant “we” as in spending other peoples’ money for them. Eff off you worthless parasitical piece of trash.
Daikokuco on January 23, 2013 at 9:22 PM
TexMex817 on January 23, 2013 at 9:25 PM
When you post nothing but regurgitated liberal drivel on thread after thread, why can’t you admit that you’re nothing but a pathetic troll who needs to be doxed and banned?
MelonCollie on January 23, 2013 at 9:27 PM
Hmm…one time payoff vs. 18+ years of hand outs???
Yeah..I can see that working….
BigWyo on January 23, 2013 at 9:39 PM
We already do. It’s called AFDC, welfare, free housing, and hundreds of other freebies we’ve never heard of.
bgibbs1000 on January 23, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Exactly.
The only way this would have a prayer of working is if the bribe included getting their tubes tied as a requirement, and I can tell you that’s not happening.
MelonCollie on January 23, 2013 at 11:06 PM