Abortion or $500

[Fenris]

From cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/23/texas.abortion.reut/index.html):

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 Friday the money might persuade 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 women, that's 3,000 lives. That's almost as many people as we've lost in Iraq," Patrick said.

Patrick has filed legislation to make the payment state law, but the legislature has not voted on it.

His proposal calls for giving any woman going to an abortion clinic the $500 option, to be paid no more than 30 days after the baby is born and given up for adoption.

Critics say the proposal would violate Texas and federal laws against buying babies, which Patrick rejected as "the typical ridiculous criticism."

Heather Paffe, political director of Planned Parenthood of Texas, said Patrick's proposal "is very cynical and insulting to women and their families."

"It's insulting to think women would make that kind of decision so easily," she said.

So: is it buying babies?
(I don't see how; since the babies don't go to any particular parents, which is what we normally mean by "buying" something.)

Is it insulting to women?
(*Shrug* Those who are insulted won't participate. Those who aren't, may.)


Personally, I think it would work a lot better as a private initiative than as a matter of public policy: it would be a much better, more direct use of the pro-life movement's money than commercials or lobbying efforts.

Thoughts?

õ
It's so capitalistic!

[Chris Nowlin]

I'd definitely agree this is a better idea for a private organisation than as a use of taxpayer money.

But it's certainly better than a ban on abortion.


But... it just seems odd somehow. I mean, I figure the decision to have an abortion is a difficult one, certainly not something I'd care to have to imagine going through.

I'm sure they weigh a lot of factors be they practical, moral, etc. and assume it to be a very emotional process. I'm trying to imagine $500 being a significant factor in the decision. It seems almost ridiculous to think somebody could make such a traumatic decision and then be swayed by five hundred dollars. While I admit to having no idea what goes on in the head of a woman considering and abortion, I suspect Patrick has even less.

[Mike Smash!]

How about instead of $500, they agree to pay for the kids' medical and dental bills and their college tuition?

Besides... what's to stop a pregnant woman who plans on having the kid anyways, from pretending to consider abortion just to get the money?

[thespianphryne]

I don't think it's buying babies, but it's amusing to me to find out what some legislator thinks a pregnancy is worth in real and practical terms.

We've come a long way, baby!



ETA: Now that I think about it, it could be construed as buying babies for the adoption program.

[Drew Van T.]

Seems like a way of targeting poor pregnant women wanting abortion. Because any person who is middle class or higher is going to answer "go f**k yourselves" and have the abortion anyway, if that's what they want.

The way these puritan moralists work, they always seem to target the least well-off first.

[rick]

The thread title sounds like some kind of gameshow from Hell. :eek:

[Matt]

Wow.

Way to be insulting to those struggling with such a big decision, assuming that their decision can be bought for a little bit of cash.

[Michael P]

Wow. The way pro-lifers talk about the life of a fetus having value, you'd think they'd offer more than such a lowball figure.

[Rabid Trekkie]

You know, on one level, I'm actually interested to see how many women would decide not to have an abortion because of a $500 incentive. I mean if the abortions dropped dramatically it would say a lot about the kind of people we have in Texas.

However, despite my odd fascination for the results of such a project, why the hell do I have to pay for it? I don't have kids of my own so I'll be damned if I pay for someone else to have theirs.

[Karl J Barnes]

How about instead of $500, they agree to pay for the kids' medical and dental bills and their college tuition?

Besides... what's to stop a pregnant woman who plans on having the kid anyways, from pretending to consider abortion just to get the money?

Close to what I was thinking. I mean, instead of bribing,I mean, helping them out with money. Why don't they just set up an adoption firm that can give these,possibly, unwanted babies to good homes?

[Michael P]

Close to what I was thinking. I mean, instead of bribing,I mean, helping them out with money. Why don't they just set up an adoption firm that can give these,possibly, unwanted babies to good homes?

That might be something Christ would do.

[Drew Van T.]

I don't have kids of my own so I'll be damned if I pay for someone else to have theirs.

You already do. Surely there has to be at least one government agency that is using your tax dollars to assist or help pregnant women in some way or other, in terms of healthcare, insurance, or some small aid. And no, you can't have them back.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Close to what I was thinking. I mean, instead of bribing,I mean, helping them out with money. Why don't they just set up an adoption firm that can give these,possibly, unwanted babies to good homes?

The problem with this idea always comes down to a simple reality: There are already more kids in the adoption system than there are people wanting/willing to adopt them. Simple fact.

Kids are unadopted for lots of reasons. Some are older, and most adoptive parents want to start with babies/very young kids. Some have handicaps of one sort or another. Many are minorities, and while some folk readily enough adopt outside their racial group, the simple fact is, kids of some ethinc groups are preferentially adopted over kids of other groups.

All this would do, in the absence of large numbers more adoptive parents, would increase the burden on adoption agencies.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Why would we want the spawn of someone who was willing to make such a big desicion soley for such a little amount of money?


Besides... what's to stop a pregnant woman who plans on having the kid anyways, from pretending to consider abortion just to get the money?

Actually, get ready for at least a few idiots who get knocked up just to get the money.
The Australian government gives you $3000 if you have a kid, and there have been idiots who have had a kid soley to get the $3000 - namely lower class teenage girls who thinks it sounds like a lot of money, and are too stupid to think beyond themselves.

[Subotai]

Kids are unadopted for lots of reasons. Some are older, and most adoptive parents want to start with babies/very young kids. Some have handicaps of one sort or another. Many are minorities, and while some folk readily enough adopt outside their racial group, the simple fact is, kids of some ethinc groups are preferentially adopted over kids of other groups.

"Great, so we'll take a kid that's not so desirable. You got a black kid? We'll take a black kid. You got a chink kid?"
"You don't seem to understand..."
"Nobody likes older kids. You got an eight-year old black-chink kid, we'll take him."

-Thief

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

"Great, so we'll take a kid that's not so desirable. You got a black kid? We'll take a black kid. You got a chink kid?"
"You don't seem to understand..."
"Nobody likes older kids. You got an eight-year old black-chink kid, we'll take him."

-Thief

Your willing to say "chink", but won't say 'nigger'.

Why is that?

Do you consider one to be less insulting, or do you not care if you insult one race?

[Clint Barton]

Wow. The way pro-lifers talk about the life of a fetus having value, you'd think they'd offer more than such a lowball figure.

I wonder if they take money orders or cash? Hmm.

As Father Hamburger once stated..."This is a culture of death we live in."

[Justin Davis]

Your willing to say "chink", but won't say 'nigger'.

Why is that?

Do you consider one to be less insulting, or do you not care if you insult one race?

He was quoting the movie Thief (http://imdb.com/title/tt0083190/quotes), which is why he noted so at the end of his post.

[Spike-X]

Why would we want the spawn of someone who was willing to make such a big desicion soley for such a little amount of money?



Actually, get ready for at least a few idiots who get knocked up just to get the money.
The Australian government gives you $3000 if you have a kid, and there have been idiots who have had a kid soley to get the $3000 - namely lower class teenage girls who thinks it sounds like a lot of money, and are too stupid to think beyond themselves.

Yeah, we really need to be encouraging idiots like that to breed. And I know it's only a small minority, but anything that gives ammunition to shows like Today Tonight and A Current Affair, and the mouth-breathing morons who watch those shows, can't be a good thing. Also, the payment has recently gone up to $4000.

And I have no hard evidence of this, but I've heard that, soon after these payments were introduced, sales of stuff like Playstations and big-screen TVs went way up over on that side of town.

Which is certainly not something I want to believe, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was true.

[Nikita]

I think the law that South Carolina is trying to pass is much more insulting to women who want an abortion:

http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-032207-krg-ultrasound.70f1333.html

[Jeff Brady]

He said during a legislative conference in New Braunfels, 45 miles south of Austin, there were 75,000 abortions in Texas last year.

I mean if the abortions dropped dramatically it would say a lot about the kind of people we have in Texas.

I think that the high number of abortions already says a lot about the kind of people in Texas. It says a lot about the quality of life, and the quality of sex education.

[Spike-X]

I think the law that South Carolina is trying to pass is much more insulting to women who want an abortion:

http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-032207-krg-ultrasound.70f1333.html
Wow.

If approved by the Senate, the Palmetto State would be the first in the country to actually force a woman to see an ultrasound image and certify that she did so, before having an abortion.

I wonder if the bill will also require somebody to scream in the woman's face, "THIS IS THE BABY YOU'RE GOING TO KILL!!!"

I mean hell, if you're going to use emotional blackmail, might as well go all out, I say.

[Paul McEnery]

From cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/23/texas.abortion.reut/index.html):

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 Friday the money might persuade 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 women, that's 3,000 lives. That's almost as many people as we've lost in Iraq," Patrick said.

Patrick has filed legislation to make the payment state law, but the legislature has not voted on it.

His proposal calls for giving any woman going to an abortion clinic the $500 option, to be paid no more than 30 days after the baby is born and given up for adoption.

Critics say the proposal would violate Texas and federal laws against buying babies, which Patrick rejected as "the typical ridiculous criticism."

Heather Paffe, political director of Planned Parenthood of Texas, said Patrick's proposal "is very cynical and insulting to women and their families."

"It's insulting to think women would make that kind of decision so easily," she said.

So: is it buying babies?
(I don't see how; since the babies don't go to any particular parents, which is what we normally mean by "buying" something.)

Is it insulting to women?
(*Shrug* Those who are insulted won't participate. Those who aren't, may.)


Personally, I think it would work a lot better as a private initiative than as a matter of public policy: it would be a much better, more direct use of the pro-life movement's money than commercials or lobbying efforts.

Thoughts?

õ
It's so capitalistic!

This just goes to show the mentality of the anti-abortion crowd. The only "lives" this guy is concerned about are the unborn. Once you're a grown up pregnant woman, all 6 months of your pregnancy, the time off work, the knock on your health, the grief of giving up a full grown baby for adoption, all of that, what's that worth?

500 bucks.

And that's how much he thinks about women's moral choice here, too.

What a creep.

[Nikita]

Wow.



I wonder if the bill will also require somebody to scream in the woman's face, "THIS IS THE BABY YOU'RE GOING TO KILL!!!"

I mean hell, if you're going to use emotional blackmail, might as well go all out, I say.


Yeah, pretty shitty thing to force on a woman. Looks like the bill is going to pass too. What about her rights?

[Spike-X]

Yeah, pretty shitty thing to force on a woman. Looks like the bill is going to pass too. What about her rights?
She should have thought about that before she spread her legs, the slut.

[mgs]

Wow.

Way to be insulting to those struggling with such a big decision, assuming that their decision can be bought for a little bit of cash.

agreed.




ten balls.
http://www.mediachest.com/books/book_info.html?book_id=483731

[Jack Zodiac]

"If this incentive would give pause and change the mind of 5 percent of those women, that's 3,000 lives. That's almost as many people as we've lost in Iraq," Patrick said.

Readin' ya' loud and clear there, Dan.

Critics say the proposal would violate Texas and federal laws against buying babies, which Patrick rejected as "the typical ridiculous criticism."

Yeah, what the fuck? You can't buy babies now? When did that happen? This fuckin' country, man...

[Jack Zodiac]

Wow. The way pro-lifers talk about the life of a fetus having value, you'd think they'd offer more than such a lowball figure.

If I were a poverty-stricken pregnant woman, I'd haggle the shit out of Mr. Patrick. "Five hundred dollars? I could sell this baby for ten thousand, Dan, you're gonna' hafta' to a lot better than five gundred bucks."

[Oke-Doke]

Wow.



I wonder if the bill will also require somebody to scream in the woman's face, "THIS IS THE BABY YOU'RE GOING TO KILL!!!"

I mean hell, if you're going to use emotional blackmail, might as well go all out, I say.

Whats wrong with showing the person an ultrasound? I'm really surprised this is not mandatory anyway as its important to understand the full breadth of the procedure.

[Chris Nowlin]

Whats wrong with showing the person an ultrasound? I'm really surprised this is not mandatory anyway as its important to understand the full breadth of the procedure.

I've been to lots of doctors and not needed to understand fully the details of what's going on. The woman understands what she needs to in terms of risk, cost, etc. The doctors can deal with the details of procedure.

And nothing is wrong with showing the person an ultrasound. The state attempting to mandate it, however; everything is wrong with that

[Mike Smash!]

Whats wrong with showing the person an ultrasound? I'm really surprised this is not mandatory anyway as its important to understand the full breadth of the procedure.Because it's clearly an attempt to sway them into changing their mind and it's none of the government's goddamn business, that's why.

[Oke-Doke]

I've been to lots of doctors and not needed to understand fully the details of what's going on. The woman understands what she needs to in terms of risk, cost, etc. The doctors can deal with the details of procedure.

And nothing is wrong with showing the person an ultrasound. The state attempting to mandate it, however; everything is wrong with that

I've had two surgeries done before and the doctor's always showed me the x-rays of the body part to be operated on and explained the procedure. I did not suspect this wasn't required, it seems so sensible.

[Mike Smash!]

I've had two surgeries done before and the doctor's always showed me the x-rays of the body part to be operated on and explained there procedure. I did not suspect this wasn't required.But the purpose of that wasn't to persuade you to not get the surgery.

That's clearly the purpose of this bill.

[Dan Apodaca]

If a woman wants an ultrasound, I can't imagine any doctor would deny her. There's no need to make it mandatory.

[Oke-Doke]

But the purpose of that wasn't to persuade you to not get the surgery.

That's clearly the purpose of this bill.

Unfortunately you are probably correct about the politician's motives, they would propose decent legislation for the wrong reasons.

[Mike Smash!]

Unfortunately you are probably correct about the politician's motives, they would propose a decent legislation for the wrong reasons.How is it decent when the whole purpose behind it is "for the wrong reasons?"

There is no medical necessity or purpose is making an ultrasound mandatory. If the woman wants to see an ultrasound, she'll ask for one. Otherwise, this is a transparent attempt to scare an already stressed out person into changing what is in essense their choice.

[Oke-Doke]

How is it decent when the whole purpose behind it is "for the wrong reasons?"

There is no medical necessity or purpose is making an ultrasound mandatory. If the woman wants to see an ultrasound, she'll ask for one. Otherwise, this is a transparent attempt to scare an already stressed out person into changing what is in essense their choice.

I think the ultrasound, like having the x-rays present for my surgeries, gives the patient a more thorough picture of why they want or need to have an operation. Whenever something as important as surgery is about to be entered into I think details are espeacially important, as there is alot to lose.

[Dan Apodaca]

I think the ultrasound, like having the x-rays present for my surgeries, gives the patient a more thorough picture of why they want or need to have an operation. Whenever something as important as surgery is about to be entered into I think details are espeacially important, as there is alot to lose.

That still deosn't really support an ultrasound being mandatory. Advisable? Ok. Potentially interesting? Sure. In need of government legislation, so as to ensure its use? Not so much.

[Mike Smash!]

I think the ultrasound, like having the x-rays present for my surgeries, gives the patient a more thorough picture of why they want or need to have an operation. Whenever something as important as surgery is about to be entered into I think details are espeacially important, as there is alot to lose.But it's unnecessary. The doctor already talks to the patient about the procedure, a mandatory ultrasound will tell them nothing more.

[Ed Cunard]

If someone wants to give me $500, I promise I will never have an abortion ever.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I think the ultrasound, like having the x-rays present for my surgeries, gives the patient a more thorough picture of why they want or need to have an operation. Whenever something as important as surgery is about to be entered into I think details are espeacially important, as there is alot to lose.

This is an interesting rationale. So, let me ask you this:

Before someone signs up for the military, should he be exposed to the realities of burnt and blown up bodies, bleeding wounds, and such, and informed of the risks of permanent injury/disability or posttraumatic stress disorder?

[DonC]

Both of those proposed laws are pathetic. Why can't government... Hell, why can't other people mind their own fucking business? If a lady wants to have an abortion, let her. Do these idiot politicians want to go back to the days of sticking a wire coat hanger up in there and trying to yank the kid out?

[Oke-Doke]

This is an interesting rationale. So, let me ask you this:

Before someone signs up for the military, should he be exposed to the realities of burnt and blown up bodies, bleeding wounds, and such, and informed of the risks of permanent injury/disability or posttraumatic stress disorder?

I think they should be given as much knowledge about the risk of their occupation as is practical. They should also be taught about the reasons for and consequences of killing.

[Paul McEnery]

Both of those proposed laws are pathetic. Why can't government... Hell, why can't other people mind their own fucking business? If a lady wants to have an abortion, let her. Do these idiot politicians want to go back to the days of sticking a wire coat hanger up in there and trying to yank the kid out?

Because women need to know their place.

And that's as broodmares to the Texican masterrace. We need to replace those soldiers, dammit!

(And for those who think I'm exagerrating, that's the sort of thing Mussolini used to say, and he meant it. And that's what I think this guy thinks, too. Get back to breeding, woman!)

[BlairH]

I'd definitely agree this is a better idea for a private organisation than as a use of taxpayer money.

Yep.

(ten ten)

[JeffreyWKramer]

I think they should be given as much knowledge about the risk of their occupation as is practical. They should also be taught about the reasons for and consequences of killing.

Just answer my question. Should they be taken to VA centers and shown what medical disability is like? Shown graphic footage of burns and gunshot injuries and explosion trauma? Given detailed information on the statistical likelihood of various sorts of injury and psychological trauma as a consequence of combat, and required to sign a statement that they understand these things?

[Matt]

Yeah, we really need to be encouraging idiots like that to breed. And I know it's only a small minority, but anything that gives ammunition to shows like Today Tonight and A Current Affair, and the mouth-breathing morons who watch those shows, can't be a good thing. Also, the payment has recently gone up to $4000.

And I have no hard evidence of this, but I've heard that, soon after these payments were introduced, sales of stuff like Playstations and big-screen TVs went way up over on that side of town.

Which is certainly not something I want to believe, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was true.

It is true. It may only be co-incidence but I clearly recall reports that chains such as Harvey Norman and Retravision had a sharp increase in the sales of big screen TVs shortly after the Baby Bonus Payment came into effect.

Which is really just pathetic.

[Matt]

But it's unnecessary. The doctor already talks to the patient about the procedure, a mandatory ultrasound will tell them nothing more.

It would also tie up medical resources which are already pretty stretched.

[Matt]

If someone wants to give me $500, I promise I will never have an abortion ever.

There's actually some odd reasoning in that, buried pretty deeply.
If you wanted to be a PITA you could take such legislation to an Anti-Discrimination Board (or the equivalent overseeing organisation) claiming that women have been suddenly placed in an unbalanced financial position.

Therefore you demand that every male in the country is presented with the exact same offer - that they will never have an abortion in return for $500.

[JeffreyWKramer]

There's actually some odd reasoning in that, buried pretty deeply.
If you wanted to be a PITA you could take such legislation to an Anti-Discrimination Board (or the equivalent overseeing organisation) claiming that women have been suddenly placed in an unbalanced financial position.

Therefore you demand that every male in the country is presented with the exact same offer - that they will never have an abortion in return for $500.

In the US at least, law in regard to gender differences and gender discrimination does recognize that there are legitimate differences between the genders. Pregnancy is one of these differences. As such, any such suit would be tossed out, and rightly so.

[Oke-Doke]

Just answer my question. Should they be taken to VA centers and shown what medical disability is like? Shown graphic footage of burns and gunshot injuries and explosion trauma? Given detailed information on the statistical likelihood of various sorts of injury and psychological trauma as a consequence of combat, and required to sign a statement that they understand these things?

I belive I reasonably answered your question. I don't think everything you mentioned above is equivilent to showing people an x-ray or ultrasound as part of a breifing for a surgical procedure.

[Nick Soapdish]

Whats wrong with showing the person an ultrasound? I'm really surprised this is not mandatory anyway as its important to understand the full breadth of the procedure.

Is it free?

Does it make it any more of a difficult decision for the woman?

[Valmore]

Both of those proposed laws are pathetic. Why can't government... Hell, why can't other people mind their own fucking business? If a lady wants to have an abortion, let her. Do these idiot politicians want to go back to the days of sticking a wire coat hanger up in there and trying to yank the kid out?

One could reasonably argue that the government has a vested interest in the future citizens of the country, which is why many people argue for government health care, especially for children. Heck, the same party that wants universal health care wants to keep abortion around. Hey, if the government should mind its own business, then why should it provide health care?

Using a charged statement like that opens up practical cans of worms.

A more compelling argument is why this guy thinks a woman should be bought off for only $500 when the medical bills for carrying the child to term is at least three times that, if not more.

[Dan Apodaca]

More and more, I'm convinced that most pro-lifers haven't actually met anyone who's had an abortion. I mean, they make it sound like the women like it!

Are you fucking crazy? Nobody wants to get an abortion. Sometimes you NEED to.

[Oke-Doke]

Is it free?

Does it make it any more of a difficult decision for the woman?

I don't know if they would charge the woman extra in S.C. or not. Concerning difficulty about going through with the procedure, I think many people are nervous before they go under the knife. I'm not trying to get into political repercussions.

[Sabrina_Fried]

This is an interesting rationale. So, let me ask you this:

Before someone signs up for the military, should he be exposed to the realities of burnt and blown up bodies, bleeding wounds, and such, and informed of the risks of permanent injury/disability or posttraumatic stress disorder?

I prefer to keep my opinion on abortion to myself, but the answer to THIS particular question is YES!

They should also be exposed to the realities of the fact that the people who will send them into combat may not have all the information necessary to make the best strategic decisions, or may send them into combat for less-than-acceptable reasons.

Oh, and the fact that as soldiers they are in some ways ambassadors of the country they serve, both to their opponents and the neutral/friendlies through whose territory they may have to pass in the course of their duties and under ALL circumstances they must act accordingly.

As for encouraging mothers to sell their children for $500 as an alternative to abortion, um...what happens to those kids after they are born. If they don't get adopted, how much does the state have to pay to take care of them in orphanages and what do they do with those kids when they become too old for the orphanage? Put them in the army?

Um...lets forget I went there...

Sabrina

[Mike Smash!]

In the US at least, law in regard to gender differences and gender discrimination does recognize that there are legitimate differences between the genders. Pregnancy is one of these differences. As such, any such suit would be tossed out, and rightly so.Shut up. I could use the money. :)

[Mike Smash!]

In the US at least, law in regard to gender differences and gender discrimination does recognize that there are legitimate differences between the genders. Pregnancy is one of these differences. As such, any such suit would be tossed out, and rightly so.Shut up. I could use the money. :)

[Pinball]

The thread title sounds like some kind of gameshow from Hell. :eek:
Not a gameshow. A board game.

http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/images/Potpourri%20Page/game-life1.JPG

That's how much a kid is worth in this game.

[Fenris]

Just answer my question. Should they be taken to VA centers and shown what medical disability is like? Shown graphic footage of burns and gunshot injuries and explosion trauma? Given detailed information on the statistical likelihood of various sorts of injury and psychological trauma as a consequence of combat, and required to sign a statement that they understand these things?

Yes, they should. It's a dangerous job and they ought to know that- not just intellectually, but directly.

Now that that's settled, the counterquestion is: if a woman has gone through the difficult and elaborate process of deciding to have an abortion (which, as we've agreed, is nothing trivial) then how is showing her a picture going to change anything?

Yes, the intent of this law is to dissuade people from having abortions. Since most pro-choicers say that abortion should be rare but legal, I don't see why there is a problem at all with a policy that makes it, y'know, rarer, while still entirely legal.

Or is that just a talking point, meant to reassure moderates, while taking no real action to reduce the abortion rate?


õ
I am ready for alternatives!

[Paul McEnery]

Yes, they should. It's a dangerous job and they ought to know that- not just intellectually, but directly.

Now that that's settled, the counterquestion is: if a woman has gone through the difficult and elaborate process of deciding to have an abortion (which, as we've agreed, is nothing trivial) then how is showing her a picture going to change anything?

Yes, the intent of this law is to dissuade people from having abortions. Since most pro-choicers say that abortion should be rare but legal, I don't see why there is a problem at all with a policy that makes it, y'know, rarer, while still entirely legal.

Or is that just a talking point, meant to reassure moderates, while taking no real action to reduce the abortion rate?

õ
I am ready for alternatives!

Of course. In the best of all possible worlds, there should never be any need for abortion. Rather as there shouldn't be war. But since this isn't that world, what do we do?

Some compare and contrast:

1) We should maintain an armed force proportionate to the threat. And we should provide sex education and contraception.

2) We recognize how our political, economic and military strength destabilize the situation, and act responsibly. We realize that sex can lead to disease and unplanned pregnancy, and act responsibly.

3) We look at the political and economic causes of war, and act to defuse them. We look at the political and economic causes of unplanned pregancy, and act to defuse them.

4) Even so, sometimes things still go to hell, and we have to use that armed force. And if necessary, we still have that abortion.

Mind, all of that is ignoring that most of the anti-abortion movement's emotional force is geared towards treating women like little ladies who can't be trusted to think straight.

Or, in the case of the amazingly offensive idea of doing ultrasounds, provoking a severe emotional reaction in the little lady who can't think straight.

Christ! You think women like having abortions? You think it isn't emotionally horrible enough having an abortion?

The ultrasound is nothing but a con job. It alters nothing but the pregnant woman's emotions. The non-viable foetus is still only a potential human being, without the cerebral cortex that would make it fully human. But our all too human brains look at it and think: human.

So the ultrasound is basically a scare tactic meant to change the woman's POV to that of nasty little bastards like our Texican friend, who think future soldiers for the republic are more important than women.

[K'Nort]

Just answer my question. Should they be taken to VA centers and shown what medical disability is like? Shown graphic footage of burns and gunshot injuries and explosion trauma? Given detailed information on the statistical likelihood of various sorts of injury and psychological trauma as a consequence of combat, and required to sign a statement that they understand these things?

I don't understand this analogy either.

The ultrasound thing doesn't make sense (because it's not specific to the procedure itself, only to the reason behind it), but this certainly does.

What are the parallels?

[Gingold]

Yes, the intent of this law is to dissuade people from having abortions. Since most pro-choicers say that abortion should be rare but legal, I don't see why there is a problem at all with a policy that makes it, y'know, rarer, while still entirely legal.

[/i]

I can't speak for all pro-choicers, obviously. But when I speak of wanting abortion to be "rare but legal", that means that I'd like to change the circumstances that lead to unwanted pregnancies (education, birth control, improving economic conditions, etc.), not trying to play with the emotions of somebody who's making a difficult decision that nobody ever wants to make.

[Fenris]

Of course. In the best of all possible worlds, there should never be any need for abortion. Rather as there shouldn't be war. But since this isn't that world, what do we do?

I'm not always sure.

But I think you're going to tell me!


Some compare and contrast:

1) We should maintain an armed force proportionate to the threat. And we should provide sex education and contraception.

Yes.

2) We recognize how our political, economic and military strength destabilize the situation, and act responsibly. We realize that sex can lead to disease and unplanned pregnancy, and act responsibly.

Um... the latter is clear and obvious, the former much less so. (Does strength always destabilize? Is there only one kind of situation in the world?)


3) We look at the political and economic causes of war, and act to defuse them. We look at the political and economic causes of unplanned pregancy, and act to defuse them.

The main causes of war are powerful primate tribal imperatives. The main causes of unplanned pregnancy are powerful reproductive urges.

Both instincts have the capacity- and have shown it, over and over and over again- to surpass pretty much any kind of education or social engineering.

(Really, aside from the Amish, how many American kids haven't seen some kind of condom-use public service announcement? They don't fail to plan because they're uneducated; they fail to plan because they're teenagers in the thick of passion, which can overwhelm common sense even in adults.)


4) Even so, sometimes things still go to hell, and we have to use that armed force. And if necessary, we still have that abortion.

That is an intriguing argument! Though I am puzzled by it; or rather, by your comments below. War is bad, plainly, because it kills people. Why is abortion bad?


Mind, all of that is ignoring that most of the anti-abortion movement's emotional force is geared towards treating women like little ladies who can't be trusted to think straight.

Or, in the case of the amazingly offensive idea of doing ultrasounds, provoking a severe emotional reaction in the little lady who can't think straight.

*Shrug* You know that they're not frail or weak-minded; so why should we care if they're shown a picture?

If it's such a dumb idea, then you should be happy. The pro-life movement is wasting its time and energy on a completely empty gesture. Enjoy it!


Christ! You think women like having abortions? You think it isn't emotionally horrible enough having an abortion?

The ultrasound is nothing but a con job. It alters nothing but the pregnant woman's emotions.

It's a good thing they're not little ladies who can't think straight, then. They're responsible for their own choices; and they can look at pictures without being caught up in a helpless storm of womanly emotionalism. They don't need a paternal protector to save them from the Bad Pictures That Would Only Upset Them.

Are we treating women as equals, or not?


The non-viable foetus is still only a potential human being, without the cerebral cortex that would make it fully human. But our all too human brains look at it and think: human.

That's a good argument. Do you trust a woman to hear it, understand it, and act on it?


So the ultrasound is basically a scare tactic meant to change the woman's POV to that of nasty little bastards like our Texican friend, who think future soldiers for the republic are more important than women.

Zzzzz. Now we're back to the cynical telepathy thing. But it was fun up to then!


õ
Oh, all right, that was fun, too!

[Nick Soapdish]

I don't know if they would charge the woman extra in S.C. or not. Concerning difficulty about going through with the procedure, I think many people are nervous before they go under the knife. I'm not trying to get into political repercussions.

I meant that it presumably involves additional time at the doctor's office, additional delays before being able to go through with the abortion, additional paperwork, as well as possibly making it more expensive.

All of which force the woman to delay going through the actual procedure and make it more difficult to do so which will force her to re-think it.

One might argue that it's a good thing to force somebody second-guess any big decision, but I think that after making a difficult decision, a person is going to want to go through it right away, rather than be forced to get more time to think it over. It's a hard enough decision to make once.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

He was quoting the movie Thief (http://imdb.com/title/tt0083190/quotes), which is why he noted so at the end of his post.

I was unaware it was a quote.

My apologies to Subotai then.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Yeah, we really need to be encouraging idiots like that to breed. And I know it's only a small minority, but anything that gives ammunition to shows like Today Tonight and A Current Affair, and the mouth-breathing morons who watch those shows, can't be a good thing. Also, the payment has recently gone up to $4000.

And I have no hard evidence of this, but I've heard that, soon after these payments were introduced, sales of stuff like Playstations and big-screen TVs went way up over on that side of town.

Which is certainly not something I want to believe, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was true.

When I worked at a fast food place as a manager, one of the girls (a 16 year old) was going on about what a great deal it was, and she wanted to have a kid anyway (in a few years time) why not do it now because she could do with the money.
With only a slight pause to shoot horrified glances at each other, myself and the other girl on shift went into overdrive explaining how little three grand was and how much babies cost.
She got it pretty quick after that.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

More and more, I'm convinced that most pro-lifers haven't actually met anyone who's had an abortion. I mean, they make it sound like the women like it!


Of course they do!

My last girlfriend and I used to have unprotected sex just so we could get her knocked up and get abortions!

She loved the feeling of foreign objects stuck upside her sucking the little bugger out, and couldn't get enough of the depression that often followed for both of us. We wished we could see ultrasounds just to make it that little bit more damaging.
That's just how us crazy left wingers roll!

[DonC]

One could reasonably argue that the government has a vested interest in the future citizens of the country, which is why many people argue for government health care, especially for children. Heck, the same party that wants universal health care wants to keep abortion around. Hey, if the government should mind its own business, then why should it provide health care?


Last I checked, we don't have have government-sponsored health care. Even if we did, except in cases where the mother's life is at risk, abortion would be considered an elective procedure and not covered, no? If the government isn't paying for it, it has no right to interfere. (Not that that has stopped them before, or anything, but hey, one can dream.)

And this thing in South Carolina is clearly meant to change the mother's mind. When I had my appendix removed they didn't feel the need to show me an ultrasound when explaining the risks. I got those just fine without seeing what they were going to remove.

[Tom]

One could reasonably argue that the government has a vested interest in the future citizens of the country,
No, one could not reasonably argue that at all. The government has a vested interest in the citizens of the country, not the "future citizens."

which is why many people argue for government health care, especially for children. Heck, the same party that wants universal health care wants to keep abortion around. Hey, if the government should mind its own business, then why should it provide health care?
Because universal healthcare is a boon to society, with measurable effects that benefit society as a whole.

[Nate C.]

No, one could not reasonably argue that at all. The government has a vested interest in the citizens of the country, not the "future citizens."

I'm not getting into this debate at all, but on this point,

Isn't that what the social security net, enviornmentalism, and other government dollars are argued for all the time- the future? I've heard many a politician bring out the allegorical grandchildren, and their children for the reasons they want to maintain SS or relieve greenhouse gases.

[Tom]

I'm not getting into this debate at all, but on this point,

Isn't that what the social security net, enviornmentalism, and other government dollars are argued for all the time- the future? I've heard many a politician bring out the allegorical grandchildren, and their children for the reasons they want to maintain SS or relieve greenhouse gases.

Yes, the future. Not future, potential individuals, which is what Valmore was saying. Social security and environmental concerns are implemented and supported based on the current, living people they will benefit.

[Nate C.]

Yes, the future. Not future, potential individuals, which is what Valmore was saying. Social security and environmental concerns are implemented and supported based on the current, living people they will benefit.

Not the politicians I've heard. They're talking about potential future citizens too. Years and years and years from being born. And I've heard more than once that we need to maintaind SS not just for us, or our kids, but our grandkids kids, etc. Same with Enviornmental polices.

All I'm saying Tom is that I disagree with you when you say that it is unreasonable to say so, when in fact, I've heard it quite a bit. Someone other than Valmore is making similar arguments.

[Clint Barton]

I think the law that South Carolina is trying to pass is much more insulting to women who want an abortion:

http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-032207-krg-ultrasound.70f1333.html


Who gives a crap? People hurl insults all the time. Also, it's nothing more than allowing a visual to a woman who could likely be at home on back doing something else...like watching Jerry Springer or something like that. I dunno.

[Chris Nowlin]

Who gives a crap? People hurl insults all the time. Also, it's nothing more than allowing a visual to a woman who could likely be at home on back doing something else...like watching Jerry Springer or something like that. I dunno.

Not people... the government.

Not allowing... forcing.

[Clint Barton]

STOP!

*Puts on 45 of Def Leppard's "Photograph" on CBR record player---LOUD, Crank it up.*

[Clint Barton]

In rebuttal, an aspirin held between the knees would accomplish three things: reduction in blood clotting, lessening of the headache and keeping the legs closed.

Aspirin are good for many ailments...

And....

"All I've got is this photograaaph."

[Tom]

Not the politicians I've heard. They're talking about potential future citizens too. Years and years and years from being born. And I've heard more than once that we need to maintaind SS not just for us, or our kids, but our grandkids kids, etc. Same with Enviornmental polices.Political rhetoric is a separate arena from political reality. I hear politicians make the same grand pronouncements, but at the end of the day, the government enacts policies (including SS and environmental policies) for the benefit of existing citizens.

Besides, there is a vast gulf between the idea of "future generations," which is an inevitability, and future individuals, which is not.

[Nate C.]

Political rhetoric is a separate arena from political reality. I hear politicians make the same grand pronouncements, but at the end of the day, the government enacts policies (including SS and environmental policies) for the benefit of existing citizens.

I disagree. (not that they do benefit exisisting, but that "only for exisiting"),And I think I could find mutliple examples where Senators and Representative made actual pronouncements as much before, or during votes for same. Not that I'm going to look mind you.






Besides, there is a vast gulf between the idea of "future generations," which is an inevitability, and future individuals, which is not.

now THAT is semantics/splitting hairs.

anyhoo. It was only a small point I was trying to make. You disagree. There's not much else to say.

[Chris Nowlin]

anyhoo. It was only a small point I was trying to make. You disagree. There's not much else to say.

What are you talking about. Small point. Disagreement. Internet. It's very clear the next thing should involve the insulting of mothers. Proceed.

[Tom]

now THAT is semantics/splitting hairs.

anyhoo. It was only a small point I was trying to make. You disagree. There's not much else to say.

No, that is not splitting hairs. That gets to the heart of my point.

[Nate C.]

No, that is not splitting hairs. That gets to the heart of my point.

Tom, I respectfully disagree and think you are wrong when you say, "no one can reasonably argue....." when I've seen it done hundreds of times. And yes, I think you are splitting hairs. Future generations/future individuals is Schroedinger's cat all over again.

But so what? It's not that big a deal. I just wanted to point that one thing out. You don't agree, that's cool.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I belive I reasonably answered your question. I don't think everything you mentioned above is equivilent to showing people an x-ray or ultrasound as part of a breifing for a surgical procedure.

So, need to have "full knowledge of consequences" only applies to abortion, not other serious decisions. Got it.

Not a lot of consistency in your POV there.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Yes, they should. It's a dangerous job and they ought to know that- not just intellectually, but directly.
See, and I agree with you.

Interestingly, the guy I posed the question to does not.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't understand this analogy either.

The ultrasound thing doesn't make sense (because it's not specific to the procedure itself, only to the reason behind it), but this certainly does.

What are the parallels?

Trying to get at whether people that are pushing the "tough decison" rationale for the ultrasound agree that people should be force-fed information in regard to other sorts of tough decisions besides abortion.

[Samurai]

So, need to have "full knowledge of consequences" only applies to abortion, not other serious decisions. Got it.

Not a lot of consistency in your POV there.

As Oke said, they are not equivalent. A "full knowledge of consequences" as you've suggested for the military would be balanced by showing the woman a previously aborted fetus, as well as taking her to the hospital to meet women who've suffered severe complications from having an abortion, and explaining to her that sometimes doctors screw up and infections and other problems develop, and that she will have a chance of dying from the procedure, and these women are the proof of that. THAT would be the equal of what you suggested, not showing her 1 picture of an ultrasound.

[MissKale]

I actually read a very good article the other day concering abortion. Though its almost a year old, I think its worth reading and germane to the point.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/1/1

That said...

Considering the 500 wouldn't even pay for the hospital or midwife for delivery... That's just stupid. Have they even thought about looking at what the increase on Wellfare/Medicaid claims would be for the women who now need support and prenatal examinations.

This is especially important considering that Texas has one of the highest amounts of for profit hospitals of all the states. It means health costs for uninsured will be much higher...

A good stats site.
http://www.statehealthfacts.org

[Tom]

Tom, I respectfully disagree and think you are wrong when you say, "no one can reasonably argue....." when I've seen it done hundreds of times. And yes, I think you are splitting hairs. Future generations/future individuals is Schroedinger's cat all over again.

But so what? It's not that big a deal. I just wanted to point that one thing out. You don't agree, that's cool.

Paying someone 500 so they can have a baby is so many eons away from enacting Social Security or environmental policies that it can't reasonably be compared. I get that you disagree. There's certainly no surprise there. But please, offering no examples and rebutting my main thesis by calling it hair-splitting and nothing else, while disagreement, is not respectful disagreement.

[Ray R.]

As Oke said, they are not equivalent. A "full knowledge of consequences" as you've suggested for the military would be balanced by showing the woman a previously aborted fetus, as well as taking her to the hospital to meet women who've suffered severe complications from having an abortion, and explaining to her that sometimes doctors screw up and infections and other problems develop, and that she will have a chance of dying from the procedure, and these women are the proof of that. THAT would be the equal of what you suggested, not showing her 1 picture of an ultrasound.

What a silly debate. Absolutely silly.

My over-the-top hypothetical is more valid than your over-the-top hypothetical. Let's go to the Russian judge for his score.

My hypothetical, while unproven and logistically ridiculous, is more equal than yours.

Sometimes it's like arguments exist in a Petri dish around here.....

[Nate C.]

Paying someone 500 so they can have a baby is so many eons away from enacting Social Security or environmental policies that it can't reasonably be compared. I get that you disagree. There's certainly no surprise there. But please, offering no examples and rebutting my main thesis by calling it hair-splitting and nothing else, while disagreement, is not respectful disagreement.


Tom, I'm not arguing abortion. At all. I'm arguing that when you say, "You cannot reasonably argue..." that in effect, many, many, many people argue just that for many, many, many other social reforms. To say that Valmore cannot is just silly. You can debate abortion all day long with Valmore, but I don't see how you can stop this particual line of reasoning using your criteria. The idea that we do good in this Country for future citizens is an established reason for governmental policy. It just is. That's it. And it is hairsplitting to argue "future generations" versus "future individuals", and I am being very respectful, regardless of how you are misreading me.

[Chris Nowlin]

What a silly debate. Absolutely silly.


I didn't even think this was a debate thread. I thought it was a, "Look at this stupid idea and shake our heads" thread.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I didn't even think this was a debate thread. I thought it was a, "Look at this stupid idea and shake our heads" thread.

You'd think it would be, but that isn't really the case with some.

[Tom]

Tom, I'm not arguing abortion. At all. I'm arguing that when you say, "You cannot reasonably argue..." that in effect, many, many, many people argue just that for many, many, many other social reforms. To say that Valmore cannot is just silly. You can debate abortion all day long with Valmore, but I don't see how you can stop this particual line of reasoning using your criteria. The idea that we do good in this Country for future citizens is an established reason for governmental policy. It just is. That's it. And it is hairsplitting to argue "future generations" versus "future individuals", and I am being very respectful, regardless of how you are misreading me.

Thing is Nate, you haven't argued a thing. You stated you disagreed several times, gave me the rhetorical equivalent of "Does NOT!" and told me I was hairsplitting. The government is not here to protect potential citizens, it's here to protect its citizens - and that goes for social security and environmental concerns. That you cannot see a difference between future generations and future individuals is on you but that in no way means I'm splitting hairs.

[Dreadstar]

You'd think it would be, but that isn't really the case with some.


I see the phenomena at cocktial parties and bars. It's the attempt at superiority by positioning. One places themselves so that their position safely oversees all the action in the group/room. By taking up what they feel is an unassailable position (in internet terms, usually a strawman or some definition rhetoric) they can conjure up visions of personal superiority. Why do I know this?


Because it's my CBR strategem, duh.

[Nate C.]

Thing is Nate, you haven't argued a thing.

not true

You stated you disagreed several times

about "things"

, gave me the rhetorical equivalent of "Does NOT!"

*cough "petulant" cough*



That you cannot see a difference between future generations and future individuals is on you but that in no way means I'm splitting hairs.

I can see the difference. They're a hair's breadth away. One (generations) is made up of the other (individuals).


But, let me try this one more time-



No, one could not reasonably argue that at all. The government has a vested interest in the citizens of the country, not the "future citizens."

I'm not getting into this debate at all, but on this point,

Isn't that what the social security net, enviornmentalism, and other government dollars are argued for all the time- the future? I've heard many a politician bring out the allegorical grandchildren, and their children for the reasons they want to maintain SS or relieve greenhouse gases.

First exchange- Note, I'm not arguing abortion. At all. Ever. Also, you call them "future citizens", not "individuals", so I could easily infer "generations" if I wanted to. (I'm not. You're still thinking I'm arguing abortion rights for the individual, and I'm not. I'm arguing.....)

government often institues laws for future generations of Americans (individuals or not, is not the point).

That's it. Now, if you still disagree that government DOES NOT institue laws for future generations, then I'm sorry, but there is nothing else to say.

Save this- you have been the snarky one, all the while questioning my respect. You're better than that, Tom.

[Ray R.]

I see the phenomena at cocktial parties and bars. It's the attempt at superiority by positioning. One places themselves so that their position safely oversees all the action in the group/room. By taking up what they feel is an unassailable position (in internet terms, usually a strawman or some definition rhetoric) they can conjure up visions of personal superiority. Why do I know this?


Because it's my CBR strategem, duh.

I'll play "dueling hypotheticals" with you, if you want.

Picture yourself in a boat on a river,
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly,
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes.

Cellophane flowers of yellow and green,
Towering over your head.
Look for the girl with the sun in her eyes,
And she's gone.

But is she really "gone?" What if she was never there in the first place? Hmmm?

I AM UNASSAILABLE!

[Tom]

Save this- you have been the snarky one, all the while questioning my respect. You're better than that, Tom.

Nate, disagreeing with a person is fine. Accusing them of splitting hairs on their main point because you don't agree with it - not respectful disagreement at all. From where I'm sitting, you've been the snarky one.

[Dreadstar]

But is she really "gone?" What if she was never there in the first place? Hmmm?

I AM UNASSAILABLE!
Exactly correct, grasshopper.

Now, as quickly as you can, snatch the pebble from my hand.

[Nate C.]

Nate, disagreeing with a person is fine. Accusing them of splitting hairs on their main point because you don't agree with it - not respectful disagreement at all. From where I'm sitting, you've been the snarky one.

well none was intended, Tom. None was intended. I do think it is splitting hairs (and not even my point). I'm not even looking for agreement with you, but God, it is wearying that you and I seem to understand each other so little.

If you want me to apologize for you thinking I was being snarky, I can do that. As for intent- it wasn't there.

[Ray R.]

Exactly correct, grasshopper.

Now, as quickly as you can, snatch the pebble from my hand.

I refuse to acknowledge the existence of your pebble.

It may be there, it might not, but if I acknowlege it's there, then I lose the moral high ground.

Don't fuck with my meme.

[Dreadstar]

[ platitude man ]One cannot *lose* that which they never possessed in the first place. [ /pm ]

[Ray R.]

[ platitude man ]One cannot *lose* that which they never possessed in the first place. [ /pm ]

Guess you've never been to Atlantic City with a Discover card, then.

[Matt Algren]

I see the phenomena at cocktial parties and bars. It's the attempt at superiority by positioning. One places themselves so that their position safely oversees all the action in the group/room. By taking up what they feel is an unassailable position (in internet terms, usually a strawman or some definition rhetoric) they can conjure up visions of personal superiority. Why do I know this?


Because it's my CBR strategem, duh.You also see this physically manifested in convenience stores, pharmacies, and such. The cashier (or whatever we're calling them these days) has the advantage by being a head higher than they generally would be. I've seen the height advantage sway many arguments with customers. Comes in real handy when Drunk Guy #42 comes in at 3am and wants to buy a 40oz King Cobra.

Also, on talk shows, most notably the Tonight Show, the host's chair is higher than the guest, so the guest has to physically look up at the host. Jay Leno is always a head higher than whoever the guest is. Interesting that Johnny Carson didn't do that.

We now return you to your previously scheduled message board pissing contest, already in progress.

[fly on the wall]

How about instead of $500, they agree to pay for the kids' medical and dental bills and their college tuition?

Besides... what's to stop a pregnant woman who plans on having the kid anyways, from pretending to consider abortion just to get the money?

But they have to give the kid up to get the money so probably few would fall into that category.

Frankly, I don't think many women would give up a kid for just $500.

[fly on the wall]

Seems like a way of targeting poor pregnant women wanting abortion. Because any person who is middle class or higher is going to answer "go f**k yourselves" and have the abortion anyway, if that's what they want.

The way these puritan moralists work, they always seem to target the least well-off first.

Targetting the least well-off by giving them money? Is that really so bad?

An since when did cajoling women into not having abortions fall into the category of "puritan moralist"?

[fly on the wall]

The problem with this idea always comes down to a simple reality: There are already more kids in the adoption system than there are people wanting/willing to adopt them. Simple fact.

Kids are unadopted for lots of reasons. Some are older, and most adoptive parents want to start with babies/very young kids. Some have handicaps of one sort or another. Many are minorities, and while some folk readily enough adopt outside their racial group, the simple fact is, kids of some ethinc groups are preferentially adopted over kids of other groups.

All this would do, in the absence of large numbers more adoptive parents, would increase the burden on adoption agencies.

You're blurring things. We are talking newborn babies here and newborn babies get snapped up pretty quick. Sure there would be more handicapped kids in the adoption agencies but by your logic people in general should not have children for fear of taking on more handicapped children which you see as burdens to any system that much deal with them.

In all honesty hardly anyone would go for this 500 dollar deal. Pregnant women usually have to scrape up more than that just to have an abortion.

[Nick Soapdish]

You're blurring things. We are talking newborn babies here and newborn babies get snapped up pretty quick. Sure there would be more handicapped kids in the adoption agencies but by your logic people in general should not have children for fear of taking on more handicapped children which you see as burdens to any system that much deal with them.

In all honesty hardly anyone would go for this 500 dollar deal. Pregnant women usually have to scrape up more than that just to have an abortion.

Newborns of the "right" race get snapped up quick. Most people prefer to adopt within their own ethnicity though.

[Drew Van T.]

Targetting the least well-off by giving them money? Is that really so bad?

It's called "preying". They can't shove their religion down the throats of financially comfortable women with these taxpayer-funded bribes (because swaying those would require much greater amounts of money - 500 bucks is what, a high-end cellphone?) so they aim at the financially vulnerable and leave the rich ones alone.

(The army uses the same principle, of course. They don't have a hope in hell of getting middle class or higher to sign up for simple soldiering in Iraq, so they focus all their recruitment efforts on the poor and unemployed.)

One of the problems that plague the poor everywhere is that they tend to have too many children. More mouths to feed just make a bad situation worse. Needless to say, this should be addressed primarily with better birth control and other social programs aimed at increasing their entire situation, not just the part where they have too much offspring.

But if a woman who can't afford to raise a kid at this time has decided on her own that she wants to have an abortion, I for one will cheerlead her all the way to the clinic.

An since when did cajoling women into not having abortions fall into the category of "puritan moralist"?

Last time I checked, the people leading the pro-life brigade in America were hardline protestants, aren't they? Fallwell, Robertson, etc.? Of course the catholics are in second place there so I'll gladly extend that to "catholic moralists", if it pleases you.

[Matt Algren]

Newborns of the "right" race get snapped up quick. Most people prefer to adopt within their own ethnicity though.
I don't have the most recent stats, but don't newborns of any race get "snapped up" pretty quickly?

[Winslow]

I don't have the most recent stats, but don't newborns of any race get "snapped up" pretty quickly?

Yes and no.

Adoption laws give a birth mother rights for a certain amount of time until the adoption becomes "official."

So many adoptive parents are opting for international adoptions of newborns, even thought they can be more costly when travel is included.

I know several families that have adopted Bolivian and Chinese newborns (hardly white), mostly because they didn't trust existing adoption laws here in the States.

[Valmore]

No, one could not reasonably argue that at all. The government has a vested interest in the citizens of the country, not the "future citizens."

You, my friend, are incorrect in assuming it couldn't be argued reasonably, in that your view of "reasonable" does not cover the person's argument in any way, and you would NOT find an argument as such reasonable. That infers your own personal bias.

On a strict definition of "reasonable" the argument could most certainly be made. You might not AGREE with the argument, but that doesn't mean the argument can't be made and reasonably done.

Also, considering we have lots of laws protecting children that already exist, it's not unreasonable to believe a government might not take vested interest in the unborn, either, and extend it's laws to cover those. You might not like it, but it could be reasonably argued. Heck, without the current laws on the books, the government couldn't intervene in homes of abused and neglected children. Get enough people to buy into the idea of abortion as a form of child abuse, and you've got your argument right there.

You just wouldn't agree with it. But that isn't the definition of an unreasonable argument.

Because universal healthcare is a boon to society, with measurable effects that benefit society as a whole.

Is it? Why should I pay for someone else's health care? How is it a boon to me to help out some 6-pack a day chain smoker out in Detroit who I have no contact with on any level whatsoever? How does that benefit me or society? Etc. Etc.

By the way, I like how you ignore the more rational argument of the fact that $500 won't even cover the health bills of carrying a child to term for the adoption anyway.

[Paul McEnery]

You just wouldn't agree with it. But that isn't the definition of an unreasonable argument.

On the surface, this seems right. But it isn't. The issue is very much one of treating women as property -- and we've come to the conclusion that that's unreasonable.

[Tom]

You, my friend, are incorrect in assuming it couldn't be argued reasonably, in that your view of "reasonable" does not cover the person's argument in any way, and you would NOT find an argument as such reasonable. That infers your own personal bias.

On a strict definition of "reasonable" the argument could most certainly be made. You might not AGREE with the argument, but that doesn't mean the argument can't be made and reasonably done.

Also, considering we have lots of laws protecting children that already exist, it's not unreasonable to believe a government might not take vested interest in the unborn, either, and extend it's laws to cover those. You might not like it, but it could be reasonably argued. Heck, without the current laws on the books, the government couldn't intervene in homes of abused and neglected children. Get enough people to buy into the idea of abortion as a form of child abuse, and you've got your argument right there.

You just wouldn't agree with it. But that isn't the definition of an unreasonable argument.

No, really. I don't find it to be an even remotely reasonable argument.

A fetus is neither a baby, a child or a citizen. Any argument that starts from that point is unreasonable.

Is it? Why should I pay for someone else's health care? How is it a boon to me to help out some 6-pack a day chain smoker out in Detroit who I have no contact with on any level whatsoever? How does that benefit me or society? Etc. Etc.There is overwhelming evidence in study after study after study that subsidized healthcare benefits the whole of society. Who pays for all those uninsured people now? You do.

By the way, I like how you ignore the more rational argument of the fact that $500 won't even cover the health bills of carrying a child to term for the adoption anyway.
Um, okay. I responded to your post because I do not agree with what you think is a reasonable argument. I didn't realize there were other things I was required to respond to.

[Paul McEnery]

Is it? Why should I pay for someone else's health care? How is it a boon to me to help out some 6-pack a day chain smoker out in Detroit who I have no contact with on any level whatsoever? How does that benefit me or society? Etc. Etc.


And while I'm at it, can I have my money back for your children's education and your parents' social security? :p

[Matt Algren]

On the surface, this seems right. But it isn't. The issue is very much one of treating women as property -- and we've come to the conclusion that that's unreasonable.. . . or it's very much an issue of treating fetuses or unborn people (or whatever term you want to use) as property. Depending on your point of view and how we define our terms, that's just as unreasonable as treating women as property. That's the crux of it, isn't it?

[Paul McEnery]

. . . or it's very much an issue of treating fetuses or unborn people (or whatever term you want to use) as property. Depending on your point of view and how we define our terms, that's just as unreasonable as treating women as property. That's the crux of it, isn't it?

I take your point. But no again. No cerebral cortex, no humanity.

And even more no: you're right. The history of this is very much of father's treating both mothers and children as their property, and of the state viewing everyone as property of either the crown or the church (if not both).

The abortion issue is just the last throwback to all of that. The supposed concern for the "child" is a lie designed to conceal contempt for women.

[Matt Algren]

I take your point. But no again. No cerebral cortex, no humanity.

And even more no: you're right. The history of this is very much of father's treating both mothers and children as their property, and of the state viewing everyone as property of either the crown or the church (if not both).

The abortion issue is just the last throwback to all of that. The supposed concern for the "child" is a lie designed to conceal contempt for women.
As one who has the opposing viewpoint, I can tell you that your last sentence is wrong. My concern for the unborn is not a lie designed to conceal contempt for women. My concern for the unborn is concern for the unborn.

[Hoss]

How about instead of $500, they agree to pay for the kids' medical and dental bills and their college tuition?

Besides... what's to stop a pregnant woman who plans on having the kid anyways, from pretending to consider abortion just to get the money?

Well put. If you want abortions to disappear - affordable healthcare, education and employment are the way to go.

[Valmore]

And while I'm at it, can I have my money back for your children's education and your parents' social security? :p

Hey, I want MY social security money back! :p

Anyhow, as I said - it goes to personal bias. There are those who would find reasonable arguments FOR abortion as completely unreasonable due to personal bias. But that's just it - personal bias is not the definition of unreasonable.

[Paul McEnery]

As one who has the opposing viewpoint, I can tell you that your last sentence is wrong. My concern for the unborn is not a lie designed to conceal contempt for women. My concern for the unborn is concern for the unborn.

Yes, you're right. I spoke too broadly.

I don't mean the concern of individuals, I mean the concern of politicians who make this an issue.

[JeffreyWKramer]

You're blurring things. We are talking newborn babies here and newborn babies get snapped up pretty quick. Sure there would be more handicapped kids in the adoption agencies but by your logic people in general should not have children for fear of taking on more handicapped children which you see as burdens to any system that much deal with them.

If there were more kids added to the adoption pool, you'd see fewer of the black and latin kids being adopted than is the case now, and even fewer of he handicapped and older kids. Indeed, it would become close to impossible to find adoptive homes for older and handicapped kids.

[K'Nort]

See, and I agree with you.

Interestingly, the guy I posed the question to does not.

Actually, I'm very sure the poster is a girl and I'm pretty sure she's quite young.

On a topic like this, that does change things a little. It is a different perspective. (I'm not saying that changes the right or wrong, but it does effect the angle.)

I know several families that have adopted Bolivian and Chinese newborns (hardly white), mostly because they didn't trust existing adoption laws here in the States.

China is getting weird. They've now banned international adoptions by the obese and by anyone on anti-depressants.

[Michael P]

China is getting weird. They've now banned international adoptions by the obese and by anyone on anti-depressants.

As an adoptee on anti-depressants, this makes me want to punch China.

[K'Nort]

If there were more kids added to the adoption pool, you'd see fewer of the black and latin kids being adopted than is the case now, and even fewer of he handicapped and older kids. Indeed, it would become close to impossible to find adoptive homes for older and handicapped kids.

There was a lot in the news in the early 90s about the movement to only allow minority children to be adopted by people of the same race. And if that meant the kid spent years in foster care, they were still better off overall. Did that die out eventually?

[JeffreyWKramer]

There was a lot in the news in the early 90s about the movement to only allow minority children to be adopted by people of the same race. And if that meant the kid spent years in foster care, they were still better off overall. Did that die out eventually?

It hasn't died out completely, but I think it's tending that way. That issue used to be very prominent in the black community, with a lot of folk worrying about the effect on black identity and culture for lots of black orphans to be raised by white parents.

Then the reality hit in: because of socioeconomic disparity, relatively few black families can afford to adopt, so lots of black kids were indeed spending ages in foster care/orphanages, and pretty much everyone understands that this is not a good thing. The research is very conclusive on this point. Foster care is sometimes the best of bad options, but it is almost never a good long-term option.

The place where the trend you mention is still the strongest is probably within the Indian tribes, most of which have their own systems set up for handling adoption within tribes.

[fly on the wall]

It hasn't died out completely, but I think it's tending that way. That issue used to be very prominent in the black community, with a lot of folk worrying about the effect on black identity and culture for lots of black orphans to be raised by white parents.

Then the reality hit in: because of socioeconomic disparity, relatively few black families can afford to adopt, so lots of black kids were indeed spending ages in foster care/orphanages, and pretty much everyone understands that this is not a good thing. The research is very conclusive on this point. Foster care is sometimes the best of bad options, but it is almost never a good long-term option.

The place where the trend you mention is still the strongest is probably within the Indian tribes, most of which have their own systems set up for handling adoption within tribes.

I'm not sure poverty discourages adding more children into the family, although perhaps it discourages adoption. What I've read is that impoverished families tend to have more children than affluent families.

It's funny the taboo against having whites raise black children, especially since so many black men have a preference for white women. (Just like so many white men have a preference for black women). Anyhow the white women end up raising their 'black' children and you get Barack Obama and Halle Berry. No one seems to care.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm not sure poverty discourages adding more children into the family, although perhaps it discourages adoption. What I've read is that impoverished families tend to have more children than affluent families.


Poverty doesn't prevent procreation, but a) it costs money to adopt a kid - a fair bit of money, in fact, and b) adoption services are reluctant to adopt kids out to families that don't have a fairly substantial, stable income. This reduces the pool of minority adoptive families.

[Johnny_Storm]

I think the government should not be doing this. Giving the girl/woman who is about to have an abortion $500 isn't going to change their preparedness to raise children. If they really want to cut down the number of abortions they should focus on improving sex education in public schools and encouraging community awareness programs.

[rick]

I am not all that nuts about abortion, but I get really irritated that in most cases the organizations that fight the hardest against the procedure are the same organizations that fight every effort to teach and provide people with birth control.

It is a simple fact that women who don’t become pregnant don’t have abortions.

Chastity and abstinence are a great thing to teach your children and I certainly have tried to do that with my daughters, but at some point all of our kids will have sex.

Well except for certain comic geek kids, but that’s another rant.

If your kid is having sex, be they 17 or 27 doesn’t it just make sense that they have the knowledge, let alone the ability to control if they are going to have a child or not?

And if that’s so, isn’t it better that they make that choice long before they ever even need to consider an abortion?

[fly on the wall]

I am not all that nuts about abortion, but I get really irritated that in most cases the organizations that fight the hardest against the procedure are the same organizations that fight every effort to teach and provide people with birth control.

It is a simple fact that women who don’t become pregnant don’t have abortions.

Chastity and abstinence are a great thing to teach your children and I certainly have tried to do that with my daughters, but at some point all of our kids will have sex.

Well except for certain comic geek kids, but that’s another rant.

If your kid is having sex, be they 17 or 27 doesn’t it just make sense that they have the knowledge, let alone the ability to control if they are going to have a child or not?

And if that’s so, isn’t it better that they make that choice long before they ever even need to consider an abortion?

Oh stop making sense! Anyone could do that. What I'm after is entertainment.

[Dreadstar]

What I'm after is entertainment.
See, fly and I are on the same page...

[Chris Nowlin]

Oh stop making sense! Anyone could do that. What I'm after is entertainment.

Sense?


It is a simple fact that women who don’t become pregnant don’t have abortions.


He didn't even offer any data to substantiate that claim. Are we just expected to take such bold claims at face value?

[Mike Smash!]

I am not all that nuts about abortion, but I get really irritated that in most cases the organizations that fight the hardest against the procedure are the same organizations that fight every effort to teach and provide people with birth control.

It is a simple fact that women who don’t become pregnant don’t have abortions.

Chastity and abstinence are a great thing to teach your children and I certainly have tried to do that with my daughters, but at some point all of our kids will have sex.

Well except for certain comic geek kids, but that’s another rant.

If your kid is having sex, be they 17 or 27 doesn’t it just make sense that they have the knowledge, let alone the ability to control if they are going to have a child or not?

And if that’s so, isn’t it better that they make that choice long before they ever even need to consider an abortion?

This is the bottom line for me: teaching effective and comprehensive sex ed that includes birth control.

And it's the common ground I wish that the pro-life movement would latch onto. Kids who use protection are less likely to get pregnant and less likely to get an abortion.

Abstinence is something we should and do teach, but not to the exclusion of everything else. Texas A&M did a study a while back of Abstinence only programs and comprehensive programs and found that the kids in the Abstinence only programs were no less likely to have sex, but when they did they were far less likely to have or use protection and far more of the participants became pregnant.

After eating, sleeping and going to the bathroom, this is the strongest instinct human beings have. It's simply unrealistic that "just say no" will stop it.

Despite what the fringe says, no one in the pro-choice movement is cheering for abortions and we believe that the best way to dropping their number is not through making them illegal, but through education.

[fly on the wall]

After eating, sleeping and going to the bathroom, this is the strongest instinct human beings have.

Uh...you forgot breathing Mike. You always forget something.

Not that I disagree with you. I don't think telling kids all about sex and contraception will harm or warp them.

But to do contraception correctly sort of turns sex into a tedious science experiment and there are two urges you are fighting against (1) the desire to have sex, which we all know about, and the unconscious desire to get or get some one pregnant, an urge that is overlooked and little is known about.

So consciously we do not want to get pregnant, unconsciously that's all we want to do. For instance when males climax, they tend to lunge forward and hold it there to put sperm in an advantageous position. Women tend to be more sexually receptive when they are ovulating and holy hell when they are menstruating. Men are more attracted to women in prime fertile age.

We can try to prevent pregnancy all we want but it's hard to get around the unconscious urge to get or get people pregnant. We call our partners 'baby' and it is a cliche that "Oh baby" is shouted during sex.

Baby baby baby
Baby baby baby

That's how James Brown put it.

Lots of luck, everyone, preventing pregnancy. I guess it can't hurt to try.

[Paul McEnery]

Uh...you forgot breathing Mike. You always forget something.

Not that I disagree with you. I don't think telling kids all about sex and contraception will harm or warp them.

But to do contraception correctly sort of turns sex into a tedious science experiment and there are two urges you are fighting against (1) the desire to have sex, which we all know about, and the unconscious desire to get or get some one pregnant, an urge that is overlooked and little is known about.

So consciously we do not want to get pregnant, unconsciously that's all we want to do. For instance when males climax, they tend to lunge forward and hold it there to put sperm in an advantageous position. Women tend to be more sexually receptive when they are ovulating and holy hell when they are menstruating. Men are more attracted to women in prime fertile age.

We can try to prevent pregnancy all we want but it's hard to get around the unconscious urge to get or get people pregnant. We call our partners 'baby' and it is a cliche that "Oh baby" is shouted during sex.

Baby baby baby
Baby baby baby

That's how James Brown put it.

Lots of luck, everyone, preventing pregnancy. I guess it can't hurt to try.

So all you needed to do to get lucid and inspired was throw out some comic books, eh?

Throw out some more!

[Valmore]

After eating, sleeping and going to the bathroom, this is the strongest instinct human beings have. It's simply unrealistic that "just say no" will stop it.

If only there was an instinct that made people have an aversion to Rob Liefeld's art!

[rick]

Lots of luck, everyone, preventing pregnancy. I guess it can't hurt to try.


I don't know that it's all that hard.

After my daughters were born I had a vasectomy, and while sure it's true that my balls spent about two weeks being roughly the size of baseballs, afterwards everything worked fine and in the 20 years since I had it, I've managed not to knock up anyone yet.