A market-driven solution to the abortion discussion

Post Reply New Topic

Here it is:

* We create a new optional tax that is paid monthly and each person decides how much to pay. This money goes to a fund.

* A woman becomes pregnant, maybe it was God that decided to make her spontaneously pregnant like Mary. Maybe it was a rapist. Maybe her husband lied to her about the vasectomy. Maybe she had irresponsible sex. Either way, there is an unwanted pregnancy.

* The woman registers her unwanted pregnancy and goes to a queue.

* Now this is the beauty of it all. If there is enough money in the fund to take care of the baby for 18 years, the government uses the fund to pay for this. The baby is put to a care center in which this happens and the unwanted son gets passable education for 18 years. The government reserves enough money from the fund so that the life is guaranteed for 18 years.

* IF there are no funds enough to do that. The woman receives a license to abort.

This way, pro-life people can make sure that abortions are avoiding by just putting their money were their mouth goes.

So, you're saying that a right to an abortion is contingent upon the amount of money donated? I don't like that. I mean, your intuition that most women will be allowed to abort is probably right, but still...

I don't like the approach, the optimal approach would be to let people have control of their bodies. But then again. I guess that pro-lifers would agree to this as they would love to stop people from aborting and paying 18 years of raisin' is the fair price to pay.

I had a termination when my baby was about kicking age or that what it felt like. I cried and cried afterwards. Everytime I hear a cat scream. I think of a baby. It really haunts me.

I am so very sorry. I can't even imagine that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Why so indirect? Keep abortion legal, but let adoptive parents pay pregnant women for their infants. Instant solution: the number of adoptable infants will go up as the reward goes up, poor women will get hands up out of poverty, the infants will get wealthy homes, and pro-lifers will get one less thing to whine about.
(/sarcasm)

a stupid excuse for a stupid issue.

you would potentially end up with as many illegal abortions as you prevent "legally"

I think it has merit.

What I find repugnant about the abortion issue in law is how it's all about the WOMAN's choice. The father has no say about if an abortion should or should not be performed. He can't compel the mother to give birth even if he agrees to 100% custody and support with nothing on her after the baby is born. The woman can abort without the father's consent and then force the legal system to attach him for child support until the kid is 18 no matter if he wanted the kid or not.

This would be a way to resolve the problem. If we fund a way to care for a child if the parent does not want it, then the child must be brought to term. If we can't then it's arguable that we have to allow it.

Problem...how do we prevent a woman who uses the system from repeatedly using it? Just like any other welfare program, it will be subject to abuse if we don't have an enforcement mechanism against people who see it as a way to ditch unwanted kids then turn around and get pregnant again.

I noticed I missed something in here. Besides of the 18 years of fund, there should also be an indemnification for the woman. Job-wise it should be equal to max( minimum_wage, the woman's salary) * 18 + paying all health-care for the woman in the next 5 years to consider any probable side effect in her health.

There should also be special cases into consideration, if the pregnancy made the woman lose her job or a chance for education indemnification should skyrocket.

Why am I not surprised?

The father would have to pay the 18 years and the indemnification in advance without right for reimbursement in case of death.

Why the hell should he have that right? It's her health, her body at risk when she goes through pregnancy, her who could end up with incontinence and other issues, why the f**k should he get to decide that someone else must go through a serious medical condition so he can have the baby he wants?

Pay individual women on welfare not to have children with a very large sum if the women gets her tubes tied. This will solve two problems: overpopulation and poverty.

ruveyn

Because pregnancy is not about the woman. It's about both the father and mother. A woman's right to her body terminates when she willfully gives herself to a man and it results in becoming pregnant. What is inside of her is 50% the man's DNA. If brought to term, the law will compel the man to support that child for the next 18 years. Still, the man gets no say in anything, it's all reserved to the woman. That's an utterly one-sided view of the issue, and the law is not supposed to be lopsided as such.

That the woman must bear 9 months of pregnancy is a ludicrous argument when the man is going to be forced to support her choice no matter what it is. Both sides are equally invested.

Now, if the woman refuses to ID the father or does not know, I can see the argument swinging on that, but by leaving him utterly out of the process, he won't be held accountable for any choices made. However, when the father is brought in, he should have his rights represented.

Another controversial one I heard: Put contraceptive chemicals in the water supply. You have to apply for the antidote if you wish to raise a child.

Why am I not surprised?


It is just DNA. I mean really, can we please stop attributing magical qualities to DNA?

I'll give you that there should be a way for the man to legally state he gives up any right to the kid in exchange of not having to go with the support).

However, as the woman currently also has to support , it is crazy to say that they are equally invested. And I really mean, crazy.

A baby is bacon and eggs, the woman is the pork, the man is the hen.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 22 Aug 2011, 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

This is beyond dumb.

A Why do you figure the market is not involved in abortion theory and practice as it is?

B. How is this a solution? You are assuming that those who WANT abortion and those who DEPLORE abortion will join hands and dance in a circle because, whoopee, we got us a fund?

Already happening.

People don't realize that water filtration tech for public water DOES NOT remove many, many chemicals passed on in waste such as medications including anti-pregnancy pills. It's messing with the hormone balances of both men and women in the USA and other westernized nations.