Carrot vs. Stick

[jayem]

This is a spin-off on the ectopic pregnancy abortion thread in the News/Current Events forum. I can understand that many people strongly oppose elective abortion, and want the procedure stopped. They see it as murder. And most always, they support the stick approach--highly restrictive and punitive laws. But is this really the only way? Why not also apply the carrot? Which is to reward childbirth. A while back, I posted an idea to incentivize adoption. And what better incentive than cash? Consider this:

There over 250,000,000 adults in the US. Wouldn't at least 10% be committed pro-lifers and able to donate to a non-profit charitable fund to reduce abortions? If 25,000,000 people each gave $100 (only $8.33 a month. And tax deductible.) that would raise $2.5 billion. (Corporate donations could raise this significantly. But I'll be conservative with my estimates.) It would likely take a year or so to get the initial funding. 25% is a typical amount taken off the top by legitimate charities for admin, employee salaries, fund raising, and other housekeeping expenses. There would be $1.875 billion available. Keeping 47% in reserve, leaves $1 billion. This could pay 100,000 women $10,000 each not to terminate her pregnancy. All she has to do is submit a birth certificate proving she gave birth to a child—let’s say up to 9 months old. And documentation that she irrevocably surrendered the child to a legitimate adoption agency. The check is made out to her. If there’s a father (husband or boyfriend) in the picture, the couple works out how to divide the money themselves.

For years, there’s been a shortage of adoptable children—babies especially. (And—I hate to say it—particularly white babies.) Something like this adoption fund could be a win/win. A woman gets a cash nest egg she can use however she likes (hopefully to help her existing family or better her education.) And people who really want children get the greatest gift of their lives.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

This is a spin-off on the ectopic pregnancy abortion thread in the News/Current Events forum. I can understand that many people strongly oppose elective abortion, and want the procedure stopped. They see it as murder. And most always, they support the stick approach--highly restrictive and punitive laws. But is this really the only way? Why not also apply the carrot? Which is to reward childbirth. A while back, I posted an idea to incentivize adoption. And what better incentive than cash? Consider this:

There over 250,000,000 adults in the US. Wouldn't at least 10% be committed pro-lifers and able to donate to a non-profit charitable fund to reduce abortions? If 25,000,000 people each gave $100 (only $8.33 a month. And tax deductible.) that would raise $2.5 billion. (Corporate donations could raise this significantly. But I'll be conservative with my estimates.) It would likely take a year or so to get the initial funding. 25% is a typical amount taken off the top by legitimate charities for admin, employee salaries, fund raising, and other housekeeping expenses. There would be $1.875 billion available. Keeping 47% in reserve, leaves $1 billion. This could pay 100,000 women $10,000 each not to terminate her pregnancy. All she has to do is submit a birth certificate proving she gave birth to a child—let’s say up to 9 months old. And documentation that she irrevocably surrendered the child to a legitimate adoption agency. The check is made out to her. If there’s a father (husband or boyfriend) in the picture, the couple works out how to divide the money themselves.

For years, there’s been a shortage of adoptable children—babies especially. (And—I hate to say it—particularly white babies.) Something like this adoption fund could be a win/win. A woman gets a cash nest egg she can use however she likes (hopefully to help her existing family or better her education.) And people who really want children get the greatest gift of their lives.

I think most people do not understand the anguish of taking a child to full term then give that child up. It's almost impossible! I would bet that most children who are adopted are from underage girls who's parents force them to give up their child. Anyway, incentives? I dont think do.
Blessings

 

[jayem]

I think most people do not understand the anguish of taking a child to full term then give that child up. It's almost impossible! I would bet that most children who are adopted are from underage girls who's parents force them to give up their child. Anyway, incentives? I dont think do.
Blessings

So what? The point is to provide an alternative to abortion. Something like this will take time to go large scale. But even if only 100 women decide not to terminate their pregnancies, and adopt out their babies, is that not worthwhile?

 

[Robban]

So what? The point is to provide an alternative to abortion. Something like this will take time to go large scale. But even if only 100 women decide not to terminate their pregnancies, and adopt out their babies, is that not worthwhile?

Reckon Billingsley is on to something jayem.

Us menfolk can never truly know what is like to become a mother.

Would reckon.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The Idea of incentivizing women not to abort by a promise to pay them is not the type of society I would wish to encourage. The goal in opposing elective abortion is not to end abortion in of itself purely for it's own sake, at least from my perspective, but to return to a model where the family and people at all stages of life are actually valued. To that end, incentives to correct people's behaviors by denying them elective abortion would be enough. To give an incentive to irresponsible women who get pregnant cannot result in a good society and only reward bad behavior. It's essentially treating the baby like a commodity whose life can be bought and sold at a whim and that is antithetical to the presuppositions of those who call themselves pro-life.

 

[J_B_]

The Idea of incentivizing women not to abort by a promise to pay them is not the type of society I would wish to encourage.

I agree, yet @jayem isn't far off the mark. And for @Maria Billingsley to say how difficult adoption is for the mother is to ignore how difficult it is to end your child's life via abortion.

I think pressing for alternatives to abortion is the way to go, though paying the mother's isn't quite the right approach. Rather, what I would advocate is to take this issue out of the courts and give it to doctors and counselors.

My wife and I adopted, so let me offer some details. In our state, when we went to court to finalize the adoption, we had a lawyer and there was also a lawyer to advocate for the child. At first I viewed it as a scam because I had to pay both lawyers. Adoption is expensive enough without that! But as the years went by, I changed my opinion. I now think it's a great idea.

So, with respect to abortion, my proposal would be that those involved (mother, father, guardians) go before a medical board where there is an experienced counselor to advocate for the mother and also an advocate for the child. If there is abuse involved with the pregnancy, it needs to be considered as part of the process and dealt with. But there MUST also be an advocate for the child - someone who believes in fighting for that child. They then decide what is medically best for all involved.

If, after that, adoption is the decision, people need a better understanding of how adoption works in this age rather than getting ideas from the past. When my wife and I adopted, the birth mother chose us. She was given a portfolio of prospective parents and she was allowed to choose the family who would care for her child. Once we were chosen, we met with the mother. The terms for what interaction would be allowed were worked out. After the child was born, we wrote letters to her about the child. She sent Christmas and birthday gifts. We even once sent her a video of her child. When our child graduated from high school, we invited the mother to attend. She has attended the child's wedding. Our child has visited her family several times.

But before our child met the birth mother for the first time, I sat the child down and we had a talk. You have to have that difficult talk. In cases of abortion or adoption, one thing must be acknowledged. It only happens because something is broken. As joyous as bringing a new adopted child into your home is, you have to be prepared for the fact that something was broken. Seeing that brokenness for the first time can be heart-wrenching. I know my child only agreed to having that talk as a means to jump through the hoops and see the birth mother. However, my child later came back to me and said, "Yeah. You were right. There is brokenness in that family."

Christ is the answer to brokenness.

 

[jayem]

The goal in opposing elective abortion is not to end abortion in of itself purely for it's own sake, at least from my perspective, but to return to a model where the family and people at all stages of life are actually valued.

Do you really think such a time existed? Abortion—though considered unsavory—was fairly common up through the 18th and 19th centuries. In the US, it wasn’t legally prohibited until the 1840s or so. An early term embryo wasn’t even recognized as being alive before then. And as I noted in an earlier thread, the primary impetus of anti-abortion legislation was to protect the pregnant woman from the risk of septic abortion in the days before antibiotics and sterile surgical technique. You are also very much mistaken if you believe those were times of better moral behavior. I’m sure you’ve heard of “foundling” hospitals. They were established in many larger cities in the 1800s. They cared for the many babies simply abandoned by their impoverished birth mothers. And it was a lucky newborn who was found before dying of exposure.

To give an incentive to irresponsible women who get pregnant cannot result in a good society and only reward bad behavior.

There is an unpleasant scent of misogyny in that post. Are only women irresponsible? Do husbands and boyfriends bear no responsibility for pregnancy?

I’d like to know when families were more highly valued and sexual behavior was more virtuous. Not to get off topic, but I have a textbook of medicine from the early 1900s. It was estimated that at least 10% of the US population—men and women—was infected with syphilis. And that doesn’t include the countless more with gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, HPV, and other STIs that weren’t yet recognized. Syphilis was so common, that in an effort to prevent congenital syphilis, it’s the reason most states back in the day required couples to be blood tested before getting a marriage license.

It's essentially treating the baby like a commodity whose life can be bought and sold at a whim and that is antithetical to the presuppositions of those who call themselves pro-life.

You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion. But you speak for yourself. Like most traditionalists, you glorify the past and devalue the present. Times and societal mores change. The past is never coming back. How we address issues of the present day and the future must be based on futuristic thinking.