April 6, 200719 yr LINK Texas lawmaker offers choice: Abortion or $500 POSTED: 8:15 p.m. EDT, March 23, 2007 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. ...... Well that's certainly a new angle... :blink:
April 6, 200719 yr government should not pay for someone to have an abortion nor should government pay for someone not to have an abortion
April 6, 200719 yr right, $500 would offset the amount these mothers would have to pay for their children's well being. I was adopted at birth, a victim of teen pregnancy...you would think that I would be against abortions...but I do support the womans right to choose. putting morals aside, would you rather see 3000 "potential" children dead or those same 3000 born and treated poorly because the mother is unable to support them? I was lucky, I was born and adopted....but not every baby is going to be as lucky as me... rant over
April 6, 200719 yr i support abortion in all cases where the mother will not be able to take care of the baby. that means you CTMarlinsfan
April 6, 200719 yr No way in hell should our taxpayer money be used to bribe others to conform with anybody's moral agenda.
April 6, 200719 yr This law is retarted. $500 is nothing when you consider the cost of having a child.
April 6, 200719 yr right, $500 would offset the amount these mothers would have to pay for their children's well being. I was adopted at birth, a victim of teen pregnancy...you would think that I would be against abortions...but I do support the womans right to choose. putting morals aside, would you rather see 3000 "potential" children dead or those same 3000 born and treated poorly because the mother is unable to support them? I was lucky, I was born and adopted....but not every baby is going to be as lucky as me... rant over To say a child who has a bad home life or poor parenting is doomed is a silly notion/opinion. Also, I think some of you didn't get the intent of this. 500 bucks to just have the child? Seems like a good deal for someone who had no intention of keeping it and something I could see being abused if it was ever implemented.
April 6, 200719 yr I agree that this is odd, and that $500 isn't going to do much in this day and age when you have a kid.
April 6, 200719 yr This legislation isn't for convincing the woman to keep the child, it is for giving them up for adoption. 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.
April 6, 200719 yr right, $500 would offset the amount these mothers would have to pay for their children's well being. I was adopted at birth, a victim of teen pregnancy...you would think that I would be against abortions...but I do support the womans right to choose. putting morals aside, would you rather see 3000 "potential" children dead or those same 3000 born and treated poorly because the mother is unable to support them? I was lucky, I was born and adopted....but not every baby is going to be as lucky as me... rant over To say a child who has a bad home life or poor parenting is doomed is a silly notion/opinion. Also, I think some of you didn't get the intent of this. 500 bucks to just have the child? Seems like a good deal for someone who had no intention of keeping it and something I could see being abused if it was ever implemented. Knowing that people screw up in this country and get knocked up because they are stupid, we can both agree that the rate of unwanted pregnancies is what it is, without getting into a debate on whether or not it is people's fault, right? That said, how can we be sure that the influx of newly born children can be absorbed by the adoption system at all? And to a very high probability, a child who is born in to a bad home life or poor parenting is much more likely to have a rough or similiar life, right? Yes, there are exceptions to the rule. But as a purely statistical view, can we deny this?
April 6, 200719 yr No, but to assume a person is better off dead rather then given the chance is not right. There are too many success stories of those who come from a sh*tty home life or those that were brought up with little or no means to believe this.
April 6, 200719 yr Fox, unborn doesn't equal dead....3000 unborn is better than 3000 that have bad childhoods in the sense they are not fed well or well taken care of
April 6, 200719 yr Fox, unborn doesn't equal dead....3000 unborn is better than 3000 that have bad childhoods in the sense they are not fed well or well taken care of Especially if some of those become criminals or murderers because of poor upbringings (happens far too often it seems). At least they are paying the parents to give the child up for adoption. That's a much better idea.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.