Texas legislator propose $500 to NOT abort


#1

Das link

Found this on an Atheist dominated board. There Already starting to call the legislator a bigot and sexiest…

sigh Okay if I had any doubt this was about right to choose it is gone now…


#2

Cyberwolf,

I’d rather they worked on making abortion illegal.

Catholig


#3

Same here Catholig…

BUT

I’ll take every last single square inch of ground I can get…

If this saves infants from abortion it is a small victory. An just another inch of ground…

At least that’s my additude…


#4

I’m with you…the ideas proposed in the Dred Scott decision were not destroyed in one fell swoop…we need to gain ground.

It is funny that someone who is trying to come up with ways to end abortion would be called a bigot when Planned Parenthood was founded by one of the grandest of all bigots of all time…


#5

Funny, I was just pondering this concept this morning, wondering why pro-life orgs don’t bribe (I call it that because that is precisely what it is) women not to have abortions. We could put PP and the entire abortion industry out of business by eliminating their consumers.

I think it will backfire, though.

  1. It reduces the value of a human life to the $500 being offered.
  2. Women not considering abortion might say they are just to get the $500 when “persuaded” to put him or her up for adoption.
  3. Women might begin selling their bodies just to get the $500 incentive.

More than anything, this shows PP et al’s true colors. This is not about choice; this is about forcing as many abortions as possible on women who are too scared, too uninformed, too brainwashed, or too embarassed to do the right thing.

The final line of the article is the height of irony:

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.


#6

I saw this too. :slight_smile: Then I saw the Senator’s idea being likened to “baby selling”. :rolleyes:
So much for the liberal’s cry of “Keep abortion safe, legal and rare”. An attempt is made to make the “rare” part come true, and it’s labeled “baby selling”.

As for the thought that women will be “selling their bodies” for the $500 incentive, one could argue that women on welfare, who get more money the more children they have, are being encouraged to turn baby making into a career. Should we do away with welfare for women and children, too?

The quote that I love about this comes from a pro-abort who claims that this proposal doesn’t take into account the “complex decision making giving a child up for adoption requires”. Because having an abortion is so much easier. :rolleyes:

I read something the other day about a dioscese in Eastern Europe (I think) doing this same thing, and the abortion rate plummeted. I think that’s the real force behind opposition to the proposal. What would PP do without all that income from killing babies?


#7

$500 is not worth going through 9 months of pregnancy, I know you people are against abortion but if by some tragedy I were in a situation where I was considering abortion I would laugh if someone offered me $500 to carry the thing to term, that would hardly pay for even one doctors visit. So not worth it.


#8

I don’t like the idea. These are the same thoughts that I had when I heard about it. (too lazy to express them in my own words :smiley: )

If they want to spend money on pro-life causes, they should spend an extra $500 on every poor pregnant woman for baby supplies or prenatal care and counseling.


#9

I don’t know how the adoption process works, so this might be all wrong-
If you’re going to give your child up for adoption, and contact an adoption agency, I wonder if they provide prenatal care for you…?
I think there are also crisis pregnancy agencies the provide free prenatal care, so it’s not like the $500 is meant to cover medical expenses.

And as much as I bristle against the phrase “you people” (as in “I know you people are against abortion”…), my response to you does make me question this legislation. If the $500 goes to a women who has decided to put the child up for adoption, and presuming prenatal care is provided to her through the adoption agency, what is the money for…?
If, on the other hand, the money is intended to cover medical expenses for the pregnancy, labor, and delivery, then it seems an insultingly low amount.

Can anyone address this? If a woman contacts an adoption agency, do they cover prenatal care?

Thanks!
Cari


#10

Also, because of the lack of available infants up for adoption in the US, adoptive parents sometimes assist the birth mother with medical expenses. (This is always done with the help of a lawyer, to avoid the appearance that the child is being “purchased”, which is illegal.)

(Note that there are many children waiting to be adopted, but there is a shortage of babies.)


#11

I didn’t mean offense by saying “you people” I swear I didn’t. Please accept my apologies if you took offence. I just meant it in a broad way to encompass the general feelings of the people on this forum. :blush:

I don’t think theres many adoption angencies that cover expenses, from what I hear they’re pretty strapped for cash as it is. I’ve heard though of women finding an adoptive couple before the baby is born and the couple will pay expenses. But for me, even if the expenses were covered by someone going through pregnancy, labor and delivery just wouldn’t be worth $500. I know I’m the minority here but its just the way I feel…thats part of why I don’t risk putting myself in situations that could lead to pregnancy.


#12

We were typing our messages at the same time…

It seems like adoption agencies should be helping women with costs (because of the shortage of babies up for adoption) but I actually don’t know of any that do. They probably exist, but I don’t know how to find them. Maybe someone else knows of one?

Adoptive parents will sometimes assist the birth parents with costs, but I think this is directly arranged through a lawyer and the money doesn’t go through the agency.


#13

Are you referring to public (government) adoption agencies or private ones? Also, are you referring to agencies that adopt infants?

There are many couples in the US who spend thousands of dollars to adopt infants from foreign countries (you probably know some), so it’s hard to imagine that private agencies couldn’t charge their infant adoption “clients” whatever they wanted.


#14

My friend gave her baby up for adoption privately. She ended up getting welfare or medicaid or some sort of government assistance to pay for the medical bills, but I think the couple (who happened to be very wealthy) also helped with those expenses.


#15

While you make a good point that the expenses would not be covered by the incentive, I was thinking of women who have some sort of health insurance already.


#16

Not to hijack the thread, but yes, I think that is a horrible abuse of the welfare system, a system that, in my opinion, needs to be completely scrapped (just like the IRS) and restarted from scratch so it cannot become a permanent solution for some lazy ***s.


#17

Nichjake, any offense that I might have taken, I’m now SO over. :slight_smile: (The phrase “you people” gets used a lot by my anti-Catholic mother-in-law, so it sort of grates on me.)

Ok, so in general, adoption agencies don’t pay for medical expenses. I wonder if they help the birth mother apply for medicade or whatnot if she doesn’t have insurance…? Because, yeah- this idea that I was at first so totally for now doesn’t seem to make as much sense as I’d first thought.

I wish the Senator who proposed it would explain what the $500 was to be used for, ideally.

Maybe that money could be channeled to the adoption agencies, to help them financially support women who choose to give their babies up for adoption.

Of course, then you’d have the whole can of worms, that since it would be government money, the agency couldn’t “discriminate” against gay couples or single people.

MAN! Doesn’t it stink when your nicely formed opinion of something gets challenged by other people’s rational arguements? :rolleyes:

Cheers,
Cari


#18

**I am going to try and be as gentle and charitable as possible here…

the THING?

Maybe if you actually saw the tiny little life as a BABY you wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it’s value. All human life has equal value, from the very young to the very old.

What if one of your parents or some other loved one was in a serious accident but the doctors refused treatment because it would cost the hospital too much and they thought your parent was too old to be a value to society so wanted to let them die? Can you imagine them coming to you and saying, “it’s not worth our time or money to treat that thing in there so please get it out of here”???

I am not trying to offend you, just offer a different perspective. As a young teenager I was pro"choice" and actually thought that I could have an abortion if I ever got pregnant before I was ready. Now that I have had a baby I thank God daily that he saved me from myself at that time and didn’t allow me to have the opportunity to murder an innocent child.

Malia
**


#19

Does anyone recall who the Texas Legislator was?

I might like to contribute to his next campaign.


#20

Just click on the link in the OP…it’s in the news story…


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.