Why not subsidize adoption? If you support subsidizing abortion, surely adoption should be subsidized as well. If you're opposed to abortion, subsidizing adoption would be a great *voluntary* way to encentivise an alterative to abortion and steer society away from killing babies. I really dont like subsidizing anything, but this sounds to me like an overall win!
Except adoption isn't a medical procedure as is abortion. You: ""subsidizing adoption would be a great *voluntary* way to encentivise an alterative to abortion""" *voluntary* ...Another way to say force/brainwash women to give up 9 months of their lives for someone else.....in another thread I didn't see men lining up to do the same... Ya, talk Republicans, who want to cut funding to social services that help CHILDREN, into subsidizing pre-natal care, medical costs, housing , food, and health care for millions more kids....yuppers, you go right ahead.. .
So? We subsidize plenty of things that arent medical prodecedures. That has nothing to do with the question. ........ ya, ill just leave this nonsense alone. Nope, nothing about any of that anywhere in the OP. Stop making things up in my thread. If you wanna talk about 'where the funding might come from' then I think we should take it from military research funding, bank bailout funding or the drone program directed at overseas noncombatants, not food, housing or healthcare entitlements. Do you have some kind of beef against adoption? How the hell does adoption not 'help children'?
It has a lot to do with the question, you offered adoption (not a medical procedure) as a substitute for abortion, a medical procedure. . So why did you put voluntary with asterisks? *voluntary*.......what did you mean by that? You: ""subsidizing adoption would be a great *voluntary* way to encentivise an alterative to abortion""" *voluntary* ...Another way to say force/brainwash women to give up 9 months of their lives for someone else.....in another thread I didn't see men lining up to do the same... Just because you can't address something doesn't mean it's "nonsense". Well, see , when one proposes something they should have a practical plan to back it up ....or else it's just hot air. Nothing is free. Doesn't YOUR title say "subsidize" ? If it's forced on the woman, YUP! It helps them if they are adopted.....there are many,many kids still sitting in the "system" waiting for Pro-lifers to adopt them.
Not a 'substitute', an ALTERNATIVE. There is a difference. Substitute denotes 'instead' Alternative denotes 'in addition to' While it is my HOPE that greater access to adoption will increase its demand and PERHAPS render abortion obsolete, I have not advocating removing acces to abortion. I still think its an important option, at least from a legal and precedential perspective. This may be a big part of our continued miscommunication. *Asterisks* (afaik) are meant to add emphasis to a word or phrase that is particularly important to the point, or that the author wishes to make certain the reader doesnt miss in a 'skim-over.' Its functionally identical to ALL CAPS or emboldened font. Im pressuming you thought I was saying 'voluntary' and suggesting a surreptitious enforcement of adoption over abortion? I was, am and do not. I am fundamentally opposed to bureacratic, authoritative controls over peoples lives, particularly by restricting this and that on a subjectively moral basis, and thats precisely what restricting abortion would be. I do hate abortion, but I feel that the ethical way of fighting it is with voluntary means -incentivizing alternatives- instead of just trying to ban it and FORCE people to act according to my personal moral values. I've been in the 'chat room' setting for a long time, and there were many platforms that did not provide easy access to emboldened font, and all caps is (or was) considered rude in some settings. I grew accustomed to asterisks often being the only emphasis available. I apologize if it has caused confusion. I can try to stick to CAPS or bold in convo's with you in the future in attempt to avoid this understandable miscommunication... tho I will likely slip as I have been using them for so very long. I hope the asterisk thing cleared this up already Afaik, 'subsidize' just means 'the govt/people pay for it with taxes.' Theres a lot of ways this can happen. We have a lot of waste spending, and spending that a lot of people dont like. I would prefer to pay for new programs by getting rid of unpopular ones, instead of just raising taxes. My proposition would be to fund adoption by getting rid of other programs to free up the funds, ibstead of trying to raise the funds from scratch. This is a debate forum, not a bill presented to congress. I dont need to have a full budgetary plan to propose a basic concept of an idea for discussion. There is no force here. Its purely an optional alternative. Im hoping that adoption will be a more lucrative option if the financial blocks are lowered. Currently, adoption is a difficult prospect for any prospective parents not in the upper middle class or above. Subsidation should open the process up to a lot more people and increase the demand. Ostencibly, adoption is SUPPOSED to be expensive as a means to promote that only financially stable parents may adopt, but imo the bar is set WAY TO HIGH. As someone who grew up in a poorer fanily, and someone who is raising kids in a lower income situation, I really dont see much of an argument for killing the child just to prevent it from not having wealthy parents.
You: ""There is no force here. Its purely an optional alternative."" It already IS an alternative.....some women accept it and some don't....CHOICE....PERFECT
It's already "easier". The woman decides to have the kid and gives it up...easy peasy....(well, except for the damage to her body, the pain, the possible career and education setbacks, no amount of money can pay for THAT) Most women who give up their kid probably already hope it gets parents who can afford it...and only parents who can afford it should have it.
"Average Total Cost: Adoption Agency - $39,966; Independent Adoption - $34,093" https://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/the_costs_of_adopting How many people do you know that would make acceptible parents (IF they wanted to)? And how many of those people have a spare $35K lying around? (Connecting the dots here...) How many babies (or fetuses or w/e) are aborted because most decent would-be parents aka prospective adopters out there don't have that much cash in savings? (that is of course a rhetorical question) The point is- adopting is NOT easy unless you're rich.
Good, no kid should be saddled with poor parents.......hardly fair to a kid to "get rid of her/him" by dumping them into a life of poverty.
Kids shouldn't be a tax scheme. Get rid of the child tax credits and all other writeoffs associated with having kids.
There is a HUGE gap between having $35K of EXTRA money and being in poverty. If one must have $35K to be a fit parent (a parent that isn't 'poor') then less than 15% of america falls into that category. I guess everyone else should just get abortions... https://www.gobankingrates.com/personal-finance/data-americans-savings/
Technically we do as long as the child is in the foster care system, at least in my state. There is also some assistance available for people who are adopting children already related to them like grandparents adopting their grandchild.
I can see both sides of this. Yes, providing incentive to have kids promotes using them as a source of income. However, a healthy economy structured like ours requires perpetual growth (2.1 surviving children per 2 adults) or it eventually stagnates as the retired become too much of a burden for the working to conpensate for. If we got rid of social security, medicaid, and other entitlements directed at those beyond working age and made them fend for themselves, then we could suffer a populatiin decrease without the economy tanking. As it is, the population has to grow (even very slowly) for things to run smoothly. Thats the real reason for the tax credits- promote population growth.
No to subsidizing abortion, no to subsidizing adoption. Its a mistake for the govt to get involved in social manipulation.
Let me rephrase your post: the govt needs population growth in order to fund its bribery schemes required to win elections.
well, pretty much. but *we* need population growth as well. whether a society is supporting its elderly with entitlrments or putting em up in the spare bedroom, there needs to be young to take care of the old. also that pesky trend of population shrinkage to, you know, reduce to one, then zero. that would put a damper on things.
No, but they should think about what a kid costs before having one. Bringing a child into poverty isn't doing them any favors. BTW, Note: YOU brought up the phrase "FIT parent", I didn't. I didn't associate being poor with being "fit" , YOU did. I think people have gotten into a lot of trouble in the last several years by spending more than they had. Everyone should have a "bumper", a safety net, especially if they're going to be responsible for children. Maybe it's a good idea to "counsel" people who want to have kids on just how much it costs. Maybe then Repubs won't have to scream about people on Welfare and other social programs for kids.
The old, "WE MUST PROCREATE or We Will DIE OUT! crap.....Ya, sure, there is such a big danger of people not having kids so we must force women to breed ....how about we just do what America has always done, let in immigrants.? Then we won't deplete our population to zero which is going to happen any second now!!! You: ""If we got rid of social security, medicaid, and other entitlements directed at those beyond working age and made them fend for themselves, then we could suffer a populatiin decrease without the economy tanking."" So you want to put old folks on an ice floe and into the sea to starve to death? Gee, those PRECIOUS LIVES don't seem to be precious to you... Here's a great oxymoron, Take away what those worthless old people earned and have them fend for themselves...how? By getting jobs? Your job? By living on the street? Your grandparents would be interested in your opinion of the worth of their lives.... Got news for you, I DID fend for myself...... I PAID for my Social Security and Medicare,......and I ENJOY every penny of my "entitlement"(YES, I AM entitled to my own money )
Just stop. I was not advocating those things. I am pro-population, not anti-old people. You really just like to assume the worst about me dont you? Is it cuz I dont love abortion enough?
Oh, please, don't get all emotional................. Your Post 14: ""If we got rid of social security, medicaid, and other entitlements directed at those beyond working age and made them fend for themselves, then we could suffer a populatiin decrease without the economy tanking""
Statement of fact as an example of why our economy needs population growth, not a proposition for killing old ppl.
Maybe you could rephrase it as it says""If we got rid of social security, medicaid, and other entitlements directed at those beyond working age and made them fend for themselves, """" .......... that's NOT going to kill off old people ???? ...and it's proposing to take away money (SS) they earned....it doesn't look like you exactly think older folks are "precious life"...
'If we (do something)' is a statement of cause, in this case, leading to an effect. Not an advocation. If I had said 'We should (do something)' then that would be advocating to do it. But I'll re-word it just for you. If we got rid of social security, medicaid, and other entitlements directed at those beyond working age and made them fend for themselves (which most people, including me, are opposed to doing), then we could suffer a population decrease without the economy tanking. The inferrence (I had hoped) was that the argument for 'killing granny' in the interest of economic efficiency was understood to be massively unpopular, thus the innevitable effects of population stagnation or decrease are massively unpopular, thus we should continue to promote population growth. Clearer?
Clearer....... I only disagree with promoting population growth...the population is growing too much now and, as I said, if we need more people we can do what America has always done, welcome more immigrants... ...and if "promoting population growth" in any way involves pushing/promoting/brainwashing/paying women to reproduce then it is just plain wrong.
