I dont think incentivising anything is inherently wrong. There are complications (like fraud) in incentivising with money (like promoting children as a source of income leads to children being used/mistreated), but there is no perfect answer to some problems. Immigration is a potentially effective method of population growth. Its also potentially detrimental to the goals of population growth. If we attract producers who generally integrate into our ideals of freedom of expression and self sufficiency, then its effective. If we attract dependents, then we're not boosting the supply side of the economy and the purpose of population growth is negated. If we attract ideological enemies, then our society becomes dissordered and that, too, unbalances the economy, negating the purpose of population growth. However, immigration causes problems for other areas as well. If we are taking the producers from other regions, those regions lose their own production. Every population has it own supply and demand dynamics, where the dependents exist off of the producers. Taking the producers leaves their dependents wanting, taking their dependents overtaxes our producers. A very delicate balance must be maintained, and our 'open borders' doesnt take that balance into account at all.
Your last paragraph?....how do you propose to vet EVERY single immigrant to the US as to their feelings and purpose? ....AND vet them in their home country as to how badly they're needed? Would they be stopped from coming here because their family was poor as you suggest....... WHO would do this vetting? More money from the Repubs? No, I'm afraid your "what if we did this and that and then the world will be perfect" scenarios don't take everything into consideration like logistics, practicality, expense, freedom, liberty and choice... No, I don't think adoption should be subsidized....
"...vet EVERY single immigrant to the US as to their feelings and purpose?..." Impossible, and not something I proposed. General vetting and things like bans on immigrants from high density extremist areas should suffice as a good starting point. "...Would they be stopped from coming here because their family was poor as you suggest......." I suggested no such thing. Stop trying to put things in my mouth. "...."what if we did this and that and then the world will be perfect"..." I never suggested that either. Utopia is a fairytail. "....don't take everything into consideration like logistics, practicality, expense, freedom, liberty and choice..." Once again, this is not a bill being presented to congress and there is no vote taking place. This is a forum for the discussion of ideas. There is no presumption of obligation to have all the 'kinks' worked out before proposing such ideas in this environment. Feel free to offer alternative suggestions or your own ideas as they pertain to the topic. But do so without putting words in my mouth, misrepresenting what I say to fit your demonization campaign against dissenters, and general whining. Its poor form and no one appreciates it.
So you want agreement not challenge.....OK I asked: """...Would they be stopped from coming here because their family was poor as you suggest......." You Post 26 :""Taking the producers leaves their dependents wanting, taking their dependents overtaxes our producers."" I asked , would they be stopped because of that...I didn't put words in your mouth.....
dependents =\= poor Theres plenty of 'poor' folks that come to america to work in the hopes of becoming 'not poor.' They are part of what I refer to as producers. And no, just because someone is a dependent is not a reason to stop them. But we need to be mindful that for the dependents we do allow in, we need to have an appropriate amount of producers as well so as to not increase the overal dependency of the population and overtax our producers. This is the 'balance' that I mentioned, and Open Borders does not preserve any balance.
We are already paying to raise children in the system. Whats wrong with offering that money to those willing to adopt? I agree with limiting government to a minimum, but we can't let kids grow up in the streets.
Adopting shouldn't be easy. There are more people looking to adopt than there are babies available for adoption. There's a huge waiting list. Women do not abort a healthy zef because they think there are no prospective adoptive parents.
This is an excellent point. I would imagine they do. A common (incorrect) argument of the pro-choice is that there isnt enough demand for adoption to meet the overabundance of supply of unwanted babies. This argument would suggest a common misconception about the actual demand for adoptable children. Why not? Increasing the supply of adoptible children (by making the process easier) would most likely decrease the number of children (or fetuses) aborted. You position and your reasoning behind it dont make any sense to me here. Maybe Im misunderstanding?
you: ""(by making the process easier)"" For whom? Why should MORE children in the system make adoption easier? What did you plan to do with the "leftovers" ? Why should it be easy? So anyone, anyone at all can pick up a kid or two....? No.
"For whom?" Everyone involved. "Why should MORE children in the system make adoption easier?" Shortening the waiting list makes it easier, increasing 'supply' shortens the waiting list. There are other factors- the bureaucratic and financial difficulties would also need to be reduced for increased supply to have an effect. "What did you plan to do with the "leftovers" ?" Can you rephrase? Im not certain what you mean. "Why should it be easy? So anyone, anyone at all can pick up a kid or two....?" No. You're taking it to an absurd extreme that I havn't advocated. Please avoid the AdHom. When something is 'too difficult' it can be made 'easiER' without making it 'too easy.' Of course there needs to be SOME requirements met by adoptive parents to promote a stable, prosperous environment for the adopted child. This can be still be accomplished, imo, while reducing the difficulties that the current system emplaces. Subsidation would reduce some of these difficulties.
"Everyone involved" ? How is it "easier" for a woman to go through 9 months of pregnancy, suffer the harm and pain of pregnancy, financial loss, educational and career setbacks, possible job loss, possible pain of giving up a kid........when she could just have an abortion and skip all that ? Have you any consideration at all for the children who know they were given up? AND who may not BE adopted? MANY aren't....and it isn't the system, it's adoptive couples wanting Perfect, White , Infants. You sound like they're a "product", a "gizmo", something to be marketed just to make child free couples happy....... "Subsidation" may get people in it just for the money...
"How is it "easier" for a woman to go through 9 months of pregnancy, suffer the harm and pain of pregnancy, financial loss, educational and career setbacks, possible job loss, possible pain of giving up a kid........when she could just have an abortion and skip all that ?" I didnt say 'adoption is (or would be) easier than abortion.' Theres that AdHom again. I said we should make adoption EASIER than adoption is now. "Have you any consideration at all for the children who know they were given up? AND who may not BE adopted? MANY aren't....and it isn't the system, it's adoptive couples wanting Perfect, White , Infants." Im certain its somewhere between unpleasant and devastating. I can only speculate based on my own anecdotal experience, but I presume that being rejected or growing up in 'the system' is STILL preferable to never having been born at all. Given that the suicide rate of unadopted orphans is less than 50%, indicating that they prefer existance over nonexistance, I think its a safe presumption. "You sound like they're a "product", a "gizmo", something to be marketed just to make child free couples happy......." Not my intent. Im simply trying to avoid humanizing them in a debate with people who wont even tolerate fetuses being referred to as babies, children or human. Damned if I do, damned if I don't, eh? " "Subsidation" may get people in it just for the money..." It most certainly will, as is proven by welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, foster care and all other government assistance and service programs plagued by fraud. I don't think the innevitability of fraud necessitates the elimination of these programs... do you?
...so what is your reason for making adoption easier? As I showed you , it isn't easier for the woman....don't you care about all "life" ? An unsafe presumption is that a fetus can think. If one has never been born they have nothing to miss out on so there is no choice or preference there.. And of course born people usually prefer existence, it's the survival instinct... . So totally illogical. BORN children SHOULD be humanized as much as possible so that ALL those MILLIONS of people waiting to adopt them, will. NO one said children aren't human. I have never seen anyone refer to a human fetus as not human. But human fetuses are NOT babies nor are they children nor are they teenagers. Some people prefer using correct terms , like fetus, some people use emotion and need to call a fetus a baby which is as accurate as calling it a teenager. No, but you don't seem to mind , it is YOU who wants to make it easier....
"...so what is your reason for making adoption easier?" So that the difficulties of adoption are less likely to drive people to abortion. "As I showed you , it isn't easier for the woman....don't you care about all "life" ?" If adoption were subsidized, then it would be easier for adopters to adopt. If we make adoption easier for adopters to adopt, then its a more available option for everyone involved. And note I said 'option.' If abortion is still the preference, its still available. The net result is more choice. "An unsafe presumption is that a fetus can think. If one has never been born they have nothing to miss out on so there is no choice or preference there.." Agreed. But you're disconnecting this issue from abortion and adoption. You posed that the suffering of not being adopted is a negative effect of adoption. But the only alternative thus far discussed is abortion. Given that none (or quite few) of those in the system would have instead chosen abortion if possible, then abortion is not demonstrably preferable from the perspective of those in the adoption system. If their emotions are important to the debate, then the option that allows them to have any at all is the preferable one. "So totally illogical. BORN children SHOULD be humanized as much as possible so that ALL those MILLIONS of people waiting to adopt them, will." Agreed. "NO one said children aren't human." Neither did I. "I have never seen anyone refer to a human fetus as not human." I have. And its always been by peoole who also say 'a fetus is not a baby' even though countless pregnant mothers regularly refer to their 'fetus' as 'my baby' or 'the baby.' This is not a court of law. Why would the commonly used terminology not be acceptible? "But human fetuses are NOT babies nor are they children nor are they teenagers." AdHom "Some people prefer using correct terms , like fetus, some people use emotion and need to call a fetus a baby which is as accurate as calling it a teenager." Do you correct pregnant women who say 'my baby,' or just people in debate forums whom you disagree with? "No, but you don't seem to mind , it is YOU who wants to make it easier...." I mind fraud in entitlements, but not a lot. Its a drop in the bucket compared to other forms of waste in the budget. You're making a far bigger deal about it than I am. Does it bother you this much when it happens in welfare and food stamps? What do you think we should do about it?
There are 2 problems. The first is that the money will become a tool for "social engineering" - i.e., implementing an agenda. If you want even $1, then you have to follow all the govt rules. The busybody who inspects you thinks all kids should go to public school, thinks gender is all in the mind and doesn't like you giving a 4 year old girl a doll, doesn't like you taking the adopted kid to church, doesn't want guns on the house, doesn't like dogs around kids - you break a rule, you don't get any assistance, and you get harassed. That type of manipulation happens with foster kids all the time. We work with a national religious foster organization that does not accept govt funding for that reason. The second problem is that the govt will get that assistance money they will use for their "social engineering" by taking it forcibly from people (taxation).
It isn't the difficulties of adoption that "drive" women to abortion. Why would a woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy care about what difficulties people wanting to adopt face? Women aren't stupid, they already know having the kid and adopting it out IS an option. Each woman with an unwanted pregnancy has her own problems, why would she worry about how much adoptive couples have to pay? If she did think about it wouldn't she want her kid to go to a couple that can afford it? Women ALREADY have that choice. And pregnancy is NOT easier for the women who you don't seem to care about. An unsafe presumption is that a fetus can think. If one has never been born they have nothing to miss out on so there is no choice or preference there.." A fetus does not get to choose. It can't. And you can't put the child back in the womb to see what it would've thought. I doubt it. I have been debating this issue far longer than you and I do remember one poster (among hundreds) saying it wasn't human but they were wrong. Most acknowledge WILLINGLY that a human fetus is human, it can't be anything else. And there is no reason to say it isn't human. NO, it isn't. Saying a fetus is not a baby is NOT saying it isn't human. "But human fetuses are NOT babies nor are they children nor are they teenagers." Because this is the abortion forum, not the Gerber baby Forum, and HONEST people use correct terms, not "common usage" terms meant to create illogical emotions. A woman can call her zygote/fetus anything she wishes. She can call her liver a kazoo but it's still her liver. Human fetuses are NOT babies nor are they children nor are they teenagers." No, I don't correct women no matter what they call the fetus. I have no reason to BUT in this forum where so many are against women's rights I use correct terminology to keep the "Use Emotion" people to the straight and narrow. This is NOT the "" Baby Showers Are Fun Let's Get All Misty Eyed and Emotional" forum..... Uhhhh, you know who screams about that tiny bit of waste in social programs for children ? Republicans, the party of ANTI-CHOICERS. Have clinics where women especially low income women can get accessible, safe, affordable health care.... birth control, pre natal care, cancer screenings, etc. HEY WAIT! WE DO! But Republicans want these clinics shut down!!! Don't you think that's really stupid?
Ugh. Well thats all entirely true. But whats worse: using kids as a social (destabilization) engineering scheme, or killing them before they're born? Honestly, at this point Im not sure... I still think abortion alternatives could do with some further incentivization.
Good avoidance of the obvious tactic..... I broke your little Utopian loop with facts you can't deny ......and you can't loop it back together,.....
Good point. The worst thing we can ever hear from the government is "We're here to help!" From my experience, they check to see that the house is clean, there is food in the fridge, and no signs of abuse.
They have a lot of 'discretion' on the issue. If they dont like you, for example, a pantry full of canned vegetables from the garden won't count as 'food' because it doesnt have an FDA stamp on it, and a cat litter box that hasn't been cleaned in the last 5 minutes is 'animal refuse in the house'. It doesnt happen a lot, but there is very little recourse available when it does.
