Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

16 Responses

  1. ACS
    ACS March 23, 2007 at 1:11 pm |

    While the public policy is questionable — why encourage more children, and why avoid abortion? — it at least gets the right idea, in that abortion is frequently the best option to avoid having a child once you’re pregnant, and that if you believe that discouraging (not banning) abortion is a legitimate public policy goal, it should involve state compensation for the extra time and medical risk.

    — ACS

  2. Regina
    Regina March 23, 2007 at 1:30 pm |

    ick. I don’t like it, and ACS, I don’t think it “gets the right idea” at all. State compensation for having a baby is completely different from policy decisions like investing in affordable health and child care. For starters, it begs the question of whether the state should have any say in whether one has a baby in the first place, and I think that is a huge concession to make.

  3. Tiny
    Tiny March 23, 2007 at 1:34 pm |

    The difference between the pay for eggs and the pay for pregnancy (face it, it’s the pregnanc/punishmenty, not the child they want) is the classic difference in the way we (hmmph) capitalists value capital (eggs) and labor (pregnancy). The workers always get shafted.

  4. preying mantis
    preying mantis March 23, 2007 at 1:55 pm |

    So, it’s not selling babies because the bill says it’s not? Good to know.

  5. vulture
    vulture March 23, 2007 at 2:17 pm |

    Here’s my question — what happens in the event of a miscarriage or stillbirth? The woman will have invested an enormous amount of physical and psychic capital in the fetus, but, through no fault of her own, won’t be able to provide “the finished product.”

    Not that I really wonder what will happen, of course. The woman will be shit out of luck, because these bastards don’t actually give a flying fuck about her or her well-being or her humanity.

    But you knew that already.

  6. balsemon
    balsemon March 23, 2007 at 2:27 pm |

    Here’s my comment to his lordship:

    If you’re really serious about paying women to keep a baby to term rather than abort, you might want to consider upping the payment to them from $500 (which is beyond laughable) to something more on the order of $250,000. After all, if a stockbroker is worth 7-8 figures A YEAR, a baby, that commodity more precious than anything on earth, should be worth at least a middling 6 figures. Don’t you think?

    PS – Who’s running against you next term and where do I donate to that person?

  7. norbizness
    norbizness March 23, 2007 at 2:36 pm |

    There’s no point in debating hypotheticals on this bill. In addition, I’m relatively surprised that both abortion repeal trigger-bills have apparently died in committee (HB 175, SB 186). In fact, none of the bills related to abortion have made it out of committee, but there’s still time.

  8. norbizness
    norbizness March 23, 2007 at 2:48 pm |

    Well, trigger bills have been passed in apparently less progressive states than Texas. I wasn’t aware such states existed and will do my best to avoid them, although I suspect that in the case of North Dakota that’s like giving up buying Caribbean islands for Lent.

  9. Doctress Julia
    Doctress Julia March 23, 2007 at 3:34 pm |

    Actually, I think it’s .07 cents an hour. EVEN WORSE!!!

  10. Jess
    Jess March 23, 2007 at 4:19 pm |

    This is actually really good news for women. Just stop and think about it for a moment.
    It’s truely wonderful news for the upwardly mobile profesional ladies of the world. Why take the time off work and ravage that hard-earned body when you can just go out and buy a baby for next to nothing.

    This could actually help women get hired for high power jobs since the bosses won’t have to worry about us taking time off of work to have families/lives.

    Besides, the basic principals of capitalism beg that we ask why use six figure earners for breading when all those unemployed, unmotivated hussies have nothing worthwhile to do with their lives anyways?
    I’m sure this will be of great benefit to those who have found themselves pregnant and facing very real health risks, huge costs, and lost income. If nothing else it really demonstrates to these women how much they are valued by their govt.

    Not to mention the positive effect that this will have on global overpopulation. If there are more local babies available and less demand for foreign babies maybe all those empowered third world ladies will quit choosing to get raped by their husbands and other men from their communities.

    This kind of absurd thinking by people in power severely erodes my hope for humankind!

  11. exangelena
    exangelena March 23, 2007 at 5:33 pm |

    Zuzu – yeah, for all the hue and cry about pro-life policies, Republicans in the judiciary committees, during the twelve years they controlled Congress 1994-2006, could have, at any time, brought up a pro-life amendment to the constitution.

  12. TomCody
    TomCody March 23, 2007 at 6:11 pm |

    Well, if this is truly for *all* babies and they want them to be put up for adoption, what about the Black/Latino/Asian babies that no one really adopts anyway? What happens to the the welfare for those kids?

  13. Lenka
    Lenka March 23, 2007 at 8:24 pm |

    Sounds like those with permanent-resident status would be out of luck under the propsed bill, too…a minor distinction, but something that always bugs me because I myself was a U.S. permanent resident until age 28 and my parents still are (though even back then I had lived in the U.S. for over 25 years and had been a taxpayer for the latter 10 ). That little fillip proves to me it’s not about the precious life of “the babies,” but rather only about the “real American (read: most likely white) babies.” Sen. Patrick apparently could give a rat’s rectum about the rest.

  14. hipparchia
    hipparchia March 23, 2007 at 9:13 pm |

    fully-cooked baby! the image that comes to mind is a large kettle over a campfire, boiling merrily, containing fully-cooked babies ready for adoption.

    that article that jessica linked to, about south carolina trying to force women wanting abortions to view ultrasounds of their fetuses, has a sidebar with a poll “Should women be required to look at an ultrasound of their fetus before getting an abortion?” i think we should all go vote NO. vote early and often.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.