h a l f b a k e r y
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Here in the U.S. states like Indiana are passing bills to
prevent mothers from aborting their fetus if prenatal
testing shows the child to have a developmental disability.
Of course these same states are usually refusing federal
money for giving healthcare to the poor (those with
disabilities will almost certainly be both
poor and in need of healthcare).
My idea is in exchange for bringing a pregnancy to term, a
million dollar insurance policy would be given to the
expecting mother issued by the state government. If the
child is born with a developmental disability that policy
could be cashed out (but the money could only be used for
the child, perhaps an ABLE account that would pay for
medical and other care). This would ease the burden on
expectant mothers. It would also show the government
really cared about people with disabilities.
Not "pro life"
As mentioned in an annotation. [Vernon, Mar 25 2016]
As mentioned in an annotation. [Vernon, Mar 26 2016]
Can he lead a norman life?
No .... he will - [normzone, Jul 29 2017]
|So, like a state lottery which provides a social safety net in
the form of lump sum payments to parents rather than
lifetime compassionate supports to individuals who are
disabled? Brilliant, can see no downside or flaw in this
|" It would also show the government really cared "
|Both a contradiction in terms and (marked-for-tagline).
|Aw heck, let's throw in name-in-search-of-an-idea.
|Would it not be simpler for the woman to pop over to
a more advanced state/country to have the abortion?
|Wrong name; "pro life" is actually a lie. It is well known
that human overpopulation is causing the extinctions of
thousands of entire SPECIES every year; anyone who is
actually "pro life" should be against that slaughter.
Instead, those who give themselves that label want to
make the situation worse; they are only pro HUMAN life.
Except they don't want to say so, since such blatant
prejudice would not be supported by the general public.
And so they lie.
|Vernon, you maroon, of course they mean pro-human life.
And if you want to get really down low and real, plants,
bacteria, fungi and protista are living and nobody ever
seems to consider their relative numbers in policy. f.i.
supporting whale conservation dooms billions of tiny
animals to death by baleen but that fact gets no traction at
|[WcW], "billions of tiny animals to death", and
"extinctions of thousands of entire species" are two
different things. One is a non-recoverable condition.
The global population of baleen whales in the 1600s,
before whale populations plummeted from human
hunting, was insufficient to make krill extinct. (There
was a natural balance; "killer whales" have that name
for a reason...)
|And so I reiterate: so-called "pro life" folks are LYING,
afraid to openly admit how horribly prejudiced they
are. If they MEAN "pro human life", why don't they
openly SAY so?
|[Vernon] Really? That kind of nonsense argument doesn't
impress anyone. It's pretty hard for a two word title to
accurately describe a person's entire world view. I've
heard a similar stupid argument that "Pro-Choice" is a lie
because the baby doesn't have a choice. Duh, that's not
what the title is talking about.
|Not to mention that your premise is wrong that it is
impossible to oppose abortion and to want to reduce or
limit the human population. Sure abortion can be a tool
towards that end, but childbirth can be prevented earlier
in the process as well. Conversely, it would be possible
for every woman to have multiple abortions in their life
and still have a growing population.
|And even if someone does think a growing population is
fine, by the fact that they believe that it is fine means
that they probably don't believe that the predictions/info
in that link are accurate. They may still agree with the
principle of avoiding extinction. You can try and educate
them or call them uninformed if you like, but calling them
liars simply destroys your credibility, with both them and
|[scad mientist], you seem to be missing the point that
all existing pregnancies count as "future babies in the
pipeline". Some will naturally leak out via miscarriage,
most will be born, and some are targeted for abortion.
|You DO know, don't you, that each human body
represents an accumulation of biomass that originally
existed as other life-forms that got killed? Therefore
the more humans that get born, the more that other
life-forms must get killed.
|Therefore each pregnancy that folks insist must be
carried to term counts as "those folks wanting to make
existing species-extinctions worse". We traditionally
don't worry about the side-effects associated with our
obtaining of biomass to make more human bodies. I
sometimes wonder if we are causing mass dolphin
strandings because they are starving to death, because
we are overfishing the oceans. So see the "krill" link,
and think about the baleen whales we will be killing by
starvation in the not-distant future, simply because
prejudiced humans think they have more right than
whales, to eat whale food.
|You can promote contraception all you want, but so
long as it is not 100% effective, there will always be
unwanted pregnancies. You might notice I have posted
several Ideas regarding ways to prevent pregnancies.
|I call them liars because they are not being honest
about what they are calling themselves. It is
Propaganda, and therefore it is the particular type of
lie known as "misleading from the whole Truth".
|Interestingly, each human life liberates many, many tons of carbon
which was previously locked up in oil, coal and gas. This CO2
eventually finds its way into plants, where every ton of carbon
equates to several tons of leaves, wood and roots.
|On balance, humans have increased (and continue to increase) the
planet's non-human biomass by allowing aeons-old carbon to re-
enter the carbon cycle.
|[MaxwellBuchanan], it's not quite that simple. Remember
deforestation? How about urban encroachment upon
farmland? And don't forget desertification, either. Many
places that could benefit from access to all that carbon are
|// they are only pro HUMAN life //
|Not even. They're pro-human birth, as evidenced by the
necessity of this idea.
|[notexactly], so, by not really even being "pro human life",
they are revealing themselves to be just a bunch of
|Your idea assumes that the only burden is a financiaol
one on the caregivver. What about the disabled
persons quality of life? There are certanly conditions
for which i would prefer not to be born.
|Indeed."I'm very sorry to have to tell you this, Mrs. Clinton, but there's a high probability that your son will grow up to be a Democrat ..."