• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pay people to have abortions.

Atheist 2020

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
290
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
If America really wants to end poverty to a lower overall percentage -- you need to pay people to have abortions. Right now we have women that do not get married and have a number of children with a number of fathers. The mother gets more aid to dependent children and the cycle of having children keeps going with their grandchildren. It is cheaper to pay mothers upfront with a $5000 payout to have abortions. True, some will have 10 abortions with 10 different fathers. Still, it would break the back of poverty if we pay mothers to have abortions.
 
If America really wants to end poverty to a lower overall percentage -- you need to pay people to have abortions. Right now we have women that do not get married and have a number of children with a number of fathers. The mother gets more aid to dependent children and the cycle of having children keeps going with their grandchildren. It is cheaper to pay mothers upfront with a $5000 payout to have abortions. True, some will have 10 abortions with 10 different fathers. Still, it would break the back of poverty if we pay mothers to have abortions.

I'm very pro-choice but your proposal would create a cobra effect.
 
I'm very pro-choice but your proposal would create a cobra effect.

The cobra effect increased snakes, my idea will produce less children. True, it will increase more abortions but that is a factor. True, a man and a woman can team up to have more abortions and split the income. But, a woman that wants to have more abortions will find out that the men willing to have sex with her will decline. A woman that had five abortions looking for a man so she can have her sixth abortion: he would have to be a non modeled person.

We have to look at the big picture, and drive down poverty. We have to accept abortions to make a better society.
 
Right now we have women that do not get married and have a number of children with a number of fathers. The mother gets more aid to dependent children and the cycle of having children keeps going with their grandchildren.

Myth.

Robert Moffitt noted that the magnitudes of these effects are still quite uncertain. Not only are there still quite a few studies showing no significant effect of the welfare system (see Table 2), but also many of these studies use stronger methodologies and are sounder than the others (as in the results for whites). In addition, of the studies that find significant effects, some find the size of the effect to be very modest in magnitude compared with other influences on fertility and marriage, although some find sizable effects as well.

The final point emphasized by Moffitt is that, even though there is a rough consensus that welfare has some effect on marriage and childbearing, the welfare system cannot explain the rise in nonmarital childbearing over the 1980s and 1990s because welfare benefits have been falling over that period (see the section above on trends in the welfare system). To explain that rise, some other factor must have been at work. Leading candidates are a rise in the earning power of women, even low-income women, leading them to be able to support themselves and their children without the earnings of a husband; a decline in the incomes of less educated men, which could have decreased their attractiveness as marital partners; and a decline in the numbers of men available, a hypothesis suggested for disadvantaged blacks (Wilson, 1987). There is considerable research on these other factors, but less research that compares welfare benefits to those facts and attempts to parcel out their relative influences (studies that have attempted to control for some of these other factors include Acs, 1995, 1996; Danziger et al., 1982; Darity and Myers, 1993, 1995; Duncan and Hoffman, 1990; Hoffman and Duncan, 1988, 1995; Lichter et al., 1996; Lundberg and Plotnick, 1990; Schultz, 1994). At the workshop, June O'Neill emphasized that the decline in male wages may have been so great than welfare benefits could have increased in relative attractiveness, whereas William Darity believed that it has been the decline in the pool of marriageable men that is the most important.
Effects of Welfare on Marriage, Fertility, and Abortion - Welfare, the Family, and Reproductive Behavior - NCBI Bookshelf


Gonna need a new boogeyman.
 
Last edited:
If America really wants to end poverty to a lower overall percentage -- you need to pay people to have abortions. Right now we have women that do not get married and have a number of children with a number of fathers. The mother gets more aid to dependent children and the cycle of having children keeps going with their grandchildren. It is cheaper to pay mothers upfront with a $5000 payout to have abortions. True, some will have 10 abortions with 10 different fathers. Still, it would break the back of poverty if we pay mothers to have abortions.
A Swiftian Proposal that the illiterati cannot appreciate. Bravo!
 
If America really wants to end poverty to a lower overall percentage -- you need to pay people to have abortions. Right now we have women that do not get married and have a number of children with a number of fathers. The mother gets more aid to dependent children and the cycle of having children keeps going with their grandchildren. It is cheaper to pay mothers upfront with a $5000 payout to have abortions. True, some will have 10 abortions with 10 different fathers. Still, it would break the back of poverty if we pay mothers to have abortions.

This is basic stupid level 1.

You are arguing by association.

People are poor therefore poverty is caused by people. How ****ing ridiculous is that.

Try reading a book or two on economics it will really help.
If you live in a capitalist system which we do, where only a small percentage hordes the largest percentage of wealth, then you are going to get poverty.

Your blaming poverty on women? Really!!! This sounds more a case of the usual some man low on the totem pole needs someone below him to make him feel better.
 
I think we should end Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and introduce free abortion on demand. I also think we should pay people to be sterilized.

A single abortion can save a small fortune in educational, welfare, and criminal justice expense.
 
This is basic stupid level 1.

You are arguing by association.

People are poor therefore poverty is caused by people. How ****ing ridiculous is that.

Try reading a book or two on economics it will really help.
If you live in a capitalist system which we do, where only a small percentage hordes the largest percentage of wealth, then you are going to get poverty.

Your blaming poverty on women? Really!!! This sounds more a case of the usual some man low on the totem pole needs someone below him to make him feel better.

Poverty is caused by low IQ's. People with low IQ's should not be spreading their bad genes.
 
Just like there are welfare scammers, there would be women that got pregnant just for the $$.

And before you say it would be all women, there are many that would be doing this in partnership with a boyfriend/partner and splitting the cash. THere would even be men, like pimps, that forced women to do this.

If the OP was actually serious, it wasnt very well thought out.
 
This is basic stupid level 1.

You are arguing by association.

People are poor therefore poverty is caused by people. How ****ing ridiculous is that.

Try reading a book or two on economics it will really help.
If you live in a capitalist system which we do, where only a small percentage hordes the largest percentage of wealth, then you are going to get poverty.

Your blaming poverty on women? Really!!! This sounds more a case of the usual some man low on the totem pole needs someone below him to make him feel better.

As a social democrat, we are willing to pay people to get out of poverty with government policy. But, we are not willing to be a lifetime government handout. Having a baby, get on welfare and raise your child that way -- is not rational. Because your child more or less do what you did as a mother. Three generations on welfare is a failure of the left.
 
If the left supports your plan and you get people off welfare then the left will not have enough people left to vote for the crazy left policies. The left doesn't want the poor and ignorant to get wealthy and smart.
 
Poverty is caused by low IQ's. People with low IQ's should not be spreading their bad genes.

Nonsense there are plenty of smart people who have no interest in wasting their time accumulating wealth.

You could also make the bad argument that only sociopaths are interested in accumulating wealth and the power it gives. And their bad genes should not be being spread about.

Poverty is a socio economic disease and not particularly confined to the less intelligent.
 
As a social democrat, we are willing to pay people to get out of poverty with government policy. But, we are not willing to be a lifetime government handout. Having a baby, get on welfare and raise your child that way -- is not rational. Because your child more or less do what you did as a mother. Three generations on welfare is a failure of the left.

I agree neither the left nor the right in america has any interest in the poor or doing anything sensible to change generational poverty. Your suggestion is proof of that.
 
I'm not sure what's more worrying. OP's stupidity, or his/her moral reprehensibility.

Suggesting the government pay women to have an abortion? I don't even know where to begin. Hitler's estate is gonna start suing the left for plagiarism soon.
 
If America really wants to end poverty to a lower overall percentage -- you need to pay people to have abortions. Right now we have women that do not get married and have a number of children with a number of fathers. The mother gets more aid to dependent children and the cycle of having children keeps going with their grandchildren. It is cheaper to pay mothers upfront with a $5000 payout to have abortions. True, some will have 10 abortions with 10 different fathers. Still, it would break the back of poverty if we pay mothers to have abortions.
So we should pay people for committing murder?
 
If America really wants to end poverty to a lower overall percentage -- you need to pay people to have abortions. Right now we have women that do not get married and have a number of children with a number of fathers. The mother gets more aid to dependent children and the cycle of having children keeps going with their grandchildren. It is cheaper to pay mothers upfront with a $5000 payout to have abortions. True, some will have 10 abortions with 10 different fathers. Still, it would break the back of poverty if we pay mothers to have abortions.

I have said this for years... pay them to abort. It saves so much more... on education, health care, potential jail/prisons... for decades and decades, and then the cycle repeats with the children growing up and repeating...
 
Yes they are.

Except that they aren't... I am curious... why do you even bother with this decades long FAIL?

Murder is a legal term. Abortion is not murder.
 
Back
Top Bottom