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 developmental 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.-- lepton, Mar 25 2016 Not "pro life" https://www.weforum...s-and-its-our-faultAs mentioned in an annotation. [Vernon, Mar 25 2016] Krill http://www.seasheph...e-next-collapse-605As mentioned in an annotation. [Vernon, Mar 26 2016] Can he lead a norman life? https://www.youtube...watch?v=60P1xG32FeoNo .... 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 logic.-- WcW, Mar 25 2016 " It would also show the government really cared "
Both a contradiction in terms and (marked-for-tagline).
Also, unfunded mandate.-- normzone, Mar 25 2016 Aw heck, let's throw in name-in-search-of-an-idea.-- normzone, Mar 25 2016 Would it not be simpler for the woman to pop over to a more advanced state/country to have the abortion?-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 25 2016 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, Mar 25 2016 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 all.-- WcW, Mar 25 2016 [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, Mar 25 2016 [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 many others.-- scad mientist, Mar 26 2016 [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".-- Vernon, Mar 26 2016 not touchin' it-- Voice, Mar 26 2016 What Voice said.-- MikeD, Mar 27 2016 What they said.-- blissmiss, Mar 27 2016 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, Mar 28 2016 [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 getting destroyed!-- Vernon, Mar 28 2016 // they are only pro HUMAN life //
Not even. They're pro-human birth, as evidenced by the necessity of this idea.-- notexactly, Mar 30 2016 [notexactly], so, by not really even being "pro human life", they are revealing themselves to be just a bunch of hypocrites?-- Vernon, Mar 31 2016 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.-- bob, Jul 29 2017 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 ..."
Oh, the shame of it ...-- 8th of 7, Jul 29 2017 random, halfbakery