Here’s a thought experiment. The birth rate in the US recently dropped below the 2.1 replacement level and while I believe it’s ticked up, given the vaccine mandates (“for the common good ‘your body your choice’ is heretofore applicable”) what is the argument against saying, “we have a birth emergency in people not having babies. Given we’re spending trillions and trillions, we need future taxpayers and workers to support our economy and to payback this debt; therefore until the birth rate gets above 2.1 for a continuous six month period, we are outlawing abortion throughout the US as a temporary emergency measure.”
Categories
4 replies on “Emergency is as emergency does”
I love it. It’s elegant, it’s correct and it throws the nonsense the Left is pedalling back in their own faces.
All of which is why the Left will never allow that to happen.
But here’s an idea, taking what you said and amplifying on it.
The Left squanders so much of our tax money on it’s vote buying entitlement programs that if we’re going to spend that money then — Why not incentivize people via tax breaks/refunds/in-kind payments and cash rewards to bring their babies to full term and put them up for adoption as a viable, economic, reasonable alternative to abortion?
There is approximately a 25:1 ratio of people who want to adopt vs. children available for adoption. Adopting a kid is expensive too. Why not give those birth mothers a piece of that financial pie? I bet that the people who really want to adopt would pay a little more to truncate their waiting list.
Then instead of abortion mills everywhere we’d at least have a few human cows dropping calves that people actually want and have the financial means to raise properly. I’m not comparing babies to calves, it’s just part of the cow metaphor.
Part of the incentive and payment should hinge on proper prenatal care and such to assure babies as healthy as possible of course.
That would address both the dropping birthrates and at least provide an incentive against abortion at the same time.
We’re a wealthy nation and we could afford to do that. If we’re willing to put our tax money and adoption fees where our mouths are that is. Unlike most of the Democrat “infrastructure” nonsense — That would actually be an investment in our future. I’d vote for that myself just to save some babies and I don’t want any more kids at all. I’d rather see my tax money spent that way than lining the pockets of corrupt politicians and disingenuous entitlement programs.
Like so many good ideas, this will never come to be.
I modified the idea a bit and expanded on it. Check it out in the above comment and let me know what you think. Or if you can see any more aspects of such a project. Or if I missed a deal-killer and it won’t work. Or if you think I’m nuts.
You are definitely not nuts. It may work in limited cases, and for that it is worthwhile. It may actually get the birthrate where it should be. I would still think there would be way too many abortions. Add in something like, say, 100% tax (or more) on cost of abortions (non theraputic, that is not in abortions to prevent actual harm to the woman). Democrats seem to like taxes. Of course that would upset their base, and probably would not fly. So many good ideas that die due to, to be blunt, laziness, selfishness and stupidity.