ESPN jumps into Abortion debate.
On vacation but couldn't let this go.
ESPN Anchorman and Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick has introduced legislation that would pay women $500 to not have an abortion and put the baby up for adoption.
First off, I understand Rep Patrick's intentions and motivations. $500 is nothing to save a life. It also puts the onus on the pro-lifers, kind of a put-up or shut-up moment. I don't think there's anything underhanded going on, or that he's trying to be overly clever. If anything, its up-front and straight forward. Well, unless the $500 is meant to be a "gateway" to banning abortion all together. Sort of a "abortion is illegal, but you get $500" plan in the future. I'm just not there yet that that's the plan.
Anyway, I don't like it.
- It sends a very weird message, and, in essence "values" life at $500. Some lawyer will figure this out and use it in court, either for medical malpractice, product liability, child support, abuse, etc. I'm not saying it will work, but anytime the government sets a "price" standard, it has ripple effects, I'm just trying to figure out what they might be.
- It does touch on the whole "people trade" issue. Only here, the government is the broker. Again, weird.
- Hugely, hugely expensive, which shouldn't matter, but we talk about money when it comes to health care and education so clearly, "money is no object" isn't the...objective. There's the $500 a pop, but also the cost associated with what to do with the kids next. Bluntly, white babies will go like hot cakes, but minority babies are much harder to place. I didn't see anywhere in Rep Patrick's bill for additional funding for foster care, funds to adoption agencies, or health care.
- Which leads to, what if you know you're baby will have major medical issues or special needs? You can give the baby up for adoption, get your $500 but the state has a new ward.
- Also on health care, anyone who's ever had a baby will tell you that it costs a whole lot more that $500 to have said baby. Will the state cover all cost's associated with delivery and post partum?
- I'm sorry, but this bill just isn't very well thought out.
Posts
1 comment:
This Dan Patrick is not THE Dan Patrick of ESPN. If he were, then Keith Oberman wouldn't be appearing on his radio show.
I see the concern about putting a price on life, but increasing from zero to $500 is a move in the right direction.
I think the potential for legal abuses by judges and lawyers is real, I also think it is low. Many jurisdictions consider it two murders when you kill a pregnant woman. However, the fact that this law clearly gives the unborn legal standing has not led to making abortions illegal in those jurisdictions. This means that societal/philosophical understandings of life aren't easily manipulated by technical legal arguments. They certainly can be, but it's a low risk, at least at this point in time.
I think the argument that valuing life without counting it's costs is dangerous. If anything has the potential to lead to uglier new ideas its the utilitarian view of human worth. See the "philosopher" Peter Singer for the depths to which this type of thinking can lead a man.
Without having given this idea the thought it deserves, I'd initially say that we aren't putting a value on the baby. We are putting a value on the mother's decision. If the mother thought the baby had any value she wouldn't be contemplating abortion. In fact, since she is willing to pay to get rid of it, she thinks the baby has a negative value. Finding a number that would convince her to change her mind has nothing to do with valuing the baby since that can't be done. This is simply an attempt to find the cost necessary to change someone's mind.
Should this be done via legislation? I agree that it shouldn't since the government should not be creating new benefits for a specific segment of society (it should be rolling back the misguided ones that already exist). But this would be an excellent idea for pro-life groups to promote (I'm pretty sure they already do).
Post a Comment