An Ignorant and VILE Idea

In 2007, Texas State Senator Dan Patrick proposed paying Texas women who were considering getting abortions to instead carry their babies to term and then give them up for adoption. Patrick’s bill never made it out of committee, and Patrick was ridiculed for his efforts.

Now...young Peter Tucci, editor of something called The Daily Caller, wants to reinstate this moronic, reprehensible idea, in part because of a:

"...major shortage of babies available for adoption in the US, which is why Americans often adopt children from other countries)."

Dear Peter Tucci,

In response to your concern about the lack of sufficient numbers of "unwanted" children being born and then placed for adoption, I believe you should do your share and sire children never to see them again!

Here is what this lad "envisions":

 Interested pregnant women would sign up for the program. As part of the deal, they would have to test negative for drugs and get proper prenatal care. Once their babies are born, women would have the ability to opt out, in case they had a change of heart at some point between signing up for the program and giving birth to their children. The women who didn’t opt out would give their babies up for adoption and receive a certain amount of money, say, $3,000 — enough to give them an incentive not to get abortions, but not enough to make it possible for women to become professional baby-breeders.

$3000 is not enough to make them baby breeders? this guy must frequent some really high priced call girls! What is enough? $6000, $300,000?

Ever hear the old joke about the guy who asks a woman if she would sleep with a stranger for a million dollars. She thinks, and says, "Wow. A million dollars. Yes, I think I would do that."

He replies: "Good, now that we've established what you are let's negotiate a price."

The part I really love [NOT!] about his well thought out [NOT!] proposal is that once they give birth they have avoided abortion whether they place their child or not, but he is only willing to pay them to relinquish...when of course, choosing to parent is far more costly!

YO, Peter...there are adoption agencies offering to pay all expenses and one was giving scholarships. What's different about your proposal?

Peter says it's not baby selling because:

"the amount of money they would receive would only be enough to cover the costs of childbearing. Basically, it would be a subsidy for bearing children, much like the child tax credit is a subsidy for raising children."

Except that the subsidy is not available to those who want to be mothers of their own child!  But it's not baby selling, mind you!


Read it all, and comment here.