S
SimmieKay
Guest
I was thinking about how can we reduce the incidence of abortion. Obviously one way is to change the law to make abortion illegal, or reduce the number of circumstances in which it is illegal. However, in my own country (Australia) at least, the campaign to change the law has been active for many years (even a few decades) now, and has had little or no success in that time, and I honestly don’t think that is going to change any time soon. So I was thinking, is there an alternative approach? I say “alternative”, not in the sense that people should stop campaigning for legal change, but in the sense that this is something additional people could try, which might even bear more fruit (“fruit” here being a reduction in the number of abortions occurring.)
So my proposal is a government agency is established to provide mothers seeking abortion with financial incentives to refrain from abortion. Every mother seeking an abortion would be referred to this agency. The agency discusses her financial and other needs, and proposes a set of financial inducements she could choose to accept. The financial inducements would be paid starting at the birth of the child. One form of inducement could be a regular payment (weekly/fortnightly/monthly) to cover the cost of the upbringing of the child. Other possible incentives could include - repayment of the mother’s debts by the government, free university education, subsidised employment (i.e. the government pays part of the mother’s salary/wages on behalf of the employer, thus making the mother more attractive to prospective employers), income tax exemptions (e.g. the government exempts the mother from payment of income tax until the child turns 18), interest free loans, etc. These incentives would be part of a legally binding contract between the mother and the government, so the government would not be able to alter or reduce them later. The incentives should be available both to mothers who choose to adopt and those who want to raise the child (although, in the case of adoption, they’d have to be carefully designed to avoid the appearance of selling babies.)
I would propose initially the agency would be established with a fixed budget (say 1 billion dollars.) In making a contract with a mother, the agency would be required to deduct the lifetime cost of that contract from its 1 billion dollar budget, plus administrative costs. Once the 1 billion is spent, we can look at how many abortions were prevented, the cost per an abortion prevented, and decide whether it is worth continuing the agency with the same budget (another billion dollars) or even an increased budget. The agency would decide what financial incentives to offer to which women within their budget - the agency’s objectives would be to maximise the number of abortions prevented, and its management would decide the best way to spend this 1 billion dollars to achieve this. The agency’s management would be paid financial incentives per an abortion prevented.
So what do people think of my proposal? Suppose it takes a $50,000 payment on average to convince a mother to refrain from abortion. So $1 billion can then save 20,000 lives. Is a billion dollars too much to pay to save 20,000 lives? I think in Australia, an extra billion would require an income tax rise of less than 0.5%. Should people be willing to pay an extra 0.5% of tax to save tens of thousands of innocent lives?
Of all possible proposals to reduce abortion, I see this as one that both sides of the debate should be able to accept. As such, if seriously pursued in the political arena, I think it has a greater likelihood of being enacted in the political process.
Simon
So my proposal is a government agency is established to provide mothers seeking abortion with financial incentives to refrain from abortion. Every mother seeking an abortion would be referred to this agency. The agency discusses her financial and other needs, and proposes a set of financial inducements she could choose to accept. The financial inducements would be paid starting at the birth of the child. One form of inducement could be a regular payment (weekly/fortnightly/monthly) to cover the cost of the upbringing of the child. Other possible incentives could include - repayment of the mother’s debts by the government, free university education, subsidised employment (i.e. the government pays part of the mother’s salary/wages on behalf of the employer, thus making the mother more attractive to prospective employers), income tax exemptions (e.g. the government exempts the mother from payment of income tax until the child turns 18), interest free loans, etc. These incentives would be part of a legally binding contract between the mother and the government, so the government would not be able to alter or reduce them later. The incentives should be available both to mothers who choose to adopt and those who want to raise the child (although, in the case of adoption, they’d have to be carefully designed to avoid the appearance of selling babies.)
I would propose initially the agency would be established with a fixed budget (say 1 billion dollars.) In making a contract with a mother, the agency would be required to deduct the lifetime cost of that contract from its 1 billion dollar budget, plus administrative costs. Once the 1 billion is spent, we can look at how many abortions were prevented, the cost per an abortion prevented, and decide whether it is worth continuing the agency with the same budget (another billion dollars) or even an increased budget. The agency would decide what financial incentives to offer to which women within their budget - the agency’s objectives would be to maximise the number of abortions prevented, and its management would decide the best way to spend this 1 billion dollars to achieve this. The agency’s management would be paid financial incentives per an abortion prevented.
So what do people think of my proposal? Suppose it takes a $50,000 payment on average to convince a mother to refrain from abortion. So $1 billion can then save 20,000 lives. Is a billion dollars too much to pay to save 20,000 lives? I think in Australia, an extra billion would require an income tax rise of less than 0.5%. Should people be willing to pay an extra 0.5% of tax to save tens of thousands of innocent lives?
Of all possible proposals to reduce abortion, I see this as one that both sides of the debate should be able to accept. As such, if seriously pursued in the political arena, I think it has a greater likelihood of being enacted in the political process.
Simon
You too, Ms.Regina 
.