What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

So Steven Waldman of Beliefnet and Lord William Saletan went on Bloggingheads to discuss abortion, and how we can make the dirty tramps who have them stop. It’s a natural topic of conversation for two people with zero ovaries, fallopian tubes, uteruses, and vaginas between them; since they’ll never have to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term, Waldman and Saletan are free to discuss things logically and scientifically, free from concerns like, say, how this would actually affect a human being.

Remarkably, in a discussion including Saletan, Waldman managed to make the dumbest and most offensive argument: what if we paid those wanton slatterns to keep the precious baby growing inside of them?

Now I wonder, I know this is dangerous territory here, but I’m just kind of thinking out loud…I wonder if we should start thinking about financial incentives or help for women who decide to carry the baby to term.”

[…]

So maybe we ought to be saying to them, if it’s officially important for us as a society to reduce the number of abortions…maybe we should pay her a thousand dollars, uh, I don’t know what the right number is, because you don’t want to create a financial incentive for, uh, making babies.

Genius! The woman gets ten honeybees, the patriarchal society gets its precious, precious baby, and everything is swell. It’s logically air-tight, except for the part of the stuff where he said all about…uh…things.

Before we take this apart on philosophical grounds, let’s first go over the basic argument: we’re going to give women money to continue with a pregnancy she would have aborted. Okay. Well, since we live in a country with de jure legal abortions, every pregnancy can be terminated. So we just agreed to pay every woman who gives birth $1000 cash money. In 2005, there were 4,138,349 live births in America. Presumably, this proposal would increase those numbers, and the numbers are just naturally going up anyway, so let’s say this gets us to a robust 5 million kids a year. At $1000 a kid, that’s a measly $5 billion a year in child bonuses! Pocket change. I mean, sure, it’s just $2 billion less than we give the EPA, but compared to the $660 billion we spent on defense, that’s nothing!

Then again, coming up with $5 billion a year will require higher taxes eventually, and if you hate abortion, you probably hate taxes even more. So somehow, we’re going to have to narrow this down a bit. Why not eliminate married women from the payout? I mean, every child born to a married couple is a loving gift from God, and therefore no married woman has ever had an abortion, so there we go! Now, some naysayers will say nay, that would encourage women and men to postpone marriage until after they had kids so that they can qualify for the child bonus, but that’s just crazy talk.

Maybe we could ask women if they were going to have an abortion, and if they say, “no,” we could simply not pay them. Brilliant! Nobody would lie for $1000. It’s foolproof!

Okay, now that we’ve reduced the cost to $4 billion or so, we run into our next problem: the .000002% of the recipients of the bonus who actually were swayed from aborting are now going into labor, and they just realized that the copay for giving birth is, like, much more than $1000. And that’s the ones who have insurance. They tell all their slutty friends who are cursed with God’s judgment, and now their friends all want to get abortions again! It’s crazy, I know, but given the expense of labor and delivery and having to pay for an actual child (assuming these children aren’t all given up for adoption, which they wouldn’t be), $1000 is absolutely nothing. (This shouldn’t be surprising; the going rate for surrogates is roughly $20,000 — which is probably lower than it should be, considering the health risks of pregnancy. Of course, that would have our plan costing around $100 billion a year, or about the size of the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security, Energy, Agriculture, and Justice combined.) 

And not for nothing, but $1000 certainly not much of an incentive for women who are, one remembers, already paying easily that much to have abortions — which tends to suggest that the financial implications of childbirth are not the most pressing on women looking to abort anyhow. 

So to recap the plan: we’re going to increase the out-of-wedlock birthrate, encourage women to lie, and pay too little to actually affect the abortion rate whatsoever. It’s a remarkable plan, I don’t know why anti-choicers haven’t thought of this before.

Now, obviously, this plan simply wouldn’t work, but frankly, that’s not the worst part of it. The worst part, of course, is that it’s essentially treating the woman as a rent-a-uterus, a thing that must be placated just long enough to extract the thing of value, the baby, from her. It’s dehumanizing, and it’s demeaning, and it ignores all the problems with actually being pregnant that most women, bless them, soldier through in order to have a child. It’s arduous, dangerous work, which is why people of decent character generally think that we should do what we can to make the work voluntary — to allow women to decide for themselves whether to take on the burden of carrying a pregnancy to term — and to allow them to opt out should they decide, even after they start, that they do not want to continue.

Of course, thinking that requires one to recognize that the work women do in carrying on our species’ existence is tremendously valuable and difficult, and something that they, as humans, should be lauded for. But when your view of pregnancy values the potential human within far more than the actual human without, it’s hard to recognize that. And easy to think that the husk which contains the precious child can be bought off with 15 cents per hour for nine months of ’round the clock work. The husk isn’t that important, you see. It’s just a woman.