Zone1 A Basic Minimum Income Supplement and the percentage of women who choose abortion?

A 500 dollar monthly B. M. I. would likely cause what percentage of women to reject abortion?

  • Zero to ten percent would choose life if B. M. I supplement was instituted

    Votes: 2 66.7%
  • Eleven to twenty percent of women would likely choose life a B. M. I. was in place

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Twenty one percent to thirty percent of women would likely choose life if B. M. I. was instituted.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Thirty one percent to forty percent of women would likely choose life if B. M. I was in place.

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • More than forty one percent of women would likely choose life if a B. M. I. was in place.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Abortions must be stopped through legislation, not prevented by a B. M. I.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3
You are absolutely correct that five hundred dollars is like nothing but this idea sets the stage for the question of whether or not the Pro-Life Community might just be willing to AGREE with and support the people who support an Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income Supplement?

The timing certainly is correct for there to be at least some level of agreement across partly lines both in Canada as well as in the USA, under our extreme set of circumstances.

If I understand your proposition correctly, you are saying that the pro-life people and the UBI people will agree to support each other's policies and both could get done. Well, I would never say never, but the pro-lifers are Far Right and the UBI folks are Far Left and so it's hard to see those guy agreeing to support each other. Do they trust each other? I doubt it. I can see the real possibility that whoever gets their policies First will renege on the other side's policies and so one of the two doesn't happen.

Digging a bit deeper, I do not see the Left supporting pro-life legislation without a lot of expensive concessions for child-care, education, housing, etc. If the Right accepts those concessions and on top of that supports UBI across the country then you are talking about an extremely large spending package and tax hikes. I can see the Left coming out of it as big winners if the Right agrees with all that.
 
If I understand your proposition correctly, you are saying that the pro-life people and the UBI people will agree to support each other's policies and both could get done. Well, I would never say never, but the pro-lifers are Far Right and the UBI folks are Far Left and so it's hard to see those guy agreeing to support each other. Do they trust each other? I doubt it. I can see the real possibility that whoever gets their policies First will renege on the other side's policies and so one of the two doesn't happen.

Digging a bit deeper, I do not see the Left supporting pro-life legislation without a lot of expensive concessions for child-care, education, housing, etc. If the Right accepts those concessions and on top of that supports UBI across the country then you are talking about an extremely large spending package and tax hikes. I can see the Left coming out of it as big winners if the Right agrees with all that.

You are absolutely correct. I voted for Conservative M. P. Dan Muys in our last Canadian federal election but I joined Canada's New Democratic Party in May of 2025 because I was thinking that I should at least attempt to campaign for the role of national leader of the NDP.

I soon found out that I joined two months too late but now being a member of the NDP allows me to pick a possible national leader and attempt to set them up as best as I can to do diplomacy across historical political boundaries?


 
You are absolutely correct. I voted for Conservative M. P. Dan Muys in our last Canadian federal election but I joined Canada's New Democratic Party in May of 2025 because I was thinking that I should at least attempt to campaign for the role of national leader of the NDP.

I soon found out that I joined two months too late but now being a member of the NDP allows me to pick a possible national leader and attempt to set them up as best as I can to do diplomacy across historical political boundaries?


Didn't realize you were Canadian. Back in the 90s, Canada was facing a debt and deficits problem and they found a way to come together and fix the problem by limiting spending a lot and raising taxes a little bit. Not sure if that could happen again in your country or mine, but I'd like to think so cuz I really don't follow politics north of our border. Huge credit to Canada for what they did then.
 
Didn't realize you were Canadian. Back in the 90s, Canada was facing a debt and deficits problem and they found a way to come together and fix the problem by limiting spending a lot and raising taxes a little bit. Not sure if that could happen again in your country or mine, but I'd like to think so cuz I really don't follow politics north of our border. Huge credit to Canada for what they did then.

In my opinion Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper was one of our best......
and P. M. Mark Carney seems to want to go down in history as one of our worst.... [much like P. M. Justin].

P. M. Mark Carney's policy toward Israel as of September of 2025, seems to be rewarding terrorism.



 
$500 a month isn't going to do anything meaningful for anybody. Are you going to cancel all the other gov't assistance programs in exchange for UBI, or is it in addition to what people already get? Medicare? Medicaid? SSA? Food Stamps? And every other welfare program? If it's an add-on deal, we're talking a few trillion dollars on top of the $2 tril deficit we're running now.

But a paltry five hundred dollars per month IF IT WAS CREATED IN THE SAME WAY AS THE BANK OF CANADA WAS USED FROM 1938 TO 1974 would set a PRECEDENT that would have investors and experts complaining that this is a "Big Cat Idea that once it is out of the bag, it will not voluntarily ever go back into the bag!"


For one example....
would not five hundred dollars per month for each member of a household of four, assist the Canadian real estate market?


 
In a high percentage of cases where a woman chooses to have an abortion, money and obtaining an education and getting a better career in the future are cited as being major reasons for choosing to have an abortion.

An Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income for all citizens of the USA and Canada would almost certainly result in a significant percentage of women deciding instead to give birth to their baby, [even if they were to give their baby up for adoption, a less scary economy for the USA and Canada would impact pregnant women so that they would be less pessimistic about the future]?

I believe that active members of the Pro-Life Community should study the proposal put forward by Economist Milton Friedman because it certainly would shift the "Choose Life" formula?

Let's use an example of a rather low Unconditional Basic Minimum Income Supplement of five hundred dollars per month in the USA and in Canada. To what degree do you suspect that a B. M. I. of this nature might likely influence more women to choose life, and NOT have an abortion?

In my opinion the Pro-Life community should become aware of certain aspects of USA and Canadian history and they should also know about Economist Milton Friedman?




There are also important parts of USA and Canadian history that related directly to this option that is in front of us now with a special urgency?


This article by Mr. Alain Pilote is very relevant as well.






It's been tried in most countries....
Even in America you get a 6,000 year payment for having a child. (Called a tax credit).
It hasn't done anything to increase the birth rate or slow down the drop.

Changing how payments are made doesn't change anything either.

Wealth redistribution doesn't fix or hurt or do anything for birth rates.

Even with some states making abortion illegal the birth rate seems unaffected nationally....I'll need to see more data to see if abortions are increasing in surrounding states to the point of supplementing for both states the number now deemed illegal.
.
 
China has a mandatory 3 child policy currently. Doesn't seem to be doing anything either.


 
But a paltry five hundred dollars per month IF IT WAS CREATED IN THE SAME WAY AS THE BANK OF CANADA WAS USED FROM 1938 TO 1974 would set a PRECEDENT that would have investors and experts complaining that this is a "Big Cat Idea that once it is out of the bag, it will not voluntarily ever go back into the bag!"


For one example....
would not five hundred dollars per month for each member of a household of four, assist the Canadian real estate market?



How much in total are we talking about when you give a large number of people $500 each month? It's your idea, so you do the math, please. How many people, and are their req'ts to be met or is it everybody? Anybody get left out and if so ,why? There are somewhere around 230 million Americans and that is a whole lot of money that we ain't got.

Tell me about what the B of C did. I know what Lincoln did, he created a federal tax and he got huge sums of money from banks in exchange for promissory notes to pay it back with interest. That much money has to come from somewhere.
 
In a high percentage of cases where a woman chooses to have an abortion, money and obtaining an education and getting a better career in the future are cited as being major reasons for choosing to have an abortion.

An Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income for all citizens of the USA and Canada would almost certainly result in a significant percentage of women deciding instead to give birth to their baby, [even if they were to give their baby up for adoption, a less scary economy for the USA and Canada would impact pregnant women so that they would be less pessimistic about the future]?

I believe that active members of the Pro-Life Community should study the proposal put forward by Economist Milton Friedman because it certainly would shift the "Choose Life" formula?

Let's use an example of a rather low Unconditional Basic Minimum Income Supplement of five hundred dollars per month in the USA and in Canada. To what degree do you suspect that a B. M. I. of this nature might likely influence more women to choose life, and NOT have an abortion?

In my opinion the Pro-Life community should become aware of certain aspects of USA and Canadian history and they should also know about Economist Milton Friedman?




There are also important parts of USA and Canadian history that related directly to this option that is in front of us now with a special urgency?


This article by Mr. Alain Pilote is very relevant as well.






AI prompting is a plethora of very real initially high-paying deskjobs.
and AI still needs human help converting one major version of code into it's next (otherwise known as a near full complete rewrite, which is very time consuming and exhausting for any (single?) human).

so human software engineers are going to retain control of the cyberspace, and the programming professions.
they'll just need to update their skillset with ai prompting, which is easy to do, even for me - a slightly underpar coder in terms of productivity, after my complete mental burnout in the 1990s IT companies of amsterdam.
 
Last edited:
AI prompting is a plethora of very real initially high-paying deskjobs.
and AI still needs human help converting one major version of code into it's next (otherwise known as a near full complete rewrite, which is very time consuming and exhausting for any (single?) human).

so human software engineers are going to retain control of the cyberspace, and the programming professions.
they'll just need to update their skillset with ai prompting, which is easy to do, even for me - a slightly underpar coder in terms of productivity, after my complete mental burnout in the 1990s IT companies of amsterdam.

True.....
and all that I know so far is that simple searches that I have done through A. I. for discussions on this forum were rather impressive..... I must admit.
 
Back
Top Bottom