Financially Induced Sterilization

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by nbs2, Nov 6, 2009.

  1. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #1
    I'm not sure what to think.

    The logical side of me thinks that maybe this guy has a point - there are certain people that are not going to be fit parents, and paying them not to have children would result in a lower cost to society. There would the difficulty in determining who would be eligible for this program and how you would handle a situation where someone wanted to change their mind. It isn't the situation of being poor that makes bad parents, as there are bad ones that are rich as well as middle class as well as poor. And you could have a no take-backs rule, I suppose. So long as it was a voluntary program, rather than forced, it would avoid the taint of eugenics. Indeed, this would not be so different than the resultant drop in crime a generation after Roe v. Wade made it possible for those who felt themselves to be unfit or otherwise unable parents to get an abortion. This would just be a step before abortion.

    On the flip side, you would need to find a way to ensure that you didn't encourage people to give up their baby-making ability just for some cash. Also, what happens if few people volunteer. The strength in this program would be broader drops in cost.

    But, there is a voice in the back of my head that says that this just isn't ethical and it can't believe I could even right that much to attempt a tenuous justification.
     
  2. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #2
    Maybe for $80k, I don't really like kids that much anyways.
     
  3. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
  4. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #4
    Such a program wouldn't gain ground. If poor people stopped having kids, who would mow the lawns of the weathly? Our economy is dependent upon low wage earners doing crappy jobs.

    There will be legally enforced population control someday almost everywhere. It's a sure thing.
     
  5. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #5
    I know the U.S. generally avoids international law on a variety of things but I think they'd have trouble avoiding prosecution for what would be clearly a crime against humanity.
     
  6. nbs2 thread starter macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #6
    It's just that - poor != crappy. I don't see why the poor should have less right to having children than the wealthy.

    Why would it be a crime against humanity?

    If people voluntarily choose not to have children, it isn't a crime. Tax credits are not a crime. Is it a crime to merge the two?

    Like I said, there is a voice that says moral/ethical lines are getting crossed, but logic asks what would be wrong with implementing this.
     
  7. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #7
    I agree with you. I was just addressing one of the reasons why I believe such a program would never get started.

    Like I've stated in other threads, I believe programs that provide incentives to *everyone* to have fewer children are a good idea for a variety of reasons. I'm a little uncomfortable with sterilization but surely we can provide other alternatives to control our population and therefore take pressure off the environment--and ourselves. Even a person who is very conscientious about the environment will consume far more resources and cause much more pollution than a person that does not exist.
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    I've always said you should have to have a license to raise kids. I just don't know how you could properly determine eligibility. ;)
     
  9. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #10

    Not being on this web site is a start. :eek:

    http://bit.ly/16FJ9n
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    Oops. :) That's not so good.
     
  11. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #12
    For many people poverty (not extreme poverty) is a life style choice.

    I'm part American Indian and our whole tribe thrives on the concept of non-competitiveness. Naturalized westerners in particular can be stereotyped as greedy, decadent, and wasteful. Why would anyone want to force that lifestyle on others through the means of eugenics - monetarily or any other way?

    Sounds like "Hitler Meets Clinton" to me - which BTW, we already kinda do in the USA.
     

Share This Page