This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Is this a good idea?

edited October 2008 in Politics
This state representative thought it would be a good idea to pay low-income women a thousand dollars to undergo voluntary sterilization while encouraging higher-income women to have more children.

Do you think it would be a good idea?
«1

Comments

  • edited October 2008
    Seems like a good idea to me.

    Note: I said this only in an amoral sense that this might actually work to combat poverty. This would only occur if, to a very significant extent, poverty engenders poverty.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • What is defined as high income? Also, if your high income how much money would you need to be paid to have more children then you would have if left to your own devices. I would imagine the government would have to pay allot to make high income people have more children then they would naturally.
  • Honestly? Anyone who would make such a snap decision for $1,000 either clearly could not afford to have children or clearly lacks the judgement to raise children properly.

    The key word here is "voluntary."
  • The key word here is "voluntary."
    Yeah, I was thinking along those lines.
  • The article and the comments are very disapproving. Some call the idea "eugenics". Do you think it really is eugenics?
  • Do you think it reallyiseugenics?
    It's societal eugenics. You're encouraging certain people to outbreed other people in order to effect societal change.
  • Well it is voluntary. If they were being forced to do it I along with a lot of civil liberties groups would be up in arms about this. I am still curious as to what the definition of "low income" is in this case.
  • I am still curious as to what the definition of "low income" is in this case.
    Low enough income that you would permanently alter your body for $1000.
  • edited October 2008
    No, I would argue that it is not exactly eugenics.
    The extent to which it could be called this is directly related to how much of a person's wealth in life is predetermined by their DNA.
    I would argue that while there is some impact from one's genes on wealth, surely it is far from a major factor.
    I think wealth is passed on far more by the environment that having wealthy parents allows you to have. On that basis, it is not strictly eugenics.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • You now what will happen, they will take the money and years later down the line, sue the state, claiming that they didn't tell them it was permanent or some stupid thing like that.
  • I am still curious as to what the definition of "low income" is in this case.
    Low enough income that you would permanently alter your body for $1000.
    Do you think it would be wrong to offer any amount of money to a person to alter their body in such a way? What if they offered $50,000?

    On a somewhat related note, how would you feel about offering money for body parts? Would it be wrong to offer a poor person $50,000 for one of their kidneys?
  • edited October 2008

    Do you think it would be wrong to offeranyamount of money to a person to alter their body in such a way? What if they offered $50,000?

    On a somewhat related note, how would you feel about offering money for body parts? Would it be wrong to offer a poor person $50,000 for one of their kidneys?
    Interesting question HungryJoe.

    Starting with the simple, it's obvious that giving people access to a sterilization procedure for which they must pay money is acceptable - it's merely providing a service.
    So, I'd think that it's also obvious that offering them the service for free is also fine.
    Now we get to the other side - offering people money to do it. In my opinion, it seems very difficult to justify that something could be acceptable to provide for free, but also unacceptable to subsidize.

    Let me generalise the question -
    Can it possibly be wrong to offer someone any amount of money to do anything (as long as the thing they are doing is not wrong in itself?)



    One way to argue that this is wrong is to argue that this isn't the sort of thing that the government should be doing.
    To go with that, you attack the supposed ideology behind the idea rather than the direct methods used.
    In other words, this is the opposite of "the end justifies the means"
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • It's not a good idea but is a hilarious idea.
  • That's a terrible idea. If you're going to do eugenics, at least base it off something that will improve the damn breed, not off socioeconomic status. It's like they took eugenics and then got rid of the only part that made any sense.
  • Would anyone here take up the offer of having more children then they would normally if the government gave them money? If so how much money would it take to get you to have more children?
  • Would anyone here take up the offer of having more children then they would normally if the government gave them money? If so how much money would it take to get you to have more children?
    This much.
  • edited October 2008
    A rather aggressive counter-argument is given here.

    In my opinion, a much stronger counter-argument would be strong evidence like
    -Statistics showing that the children of the poor are not far more likely to be poor.

    Of course, this might not be the case, in which case it is the ideology of "reproductive violence" that is placed under attack.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • edited October 2008
    What we really need are for rich people to buy more lottery tickets, smoke more tobacco, and drink more alcohol, and for poor people to do none of those three things.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited October 2008
    Do you think it reallyiseugenics?
    It's societal eugenics. You're encouraging certain people to outbreed other people in order to effect societal change.
    But change in what way, just because someone is wealthy doesn't make them a good parent or guarantee that there child will be worthwhile to society. Nor does being poor equate to bad parenting and worthless children. For instance: Obama.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • The core assumption is Cyclic Poverty, i.e. that poverty engenders poverty.
    We're not talking about "worth" at all.

    If you can show statistically that the children of the poor are far more likely to end up in poverty, you've essentially proven much of what was required.
  • edited October 2008
    What we really need are for rich people to buy more lottery tickets, smoke more tobacco, and drink more alcohol, and for poor people to do none of those three things.
    I'll happily smoke and drink more, but I don't want to waste money on lottery tickets that could be better used for smoking and drinking.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Personally I think it's fine. As long as it's voluntary, it's not abusing anyone's personal freedom. It also could help break poverty cycles.
  • This looks like the good ol' deontology vs. utilitarianism, manifested in a new form.

    It's surprising how many ethical debates come down to this.
  • edited October 2008
    Personally I think it's fine. As long as it's voluntary, it's not abusing anyone's personal freedom. It also could help break poverty cycles.
    Is this really so? Is this really honest and true consent? There's pressure being applied here. No, not in the negative sense of "Do this or you'll face consequences," but there is the inducement of giving someone money. The women to whom this procedure is being offered are already poor. This state representative is taking advantage of their economic situation to divest them of a basic human right - reproduction - under the guise of "voluntariness." It's awfully hard for any woman who puts her family's well-being ahead of hers to refuse an opportunity for $1000. That money can buy food, school supplies, medical care, or rent for your kids/family immediately. But here's the thing. If a woman accepts that trade, she is the one paying the price for the well being of her family. This policy of "voluntary" sterilization places the burden squarely on disadvantaged women. In terms of human rights and human and gender equality, this is not acceptable. It's downright exploitation.

    As for the idea that this would somehow stop cyclical poverty, that's bullshit. It ignores legitimate and real solutions that don't require a class of disadvantaged people to give up their reproductive rights. To quote from the Elle blog posted by Lack of Cheese: "According to LaBruzzo, the solution to ending poverty in our society is to control and regulate the fertility and sexuality of women – not the creation of comprehensive programs to improve health care access, our education system, housing affordability, and employment opportunities in the state." In short, LaBruzzo's policy doesn't do jack crap to actually empower people in poverty to change their situation in life. Rather, it reinforces the status quo and the power hierarchy of wealth that exists in this country. His solution to poverty is to "breed it out." That is indeed eugenics, which is just another word for Social Darwinism.

    Poor people should not have to pay the price - giving up control of the use of their bodies - to remedy the very problem that afflicts them. The problem is not of their making. This is a sexist, eugenicist sham of a policy designed to use money to assert state and patriarchal control over the reproductive capacity of women and the poor, all while claiming it's "voluntary." This should be an affront to everyone with a sense of human dignity.

    Edit: Even were this option extended to men as well as women, it's still making poor people pay the price, and is no less insidious.
    Post edited by Johannes Uglyfred II on
  • The core assumption isCyclic Poverty, i.e. that poverty engenders poverty.
    We're not talking about "worth" at all. If you can show statistically that the children of the poor are far more likely to end up in poverty, you've essentially proven much of what was required.
    Arguably, there are worse things to be than poor - such as callous. Also, aren't there other ways to reduce and fight poverty beyond having people make a decision for some cash (which they may desperately need at the time) that they may come to regret in later years.
  • Also, aren't there other ways to reduce and fight poverty beyond having people make a decision for some cash (which they may desperately need at the time) that they may come to regret in later years.
    Indeed, there are far better ways to combat poverty, which is why we can be grateful that this kind of approach isn't being taken up anywhere.
  • RymRym
    edited October 2008
    So, what do we do when people who cannot afford to have children choose to do so anyway?

    Let's say someone lives in poverty. They are able to survive, but have practically no money or time with which to try and advance themselves. I agree that we need social programs to at least give this person the chance to escape this poverty.

    Now, suppose they choose to have a child. They clearly cannot afford to raise said child in a healthy manner, as they already lack the resources to fend for themselves. Should society be responsible for this additional, clearly negligent burden? Should society subsidize this person having a child, something they chose to have despite not being able to afford it?

    I agree that, regardless of who decided to have him, we need to as a society provide for the child's welfare. But, should we subsidize the bad decisions of the parents who chose to have him? Should we take the child away? Should we subsidize an unlimited number of children for those who cannot afford them?

    What's the line between subsidizing bad behavior and giving people a boost? What's the line between removing the inherent punishment that comes with making poor decisions and giving people a second chance? We already provide economic incentives to have children, to get married, etc... Are these any different? They're still incentives, as opposed to disincentives.

    What if we applied this to all people, not just "the poor." What if we offered $1000 to ANYONE, male or female, regardless of any other factor, to sterilize themselves?
    Post edited by Rym on
  • I think this is a fantastic idea, although I would prefer something similar, but mandatory. The 'reproduction license' concept has been around for a long time but it's simply never going to become a reality regardless of how wonderful of an idea it is.
  • edited October 2008
    There's one fundamental question that no one has bothered to ask here. Women are offered $1000 to have themselves sterilized. So who pays for the actual surgery?! Surgical sterilization costs considerably more than $1000, and the women being offered this incentive probably don't have health insurance.
    Post edited by misakyra on
  • I think voluntary sterilization would be fine, and would ultimately end up saving the government money (we spend way more than $1000 in taxes per individual over their lifetime). However, I don't think richer people should be encouraged to breed MORE. A big key to reducing poverty is reducing population. The fewer unwanted children we have laying around, the better for everyone. Growing up as an unwanted child is a shitty environment anyway...why not attempt to prevent that from happening?
Sign In or Register to comment.