Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Is this a good idea?
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?
Do you think it would be a good idea?
Comments
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.
The key word here is "voluntary."
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.
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?
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"
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.
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.
It's surprising how many ethical debates come down to this.
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.
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?