I, personally, am all for this idea. Over time, it will reduce the population of ignorant people because they will breed themselves out. And, as it's been state many times, as long as its voluntary and is explained thoroughly to the participants, its a good idea.
How about doing the same thing but without the sterilization? Give a young couple $1000 to help them set up a new home or get training for a job or start a new business... but to get the money you have to take a course and pass a test. The test would be questions like:
"What does 'unprotected sexual intercourse' mean?" "If you have no money now, and you are going to have a baby, will the possibility that child will have a healthy or happy life increase or decrease" "By putting off starting a family until you have a steadier income, will this make raising a child easier or harder?" "What is the correlation between child poverty and that child having a criminal record later in life?"
Then, the next year, if the couple are still in poverty and don't yet have a child, they can show how they've used the money, take the test again and get another $1000. Within a few years they'll either have saved the money, invested it somehow (skills, tools, etc) or something else.
Of course this idea has many, many flaws, but education is the key. If people truly understand the issues they can start heading in the right direction.
I, personally, am all for this idea. Over time, it will reduce the population of ignorant people because they will breed themselves out. And, as it's been state many times, as long as its voluntary and is explained thoroughly to the participants, its a good idea.
But if the reasons are explained thoroughly to the person so they understand, they are no longer ignorant.
So if your aim is to reduce the population of ignorant people, you are saying the best way to do it is to only select people who aren't ignorant enough to completely miss the project, then educate the educable ignorant people until they are no longer ignorant... and THEN sterilize them? Good job!
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.
A quick search on google says that it costs about $1000 to $3000 for the sterilization. Though most sites say the cost is more likely between $1000-$2000. Not as you would put it" considerably more". It's more like it's a free/cheap sterilization.
To reverse it, on the other hand, costs about $10,000.
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.
A quick search ongooglesays that it costs about $1000 to $3000 for the sterilization. Though most sites say the cost is more likely between $1000-$2000. So being given $1000 is quite fair. To reverse it, on the other hand, costs about $10,000.
Okay, but then it completely cancels out the incentive if they have to use that $1000 to pay for the surgery. The basic point here is that the incentive is completely cancelled out, unless they were planning to partner with clinics to provide the surgrey at no cost. And even if they did, someone is still going to have to pay for it, and where is that money going to come from?
Okay, but then it completely cancels out the incentive if they have to use that $1000 to pay for the surgery. The basic point here is that the incentive is completely cancelled out
I see what you mean. Still free/cheap surgery is a pretty good deal.
Okay, but then it completely cancels out the incentive if they have to use that $1000 to pay for the surgery. The basic point here is that the incentive is completely cancelled out
That's not the point... the incentive would be $1000 AND free surgery.
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.
Cheers! In my opinion, it does sound like eugenics in that they are attempting to improve the society as a whole through breeding. If it was me I would not pay money to those willing to go through with the operation, I would give them a tax break. The problem with this is the people that are being addressed are the ones that either don't pay taxes or don't pay enough taxes for the benefit to be effective. Which makes this all pointless. I have more to say but am on a time crunch. Thanks.
I, personally, am all for this idea. Over time, it will reduce the population of ignorant people because they will breed themselves out. And, as it's been state many times, as long as its voluntary and is explained thoroughly to the participants, its a good idea.
But if the reasons are explained thoroughly to the person so they understand, they are no longer ignorant.
So if your aim is to reduce the population of ignorant people, you are saying the best way to do it is to only select people who aren't ignorant enough to completely miss the project, then educate the educable ignorant people until they are no longer ignorant... and THEN sterilize them? Good job!
You are misunderstanding me. By "throughly explain" I mean "Just so you understand and we are clear on this, After this procedure, You will never be able to have children ever again. Do you wish to continue? Y/N?" You can be ignorant and still understand the words that are comin outta my mouth.
You are misunderstanding me. By "throughly explain" I mean "Just so you understand and we are clear on this, After this procedure, You will never be able to have children ever again. Do you wish to continue? Y/N?" You can be ignorant and still understand the words that are comin outta my mouth.
Ok, so how about this. Instead of giving $1000 to the ignoramus, plus spending even more than that on top for the operation, why not give the $1000 to a trained teacher or coach to spend 5 days with said ignoramus to educate them fully in basic life skills, use of contraceptives, financial responsibility and all that? This helps the ignoramus, creates a job for the coach, reduces financial drain on the system which would go on child support, free up doctors to do far more important operations, prevents a child being brought up by parents who aren't prepared and generally benefits society all round.
What it comes down to is this: to remedy problems caused by ignorance, some form of education is the only real answer. Why even consider surgery when far easier, cheaper and more effective courses of action exist?
Because anyone who's old enough to where: a. Be able to be sterilized. b. Be old enough to be recognized as an adult. c. Be able to consider sterilization as a being worth $1000. ...is already on the path of setting a strain on the economy. Now, there are the exceptions that statement (obviously), however, those exceptions will probably avoid sterilization.
Comments
"What does 'unprotected sexual intercourse' mean?"
"If you have no money now, and you are going to have a baby, will the possibility that child will have a healthy or happy life increase or decrease"
"By putting off starting a family until you have a steadier income, will this make raising a child easier or harder?"
"What is the correlation between child poverty and that child having a criminal record later in life?"
Then, the next year, if the couple are still in poverty and don't yet have a child, they can show how they've used the money, take the test again and get another $1000. Within a few years they'll either have saved the money, invested it somehow (skills, tools, etc) or something else.
Of course this idea has many, many flaws, but education is the key. If people truly understand the issues they can start heading in the right direction.
EDIT: I misspelled "education".
So if your aim is to reduce the population of ignorant people, you are saying the best way to do it is to only select people who aren't ignorant enough to completely miss the project, then educate the educable ignorant people until they are no longer ignorant... and THEN sterilize them? Good job!
To reverse it, on the other hand, costs about $10,000.
In my opinion, it does sound like eugenics in that they are attempting to improve the society as a whole through breeding. If it was me I would not pay money to those willing to go through with the operation, I would give them a tax break. The problem with this is the people that are being addressed are the ones that either don't pay taxes or don't pay enough taxes for the benefit to be effective. Which makes this all pointless. I have more to say but am on a time crunch. Thanks.
You can be ignorant and still understand the words that are comin outta my mouth.
What it comes down to is this: to remedy problems caused by ignorance, some form of education is the only real answer. Why even consider surgery when far easier, cheaper and more effective courses of action exist?
a. Be able to be sterilized.
b. Be old enough to be recognized as an adult.
c. Be able to consider sterilization as a being worth $1000.
...is already on the path of setting a strain on the economy. Now, there are the exceptions that statement (obviously), however, those exceptions will probably avoid sterilization.