Pay people not to breed.

[bung]

"If we gave $10,000 to certain people and said 'we'll voluntarily sterilise you' then all of society would be better off." (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,26280864-2,00.html)

Best idea in a long time.

[HometownHero]

Fantastic idea hahaha

[kbi the crowing]

Even though I agree that some people shouldn't have kids due to their maturity level or certian life circumstances, that is an awful idea. That could be such a regrettable decision and to do such a thing for money is really just terrible. There are better ways to improve society than to keep the terribly poor from having kids, like fucking helping those in that situation and educating everyone a lot more.

(that's my opinion anyways)

[The Summer Ends]

identifying oneself as a "juggalo" should be grounds for immediate sterilization imo

[zachff]

identifying oneself as a "juggalo" should be grounds for immediate sterilization imo
was only a matter of time before this was said

[The Summer Ends]

was only a matter of time before this was said
yeah better sooner than later

[Sic Transit Zeb]

But then Nascar would lose it's fanbase!

[Jason Tate]

"If we gave $10,000 to certain people and said 'we'll voluntarily sterilise you' then all of society would be better off." (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,26280864-2,00.html)

Best idea in a long time.
agreed.

[Nerdy91]

But then Nascar would lose it's fanbase!

and that's a bad thing?

[Sic Transit Zeb]

and that's a bad thing?

lol

i was being sarcastic but nope.

[sjb2k1]

fuck it, just give me the money, i'm not having kids.

[Nerdy91]

lol

i was being sarcastic but nope.

yeah i picked up on the sarcasm
I never understood the point driving around in a circle though I suppose it's not meant to be understood

[Kaleidoscope]

great thread.

[Machu505]

Oh this is amazing.

Where's my money?

[meroki22]

identifying oneself as a "juggalo" should be grounds for immediate sterilization imo

/thread

[saysmydoctor]

Money could be better spent making a better parent rather than eliminating them entirely.

[xshady121]

Seems like it would be impossible to enforce if someone decided to take the money and then ultimately have a kid anyway.

Then again, it is Australia.

[Jason Tate]

Money could be better spent making a better parent rather than eliminating them entirely.
How do you make better parents with money?

[Jason Tate]

Seems like it would be impossible to enforce if someone decided to take the money and then ultimately have a kid anyway.

Then again, it is Australia.
They'd be sterilized...

[Waldorf]

Great idea.

[Machu505]

Seems like it would be impossible to enforce if someone decided to take the money and then ultimately have a kid anyway.

Then again, it is Australia.
New Zealand, actually.

And apparently Firefox doesn't recognize "Zealand" as a correctly spelled word.

[BryterJonah]

Money could be better spent making a better parent rather than eliminating them entirely.
The planet's population will hit the 8 billion mark by 2024. We don't need anymore people.

[danielineffigy]

fuck it, just give me the money, i'm not having kids.
This is exacty why this wouldn't work haha

[saysmydoctor]

How do you make better parents with money?
I don't know, but I don't agree with singling out a group of individuals. I guess the monetary compensation makes up for it, but I don't agree with this. It's just wrong to me.
The planet's population will hit the 8 billion mark by 2024. We don't need anymore people.
That's a problem of developing nations. Most developed nations actually have a smaller population growth rate than developing nations, with countries like Japan and Russia actually having shrinking populations (if I remember the study correctly). Instead of investing capital in this kind of idea, invest that capital instead into these developing nations and industrialize them.

Ultimately, what you said has no bearing whatsoever on this proposal.

[xshady121]

They'd be sterilized...

Ouch. That is certainly not enough money to justify being sterilized.

I'm just curious, and I'm not sure if you specifically would know, does Australia has some sort of entitlement programs? Like welfare? I know a common criticism of the American system is the encouragement (at least up until the reform of 96) by the system to actually have more kids to increase the amount of aid handed to you. What I guess I'm trying to ask, would the amount of aid received be more than 10,000 dollars? At what point would it be more fiscally responsible for someone to just have a kid and cash the check from the government rather than get sterilized?

Either way, it's a dumb proposal.

[Jason Tate]

Ouch. That is certainly not enough money to justify being sterilized.

I'm just curious, and I'm not sure if you specifically would know, does Australia has some sort of entitlement programs? Like welfare? I know a common criticism of the American system is the encouragement (at least up until the reform of 96) by the system to actually have more kids to increase the amount of aid handed to you. What I guess I'm trying to ask, would the amount of aid received be more than 10,000 dollars? At what point would it be more fiscally responsible for someone to just have a kid and cash the check from the government rather than get sterilized?

Either way, it's a dumb proposal.
It's more than enough money to justify stupid people stop breeding.

[KidRobot]

That's a problem of developing nations. Most developed nations actually have a smaller population growth rate than developing nations, with countries like Japan and Russia actually having shrinking populations (if I remember the study correctly). Instead of investing capital in this kind of idea, invest that capital instead into these developing nations and industrialize them.

Ultimately, what you said has no bearing whatsoever on this proposal.

Poor nations account for 80% of the world's population. And have about 5% of the world's income.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't think it's possible to single out a minority group and say it's justifiable because you gave them monetary compensation.

[saysmydoctor]

Poor nations account for 80% of the world's population. And have about 5% of the world's income.
What's your point? It's still irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[KidRobot]

What's your point? It's still irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Just letting you know the statistic, relax.

And it's not completely irrelevant. Nations that would greatly benefit from slowing down population can't in this way. They essentially have to wait until a large sum of people die and food becomes abundant again. And then they overpopulate again. It's a really vicious cycle.

[saysmydoctor]

Just letting you know the statistic, relax.

And it's not completely irrelevant. Nations that would greatly benefit from slowing down population can't in this way. They essentially have to wait until a large sum of people die and food becomes abundant again. And then they overpopulate again. It's a really vicious cycle.
It is completely irrelevant. The topic is about whether we sterilize stupid individuals and give them some sort of monetary stipend.

[abcdefghijake]

How do you make better parents with money?

I'm confused by this question.

[KidRobot]

It is completely irrelevant. The topic is about whether we sterilize stupid individuals and give them some sort of monetary stipend.

I forgot that topics always stayed perfectly on topic all the time. Sorry man.

[yves.]

i just think there should be exams for people before they can become parents.

[bung]

Still haven't seen a legitimately good reason not to start doing this.

[bung]

i just think there should be exams for people before they can become parents.

Otherwise a mandatory abortion or adoption?

[zion the lion]

This would be such a bad idea.

But the person proposing it should probably be the first one to be sterilized. He seems like a dick.

[bung]

This would be such a bad idea.


Care to explain? I'm eager to hear your eloquent reasoning on this topic.

[zion the lion]

Care to explain? I'm eager to hear your eloquent reasoning on this topic.

Why do you think its a good idea? How does it fix the problem?

[Smash Adams]

They'd get sued by a lot of people who don't know what sterilize means

[bung]

Why do you think its a good idea? How does it fix the problem?

Because it will help prevent people who can't provide for offspring from having them. And it will save a ton of money. Which could then be recycled back into other programs to combat poverty.

[Nick Le]

They'd get sued by a lot of people who don't know what sterilize means

Hahaha

[Tim Lincecum]

i didnt read the whole article yet, but based on the beginning the only real problem i see with the idea is that upper class families beat their children too. furthermore upper class families have higher rates of child and teenage suicide than lower class families do so to pay "appauling lower class" citizens to not bread really wouldnt solve the child abuse problem. Furthermore, the United States as a nation doesn't have a problem with overpopulation like the world as a whole does. In fact if it wasn't for immigration, the US population would be slightly falling every year. But I do agree that gang members breeding more gang members is bad and society would benefit from sterillizing them...

[zion the lion]

Because it will help prevent people who can't provide for offspring from having them. And it will save a ton of money. Which could then be recycled back into other programs to combat poverty.

So instead of actually addressing the problem of poverty, you would rather just pay a bunch of poor people to never ever have children, which would eliminate what we consider to be the lower class in one or two generations.

[Tim Lincecum]

oh he's from New Zealand... haha

[Tim Lincecum]

i just think there should be exams for people before they can become parents.

haha dumbest thing ever

[xshady121]

i just think there should be exams for people before they can become parents.

I'm glad to see that you absolutely hate our civil liberties. Perhaps communist china is a better place for you?


edit: yves, i didn't see that was you who posted that. I generally like your opinions. I'm hoping I misunderstood sarcasm then.

[bung]

So instead of actually addressing the problem of poverty, you would rather just pay a bunch of poor people to never ever have children, which would eliminate what we consider to be the lower class in one or two generations.

They don't have to get sterilized if they don't want to. It's completely their choice. I'm granting them the respect, as free and rational-thinking human beings, to make the choice for themselves.

And actually, it is directly addressing the problem of poverty. Poverty is largely augmented by the fact that people continue to have more children than they can afford to provide for. I don't see how you can say this wouldn't address the problem.

[Simulcast]

In many countries it pays for the parents to have children, including this one. It'd be interesting to see how far 10,000 would go compared to many more years of government compensation.

[zion the lion]

They don't have to get sterilized if they don't want to. It's completely their choice. I'm granting them the respect, as free and rational-thinking human beings, to make the choice for themselves.

And actually, it is directly addressing the problem of poverty. Poverty is largely augmented by the fact that people continue to have more children than they can afford to provide for. I don't see how you can say this wouldn't address the problem.

Its not exactly fair to dangle that much money in front of someone who's poor and tell them that they can have it or keep their ability to reproduce.

So the lower middle class is going to remain the lower middle class, when the lower class is gone? They arent going to be classified as lower class? So you eliminate the chance of a generation being born into poverty and being trapped in that system, but what about the people who irresponsible with money and will end up completely broke and in debt a decade or two later?

[bung]

Its not exactly fair to dangle that much money in front of someone who's poor and tell them that they can have it or keep their ability to reproduce.

It's the definition of fair. It's their body, their reproduction capability, so if someone offers them money as compensation to forfeit it, that is their choice. You're already working on the assumption that by virtue of being poor, they are just obviously going to go for an offer like this. As if they could (gasp!) never resist such temptation.

So the lower middle class is going to remain the lower middle class, when the lower class is gone? They arent going to be classified as lower class?

I like how you keep assuming that, instantaneously, every poor person will value their reproductive capability so little that they are going to fork it over for some fast cash, just like that. And lol, who cares what we classify them as? I dunno--let's call it the banana pink toaster class, makes no difference.

but what about the people who irresponsible with money and will end up completely broke and in debt a decade or two later?

If they didn't use their $10,000 wisely, at least they won't be having any children they can't support. That's the whole point of the program.

[denissuxx]

This is a great idea haha

[.invisible ink.]

this is the best idea any politician has come up with in ages. i fully support this initiative. now how do we rally for this movement in the United States?

[DanTGD]

I would gladly pay $10,000 to stop half of the UK breeding.

[saysmydoctor]

Still haven't seen a legitimately good reason not to start doing this.
I haven't seen a good one to start doing this.

[.invisible ink.]

I haven't seen a good one to start doing this.

really? look at how much money is spent on public assistance alone, this would be a great way to reduce the population thereby reducing the need for so much spending in government programs. the savings would be incredible and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[zion the lion]

It's the definition of fair. It's their body, their reproduction capability, so if someone offers them money as compensation to forfeit it, that is their choice. You're already working on the assumption that by virtue of being poor, they are just obviously going to go for an offer like this. As if they could (gasp!) never resist such temptation.



I like how you keep assuming that, instantaneously, every poor person will value their reproductive capability so little that they are going to fork it over for some fast cash, just like that. And lol, who cares what we classify them as? I dunno--let's call it the banana pink toaster class, makes no difference.



If they didn't use their $10,000 wisely, at least they won't be having any children they can't support. That's the whole point of the program.

Have you ever been poor? And how many people do you know who are in poverty? I know a lot of people who would sell their bodies for $10,000, I know people who sell their bodies for a lot less. You act like it's just pocket change, and that someone who's busting their ass with 3 jobs would see that kind of money and write it off.


I dont think you got the point with those last two. If you're trying to say that sterilization would eliminate poverty, I'm pretty sure what you classify someone as has a lot to do with it. If you eliminate future generations in what we currently call the lower class, its not like poverty just poofs away. The lower middle class, or just the middle class, becomes the new lower class, and becomes the new standard for poor. Getting rid of what you consider poverty right now only leaves the door wide open for the poverty line to climb up to the next class of people.

That wasnt even what I meant. I meant people who dont handle their money well now. People who arent poor by any means right now, and wouldnt have to even concern themselves with this whole issue, but will be poor because of their financial irresponsibility in the future.

[Matt Chylak]

i think this is an interesting idea, as long as everyone involved in this argument understands that we'd still have a lower class

[saysmydoctor]

really? look at how much money is spent on public assistance alone, this would be a great way to reduce the population thereby reducing the need for so much spending in government programs. the savings would be incredible and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
It's also a very classist policy. The people that jump onto this wagon first would be the poorest of individuals.

[.invisible ink.]

It's also a very classist policy. The people that jump onto this wagon first would be the poorest of individuals.

i'm not saying you're wrong but for the sake of argument, it's not like it's only open to the poor - it's open to anyone. i could see it being much more classist if say, we rewarded wealthy people to reproduce while actively discouraged the poor, but really, it seems to me that it could be an equal opportunity policy. I happen to work with a significant number of middle class married individuals who have chosen not to breed on their own accord, i'm sure they'd be stoked to get $10,000 to get sterilized.

[saysmydoctor]

The original point of the concept was to stop people that happened to be stupid from breeding. Now you are offering a monetary stipend that people who simply don't want to reproduce to take advantage of.

How do we figure out who is stupid? How do we do this without disenfranchisement them? This whole idea is fucking ridiculous. I'm not particularly fond of stupid people breeding, but they can also reproduce a child who happens to be nothing like them intellectually.

[.invisible ink.]

perhaps I was speculating a bit too much about the potential that could exist with opening this up to anyone, but the article does not specifically state that the politician is trying to get only "stupid" people to become sterilized, more like only potential/existing child abusers actually. Mr Laws wrote on the website "that most welfare beneficiaries are good parents" but it was the problem ones who should be offered money not to breed.

I'm struggling to find a reason why this would be a bad thing. It's not like they're being forced to sterilize, it would be a choice as to whether they would want to accept the arrangement.

[bung]

Have you ever been poor? And how many people do you know who are in poverty? I know a lot of people who would sell their bodies for $10,000, I know people who sell their bodies for a lot less. You act like it's just pocket change, and that someone who's busting their ass with 3 jobs would see that kind of money and write it off.

Ok, so they do it. What's the harm? Explain to me why a person who makes less than $10,000 a year would ever consider it a viable option to have a child.

I dont think you got the point with those last two. If you're trying to say that sterilization would eliminate poverty, I'm pretty sure what you classify someone as has a lot to do with it. If you eliminate future generations in what we currently call the lower class, its not like poverty just poofs away. The lower middle class, or just the middle class, becomes the new lower class, and becomes the new standard for poor. Getting rid of what you consider poverty right now only leaves the door wide open for the poverty line to climb up to the next class of people.

I've never said this would eliminate poverty, you silly girl. But it would help. The number of children being brought up in poverty would decline.

You're also making the glaring fallacy of equivocating three different things in this post: a.) the poverty line, b.) the lower class, and c.) the standard for being considered "poor." The group of people we consider the lower class may shift, yes. But what you're saying is that the poverty line--that is, the basic threshold for the amount of money it takes to reasonably survive--will in turn shift with it, and that need not be the case. In fact, I see no reason at all why it should.

That wasnt even what I meant. I meant people who dont handle their money well now. People who arent poor by any means right now, and wouldnt have to even concern themselves with this whole issue, but will be poor because of their financial irresponsibility in the future.

That's too fucking bad for them if they're financially irresponsible. People reap the consequences of their actions, and no one has an obligation to provide for a person who pisses away all their money. Granted, charity and sympathy can and is allocated for circumstantial reasons in many cases, but just generally being a financial idiot creates little sympathy in me.

It's also a very classist policy. The people that jump onto this wagon first would be the poorest of individuals.

Which are the very individuals that shouldn't be having children, since they can't support them. Also, the very individuals in need of money. Two birds, one stone.

[raychull]

I don't know, but I don't agree with singling out a group of individuals. I guess the monetary compensation makes up for it, but I don't agree with this. It's just wrong to me.
I think you make a good point. There are bad parents of all social classes. Granted, it's more statistically proven that lower class incomes have more issues, but surely there are problems in all.

[bung]

How do we figure out who is stupid?

If it is stupidity that would qualify a person for this program, IQ tests work pretty well.

How do we do this without disenfranchisement them? This whole idea is fucking ridiculous. I'm not particularly fond of stupid people breeding, but they can also reproduce a child who happens to be nothing like them intellectually.

This wouldn't be a mandatory procedure, you know. They have the option. Completely up to them.

(For the record, it's very unlikely that two very unintelligent parents will produce a very bright child.)

As a boneriffic liberal, I thought you would be all up for change and new ideas.

[.invisible ink.]

could someone please point out where in the article the recommendation was made for this to be offered to "stupid" people? seriously, i keep seeing people in this thread discussing the sterilization of "stupid" people, but that was never even an option put on the table. it gets fascist pretty quickly when you start throwing in taking IQ tests and whatnot.

[Josh Weinstein]

Isn't it a fact that in modern times, those with higher IQ's, more education and who offer a better contribution to society have little to no children, while those with minimal education, mental health problems, and prone to criminal activity bare more and more children? In the past few years, I've become more cynical when it comes to American society. I'm all for limiting certain people the right to breed. I've studied extensively on children of parents in prison and the children are prone to high risk factors, psychological issues, low self esteem, high probabilities that they will become criminals, etc. Wouldn't it have been better if they never lived to have to experience such trauma?

[saysmydoctor]

If it is stupidity that would qualify a person for this program, IQ tests work pretty well.



This wouldn't be a mandatory procedure, you know. They have the option. Completely up to them.

(For the record, it's very unlikely that two very unintelligent parents will produce a very bright child.)

As a boneriffic liberal, I thought you would be all up for change and new ideas.
This isn't a liberal policy, this is a very conservative policy that hinders behavior and habits.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Eugenics is beyond stupid and is disgusting but the way it is described here makes sense and is appealing.

Michael Laws' position(the guy in the article) seems to be very shaky and it is very hard to understand what exactly his idea is. The way I'm reading it is that he really has no specific ideas as to who this money would be offered to(which make sense, he's a talkback DJ, not a policy wonk),just people in the "underclass". Obviously I'd disagree with this 100% as there is no real accurate measure as to who "the underclass that give their children such terrible environments" are. If a policy like this was only targeted to those who had previously abused their children, I think I'd be inclined to support it, though I'd doubt it would have much of an affect.

[bung]

This isn't a liberal policy, this is a very conservative policy that hinders behavior and habits.

Um, no. It's a consent-given choice. It's as much of a choice as having an abortion is. And it does nothing to limit general behavior and habits. A person could still maintain a very active sexual life after being sterilized. It hinders certain results of behavior.

I don't know where you get off calling it conservative. Nothing about it is traditional or even small-government. It's a unique way to approach a problem. You just don't like it, so of course it could never be liberal.

And yet you've failed to give any concrete reasons why you're against it, except basically that it's a "classist" policy. Which, you know, would make sense since it would be aimed at a particular class. Just like a lot of welfare.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Um, no. It's a consent-given choice. It's as much of a choice as having an abortion is. And it does nothing to limit general behavior and habits. A person could still maintain a very active sexual life after being sterilized. It hinders certain results of behavior.

I don't know where you get off calling it conservative. Nothing about it is traditional or even small-government. It's a unique way to approach a problem. You just don't like it, so of course it could never be liberal.

And yet you've failed to give any concrete reasons why you're against it, except basically that it's a "classist" policy. Which, you know, would make sense since it would be aimed at a particular class. Just like a lot of welfare.
No wait which particular group would you want this to be aimed towards anyways? Don't say "stupid" people because there is no definite way to measure how "stupid" someone is.

Anyways there would be huge consequences if a policy like this was ever enacted by the US government. There are very big reasons as to why a policy like this would probably not really decrease government spending on welfare towards poor single mothers raising kids because studies have shown that increases in birth control, and increased sexual openess only increase the percentage of single mothers in society. With a policy like this there is good chance that many young men would sterilize themselves, while the rate of young women sterilizing themselves would be much lower. This would definitely lead to more single mothers having to raise kids on their own and with this there would be a larger need for welfare going towards them.

[bung]

No wait which particular group would you want this to be aimed towards anyways? Don't say "stupid" people because there is no definite way to measure how "stupid" someone is.

I was thinking on some set economic basis.

Anyways there would be huge consequences if a policy like this was ever enacted by the US government. There are very big reasons as to why a policy like this would probably not really decrease government spending on welfare towards poor single mothers raising kids because studies have shown that increases in birth control, and increased sexual openess only increase the percentage of single mothers in society. With a policy like this there is good chance that many young men would sterilize themselves, while the rate of young women sterilizing themselves would be much lower. This would definitely lead to more single mothers having to raise kids on their own and with this there would be a larger need for welfare going towards them.

This is extremely faulty logic. You first say that an increase in birth control and sexual openness leads to more single mothers (which I'm not sure I buy--it sounds as if a third variable is at work here), then go on to use that as a justification for saying men would probably choose the option more frequently. Yes, men probably would choose it more frequently but not for that reason. Somehow, you are implying that this would be bad?

Regardless, I fail to see how a larger portion of men receiving vasectomies will increase the number of single mothers. If anything, single mothers would have to decrease in numbers, for the simple fact that there is less of a male population capable of sufficiently completing the act.

[yves.]

I'm glad to see that you absolutely hate our civil liberties. Perhaps communist china is a better place for you?


edit: yves, i didn't see that was you who posted that. I generally like your opinions. I'm hoping I misunderstood sarcasm then.

i say it as a joke to my friends every time we see shitty parents, haha. i know it would never work out (considering there is no way to regulate it) and would just end up being a huge hassle, it's just there are so many completely horrible and irresponsible parents that exist. i feel bad for their kids because it's evident that they will end up being completely messed up in one way or another.

[zion the lion]

They don't have to get sterilized if they don't want to. It's completely their choice. I'm granting them the respect, as free and rational-thinking human beings, to make the choice for themselves.

And actually, it is directly addressing the problem of poverty. Poverty is largely augmented by the fact that people continue to have more children than they can afford to provide for. I don't see how you can say this wouldn't address the problem.

Ok, so they do it. What's the harm? Explain to me why a person who makes less than $10,000 a year would ever consider it a viable option to have a child.



I've never said this would eliminate poverty, you silly girl. But it would help. The number of children being brought up in poverty would decline.

You're also making the glaring fallacy of equivocating three different things in this post: a.) the poverty line, b.) the lower class, and c.) the standard for being considered "poor." The group of people we consider the lower class may shift, yes. But what you're saying is that the poverty line--that is, the basic threshold for the amount of money it takes to reasonably survive--will in turn shift with it, and that need not be the case. In fact, I see no reason at all why it should.



That's too fucking bad for them if they're financially irresponsible. People reap the consequences of their actions, and no one has an obligation to provide for a person who pisses away all their money. Granted, charity and sympathy can and is allocated for circumstantial reasons in many cases, but just generally being a financial idiot creates little sympathy in me.

You're going from this directly addressing poverty, to it just kind of helping. It wouldnt help, its a band-aid. How about instead of throwing millions of dollars into this endless pit of stupidity, we actually fix the problem.

[saysmydoctor]

Um, no. It's a consent-given choice. It's as much of a choice as having an abortion is. And it does nothing to limit general behavior and habits. A person could still maintain a very active sexual life after being sterilized. It hinders certain results of behavior.

I don't know where you get off calling it conservative. Nothing about it is traditional or even small-government. It's a unique way to approach a problem. You just don't like it, so of course it could never be liberal.

And yet you've failed to give any concrete reasons why you're against it, except basically that it's a "classist" policy. Which, you know,
would make sense since it would be aimed at a particular class. Just like a lot of welfare.
It's not a consent-given choice when desperation is in effect.

[joe has a cat]

^^
Agreed.
It's a similar to the organ market debate. It's just taking advantage of people in desperate situations.

[MyNameIsRoss]

haha not a bad idea

[AMackChuck]

Give me the 10K. Everytime I go in a Wal-Mart, I realize I don't want kids.

[bung]

You're going from this directly addressing poverty, to it just kind of helping. It wouldnt help, its a band-aid. How about instead of throwing millions of dollars into this endless pit of stupidity, we actually fix the problem.

Yeah, um no. I said it would directly address the problem. That doesn't mean it will eliminate the problem. It will help the problem. Like virtually every program designed for any problem. By throwing millions into this program, we would up saving billions.

It's not a consent-given choice when desperation is in effect.

That exact same logic could be applied to abortion. A service is provided for women who are desperate to cease production of a fetus. No one in forcing them to use it, but the option should certainly be available.

Imagine it this way: Would you do it if you were in the position of poverty? If you say yes, then you agree that the pros outweigh the cons, and it would be a rational choice for an individual with rational capabilities to make. And if you say no, then, well nothing changes.

Imagine a person is given, say, $10,000 to have it done. Best case scenario: They invest the money, make a huge profit, and end up earning enough to reverse the procedure and have children they will now be able to support. Worst case scenario: They are helped out over a short period of time with a sizable sum from the government, but eventually the money runs out. They can't have the children they wouldn't be able to support, anyway.

^^
Agreed.
It's a similar to the organ market debate. It's just taking advantage of people in desperate situations.

For the record, I think people should be able to sell organs if they want to.

[saysmydoctor]

You are working to justify this and it's simply not working with me.

[BrennanHickson]

You're also making the glaring fallacy of equivocating three different things in this post: a.) the poverty line, b.) the lower class, and c.) the standard for being considered "poor." The group of people we consider the lower class may shift, yes. But what you're saying is that the poverty line--that is, the basic threshold for the amount of money it takes to reasonably survive--will in turn shift with it, and that need not be the case. In fact, I see no reason at all why it should.
In addition to the class shift, both the value of money -- in terms of the way people view it -- and standards will shift as well.

Let's say that the lower middle class has now become the lower class, and the upper and upper middle classes believe that Abercrombie clothing is a necessity for children. (For the record, this is not a far-fetched scenario, considering the fact that we are bred to maintain that we are superior to those that have cheaper, lower quality possessions than us, nowadays.) With Abercrombie clothing being considered a necessity, the standard will adjust itself to fit that idea, and those who cannot afford to purchase clothing with an Abercrombie label plastered on it will be deemed "unfit caregivers" as a result of the new standard.

[bung]

In addition to the class shift, both the value of money -- in terms of the way people view it -- and standards will shift as well.

Let's say that the lower middle class has now become the lower class, and the upper and upper middle classes believe that Abercrombie clothing is a necessity for children. (For the record, this is not a far-fetched scenario, considering the fact that we are bred to maintain that we are superior to those that have cheaper, lower quality possessions than us, nowadays.) With Abercrombie clothing being considered a necessity, the standard will adjust itself to fit that idea, and those who cannot afford to purchase clothing with an Abercrombie label plastered on it will be deemed "unfit caregivers" as a result of the new standard.

I disagree--rather strongly, in fact. Even today, people that do not have the funds to provide fashionable clothing for their children are not considered "unfit caregivers" by any liberal interpretation of the phrase. Yes, it's true that many people have superiority complexes that cause them to view people who cannot afford certain luxuries as inferior, but that is a personal standard created by their own value-system, fluctuating with different individuals. It says nothing about (nor has anything to do with) an objective poverty threshold.

[bung]

You are working to justify this and it's simply not working with me.

That's because you decided you were against it from the start and consequently have had your hands over your ears the whole time, providing no reasonable or persuasive objections.

[saysmydoctor]

That's not it remotely.

[saysmydoctor]

That exact same logic could be applied to abortion. A service is provided for women who are desperate to cease production of a fetus. No one in forcing them to use it, but the option should certainly be available.
It is completely different from abortion, because they don't offer you money for an abortion. Instead, you gain a stigma from it.

No one is forcing them to get an abortion. They are also aren't being compelled to abort with a monetary reward. The same can't be said with this proposal. So there's is nothing exact at all.

[BrennanHickson]

I disagree--rather strongly, in fact. Even today, people that do not have the funds to provide fashionable clothing for their children are not considered "unfit caregivers" by any liberal interpretation of the phrase.
Correct, but the current world is different from that of the world which would be created with this sterilization payment. For the most part, members of today's lowest class do not have money for housing or clothing at all, and if this class were to be eliminated, then those items would be considered common (as well as items we consider now to be luxuries).

Yes, it's true that many people have superiority complexes that cause them to view people who cannot afford certain luxuries as inferior, but that is a personal standard created by their own value-system, fluctuating with different individuals. It says nothing about (nor has anything to do with) an objective poverty threshold.
Clearly, you do not understand that values will not remain the same when an entire class is eliminated. When a whole group or class of people submits to this standard of luxury becoming necessity, then it is a plausible theory that they will then consider those who cannot sustain to buy these newly-judged "necessities" inappropriate for the role of parenting.

[Waldorf]

TNYgNpAX__M

[x togepi x]

awesome, poor people shouldn't be allowed to breed, because the rich are such great parents who never raise too many/terrible children.


You know, we could address poverty by, i don't know, dealing with the causes of poverty instead of forcing poor people at economic gunpoint not to have kids.

[saysmydoctor]

awesome, poor people shouldn't be allowed to breed, because the rich are such great parents who never raise too many/terrible children.


You know, we could address poverty by, i don't know, dealing with the causes of poverty instead of forcing poor people at economic gunpoint not to have kids.
Thank you, I don't understand how people don't see understand this element.

[BrennanHickson]

That's because you decided you were against it from the start and consequently have had your hands over your ears the whole time, providing no reasonable or persuasive objections.
What a hypocritical statement. You have not been too open about hearing reasonable objections to this notion yourself.

[brenByah]

This just doesn't seem right to me. Playing god with a paycheck.

[coldbyfletch]

Let's be honest, it's what we're all thinking, just everyone is too afraid to say it...

[Tead42]

Let's be honest, it's what we're all thinking, just everyone is too afraid to say it...
QFT.

[Love As Arson]

Usually, brown and black people are the groups targeted by these types of policy, so no thanks.

[bloodyr0mance87]

i firmly believe in this idea. there are too many people in the world and the planet just can't handle it. on top of that, the dumbest and poorest people breed the most, and that's a statistical fact, not some kind of bias i have.

[brenByah]

i firmly believe in this idea. there are too many people in the world and the planet just can't handle it. on top of that, the dumbest and poorest people breed the most, and that's a statistical fact, not some kind of bias i have.

Someone's income does not determine what kind of parent they will be. This thing just doesn't seem right to me.

[kshtoinks12]

Could be an interesting idea. Its a little bit of playing god though, and its very against human nature. It works if people do this if they really don't want kids, its wrong if someone does this for the money.

[UnderMyDreams]

Almost seems like a waste of money... Then again, there's DEFINITELY people who shouldn't be breeding.

[bung]

It is completely different from abortion, because they don't offer you money for an abortion. Instead, you gain a stigma from it.

No one is forcing them to get an abortion. They are also aren't being compelled to abort with a monetary reward. The same can't be said with this proposal. So there's is nothing exact at all.

LOL. You don't think there would be a stigma attached to being sterilized?

As for abortion, the reward is in the form of no more baby. That's essentially what people are buying. That's why they are compelled to abort (among other reasons), although "compel" is a pretty strong word choice because they can make other decisions. Each situation has its own incentives for the choice to be made.

Correct, but the current world is different from that of the world which would be created with this sterilization payment. For the most part, members of today's lowest class do not have money for housing or clothing at all, and if this class were to be eliminated, then those items would be considered common (as well as items we consider now to be luxuries).

WTF. Excuse me while I bring us back to planet Earth. Clothing and housing are both probably considered "common" by virtually every American--even those who don't have them. These aren't exactly rare commodities we're dealing with.

Clearly, you do not understand that values will not remain the same when an entire class is eliminated. When a whole group or class of people submits to this standard of luxury becoming necessity, then it is a plausible theory that they will then consider those who cannot sustain to buy these newly-judged "necessities" inappropriate for the role of parenting.

What! When have I ever said an entire class will be eliminated? Moreover, where did you come up with that stupid idea?

Again, returning to American society in the 21st century, here on planet Earth, luxuries are by far alreadyconsidered necessities by the typical American family. And still, I don't think anyone is judged as an incompetent parent simply because they can't afford a TV.

What a hypocritical statement. You have not been too open about hearing reasonable objections to this notion yourself.

Are you kidding? Have you read this thread, the one where I have given people's objections consideration, taken time out of my day to respond to them, and engaged in discourse? What do you want me to do, besides justifying my position? Do you need me to tuck you under the covers at night, too, little girl?

[bung]

Someone's income does not determine what kind of parent they will be. This thing just doesn't seem right to me.

I agree wholeheartedly. However, if someone can't even make enough money to reasonably support themselves, do you think they are going to be able to even provide the bare necessities for a child?

Thank you, I don't understand how people don't see understand this element.

This has absolute-fucking-lutely nothing to even do with it. There is no element to be seen and you don't understand the position. See the above post.

[saysmydoctor]

LOL. You don't think there would be a stigma attached to being sterilized?

As for abortion, the reward is in the form of no more baby. That's essentially what people are buying. That's why they are compelled to abort (among other reasons), although "compel" is a pretty strong word choice because they can make other decisions. Each situation has its own incentives for the choice to be made.
Why would there be a stigma? What a stupid assumption.

That's not a reward at all, either. You are chalking up ignorant comments, you may want to slow down.

[saysmydoctor]

I agree wholeheartedly. However, if someone can't even make enough money to reasonably support themselves, do you think they are going to be able to even provide the bare necessities for a child?



This has absolute-fucking-lutely nothing to even do with it. There is no element to be seen and you don't understand the position. See the above post.
It has everything to do with it and that's precisely why you are ignoring it.

[bung]

Why would there be a stigma? What a stupid assumption.

Why wouldn't there be a stigma, you fool. It's basically telling someone you traded your reproductive capabilities because you were flat broke. The things that society decides to attach "stigmas" to isn't exactly rational, oftentimes.

That's not a reward at all, either. You are chalking up ignorant comments, you may want to slow down.

Well reward isn't probably the correct word. Benefit would be more accurate maybe. It's the same concept--the method of payment simply differs.

It has everything to do with it and that's precisely why you are ignoring it.

No, it has to do with the fact that it will eliminate a vast amount of suffering from children that would have been forced to grow up in poverty because their parents made a stupid choice.

[saysmydoctor]

Why wouldn't there be a stigma, you fool. It's basically telling someone you traded your reproductive capabilities because you were flat broke. The things that society decides to attach "stigmas" to isn't exactly rational, oftentimes.



Well reward isn't probably the correct word. Benefit would be more accurate maybe. It's the same concept--the method of payment simply differs.



No, it has to do with the fact that it will eliminate a vast amount of suffering from children that would have been forced to grow up in poverty because their parents made a stupid choice.
Ad hominem.

The benefit is being forced to give up your possible child because you can't afford it? That's pretty bittersweet.

You are assuming parents are making stupid choices.

[bung]

Ad hominem.

OMG, someone call someone a name on the internet. Why don't you make a greeting card and send it to the family?

The benefit is being forced to give up your possible child because you can't afford it? That's pretty bittersweet.

No one is being forced to do anything. When a person is ready and able to support a child, ready to take on probably the single greatest responsibility the world has to offer, they could pay back the government and get the procedure reversed.

You are assuming parents are making stupid choices.

Having a child you can't physically support is one of the stupidest choices a person could make.

[saysmydoctor]

OMG, someone call someone a name on the internet. Why don't you make a greeting card and send it to the family?



No one is being forced to do anything. When a person is ready and able to support a child, ready to take on probably the single greatest responsibility the world has to offer, they could pay back the government and get the procedure reversed.



Having a child you can't physically support is one of the stupidest choices a person could make.
Okay, still an ad hominem.

There is definitely an amount of compellence (can't that be used in this sense?) when you are offering a monetary reward. Otherwise, what's the need to give them money?

I would argue that prematurely making yourselves sterile because of current financial conditions? Yes you can have it reversed, but reversals aren't assured.

[x togepi x]

why not use the money we'd spend on this for government programs to alleviate poverty?

It seems like, you know, actually tackling poverty, would be a lot more successful in ending poverty than throwing money at people not to have kids.

[bung]

There is definitely an amount of compellence (can't that be used in this sense?) when you are offering a monetary reward. Otherwise, what's the need to give them money?

Well sure. It's the incentive. A form of monetary compensation from the government saying, "Look, if you have this done to your body, we'll give you x amount of dollars because we don't want you having children you can't support."

I would argue that prematurely making yourselves sterile because of current financial conditions? Yes you can have it reversed, but reversals aren't assured.

These would be all things left up to individual persons to weigh. Obviously, I don't think anyone should have anything done to their body without being fully informed, as per the requirement of all medical procedures, anyway.

[bung]

why not use the money we'd spend on this for government programs to alleviate poverty?

It seems like, you know, actually tackling poverty, would be a lot more successful in ending poverty than throwing money at people not to have kids.

Because this would actually save money. Which could then be funneled back into other anti-poverty programs.

[saysmydoctor]

That was going to be my next point.

Investment in the future costs more up front and makes you more over time.

[BrennanHickson]

WTF. Excuse me while I bring us back to planet Earth. Clothing and housing are both probably considered "common" by virtually every American--even those who don't have them. These aren't exactly rare commodities we're dealing with.
They're not rare, no, but a majority of the lower class does not have the income to purchase such things. By putting an end to their ability to produce children, you are shifting classes (which I believe we can agree on, at this point), and also switching the overall ideal for living. Now that everyone would have a home and clothes, the idea of necessity would transform into something more than just housing, food, and clothing.

What! When have I ever said an entire class will be eliminated? Moreover, where did you come up with that stupid idea?
Logically, it makes sense to assume that if a class can't produce offspring, they won't be born into that class, causing an overall declination of said class.

I'm not promoting poverty, just stating that standards will inevitably change if this idea were in play, which you seem to be overlooking.

Again, returning to American society in the 21st century, here on planet Earth, luxuries are by far alreadyconsidered necessities by the typical American family. And still, I don't think anyone is judged as an incompetent parent simply because they can't afford a TV.
I'm simply saying when the standards of poverty change, people's conception of who is fit and unfit (based on those standards) will alter as well.

You seem to think that the concept of necessity has and always will be consistent. But it hasn't, and it won't.

We don't consider a cave to be appropriate housing Cavemen did.

Are you kidding? Have you read this thread, the one where I have given people's objections consideration, taken time out of my day to respond to them, and engaged in discourse? What do you want me to do, besides justifying my position? Do you need me to tuck you under the covers at night, too, little girl?
Is this your attempt to sound like you have any knowledge in the field of parenting?

[zion the lion]

Yeah, um no. I said it would directly address the problem. That doesn't mean it will eliminate the problem. It will help the problem. Like virtually every program designed for any problem. By throwing millions into this program, we would up saving billions

No its not saving billions. Its like chewing some gum and putting it on a pipe to fix a leak. Address what's actually causing poverty instead of just bribing people not to reproduce. And you cant tell me that any government that is willing to do this, isnt going to really coerce those people into doing this.

[bloodyr0mance87]

Someone's income does not determine what kind of parent they will be. This thing just doesn't seem right to me.

you're right. it doesn't. however, it is a good indicator of their education level and, thus, the kind of life they will be able to give a child. like i said, it's a fact that the dumbest people breed most. that means that more dumb people are being born than smart ones. these people can't make as much money, can't provide for their families, and are a bigger drain on our society. mind you, i'm a liberal so i'm all for welfare, medicare, etc, etc, but, at the same time, there's a point where we have to take some kind of cost-benefit analysis on people in our society.

even if you look beyond the social part of it, it's a drain on the environment. who do you think is more apt to recycle: someone with a GED and 4 children who makes $18,000 annually or someone who has a college degree 1 child and makes $60,000 annually? also, a household of 6 or 7 people takes up less space, uses less energy, and creates less waste than a household of 3 or 4. granted, there are more (and more important) factors to this whole problem than $10,000 will solve, but i hope you see what i'm getting at.

[bung]

They're not rare, no, but a majority of the lower class does not have the income to purchase such things. By putting an end to their ability to produce children, you are shifting classes (which I believe we can agree on, at this point), and also switching the overall ideal for living. Now that everyone would have a home and clothes, the idea of necessity would transform into something more than just housing, food, and clothing.

The idea of housing, food, and clothing have been staples of basic human necessity for thousands of years. It isn't changing.

Logically, it makes sense to assume that if a class can't produce offspring, they won't be born into that class, causing an overall declination of said class.

But it doesn't make sense, logically, that an entire class is going to opt for this program so an entire class will cease producing children.

I'm not promoting poverty, just stating that standards will inevitably change if this idea were in play, which you seem to be overlooking.

The standard for what humans need to survive will not change, nor will the standard for good parenting, nor will the cultural standard of necessity. Specifically, luxuries that a culture typically views as de facto necessities would change only if the numbers of the wealthy were to rise (that is, isolated from independent technological progress), as then high-standard luxuries would become more common-place. A decline in the number of people living in poverty would not cause our perceived value of necessity to rise for the the simple fact that it won't increase the distribution of luxury, which would ultimately cause something to be see as common-place, ultimately changing our standard.

You're looking at it from the perspective as if the lower number of people in poverty would be due to the fact that many of them are increasing their class status. No. That is not the case. The lower number would be due to a decreased birth rate. The amount of Americans above the poverty threshold that make between x and x dollars would not be affected.

I'm simply saying when the standards of poverty change, people's conception of who is fit and unfit (based on those standards) will alter as well.

You are arguing relative poverty. To use wiki's example, "if the median household in a wealthy neighborhood earns US$1 million each year, then a family that earns US$100,000 would be considered poor on the relative poverty scale, even though such a family could meet all of its basic needs." If the relative poverty in America increases, it's probably a good thing.

You seem to think that the concept of necessity has and always will be consistent. But it hasn't, and it won't.

The basic ones have, and will. Food, water, shelter, clothing. Technically, anything beyond that is luxury. And I believe the poverty threshold accounts for even more than that.

We don't consider a cave to be appropriate housing Cavemen did.

Cavemen, huh? Is that a scientific term you picked up in middle school science class? Do you have any idea how long ago people that would be classified as "cavemen" lived?

No its not saving billions. Its like chewing some gum and putting it on a pipe to fix a leak. Address what's actually causing poverty instead of just bribing people not to reproduce. And you cant tell me that any government that is willing to do this, isnt going to really coerce those people into doing this.

I don't know the exact numbers, obviously, but prevention is always, in every single medical instance that I can think of, cheaper than treatment. Prevention of a child, an entity that is enormously expensive, would save an incredible amount of money.

Learn the definition of 'bribe' before you use the word.

Your last sentence is the equivalent of saying, "Any government that is willing to make abortion legal is going to coerce people into having abortions."

I imagine many people living below poverty would be pretty angry with you that you aren't allowing them the respect to make a decision for themselves.

[brenByah]

Ad hominem.

The benefit is being forced to give up your possible child because you can't afford it? That's pretty bittersweet.

You are assuming parents are making stupid choices.

I never thought a day would come where I agreed with you in a thread, but in this one I'm in your corner.

And for those that support this idea, how do you plan on addressing situations in which wealthy parents abuse or neglect their children? Just because they can afford their child's needs doesn't necessarily mean they will.

[Parabola1124]

I think people are too stuck on the poor parent part of this debate. It's more to prevent children from being born into situations where they're at risk to be abused or born to parents that are known drug or alcohol addicts.

[saysmydoctor]

The idea of housing, food, and clothing have been staples of basic human necessity for thousands of years. It isn't changing.



But it doesn't make sense, logically, that an entire class is going to opt for this program so an entire class will cease producing children.



The standard for what humans need to survive will not change, nor will the standard for good parenting, nor will the cultural standard of necessity. Specifically, luxuries that a culture typically views as de facto necessities would change only if the numbers of the wealthy were to rise (that is, isolated from independent technological progress), as then high-standard luxuries would become more common-place. A decline in the number of people living in poverty would not cause our perceived value of necessity to rise for the the simple fact that it won't increase the distribution of luxury, which would ultimately cause something to be see as common-place, ultimately changing our standard.

You're looking at it from the perspective as if the lower number of people in poverty would be due to the fact that many of them are increasing their class status. No. That is not the case. The lower number would be due to a decreased birth rate. The amount of Americans above the poverty threshold that make between x and x dollars would not be affected.



You are arguing relative poverty. To use wiki's example, "if the median household in a wealthy neighborhood earns US$1 million each year, then a family that earns US$100,000 would be considered poor on the relative poverty scale, even though such a family could meet all of its basic needs." If the relative poverty in America increases, it's probably a good thing.



The basic ones have, and will. Food, water, shelter, clothing. Technically, anything beyond that is luxury. And I believe the poverty threshold accounts for even more than that.



Cavemen, huh? Is that a scientific term you picked up in middle school science class? Do you have any idea how long ago people that would be classified as "cavemen" lived?



I don't know the exact numbers, obviously, but prevention is always, in every single medical instance that I can think of, cheaper than treatment. Prevention of a child, an entity that is enormously expensive, would save an incredible amount of money.

Learn the definition of 'bribe' before you use the word.

Your last sentence is the equivalent of saying, "Any government that is willing to make abortion legal is going to coerce people into having abortions."

I imagine many people living below poverty would be pretty angry with you that you aren't allowing them the respect to make a decision for themselves.
It's a decision they make based heavily on compellence.

[zion the lion]

The idea of housing, food, and clothing have been staples of basic human necessity for thousands of years. It isn't changing.



But it doesn't make sense, logically, that an entire class is going to opt for this program so an entire class will cease producing children.



The standard for what humans need to survive will not change, nor will the standard for good parenting, nor will the cultural standard of necessity. Specifically, luxuries that a culture typically views as de facto necessities would change only if the numbers of the wealthy were to rise (that is, isolated from independent technological progress), as then high-standard luxuries would become more common-place. A decline in the number of people living in poverty would not cause our perceived value of necessity to rise for the the simple fact that it won't increase the distribution of luxury, which would ultimately cause something to be see as common-place, ultimately changing our standard.

You're looking at it from the perspective as if the lower number of people in poverty would be due to the fact that many of them are increasing their class status. No. That is not the case. The lower number would be due to a decreased birth rate. The amount of Americans above the poverty threshold that make between x and x dollars would not be affected.



You are arguing relative poverty. To use wiki's example, "if the median household in a wealthy neighborhood earns US$1 million each year, then a family that earns US$100,000 would be considered poor on the relative poverty scale, even though such a family could meet all of its basic needs." If the relative poverty in America increases, it's probably a good thing.



The basic ones have, and will. Food, water, shelter, clothing. Technically, anything beyond that is luxury. And I believe the poverty threshold accounts for even more than that.



Cavemen, huh? Is that a scientific term you picked up in middle school science class? Do you have any idea how long ago people that would be classified as "cavemen" lived?



I don't know the exact numbers, obviously, but prevention is always, in every single medical instance that I can think of, cheaper than treatment. Prevention of a child, an entity that is enormously expensive, would save an incredible amount of money.

Learn the definition of 'bribe' before you use the word.

Your last sentence is the equivalent of saying, "Any government that is willing to make abortion legal is going to coerce people into having abortions."

I imagine many people living below poverty would be pretty angry with you that you aren't allowing them the respect to make a decision for themselves.

What the hell do you think I mean by fixing the problem? Because if you directly address poverty, then you'll be preventing it for future generations. Before you go off bribing people not to breed. And yes I do know the definition of the word bribe, how about you pay more attention to the big picture before you go bitching about which words I choose to use.

No, it isnt. Stop comparing this to abortions, its not exactly the same. I'm all for abortions, but that is someone's personal choice, which should be based solely on what they feel is the best thing to do. And not only poor people have abortions, rich people do to.

I imagine they would be pretty angry with you saying that they are unfit parents just because they're poor. I also imagine a government that decides to do this would have no problem manipulating people into doing this. Whether that be going door to door, advertising, or going to the poorer schools and handing out pamphlets (like they do with smoking or drugs). I doubt a government would just make this an option and then keep it quiet.

[bung]

It's a decision they make based heavily on compellence.

Yes, I'll agree that there is an element of "compellence." But of course a compelling reason must exist to do anything in this world, or else there is really no point in doing it. The whole idea of "incentives" are to create this compelling reason. But it's not like they couldn't choose otherwise. Every single decision I make I'm compelled to make in one sense or another for any number of reasons. If this person, living in poverty, feels as if it's a "good deal," I don't see why they shouldn't be able to make this choice.

Personally, if I were living in poverty, I would be extremely happy if the government offered something like this. Because, as a poverty-stricken individual, I would know that
a.) I consider it an immoral act to knowingly start a family I couldn't support.
b.) So, in the current state I'm in I don't want any children.
c.) Therefore, I don't even need reproductive capabilities.
d.) The government will do this for free and give me x amount of dollars.
e.) X dollars is as much as I typically make in a year.
f.) I'll be better off because the money will help support me while, in addition, I probably won't have children I don't even want, anyway.

But, for the record, at least they aren't being forced to do anything. Like something mandatory. Like the taxes you are fine with continually raising. I don't even get to make a decision there--it's made for me.

No its not saving billions. Its like chewing some gum and putting it on a pipe to fix a leak. Address what's actually causing poverty instead of just bribing people not to reproduce. And you cant tell me that any government that is willing to do this, isnt going to really coerce those people into doing this.

Regardless of the exact numbers, it's apparent that it would save more money than the program would cost. That's pretty definite. But you know what causes poverty, among other reasons? 18% of all people under age 18 are in poverty. Where do you think those kids are coming from?

What the hell do you think I mean by fixing the problem? Because if you directly address poverty, then you'll be preventing it for future generations. Before you go off bribing people not to breed. And yes I do know the definition of the word bribe, how about you pay more attention to the big picture before you go bitching about which words I choose to use.

no you pay attention to the big picture. no you

No, it isnt. Stop comparing this to abortions, its not exactly the same. I'm all for abortions, but that is someone's personal choice, which should be based solely on what they feel is the best thing to do.

As should this. Based solely on what they feel is the best thing to do. Unless you are too poor to afford an abortion, in which case you probably would have been better off sterilized.

And not only poor people have abortions, rich people do to.

Rich people probably have more abortions.

I imagine they would be pretty angry with you saying that they are unfit parents just because they're poor.

You are an unfit parent if you can't provide for a child. Being able to provide for your own child is probably the fundamental criteria to becoming a fit parent.

I also imagine a government that decides to do this would have no problem manipulating people into doing this. Whether that be going door to door, advertising, or going to the poorer schools and handing out pamphlets (like they do with smoking or drugs). I doubt a government would just make this an option and then keep it quiet.

Maybe a big enough government that people like you support that could waste money on drug and abstinence propaganda. Just like the government so effectively manipulates its citizens not to use drugs and not to have sex. :rolleyes:

[samsara]

I think this would be a good idea minus the paying people part.

[saysmydoctor]

But they wouldn't necessarily make this decision if they weren't impoverished. You are completely missing the point.

It's a better and more permanent investment to simply work to eliminate poverty. You haven't even addressed that.

[.invisible ink.]

I think this would be a good idea minus the paying people part.

so you're in favor of forcing certain people to become sterilized rather than making it a choice with a benefit involved? or you're saying it should be a choice, just don't reward them for making it? free sterilization for all! somehow i don't see this working.

[samsara]

so you're in favor of forcing certain people to become sterilized rather than making it a choice with a benefit involved? or you're saying it should be a choice, just don't reward them for making it? free sterilization for all! somehow i don't see this working.

The latter. Some people might see it as a good thing, especially if they know if they have any kids they cant support them.

[.invisible ink.]

The latter. Some people might see it as a good thing, especially if they know if they have any kids they cant support them.

i don't see this working for the simple fact that it doesn't seem to be a matter of inability to afford birth control that encourages people to breed when they shouldn't. Birth control in the United States is already readily available for free or at extremely reduced costs in most areas, why would free sterilization provide any additional benefits?

[brenByah]

But they wouldn't necessarily make this decision if they weren't impoverished. You are completely missing the point.

It's a better and more permanent investment to simply work to eliminate poverty. You haven't even addressed that.

Exactly.

[caveBEAR]

i don't see this working for the simple fact that it doesn't seem to be a matter of inability to afford birth control that encourages people to breed when they shouldn't. Birth control in the United States is already readily available for free or at extremely reduced costs in most areas, why would free sterilization provide any additional benefits?

But then you have to take a pill every day. EVERY DAY, man. Who can be bothered with that while they're out having unprotected sex?

[.invisible ink.]

But then you have to take a pill every day. EVERY DAY, man. Who can be bothered with that while they're out having unprotected sex?

Birth control is not limited to the Pill. Condoms, IUD, Depo Provera, etc. are all options which are readily available. I don't think there would be a mad rush to the clinic if they started announcing "Free Sterilization! Walk-ins welcome" without offering a tangible benefit (other than not having children), do you?

[caveBEAR]

Birth control is not limited to the Pill. Condoms, IUD, Depo Provera, etc. are all options which are readily available. I don't think there would be a mad rush to the clinic if they started announcing "Free Sterilization! Walk-ins welcome" without offering a tangible benefit (other than not having children), do you?

I know...

[brenByah]

Instead of this guy claiming that the parents provide these children with no opportunities, maybe he would work towards creating some instead of preventing individuals with a certain income level of having children to begin with.

[bung]

But they wouldn't necessarily make this decision if they weren't impoverished. You are completely missing the point.

I dunno. I seriously think it's a good enough deal that if restrictions weren't put in place to only allow certain people to do it, the program would get overused. I mean, at least in the case of vasectomies, success of reversal is pretty good under 10 years. I could definitely see a lot of middle-class, college-aged men being tempted.

It's a better and more permanent investment to simply work to eliminate poverty. You haven't even addressed that.

The money that this would save by reducing the birth rate among poverty-stricken individuals would be enough to create other programs to combat poverty. This would be part of the solution in working to eliminate poverty--I'm not saying this is the only thing we should do. Like it or not, unplanned pregnancy is a direct cause of spiraling deeper into poverty for many people.

[zion the lion]

no you pay attention to the big picture. no you



As should this. Based solely on what they feel is the best thing to do. Unless you are too poor to afford an abortion, in which case you probably would have been better off sterilized.



Rich people probably have more abortions.



You are an unfit parent if you can't provide for a child. Being able to provide for your own child is probably the fundamental criteria to becoming a fit parent.



Maybe a big enough government that people like you support that could waste money on drug and abstinence propaganda. Just like the government so effectively manipulates its citizens not to use drugs and not to have sex. :rolleyes:

If this were to be based solely on what those individuals feel is the absolute best option for them and everyone around them, then paying them to do it shouldnt be an option. At the very most, only their medical bills should be payed for.

There are plenty of people who would be amazing parents if they were given the proper resources to financially provide for their children.

If you were really looking at the big picture, you're last little statement would have never been brought up. If you were looking at the big picture, I'm sure you would have realized that paying poor people not to reproduce does almost nothing to fix poverty or bad parenting. If you were really looking at the big picture, you would have probably thought about all of the better ways that money could be spent fixing those two problems instead of lumping bad parenting and poverty together and throwing money at people and taking away their ability to have children.

At least take the time to know where I stand on certain things before trying to bring them up in that way.

[x togepi x]

Because this would actually save money. Which could then be funneled back into other anti-poverty programs.

How is this going to save money?

[bard]

if this actually happen, STD's would start spreading like wildfire

[Love As Arson]

Hmmm.What about the people on Wall Street that caused the financial crisis? Can we sterilize them? They caused more harm to the general public than the poor have and,chances are, they will impart these values on potential children who could drag down the country in a similar manner.

[bung]

If this were to be based solely on what those individuals feel is the absolute best option for them and everyone around them, then paying them to do it shouldnt be an option. At the very most, only their medical bills should be payed for.

By this logic, all benefits of marriage and any institution that the government rewards people for taking part in should be abolished. Would you say the government is coercing people, against their will, into getting married?

There are plenty of people who would be amazing parents if they were given the proper resources to financially provide for their children.

I agree. However, the fact of the matter is that they don't have those resources. Poverty is a tough fight. And a person can't expect the government to be so paternalistic that they must continually support a person financially simply so they can adequately raise a family. It's difficult to simply create jobs--especially when more and more careers are becoming highly specific and require advanced degrees. So throw more money at education, right? No, because money isn't the problem. It's the structure of the American education system, the value of education instilled in individual persons, and obstacles along the way that prevent people from achieving their goals (see: child rearing).

The first two are a big fucking challenge to change, especially the second. Education reform is necessary, but formulating the plan on how to do it is highly painstaking. Let's hear yours.

The reason why child poverty is such a massive problem here is that so many people living in poverty had their children unplanned. If that can be reduced, the effects of poverty will be eased and things like education reform can be debated in the meantime. "Free"--free birth control in many forms--isn't enough, because people simply don't utilize the services available. There needs to be an incentive for sterilization, besides medical costs, or else absolutely no one will do it.

If you were really looking at the big picture, you're last little statement would have never been brought up. If you were looking at the big picture, I'm sure you would have realized that paying poor people not to reproduce does almost nothing to fix poverty or bad parenting. If you were really looking at the big picture, you would have probably thought about all of the better ways that money could be spent fixing those two problems instead of lumping bad parenting and poverty together and throwing money at people and taking away their ability to have children.

An individual in poverty, who doesn't have a child because they were sterilized--although they couldn't be bothered to use protection--is a huge gain because we just prevented one more poverty-stricken individual from being born. This child, should it have been born, would put far more economic strain on government welfare programs (in addition to presumably living a pretty shitty life) as opposed to simply giving the monetary compensation for sterilization.

I'll lump bad parenting and poverty together all I want because they go together. Not for the reason that the poor hold inherently bad parenting skills and values (like you seem to think I'm saying). Many are bad parents because they cannot provide the bare necessities for their child. You may disagree, but if I couldn't provide for my child I would consider myself an unfit parent.

At least take the time to know where I stand on certain things before trying to bring them up in that way.

I was just assuming that you're not much for small government.

How is this going to save money?

"An individual in poverty, who doesn't have a child because they were sterilized--although they couldn't be bothered to use protection--is a huge gain because one more poverty-stricken individual was just prevented from being born. This child, should it have been born, would put far more economic strain on government welfare programs (in addition to presumably living a pretty shitty life) as opposed to simply giving the monetary compensation for sterilization."

Putting restrictions on the program would prevent it from being overly abused. For instance, people that could support a child, even should it be an accident, would be disqualified.

It saves both money and future pain.

Hmmm.What about the people on Wall Street that caused the financial crisis? Can we sterilize them? They caused more harm to the general public than the poor have and,chances are, they will impart these values on potential children who could drag down the country in a similar manner.

The difference being that the harm wasn't caused by those wealthy tycoons having children they physically cannot support.

[Love As Arson]

The difference being that the harm wasn't caused by those wealthy tycoons having children they physically cannot support.
Do you not think the financial crisis had the consequence of rendering people without the means to support their families? The argument can be made in another way, where the reckless practices of financial institutions have caused an increase in child poverty. The banker's children may cause the kind of negative effects on society, thus they require regulation.

[x togepi x]

"An individual in poverty, who doesn't have a child because they were sterilized--although they couldn't be bothered to use protection--is a huge gain because one more poverty-stricken individual was just prevented from being born. This child, should it have been born, would put far more economic strain on government welfare programs (in addition to presumably living a pretty shitty life) as opposed to simply giving the monetary compensation for sterilization."

Putting restrictions on the program would prevent it from being overly abused. For instance, people that could support a child, even should it be an accident, would be disqualified.

It saves both money and future pain.

It doesn't save money because it's based on the false premise that a significant portion children born into poverty are done so by parents who would have chose otherwise if given the option. nothing in the program would touch accidental child births by people who thought they could wait until they had their finances in order to have children.

It's also based on the false premise that poverty is something that's static: ie, you're either born into it or not. It doesn't deal with the reality of many poor families where children were born at a time when parents were financially able to support them but certain unexpected economic circumstances like job loss or medical debt pushed the family into poverty.

Actually address WHY poverty happens reaches more people than the program you're talking about. It also saves money and future pain because, by addressing poverty, you'll eventually reduce the demand for these programs.

I also laugh at the idea that it saves "future pain" since you're basically sterilizing poor people. You don't think there's going to be any psychological effects to that? You don't think there's going to people who get terribly depressed because they can no longer conceive? Many people in poverty already have baggage because of their state in life and you think telling them "hey, you're not good enough to have kids" is really going to "save future pain?" I realize you're going to claim "well, you can just pay to have the procedure reversed", but we both know a lot of people who would meet the restrictions of the program are probably never going to have enough money lying around to reverse it.

You could accomplish the same goal by making birth control cheaper and more readily available to poor women without the implications of your policy, namely the needless bashing of the poor's ability to have and raise children. Your quote that people "can't be bothered to use birth control" is offensive as it implies those in poverty are just insanely irresponsible. That's the problem with this plan. It needlessly targets a portion of the population that already gets screwed over 24/7. Even your rhetoric in the title "pay people not to breed" creates the perception that the poor are just a bunch of animals.

[MyNameIsRoss]

Hmmm.What about the people on Wall Street that caused the financial crisis? Can we sterilize them? They caused more harm to the general public than the poor have and,chances are, they will impart these values on potential children who could drag down the country in a similar manner.

sounds good to me

[bung]

Do you not think the financial crisis had the consequence of rendering people without the means to support their families? The argument can be made in another way, where the reckless practices of financial institutions have caused an increase in child poverty. The banker's children may cause the kind of negative effects on society, thus they require regulation.

I don't see this as correct analogy. Any person's child may have a negative effect on society in an infinite number of ways. But that doesn't mean the parent should have been sterilized because their child made poor choices in life. The difference is that with children born into poverty, they have absolutely no choice as to the strain they put on society. They just happened into bad circumstances and society consequently suffers. That can be prevented pretty easily. Also, you are again attempting to turn this into a requirement. No one will be required to do anything.

It doesn't save money because it's based on the false premise that a significant portion children born into poverty are done so by parents who would have chose otherwise if given the option. nothing in the program would touch accidental child births by people who thought they could wait until they had their finances in order to have children.

This is not a false premise. A significantly larger number of children are born unplanned to lower-income families as opposed to higher-income families. The factors that cause this difference can be up for discussion, but not the statistic itself. As for your last sentence, I agree, it wouldn't help that. But I'm not touting this as an end-all solution to poverty, nor as the only program that should be employed. It would be used to augment.

It's also based on the false premise that poverty is something that's static: ie, you're either born into it or not. It doesn't deal with the reality of many poor families where children were born at a time when parents were financially able to support them but certain unexpected economic circumstances like job loss or medical debt pushed the family into poverty.

No, it isn't based on the premise that poverty itself is static. I obviously know that being born into poverty isn't the only way it happens. But in a large number of instances it is the case that it happens that way, that individuals are born from parents that have spent either their entire life or the vast majority of it in poverty--making it static in the relative sense to individual cases. Again, the program wouldn't be designed to be addressing and eliminating every aspect of poverty. I've never insinuated that.

Actually address WHY poverty happens reaches more people than the program you're talking about. It also saves money and future pain because, by addressing poverty, you'll eventually reduce the demand for these programs.

I do want to fight poverty in additional ways. But this program would serve to augment poverty reduction--at the very least until poverty has significantly declined.

I also laugh at the idea that it saves "future pain" since you're basically sterilizing poor people. You don't think there's going to be any psychological effects to that? You don't think there's going to people who get terribly depressed because they can no longer conceive?

I sincerely doubt there would be any psychological effects unless a person living in poverty wants to make the immoral choice of having a child they cannot support. In fact, I would gladly take their experience of psychological pain over the pain of a child being raised in terrible conditions. If a person truly feels they want to have children someday, and they are desperately in need of money at the moment, they need to weigh the options, decide if the success rates of a future reversal procedure are good enough, and make their own choice. The strain of another individual on this planet unable to be provided for would cause drastically more negative effects than an individual experiencing negative psychological emotions.

Many people in poverty already have baggage because of their state in life and you think telling them "hey, you're not good enough to have kids" is really going to "save future pain?" I realize you're going to claim "well, you can just pay to have the procedure reversed", but we both know a lot of people who would meet the restrictions of the program are probably never going to have enough money lying around to reverse it.

That's exactly what I'm telling them. You can't support a child and provide it with the basic necessities? No? Then you're an unfit parent.

Sterilization procedures and reversal procedures are extremely inexpensive in terms of medical operations. If a person can't save up to have it done, then surely wouldn't have enough money to support a child.

You could accomplish the same goal by making birth control cheaper and more readily available to poor women without the implications of your policy, namely the needless bashing of the poor's ability to have and raise children.

Birth control is already pretty readily available. But people do not utilize it, do not use it effectively and consistently, nor can be bothered with it in the heat of the moment. This is a fact that spans across all classes. And I guarantee you, most people can get birth control for free or close to it if they're income is low enough.

Your quote that people "can't be bothered to use birth control" is offensive as it implies those in poverty are just insanely irresponsible.

People in poverty are insanely irresponsible. Check out some statistics on how often people use birth control when engaging in sexual intercourse.

That's the problem with this plan. It needlessly targets a portion of the population that already gets screwed over 24/7.

They're getting money. To do something they don't even have to do. If they don't like it, they can ignore it.

Even your rhetoric in the title "pay people not to breed" creates the perception that the poor are just a bunch of animals.

The title, which came from the article and not me, is actually referring to people that physically abuse their children. It's not even referring to the poor. Fail.

EDIT: I may not get back to this thread today or the next (lots of school stuff), but I will be back to continue discussing this in the near future.

[Love As Arson]

I don't see this as correct analogy. Any person's child may have a negative effect on society in an infinite number of ways.
It is correct, insofar as we are comparing what we perceive as the bad behavior of parents and how their offspring can place a strain on society. I am merely including data regarding the general tendency of ruling class offspring to follow in their parents footsteps/accept their values, which, as we saw in previous crises, can be fairly dangerous.

They just happened into bad circumstances and society consequently suffers. That can be prevented pretty easily. Also, you are again attempting to turn this into a requirement. No one will be required to do anything.
We can easily erase this whole paradigm of poverty and wealth by preventing the perpetuation of the ruling class.

[brenByah]

So we sterilize the poor because their child wouldn't get many opportunities and would be a burden on the system? What about the poor that don't have children or opportunities? Because they're adults we just ignore them all together and not try to provide them with better chances? This idea does nothing to help end poverty, it simply tries to ignore it. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. It seems to be that this idea is only defining people by their income. We're more than bank accounts.

[zion the lion]

By this logic, all benefits of marriage and any institution that the government rewards people for taking part in should be abolished. Would you say the government is coercing people, against their will, into getting married?

First this was comparable to abortion, and now its comparable to marriage?

The first two are a big fucking challenge to change, especially the second. Education reform is necessary, but formulating the plan on how to do it is highly painstaking. Let's hear yours.

I honestly dont have a grand plan. I know there are a lot of kids who end up dropping out of school because they have a different way of learning and are either struggling or bored. Some of that bribing money could be spent on training for the teachers so that they can work with those kids to both keep them interested and in school.


There needs to be an incentive for sterilization, besides medical costs, or else absolutely no one will do it.

This kind of contradicts everything you've said about how it would be their choice, it wouldnt be a bribe, it would just be an available option. If nobody does it without the money being there, then it's probably because people dont want to do it.


An individual in poverty, who doesn't have a child because they were sterilized--although they couldn't be bothered to use protection--is a huge gain because we just prevented one more poverty-stricken individual from being born. This child, should it have been born, would put far more economic strain on government welfare programs (in addition to presumably living a pretty shitty life) as opposed to simply giving the monetary compensation for sterilization.

So you give one person 10,000 not to have any children, then you save some money on welfare. So you spend millions of dollars sterilizing people, but they're still on welfare, they're still poor, they're still struggling, but those millions of dollars could have been spent fixing the way homeless shelters operate

I'll lump bad parenting and poverty together all I want because they go together

And by spending all of that money sterilizing the poor people, you're ignoring the people who are financially stable who are horrible parents. Instead of preventing poor people from having kids, why not help them find the ways to provide for their children legally, or helping those horrible parents become better ones?

I was just assuming that you're not much for small government.

No, you were assuming I get a hard on from abstinence only education and anti drug propaganda/the war on drugs, and by bringing it up you were trying to suggest that I'm extremely close minded.

[Love As Arson]

Nearly half of all U.S. children and 90 percent of black youngsters will be on food stamps at some point during childhood, and fallout from the current recession could push those numbers even higher, researchers say.

The estimate comes from an analysis of 30 years of national data, and it bolsters other recent evidence on the pervasiveness of youngsters at economic risk. It suggests that almost everyone knows a family who has received food stamps, or will in the future, said lead author Mark Rank, a sociologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

"Your neighbor may be using some of these programs but it's not the kind of thing people want to talk about," Rank said.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/02/food-stamps-will-feed-hal_n_342834.html

[x togepi x]

This is not a false premise. A significantly larger number of children are born unplanned to lower-income families as opposed to higher-income families.

This is unresponsive to my claim. I said you can't prove a decent amount of people who had unplanned children would choose to be sterilized for monetary compensation. I would say probably not since starting a family is firmly ingrained in the american psyche as a part of growing up.

The factors that cause this difference can be up for discussion, but not the statistic itself. As for your last sentence, I agree, it wouldn't help that. But I'm not touting this as an end-all solution to poverty, nor as the only program that should be employed. It would be used to augment.

why target the poor? why not target those who add to the problem of poverty, like those who profit from it?

No, it isn't based on the premise that poverty itself is static. I obviously know that being born into poverty isn't the only way it happens. But in a large number of instances it is the case that it happens that way, that individuals are born from parents that have spent either their entire life or the vast majority of it in poverty--making it static in the relative sense to individual cases. Again, the program wouldn't be designed to be addressing and eliminating every aspect of poverty. I've never insinuated that.

It's necessarily based on the idea that poverty is static because it requires people to think they'll never be able to support a child so that the give away their ability to have children. If people don't buy into this perception, then the program won't be successful.

I do want to fight poverty in additional ways. But this program would serve to augment poverty reduction--at the very least until poverty has significantly declined.

Because of the factors i outlined earlier, it would augment poverty reduction in a minuscule way, which would be vastly outweighed by the psychological implications of sterilization.

I sincerely doubt there would be any psychological effects unless a person living in poverty wants to make the immoral choice of having a child they cannot support.

Have you met anyone who can't conceive and wants to? There's all sorts of baggage that goes along with that. I'm not talking about people making the so-called immoral choice of having a child they can't support. Here's a scenario.

Bob takes your 10 grand and gets sterilized. He uses that 10 grand to go to a trade school, learning a trade and eventually getting a good paying job in that field. Because of his good paying job, he can pay back his debt and lift himself out of poverty. Cool for him. Then he meets a woman he loves and wants to start a family (one that he could support) but....he can't because he took the ten grand. He also doesn't have the money to pay for a reversal.

Can you not see how he'd have psychological effects and not be making an "immoral choice"?

In fact, I would gladly take their experience of psychological pain over the pain of a child being raised in terrible conditions.

Ah, you'd rather punish people who are living now than punish hypothetical future babies? That's ridiculous.

If a person truly feels they want to have children someday, and they are desperately in need of money at the moment, they need to weigh the options, decide if the success rates of a future reversal procedure are good enough, and make their own choice.

You should know that he massive pressures that poverty brings onto a person that would make "weighing the options" much harder and more complicated than you're claiming here. It's quite easy to say the things in this quoted portion from a position of privilege but it's much harder to make a "good choice" when you're poor as shit and having ten grand dangled in front of you. Who's to say people wouldn't take the present money and then totally regret it in the future?

Plenty of people feel terrible that they grew old without ever having children.

The strain of another individual on this planet unable to be provided for would cause drastically more negative effects than an individual experiencing negative psychological emotions.

First off, you're talking about hypothetical future babies that aren't even born yet. You can't quantify that and make a good argument for it outweighing real effects on currently living people.

Secondly, the fact that you're willing to completely discount the emotional well being of those you claim to help is very troubling. This plays into where I said you're treating the poor like subhumans.

That's exactly what I'm telling them. You can't support a child and provide it with the basic necessities? No? Then you're an unfit parent.

This seems needlessly moralistic.

Sterilization procedures and reversal procedures are extremely inexpensive in terms of medical operations.

"in terms of medical operations" still equals expensive in normal terms.

If a person can't save up to have it done, then surely wouldn't have enough money to support a child.

This doesn't factor into the discussion at all. I'm saying you're punishing the poor by taking away their right to childbirth via preying on their economic hardship, which plays into the psychological effects that I brought up earlier.

Birth control is already pretty readily available. But people do not utilize it, do not use it effectively and consistently, nor can be bothered with it in the heat of the moment. This is a fact that spans across all classes. And I guarantee you, most people can get birth control for free or close to it if they're income is low enough.

your first line speaks to the heart of the ineffectiveness this program could have. who's to say people, who are supposedly calmly weighing the choice to be sterilized since that's so easy aren't going to have unprotected sex while they're deciding? You're still having accidental births. This is why that money should go to something more effective.

I agree, it's probably possible for people at a certain income level to get help when it comes to birth control but many people lack the ability to access those programs because of economic hardship. For example, not being able to afford a phone makes it hard to do the government mandated phone interviews for certain programs like food stamps.

People in poverty are insanely irresponsible. Check out some statistics on how often people use birth control when engaging in sexual intercourse.

This is my point. People are irresponsible, so why target the poor?

They're getting money. To do something they don't even have to do. If they don't like it, they can ignore it.

You tell a poor person "hey i'll give you ten grand to do something you might not want to do" and see how easily they can ignore that.

The title, which came from the article and not me, is actually referring to people that physically abuse their children. It's not even referring to the poor. Fail.

The fail here comes in with your lack of reading comprehension. I'm not talking about the article, I'm talking about the arguments that YOU presented here. You could have titled this in a different way that doesn't imply that the poor are animals that mindlessly breed.

[brenByah]

You can't support a child and provide it with the basic necessities? No? Then you're an unfit parent

That's not true...

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/5356/pursuitposterh.jpg (http://img44.imageshack.us/i/pursuitposterh.jpg/)

[.invisible ink.]

That's not true...

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/5356/pursuitposterh.jpg (http://img44.imageshack.us/i/pursuitposterh.jpg/)

They made a movie about this guy because he's the exception, not the rule. Good try though.

[brenByah]

They made a movie about this guy because he's the exception, not the rule. Good try though.

Although it's a bit of a joke, I still think it holds true. If you can't provide for your family, that doesn't necessarily make you a bad parent. This whole bogus plan assumes that someone's income determines what kind of parent they will be, which is false.

[saysmydoctor]

There is no rule, was the point of the reference.

[x togepi x]

you guys are right. the poor are terrible parents who have never produced anyone of value, except will smith.

[Jason Tate]

Why is the assumption only poor people would do this?

[saysmydoctor]

...because of the monetary incentive?

[brenByah]

It appears to me that it's an idea directly aimed towards lower class individuals

[x togepi x]

because all of the moralizing is done to call poor people unfit for child birth.

[.invisible ink.]

because all of the moralizing is done to call poor people unfit for child birth.

that was only one discussion going on in this thread to be fair. there are plenty of people who qualify for the title of "unfit parent" and if you get back to the original idea, it was to offer the money to abusers to stop them from creating additional victims. this thread is really at the point of just going in circles which have already been covered unfortunately.

[Jennurna Gray]

I doooonnnn'ttttt knooow.