Current Events > Would you support a government program that pays people to get sterilized?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I saw this episode on VICE not too long ago about a woman that pays drug addicts to not get pregnant. Would you support something like this on a national scale?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkERSYPLzqc" data-time="
---

No
---

Rather them hand out free contraceptives.
---

Dude that'd be awesome. I'd gladly get paid to not have to risk having a kid in the future

how could anyone possibly support this
---

averagejoel posted...

how could anyone possibly support this

Is it not voluntary?
---

No, that's kinda coercive. Instead just offer to pay for sterilization procedures (include recovery time), if that is people's preferred method of contraception.
---

I'd sign up

MorbidFaithless posted...

averagejoel posted...

how could anyone possibly support this

Is it not voluntary?

it's basically "poor people shouldn't have kids", the program
---

averagejoel posted...

MorbidFaithless posted...

averagejoel posted...

how could anyone possibly support this

Is it not voluntary?

it's basically "poor people shouldn't have kids", the program

But they shouldn't. Neither should rich people. We have enough humans in this world and I see nothing wrong with paying people not to continue having them

dirtycommunist posted...

No, that's kinda coercive. Instead just offer to pay for sterilization procedures (include recovery time), if that is people's preferred method of contraception.

This.
---

Wasn't the 20th century enough of a lesson in eugenics?

gmanthebest posted...

Rather them hand out free contraceptives.

^ Why not do that?

Why not standardize a comprehensive sex ed curriculum and require all public schools to teach it?

Both of these things result in people having less children, but they also side step the ugly potential abuse of programs that pay people to get sterilized.
---

considering a lot of people pay good money to get clipped / tubes tied I'd be fine with it.

issue is there's a lot of people that just won't let that happen. Like, if you're a 20-something woman finding a doctor who will actually tie your tubes is pretty fucking hard. They're worried you might "regret it."
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

considering a lot of people pay good money to get clipped / tubes tied I'd be fine with it.

issue is there's a lot of people that just won't let that happen. Like, if you're a 20-something woman finding a doctor who will actually tie your tubes is pretty fucking hard. They're worried you might "regret it."

They should be worried. For a young person that's an extreme reaction that can be solved through behavioral controls and other non-invasive measures. You would hope that a doctor would care about your general well-being and not simply satisfy the word of your request. I'd at least want them to give you all your options, and then have you explain why you think the chosen procedure is the best possible solution. And then the doctor can consider whether or not they want to be a part of it.
---

hollow_shrine posted...

They should be worried. For a young person that's an extreme reaction that can be solved through behavioral controls and other non-invasive measures.

If I wanted someone to worry about how I'm going to be doing in 40 years I'd hire a fucking investment broker.
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

averagejoel posted...

MorbidFaithless posted...

averagejoel posted...

how could anyone possibly support this

Is it not voluntary?

it's basically "poor people shouldn't have kids", the program

But they shouldn't. Neither should rich people. We have enough humans in this world and I see nothing wrong with paying people not to continue having them

I was kinda going for realism rather than idealism here, so this is... not really relevant to anything I said.
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

But they shouldn't. Neither should rich people. We have enough humans

Sure, that'll solve all our problems, without creating any new ones.
---

Considering how big of a paycheck poor women get from the government to not work and make future potential criminals, it would have to be a very large sum.
---

mustachedmystic posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

But they shouldn't. Neither should rich people. We have enough humans

Sure, that'll solve all our problems, without creating any new ones.

Removing all accidental birth will solve or address a vast majority of our problems. If people only had kids once they decided they want to have kids, those kids would be far less likely to be abandoned, hated, resented, grow up in a single parent household, or resort to a life of crime.

What problems will this cause? Besides maybe reducing the stock prices of diaper companies

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Removing all accidental birth will solve or address a vast majority of our problems.

Well sure, but I didn't think that's what you were saying
---

No kids and easy money = great boot strap. I'd be okay with this. You can save your sperm/eggs and find a surrogate if you change your mind.

There is no "kinda coercive". This would be a voluntary, better option than the current ones for many folk.

Also, I support free abortions and contraceptives too.
---

No. I'd be in favor of subsidizing abortions and vasectomies though.
---

Sterilization is permanent most of the time. Because of this, even if a person is eventually able to gain the means to support a child, they would have been robbed of the opportunity to do so if they chose to get the money. This puts people in a coercive situation where they have to choose between money that they desperately need and relinquishing the ability to ever have children. And making poor people essentially choose between their own financial survival and the possibility of ever having a family is just plain evil.
---

No. Government should have never subsidized single motherhood in the first place. The resulting massive increase in out of wedlock births since LBJ shows how much it backfired.

If you dont like how much the welfare state has increased single motherhood (and the resulting crime and mult-generational welfare dependency), the solution isnt yet another government program.
---

_Near_ posted...

And making poor people essentially choose between their own financial survival and the possibility of ever having a family is just plain evil.

This is just an extra option from how things are now. More choices =/= evil.
Again though, it's not coercive, you might think it's predatory and maybe it is, but society would be better off. Stop the paternalism, you don't need to protect people from their own choices.
---

Would support. Would consider signing up for.
---

mustachedmystic posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Removing all accidental birth will solve or address a vast majority of our problems.

Well sure, but I didn't think that's what you were saying

How so? I was saying that it's a good idea for everyone, both rich and poor.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

_Near_ posted...

And making poor people essentially choose between their own financial survival and the possibility of ever having a family is just plain evil.

This is just an extra option from how things are now. More choices =/= evil.
Again though, it's not coercive, you might think it's predatory and maybe it is, but society would be better off. Stop the paternalism, you don't need to protect people from their own choices.

It's not just an "extra option", it's an irreversible procedure that takes away one of the most basic aspects of a person's life. And using it to specifically target low income individuals, especially while in a capitalistic system with an extremely high wage disparity is immoral.

Your mistake is that you think it's a simple, fair choice. Someone who can't afford medical treatment, food, or shelter because of their financial status and chooses to be sterilized for money is not making a free, voluntary choice. You're not thinking of the real life implications of a rule like this.
---

_Near_ posted...

Your mistake is that you think it's a simple, fair choice. Someone who can't afford medical treatment, food, or shelter because of their financial status and chooses to be sterilized for money is not making a free, voluntary choice. You're not thinking of the real life implications of a rule like this.

If they want to have kids in the future for some absurd reason, they can just save some sperm/eggs. Hell, include a lifetime free storage in the benefits package, win win.

Darklit_Minuet posted...

If they want to have kids in the future for some absurd reason, they can just save some sperm/eggs. Hell, include a lifetime free storage in the benefits package, win win.

Lol, I thought the point was to save money. You realize how much it would cost to harvest and store eggs? To transfer it to a uterus through in vitro fertilization? And do that for every single person who chooses it with no guarantee that it will succeed?

Also, what if both spouses chose to be sterilized? Will the kind of sterilization procedure used be the type where a sterilized woman can be implanted with a fertilized egg and be allowed to grow or will they have to get a surrogate? Will the government also pay for the surrogate?

The more you think about it, the dumber it sounds.
---

_Near_ posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

If they want to have kids in the future for some absurd reason, they can just save some sperm/eggs. Hell, include a lifetime free storage in the benefits package, win win.

Lol, I thought the point was to save money. You realize how much it would cost to harvest and store eggs? To transfer it to a uterus through in vitro fertilization? And do that for every single person who chooses it with no guarantee that it will succeed?

Also, what if both spouses chose to be sterilized? Will the kind of sterilization procedure used be the type where a sterilized woman can be implanted with a fertilized egg and be allowed to grow or will they have to get a surrogate? Will the government also pay for the surrogate?

The more you think about it, the dumber it sounds.

I'm just assuming the majority of the people won't want kids because kids are dumb. They don't have to take the offer. I'd rather more money than to have my sperm saved.