Pay welfare women $5000 to get sterilized. Good idea?

Just checking in to weigh in and say that those proposing sterilizing the women instead of the men are both winning the argument and are correct.

The incorrect will not understand this and call me an idiot and the cycle will continue.

That is all.

Your insurance won't cover your BC pill but will cover a desperate, lecherous old man's Rx of Viagra.

That summarizes the patriarchy's priorities.

Right on. I'd be all for subsidizing/promoting birth control for poor people, not least because unwanted children are a major cause of poverty, but the government requiring sterilization rubs me the wrong way. That's not the sort of thing I want our government to be involved in.

Ho Hum wrote: but the government requiring sterilization rubs me the wrong way.

Freudian slip.

Ho Hum wrote:

Right on. I'd be all for subsidizing/promoting birth control for poor people, not least because unwanted children are a major cause of poverty, but the government requiring sterilization rubs me the wrong way. That's not the sort of thing I want our government to be involved in.

Not REQUIRING at all. Incentivizing.

how about we just get rid of welfare? nah, too simple. And doesn't empower government bureaucrats.

Science background (including a life-science degree) here.

The fact is: if you want to control population numbers/growth, you preferentially target females. That's not true just of humans; it's SOP for controlling the numbers of any animal species.

As an earlier poster pointed out, reducing the population of fertile males by, say, 80% will typically have a limited effect on population numbers (something on the order of 10%, at most), because the remaining fertile males will mostly take up the slack (as it were).

If you reduce the population of fertile females by 50%, OTOH, the population (birth rate, rather) will typically drop by something around 40%.

This is true of pretty nearly all animal populations.

WarWhatIsItGood4 wrote:

vivalarepublica wrote:

If that's your strategy, why not just bomb the ghettos? Because of advances in responsiveness and medicine, a lot more vets go home missing arms and legs, and suffer from untreated PTSD. Your poorly thoughout strategy would do little to slow the tide of welfare dependence.

But it would break the cycle of poverty. Those that weren't killed could stay in the military and have a job. Also they'd be shipped all over the world, so they wouldn't be stuck in their circumstance, be it ghetto, Appalachia whatever.

But yeah, you could just bomb the poor areas too. I'd have no problem with that either.

I know you are a troll, but you have no idea about the effects of war and the damage that prioritizing destruction does over prioritizing creating things that help people and people can use.

xenonscreams wrote:

Aside from the fact that this entire thread is incredibly sexist, why wouldn't you just provide incentive to put them on birth control? Most women don't want to get pregnant, but getting proper birth control can be difficult and expensive. My old insurance company didn't cover the pill I needed, and it used to cost me $300 for a 3 month prescription. On my new insurance it's free!

If you would have been reading the thread, you would know that sterilizing men as well has entered into the discussion.

And if anything, this thread is discriminatory towards lower income folks that make more poor decisions about raising a family.

constant minus one wrote:

Ho Hum wrote: but the government requiring sterilization rubs me the wrong way.

Freudian slip.

I don't think you know what that means.

Ho Hum wrote:

constant minus one wrote:

Freudian slip.

I don't think you know what that means.

I think you missed the intended jab.

Anyway...This is nothing new and I'm not talking about 1950s era eugenics programs

I remember hearing about this stuff back in the 90s when I first started teaching a class for emotionally disturbed. 100% of those kids in my class were from druggie parents. The story I heard at the time (couldn't find the exact link for that one) was that drug addict women could get $500 to get their tubes tied. I thought it was a great idea. If I remember the story correctly, the ACLU was all up in arms against it and sued the organization to make it stop.

I don't know how these ideas shake out vis a vis political affiliation but I think the left would dislike this more than the right. If it were government mandated, then all of the "Don't Tread On Me" types might get a bit testy.

I still think stuff like this is a good idea. However, here is an even better idea.

Showed that one to my Environmental Science classes. The AP kids loved it and the low performers in the decelerated class I have right before lunch couldn't stop giggling. Perhaps they knew they were the ones who needed this type of deal the most.

This is one of those things that sounds wrong and feels wrong, but I can't think of a great argument against it. It's probably more effective than trying to teach people the costs of raising a child to make them reconsider having them. I also think the government should pay for all abortions.

vivalarepublica wrote:

xenonscreams wrote:

Aside from the fact that this entire thread is incredibly sexist, why wouldn't you just provide incentive to put them on birth control? Most women don't want to get pregnant, but getting proper birth control can be difficult and expensive. My old insurance company didn't cover the pill I needed, and it used to cost me $300 for a 3 month prescription. On my new insurance it's free!

If you would have been reading the thread, you would know that sterilizing men as well has entered into the discussion.

And if anything, this thread is discriminatory towards lower income folks that make more poor decisions about raising a family.

Discussed and then shrugged off.

This thread is absolutely classist too. But I think the idea of providing affordable birth control tackles this issue across all classes, and is much less radical than incentivized sterilization.

greater debater wrote:

Just checking in to weigh in and say that those proposing sterilizing the men instead of the women are both winning the argument and are correct.

The incorrect will not understand this and call me an idiot and the cycle will continue.

That is all.

I can see why you call yourself "greater debater". Your argument amounts to...well...nothing at all.

Impressive!

Clell Adams wrote:

how about we just get rid of welfare? nah, too simple. And doesn't empower government bureaucrats.

Great idea! Now about all those children starving and freezing to death...

Try to think just a little bit before posting.

lease wrote:

Science background (including a life-science degree) here.

The fact is: if you want to control population numbers/growth, you preferentially target females. That's not true just of humans; it's SOP for controlling the numbers of any animal species.

As an earlier poster pointed out, reducing the population of fertile males by, say, 80% will typically have a limited effect on population numbers (something on the order of 10%, at most), because the remaining fertile males will mostly take up the slack (as it were).

If you reduce the population of fertile females by 50%, OTOH, the population (birth rate, rather) will typically drop by something around 40%.

This is true of pretty nearly all animal populations.

This ^

Seriously, stuff like this should be obvious. It is amazing how many people on here are seemingly incapable of simple thought processes.

I agree

The idea would never work. Republicans would oppose it on moral grounds, and the left would oppose it because they wouldn't have a party in 20 years.

what you are all missing here is that $5,000 wouldn't be enough. Having baby's is far more lucrative to them, in $$$'s, in the control they temporarily gain over the POS donor, and in their quest for attention. I'm guess you have to go to at least $25,000 to have a real effect.