Cash for vasectomy....

[thesummerqueen]

There's a difference between making something available and encouraging people to use it. It depends on what the encouragement consists of.

What do you deem acceptable encouragement?

[Existentialist]

What do you deem acceptable encouragement?

It's a bit like trying to convert people. If you offered a rough sleeper a bed for the night but the condition was that he had to listen to you preaching to him and begin the process of converting to Christianity, I'd oppose that, it wouldn't be acceptable. I don't know if there's much I could do about it but I could at least express disapproval. Same with vasectomies. It's about the extent to which the encouragement overlaps with coercion given the vulnerability of the client.

[thesummerqueen]

It's a bit like trying to convert people. If you offered a rough sleeper a bed for the night but the condition was that he had to listen to you preaching to him and begin the process of converting to Christianity, I'd oppose that, it wouldn't be acceptable. I don't know if there's much I could do about it but I could at least express disapproval. Same with vasectomies. It's about the extent to which the encouragement overlaps with coercion given the vulnerability of the client.

I know a couple of alcoholics (I'm sure most people reading this thread are thinking cocaine or heroine, but lets include the legal ones too) - both of either sex. Both of them are intelligent - disturbingly still so when rip-roaringly drunk, actually, as far as discussion goes, but reckless. Neither is willing to give up their crutch, despite repeated "family interventions". The woman has already had an abortion because of it. The man is barely, and I do mean barely, there for his kids - fortunately in this case they have a mother. If I told them both "look, if you're not willing to put away the bottle, you should at least get sterilized", would it be just as unethical an encouragement?

In the woman's case, she has a finite number of years in which she can conceive anyway and she's heading up to the end point fast with no plans to quit her habit. She calls it her right, and it technically is. We can throw all the birth control at her we want, mistakes can still be made, and she obviously shows that she'd rather be a drunk than get clean and bear a child. Rather than go through the process of an abortion (I'm not against abortions, by the way), why not say "well, if that's what you want, then at least save us the issue of possibly having to raise the child you damaged through your negligence later"?

This isn't like me saying someone can only sleep in my house if they let me convert them, it's like me saying "look, I know you're going to be walking around in the mud, just take your shoes off when you're in my house because more than likely I will have to be cleaning up after you". Much as I'd love to just tell the person "Don't effing walk in the mud!!" I can't stop them all the time. Imperfect analogy, I know, but I think it's closer. [shrugs] Economically, it would actually be cheaper to hand these people 200 bucks, or the equivalent to whatever it really is, than to pay for children who are born with all sorts of medical needs and parents who may or may not be able to support them, or who just don't care.

Most of all, it's not fair to the child who is born because of a "mistake". Sometimes those children are loved anyway (mistakes aren't just made because of drugs, after all) but sometimes they're treated with resentment and frustration and anger. No child should be born into that. On a sudden thought - I'd hesitate to say "well, it's okay, there are plenty of people willing to adopt". No - there are plenty of people willing to adopt healthy babies - not as many willing to adopt those with potential medical problems.

I realize that the heart of this for you seems to be the act of offering an incentive in the first place - unfortunately I seem to keep reading reports that money is the only way to get people to perk up and listen. Gas companies are offering discounts to people who control the power usage in their house. Cell phone companies offer incentives if you get a certain number of years on your contract. Bookstores offer "buy two get one free". They're all an incentive of some sort. "Don't put a child into harm's way if you continue to use - we'll give you $200".

I do agree with Adrian, and I recognize you don't - eugenics is not a thoroughly Nazi idea despite their perversion of it. I do also agree that it's not as simple as we've been making it out to be - but I don't think it's quite as complicated either. That's just my opinion, of course. There are some people who chose to adopt children rather than have any of their own because one or the other carries the gene for some disease and they chose not to pass it on. This is a pretty basic form of breeding out an undesirable trait. Is it still wrong?

Also quick edit - just realized that was my 100th posting.

[Existentialist]

Thanks thesummerqueen. You ask if it's unethical to say to a couple of alcoholics you know, "look, if you're not willing to put away the bottle, you should at least get sterilized." I don't know. It depends how well you know them and in what capacity. If you're a counsellor in a community alcohol service, then if you said what you're proposing then yes, it probably would be extremely unethical and infact I wouldn't be surprised if you were disciplined for saying it, I'd support that. If on the other hand they're your close friends whom you've known since childhood then go ahead and say it. They can choose not to be your friend any more, but at least you'll have had your say.

Ethics come into play when there is a degree of power imbalance between the parties If you're on a good salary and you offered your alcoholic friend £200 to get sterilised then I'd say that's pretty unethical. If you and your friend are both extremely poor and you offer each other £200 to get sterilised then I'd say that's up to them.

You're right I think the analogy you quote is imperfect. Most analogies are.

I'm not against incentives per se. I'm against unethical bribes.

You mention eugenics. I didn't say the nazis invented eugenics. The problem is that eugenics has become overly associated with population control at the level of social policy. You ask if it's wrong if people choose to adopt rather risk passing on a genetic disease. Well no - that's an individual choice, one I'd respect.

[Jaysyn]

Eugenics is not a Nazi argument.

Tell that to six million Jews

A new logical fallacy? Argument from atrocity?

[Edwardo Piet]

Well, I guess 'Eugentics' can mean 'Nazi argument' to Existentialist... because anything can mean anything else to Existentialist.

[Existentialist]

[...] anything can mean anything else to Existentialist.

Where's your evidence, EvF?

---

A new logical fallacy? Argument from atrocity?

Good question. What's your answer?

[thesummerqueen]

Thanks thesummerqueen.

We'll have to agree to disagree on a few things, but thanks for the added clarification on your stance.

[Existentialist]

We'll have to agree to disagree on a few things, but thanks for the added clarification on your stance.

No problem, thanks for a polite and civilised response.

[Tiberius]

Where's your evidence, EvF?

Your posts on these forums arguing that we shouldn't use standardized definitions for words, and that communication is better for everyone if people use their own meanings.