RE: Cash for vasectomy....
October 22, 2010 at 5:02 am
(This post was last modified: October 22, 2010 at 1:44 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(October 22, 2010 at 3:58 am)Existentialist Wrote: That's an argument for a mass sterilisation programme of the poor, incentivised by miniscule payments. This guy was done over - the true compensation he should get is a minimum of £200,000 - not £200.
The extrapolation from drug addicts to the poor would seem to be based on the dubious slippery slope argument.
If there is a sound argument for incentive based, but still voluntary, sterilization program for drug addicts, Why should that argument be dusallowed?
Why should someone be over-compensated for being statistically highly likely to create an a bad pre and post natal environment for his children? One would think he should be compensated by exactly the amount required to convince him not bring a child into the bad pre or post natal environment?
