Cash for vasectomy....

[theVOID]

That simply does not follow, the fact that I am paid for work does not mean that I did not go to work voluntarily.

---

I am with Existentialist. This is a disgusting practice that does nothing to help drug addicts, and instead takes advantage of them.

Fucking Eugenics.

It does more to help the welfare system, birth defects caused by pregnant mothers being addicts, potentially horrible lives for the children bought into the home of a drug addicts etc. It's not Eugenics as they are not selecting against a genetic defect, it's simply situational selection. Some people know they will probably not get off drugs, and don't want to have children because of the poor quality of life this child is likely to have, under this circumstance I don't think it's unethical to offer an incentive for action.

[Existentialist]

That simply does not follow, the fact that I am paid for work does not mean that I did not go to work voluntarily.

The difference is the particular vulnerability of the person with a drug problem, which introduces a particular debate about ethics that goes beyond that of normal wage labour.

It does more to help the welfare system, birth defects caused by pregnant mothers being addicts, potentially horrible lives for the children bought into the home of a drug addicts etc. It's not Eugenics as they are not selecting against a genetic defect, it's simply situational selection. Some people know they will probably not get off drugs, and don't want to have children because of the poor quality of life this child is likely to have, under this circumstance I don't think it's unethical to offer an incentive for action.

You might be convinced that it is not intended to select against a genetic defect. I think the social engineering aspect, plus the bribe, plus the invasive surgery bring it within ethical territory occupied by eugenics. It suppresses the freedom of the victim to decide to have children. It is an oppressive, manipulative, corrupt, bullying, right-wing, shabby and sordid practice. The Nazis would have taken to this procedure rather well.

[Anomalocaris]

That simply does not follow, the fact that I am paid for work does not mean that I did not go to work voluntarily.

The difference is the particular vulnerability of the person with a drug problem, which introduces a particular debate about ethics that goes beyond that of normal wage labour.

It does more to help the welfare system, birth defects caused by pregnant mothers being addicts, potentially horrible lives for the children bought into the home of a drug addicts etc. It's not Eugenics as they are not selecting against a genetic defect, it's simply situational selection. Some people know they will probably not get off drugs, and don't want to have children because of the poor quality of life this child is likely to have, under this circumstance I don't think it's unethical to offer an incentive for action.

You might be convinced that it is not intended to select against a genetic defect. I think the social engineering aspect, plus the bribe, plus the invasive surgery bring it within ethical territory occupied by eugenics. It suppresses the freedom of the victim to decide to have children. It is an oppressive, manipulative, corrupt, bullying, right-wing, shabby and sordid practice. The Nazis would have taken to this procedure rather well.

What is the ethical problem with noncoercive bribing to encourage restraint in procreation when the result of the procreation is statistically very likely to suffer either very poor pre or post natal development environment, or seriously debilitating genetic defect?

One would think the probable welfare of any result of procreation should weigh more heavily in consideration about what and how much incentive to offer then whether the parent may be unduly susceptible to the incentive.

[Existentialist]

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.

[Anomalocaris]

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?

[The Omnissiunt One]

You might be convinced that it is not intended to select against a genetic defect. I think the social engineering aspect, plus the bribe, plus the invasive surgery bring it within ethical territory occupied by eugenics. It suppresses the freedom of the victim to decide to have children. It is an oppressive, manipulative, corrupt, bullying, right-wing, shabby and sordid practice. The Nazis would have taken to this procedure rather well.

Reductio ad Hitlerum, I'm afraid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

The Nazis were also opposed to smoking. Does that mean that anti-smoking campaigns are bad? No. This guilt by association tactic isn't conducive to rational ethical debate.

Freedom is not an absolute, and is often contingent upon responsibilities: in this case, the responsibility of properly caring for one's child. Besides, no-one's freedom is at stake, as the procedure is voluntary. To say that it takes advantage of the people in question is quite paternalistic in itself: we must go on the basis that they know what's best for them.

[Tiberius]

The word "eugenics" has been thrown around loosely here. Ignoring whether this is eugenics or not (I actually agree that it can be considered eugenics), there is nothing wrong per se with "eugenics". As defined by Wikipedia:

"Eugenics is the applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population."

People have to stop associating the eugenics used by the Nazis to eugenics as an actual concept. Eugenics was invented before the Nazis even came into existence, and it can be a very good thing. It is about improving the population as a whole through various practices, and most modern eugenicists are against any practices which infringe upon a person's human rights (i.e. denying the disabled from having children).

Many of us practice eugenics in passive, or sometimes active ways. We do not sleep with people who are genetically close to us (incest), which can be considered passive eugenics, since the offspring of an incestuous couple has a greater chance of having birth defects than those of a non-incestuous couple.

Some practice more active eugenics with Genetic Selection; that is, if a couple has a strong chance of passing on some genetic disorder to their children, they may take multiple eggs out of the woman, fertilise all of them with the male sperm, and then check each embryo for specific genetic traits; implanting one of the embryos that does not have the disorder back into the woman.

So yes, this is eugenics (in my opinion) since the charity is trying to improve the genetic composition of the population, by paying for willing drug addicts to have sterilisation, thus removing the possibility of them causing harm to children they might have had.

What is it not is comparable to Nazi eugenics, where whole sections of society are forced to undergo sterilisation, or are just killed to remove them completely from the population. There is no forcing here; people come to the charity of their own free will, and there will be many potential children that will be saved thanks to their efforts.

[LastPoet]

Well if has been made legal, without prejudice to the kind of people that get that benefit, why it is wrong? I'd do it, but I'm a sperm doner, in the natural way

[Eilonnwy]

Let me give you all a lesson that you will probably ignore anyway.

This type of incentive is classist its core. It supports the idea that one group of privileged people can decide when and how underprivileged have children. Because, you know, the way to help drug addicts is to tell them they don't deserve children and give them more money for drugs. Who do you honestly think this type of program will target the most? Poor people and people of color. It is not a slippery slope to say this has classist and racist implications, because it's there. It's right there in front of your face.

This is coercive bribery and and an exercise in eugenics. It lets people who have a dystopian world view claim they are doing good. What is their tactic? "Think of the children". Where have we heard that before...hmmm....gay marriage anyone? In this case you're trying to protect children that don't even exist instead of the real person who does exist. You want to help drug addicts? Then use that money for proven programs that actually help the person suffering from addiction and make available to them more reasonable birth control alternatives like the pill and condoms, like planned parenthood. Giving them $200 discriminates and simply feeds the problem. You're not helping, you're hurting.

This type of behavior is no better than those who would try to enforce pro-life legislation. You do not get to make reproductive decisions for another individual. This is at the core of the pro-choice movement, and what is most important is that to be pro-choice means you support a persons right to have or not have children. It is THEIR choice. It's a two way street, and this type of program attempts to control someone else's reproductive choices through coerced sterilization of people at their most vulnerable.

Of course, I've seen some people here make pro-abortion statements like "People should have a test before having children." If you have that world view, then it's no wonder you can't see this program for what it really is.

It's disgusting. It's bribery. It's eugenics. It's discrimination. You all should be ashamed.

[Tiberius]

Let me give you all a lesson that you will probably ignore anyway.

I won't ignore it, but I will attempt to refute it

This type of incentive is classist its core. It supports the idea that one group of privileged people can decide when and how underprivileged have children.

No, because that isn't happening. No group here is deciding when and how another group can have children. One group is offering to pay for sterilisation for another group who would cause (through their own actions) any children they conceived physical and mental problems, and possibly death.

Because, you know, the way to help drug addicts is to tell them they don't deserve children and give them more money for drugs.

Please present your evidence for your assertion that the charity tells people they don't deserve children. I can't find it in any media report. If anything, all interviews with the drug addicts who have been on this program show that the addict themselves have made this decision; that they do not deserve children (or should not have them).

I agree though, this isn't the way to help drug addicts, but the charity isn't trying to help them, it is trying to save potential children from harm if the drug addict is refusing to get help for themselves. All drug addicts have a choice; they can go to rehab (and there are free programs), they can use protection when having sex...they can do any of these things. They also now have a choice to get sterilised if they honestly can't get off the drugs, and don't want to harm anyone else.

Who do you honestly think this type of program will target the most? Poor people and people of color. It is not a slippery slope to say this has classist and racist implications, because it's there. It's right there in front of your face.

Y'know who I think it will target the most? Drug addicts. It is a complete non-sequitur to argue that a program will target specific groups of people, when those groups are only targeted by proxy. To give another example; suppose that a genre of music is listened to by 90% of black people, and a charity was set up to pay people to stop listening to that genre of music. Is such a charity being racist? No. We cannot possibly make that conclusion without taking a massive leap in reasoning. You are approaching this from the angle of "well, most of their clients will be poor and black, therefore the reasons for doing this must be classist and racist". This may well be true, but you have no evidence to back up this assertion, as the real case may be that the reasons for doing this are as they stated, and it just so happens that the majority of people it affects are poor and/or black.

I didn't think I'd have to use this argument on a fellow atheist, but it is exactly the same kind of reasoning as saying that the universe appears fine-tuned, therefore it was created *for* us, ignoring the perfectly valid reasoning that we exist solely as a by-product of the universe being the way it is.

This is coercive bribery and and an exercise in eugenics. It lets people who have a dystopian world view claim they are doing good. What is their tactic? "Think of the children". Where have we heard that before...hmmm....gay marriage anyone?

In that instance, there was no evidence linking abuse of children (or bad upbringing of children) to homosexual parents, or homosexual marriage. In this case, there is very good evidence linking physical and mental disorders in children of drug addicts, to the drug addicts. So yes, we should think of the children in this instance, because they are the ones who this will ultimately affect.

In this case you're trying to protect children that don't even exist instead of the real person who does exist.

Correction. We are trying to help protect children who could potentially exist. As I said in my previous post, we do this all the time. Whether it is by not having sex with our siblings, or by using a condom when having sex with your partner because you haven't the financial resources or drive to be a parent yet. No children exist there either, but we take measures to prevent them from being born into a life for which neither of the people involved are ready.

You want to help drug addicts? Then use that money for proven programs that actually help the person suffering from addiction and make available to them more reasonable birth control alternatives like the pill and condoms, like planned parenthood. Giving them $200 discriminates and simply feeds the problem. You're not helping, you're hurting.

What happens when the drug addict doesn't want to quit, or when both of them are in such a drug-induced state that they completely forget about condoms, or the woman forgets about the pill. We are talking about drug addicts here; they aren't exactly thought of as the most organised and forward planning of people. Birth control works when people use it, and people only use it when they are in the right state of mind to remember it.

The drug addict has the choice at the end of the day, and that is not discrimination. Discrimination would be to deny them that choice.

This type of behavior is no better than those who would try to enforce pro-life legislation. You do not get to make reproductive decisions for another individual.

Nobody is. The decision is down to the addict.

This is at the core of the pro-choice movement, and what is most important is that to be pro-choice means you support a persons right to have or not have children. It is THEIR choice. It's a two way street, and this type of program attempts to control someone else's reproductive choices through coerced sterilization of people at their most vulnerable.

No, this program depends on THEIR choice. The charity isn't trying to control someone else's reproductive choices; they are trying to prevent suffering to children, and they are doing it by giving drug addicts the option of having a free sterilisation.

It's disgusting. It's bribery. It's eugenics. It's discrimination. You all should be ashamed.

I don't think it is disgusting, assuming the aims of the charity are honest. It may border on bribery, but I do not think that is a bad think in the circumstances, again, assuming that the aims are honest. I agree that it is eugenics, and as I said in my previous post, this is no reason to be opposed to it. I disagree that it is discrimination, since nobody is forcing something against another's will, and I think it would be very much discrimination if drug addicts weren't given the choice, as the rest of us are.

Oh yeah, and I'm not ashamed of my position. There is nothing in your reasoning which has convinced me (thus far) that this type of charity is doing anything unethical.