Could the US Save Money in the Long-Run by Offering Free Sterilizations?

Question

I am thinking that if we offered women / girls (between the ages of 13-40) $20,000 tax-free in cash to undergo an operation to become sterilized that it would save money in the long-run because over the life of a person born out of wedlock the gov't would end up paying well over $20,000 during his / her lifetime. Also such a person is likely to produce welfare-dependent kids who will continue to drain the gov't budget. Additionally, people who continue this dependency are likely to have some genetic problems, and sterilization would certainly increase the quality of the US gene pool. What do you think?

This is a serious question. Hitler forced-sterilized the infirm, the mentally ill, et cetera. I am talking about people doing this voluntarily. Please don't wast space with this Hitler-bating.

Answer 1

What an interesting question. I'm sure you will be getting some backlash, but not from me. I think it is an excellent idea because population expansion is a genuine cause of poverty and there is only so many resources our government has and only so much land; eventually we will be overwhelmingly over crowded.

I hope people will accept your idea as positive for people who would want to participate in your proposed program, rather than thinking it would be some kind of government sponsored left wing agenda. You are correct about the eventual cost of the burden on the government; however it is really the tax payers who you are referring to.

While I am with you on your sterilization proposition, I'm not quite sure how not implementing that would cause genetic problems. The gene pool should in theory remain constant with or without your proposal. The only thing I can think of that affects the genes is incest. Otherwise, even someone on welfare should have genes as healthy as those who are millionaires.

Your "tax-free" idea is inviting, however it would be unlikely because all income is taxed according federal law, except certain capitol gains on homestead property sales, inheritance or life insurance disbursements, those in witness protection programs and informants to the government.

I think your idea is a good one to explore because on the other side there are people bragging about having 5 children, 14 grandchildren and 30 great grand children. People do not consider that having numerous children will in time make it harder for their decedents because the population just keeps on growing, not to mention our problem with illegal immigration. This increases the price of the "American Dream" of owning real estate. The higher the demand, the higher the price.

In agreement with your idea, if you look at a typical "family tree", it starts with two and then balloons into 100 or more. Even taking into consideration that people do die, there are more people replacing them than that number.

I offer my tax dollars to your proposal because it would, as you state, cost me less in the long run and it cannot be challenged by the conservative position against abortion. Your concept is a good one.

Answer 2

Sainsbury is selling 2 bottles of High Juice for £2 and that includes the Healthy Option ones (or what ever it's called). Lovely mixed with sparkling water.

Answer 3

The thing is, alot of those who just want the government to pay for everything, would probably turn them down, except you did throw in the $20,000. Imagine the drugs and alcohol they can buy with that amount of money.

Note: Not all people on government assistance are lazy a**es. I know some people need help getting on their feet again. I mean those who continue to reproduce and WON'T work, but sit around and complain about the government.

Answer 4

Don't you think that's a little crazy? I mean 13 that's a child. Do we give our children that kind of power when they are children? I think that's ridiculous as well as stupid. Think what you would do if you made that decision at such a young age and then 5yrs down the road your life had a huge change and you wanted a child and you had no choice in that. What then ? The gene pool is gonna be what its gonna be , its human nature, get over it.

Answer 5

Why don't you start by having yourself castrated first, Its shortsighted to want this for the female populous to offer monetary benefits to curtail there re-productive rights, And further more welfare benefits just happen to be at a all time low.Because welfare is much harder to obtain. The government has no right in a FREE country to offer such a narrow minded program. So if you ever find someone that you want to enter into marriage with will you insist upon her getting a sterilization?? Or is that for everyone else but you? Not suggesting that you are HYPOCRITICAL.

Answer 6

Great idea for all the irresponsible dirtball men and women who continue to reproduce when they can't even take care of themselves. We would be lucky for these people to use the money to overdose on their drug of choice and just die. I think vasectomies would be cheaper on the tax payer though. Then the most that would happen is a week long binge for the money.

Answer 7

Okay, Hitler. "sterilization would certainly increase the quality of the US gene pool"

Yeah yeah, anyone with brown skin, or brown hair and brown eyes must be sterilized.

I can see how this would be GOOD but usually things that once had a choice usually turn into laws etc.

Answer 8

Hoo boy, what a can of worms you've opened here.

While I think that any woman who wants to be sterilized should have the opportunity to do so, forcing mandatory programs like you suggest is indeed fascist and Nazi-like. Women who want to have children should be able to do so.

Answer 9

Only ones that leech off the system thinking the more babies they make the more money they can rake in from government programs.

Answer 10

For some it shouldn't just be free, it should be mandatory!

If you can't take care of and support your kids, then you shouldn't have any more!