Incentive basing vasectomies: Should society provide encouragements (health care, insurance, party)

[pbmaise]

Over population is a large factor keeping people in a cycle of poverty.

What good is it to teach a man to fish when there already so many men fishing there are no fish left?

What good is it to simply provide food to starving people who will need more food next year?

Why should old men continue to father children when they will be dead from old age before that child grows up?

If a man already has 2, 5, 10, or 20 children why should he have more?

In a one hour procedure, society can help guarantee the population growth can be curbed or even reversed.

However, what incentives can morally be employed?

[pbmaise]

I found almost the reverse of this line of thought in a previous thread.

Should men with vasectomies be forbidden to marry?

In that thread the OP asked if since the man could not have children should he be forced to remain single.

In an incentive based system, a man who had a vasectomy would be encouraged to get married to help ensure a fertile woman didn't reproduce.

Sample incentives could include small things like:

Free marriage license
No fees for judge
Rebate on tax at reception party

or,

They could be large incentives like:

Extra tax deduction as if the couple had two dependant

Free government foods for the reception party

Reduced government housing expense

Education benefits

[David A Stone]

Govt should stay out of population control of their citizens.


This isn't China of a few years back.

[pbmaise]

When men are required to receive a vasectomy in order to receive food because he and his family is starving there would clearly be a moral issue.

The cause of his plight man be temporary. The vasectomy is mostly permanent.

Alternately, society may actually cause the plight in order to force the men into a position which makes the vasectomy mandatory.

[sware2cod]

Republicans generally don't want birth control to be covered by insurance plans or be paid by government funds. Well, at least not for women.

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by sware2cod

Republicans generally don't want birth control to be covered by insurance plans or by paid by government funds. Well, at least not for women.

Why should insurance cover birth control or birth? It's not a disease or injury.

[pbmaise]

Originally Posted by David A Stone

Govt should stay out of population control of their citizens.


This isn't China of a few years back.

Ah, but governments and society around the world already is already stepping in with attempts to control population.

Free condoms, free contraception, and free vasectomy clinics are available in some places.

The question is really whether it go beyond being free to actual compensation.

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by pbmaise

When men are required to receive a vasectomy in order to receive food because he and his family is starving there would clearly be a moral issue.

The cause of his plight man be temporary. The vasectomy is mostly permanent.

Alternately, society may actually cause the plight in order to force the men into a position which makes the vasectomy mandatory.

What's immoral about that?

[MoonBeam33]

Yes. Free vasectomies for any "man" who has two or more children that he is not paying child support for or actively supporting and maintaining a place in their lives by his own choice.

[pbmaise]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

Why should insurance cover birth control or birth? It's not a disease or injury.

Taxpayer money, and money by charities can either be expended or invested.

Money spent on a vasectomy is an investment which long term lowers:

Costs of child births that don't occur
Costs of education for children not in system
Costs of health care for mother and child
Costs of housing due to smaller population
Costs of government assistance for impoverished