Swift’s proposal was satirical, being critical of the mentality that could make such a proposal for purely “utilitarian” reasons.
I don’t read Glenn’s proposal that way at all, but rather as social policy that is certainly just as rational and sensible — indeed, more so — than granting and subsidizing a woman’s “right” to end another human life. When abortion advocates said “My body, my choice,” they were actually exercising their choice over the fate of ANOTHER body. Not so with Glenn’s plan.
No we shouldn’t pay people to sterilize themselves because we shouldn’t take advantage of poor people or their situations for some sick social engineering.
Who would decide what is stupid and what is poor? Let me guess anyone not vaccinated.
We should focus on education and class mobility than some Nazi wet dream.
Ah yes, we need more poor stupid kids who are "mothered" by women who would have preferred to sell their fertility for $1,000 but were prohibited from doing so by Mr. Viccus.
No man or woman should ever cede their dignity to another precisely for this type of reason. You are a dangerous person and should never be allowed power over another individual. Mengele complex.
You just can't stop with the name-calling, can you. Now, I'm Mengele.
As for the little bit of substance in your comment, you equate reproduction with "dignity." I don't. I think a person's dignity is not measured by the number of his offspring.
That's one difference between us. The other is that you'll resort to any invective and name-calling in a misguided and unpersuasive attempt at argument.
Go ahead, call me Hitler now. Geez, call me Lucifer. It'll be about as persuasive as the rest of your "arguments."
Is this a joke? Only a stupid, poor person would write something so barbaric.
Do you have anything more than invective, such as reasoning?
Why should a person who wants to sell his or her fertility be prohibited from doing so?
"My body, my choice." At least this particular choice does not end a living life.
Never heard of Jonathan Swift, eh?
Swift’s proposal was satirical, being critical of the mentality that could make such a proposal for purely “utilitarian” reasons.
I don’t read Glenn’s proposal that way at all, but rather as social policy that is certainly just as rational and sensible — indeed, more so — than granting and subsidizing a woman’s “right” to end another human life. When abortion advocates said “My body, my choice,” they were actually exercising their choice over the fate of ANOTHER body. Not so with Glenn’s plan.
No we shouldn’t pay people to sterilize themselves because we shouldn’t take advantage of poor people or their situations for some sick social engineering.
Who would decide what is stupid and what is poor? Let me guess anyone not vaccinated.
We should focus on education and class mobility than some Nazi wet dream.
Bro, seriously this is a sick suggestion. Sick!
The proposal is not limited to poor people. Anyone could accept the offer. Who are you to make their decision for them?
"My body, my choice." Or is it now "My body, Mr. Viccus' choice"?
We need more kids not less.
Ah yes, we need more poor stupid kids who are "mothered" by women who would have preferred to sell their fertility for $1,000 but were prohibited from doing so by Mr. Viccus.
Kidding by your “morals” one could say your parents were also failures. Perhaps someone should have given your parents a few bucks.
That's your "argument"?
No man or woman should ever cede their dignity to another precisely for this type of reason. You are a dangerous person and should never be allowed power over another individual. Mengele complex.
You just can't stop with the name-calling, can you. Now, I'm Mengele.
As for the little bit of substance in your comment, you equate reproduction with "dignity." I don't. I think a person's dignity is not measured by the number of his offspring.
That's one difference between us. The other is that you'll resort to any invective and name-calling in a misguided and unpersuasive attempt at argument.
Go ahead, call me Hitler now. Geez, call me Lucifer. It'll be about as persuasive as the rest of your "arguments."
Bye.
Not a problem. That's why they've opened the borders.
A modest proposal?
As I explain in another response to you, it really IS a “modest” proposal, unlike that of Jonathan Swift’s persona.
I think this has been tried before, here and in other countries. Sterilization programs were not popular.
To be clear, I would never advocate mandatory sterilization for any reason, not even for murderers or other criminals.
Voluntary sterilization is a wholly different thing. After all, we permit men and women to get vasectomies and tube-tying, right?
There are some folks who should be given a bonus. Members of Congress for instance . . .
I’ll need to ponder this potential social policy, but your third paragraph is rather brilliant, and existential.
Mr. Beaton’s proposal is quite rational.
I say no to this proposal, respectfully.
There you go again, making too much sense.
"three generations of imbeciles is enough" - the argument always appealed to me