No surprises there, but the story makes me think again of the need for a voluntary form of eugenics. Forced eugenics is never good, of course. The loss of freedom is never a good thing, but I think that the government has a responsibility to help shape the demographics in a desirable direction.
The fact of the matter is that there are millions of young women like Dalisha who would likely consent to a completely safe and voluntary sterilization procedure in exchange for some money.
Such young women would benefit, society would benefit, and the unconceived babies would benefit. Young men could also take advantage of such a program.
For example, if sterilized before giving birth, Dalisha, and the millions like her, would be free to have as much sex as they want. They could come and go as they please and live a carefree life without the imposition of unwanted children in their lives. Likewise, society would be spared the added expense and burden of unwanted, accidental "future felons" running around on the loose. As for the unconceived babies, they would not have to endure a lifetime of not being wanted.
In contrast, the government should aggressively encourage responsible, desirable couples to procreate. I don't mean to become the Dugards, but for couples that currently decide not to have any children, perhaps their plans would change with (a) strong tax incentives, and (b) proof that eugenics is preventing undesirables from shifting the nation's demographics in a negative direction.
|
