(putting your potential libertarianism aside) Would you support a government program that paid a moderate monthly stipend to people who've tested positive for severe genetic illnesses, as long as they don't reproduce?
Conversation
Replying to
Voting no, but I'd pay everyone a monthly stipend. Period. hah. I don't like the qualification.
9
Replying to
I don't know where to even begin with this. These severe genetic illness, are they crippling and if so would they be reproducing in the first place? I'm very ignorant concerning this topic. I guess I'd say yes, more money can't hurt and it doesn't end up actually restricting them
Replying to
Those of you who support UBI should vote no, since it would place a stigma on those who receive such payments and such stigma would prevent a more universal program from gaining support among those who don’t have such illnesses.
5
Replying to
At first it feels obvious & reasonable to support any humanitarian work to provide financial support to people with severe genetic illness. But, then the phrase "as long as they don't reproduce" gives a Catch 22 situation. So, not an easy question to answer.
Replying to
Losing battle. Even if we select out these genetic flaws, new ones will keep arising, rendering socierty cash poor for having only potentially eliminated the current crop of ailments.
1
Replying to
"Would you support a government program that paid a moderate monthly stipend"
No. The answer is no. The rest of the question is irrelevant.
1
Replying to
might as well just pay everyone to not reproduce, that's the only way to remove these things this way.
Replying to
Voted yes.
Natural selection did this for us for tens of thousands of years - for free. Then our intellect and medical technology circumvented nature.
And now, we're filled with people with weak and broken genetics. I'm all for a recalibration.
3