4 ms·
It's still coercion, if that's the purpose. I'm not suggesting we not educate people. I am suggesting that the attempt of suppressing reproduction within a par
by beerandt 6y ago
It's still coercion, if that's the purpose. I'm not suggesting we not educate people.
I am suggesting that the attempt of suppressing reproduction within a particular demographic, no matter the incentive or perceived "good" that results (cash or education), is walking a very fine line.
- Pfhreak 6y agoOh, I see the point you are raising. Yes, if your reason for educating and empowering women is so they will have fewer children (statistically) then yeah, definitely need to questioned.
- cies 6y agoBoth are not coercion. One is paying poor (cash hungry) men for something irriversible they may later regret. The other is providing education to poor women, and empowering them so they will (statistically) decide to have less babies. Coercion is waaaay less, to the point that I'd like to say educating is not coercing. Education can be undone, unused, forgotten. Vasectomies not so much. I dont think "totally" suppressing reproduction is what happens: those women still want/can/will have babies, just not so many.