The question has (I think) previously been discussed on this dark, disgusting corner of the internet, but it has suddenly become pertinent to mainstream British politics thanks to the much-lauded appointment of super-forecaster hopped-up groyper Brain Genius Andrew "Modafinil for the People" Sabisky:

https://www.ft.com/content/7b75c07e-...1-482eed0038b1

and



Like Cummings, this is an example of a man who's so smart he's actually dumb - so a perfect fit for the English govt. who will wish to keep this bold young eugenicist on its payroll just to troll the libs. But I find myself intrigued by one of his remarks:

“One way to get around problems of unplanned pregnancies creating a permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty. Vaccination laws give it a precedent, I would argue.”
I suspect that this reasoning is dimwitted legal horseshit, but, legal soundness - and, indeed, truthfulness - notwithstanding, is it philosophically sound? I think there may be people on this forum who believe - firmly or with some ambivalence - that vaccination of children should be mandatory. Does Sabisky's grotesque position on poverty-control present a challenge to those who are proponents of mandatory vaccination? Are the two issues entirely unrelated?