I said one at a time, but the load is small enough to where I can address both.
I thought you were against abortion?
If you are for eugenics, I would think you would be for abortion.
Eugenics is not the same as abortion. Abortion is removing a pregnancy and killing a fetus as a result. Eugenics merely prevents incompetent people from reproducing. Since poor people are more likely to have abortions then rich people, Eugenics (castrating all the unfit males) reduces abortions since unfit people breed more then the fit for some reason.
How poor? Do you have a number or something?
I would say anyone unwilling to pay a Reproduction maintenance tax, whether they can afford it or got, gets a painless castration or becomes infertile permanently some other way.
Who is going to clean the toilets take out the trash?
Trash takers aren't super poor. Their hourly salary is $15.29 on average. People usually clan their own toilets. The poor people will be mainly those who are long term unemployed and minimum wage working adults.
Simply removing the poor doesn't mean those jobs won't need doing instead it would be passed on the next people who would fit in the category of poor.
They might get filled with automation. The government could give low interest loans to companies encouraging them to automate their workforce in minimum wage jobs. This way, the poor people would have to find a different job. The job that they would get would depend on their abilities and interests.
Would you remove them as well for being poor?
Eventually, but not right away. If humanity gets too much better too fast, it would result in a low population count. We need to gradually get better as a specie by infertilizing all the undesirables.