Paying drug addicts to be sterilized

[Pendaric]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/12/barbara-harris-sterilise-drug-addicts-alcoholics

Harris doesn't think addicts should have children, and her charity is using cash incentives to make sure they don't. In the 12 years since Project Prevention launched in the US, she has paid 1,307 people $300 to be sterilised, and given money to many more in exchange for long-term contraception. In total, Harris has bought the fertility of more than 3,000 Americans with drug and alcohol problems – only 47 of them men. Now she's turning her attention to Britain.

I'm not sure whether I think this is a good thing or not. I can see the positives, but it feels a bit icky.

[Free in Freeport]

I'm all for the birth control part. Sterilization? That's taking gross advantage of an addict's weakness! I agree addicts shouldn't procreate while actively using, but many can recover.
The whole issue of informed voluntary consent comes into question. When someone is jonesing for a fix, they'll do damn near anything for $300.

[LoneWolf]

I think sterilization is a very responsible choice in today's overpopulated world. But the keyword there is "choice". I question whether or not a serious drug addict has much of a choice. Still, I don't want them having children either.

This is a very gray area for me. I wouldn't give her organization money, but I wouldn't actively oppose it either.

[Rie]

:wtf:Say WHAT?! This is an elitist and terrible thing to even suggest. smacks of the worst Sci fiction.

[rog]

$300 to be sterilised, seems to be selling oneself rather cheaply if you ask me.

[Jobar]

As long as the operation is reversible, I have no problem with this. If an addict pulls him/herself away from their drug, and wants children badly enough, they can pay to have their tubes re-connected.

If it was truly permanent though, I'd oppose it.

[LoneWolf]

$300 to be sterilised, seems to be selling oneself rather cheaply if you ask me.

Well, sterilization isn't cheap and I think we can assume the foundation is paying for that as well. My guess is most of these people don't want more kids anyway. I would be interested to know how many people would have accepted just the free sterilization without the extra $300. I think they would still get a good number of takers.

[rog]

$300 to be sterilised, seems to be selling oneself rather cheaply if you ask me.

Well, sterilization isn't cheap and I think we can assume the foundation is paying for that as well. My guess is most of these people don't want more kids anyway. I would be interested to know how many people would have accepted just the free sterilization without the extra $300. I think they would still get a good number of takers.

Out of curiosity would these people be entitled to free contraception, morning after pill or abortion ordinarily in the US?

[Free in Freeport]

Nope.

[rog]

Nope.

I think it would be a better answer to unwanted pregnancy, I think the issues surrounding the ethics of birth control use are of a lower order than soliciting people to become sterilized. I have to say that this campaign's targeting vulnerable members of society, for possibly not completely altruistic reasons, leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. This should be between a Patient and their doctor.

She was talking about trying that in the UK, I don't think she'll get far with it over here as there are other, better, free options available that don't smack of eugenics.

[Free in Freeport]

It's based on the faulty premise that all drug addicts are incompetent. Some folks are able to function around their addictions quite well - until withdrawal hits.

[LoneWolf]

It's based on the faulty premise that all drug addicts are incompetent. Some folks are able to function around their addictions quite well - until withdrawal hits.

Certainly not all addicts are incompetent. But can someone we would label an "addict" be able to stop for the duration of a pregnancy? And if they can, is the addict label appropriate?

As distasteful as paying someone to be sterilized is. The thought of having a crack baby disturbs me more. I'm torn.

[Rie]

Free is correct. An addict is perfectly able to function, study, relate etc. and it is the withdrawal symptoms that are the problem in these areas. the need to get what the system wants overides all else.
My beloved brother was an heroin addict and studied for his degree perfectly well.

[Free in Freeport]

I'm all for the birth control part. Sterilization? That's taking gross advantage of an addict's weakness! I agree addicts shouldn't procreate while actively using, but many can recover.
The whole issue of informed voluntary consent comes into question. When someone is jonesing for a fix, they'll do damn near anything for $300.

As stated earlier.

[Ray Moscow]

I'm more of the view that everyone should start out sterilised and only gets to become fertile when he/she proves they are qualified to be good parents.

Of course, few would qualify. Plus there are numerous civil rights issues, and finally: children are regarded as rightful possessions, except in the most extreme cases of abuse.

But still: you need a license to drive a car. There's no license or any qualification whatsoever required for becoming or remaining a parent.

[Gooch's Dad]

I agree, Ray. My brother was griping about this the other day--his 18 year old son is a new father, and has absolutely no way to take care of a child. My brother was suggesting something akin to this--you should have to show a certain degree of responsibility before you can reproduce.

It won't happen, of course, but it would solve a lot of problems.

[nygreenguy]

my mom was an addict and had a child.

[Daynna]

Very icky, yes, but it is not forced sterilization. Even addicts are free to choose whether or not to have a child. This organization is actively promoting the "not." Consider those that take part in the program. Are they not competent enough to make this choice for themselves? Possibly not, if they want the money for drugs. I can't see being opposed to responsible birth control (reversible sterlization) for the person that would do this for drugs. It may be the only responsible thing they do. I wish my drug addict brother would make such a choice. It WOULD be the only good thing he'd ever done.

[rog]

I can't see being opposed to responsible birth control (reversible sterlization) for the person that would do this for drugs.

This would be for the best, maybe a coil with an implant for back up.

I remember reading a while ago that there was a system being set in place for us westerners to offset our carbon usage by providing contraception to the third world, I was very much against that too - Not that I don't think contraception should be free or even have a fiscal incentive to it where appropriate, but the idea that 'we' can salve our environmental consciences by ensuring that there are fewer black people in the world is amoral imo; on the other hand paying a good amount to some people [especially young, poor women] to take a long-term contraceptive option might benefit them and their society in the long term. I understand this may come across as self-contradictory, but the devil is in the detail.

[Pendaric]

The article talks about how a large portion of the women they are targeting have had several children already, which have all been taken in to care. The expectation is that any more children that came along would follow the same path.

Whilst they are having a blanket approach in their literature distribution, and not all the women will follow the above stereotype, it would be disingenuous to pretend that there are not a lot of female drug addicts who have many children to different fathers all of whom end up in care on the taxpayers bill.

It still sits uneasily with me, but I can't dismiss it as an idea out of hand. Most drug addicts would not make responsible parents, irrespective of individual anecdotes of the exceptions.

[rog]

I agree with the sentiment and as I say encouraging contraception would be fine with me, but I find the idea of targeted sterilisation of the vulnerable abhorrent, it might seem like a quick and easy solution to a real problem, but it denigrates these people as humans.

If it's illegal to tattoo a drunk person, surely it must be on the wrong side of dodgy to swap permanent life changing surgery for an addict's drug money?

I know we're not exactly at a thin end of the wedge with this, but I hate the idea that this person will go on to use her 'successes' to advocate this method being taken on by the state.

[Goldie]

I agree with the sentiment and as I say encouraging contraception would be fine with me, but I find the idea of targeted sterilisation of the vulnerable abhorrent, it might seem like a quick and easy solution to a real problem, but it denigrates these people as humans.



#1 They should not offer payment, only to pay FOR sterilization.
#2 They should offer to pay for long term birth control such as an IUD, shots, implants etc.
#3 They should offer all types of birth control for free.


People can and do change. Not every addict is a lifelong addict.

Many of the children that I worked with in Juvenile Detention were victims of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. I think that, alone, speaks volumes.
Still, I don't like the idea of taking advantage of a person at their weakest moment. They should not pay them.
If they choose surgery, they should offer them a safe comfortable place to recover.

[rog]

#1 They should not offer payment, only to pay FOR sterilization.

Ok, I realise that things are different across the pond regarding paying for medical treatment as here one would upon a valid request, get this surgery free in any case - but the idea of private individuals promoting sterilization even without the inducement is still anathema to treating these people like, well, people...

Free, non coercive, family planning & education for those who want it is the only fair way to go and achieve the objective of reducing unwanted pregnancy amongst those less well equipped to bring up children.

As a side point - How do "pro-lifers" in the US respond to the OP?

[halii]

at least it is not the government sponsoring the program.

[rog]

at least it is not the government sponsoring the program.

I just don't want them to get the idea that it's acceptable. Voluntary becomes customary becomes compulsory [he shouts skiing down the slippery slope].

[Jobar]

The more I think about this, the better I like it.

It's true that not all drug addicts/alcoholics are irresponsible, and bad parents. However, I expect a considerable majority of them fit those criteria. And without the cash-up-front incentive, many of them wouldn't submit to the knife even if the operation were totally free.

I already donate money to Planned Parenthood; and I'm in agreement with Ray that we ought to make parenthood a privilege, not a right. Way too many people on this old world as it is!

[rog]

I'm in agreement with Ray that we ought to make parenthood a privilege, not a right.

I have to say that I disagree with that sentiment in the strongest possible terms, I think that concept deserves a new thread.

[Goldie]

#1 They should not offer payment, only to pay FOR sterilization.

Ok, I realise that things are different across the pond regarding paying for medical treatment as here one would upon a valid request, get this surgery free in any case - but the idea of private individuals promoting sterilization even without the inducement is still anathema to treating these people like, well, people...

Free, non coercive, family planning & education for those who want it is the only fair way to go and achieve the objective of reducing unwanted pregnancy amongst those less well equipped to bring up children.

As a side point - How do "pro-lifers" in the US respond to the OP?

Why not offer it free of charge? Then it would be no different than someone doing it on their own in the UK...and that was my point. There is no incentive, but lack of funds wouldn't be an issue for them.

We already have family planning and education for those who want it. Free.
They aren't using it.
IIRC a woman, who has had children and is receiving aid can have her tubes tied, on the gov't after the age of 25. But, I am not sure of that.

[Goldie]

The more I think about this, the better I like it.

It's true that not all drug addicts/alcoholics are irresponsible, and bad parents. However, I expect a considerable majority of them fit those criteria. And without the cash-up-front incentive, many of them wouldn't submit to the knife even if the operation were totally free.

I already donate money to Planned Parenthood; and I'm in agreement with Ray that we ought to make parenthood a privilege, not a right. Way too many people on this old world as it is!

DUDE! Who would decide what makes a good parent??? Now THERE is a slippery slope!

[Free in Freeport]

Government control of the contents of my uterus?

I don't fucking think so!

[rog]

Government control of the contents of my uterus?

I don't fucking think so!

You should never stand between a woman and her uterus...

ETA: Thread spilt?

[nygreenguy]

The whole concept is utterly disgusting. Those of you support it must not have a fucking clue to addict behavior. Addiction, as a disease, impairs ones decision making abilities. This financial incentive is no more than oppression on the lower class and an attempt to rid yourselves of the burden of actually having to help anyone.

Fucking christ, what are you thinking?

[rog]

This financial incentive is no more than oppression on the lower class and an attempt to rid yourselves of the burden of actually having to help anyone.


Couldn't have said it better myself :)

[Free in Freeport]

No need for a split, government control over reproductive rights is a natural extension of the OP. And my outrage over the mere mention of the possibility as well.

[rog]

No need for a split, government control over reproductive rights is a natural extension of the OP. And my outrage over the mere mention of the possibility as well.

I think it is a separate issue by a long shot, although the success of the instigator in the OP might lead on to the next step, Ray and Jobar's suggestion is at the next level and IMHO deserves to be addressed separately.

[nygreenguy]

No need for a split, government control over reproductive rights is a natural extension of the OP. And my outrage over the mere mention of the possibility as well.

I see it more as a sub topic, or parallel topic but not necessarily the same.

And as much as I abhor breeding and kids, I share your outrage. This is actually more common than you know and its been trying (in some places still going on) for minorities.

[Pendaric]

Should people, irrespective of health background or drug addiction, be able to have children ad infinitum when they are unable to financially support them and they become a burden on the state and taxpayers money?

I know it's different in the US and we have a more comprehensive welfare system than you do. Maybe that changes attitudes somewhat.

I just don't see what gives someone the right to produce their seventh or eigth baby with no means of supporting them and expect the state to cough up. I could get behind compulsory sterilization after a certain number of children if you want to continue to receive state benefits for them.

[rog]

Should people, irrespective of health background or drug addiction, be able to have children ad infinitum when they are unable to financially support them...

Does the state have the right[or the means] to physically prevent people from reproducing?

[Pendaric]

Should people, irrespective of health background or drug addiction, be able to have children ad infinitum when they are unable to financially support them...

Does the state have the right[or the means] to physically prevent people from reproducing?

Perhaps not. But maybe it should have the right to refuse to financially support them beyond a certain point.

[rog]

Perhaps not. But maybe it should have the right to refuse to financially support them beyond a certain point.

And what would be the result of such a policy to society?

[Pendaric]

Perhaps not. But maybe it should have the right to refuse to financially support them beyond a certain point.

And what would be the result of such a policy to society?

Probably not a good one. I don't want to see children left to starve.

But that brings us back to the original argument. Why is it unmentionable to suggest that people who have had more than a certain number of children should be required to be sterilized? Is it more awful a prospect than starving kids, or society being burdened with the irresponsible choices that these people make?

[rog]

Why is it unmentionable to suggest that people who have had more than a certain number of children should be required to be sterilized?

I've got to say this is a separate issue again; more akin to population control rather than eugenics, but still deeply unpleasant and authoritarian.

[Pendaric]

Why is it unmentionable to suggest that people who have had more than a certain number of children should be required to be sterilized?

I've got to say this is a separate issue again; more akin to population control rather than eugenics, but still deeply unpleasant and authoritarian.

And in a massively overcrowded world, with population expanded at an uncontrollable rate, perhaps we should take population control more seriously.

Necessary choices are not always pleasant or universally popular.

[munnki]

In current market conditions [based on New York prices] $300 bucks gets you:
8 grams of cocaine
30-40 hits of crack cocaine
100 forty's
15 small bags of heroin
10-15 ounces of marijuana
10 nights in a sleeping bay off Bleeker street
12 low-grade blowjobs

Quite a party for the recently-spayed addict no....

I say this because the only correct response to the sort of people discussed in the OP is withering, bitter and malingering sarcasm and contempt...

Addicts are not the people filling the world with hateful idiots... or, at least, not to half the same degree as nutty Christians with way too much time on their hands and way too much freedom....

After all... addicts only don't wear contraception because they were too high to remember it.... fundies don't have any such f£$king excuse...

[rog]

Why is it unmentionable to suggest that people who have had more than a certain number of children should be required to be sterilized?

I've got to say this is a separate issue again; more akin to population control rather than eugenics, but still deeply unpleasant and authoritarian.

And in a massively overcrowded world, with population expanded at an uncontrollable rate, perhaps we should take population control more seriously.

Necessary choices are not always pleasant or universally popular.

I don't want to be standing by you when you send the armed sterilization task force into Africa or start abducting errant mothers from council estates...

Sorry to paint such a poor picture, but really, this is like something out of a dystopian novel.

[rog]

10-15 ounces of marijuana

where can you get 15oz of weed for $300? - PM me :D

[Pendaric]

Apart from outrage at the suggestion, I'm not really seeing any concrete reasoning as to why people should be allowed to produce massive quantities of children they cannot support.

Rather than just throwing hands up in horror, what actual justification is there to allow people to continue to breed when they have already had several children they cannot support?

Is the right to have a never ending stream of children you cannot pay for really an inalienable human right?

[rog]

Apart from outrage at the suggestion, I'm not really seeing any concrete reasoning as to why people should be allowed to produce massive quantities of children they cannot support.

And this is the operative word - try it, and in a very short space of time, we would see who is no longer is able to reproduce.

Seriously, force can not be the way in this.

[Pendaric]

Apart from outrage at the suggestion, I'm not really seeing any concrete reasoning as to why people should be allowed to produce massive quantities of children they cannot support.

And this is the operative word - try it, and in a very short space of time, we would see who is no longer is able to reproduce.

Seriously, force can not be the way in this.

That's talking about logistics, not principle.

[Pendaric]

The article in the OP talks about a couple of women who have already had several children which have been taken in to care because they cannot adequately look after them. It is pretty much a given that any further children will also be taken in to care.

D'Adria Bond, 36, has no regrets – so far. She had tubal ligation a couple of weeks ago after giving birth to a baby girl, Miracle, in a Virginia drug treatment centre. She's been pregnant 11 times by 10 different men, resulting in one miscarriage, four abortions and six children. The only child she has custody of is Miracle. Bond had been using crack and alcohol since 1996, but got clean in January, when she was four months pregnant. "I was spending anywhere from $400 to $500 a week on drugs, and I was stealing to support my addiction," she says. "I came to this drug treatment programme from jail."

We already make unpleasant, authoritarian choices in response to these situations - we take children away from unfit mothers permanently. Would it really be that much worse an option to prevent these mothers having children in the first place?

If these mothers were sterilized, the only difference to their lives would be that they would not fall pregnant. They are not going to keep the children in any event, and at the moment they are producing a child which has a poor future and is going to be a financial burden on society.

[rog]

Apart from outrage at the suggestion, I'm not really seeing any concrete reasoning as to why people should be allowed to produce massive quantities of children they cannot support.

And this is the operative word - try it, and in a very short space of time, we would see who is no longer is able to reproduce.

Seriously, force can not be the way in this.

That's talking about logistics, not principle.

Without invoking Godwin's law, I would suggest that the the idea that 'we' enlightened few can enforce a view of how many children a woman should have upon then is an abuse by the powerful of the worst kind. IMHO the only answer is education and on the outside fair and generous compensation, incidentally whilst this option might cost a lot more, I bet the long term results would be more satisfactory to everyone concerned.

[rog]

The article in the OP talks about a couple of women who have already had several children which have been taken in to care because they cannot adequately look after them. It is pretty much a given that any further children will also be taken in to care.

D'Adria Bond, 36, has no regrets – so far. She had tubal ligation a couple of weeks ago after giving birth to a baby girl, Miracle, in a Virginia drug treatment centre. She's been pregnant 11 times by 10 different men, resulting in one miscarriage, four abortions and six children. The only child she has custody of is Miracle. Bond had been using crack and alcohol since 1996, but got clean in January, when she was four months pregnant. "I was spending anywhere from $400 to $500 a week on drugs, and I was stealing to support my addiction," she says. "I came to this drug treatment programme from jail."

We already make unpleasant, authoritarian choices in response to these situations - we take children away from unfit mothers permanently. Would it really be that much worse an option to prevent these mothers having children in the first place?

If these mothers were sterilized, the only difference to their lives would be that they would not fall pregnant. They are not going to keep the children in any event, and at the moment they are producing a child which has a poor future and is going to be a financial burden on society.

This is why I suggested a thread split, so as not to confuse the issues.

[Jobar]

I'd have no objection to the population control/eugenics aspect being split to its own thread, but since I'm involved in the discussion I'll leave that decision to one of the other staff.

I've read many of the dystopian sf stories rog mentions. I know how huge a can of worms is opened when we try to decide who judges who's worthy to have children, and how those decisions would be made.

But I'm certain that the alternative to that can of worms is to let human numbers grow until nature itself makes the call; and when (not if) that happens, the people alive then will wish like hell we had chosen practically *any* alternative.

[rog]

But I'm certain that the alternative to that can of worms is to let human numbers grow until nature itself makes the call; and when (not if) that happens, the people alive then will wish like hell we had chosen practically *any* alternative.

we have alternatives now, but they are not 'economical'.

[munnki]

Since we now seem to be discussing this seriously rather than dismissing it with contempt. The state or a given group should not arrogate powers to themselves to chose who has children or not. However, giving people who wish to sterilize themselves money to do it voluntarily is, at least, another matter. But it should be done in a context in which it is a clearly made and thought out choice, in which professional advice is given to the people who have made that choice and in which that same advice is disinterested.

Addicts in recovery are highly vulnerable people and to let a religious or quasi-religious group lead them towards a position rather than neutrally advise them is, to quote some of my more abrupt London friends, 'dodgy as fuck'.

That we collectively should come up with ways in which to limit the population and to limit growth is true but those solutions should be persuasive rather than coercive and should be professional and secular rather than judgmental and clouded in befogging religious horseshit.

Incentives to people who have less children is not an approach that I think should be frowned upon. Unless those people be scientologists in which case the state should rent from them any part of them which permits issue. And recognize that their current agonies would later be replaced by a begrudging gratitude. I'm German to the core when it comes to those nonsense-mongering flesh-puppets.

[rog]

I'm German to the core when it comes to those nonsense-mongering flesh-puppets.

Nietzsche would have been proud of some of the stuff in this thread, I just hope that we are not facing a brave new world with the blinkers left on.

[Pendaric]

This is an interesting read in relation to the topic of population:

http://mwillett.org/Politics/bigprob1.htm

The world has an ongoing crisis in terms of population which is getting worse with every passing day. Facing up to it will mean unpleasant choices which people will object to, but the alternatives are worse.

How many famines does the world want to see before it acts?

The problem of overpopulation can not be tackled by charity concerts to feed the poor and starving. That is a finger in the dyke whilst the waterfall roars overhead.

[rog]

How many famines does the world want to see before it acts?

These famines normally happen in the third world, would you agree that this is where a large portion of the work on population control needs to be done?

[Pendaric]

How many famines does the world want to see before it acts?

These famines normally happen in the third world, would you agree that this is where a large portion of the work on population control needs to be done?

Absolutely.

However, the issues are somewhat different there. In the third world, having a large family can be a survival strategy. There is a higher infant mortality rate, and there is a need on a personal level to have offspring to help provide for yourself in old age.

The issues are not the same as those facing people in westernised countries with adequate healthcare, low infant mortality rates and some form of welfare for old age, and the solutions are not going to necessarily be entirely the same.

[rog]

However, the issues are somewhat different there. In the third world, having a large family can be a survival strategy. There is a higher infant mortality rate, and there is a need on a personal level to have offspring to help provide for yourself in old age.


I think that any global policy should address this in a sympathetic way, but It would be expensive.


The issues are not the same as those facing people in westernised countries with adequate healthcare, low infant mortality rates and some form of welfare for old age, and the solutions are not going to necessarily be entirely the same.

are we talking about poor people in the western world here?

[munnki]

The old solution was to drum up a phony war which pitted the peasants of the various nations against each other. World War 1 was a good example of this... It got rid of a substantial number of proles who collectively enthused about the effort and eagerly swallowed the notion that they should care about the assassination of an archduke from a country they had to have pointed-out to them on a map which compelled them to then be shot in lines having emerged from self-dug pits.

The modern approach of simply keeping proles in developing countries poor has disastrously backfired as the buggers seem to have greater and greater numbers of children when kept in such a situation. Permitting religions which encourage such behavior by combining them with local secular nationalism on account of imperial plundering and occupation hasn't turned out to be such a good solution after all.

However I see no reason why the proposal put forward by Swift in the age of enlightenment outlining a solution to the Irish problem could not be applied to, say, Africa as a test case and then moved on to the other 'backward' continents...


I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child, well nursed, is at a year old, a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout.


Sarcasm aside, our current population growth is clearly, at least in part, a result of unbalanced and uneven distribution of resources. We, however, being on the winning team don't seem to experience any non-token methods of solving this problem... they have always seemed too much like shooting ourselves in the foot.

[The German gag above was based on their banning of Scientology as a cult and not on their 30s-40s mad ravings... although it must seem implied...]

[rog]

You're just a disciple of Goldstein aren't you munnki?

[Free in Freeport]

The alternative is removing the children from the homes on the basis of negligence, and going after the fathers to pay child support - and sterilizing THEM!

Hint: women don't get themselves pregnant!

[Pendaric]

The alternative is removing the children from the homes on the basis of negligence, and going after the fathers to pay child support - and sterilizing THEM!

Hint: women don't get themselves pregnant!

No arguments here. But it doesn't need to be an alternative - it should be about irresponsible reproduction by either sex.

[nygreenguy]

Apart from outrage at the suggestion, I'm not really seeing any concrete reasoning as to why people should be allowed to produce massive quantities of children they cannot support.

Rather than just throwing hands up in horror, what actual justification is there to allow people to continue to breed when they have already had several children they cannot support?

Is the right to have a never ending stream of children you cannot pay for really an inalienable human right?


Because we believe it to be a fundamental right that the individual make all decisions regarding reproduction.

[Jobar]

I'm pretty sure if we could reduce the world population to a billion or so, and keep it there, we could then solve the economic and ecological problems we face.

I'm also pretty sure that if we don't, we aren't going to solve those other long-term problems, no matter what we do.

[rog]

I'm pretty sure if we could reduce the world population to a billion or so, and keep it there, we could then solve the economic and ecological problems we face.

I'm also pretty sure that if we don't, we aren't going to solve those other long-term problems, no matter what we do.

Could you put a value on that in monetary terms?

on the BBC today it said the US is demanding $20Bn from BP to be put into an escrow account to pay for the clean up of the oil spill, they may be a principle here.... From a humanitarian point of view if we want people to make sacrifices for us, should we not be willing to reciprocate in kind?

[Jobar]

Apart from outrage at the suggestion, I'm not really seeing any concrete reasoning as to why people should be allowed to produce massive quantities of children they cannot support.

Rather than just throwing hands up in horror, what actual justification is there to allow people to continue to breed when they have already had several children they cannot support?

Is the right to have a never ending stream of children you cannot pay for really an inalienable human right?


Because we believe it to be a fundamental right that the individual make all decisions regarding reproduction.

If all individuals were responsible and reasonable about exercising that "right", we wouldn't be in the position we are now. We're *already* past the long-term carrying capacity for the number of humans on Earth; and there are nations today where that bloody-handed old bitch Mother Nature is taking away that "right" from all but the luckiest or wealthiest.

[rog]

If all individuals were responsible and reasonable about exercising that "right", we wouldn't be in the position we are now. We're *already* past the long-term carrying capacity for the number of humans on Earth; and there are nations today where that bloody-handed old bitch Mother Nature is taking away that "right" from all but the luckiest or wealthiest.

But if this is only happening in the third world, why not leave them to it?

[Jobar]

Could you put a value on that in monetary terms?

on the BBC today it said the US is demanding $20Bn from BP to be put into an escrow account to pay for the clean up of the oil spill, they may be a principle here.... From a humanitarian point of view if we want people to make sacrifices for us, should we not be willing to reciprocate in kind?

I don't know how to evaluate that in terms of money- but I *have* refrained from reproducing, myself, so I suppose you could say I've already made the sacrifice I'd ask others to make.

[Jobar]

If all individuals were responsible and reasonable about exercising that "right", we wouldn't be in the position we are now. We're *already* past the long-term carrying capacity for the number of humans on Earth; and there are nations today where that bloody-handed old bitch Mother Nature is taking away that "right" from all but the luckiest or wealthiest.

But if this is only happening in the third world, why not leave them to it?

Do you think that's possible? I don't.

[rog]

I don't know how to evaluate that in terms of money

But should it be something that is accounted for, in a sense don't we owe these people something?

[rog]

If all individuals were responsible and reasonable about exercising that "right", we wouldn't be in the position we are now. We're *already* past the long-term carrying capacity for the number of humans on Earth; and there are nations today where that bloody-handed old bitch Mother Nature is taking away that "right" from all but the luckiest or wealthiest.

But if this is only happening in the third world, why not leave them to it?

Do you think that's possible? I don't.

Is our survival dependant on their actions?

Also, how do you think that groups of people will respond if you tell them that there are too many of them and that you intend to forcibly reduce their numbers? I'd suggest - not well.

[Jobar]

I don't know how to evaluate that in terms of money

But should it be something that is accounted for, in a sense don't we owe these people something?

Do we? Why?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

[rog]

I don't know how to evaluate that in terms of money

But should it be something that is accounted for, in a sense don't we owe these people something?

Do we? Why?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

If we are talking about slicing the population cake up fairly, I imagine that people will ask who deserves what and why.

[Jobar]

Is our survival dependant on their actions?

Also, how do you think that groups of people will respond if you tell them that there are too many of them and that you intend to forcibly reduce their numbers? I'd suggest - not well.

In the long term, I think we're all in the same boat; if any nation or faction allows reproduction past the carrying capacity of their own region, the consequences will rebound on everyone. Consider just the refugee problem; even if other nations decide to seal the borders of a nation which allows its population to grow unchecked, the expense of doing that will affect everyone else eventually. Not to mention the multiple sorts of economic/ecological damage done to the region with unrestrained population growth- and the awful human cost.

If we allow any group to attempt to multiply without restriction- internal or external- down the road, everyone suffers.

[rog]

if any nation or faction allows reproduction past the carrying capacity of their own region, the consequences will rebound on everyone.


and at that point someone should step in?

[Jobar]

If we are talking about slicing the population cake up fairly, I imagine that people will ask who deserves what and why.

No argument. As I said, I've read many tales of overpopulated worlds; Brunner's The Sheep Look Up, Harrison's Make Room! Make Room!, Max Ehrlich's The Edict, Niven's tales of Known Space with its incredibly crowded Earth- many others. I know there's no easy way to tell people they can't respond to one of the most basic biological imperatives.

I'm only saying that if we *do not* do this, our civilizations will crash, and we may even become extinct.

[Jobar]

if any nation or faction allows reproduction past the carrying capacity of their own region, the consequences will rebound on everyone.


and at that point someone should step in?

Yes. And your next question is, of course, who bells that cat? And I freely admit I have no definitely workable answer.

[rog]

I'm only saying that if we *do not* do this, our civilizations will crash, and we may even become extinct.

If one were planning to avert this, what would be the desired population reduction and in what time-scale?

[rog]

if any nation or faction allows reproduction past the carrying capacity of their own region, the consequences will rebound on everyone.


and at that point someone should step in?

Yes. And your next question is, of course, who bells that cat? And I freely admit I have no definitely workable answer.

Without force we only have gentle persuasion.

[Jobar]

Understand, I'm not ruling out force. I would prefer some alternative, but better that than some of the possible consequences of unchecked population growth. To put it bluntly, if it comes down to genocide or extinction, I hope I'd have the courage to choose the first- even if it was my people who were wiped out.

[rog]

Understand, I'm not ruling out force. I would prefer some alternative, but better that than some of the possible consequences of unchecked population growth. To put it bluntly, if it comes down to genocide or extinction, I hope I'd have the courage to choose the first- even if it was my people who were wiped out.

But you are not planning on starting with your own people ;)

If you are not ruling out force, would it not be in the interests of the people who would be affected to use force against you if they felt it best served them?

[Jobar]

A cancer always fights back against the immune system, of course. (And yes, deciding which side is the cancer and which isn't is no easy question, in this instance.)

[Jobar]

I'm only saying that if we *do not* do this, our civilizations will crash, and we may even become extinct.

If one were planning to avert this, what would be the desired population reduction and in what time-scale?

The thumbnail guesstimate I've seen made- in Scientific American, if memory serves- is a population of a billion within five hundred years or less. But that could be wrong either way- we might need to reduce population faster and smaller, or we might sustain more, with a slower drop. It would take a great deal of research to be sure.

[Octavia]

Apart from outrage at the suggestion, I'm not really seeing any concrete reasoning as to why people should be allowed to produce massive quantities of children they cannot support.

Rather than just throwing hands up in horror, what actual justification is there to allow people to continue to breed when they have already had several children they cannot support?

Is the right to have a never ending stream of children you cannot pay for really an inalienable human right?

The flip side to the "right to have children" (if indeed it is a right, and I'm not sure that it is) is what happens to people who want children but can't have them.

If people do have the right to have children, and the state bears at least partial responsibility for enforcing that right, is the state then required to provide free IVF treatment, for example? Even if the people who want the IVF already have children, or if they're unfit parents, or if the community is severely overpopulated, or if the health system is straining at the seams with more urgent cases?

I realise I'm heading off-topic here, but the question of the right to reproduce is a very, very broad one. It's more than "should this group of people whom we perceive to be unfit be allowed to reproduce?" The above is only one such possible alternate ramification.

[columbus]

I think Mrs. Harris is a hero.

She saw a huge problem and she launched into improving things. She hasn't forced anybody into anything, it was all done by persuasion. Everybody involved freely chose everything for themselves. If she actually gets her program expanded to Haiti I will start donating myself. (if it is really what it seems, I'm very skeptical about NGOs and would have to find out more about what actually happens to the money before I will give any)

The ugliness of children born with drug addictions or fetal alcohol syndrome is too nasty too overlook, but that seems to be quite common here. Mrs. Harris has saved many thousands of children from that horrible fate. Kudos to her, and her family for helping.

Despite the obvious bias of Ms Kleeman, the author of the article, she never managed to demonstrate anything like "forced sterilization". The decisions were entirely in the hands of the woman and her physician. Somehow, this is found "icky". I do not understand why this is more icky than conceiving a child with serious damage caused by substance abuse. The suffering and human expense caused by drug addled mothers gestating drug addled children is huge. Mrs. Harris is ameliorating this problem in the best way that I have ever heard of. Nobody is being forced into anything, but she is effective. My hat is off to her!

Tom

[Free in Freeport]

I think Mrs. Harris is a hero.

She saw a huge problem and she launched into improving things. She hasn't forced anybody into anything, it was all done by persuasion. Everybody involved freely chose everything for themselves. If she actually gets her program expanded to Haiti I will start donating myself. (if it is really what it seems, I'm very skeptical about NGOs and would have to find out more about what actually happens to the money before I will give any)

The ugliness of children born with drug addictions or fetal alcohol syndrome is too nasty too overlook, but that seems to be quite common here. Mrs. Harris has saved many thousands of children from that horrible fate. Kudos to her, and her family for helping.

Despite the obvious bias of Ms Kleeman, the author of the article, she never managed to demonstrate anything like "forced sterilization". The decisions were entirely in the hands of the woman and her physician. Somehow, this is found "icky". I do not understand why this is more icky than conceiving a child with serious damage caused by substance abuse. The suffering and human expense caused by drug addled mothers gestating drug addled children is huge. Mrs. Harris is ameliorating this problem in the best way that I have ever heard of. Nobody is being forced into anything, but she is effective. My hat is off to her!

Tom

We're in complete agreement that something must be done to prevent pregnant women from using teratogenic substances, and about the birth control aspect here, so focusing only on bribing users to get sterilized:

I have two major problems with this. The first is that she is operating on the premise "once an addict, always an addict". I strongly dispute this adage. My field is related to mental health, and I am a former friend of Bill W's. As such, I overcame substance abuse, and witnessed literally hundreds of others succeed, whose problems were far more severe than my own. I could well have been one of her "targets" for intervention, had our lives crossed. As could have many other friends and acquaintances, who, after overcoming, became wonderful parents of perfectly normal children.

The second issue is that of freely giving informed consent. I maintain that a person with a serious addiction is not capable of doing this. At least, not while they are in or approaching withdrawal. Addiction screws up the mind to the extent that seeking a fix is more important than anything else at that particular point in time. You could term it 'temporary insanity'. The same person could thoughtfully weigh out the pro's and con's and future implications if they were not addicted, but cannot due to the addiction. It sounds to me like that woman is preying on addicts at their weakest moment.

Think for a moment, what would you be willing to do for $300. I'm guessing there are a lot of things, but subjecting yourself to elective and often irreversible surgery, (for which there is ALWAYS some risk of complications) is nowhere on the list. I'm guessing most competent, stable adults would feel the same. But an addict in need of a fix will do damn near anything.

[munnki]

The second issue is that of freely giving informed consent. I maintain that a person with a serious addiction is not capable of doing this. At least, not while they are in or approaching withdrawal. Addiction screws up the mind to the extent that seeking a fix is more important than anything else at that particular point in time. You could term it 'temporary insanity'. The same person could thoughtfully weigh out the pro's and con's and future implications if they were not addicted, but cannot due to the addiction. It sounds to me like that woman is preying on addicts at their weakest moment.



^This, and strongly so... hence my above sarcastic remarks. Addicts in recovery are exceptionally vulnerable people - financially, psychologically and emotionally. Any notion of consent on behalf of people going through recovery is dubious at best....

[rog]

I bet on the right day you could persuade a crack addict to chop their little finger off for a few hundreds of dollars, it wouldn't be a 'free' choice though.

[halii]

I bet on the right day you could persuade a crack addict to chop their little finger off for a few hundreds of dollars, it wouldn't be a 'free' choice though.

that is the problem with it. is it really voluntary at that point? maybe if they had some type of independent evaluation to make sure the person was in the proper state of mind to make that decision it would be easier to stomach.

[Free in Freeport]

Exactly, Halii.

[Goldie]

That is my complaint about it.

[Bane]

Same here.

I'm waiting for someone to Godwin this thread...

[Jobar]

If Hitler had been an addict and someone had offered him $300 not to invade Poland...
;)

Seriously, I think this is one of those situations where we have to choose the lesser of two evils. And IMO the obvious harm to innocent children born to those unable to care for them, is a greater evil than is the 'coercion' of drug or alcohol addicts to prevent them from having children.

[Febble]

I agree with the sentiment and as I say encouraging contraception would be fine with me, but I find the idea of targeted sterilisation of the vulnerable abhorrent, it might seem like a quick and easy solution to a real problem, but it denigrates these people as humans.



#1 They should not offer payment, only to pay FOR sterilization.
#2 They should offer to pay for long term birth control such as an IUD, shots, implants etc.
#3 They should offer all types of birth control for free.


People can and do change. Not every addict is a lifelong addict.

Many of the children that I worked with in Juvenile Detention were victims of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. I think that, alone, speaks volumes.
Still, I don't like the idea of taking advantage of a person at their weakest moment. They should not pay them.
If they choose surgery, they should offer them a safe comfortable place to recover.

Well said, Goldie :)

[Matty]

I'm all for the birth control part. Sterilization? That's taking gross advantage of an addict's weakness! I agree addicts shouldn't procreate while actively using, but many can recover.
The whole issue of informed voluntary consent comes into question. When someone is jonesing for a fix, they'll do damn near anything for $300.

this word for word.

i think the underlying idea is sound, the world does NOT need more crack or heroin addicted babies, but the method of lessening that is utterly sucky and designed to take advantage of people in a weakened state. Its basically saying that if you are an addict NOW, you can never be a good parent, and that's patently bollocks.

if it were a temporary measure, such as take this pill and you are sterile for the next 12 months, i wouldnt have an issue, but sterilization? Start on the fucking fundies.

[darjeeling]

Think for a moment, what would you be willing to do for $300. I'm guessing there are a lot of things, but subjecting yourself to elective and often irreversible surgery, (for which there is ALWAYS some risk of complications) is nowhere on the list. I'm guessing most competent, stable adults would feel the same. But an addict in need of a fix will do damn near anything.

Does she pay for further medical treatment if there are complications?

If a woman had a tubal ligation, but the Fallopian tubes regrew and reconnected after a few years, and she ended up with an ectopic pregnancy, would this Harris lady be knocking on her door, offering to pay for treatment?

She says: "Everybody talks about the right of the woman – what about the rights of the children?"

Gee, where the fuck have we heard that one before?

Her attitude is pretty disturbing:
She tells me about one occasion when she "went after" a Detroit woman she'd read about in the paper. Her 13th baby had just been taken off life support and she was refusing sterilisation because she wanted more children. "I said, no, she's not going to have any more kids, not if I've got anything to do with it. I called Detroit and asked my volunteers to find her. They offered her $500 to get tubal ligation. The day she had it, I celebrated."

[rog]

From her myspace page
http://www.myspace.com/blessedbarbara
she is on twitter as well: http://twitter.com/BlessedBarbara

WELCOME, I'm so happy you dropped by. My name is Barbara or you can call me "MOM"! I have 3 grown sons ages 27, 28, and 37 (you can find them on my friends list) and 4 teens still at home GOD HELP ME!!I also have 5 grandchildren ages 2 years to 17. My kids are my life and I cannot imagine life without them. We are so Blessed to have such good children. They won't keep their bedrooms clean, but compared to the problems we could have with them I'LL TAKE MESSY ROOMS!!! Ha Ha!! My husband and I have been Foster Parents off and on for 17 years we adopted our 4 youngest children who are siblings when we lived in CA. I was born in Lancaster PA a very long time ago and have lived in Las Vegas, Ohio, Florida, California,and Colo.! The State I can honestly say I love the most is where I'm currently living which is North Carolina. I love the beauty, nature,4 seasons,lakes, wonderful God loving people, polite children (I've never been called ma'am in my life by children anywhere else), the fact that our son's at age 22 and 25 could actually afford to buy their first homes, you don't spend hours on our highways trying to get somewhere, our teens attend brand new beautiful schools, and the fact that where most Cities have a liquor store on every block NC has a Church! I guess you can tell how much I love NC can't you? God truly Blessed our family when we moved here. I really do not care what people say or think about me because I like the person I am, I love myself for who I am, and I'm pretty sure when I stand before God that he'll like the person that I was! I'm guessing one of the questions God will ask me is, "Did I leave the World a better place?" My answer will be, "Yes dear God, I did as you would have done and watched over your children." GOD IS GOOD.............. I've angered many people in my lifetime by speaking my mind, but it's who I am! I figure the ones who truly love me will overlook that small part of who I am and continue to love me and the ones who don't never loved me anyway so I'm at peace with that. I cannot imagine living my life never having angered anyone! I am the Director/Founder of a nonprofit organization called Project Prevention. The organization offers drug addicts/alcoholics cash incentives to use longterm birth control.* We are truly making a difference visit our website to learn more. www.ProjectPrevention.org Thank you for visiting my Myspace page I look forward to getting to know you better.... May God Bless us all in 2010



Always nice to know that you have god's fullest support in your endeavours.

* very long term....

[Octavia]

Her attitude is pretty disturbing:
She tells me about one occasion when she "went after" a Detroit woman she'd read about in the paper. Her 13th baby had just been taken off life support and she was refusing sterilisation because she wanted more children. "I said, no, she's not going to have any more kids, not if I've got anything to do with it. I called Detroit and asked my volunteers to find her. They offered her $500 to get tubal ligation. The day she had it, I celebrated."

I'd say that the Detroit woman's attitude is more disturbing, but they're both pinging my creepiness radar.

[Matty]

if there is one thing worse or scarier than a smack addicted mother, its some religiously inspired, moral crusader twat, who thinks he or she have the objective handle on right and wrong.

[Bane]

if there is one thing worse or scarier than a smack addicted mother, its some religiously inspired, moral crusader twat, who thinks he or she have the objective handle on right and wrong.

I agree.

Nobody has an objective handle on right and wrong. It's not too steep a slippery slope to say that deciding that one group shouldn't breed is likely to result in so-called "ethnic cleansing"....

[rog]

Would it have been a more or less outrageous suggestion if this woman has offered to pay for abortions rather than sterilization? If the aim is to reduce the number of babies born to drug addicts then 'one the way' is at least as much of an issue as what might be in the future; of course paying drug addicts to have abortions would probably encourage a market....

eta: did I just invent farming poor people for stem cells?

[Free in Freeport]

*involuntary shudder followed by queasy feeling at Rog's suggestion*

[Octavia]

We're an overpopulated world; I've got no problem with offering incentives for sterilisation. Provided the person being sterilised is in their right mind when they sign up.

[LoneWolf]

We're an overpopulated world; I've got no problem with offering incentives for sterilisation. Provided the person being sterilised is in their right mind when they sign up.

This. Nothing should be forced. But given population problems I think birth control and sterilisation should be free and easy to access.

[rog]

We're an overpopulated world; I've got no problem with offering incentives for sterilisation. Provided the person being sterilised is in their right mind when they sign up.

It would be interesting to work out a fair price for this.

eta: I am reminded of this exchange -

Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?”

Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…”

Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”

Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!”

Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”

[columbus]

I bet on the right day you could persuade a crack addict to chop their little finger off for a few hundreds of dollars, it wouldn't be a 'free' choice though.

that is the problem with it. is it really voluntary at that point? maybe if they had some type of independent evaluation to make sure the person was in the proper state of mind to make that decision it would be easier to stomach.

I am amazed at how quickly and thoroughly folks like FiF, Rog, and Halii will argue against a "woman's right to reproductive freedom of choice" when said woman isn't choosing what they think she should choose.:bang:



What a bunch of hypocrites.

Tom

[Rie]

Just thought I'd add this little inconsequential titbit. What about the many people addicted and I do mean addicted in it's fullest sense as in 'can't live without it' or 'I get the shakes if I don't have it' or 'nobody told me that it was addictive' to the little yellow mean pill called Valium (of the group called diazepams)?

It has no cult folowing or 'romance' to it. You don't shoot up Valium. You just have it about the house , in case?

[Free in Freeport]

I bet on the right day you could persuade a crack addict to chop their little finger off for a few hundreds of dollars, it wouldn't be a 'free' choice though.

that is the problem with it. is it really voluntary at that point? maybe if they had some type of independent evaluation to make sure the person was in the proper state of mind to make that decision it would be easier to stomach.

I am amazed at how quickly and thoroughly folks like FiF, Rog, and Halii will argue against a "woman's right to reproductive freedom of choice" when said woman isn't choosing what they think she should choose.:bang:



What a bunch of hypocrites.

Tom

Please elaborate, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I support women's right to choose whether or not to reproduce. If they choose to reproduce, they are obligated (in my opinion) to refrain from behaviors which are likely to harm the baby. They should be stopped from doing so, but not from having future children.

[Schneibster]

If it were up to me we'd offer everyone sterilization for free. I'd contribute to that. I'm slightly hesitant to offer to pay people to get sterilized, but if you think about it it's eliminating the people who will do it on impulse, who by definition aren't very well qualified to have kids, from the gene pool. You have to consider the evolutionary aspects, no matter how icky it might seem. OTOH, I'd be a LOT more comfortable paying for tubal ligations than for hysterectomies or orchidectomies.

[Free in Freeport]

Impulsive tendencies must have some survival value, or they wouldn't be so pervasive. A world of sheep won't advance very far beyond the meadow.

[rog]

I am amazed at how quickly and thoroughly folks like FiF, Rog, and Halii will argue against a "woman's right to reproductive freedom of choice" when said woman isn't choosing what they think she should choose.:bang:


I didn't say it's the necessarily wrong choice, it would be hard to judge on anything other that an individual basis; what I am against this this woman forwarding a highly dubious agenda whilst taking advantage of the vulnerable.

[Free in Freeport]

I also support a woman's right to choose sterilization, provided the choice is freely made without pressure. Someone with a monkey on their back is under a hell of a lot of pressure, even without someone waving a magic money wand under their nose.

[columbus]

I bet on the right day you could persuade a crack addict to chop their little finger off for a few hundreds of dollars, it wouldn't be a 'free' choice though.

that is the problem with it. is it really voluntary at that point? maybe if they had some type of independent evaluation to make sure the person was in the proper state of mind to make that decision it would be easier to stomach.

I am amazed at how quickly and thoroughly folks like FiF, Rog, and Halii will argue against a "woman's right to reproductive freedom of choice" when said woman isn't choosing what they think she should choose.:bang:



What a bunch of hypocrites.

Tom

Please elaborate, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. What I mean is that on most threads you staunchly support a woman's right to make any choice she wants concerning her reproduction. But not on this thread.
I support women's right to choose whether or not to reproduce. Not on this thread you haven't. Mrs. Harris is offering people a choice whether or not to reproduce. A tiny number have taken her up on the offer. A slightly larger number have taken her up on the choice for long term, but not permanent, birth control. You seem to think that women exercizing this choice is a bad thing.


If they choose to reproduce, they are obligated (in my opinion) to refrain from behaviors which are likely to harm the baby. Please elaborate. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "they are obligated to refrain from behaviours which are likely to cause harm to the baby." Addicts don't "refrain from behaviour" when it comes to drugs. That is sorta the definition of addict.

What makes you think that an addict is going to become a responsible parent when she's knocked up, when she isn't a responsible person to start with?

They should be stopped from doing so, but not from having future children. What gives you the right to decide this for somebody else? Who are you to decide that somebody else should be fertile in the future if they don't want that?

Being sterile doesn't mean you can't have a family. You could do what Mrs. Harris did, and adopt a boatload of kids. She went way above and beyond, adopting children with drug problems at birth.

Mrs. Harris is a hero.

Tom

[columbus]

I am amazed at how quickly and thoroughly folks like FiF, Rog, and Halii will argue against a "woman's right to reproductive freedom of choice" when said woman isn't choosing what they think she should choose.:bang:


I didn't say it's the necessarily wrong choice, it would be hard to judge on anything other that an individual basis; what I am against this this woman forwarding a highly dubious agenda whilst taking advantage of the vulnerable.

What is dubious about preventing crack babies, fetal alcohol syndrome, or any of the other horrific damage done to fetal humans by drug addicted mothers?

I don't see what is hard to judge about this. People are being given the option NOT to horribly abuse their children, and Mrs. Harris is sweetening the pot in a way that addicts understand.

The truly vulnerable people here are the humans conceived by addicted mothers. The damage done by fetal exposure to heroin or alcohol or cocaine or meth or AIDS is gigantic, and the child can never completely overcome the abuse. But the damage done to these vulnerable people doesn't seem to get factored in to your moral equation. That sucks.

Tom

[Free in Freeport]

What I mean is that on most threads you staunchly support a woman's right to make any choice she wants concerning her reproduction. But not on this thread.
I support women's right to choose whether or not to reproduce. Not on this thread you haven't. Mrs. Harris is offering people a choice whether or not to reproduce. A tiny number have taken her up on the offer. A slightly larger number have taken her up on the choice for long term, but not permanent, birth control. You seem to think that women exercizing this choice is a bad thing.


No. I said from the start that I fully support her efforts with regards to birth control. I also said I was in full agreement with you on that point. Maybe if you actually read my posts in full, instead of just looking for points to skewer me on, we wouldn't have these constant misunderstandings. The only thing I object to is her bribing addicts to get sterilized.

If they choose to reproduce, they are obligated (in my opinion) to refrain from behaviors which are likely to harm the baby. Please elaborate. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "they are obligated to refrain from behaviours which are likely to cause harm to the baby." Addicts don't "refrain from behaviour" when it comes to drugs. That is sorta the definition of addict.

What makes you think that an addict is going to become a responsible parent when she's knocked up, when she isn't a responsible person to start with?

I mean that every pregnant woman owes it to her child to refrain from using drugs or alcohol. By force (mandatory detox) if necessary. I also believe, and stated, that addicts can and do recover. I am an example of such a success. I shared that as well. 25 years ago, I was totally unfit for pregnancy or motherhood. Over a period of two years, I dealt with my problems, becoming sober, drug-free and mostly sane. A year later, I became a very responsible parent. People can and do change. The possibility of future responsible parenthood should not be denied to persons because they are unfit at a single point in time of their lives.

They should be stopped from doing so, but not from having future children. What gives you the right to decide this for somebody else? Who are you to decide that somebody else should be fertile in the future if they don't want that?

I have no problem with their making this choice, without the temptation of money or the pressure of withdrawal influencing them. Those factors preclude free choice, in my opinion.

Being sterile doesn't mean you can't have a family. You could do what Mrs. Harris did, and adopt a boatload of kids. She went way above and beyond, adopting children with drug problems at birth.

Mrs. Harris is a hero.

Tom[/QUOTE]

and I have devoted my life to helping disabled and disturbed children. Please stop beating your head against the wall. You're only hurting yourself.

[His Noodly Appendage]

I think there'd be a whole lot less objection if the women were offered free sterilization but no actual cash, thus avoiding charges of economic coercion/exploitation.

[Eudaimonist]

Is this a eugenics project?


eudaimonia,

Mark

[His Noodly Appendage]

I don't see how. It's not filtering by genes, but by social situation.

[Goldie]

I think there'd be a whole lot less objection if the women were offered free sterilization but no actual cash, thus avoiding charges of economic coercion/exploitation.

This is what I said earlier...but with more words. ;)

[Schneibster]

Is this a eugenics project?


eudaimonia,

MarkIs drug addiction?

[Yahzi]

You have to consider the evolutionary aspects,
Exactly!

We only want the kind of people who get sterilized for $400 or more in our society.

:D

[Rie]

I smell a little 'god' speak in all this! I don't like it at all. Walk a mile in an addict's shoes and then pontificate I say. Eugenics my eye! Pompous is more to the verbal point.:noid: