Drug addicts "paid" to be sterilised?

[Blue_bumpkin]

I'm not insinuating anything.. I'm saying it directly. You believe the women should be sterilized which means you believe it would be better for the children to never be born than for them to be born addicted. I dont understand how there is any discrepancy here.

Also-Are you refering to the 2 weeks of withdrawal they experienced after they were born? Because the kids couldnt possibly remember that.. I am confused. Also I highly doubt they would take the same stance once they are adults and actually know what they are talking about. Once they've lived, loved, experienced all the pain and joy that is life.

If it is better for a child to be born addicted (and most likely with other major health problems) than not to exist in the first place, does that mean it is wrong for people to prevent pregnancy, (through contraception, for example) because they don't want a child, can't afford more etc etc?

I'm talking preventing the pregnancy in the first place, not stopping it once it's started, which I'm aware is a whole other bag of worms.

All I'm saying is that saying its for the unborn childrens sake or their rights doesn't make any sense, because its not for their sake. Thats the only point I was trying to make.

That's only your opinion. But the founder states that it was for their sake the project was set up.

 

[Blah11]

omg i just wrote a huge reply and it didnt work ...

Basically whilst i dont agree with drug addicts having children I find it terribly unethical to bribe people in a very vunerable state to get sterilised. They wont be thinking 'what if i get clean in 5 years time' all they care about is their next fix.

Horrible.

 

[PeanutBean]

I hate it when that happens Blah! It's always on a massive post well thought out and considered I find! Usually on my stupid phone as well so extra difficult to re-do!

 

[Justagirlxx]

I'm not insinuating anything.. I'm saying it directly. You believe the women should be sterilized which means you believe it would be better for the children to never be born than for them to be born addicted. I dont understand how there is any discrepancy here.

Also-Are you refering to the 2 weeks of withdrawal they experienced after they were born? Because the kids couldnt possibly remember that.. I am confused. Also I highly doubt they would take the same stance once they are adults and actually know what they are talking about. Once they've lived, loved, experienced all the pain and joy that is life.

If it is better for a child to be born addicted (and most likely with other major health problems) than not to exist in the first place, does that mean it is wrong for people to prevent pregnancy, (through contraception, for example) because they don't want a child, can't afford more etc etc?

I'm talking preventing the pregnancy in the first place, not stopping it once it's started, which I'm aware is a whole other bag of worms.

All I'm saying is that saying its for the unborn childrens sake or their rights doesn't make any sense, because its not for their sake. Thats the only point I was trying to make.

That's only your opinion. But the founder states that it was for their sake the project was set up.

Ok dear, you win. Its for the unborn childrens sake! Now they will never be born at all! Atleast they wont have to experience withdrawal because they wont experience anything at all!


This is just a ridiculous tangent that has gone on too far. I think we should get back to the actual ethics of sterilising people who could be considered mentally incompetent.

 

[aliss]

Oh that's frightening.

A lot of these drug-addicted women will give a man oral sex for $10 because they are so desperate for a fix. Did you girls know that is the going rate for oral nowadays on the street? I can only imagine how they would jump at the chance for (is that around $350-400???).

Are they going to offer it to alcoholics too to prevent FAS?

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

I'm not insinuating anything.. I'm saying it directly. You believe the women should be sterilized which means you believe it would be better for the children to never be born than for them to be born addicted. I dont understand how there is any discrepancy here.

Also-Are you refering to the 2 weeks of withdrawal they experienced after they were born? Because the kids couldnt possibly remember that.. I am confused. Also I highly doubt they would take the same stance once they are adults and actually know what they are talking about. Once they've lived, loved, experienced all the pain and joy that is life.

If it is better for a child to be born addicted (and most likely with other major health problems) than not to exist in the first place, does that mean it is wrong for people to prevent pregnancy, (through contraception, for example) because they don't want a child, can't afford more etc etc?

I'm talking preventing the pregnancy in the first place, not stopping it once it's started, which I'm aware is a whole other bag of worms.

All I'm saying is that saying its for the unborn childrens sake or their rights doesn't make any sense, because its not for their sake. Thats the only point I was trying to make.

That's only your opinion. But the founder states that it was for their sake the project was set up.

Ok dear, you win. Its for the unborn childrens sake! Now they will never be born at all! Atleast they wont have to experience withdrawal because they wont experience anything at all!


This is just a ridiculous tangent that has gone on too far. I think we should get back to the actual ethics of sterilising people who could be considered mentally incompetent.

Clearly you have nothing more constructive to add or you wouldn't be resorting to patronising remarks like that.

This isnt a tangent - the topic being debated was Project Prevention - which contrary to what you're implying does not merely involve 'sterilising people who could be considered mentally incompetent' - and thats the point im trying to make.

And the reasons to why the project was set up aren't my opinion - they are the reasons that the lady who set it up gave. If you disagree you disagree, there is no need to be rude and insulting.

As for the bit bolded - if thats the case well then i best bin all my contaceptives because even though i have depression, anxiety, live in a crowded house and simply cant afford another baby at least my unconceived child will get to experience some things as opposed to never being born .

I am going to attempt to stay clear of this debate now. i have said my peace and quite frankly i cba explaining myself over and over for my words to be twisted.

 

[aliss]

JMO but I think sterilization is the wrong route. I know there would be tons of issues for it, but what about the concept of a drug addicted or alcoholic pregnant woman being considered a danger to herself or others {child} being committed for the term of pregnancy? Issue with that is that an embryo/fetus is not technically considered a person (at least here in Canada).

No real good answer to these ones eh?

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

JMO but I think sterilization is the wrong route. I know there would be tons of issues for it, but what about the concept of a drug addicted or alcoholic pregnant woman being considered a danger to herself or others {child} being committed for the term of pregnancy? Issue with that is that an embryo/fetus is not technically considered a person (at least here in Canada).

No real good answer to these ones eh?

What would you think about long term contraception then? is that a better option?

 

[Dragonfly]

Sad instead of helping one another went out the window in favour or wiping out reproductive organs (of whatever method they use for this) and giving a bottle of gin or some heroin for afters (in the form of money). Course because I dont agree dosnt mean I want pregnant drug users about and more children to be born with disabilities but thats not the alternative here, HELPING with that money for rehab would be more useful. Or is it cheaper to neuter someone like a dog than help them get a life back on track.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

Sad instead of helping one another went out the window in favour or wiping out reproductive organs (of whatever method they use for this) and giving a bottle of gin or some heroin for afters (in the form of money). Course because I dont agree dosnt mean I want pregnant drug users about and more children to be born with disabilities but thats not the alternative here, HELPING with that money for rehab would be more useful. Or is it cheaper to neuter someone like a dog than help them get a life back on track.

They do provide help though. Like offering rehab, counselling etc... As a last resort, sterilsation may be a better option though for someone who has had repeated pregnancies etc as an immediate preventative? Whose to say the addict has not just genuinely came to a decision that it is best for them themselves? Addicts still have minds of their own. They may not be entirely mentally stable but neither is someone with depression - but I mean I like to think I can still think for myself?

Would long term contraception not be better then, and rehab/help while they are on the contraception?

I guess Im in favor largely because with counselling, rehab and free contraceptives all already available - things like this are still happening. Its like a last resort almost..

 

[Dragonfly]

I didnt know the rest was available though. I mean its up to the addict of course and I hope they would be in mind to make that decision carefully as its something that will effect the rest of their life. long term contraceptive is what? like the pill ? that would be better i think along with help. Suppose i havnt been around this to much though. I can now understand in repeat people who get pregnant why this has been suggested.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

I didnt know the rest was available though. I mean its up to the addict of course and I hope they would be in mind to make that decision carefully as its something that will effect the rest of their life. long term contraceptive is what? like the pill ? that would be better i think along with help. Suppose i havnt been around this to much though. I can now understand in repeat people who get pregnant why this has been suggested.

I think long term is more like the implant or injection - the pill could be misused or missed.

I can only go on what I read and what the woman spoke of on this morning - but she seemed genuine enough. The decision is not allowed to be made unless a doctor has approved the addict in question as being of sound enough mind to make it.

Like I said I totally get the moral issue people have, but if it got results I don't think we should dismiss it.

Its strange actually because when the woman was on this morning she received loads of backlash for it and the papers got all in a tizz about how we'd never allow such measures over here. I wander what happened in such a short space of time to make the Gov decide otherwise..

 

[BlackBerry25]

I think they would have to have compulsory councilling before making such a decision.

 

[PeanutBean]

Its strange actually because when the woman was on this morning she received loads of backlash for it and the papers got all in a tizz about how we'd never allow such measures over here. I wander what happened in such a short space of time to make the Gov decide otherwise..

Maybe the change of government. Programmes of sterilisation for people living in difficult circumstances is right up the Tories street. They've already admitted they don't think poor people should be having kids (Hunt, Culture Minister) so I'm sure they wouldn't mind putting a stop to those mindless drug addicts who've chosen to be that way. It's probably not breaking any laws anyway.

 

[aliss]

JMO but I think sterilization is the wrong route. I know there would be tons of issues for it, but what about the concept of a drug addicted or alcoholic pregnant woman being considered a danger to herself or others {child} being committed for the term of pregnancy? Issue with that is that an embryo/fetus is not technically considered a person (at least here in Canada).

No real good answer to these ones eh?

What would you think about long term contraception then? is that a better option?

Yes I think it would be a great option. Most street trade workers would prefer to use condoms but of course the men who pick them up will hand them an extra $20 for without one. $20 is enough for a small rock so of course most addict girls will take it. Funding something like a depo shot or implant is a good alternative.

Out here in Vancouver we have safe injection sites where addicts can have access to a room with clean sterile needles and registered nurses, it's a bit of a failure itself but I think having something like that available for addicted women to get their implant or depo is a nice idea.

The other side to this is alcoholism and FAS, here in Canada this is a huge problem with the First Nations community. A lot of those girls have no education in the matter or they simply don't care (esp since they often have FAS themselves which impairs judgment and understanding of consequences).

No easy answers!!

 

[redpoppy]

Its strange actually because when the woman was on this morning she received loads of backlash for it and the papers got all in a tizz about how we'd never allow such measures over here. I wander what happened in such a short space of time to make the Gov decide otherwise..

Maybe the change of government. Programmes of sterilisation for people living in difficult circumstances is right up the Tories street. They've already admitted they don't think poor people should be having kids (Hunt, Culture Minister) so I'm sure they wouldn't mind putting a stop to those mindless drug addicts who've chosen to be that way. It's probably not breaking any laws anyway.

I know you're against eugenics but surely you have to agree tories shouldn't have kids right?

j/k people before I get tarred and feathered!

 

[PeanutBean]

They can have them as long as they are not with cousins and they sign away inheritance rights, that'd sort them out!

 

[redpoppy]

They can have them as long as they are not with cousins and they sign away inheritance rights, that'd sort them out!

You are a criminal mastermind!