Paying drug addicts to be sterilised

Singletrack Forum » Chat Forum

Paying drug addicts to be sterilised

(49 posts) (29 voices)

Started 1 month ago by Nick
Latest reply from swadey

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

Nick - Member

Barbara's experience of fostering babies born to those addicted to drugs and alcohol led her to one conclusion: that these women should be offered financial inducement to be sterilised, or given long-term contraception to stop them having children they are unable to care for. Founded over a decade ago in the United States, her organisation, Project Prevention, has so far made payments to over 3,000 women.

Taking a Stand

Interesting, choice is being offered, but the motivation to get high will be so strong it must mean their perception is distorted when it comes to deciding to take the money and be sterilised.

Posted 1 month ago #
simonfbarnes - Member

filthy eugenic nazism

Posted 1 month ago #
surfer - Member

My friend was a child care solicitor some years ago for a local authority. He was involved in a case where a woman gave birth and the child was immediately taken into care given her inability to take care of it. Her previous 2 children were already in care and he explained that there is a high likelihood that the same process would continue and she would be pregnant again in a few months.
Very sad case.

Posted 1 month ago #
duckman - Member

That is long term contraception, rather than sterilisation.Churchill tried to win support for a bill to sterilise 4 million men in the early part of the 20th century.Wrong then,wrong now.
So you have a problem with drugs,well here is a lot of money to spend on drugs,if you let us decide whether or not you can have children
How does that help?

edit; I see she also offers money to get sterilised. I am with sfb

Posted 1 month ago #
carbon337 - Member

my uncle and step aunt foster kids - normally babies taken from mothers at birth. Their latest was born a heroin addict they had to ween it off the drugs apparently.

Thankfully most go into the adoption process and get great homes.

Posted 1 month ago #
chakaping - Member

I'm not sure about the sterilisation, but perhaps babies of long-term drug addicts should be put up for adoption sooner - rather than left in foster care for years.

We know somebody who has been fostering a baby for years while social services say it can't go for adoption because there may be a chance the child's mum could have it back.

Even though privately they seem to acknowledge this is unlikely.

Posted 1 month ago #
surfer - Member

I'm not sure about the sterilisation, but perhaps babies of long-term drug addicts should be put up for adoption sooner - rather than left in foster care for years.

In my example social services were at the hospital. The decision had been made prior to birth.

Posted 1 month ago #
hora - Member

A difficult one. What is a persons motivation to come off drugs if the future is childless? i.e. They cant look forward to possibly turning their lives around as a goal and having a family one day?

Thankfully most go into the adoption process and get great homes.

All of you forget the mental and development issues this children may have for life.

I have personal reasons (family member) for wanting to see selective sterilisation which cant be discussed on a public forum.

Posted 1 month ago #
surfer - Member

All of you forget the mental and development issues this children may have for life.

All?

Posted 1 month ago #
Stoner - Member

There must be a more efficient answer.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Soylent green anyone?

Posted 1 month ago #
terrahawk - Member

why stop at sterilisation? You could shoot them, no?
What do you reckon Hora?

Posted 1 month ago #
z1ppy - Member

Having listened to the radio program this moring, I cannot agree with her being called "filthy eugenic nazism", she came across as some-one trying to find a solution for a terrible situation.
I don't know if she right but labelling her that without actualy knowing the facts is just stupidity.

In today world when a heroin* (insert you drug of choice, say alcohol as alternative) addict pimp's herself out to pay for her drug of choice, get pregnant and then have it taken off her and for the "drug addict" to start the process again, what would you suggest as an answer instead of just calling ppl names?
(I don't have the answer)

At least she is taking a stand, when no anyone else is.

For reference, she has two children of her own IIRC and has over the years then adopted 4 children from a crack addict who, seemingly just pumped out the kids - leaving them with a crack habit from birth. He partner is black and so are all of the children.
Yet she has been accused of racism & by her critic's, who would seemingly just want to shout her down rather than listen to the arguement.
How does that make her a nazi? Where did she advocate only the right ppl should breed? (drug addict come from all walks of life)

Stop talking crap and actually engage in the subject rather than take the daily mail stance.

Posted 1 month ago #
Junkyard - Member

This is such a difficult issue I have also known a female drug addicts [work related] to be a baby machine where no child ever left hospital with her. It is hard to see what good could come of allowing a drug addictted prostitute with learning difficulties to continue breeding. However I know of no person [myeslef included]I consider qualified or well enough informed to trust them on issues of enforced sterlisation,, state sanction sterlisation is as illiberal as I can think of..enforced long term contraception seems a far better choice.

Posted 1 month ago #
BigEaredBiker - Member

I'm with TerraHawk, there is no saving them we should concentrate them all in a camp with any other undesirerables and do the decent thing.

In the mean time can we make them wear an armband identifying them in public?

Posted 1 month ago #
surfer - Member

Junkyard I agree. Ditto Zippy. Its easy to say its eugenics however simply making a statement and no more isnt helpful.

Posted 1 month ago #
Andituk - Member

Vile. Someone that desperate for money for drugs is not in the right mind to make such a life changing decision.

Surely spending the money fighting the addiction would be a better idea?

Posted 1 month ago #
chakaping - Member

In my example social services were at the hospital. The decision had been made prior to birth.

And rightly so, I'm sure.

What I was trying to say (I should have spelt it out) was that lots of couples would be keen to adopt babies, even if they had been born to drug addicts.

People are less keen to adopt older children, but in the case I mentioned the baby wasn't being put up for adoption because the mother had said she wanted to keep the child - even though she was completely incapable for caring for her.

Posted 1 month ago #
z1ppy - Member

Andituk - Member
Vile. Someone that desperate for money for drugs is not in the right mind to make such a life changing decision.

But you think they have the right mind to make one with regards to creating another life?
(her arguement from the program)

Posted 1 month ago #
mudshark - Member

Long-term contraception seems OK to me - say a year or 2? But then we have a shortage of babies for people that want to adopt so maybe it's all OK?!

Posted 1 month ago #
barnsleymitch - Member

When me and the wife were going through the adoption process for our two little 'uns, we were given the opportunity twice to adopt babies with foetal drug / alcohol problems, but declined at the time due to the uncertainties of their long term health prospects. Adoption can be a really difficult process, and I'm glad that we'd been given a lot of sound advice from other people that had already been through it themselves. Increasing numbers of babies are being taken into care (from birth) with foetal drug and alcohol syndromes, often with developmental uncertainties, which sadly just leads to more kids being brought up in care homes, etc.

Posted 1 month ago #
roper - Member

Just to clarify though, someone who has an addiction or an illness is still equally human and entitled to human rights as well as the perfect people who never make a mistake or put a foot wrong.

Posted 1 month ago #
hora - Member

Slightly O/T - I do find it funny when middle aged people take recreational drugs. I said to someone at work 'havent you grown out of that stuff yet'?!

Posted 1 month ago #
mudshark - Member

someone who has an addiction or an illness is still equally human and entitled to human rights as well as the perfect people '

Well we're all restricted in some way. If these people produce kids as barnsleymitch is saying then are they doomed to a difficult life?

Posted 1 month ago #
Nick - Member

Slightly O/T - I do find it funny when middle aged people take recreational drugs. I said to someone at work 'havent you grown out of that stuff yet'?!

Where did you say that, in the pub with a pint in your hand?

Posted 1 month ago #
cranberry - Member

Just to clarify though, someone who has an addiction or an illness is still equally human and entitled to human rights as well as the perfect people who never make a mistake or put a foot wrong.

But in the game of human rights Top Trumps, who's rights win - those of someone who is unable to look after themselves properly and selfishly and carelessly get pregnant, or the rights of a baby to be born without preventable diseases and deformity, without a drug addiction gained from the womb, and the right to a stable and supportive upbringing?

Posted 1 month ago #
sq225917 - Member

I think long term contraception should be mandatory.

Posted 1 month ago #
Nick - Member

But in the game of human rights Top Trumps, who's rights win

No one's win, that's the point of human rights, everyone has them regardless.

As soon as you try to place rules around who can and can't have children then you'll have a society built on controlling it's citizens through fear and oppression, by threatening to take away people's right to procreate, you'll have fascism.

So, on that basis, it's preferable to have a number of individuals that create problems (and I don't mean the offspring are by default, 'problems') for society through their actions than have everyone risk their freedoms and rights.

Posted 1 month ago #
barnsleymitch - Member

"If these people produce kids as barnsleymitch is saying then are they doomed to a difficult life?"
In our particular case, we decided against adopting kids with foetal alcohol / drug syndrome due to the developmental uncertainties involved. To be brutally honest (and I still feel like a bas***d admitting this), my wife and I both work in mental health, and didnt want to come home from work and feel like we were starting another shift when looking after the kids. As it happens, our youngest has mild learning difficulties, and at times, that's pretty difficult, but we get by, and I wouldnt change things for the world. To add to some of the other posts regarding human rights, we found when we were adopting that the kids, sadly, were given little apparent consideration, as were the adoptive parents - the birth parents appeared to be given the most consideration, etc.

Posted 1 month ago #
Junkyard - Member

threatening to take away people's right to procreate, you'll have fascism.

I claim Goodwin...can I ?
There is some distance- HUGE- between trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies in drug addicts and the mass extermination of a race of people by nazis.

I doubt anyine is fully comfortable with either position but rights come with responsibilities. I mean we would not want them driving a car in that state we could curtail their right to a licence yet anyone , no matter hwo inept can still have children it is odd. I am, not pro strerilisation but I am certainly anti doing nothing.

Posted 1 month ago #
ahwiles - Member

sfb, i cite godwins law, you can do better than that.

there are 6,801,702,680 humans alive, and the number keeps rising, how many more before we question the 'right' to reproduce?

Posted 1 month ago #
chakaping - Member

someone who has an addiction or an illness is still equally human and entitled to human rights as well as the perfect people who never make a mistake or put a foot wrong.

The kids are "someone" too though, and maybe their welfare should come before their parents' rights?

Posted 1 month ago #
simonfbarnes - Member

The whole of drug law exists to criminalise the underclasses, forcing them into deeper deprivation, and is an unwarranted intrusion into our personal privacy whilst simultaneously providing huge funds to organised criminals

[eidt] and also providing spurious justification for eugenics

Posted 1 month ago #
mudshark - Member

So do we now have the answer? Keep the underclass topped up on drugs so they cause as little harm as possible.

Posted 1 month ago #
barnsleymitch - Member

"The whole of drug law exists to criminalise the underclasses, forcing them into deeper deprivation, and is an unwarranted intrusion into our personal privacy whilst simultaneously providing huge funds to organised criminals

[eidt] and also providing spurious justification for eugenics"

You're not doing too subtle a job in trying to disguise your recreational habits there simon

Posted 1 month ago #
simonfbarnes - Member

You're not doing too subtle a job in trying to disguise your recreational habits there simon

except I only take caffiene and endorphins...

Posted 1 month ago #
sweepy - Member

Ive known drug users, including some addicts who are fantastic parents. Equally there are plenty of people who dont use drugs who should never be allowed near kids, never mind being parents.

I spose in the spirit of fairness I should also say ive known the odd drug user who were terrible parents too.

Posted 1 month ago #
Coyote - Member

Yes, let them keep breeding, after all it is their human rights and that's all that matters.

My friend was a family case worker and believe me the babies that get adopted are the lucky ones. There are many more that aren't so lucky.

As for sfb's eugenics claims, as far as I can see it is not compulsory. It is an option.

Edit:

Equally there are plenty of people who dont use drugs who should never be allowed near kids, never mind being parents.

Sad but very, very true. Having children is not a right, it is a priviledge.

Posted 1 month ago #
simonfbarnes - Member

As for sfb's eugenics claims, as far as I can see it is not compulsory. It is an option.

which doesn't magically stop it being eugenics

Posted 1 month ago #
mudshark - Member

Sad but very, very true. Having children is not a right, it is a privilege.

But can we take that privilege away from someone? We do take away bad peoples' liberty at times so that's OK but not other bad peoples' rights to have kids? Or are they not really bad just unfortunate? I suppose these days we can afford the luxury of human rights - just a shame it seems that who's rights should take precedence isn't so obvious.

Posted 1 month ago #
Coyote - Member

which doesn't magically stop it being eugenics

Quick check with Wiki.

"Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities."

Not sure that offering junkies the choice to stop producing children that they either don't want or can't look after qualifies as eugenics.

Posted 1 month ago #