Drug addicts paid £200 to not have children.

[detective-boy]

what makes you think that the vast majority of people don't already have that underlying principle ?

The fact that they are arguing the exact opposite ....

 

[butchersapron]

I don't understand why you won't come out openly in support of forced or 'made attractive' sterilisation. It's exactly where the logic of your, by now, many, posts on this issue always lead. Is it cowardice or incoherence? It's totally inescapble that this is what you're suggesting - the points make no sense whatsoever without that pretty clear background starting point.

*awaits foul mouthed and aggreasive denials*

 

[_angel_]

I don't understand why you won't come out openly in support of forced or 'made attractive' sterilisation. It's exactly where the logic of your, by now, many, posts on this issue always lead. Is it cowardice or incoherence? It's totally inescapble that this is what you're suggesting - the points make no sense whatsoever without that pretty clear background starting point.

*awaits foul mouthed and aggreasive denials*

I understand why completely. There isn't a rule book to point to.

 

[_angel_]

My concern isn't primarily the cost to the taxpayer. It is the harm that the child suffers when they are born into a situation where they cannot be adequately cared for by their parents. EVERY person I know who has been brought up in care (with the exception of those who managed to get placed with foster / adoptive parents at a very early age and were then lucky enough to remain with them without disruption) would say that the experience harmed them to some extent (in some cases to a very great extent!).

It is fuckwitted to suggest that a child has a right to be born ... only to then suffer and perhaps die.

I am amazed at how many people entirely deny that there needs to be any consideration of the Rights of the unborn child to a reasonable standard of care when born and that they must just take whatever is coming to them because it is the parents absolute right to procreate regardless.

No one is suggesting the child should die, you're basically saying a child should only live with birth parents and no one else can really do that job as well, so if they're shit they're better off not being born at all which is quite depressing really.

 

[frogwoman]

thing is, people often sort themselves out once theyve had kids. removing the opportunity to have kids will mean that these people just feel worse and it will increase their dependency on the drugs, if anything.

also by saying kids of drug addicts should be sterelised, you're basically saying the existing kids of these people shouldnt have been born. i have a friend whose mother smoked and drank throughout the pregnancy and has a serious mental illness. last year she graduated with a first in psychology. presumably she shouldnt have been born either.

 

[detective-boy]

I understand why completely. There isn't a rule book to point to.

No. The reason is simple. I don't think that it is an appropriate response.

Why are you so insistent that it is inappropriate for someone to argue for a particular principle without being able to point to any "answer" to the problem of how to make sure everyone complies with that principle? Is it a crime not to be so arrogant as to believe that you have the answer to everything now?

 

[detective-boy]

.... you're basically saying a child should only live with birth parents and no one else can really do that job as well, so if they're shit they're better off not being born at all which is quite depressing really.

I'm saying that it should always be the default position of parents that they seek to only bring a child into the world when they are in a position to adequately support and provide for it. And if they do so knowing that they are NOT then they are massively culpable for the harm subsequently caused to that child by their own selfish actions. And no, no-one can totally and utterly replace natural parents. Even where the best possible outcome occurs, the child still has something missing by not knowing their heritage.

 

[Blagsta]

No. The reason is simple. I don't think that it is an appropriate response.

Why are you so insistent that it is inappropriate for someone to argue for a particular principle without being able to point to any "answer" to the problem of how to make sure everyone complies with that principle? Is it a crime not to be so arrogant as to believe that you have the answer to everything now?

I wonder what use is a principle that is totally abstracted from reality? Wouldn't it be better to think about what conditions lead to the sorts of chaotic drug use under discussion and to find ways to tackle the root causes?

 

[i_got_poison]

My concern isn't primarily the cost to the taxpayer. It is the harm that the child suffers when they are born into a situation where they cannot be adequately cared for by their parents. EVERY person I know who has been brought up in care (with the exception of those who managed to get placed with foster / adoptive parents at a very early age and were then lucky enough to remain with them without disruption) would say that the experience harmed them to some extent (in some cases to a very great extent!).

It is fuckwitted to suggest that a child has a right to be born ... only to then suffer and perhaps die.

I am amazed at how many people entirely deny that there needs to be any consideration of the Rights of the unborn child to a reasonable standard of care when born and that they must just take whatever is coming to them because it is the parents absolute right to procreate regardless.

excellent post.

 

[i_got_poison]

I don't understand why you won't come out openly in support of forced or 'made attractive' sterilisation. It's exactly where the logic of your, by now, many, posts on this issue always lead. Is it cowardice or incoherence? It's totally inescapble that this is what you're suggesting - the points make no sense whatsoever without that pretty clear background starting point.

*awaits foul mouthed and aggreasive denials*

what manner of hypocrisy is this?

next, you'll be saying butter wouldn't melt in your mouth.

 

[frogwoman]

you're another one who thinks swathes of the population shouldnt have been born. what a surprise.

 

[moon23]

My concern isn't primarily the cost to the taxpayer. It is the harm that the child suffers when they are born into a situation where they cannot be adequately cared for by their parents. EVERY person I know who has been brought up in care (with the exception of those who managed to get placed with foster / adoptive parents at a very early age and were then lucky enough to remain with them without disruption) would say that the experience harmed them to some extent (in some cases to a very great extent!).

It is fuckwitted to suggest that a child has a right to be born ... only to then suffer and perhaps die.

I am amazed at how many people entirely deny that there needs to be any consideration of the Rights of the unborn child to a reasonable standard of care when born and that they must just take whatever is coming to them because it is the parents absolute right to procreate regardless.

I don't think Unborn children can have rights as they are not people with legal entities. There would be practical problems with making decisions that infringe the rights of those that do exist based on speculative understandings of circumstances that could affect those that might exist in the future.

 

[moon23]

I wonder what use is a principle that is totally abstracted from reality? Wouldn't it be better to think about what conditions lead to the sorts of chaotic drug use under discussion and to find ways to tackle the root causes?

This would seem an entirely more sensible approach. Giving cash incentives to addicts to get sterilised is a form of eugenics.

 

[i_got_poison]

I don't think Unborn children can have rights as they are not people with legal entities. There would be practical problems with making decisions that infringe the rights of those that do exist based on speculative understandings of circumstances that could affect those that might exist in the future.

overpopulation = greater human rights abuses.

why condone procreational policies?

 

[frogwoman]

erm in case you havent noticed, our population is actually below replacement level.

 

[i_got_poison]

don't worry about a link FW, we'll take your word for it

 

[frogwoman]

.

 

[i'mnotsofast]

Why I took £200 to be sterilised: The Mail identifies the first British drug addict to take a controversial charity's money to have a vasectomy

From Private Eye:

"An Americans charity has paid a British drug addict and self-confessed burglar £200 to be sterilized", shrieked the Daily Mail last week over news that a Leicester man had become the first British drug addict to accept cash not to have children from a controversial American charity.

"Project Prevention triggered an ethical storm... the charity admit offering 'bribes', arguing that it helps prevent babies inheriting their parents' addictions. One leading drugs charity described it as 'exploitative and morally questionable'.... others fear addicts may simply use the £200 on offer to feed their habits."

No such qualms at the Daily Mail, which by the end of the week had tracked down Alan Mitchell, the methadone addict in question, and paid him no less than £5,000 to "waive his anonymity to tell his full story to the Mail."

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

It is fuckwitted to suggest that a child has a right to be born ... only to then suffer and perhaps die.

That, I'm afraid, is the human condition - *every* child which is born suffers and dies. The responsibility of society for *every* child born is to minimise the suffering and delay the death.

Who is to play God and decide that this potential child will suffer more and die earlier than the point which society is prepared to take responsibility for?

 

[Blagsta]

This would seem an entirely more sensible approach. Giving cash incentives to addicts to get sterilised is a form of eugenics.

Unfortunately, it's not an approach you support. In fact, you support policies that will make the problems worse.

 

[i_got_poison]

That, I'm afraid, is the human condition - *every* child which is born suffers and dies. The responsibility of society for *every* child born is to minimise the suffering and delay the death.

Who is to play God and decide that this potential child will suffer more and die earlier than the point which society is prepared to take responsibility for?

i suppose when a society can't cope with a baby boom, you support sterilization as a means to alleviate the suffering of the (as yet) unborn child
and society as a whole?

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

i suppose when a society can't cope with a baby boom, you support sterilization as a means to alleviate the suffering of the (as yet) unborn child
and society as a whole?

Thats a bit of a non-sequitur. What I am saying is that all suffer and die, some suffer more and die earlier than others. Do you set a limit on the amount of suffering and early death that you will tolerate as a society and act to stop anyone likely to suffer above, or die earlier than that limit?

 

[frogwoman]

How will sterilising these people exactly help them to stop their addictions? Won't the fact that they are unable to do the very thing that enable our species to survive make them even more depressed and fucked up? What happens if they do get clean and would like to start a family afterwards?

 

[frogwoman]

also, where will you draw the line? it might not be a good idea for these people to have a kid in a totally fucked up state, but there are plenty of oither people who the state could deem unfit to bear children as well.

 

[i_got_poison]

Thats a bit of a non-sequitur. What I am saying is that all suffer and die, some suffer more and die earlier than others. Do you set a limit on the amount of suffering and early death that you will tolerate as a society and act to stop anyone likely to suffer above, or die earlier than that limit?

as a society we set hospital targets for casualty patients, we create and impose health and safety law. we do any number of things to ensure suffering and death
is kept at a minimum. to suggest society doesn't set a limit, is utterly preposterous.

sterilization is a preventive measure, as is neutering an animal for which you've affection.

 

[frogwoman]

Jesus Christ

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

as a society we set hospital targets for casualty patients, we create and impose health and safety law. we do any number of things to ensure suffering and death
is kept at a minimum. to suggest society doesn't set a limit, is utterly preposterous.

sterilization is a preventive measure, as is neutering an animal for which you have affection.

Wow! I fear Godwin's law is going to kick in here earlier than usual.

You are seriously suggesting that real living people should be sterilised to prevent the existence of potential people who may have potential harm done to them.

Guess the first ones on the list are those with genetic defects - Huntingdons springs to mind, oh and of course terminal cancer patients who wont be around to bring their children up. I'm sure that they will take the neutering in the spirit of affection for sentient beings which it was intended.

 

[i_got_poison]

You are seriously suggesting that real living people should be sterilised to prevent the existence of potential people who may have potential harm done to them.

very melodramatic post.

it's occurred to me if you substitute the word sterilized and used abortion instead, not many, would argue with the logic.

it seems human rights takes precedence over every other form of life on this planet (including humanity).

 

[shagnasty]

maybe the rich can be like the farmer and proles like their cattle and they can pick who breeds for market ,they also win rossetes

 

[frogwoman]

very melodramatic post.

it's occurred to me if you substitute the word sterilized and used abortion instead, not many, would argue with the logic.

it seems human rights takes precedence over every other form of life on this planet (including humanity).

You're disgusting.