Charity bribes drug addicts to sterilise themselves

[Earth]

Yeah, screw the potential children of drug addicts.  Those little bastards deserve that hell.

Except this only marginally has to do with them. Sterilization attacks the immediate drug addict, and only offers "no more crack babies" a distant second.

At least that's how you read it right?

Of course. This isn't a postmodernism course, and sobriety passed over me. I'm not looking at the face value of it, and I can read, don't cha knooo?

 

With this logic, you could argue to sterilize the poor, because if the poor breed as they do, you wind up with an influx of poor babies. Now we wouldn't want to deprive them of hell, now do we?

Having poor parents and having a parents addicted to heroin are two totally different things.  You can tell because nobody is paying to sterilize poor people.  This is only "logic" to you.

I'm sure the child will agree.

And yet, a few years ago that very issue was brought up in Louisiana for the poor to be paid to get sterilized. I'll get you a link if I find it.

At best, it's misguided. At worst, it's a direct connection back to the 'genetic cleanse' of the early twentieth century.

Cop out.  The facts don't bare this out, but that doesn't matter because it sounds bad.

Yeah, if it smells like a duck, walks like a duck, generally, not always though, think duck.

..and who are you people to tell another person what they can and can't do for money.  Free will for everybody except addicts?  Nice

A self righteous pig with no concern about others political feelings.

This all just reinforces my belief that bleeding hearts care more about caring than they do about actually stopping the bad.

In an ideal world, I'd throw her ass in jail for being so ridiculously idiotic (and my opponents). See how bleeding heart I am?

This idea is fit for libertarianism; a social Rube Goldberg machine with the addicts balls as the last bit tied to the string.

[Earth]

I don't care, but why force them to not have this option of temporary birth control?

They have the option right now, but it ain't paying shit.

Remember; the issue to the non-libertarians is that a choice under duress, is not a free choice at all.

[afleitch]

Bitch should f*** off back to the 1900s where she belongs. I may start a petition to have her deported.

My sentiments exactly

[dead0man]

It's weird that the actual laws in Nanny State land aren't as authoritarian as the left leaning posters here would like them to be.

[Frink]

It's weird that the actual laws in Nanny State land aren't as authoritarian as the left leaning posters here would like them to be.

"Nanny State land" is my new favorite straw man.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I guess the reason this bothers me, is the druggies have clearly established that they can't make good decisions in the first place.......to make a drug-induced one of this magnitude is crazy.

Lots of sh**t is legal, but it doesn't mean it's right.

[Earth]

It's weird that the actual laws in Nanny State land aren't as authoritarian as the left leaning posters here would like them to be.

We're all authoritarian to some degree.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's weird that the actual laws in Nanny State land aren't as authoritarian as the left leaning posters here would like them to be.

We're all authoritarian to some degree.

     I don't see him denying that so much as observing that some folks want the laws to be more authoritarian.

[Earth]

I'm only speaking for myself, but it's not an issue of law for me. It's about misplaced effort, that winds up being more damaging than it originally set out to be.

Should it be illegal to offer sterilization services to people? No.

To drug addicts? No.

Should it be exclusively in the domain of the private sector? No.

Much the same way I would want people that are emotionally unbalanced to be persuaded from suicide, but overall have no desire to pointlessly attempt to eradicate it, I don't want addicts to become targets of a medical campaign that alters the rest of their lives. I don't care about potential kids, I care about the person in the grip of addiction.

A small part of this issue is when did the public sphere, culture itself, because "family friendly", that we myopically focus on goddamn kids? So much utterly ridiculous bullsh*t gets ignored because it's framed as a discussion centered around "won't someone please think of the children".

[opebo]

Disgusting. Much like people who take advantage of any handicapped person or persons.

Actually one would hope the disfigured addicts could sue this 'charity' and its owners for everything they have for this crime, and/or that the eugenists could be criminally prosecuted.

Is it a crime, by the way, to utilize persuasion or influence to get someone to harm or kill themselves?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is it a crime, by the way, to utilize persuasion or influence to get someone to harm or kill themselves?

In Britain? Yes, but hard to prove.

[dead0man]

Much the same way I would want people that are emotionally unbalanced to be persuaded from suicide, but overall have no desire to pointlessly attempt to eradicate it, I don't want addicts to become targets of a medical campaign that alters the rest of their lives. I don't care about potential kids, I care about the person in the grip of addiction.

A small part of this issue is when did the public sphere, culture itself, because "family friendly", that we myopically focus on goddamn kids? So much utterly ridiculous bullsh*t gets ignored because it's framed as a discussion centered around "won't someone please think of the children".

But isn't your argument basically "won't someone please think of the addicts"?  Because they need to be protected from these heartless people wanting to practice eugenics on them?  (even though the founder herself has adopted children of addicts and is married to a black man)....so they (the addicts) can still have more kids.  Are addicts more important than the children of addicts?  At least the addicts had a choice at one point in time....before the horrors of addiction made them incapable of making decisions on their own (but lets make sure they can still have kids, because people incapable of making decisions are the kinds of people we want having kids!)

(and for the what...forth time? the sterilization (birth control) isn't permanent and it's only done to people who have already had children)

[opebo]

Is it a crime, by the way, to utilize persuasion or influence to get someone to harm or kill themselves?

In Britain? Yes, but hard to prove.

Doesn't seem like it would be so hard to prove if you had a group of criminals whose stated policy and a paper trail of agreements indicated that they paid drug addicts to maim themselves.

[Gustaf]

It's odd to see all the European left-wingers be so passionate about the rights of the unborn.

[dead0man]

It is strange.  Another board that I'm lurking on has most of their left wingers defending this.

[Sewer]

It is strange.  Another board that I'm lurking on has most of their left wingers defending this.

What board is it? Eugenics.com?

[??????????]

It is strange.  Another board that I'm lurking on has most of their left wingers defending this.

What board is it? Eugenics.com?

PlannedParenthood.com

My bad, you already posted the link!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've discussed this with quite a few people, pretty much all of them on the political left to some degree or other, and not one thought this idea was anything other than foul.

[k-onmmunist]

It is strange.  Another board that I'm lurking on has most of their left wingers defending this.

The left wing of the Nazi Party?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's odd to see all the European left-wingers be so passionate about the rights of the unborn.

Didn't Sweden do something like this in the 30s and didn't stop until as late as the 70s? And it was started under a Social Democratic government but continued under conservative governments and it was the Social Democrats who stopped it? (Yeah I don't know a lot and very likely could be wrong.)

[Earth]

But isn't your argument basically "won't someone please think of the addicts"?

To a point, it is. But it's the same argument I would use if this were an issue of sex offenders, or whatever. This sidestepping of everything that is a matter, and looking at it in a completely narrow way.

Are addicts more important than the children of addicts?  At least the addicts had a choice at one point in time....before the horrors of addiction made them incapable of making decisions on their own (but lets make sure they can still have kids, because people incapable of making decisions are the kinds of people we want having kids!)

Quite the libertarian rationale you've got. Or is it just "pragmatic"?

Addicts are more important than their potential offspring. The issue isn't their already born, and grown offspring.

Addicts aren't incapable of making decisions, they never are, and it's seriously obscene that this reasoning comes from an alleged libertarian. The problem is when someone's hand is forced, and quite possible for the most pathetic of reasons, to score.

(and for the what...forth time? the sterilization (birth control) isn't permanent and it's only done to people who have already had children)

That's irrelevant, because it still says nothing about the entire issue of addicts, and addiction itself, it's a further justification of the most shallowest solution. "We don't give a sh*t whether or not you're hooked, I just don't want you ejaculating your potent junkie sperm into your junkie woman." This woman, and her rationalizations can f*ck right off, regardless of whether she's playing savior to babies.