Sterilising Drug Addicts

[Illuminattile]

Project Prevention is an American organisation which pays crack addicted and alcoholic mothers $300 to be sterilised, ensuring that they can't get pregnant. A good thing or a bad thing?

On the one hand, it reduces the number of unwanted children who would, for the most part, end up in foster care or with health problems because of their mother's addictions.

On the other hand, they're targeted vulnerable women and bribing them, with money that they will inevitably spend on drugs, so that they can't have children. It's tantamount to eugenics. If you're willing to "neuter" drug addicts, why not the disabled or the unintelligent or the fat or the ugly? And it's hardly encouraging these women to kick their crack addiction.

 

[Valeoz]

Project Prevention is an American organisation which pays crack addicted and alcoholic mothers $300 to be sterilised, ensuring that they can't get pregnant. A good thing or a bad thing?

On the one hand, it reduces the number of unwanted children who would, for the most part, end up in foster care or with health problems because of their mother's addictions.

On the other hand, they're targeted vulnerable women and bribing them, with money that they will inevitably spend on drugs, so that they can't have children. It's tantamount to eugenics. If you're willing to "neuter" drug addicts, why not the disabled or the unintelligent or the fat or the ugly? And it's hardly encouraging these women to kick their crack addiction.

Note: When I say addict, I mean both alcoholic and addict.

I think its a good thing. For one, giving crack addicts money knowing they are going to use it for more crack, what else would they accept? The addict will just get money anyways from somewhere else, at least the money given to the addict will go towards something sustainable.

You forgot one thing about the child: Think about the environment they would be in. Children of addicts don't always end in foster care. The child will undoubtedly grow up in a hostile environment, think: Tupac Shakur.

But it's not just about the child either. It will actually become much harder for the addict to kick their addiction, a child increases responsibility, not only will you be responsible for yourself by trying to kick your addiction but also the responsibility for the child's care and needs. Such situations of a child present in a addicts life may not even help the addict on their addiction.

The reason why the disabled and unintelligent may not get the same treatment is simple. When people look at an addict on the street, what do people do? They turn away, can't even look at them. An addict is like the embodiment of hell, it's just simply not natural, thus not human to be in such a condition. Society won't give such a person sympathy. Sympathy to change but not to maintain, unlike with disabled and unintelligent, we sympathize with them because that is who they are. Life becomes much, much harder then for a addict and that hardship can easily be passed on to a child.

These are my guesses.

 

[keco52]

I don't agree with it. Some of the greatest people in the world didn't exactly have an ideal upbringing.

It's taking advantage of people in a vulnerable situation. Why not use that money to put them in a rehab...

 

[Chronic]

I think it's a great idea in this situation. People are too focused on the parents and forget that the baby is a living being, not a toy.
If a crackhead gets a child there's a good chance the child will grow up to have a terrible life. If we need to take advantage of a crackhead to avoid that then so be it.

If you're willing to "neuter" drug addicts, why not the disabled or the unintelligent or the fat or the ugly? And it's hardly encouraging these women to kick their crack addiction.

Those examples are too different too compare.
Being a drug addict is not a normal part of a human life while being fat, unintelligent or ugly (which is subjective anyway) is.
And I actually think people with a disability shouldn't reproduce. It's harsh to say and it would be another kick in the teeth for a disabled person but again, the only thing that matters is the child. When you create a child you're making a life-time commitment to do everything you can to give it a good life. Taking a chance on their well-being is not a great start. Any person with a hereditary disability/disease that reproduces is selfish. If they've learned to live with their disability that's great but they can't ensure that their child will.

I think any person that has something that will most likely interfere with their child rearing should not reproduce. When I look at my parents, especially my father, I honestly think they should've thought twice before having kids.

I won't say I'll agree with paying people to get sterilized period but in this case I think it's great.

 

[Illuminattile]

Dangerous, dangerous territory. As soon as you start saying "I don't think X should be allowed to procreate", you start down a slippery slope. Who has the right to decide whether someone is or is not capable of being a competent parent? Is it not someone's right to be allowed to procreate? How would you feel if someone said that you shouldn't be allowed to have kids, because they felt that one of your traits was "undesirable"?

 

[Chronic]

Dangerous, dangerous territory. As soon as you start saying "I don't think X should be allowed to procreate", you start down a slippery slope. Who has the right to decide whether someone is or is not capable of being a competent parent? Is it not someone's right to be allowed to procreate? How would you feel if someone said that you shouldn't be allowed to have kids, because they felt that one of your traits was "undesirable"?

Agreed. I'd never, ever support a law that decides who can and cannot procreate. I just think that some people should decide against it, for the sake of their unborn child. Most people only think about their desire to have a child. Or you get people who decide to get a child to try to save their relationship or so they have someone to take care of them once they're old.

It's like with getting a pet. Look in a newspaper and see how many ads there are for pets without a home because their owners no longer want to take care of them. Not even mentioning the ones that get kicked out and starve to death. A person makes a bad decision and the animal/child gets the short end of the stick.

How would you feel if someone said that you shouldn't be allowed to have kids, because they felt that one of your traits was "undesirable"?

Of course it would depend on what trait they're talking about but I'd definitely take it into consideration. But if I ever do decide to get a kid I'll adopt one.

 

[ArtsyGirl]

I think its wrong. Firstly approaching these people while they are addicts is morally unjust in my opinion. Who is to say those people wont, in years to come, become functioning members of society who would be great parents? Also the fact this is similar to offering a child a piece of chocolate now, or in 10 minutes.. Ofcourse they are going to choose now and the addict is going to choose money/drugs. They arnt in the right state of mind to decide whether they want the ability to have children. Also some people are more susceptible to addiction, should we just cut them off before they have a chance to have children?
I agree that children growing up around drug/alcohol addicted parents have it tough and they need to be looked out for, but its a fact in our society that this is going to happen why dont we just try and help those people now instead of sterilising them so we can forget about the problem all together.

 

[S O F I]

It's not like they're forced. It's a choice they can choose to make or not to make. So, for those who wish to get sterilized, they can. For those who don't, life goes on as usual.

 

[k69atie]

Not sure - these addicts only have children so they will get money from the state/government. None of which gets to the child they use it it on drink/drugs.

 

[Illuminattile]

It's not like they're forced. It's a choice they can choose to make or not to make. So, for those who wish to get sterilized, they can. For those who don't, life goes on as usual.

It's hardly a choice. They're drug addicts, they're being offered money. How many of them do you think actually sit down, think it through rationally and make an informed choice?

 

[ArtsyGirl]

It's hardly a choice. They're drug addicts, they're being offered money. How many of them do you think actually sit down, think it through rationally and make an informed choice?

None.

 

[Kareem]

It's hardly a choice. They're drug addicts, they're being offered money. How many of them do you think actually sit down, think it through rationally and make an informed choice?

:thumb: exactly the last thing this world needs is another crack baby who's mother has no ability to think rationally because she or he for that matter were too irresponsible an let a drug take control of their life. If you don't have the sense to stay away from drugs how are you gonna have the sense to raise a child? You won't. Therefore I see no problem with this program its voluntary anyway.

This is something that really bothers me is men and women who have children but dabble in drugs, yes even marijuana. If your gonna have kids then pull your head out of your ass an grow up!:fury:

 

[S O F I]

It's hardly a choice. They're drug addicts, they're being offered money. How many of them do you think actually sit down, think it through rationally and make an informed choice?

I doubt the program goes like this:

"Show me proof of your crackheadness, please. OK, it's proven, you're a crackhead. Would you like your $300 in 20s or 50s? By the way, the clinic for sterilization is right down the street, by McDonalds. You can't miss it. Have a nice day."

My point is, I believe they actually follow through with these people to make sure they don't spend that kind of money on their drug habits.

But, your point is, since they're cracked out, they won't be able to make a wise choice. Well, like I said again, if the company makes sure they don't spend $300 on something else, then the crackhead should realize he/she won't be able to get that money for spending. Plus, there are probably counselors provided that can guide them through these things, at least help in some way. That's the way I see it.

The existence of this program can be questioned ethically, but I can still see it serving the greater public good. A child unborn isn't a child dead. Time isn't money. Time spent in a lazy state is not money lost. Fuck what good ol' Ben said.

 

[Tru Principle]

That's awesome

 

[Illuminattile]

I doubt the program goes like this:

"Show me proof of your crackheadness, please. OK, it's proven, you're a crackhead. Would you like your $300 in 20s or 50s? By the way, the clinic for sterilization is right down the street, by McDonalds. You can't miss it. Have a nice day."

"Those interested are asked to submit documents proving that they have been arrested on narcotic offences, or provide a doctor's letter as evidence that they use drugs.

After she or he has been accepted on the programme, fresh documents are then required to show that the procedure has indeed taken place. The money is then despatched."

My point is, I believe they actually follow through with these people to make sure they don't spend that kind of money on their drug habits.

Well you believe wrongly. Barbara Harris, who runs it, said;

"If they spend the $200 on drugs, they spend it on drugs. It's none of our business what they do with the money we give them."

 

[Amara]

I have recently met family members who are addicts with children and whilst they are having tough upbringings, they are clever, sweet children. It's not right that children should grow up in that environment but sterilisation is not the answer, removing the factors that lead to drug abuse is.

 

[S O F I]

Well you believe wrongly. Barbara Harris, who runs it, said;

"If they spend the $200 on drugs, they spend it on drugs. It's none of our business what they do with the money we give them."

So, if that is corrected and it's made sure the money is not spent on anything else, the program is good?

 

[Illuminattile]

So, if that is corrected and it's made sure the money is not spent on anything else, the program is good?

No

 

[S O F I]

No

Yes.