Forums > Social Chat > Junkies given money to sterilise themselves

Login/Join to Participate

DeepSoulSheep
DeepSoulSheep

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Berlin
Member Since: 25th Sep 2002
Total posts: 2617
Posted:Found this on the news this morning. Anybody else find this disturbing. Freewill to make life changing decisions while addicted to a substance. What if a person cleaned up there act to find themselves sterlised....

have a quick look


I live in a world of infinite possibilities.

Delete Topic

Pink...?
Pink...?

Mistress of Pink...Multicoloured
Location: Over There
Member Since: 6th Apr 2002
Total posts: 6140
Posted:That is awful

She compared the woman to dogs saying that they have litters of children and so on.

People need to help those woman get clean not stop then having children.



Never pick up a duck in a dungeon...

Delete

Kat
Kat

Pooh-Bah
Location: London
Member Since: 13th Dec 2000
Total posts: 2211
Posted:Offering them contraceptive implants is a good idea but its not for the benefit of the user or the unborn child.

quote: "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." Wow - harsh!! How on earth are these people allowed to get away with it


Come faeries, take me out of this dull world, for I would ride with you upon the wind and dance upon the mountains like a flame.

- W B Yeats

Delete

Raymund Phule (Fireproof)
Raymund Phule (Fireproof)

Enter a "Title" here:
Location: San Diego California
Member Since: 31st Dec 2001
Total posts: 2905
Posted:This woman... damn I think she is on crack. The sad part is, there is nothing illeagle about a program like this. If she wants to throw $200 away to get drug addicts not to have children then she is well within her rights.

I dont agree with drugs and I feel her $200 would be better spent on trying to help these woman clean up their lives, but who am I to say what she does with her own money?


On a side note, this should really be moved to a differnt area of discussion, it has nothing to do with war.


Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Delete

Dio
Dio

HoP Mechanical Engineer
Location: OK, USA
Member Since: 11th Jul 2002
Total posts: 729
Posted:Wow, prickly issue for sure!

I'll play Devil's Advocate here and say the idea's a good one. Why? Because the criticisms are way out of line in the way they portray the program.

These people are not being tranquilized and dragged to a doctor, nor are they dragged kicking and screaming. They are made aware of the choice, and go of their own accord.

Critics blast the program as "eugenics" and "racist," (implying genocide) but is it really? The ad on the article mentioned 4 different forms of birth control, 3 of which were reversible (IUD, Depo-Provera, and Norplant) or, at the very least, temporary. Hardly what I would call "sterilization." Someone at that point in their life could arguably use the temporary birth control methods until they are past their addiction and ready for children, and the situation is much better off for both parent and child.

People, please realize this is not bribing a desperate, drug-addicted woman to give up her ability to bear children permanently. While some may make that particular choice, there exist options that are nowhere near as permanent (Norplant lasts around 5 years, Depo Provera lasts about 3 months, an IUD can be removed at any time).

Having a child while you're trying to get through addiction only makes it that much harder and adds stress to your life that you don't need. The child could have to endure birth defects the rest of its life if the mother uses substances while pregnant. If the mother doesn't want the child and puts it up for adoption, that's one more kid without a home or a family, and no kid deserves that.

And honestly... $200? Most of those procedures cost significant amounts of money - I can't see any gain in that.


What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.

Delete

Kat
Kat

Pooh-Bah
Location: London
Member Since: 13th Dec 2000
Total posts: 2211
Posted:Dio - agree that offering choice of long term contraceptives is a good idea. I suppose I'm not one to preach about ideals as I think people should have to apply for a license before they have a child. Clearly a drug addict is not going to make a fit parent. Its a shame though that there are no efforts there to help the addict too The founder shows a disgust towards all drug users and their offspring. What next - offering money for sterilisation to knackers, football hooligans, essex girls

Hmmm.. maybe that would not be such a bad idea


Come faeries, take me out of this dull world, for I would ride with you upon the wind and dance upon the mountains like a flame.

- W B Yeats

Delete

Spanner
Spanner

remembers when it was all fields round here
Location: in the works... somewhere...
Member Since: 27th Feb 2003
Total posts: 2790
Posted:Long term birth control I would agree with. But sterilisation?

What happens to those women who clean themselves up to the extent that they otherwise could have considered supporting their own children?



"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"

Delete

Dom
Dom

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Bristol, UK
Member Since: 19th Dec 2001
Total posts: 3009
Posted:I'm wit Dio. The theory of long term contraception is good - if you're a drug addict desperate for $200, then having a child is not a good thing to be doing.

But it is a shame that she proves no help to those she's giving $200 to. Like a lot of ultra conservatives, cares little for someone in a bad situation as they see it as one of their own making.

A quote: "Probation officers, social workers and those who work on drug treatment programmes are increasingly referring their clients to us."
So hopefully some of these people are also getting proper help with their addiction.


Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Dio's made some perceptive observations, particularly the fact that the majority of forms of contraception offered are not permanant.

It's a real shame that a biased article can rally such support by simply mentioning words like 'Nazi Germany' and 'eugenics'.

Where sympathy for crack addicts is concerned, I feel a lot more of it for the thousands of children who have no choice whatsoever about their formative years spent in a filthy, dangerous and uncaring environment.

Undoubtably a large percentage of the next generation of crack addicts will come from just such a background.

As for spending the money to help the addicts, anyone is able to form a group to help addicts if they wish; clearly Ms Harris (who runs the service) has her own ideas of the best way to help the problem and has put in the effort necessary to carry it out.

She seems to sum up the issue here: -

"It's just nonsense. Nobody is forcing these people to do anything - it's their own decision. What infuriates me is that if my critics don't think these people are capable of making their mind up on an issue like this, why on earth do they think they are capable of bringing up a child?"

Has anyone considered that the addicts who have made use of this service may have done it because they genuinly don't want to have children?


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Narr
Narr

(*) (*) .. for the gnor ;)
Location: sitting on the step
Member Since: 15th Apr 2003
Total posts: 2568
Posted:when i first read the article i wasn't sure where to stand on the issue, but i gotta say im with dio dom and onewheeldave. this is and incredibly bias article.
thousands of women are sterilized every year...maybe what people are shocked about is that she pays them, would people have so much to say about it if she didn't? but then would the addicts go get sterilized?


she who sees from up high smiles

Patrick badger king: *they better hope there's never a jihad on stupidity*

Delete

Charles
Charles

Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
Location: Auckland
Member Since: 27th Jun 2001
Total posts: 3989
Posted:ummm...errrr, i agree...no hang on, I don't, yes, yes i do,,,,no i don't aaaarrrgghhh!


Non-Https Image Link


<Charles loses control of his molecules in an ethical conflictual explosion>


HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?

Delete

ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted:quote: Freewill to make life changing decisions while addicted to a substance. What if a person cleaned up there act to find themselves sterlised.... first off everyone has free will all the time its one of the joys that comes with being human. the idea of someone not being able to make a life changing decision while addicted to a substance eg quitting the substance now that is scary.

living a lifestyle is a personal choice in the same way that the program is a free choice offered to ppl. whats more its not something that can be done on the spur of the moment as you have to have the correct documentation which requires getting the correct documentqation and then taking it in then going and getting the treatment done.

quote: 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. we arnt talking about recreation use either we are talking about addicts and as the article says its not there to help the addicts it to help stop a child being brought into the world where they wont be adequately cared for.

quote: I feel her $200 would be better spent on trying to help these woman clean up their lives there are other programs set up to help ppl clean up their lives and $200 doesnt go far

quote: What happens to those women who clean themselves up to the extent that they otherwise could have considered supporting their own children?
im not saying that i agree with sterilization but from my perspective if i found out that i was sterile and at a stage in my life where i wanted i child. i would have no problems adopting and wouldnt love the child any less just because it wasnt my own flesh and blood.


Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?

Delete

Achluophobia
Magical Sock Dancer
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
Member Since: 1st Jul 2003
Total posts: 255
Posted:I like the idea, maybe sterilisation should be left too when there seems the person has no chance of getting out. A bit of education on things they could do too get out of the lifestyle there in after giving them some long term birth control might be a good idea too.

Delete

i8beefy2
i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA
Member Since: 24th Mar 2003
Total posts: 674
Posted:Wow this seems very familiar... I live in a town in Ohio called Medina... a very ultra-conservative (no, really, that is it's political designation) little facist city. In a recent case here, one of our judges ordered someone to not have any more children, because of something about child support I believe. I'm pretty sure its either already been overturned, or is in the process of now, but still, it disturbs me every time I see the wonderful new interpetations our local judicial system puts out there.

Sterilization, even better, haha. This truly is the most exciting time to be alive...


Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:quote:Originally posted by i8beefy2:
Wow this seems very familiar... I live in a town in Ohio called Medina... a very ultra-conservative (no, really, that is it's political designation) little facist city. In a recent case here, one of our judges ordered someone to not have any more children, because of something about child support I believe. I'm pretty sure its either already been overturned, or is in the process of now, but still, it disturbs me every time I see the wonderful new interpetations our local judicial system puts out there.

Sterilization, even better, haha. This truly is the most exciting time to be alive... It's not that similar though is it?

In the original article there's nothing to do with anyone being ordered by a judge, or anyone else, to not have children.

The only connection seems to be that the word 'facism' has been connected with them both (wrongly in the case of the original article).


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Pele'sWhippingBoy
member
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
Member Since: 19th Jun 2001
Total posts: 442
Posted:Here in the States, you need to get approved to get a pet (like a dog) but any idiot can have a child. That just seems weird to me.

I like this program. I like the phrase "If you can't trust with a choice, how can you trust with a child?"


FYI: I am not Pele. If you wish to reply to me and use a short version of my name, use: PWB.

English? Who needs that? I'm never going to England. - Homer Jay Simpson

Delete

DeepSoulSheep
DeepSoulSheep

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Berlin
Member Since: 25th Sep 2002
Total posts: 2617
Posted:The impression that I first got when I first read the article that the junkies were being treated like scum that should be stopped from breeding. I didn't even notice the reference to facism but spose that's worse really (keep an eye out for that now...)

quote: 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." quote: As it has expanded, the tone of the group has also shifted. Ms Harris, who was quoted in one of her first interviews as saying "We don't allow dogs to breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children," has since toned down her language. Why did she have to tone her language down? What are her motivations.

quote: nor will the group divulge the names of institutes whose counsellors allegedly refer their clients Why not?

I was just genuinely surprised that this was happening though to be honest. Why not offer them free services and then do something contructive with the 200 quid. Free service allows every "responsible junky" the opportunity to be so, without dangling a rock of coke from a stick to get them in there in the first place.

Sorry if that seems bad but that's just how it seems to me...


I live in a world of infinite possibilities.

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:quote:Originally posted by DeepSoulSheep:


quote: As it has expanded, the tone of the group has also shifted. Ms Harris, who was quoted in one of her first interviews as saying "We don't allow dogs to breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children," has since toned down her language. Why did she have to tone her language down? What are her motivations. I can't speak for her, but I imagine she toned it down because most people respond badly to such direct language and it would result in adverse publicity.
quote:Originally posted by DeepSoulSheep:


quote: nor will the group divulge the names of institutes whose counsellors allegedly refer their clients Why not?

Maybe because, as the whole thing is controversial, they are just protecting the refering counsellors from groups who are opposing the service.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete