Sterility payment for addicted

These procedures are reversible. When I think of "forced sterilization" I think of Czech-style hysterectomies.

Eh. We tend to agree on most things, but I don't think this is a horrible idea. I wish more Americans had been sterilized.

Shit I'd do it for $300. Wouldn't want to spread my disease around.

I could argue this from either side. Regardless, it probably won't work enough to see substantial results as long as the welfare payments for having a child greatly exceed the money offered by this program.

This is part of a "slippery slope" and could eventually be used by a judge as part of a sentence. I could see a multiple drug or alcohol offender being sentenced as part of probation to do this stating they were "undesirable" and giving them a plea deal with this as a stipulation.

"Sterilize the Unfit Says British Professor
By Hilary White Tue Aug 31, 2010

LONDON, August 30, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The mentally and morally “unfit” should be sterilized, Professor David Marsland, a sociologist and health expert, said this weekend. The professor made the remarks on the BBC radio program Iconoclasts, which advertises itself as the place to “think the unthinkable.”

Pro-life advocates and disability rights campaigners have responded by saying that Marsland’s proposed system is a straightforward throwback to the coercive eugenics practices of the past.

Marsland, Emeritus Scholar of Sociology and Health Sciences at Brunel University, London and Professorial Research Fellow in Sociology at the University of Buckingham, told the BBC that “permanent sterilization” is the solution to child neglect and abuse. "

Read more: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/aug/10083101

"Court-ordered abortion, sterilization of Catholic woman in Mass. overturned by higher court
by Ben Johnson Wed Jan 18, 2012

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, January 18, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – On Tuesday, the Massachusetts Appeals Court threw out a lower court’s ruling that would have forced a mentally ill woman to undergo an abortion and be forcibly sterilized against her will.

Norfolk Family and Probate Court Judge Christina Harms had ruled on January 6 that the 32-year-old could be “coaxed, bribed, or even enticed…by ruse” until she was sedated for the procedures.

The woman, who is identified only by the pseudonym “Mary Moe,” is approximately five months pregnant. "

Read more: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/court-ordered-abortion-sterilization-of...

Anything, of course, to bring AA into it, but I don't think it is the same thing at all.

There was an old AA who was a real Steptard at some of the meetings I went to. He used to go on for ages saying how Jesus had saved him when he was on a bus. He would then say that he had fathered 16 children in recovery, I wonder what his current total is? Wonder how much benefit he claims from us workers so he can go to daytime meetings and spout. Perhaps this beacon of sobriety should consider having the snip.I'm really surprised he had a woman as he was one of the most boring people I have ever met.

This whole issue was debated a few years ago in the UK, and its basic premise absolutely stinks. Once we hand over any right over who should reproduce and who shouldn’t “in the interests of society” to some kind of moral arbiter, we’re talking about serious fascistic government. Who has the right to make that decision?

Even in my lifetime, young women who had illegitimate children were declared “immoral” and “mentally unfit” and forced into asylums or into institutions where they would work out their “sin” by slaving for life in these institutions. I have lived in China, where forced sterilizations – especially of ethnic minorities – is an open secret amongst those who live there (though they do not dare complain publicly). The same arguments are those that some are using here: it is for the good of society, or the ‘race’, etc. – much the same arguments that Hitler used.

Any arguments about ‘natural selection’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ are completely misreading Darwin, who first defined those terms. Stephen Hawking might have been allowed just to die because of his physical disability if nature had taken its course. But he has contributed a hell of a lot more to human progress and human understanding than anyone on here has. (And do we have any information about his mother’s drinking or drug-taking habits, or her genetic history?)

As someone who has a young relative with Downs syndrome who – if we’re talking about ‘natural selection’ – would have died without the intervention of modern medicine, I feel very strongly about this. Should she have just been allowed to die in the interests of our ‘master race’? (Tbh, she has a good deal more sense in her little finger than some who are posting on here, and probably given a good deal more joy to people’s lives too.)

I have another personal interest, which is that my ex’s mother, the grandmother of my son, died of alcohol-induced cirrhosis of the liver – about 10 years before my son was born. So she should have been sterilized because she became addicted to alcohol? Was this all that defined her? Was this really the only characteristic she was supposed to have passed on to her children and grandchildren? (Actually, no – neither her children nor her grandchildren are alcoholics, and are all intelligent and successful people.) Is this any different from sterilizing someone because they disagree with your political beliefs?

I can’t believe that people here are even contemplating the idea that paying people in the grip of active addiction to be irreversibly sterilized is in any way a morally acceptable idea. But it seems that I’m in a minority as far as this goes. And I also can’t help noticing that those who shout loudest about other people not having the right to reproduce tend to be not particularly shining exemplars of the human species themselves.

I recall a beautiful young crazy chick sharing that CPS had taken her 3 kids from her and she finished up with 'thank god im pregnant again' as she was rubbing the back of a newcomers head, she was also a newcomer. It was messed up and nobody said a word. It turned out she was not pregnant, she was stringing the guy along.

Well, no. Isn't one of the major problems with being actively and seriously addicted to a chemical substance is that a person is not thinking straight? The decision about whether to be sterilized or not is one that should be made when a person is fully sober and in full command of their thinking and reasoning.

Sorry, Pennywise, I think you misunderstand what this initiative was about. It was not about denying sterilization to addicts and alcoholics who spontaneously asked for it. It was about actively bribing alcoholics and addicts to be sterilized. A bit of a difference, I think.

Anyway, please don’t think I’m ignoring anything you might post in response. Very late here now in Cambridge UK (1:30 am) and way past bedtime!