Cash for sterilisation...

[youngsyr]

Cookie172 said:

Could extend this to anyone that appears on Jeremy Kyle's show too

... including the host.

[andy_s]

youngsyr said:

Cookie172 said:

Could extend this to anyone that appears on Jeremy Kyle's show too

... including the host.

...and anyone watching...

[AndrewW-G]

supersingle said:

sjg said:

Yes, let's eliminate the risk of bad parenting and grow children in jars instead.

I often wonder if people who quote Huxley have actually read Brave New World. The book is ambiguous about enlightenment and authoritarianism. The savage gets caught between two worlds and despairs at both. Try reading it again.

Anyway, drug addicts volunteering for sterilisation is GREAT news.

Is BNW just the story of the savage, or is it simply a method of carrying the reader through Huxley’s futuristic society?
BNW revisited is a good read to see how Huxley thought things were changing for the worse a couple of decades after writing BNW.

For me Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, can also be used to draw some interesting parallels with the direction humanity and technology has gone in the past 60 years.

But I suppose a discussion on tin foil hat literature, isn’t for this thread

[BlackVanGirl]

Said this on the other thread:

Hate to imagine how that guy will feel if/when he ever manages to get off drugs and realises that along with everything else he now can't have kids.

Push contraception, hell yes, especially jabs or something where they don't have to remember - but it's not fair to do something permanent when they're totally unable to consider the long-term consequences. That's not informed consent.

[thinfourth2]

BlackVanGirl said:

but it's not fair to do something permanent when they're totally unable to consider the long-term consequences. That's not informed consent.

What like having kids?

Better to fk up one druggies life then to fk up the life of 2 kids

Edited by thinfourth2 on Monday 18th October 12:30

[soad]

BlackVanGirl said:

Hate to imagine how that guy will feel if/when he ever manages to get off drugs and realises that along with everything else he now can't have kids.

Assuming he gets off the dope addiction or wants to.
Nothing is ever perfect

[wildoliver]

BlackVanGirl said:

Said this on the other thread:

Hate to imagine how that guy will feel if/when he ever manages to get off drugs and realises that along with everything else he now can't have kids.

Push contraception, hell yes, especially jabs or something where they don't have to remember - but it's not fair to do something permanent when they're totally unable to consider the long-term consequences. That's not informed consent.

It's about time we stopped wringing hands and thinking what if and sorted problems out at the source.

[andy_s]

If you headlined it as 'Lowering the carbon footprint' then it'd have a raft of hand wringers jumping to its defence...

[jmorgan]

ZOLLAR said:

oOTomOo said:

ZOLLAR said:

thinfourth2 said:

jmorgan said:

Scary path to start down.

But our current path of assuming that everyone is capable of bringing up children in a safe and proper enviroment really isn't working

You both have made good points there.

Which one is best? - There's only one way to find out...

Indeed, hopefully we'll choose the right one.

Safe and proper can be no where to be seen in a family without a drug problem. The path making people sterile for whatever reasons (normal life etc as we have it) is something I would avoid.

[Mattt]

andy_s said:

If you headlined it as 'Lowering the carbon footprint' then it'd have a raft of hand wringers jumping to its defence...

Sad, but true.

[thinfourth2]

jmorgan said:

Safe and proper can be no where to be seen in a family without a drug problem. The path making people sterile for whatever reasons (normal life etc as we have it) is something I would avoid.

So you think it is perfectly acceptable for children to be born into an abusive situation?

You bang on about peoples right to have children until you are blue in the face but as always everyone ignores the childrens rights. Children are little people not a object like a telly.

So what about childrens right not to be treated like st.

This scheme is not forcing people to be sterlised it is encouraging them which is totally different

[jmorgan]

thinfourth2 said:

jmorgan said:

Safe and proper can be no where to be seen in a family without a drug problem. The path making people sterile for whatever reasons (normal life etc as we have it) is something I would avoid.

So you think it is perfectly acceptable for children to be born into an abusive situation?

You bang on about peoples right to have children until you are blue in the face but as always everyone ignores the childrens rights. Children are little people not a object like a telly.

So what about childrens right not to be treated like st.

This scheme is not forcing people to be sterlised it is encouraging them which is totally different

Bang on? Hang on more like. Just saying it does not sit right. Of course I do not think kids should be borne into abusive families but it happens and it happens without drugs.

[thinfourth2]

jmorgan said:

thinfourth2 said:

jmorgan said:

Safe and proper can be no where to be seen in a family without a drug problem. The path making people sterile for whatever reasons (normal life etc as we have it) is something I would avoid.

So you think it is perfectly acceptable for children to be born into an abusive situation?

You bang on about peoples right to have children until you are blue in the face but as always everyone ignores the childrens rights. Children are little people not a object like a telly.

So what about childrens right not to be treated like st.

This scheme is not forcing people to be sterlised it is encouraging them which is totally different

Bang on? Hang on more like. Just saying it does not sit right. Of course I do not think kids should be borne into abusive families but it happens and it happens without drugs.

So you must choose between the lesser of two evils

Life isn't fluffy

[chippy17]

Martin Keene said:

Mazda Baiter said:

Almost a shame it doesn't go a bit further in who it will operate on.

Indeed. Junkies and alcoholics should only be the top layer. Sadly I'm a firm believer that certain groups of people in this day and age need to be removed from the gene pool...

do you really believe this?

[Mazda Baiter]

ZOLLAR said:

fido said:

Can they extend this to non-drug users as well .. perhaps a one-off benefits payment, or a lifetime subscription to Sky?

I'll do it for lifetime sub to sky...... I've already had 2 children and don't want more

Ditto.

[freecar]

So what about the abused kids who's parents aren't addicts?

fk them?

No, how about we keep the current system of health visitors and make their work more robust, stop them fearing being labelled racist if they file a report on a black or asian family and hold social services responsible for their work.

That way no child should be born into a bad household.

It's not just addicts that are st at parenting.

[voyds9]

The right to have children should not be a right but should be privilege.

Society would probably be a better place if we had some sort of vetting process (rather like for adoption) before we were allowed to have children.

Not eugenics as such but social engineering.

[jmorgan]

thinfourth2 said:

So you must choose between the lesser of two evils

Life isn't fluffy

I know life is not fluffy. What is to stop drug addict setting up with someone already with kids? You have giving him or her the snip, £200 smackers for his or her next fix and turfed them back out to the real world. Abuse comes in many forms, this seems like a bit of top dressing to make it look good without dealing with the rest of the problem.

Still. Time will tell, I think it will make little difference. Still the non drug related to deal with.

Edit. Lets not forget about the well off addicts that do not need the cash. What about them?

Edited by jmorgan on Monday 18th October 14:10

[rhinochopig]

wildoliver said:

BlackVanGirl said:

Said this on the other thread:

Hate to imagine how that guy will feel if/when he ever manages to get off drugs and realises that along with everything else he now can't have kids.

Push contraception, hell yes, especially jabs or something where they don't have to remember - but it's not fair to do something permanent when they're totally unable to consider the long-term consequences. That's not informed consent.

It's about time we stopped wringing hands and thinking what if and sorted problems out at the source.

We have, we invaded Afghanistan source of most of our heroin - they now sell more than they ever did under the tallywhackers

[Frankeh]

As long as it isn't government sponsored then it doesn't matter to me at all.
It's one private organisation offering £200 to drug addicts to get the snip. I could offer people £60 to punch themselves in the face. It doesn't mean I punched them in the face.

Human rights doesn't come into it.

Edit: Thought experiment.

Lets say the government started offering lump sums of £400 for each year a woman kept an implant in. What effect do you think this would have on society?
£400 a year is surely less than a child costs in benefits, so a net gain. Maybe this could be means tested so that only people on benefits get £400 extra a year for wearing the implant.

It's very politically incorrect, but I do wonder what effect it would have.

Edited by Frankeh on Monday 18th October 14:55