Cash for sterilisation...

[andy_s]

freecar said:

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.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, sterilising some doesn't mean you can't continue to look after everyone else.
Saying 'fk them' was just an emotive device; no one has said that.

[youngsyr]

Seems to me that people have missed the obvious flaw in this scheme: only the drug addicts who know they don't want kids, or who are responsible are going to do it.

Those who actually want kids or aren't responsible enough to ensure they take precautions aren't going to be sufficiently responsible/organised to take up the "offer".

There's also the ethical issue of encouraging people who clearly are in an altered state of mind to take such decisions.

[andy_s]

youngsyr said:

Seems to me that people have missed the obvious flaw in this scheme: only the drug addicts who know they don't want kids, or who are responsible are going to do it.

Those who actually want kids or aren't responsible enough to ensure they take precautions aren't going to be sufficiently responsible/organised to take up the "offer".

I think that's the point of the £200 lure.

The ethics are related to our perceptions largely - perhaps in a future utopia we'll laugh at the primitive way we ran around after people abusing kids and moaned about the burden on the State on one hand and let irresponsible people bring any number of children into the world that they couldn't support on the other.

Of course there are issues, but I'm not closed minded to the idea to be honest.

Edited by andy_s on Monday 18th October 15:21

[BeeRoad]

youngsyr said:

Seems to me that people have missed the obvious flaw in this scheme: only the drug addicts who know they don't want kids, or who are responsible are going to do it.

Those who actually want kids or aren't responsible enough to ensure they take precautions aren't going to be sufficiently responsible/organised to take up the "offer".

There's also the ethical issue of encouraging people who clearly are in an altered state of mind to take such decisions.

I think you've missed the point. The point is they don't take up the offer because it's the responsible thing to do, they take it up because the £200 buys their next fix. It's got nothing to do with wanting or not wanting kids, all they will see is how much crack £200 will buy them.

[youngsyr]

BeeRoad said:

I think you've missed the point. The point is they don't take up the offer because it's the responsible thing to do, they take it up because the £200 buys their next fix. It's got nothing to do with wanting or not wanting kids, all they will see is how much crack £200 will buy them.

£200 is about as much as one nicked Playstation 3 sold on Ebay. If they're that desperate, I would imagine burglary would be a more favourable option than going under the knife.

[bernies]

I think we could organise a whip round for this bloke..

[Tommy Winchester]

Brilliant idea! One of the few Americans that I feel I could have a conversation with.

[Jasandjules]

I just don't feel comfortable with this.

People on drugs are hardly compus mentus. That means to my mind that they are not in a position to make a rational decision, especially on a matter as fundamental to human nature as having children.

And I think the above in spite of myself.

[BlackVanGirl]

Jasandjules said:

I just don't feel comfortable with this.

People on drugs are hardly compus mentus. That means to my mind that they are not in a position to make a rational decision, especially on a matter as fundamental to human nature as having children.

And I think the above in spite of myself.

This.

I tried to say much the same earlier, but didn't manage to put it as clearly.

[T84]

I think it's more terrifying that people on this forum think it's a GOOD idea, my opinion of PH has changed massively.

[LD1Racing]

youngsyr said:

BeeRoad said:

I think you've missed the point. The point is they don't take up the offer because it's the responsible thing to do, they take it up because the £200 buys their next fix. It's got nothing to do with wanting or not wanting kids, all they will see is how much crack £200 will buy them.

£200 is about as much as one nicked Playstation 3 sold on Ebay. If they're that desperate, I would imagine burglary would be a more favourable option than going under the knife.

A bit naive to think that your average smack-head has a pc and an Ebay account. Surely that would be the first item sold. Drug-related theft is impulsive and moved on very quickly and at a low cost. They would be lucky to get £20 for a PS3 at a second hand shop that won't ask questions.

I think it is a great idea, just a shame it won't be compulsory for drug addicts and persistant offenders. In fact, that's an idea, a swap-your-knackers-for-early-release programme.

[Ganglandboss]

It looks like the offer is being extended!

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/paid-st...

[BeeRoad]

youngsyr said:

BeeRoad said:

I think you've missed the point. The point is they don't take up the offer because it's the responsible thing to do, they take it up because the £200 buys their next fix. It's got nothing to do with wanting or not wanting kids, all they will see is how much crack £200 will buy them.

£200 is about as much as one nicked Playstation 3 sold on Ebay. If they're that desperate, I would imagine burglary would be a more favourable option than going under the knife.

And having known a junkie I suspect they would take both the burglary and the free £200 for a few hours in a clinic. You are attaching a degree of rational decision-making to junkies that they generally do not possess.

[BeeRoad]

T84 said:

I think it's more terrifying that people on this forum think it's a GOOD idea, my opinion of PH has changed massively.

I think it's terrifying that some people are more concerned about the junkie than the trail of babies born pre-addicted to their parents narcotic du jour, but I'm happy for other people to have opinions which differ to mine, especially on an internet forum.

[thinfourth2]

Jasandjules said:

I just don't feel comfortable with this.

People on drugs are hardly compus mentus. That means to my mind that they are not in a position to make a rational decision, especially on a matter as fundamental to human nature as having children.

And I think the above in spite of myself.

Which is exactly why I think it is a good idea.

It stops them from having children accidentally.

It doesn't stop them from adopting, fostering or from having IVF.

You must ask what is more important the right to have children or the right of children to not be brought into an abusive environment.

[T84]

BeeRoad said:

T84 said:

I think it's more terrifying that people on this forum think it's a GOOD idea, my opinion of PH has changed massively.

I think it's terrifying that some people are more concerned about the junkie than the trail of babies born pre-addicted to their parents narcotic du jour, but I'm happy for other people to have opinions which differ to mine, especially on an internet forum.

So you think that is a good thing that an American company want to "Play God" and basically make an offer so tempting that people who can't think straight will take the money just to get their next hit?

Absolutely outrageous if you ask me.

[Martin Keene]

T84 said:

BeeRoad said:

T84 said:

I think it's more terrifying that people on this forum think it's a GOOD idea, my opinion of PH has changed massively.

I think it's terrifying that some people are more concerned about the junkie than the trail of babies born pre-addicted to their parents narcotic du jour, but I'm happy for other people to have opinions which differ to mine, especially on an internet forum.

So you think that is a good thing that an American company want to "Play God" and basically make an offer so tempting that people who can't think straight will take the money just to get their next hit?

Absolutely outrageous if you ask me.

I saw the woman behind this charity being interviewed on TV last night. Her response to those who disagree with it is if you disagree then make sure your signed up to adopt the next pre-addicted baby.

She has a point...

[BeeRoad]

T84 said:

BeeRoad said:

T84 said:

I think it's more terrifying that people on this forum think it's a GOOD idea, my opinion of PH has changed massively.

I think it's terrifying that some people are more concerned about the junkie than the trail of babies born pre-addicted to their parents narcotic du jour, but I'm happy for other people to have opinions which differ to mine, especially on an internet forum.

So you think that is a good thing that an American company want to "Play God" and basically make an offer so tempting that people who can't think straight will take the money just to get their next hit?

Absolutely outrageous if you ask me.

Yes, as I said before, I do think it's a good idea. It's a good idea for the junkie, it's a good idea for the unborn children of the junkie and it's a good idea for society as a whole. The only thing I can think of that is worse than paying people who 'can't think straight' to get sterilised is continuing to let people who 'can't think straight' to have babies.

[thinfourth2]

BeeRoad said:

T84 said:

BeeRoad said:

T84 said:

I think it's more terrifying that people on this forum think it's a GOOD idea, my opinion of PH has changed massively.

I think it's terrifying that some people are more concerned about the junkie than the trail of babies born pre-addicted to their parents narcotic du jour, but I'm happy for other people to have opinions which differ to mine, especially on an internet forum.

So you think that is a good thing that an American company want to "Play God" and basically make an offer so tempting that people who can't think straight will take the money just to get their next hit?

Absolutely outrageous if you ask me.

Yes, as I said before, I do think it's a good idea. It's a good idea for the junkie, it's a good idea for the unborn children of the junkie and it's a good idea for society as a whole. The only thing I can think of that is worse than paying people who 'can't think straight' to get sterilised is continuing to let people who 'can't think straight' to have babies.

we don't "let" people that can't think straight have children we pay them to have children which is quite frankly fking insane

[T84]

BeeRoad said:

T84 said:

BeeRoad said:

T84 said:

I think it's more terrifying that people on this forum think it's a GOOD idea, my opinion of PH has changed massively.

I think it's terrifying that some people are more concerned about the junkie than the trail of babies born pre-addicted to their parents narcotic du jour, but I'm happy for other people to have opinions which differ to mine, especially on an internet forum.

So you think that is a good thing that an American company want to "Play God" and basically make an offer so tempting that people who can't think straight will take the money just to get their next hit?

Absolutely outrageous if you ask me.

Yes, as I said before, I do think it's a good idea. It's a good idea for the junkie, it's a good idea for the unborn children of the junkie and it's a good idea for society as a whole. The only thing I can think of that is worse than paying people who 'can't think straight' to get sterilised is continuing to let people who 'can't think straight' to have babies.

Do you really think the 'junkie' is going to think "Oh dear, I am in fact a junkie! I should sterilise myself for the good of the human race!" Or "£200, I could get a load of smack for that!"