Cash for sterilisation...

[BeeRoad]

T84 said:

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!"

No I don't think that. I've made it clear in my other posts I don't think that. I can only conclude that you haven't read my posts if you think I do. I have already said very clearly they are doing it purely to buy drugs with the £200 and you argued it would be easier for them to burgle someone. Have you not read my posts, or indeed your own?

The result however, is the same.

[thinfourth2]

T84 said:

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!"

The are going to go for the drugs you know that, i know that.

But do yo think while they are off their face on those drugs are they really going to think "oh i'd better use contraception as i'm not currently running a safe and secure household for children to be brought up in"

[T84]

BeeRoad said:

I have already said very clearly they are doing it purely to buy drugs with the £200 and you argued it would be easier for them to burgle someone. Have you not read my posts, or indeed your own?

Where did I say that?!

So basically we are pushing towards a group of people who deem themselves 'better than everybody else' who can decide who can and who cannot conceive? If you do want this, you better make sure you're on the right side of the fence

What about smokers? Should we sterilise them? Passive smoking is a proven health risk.

Alcoholics? Large number of children brought up with alcohol abuse.

Poor people? Obviously won't have a good future, will they?

I think most of you are kidding yourselves if you think that you are for this because of the future of our nations children, and not just because you don't like junkies

Edited by T84 on Tuesday 19th October 12:42

[freecar]

I find it hilarious that people are willing to give up freedoms on one hand yet moan on another when their freedom is disturbed.

You all want a nice authoritarian government poking it's nose into every aspect of your lives, telling us who can breed and who can't. Unless it involves you.


So, who's going to lead the cry to sterilise drinkers, alcohol is addictive and damaging. We should also sterilise the smokers, after all passive smoking could harm the children. Next should be the deep fat fryer owners, transfats are unhealthy and may shorten life. What about religious people? They tell their children dangerous lies every day, they should also be sterilised.

Face it, those of you who support this would not want the end result. You just believe all the daily mail has to offer about evil drugs and those that use them. For anyone that thinks the previous paragraph is a joke I can assure you it is not. Having known a heroin addict who kept her child after being assessed by social services, I would be happier putting a child into her home than into the home of a devout religious nut or heavy smoker. She was in fact a far better mother than 75% of the single mum's I have met. Her child was engaging, polite, well behaved and could read before attending school, I know many here would want to critiscize her parenting, but it would be in error.

Why bother sterilising them? They are a net drain on the economy so why not just execute them? If they serve no useful purpose and people think that they should be sanctioned to medical procedures to prevent them breeding then it seems only logical to save the £200 and just kill them. That way they don't get to have kids or talk other people into taking their drugs. Two birds!

[Willie Dee]

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.

How have you been on PH for 32 months and not realised its almost full of old white terrified daily mail xenophobic wimpy idiots?

[T84]

Willie Dee 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.

How have you been on PH for 32 months and not realised its almost full of old white terrified daily mail xenophobic wimpy idiots?

I know, shocking isn't it.

Remember people, everyone loves extreme action when it either doesn't affect or supports their views and opinions. You are not always right.

Edited by T84 on Tuesday 19th October 14:04

[andy_s]

freecar said:

I find it hilarious that people are willing to give up freedoms on one hand yet moan on another when their freedom is disturbed.

You all want a nice authoritarian government poking it's nose into every aspect of your lives, telling us who can breed and who can't. Unless it involves you.


So, who's going to lead the cry to sterilise drinkers, alcohol is addictive and damaging. We should also sterilise the smokers, after all passive smoking could harm the children. Next should be the deep fat fryer owners, transfats are unhealthy and may shorten life. What about religious people? They tell their children dangerous lies every day, they should also be sterilised.

Face it, those of you who support this would not want the end result. You just believe all the daily mail has to offer about evil drugs and those that use them. For anyone that thinks the previous paragraph is a joke I can assure you it is not. Having known a heroin addict who kept her child after being assessed by social services, I would be happier putting a child into her home than into the home of a devout religious nut or heavy smoker. She was in fact a far better mother than 75% of the single mum's I have met. Her child was engaging, polite, well behaved and could read before attending school, I know many here would want to critiscize her parenting, but it would be in error.

Why bother sterilising them? They are a net drain on the economy so why not just execute them? If they serve no useful purpose and people think that they should be sanctioned to medical procedures to prevent them breeding then it seems only logical to save the £200 and just kill them. That way they don't get to have kids or talk other people into taking their drugs. Two birds!

It's not the government. This isn't compulsory.

[andy_s]

T84 said:

Willie Dee 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.

How have you been on PH for 32 months and not realised its almost full of old white terrified daily mail xenophobic wimpy idiots?

I know, shocking isn't it.

Remember people, everyone loves extreme action when it either doesn't affect or supports their views and opinions. You are not always right.

Edited by T84 on Tuesday 19th October 14:04

You have to balance what you mean by 'extreme'. I think the taking things to their illogical conclusions has been done more by those that are anti- than those who are pro or at least open about it.

[Sheets Tabuer]

It did make me laugh while watching TV today, some woman said she has been unable to conceive for years and these people are able to get pregnant willy nilly, why should they be allowed to.

[Dupont666]

can we just take them into the clinic and gas them instead... they come willingly so you could in theory get all the chavs, druggies, etc who shouldnt ever be let near kids and then remove them all... plus no need to go looking for them!!

less druggies need drugs, less crimes = bonus
less chavs need less benefits = bonus

Everyones a winner!!

I would call the company Sterischwitz.

[supersingle]

Willie Dee said:

How have you been on PH for 32 months and not realised its almost full of old white terrified daily mail xenophobic wimpy idiots?

What's so bad about white people? Or
old people? I can see why you might not like idiots, but there are very few on PH.

Of course there are exceptions...

Edited by supersingle on Tuesday 19th October 14:32

[BeeRoad]

T84 said:

BeeRoad said:

I have already said very clearly they are doing it purely to buy drugs with the £200 and you argued it would be easier for them to burgle someone. Have you not read my posts, or indeed your own?

Where did I say that?!

So basically we are pushing towards a group of people who deem themselves 'better than everybody else' who can decide who can and who cannot conceive? If you do want this, you better make sure you're on the right side of the fence

What about smokers? Should we sterilise them? Passive smoking is a proven health risk.

Alcoholics? Large number of children brought up with alcohol abuse.

Poor people? Obviously won't have a good future, will they?

I think most of you are kidding yourselves if you think that you are for this because of the future of our nations children, and not just because you don't like junkies

Edited by T84 on Tuesday 19th October 12:42

Sorry, confused you with another poster.

We're not pushing anyone - the option is there and the choice is theirs. Your comments regarding smokers and alcoholics are somewhat irrelevant as those groups do not commonly commit crime to feed their habit and rarely result in children born pre-addicted to Stella.

I'm not kidding anyone - I'd prefer there were no junkies but as that's not possible I'd like to try to reduce the numbers of innocent children born pre-addicted for social services to bring up if they survive. I can't understand why you place the human rights of the junkie above those of the babies TBH.

[Dupont666]

BeeRoad said:

T84 said:

BeeRoad said:

I have already said very clearly they are doing it purely to buy drugs with the £200 and you argued it would be easier for them to burgle someone. Have you not read my posts, or indeed your own?

Where did I say that?!

So basically we are pushing towards a group of people who deem themselves 'better than everybody else' who can decide who can and who cannot conceive? If you do want this, you better make sure you're on the right side of the fence

What about smokers? Should we sterilise them? Passive smoking is a proven health risk.

Alcoholics? Large number of children brought up with alcohol abuse.

Poor people? Obviously won't have a good future, will they?

I think most of you are kidding yourselves if you think that you are for this because of the future of our nations children, and not just because you don't like junkies

Edited by T84 on Tuesday 19th October 12:42

Sorry, confused you with another poster.

We're not pushing anyone - the option is there and the choice is theirs. Your comments regarding smokers and alcoholics are somewhat irrelevant as those groups do not commonly commit crime to feed their habit and rarely result in children born pre-addicted to Stella.

I'm not kidding anyone - I'd prefer there were no junkies but as that's not possible I'd like to try to reduce the numbers of innocent children born pre-addicted for social services to bring up if they survive. I can't understand why you place the human rights of the junkie above those of the babies TBH.

The bit I like is the people saying they are not in the right frame of mind to decide and should not be given the option as such, just in case they at some time in the future get off the smack and come clean.

If all those people would like to step forward and start adopting the smack head babies already born to druggies as its their right to have a kid and leave them to the social, then that would be fine.

But depending on the technique used (the snip or so) is that not reversable so all they would need to do is go get it fixed later?

I prefer the method to lace all drug substitues with a contraceptive drug so whilst they take it (even once) they are sterile for a certain period of time, to become fertile again then they must stop taking the drugs and the affect wears off after a month or three.

[BeeRoad]

Dupont666 said:

BeeRoad said:

T84 said:

BeeRoad said:

I have already said very clearly they are doing it purely to buy drugs with the £200 and you argued it would be easier for them to burgle someone. Have you not read my posts, or indeed your own?

Where did I say that?!

So basically we are pushing towards a group of people who deem themselves 'better than everybody else' who can decide who can and who cannot conceive? If you do want this, you better make sure you're on the right side of the fence

What about smokers? Should we sterilise them? Passive smoking is a proven health risk.

Alcoholics? Large number of children brought up with alcohol abuse.

Poor people? Obviously won't have a good future, will they?

I think most of you are kidding yourselves if you think that you are for this because of the future of our nations children, and not just because you don't like junkies

Edited by T84 on Tuesday 19th October 12:42

Sorry, confused you with another poster.

We're not pushing anyone - the option is there and the choice is theirs. Your comments regarding smokers and alcoholics are somewhat irrelevant as those groups do not commonly commit crime to feed their habit and rarely result in children born pre-addicted to Stella.

I'm not kidding anyone - I'd prefer there were no junkies but as that's not possible I'd like to try to reduce the numbers of innocent children born pre-addicted for social services to bring up if they survive. I can't understand why you place the human rights of the junkie above those of the babies TBH.

The bit I like is the people saying they are not in the right frame of mind to decide and should not be given the option as such, just in case they at some time in the future get off the smack and come clean.

If all those people would like to step forward and start adopting the smack head babies already born to druggies as its their right to have a kid and leave them to the social, then that would be fine.

But depending on the technique used (the snip or so) is that not reversable so all they would need to do is go get it fixed later?

I prefer the method to lace all drug substitues with a contraceptive drug so whilst they take it (even once) they are sterile for a certain period of time, to become fertile again then they must stop taking the drugs and the affect wears off after a month or three.

Personally I draw the line at offering this purely as an option to the junkie, I would not like to see it imposed in any way, particularly by government.

[Dupont666]

BeeRoad said:

Personally I draw the line at offering this purely as an option to the junkie, I would not like to see it imposed in any way, particularly by government.

Which bit?

giving them the option to sterilise or the government getting involved and lacing the drug subsituties it gives out for exisitng druggies?

[GarryA]

Give them £200 worth of pure heroin and tell em to get on with it.

[freecar]

andy_s said:

freecar said:

I find it hilarious that people are willing to give up freedoms on one hand yet moan on another when their freedom is disturbed.

You all want a nice authoritarian government poking it's nose into every aspect of your lives, telling us who can breed and who can't. Unless it involves you.


So, who's going to lead the cry to sterilise drinkers, alcohol is addictive and damaging. We should also sterilise the smokers, after all passive smoking could harm the children. Next should be the deep fat fryer owners, transfats are unhealthy and may shorten life. What about religious people? They tell their children dangerous lies every day, they should also be sterilised.

Face it, those of you who support this would not want the end result. You just believe all the daily mail has to offer about evil drugs and those that use them. For anyone that thinks the previous paragraph is a joke I can assure you it is not. Having known a heroin addict who kept her child after being assessed by social services, I would be happier putting a child into her home than into the home of a devout religious nut or heavy smoker. She was in fact a far better mother than 75% of the single mum's I have met. Her child was engaging, polite, well behaved and could read before attending school, I know many here would want to critiscize her parenting, but it would be in error.

Why bother sterilising them? They are a net drain on the economy so why not just execute them? If they serve no useful purpose and people think that they should be sanctioned to medical procedures to prevent them breeding then it seems only logical to save the £200 and just kill them. That way they don't get to have kids or talk other people into taking their drugs. Two birds!

It's not the government. This isn't compulsory.

I'm well aware of that, after all it was in the op. I was referring to the overwhelming support for this sort of thing to be compulsory. It may not be implicitly stated but it is inferred.

[andy_s]

freecar said:

andy_s said:

freecar said:

I find it hilarious that people are willing to give up freedoms on one hand yet moan on another when their freedom is disturbed.

You all want a nice authoritarian government poking it's nose into every aspect of your lives, telling us who can breed and who can't. Unless it involves you.


So, who's going to lead the cry to sterilise drinkers, alcohol is addictive and damaging. We should also sterilise the smokers, after all passive smoking could harm the children. Next should be the deep fat fryer owners, transfats are unhealthy and may shorten life. What about religious people? They tell their children dangerous lies every day, they should also be sterilised.

Face it, those of you who support this would not want the end result. You just believe all the daily mail has to offer about evil drugs and those that use them. For anyone that thinks the previous paragraph is a joke I can assure you it is not. Having known a heroin addict who kept her child after being assessed by social services, I would be happier putting a child into her home than into the home of a devout religious nut or heavy smoker. She was in fact a far better mother than 75% of the single mum's I have met. Her child was engaging, polite, well behaved and could read before attending school, I know many here would want to critiscize her parenting, but it would be in error.

Why bother sterilising them? They are a net drain on the economy so why not just execute them? If they serve no useful purpose and people think that they should be sanctioned to medical procedures to prevent them breeding then it seems only logical to save the £200 and just kill them. That way they don't get to have kids or talk other people into taking their drugs. Two birds!

It's not the government. This isn't compulsory.

I'm well aware of that, after all it was in the op. I was referring to the overwhelming support for this sort of thing to be compulsory. It may not be implicitly stated but it is inferred.

I see where you are coming from.

I think you've taken their extreme views even further to disprove them though, as I've said before, it's an interesting subject and having dealt with, (and vicariously still do to some extent), the effects and long term abuse and, frankly, generational carnage, which happens on a daily basis then any option to improve life or at least negate some of the effects should be considered rationally.

I'm not saying mow down the plebs, I'm saying options like this are perhaps helping break the cyclical dependencies and traumas that many encounter in their day to day work and lives. To extend the argument towards an extreme, on either side, is disingenuous.

[BeeRoad]

Dupont666 said:

BeeRoad said:

Personally I draw the line at offering this purely as an option to the junkie, I would not like to see it imposed in any way, particularly by government.

Which bit?

giving them the option to sterilise or the government getting involved and lacing the drug subsituties it gives out for exisitng druggies?

Both. I don't want to see govt imposing such things on anyone.

[freecar]

andy_s said:

freecar said:

andy_s said:

freecar said:

I find it hilarious that people are willing to give up freedoms on one hand yet moan on another when their freedom is disturbed.

You all want a nice authoritarian government poking it's nose into every aspect of your lives, telling us who can breed and who can't. Unless it involves you.


So, who's going to lead the cry to sterilise drinkers, alcohol is addictive and damaging. We should also sterilise the smokers, after all passive smoking could harm the children. Next should be the deep fat fryer owners, transfats are unhealthy and may shorten life. What about religious people? They tell their children dangerous lies every day, they should also be sterilised.

Face it, those of you who support this would not want the end result. You just believe all the daily mail has to offer about evil drugs and those that use them. For anyone that thinks the previous paragraph is a joke I can assure you it is not. Having known a heroin addict who kept her child after being assessed by social services, I would be happier putting a child into her home than into the home of a devout religious nut or heavy smoker. She was in fact a far better mother than 75% of the single mum's I have met. Her child was engaging, polite, well behaved and could read before attending school, I know many here would want to critiscize her parenting, but it would be in error.

Why bother sterilising them? They are a net drain on the economy so why not just execute them? If they serve no useful purpose and people think that they should be sanctioned to medical procedures to prevent them breeding then it seems only logical to save the £200 and just kill them. That way they don't get to have kids or talk other people into taking their drugs. Two birds!

It's not the government. This isn't compulsory.

I'm well aware of that, after all it was in the op. I was referring to the overwhelming support for this sort of thing to be compulsory. It may not be implicitly stated but it is inferred.

I see where you are coming from.

I think you've taken their extreme views even further to disprove them though, as I've said before, it's an interesting subject and having dealt with, (and vicariously still do to some extent), the effects and long term abuse and, frankly, generational carnage, which happens on a daily basis then any option to improve life or at least negate some of the effects should be considered rationally.

I'm not saying mow down the plebs, I'm saying options like this are perhaps helping break the cyclical dependencies and traumas that many encounter in their day to day work and lives. To extend the argument towards an extreme, on either side, is disingenuous.

Thankyou for a very well thought out reply, this is why I love debate on pistonheads.

I didn't mean to extend anyone's argument to ridiculous proportion. I was merely extending it in an interesting way. There are estimates that there are around 200,000 "problem" hard drug users in this country. I would imagine that were the data available, there would be far more "problem" drinkers blighting the existence of their children than drug users, therefore there could be more good done sterilising people with alcohol problems than hard drug users.

I think child welfare in this country has more pressing problems than drug users breeding. Would any policy in this area stop another "baby p"? Probably not. The social services departments in this country are impotent. Harassed by political correctness and regulation that has seen many a public failing of children.

I think this is mostly one person's misguided attempt to rid the world of drug users. They probably had a son or daughter turn to drug use and this is why they think they can do a lot of good offering cash to addicts.