Cash for sterilisation...

[tinman0]

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.

Any smackhead will take the £200 and save society from yet more feral kids that will grow up with all sorts of health problems, which will cost us taxpayers a fortune in the long term, whilst the smackhead will never make any decent contribution to the child's life in the society.

Perfectly acceptable.

If you don't think it's acceptable, then feel free to open an orphanage and spend your own time and money picking up the detritus that is the human race we currently have. And you can have my share too.

[thinfourth2]

BeeRoad said:

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.

But how about offering?

Or put it another way

We offer smackheads a grand today to be sterilized or we give them 80 grand over 16 years to have a kid?

[tinman0]

thinfourth2 said:

We offer smackheads a grand today to be sterilized or we give them 80 grand over 16 years to have a kid?

80k? Probably the best part of £300k.

Drug addict with a child will get a council house straight off, or private renting, £800pm right from the start. Then a couple of hundred quid a week for DLA and various other things because one of the feckers will be ill or unable to work, and so forth. By the time you've finished they'll have an income in the region of £20kpa.

[BeeRoad]

thinfourth2 said:

BeeRoad said:

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.

But how about offering?

Or put it another way

We offer smackheads a grand today to be sterilized or we give them 80 grand over 16 years to have a kid?

If you read my other posts, I'm fully in favour of offering this option to junkies, but don't want it imposed from on high. I imagine most junkies would rip your arm off for £200 so you shouldn't need to impose it.

[Jasandjules]

thinfourth2 said:

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.

There are those who think running a car with a V8 is killing the planet and we ougth to be sterilised as we aren't thinking of the children. We are raising them in an "abusive environment".

Where do you draw the line?

As for adopting etc well I rather think that is a completely different issue, for one thing you can't adopt as a junkie as I understand it and secondly fostering and adoption are completely different from having your own child.

Regardless of the above, the bottom line is that you are in effect taking advantage of someone who cannot make a rational decision, when that decision has ever lasting consequences. This is clearly not the same as simply putting junkies on contraceptives whilst they are addicts, which would prevent the outcome you so decry whilst also allowing them to get back on the wagon and get their lives back together, and then have children if they wish.

[Kermit power]

I was really pissed off when I saw this story!

I offered to snort a pack of Lemsip to demonstrate my drug habit, but they still wouldn't give me the cash....

"Oh no, we can't pay you to be sterilised if you've already had a vasectomy, it doesn't work like that!"

bds! The bloody underclass just get everything handed to them on a place, don't they!

[thinfourth2]

Jasandjules said:

Regardless of the above, the bottom line is that you are in effect taking advantage of someone who cannot make a rational decision, when that decision has ever lasting consequences.

So they can't make a rational decision about being sterilised as thats permanent where as having kids isn't permanent. What are suggesting baby blenders?

Jasandjules said:

This is clearly not the same as simply putting junkies on contraceptives whilst they are addicts, which would prevent the outcome you so decry whilst also allowing them to get back on the wagon and get their lives back together, and then have children if they wish.

The problem with putting junkies on contraceptives is getting buggers to remember them, but it is posible for the stick in the arm implants which would be fine.


The problem with this whole argument is uman rights and those that bang on the loudest about uman rights never consider responsibilities