[tivodan1116]

Quote by: christibe But no- yeah- any restriction you make on someone from obtaining birth control/sterilization/ any kind of anything they want to do to their own body would most definitely be a restriction on civil liberties.

I like your stance on this, however our government does not feel the same way: See laws prohibiting drugs and prostitution.:rolleyes:

Tivodan I completely agree that drug addiction = bad parent. But, a drug addict is clearly in a compromised mental state, and money is really the only language they understand. So, I think that offering sterilization to them by a clear minded individual reflects a deeper motive than just prohibiting them from having children WHILE they are addicted to drugs.

I don't think it's a deeper motive then not wanting children to be born to someone who has no business being a parent. Think of it as an investment in the next generation.

However, I see your point about a compromised state of mind. I would then say that such a contract (sterilization in exchange for money) would only be valid if the person undergoing the procedure was not under the influence of drugs at the moment they agreed to the contract.

If she didn't offer sterilization, which I believe is something one cannot change their mind about, and just depo shots and I guess another 300 in 3 months, then cool. I think it is a wonderful thing. Hard enough for a person addicted to get to the gynecologist.

But that's not a solution. In that case, the $300 really would go to drugs, and the addicted person would be worse off when the shot wears off - now able to conceive a child again after three months of drugging.

The point is to permanently remove their ability to have a child. And I agree with it even more so from the prospect of a drug user's freedom to hurt themselves - if you have no children and no real responsibility, feel free to harm yourself in whatever way pleases you.

By the way, the most common medical procedures for medical sterilization - tubal ligation and vasectomy - are now commonly reversible. Not 100% of the time, but enough so that the portion of drug abusers who really do straighten out their lives enough to consider having children could do so. The procedure can be expensive, but think of it this way - if they can save the money to get it, they can save the money to afford to properly care for a child. Once again, problem solved.

Everyone who is sexually active and doesn't want a child, or is incapable of providing for a child, should be on birth control. It is irresponsible and stupid to not.

Of course. And one-time payment for relieving society of the burdens a person would impose should they become a parent demands a one-time solution, that is, sterilization.

I mean- I would like to sterilize all religious fundamentalists, all neo-conservatives, all stupid people who don't really contribute anything to this place we call earth. I don't want them to emotionally abuse children into becoming their clones. Would it be wrong for me to offer the most attractive thing in the world to them in payment for sterilization?

Of course not. Again, what you have is a willing contract between buyer and seller. Talk to George Soros, maybe he would consider funding such an operation. Of course, since many fundies are rich (despite that whole parable about the camel passing through the eye of the needle and all that... :rolleyes:) and just LOVE having oodles of children (like those wackos on TLC with 17 kids or whatever), I suspect that the price per agreement would be much higher.

YES. Because I have no right to put someone in that position.

In what position??? The position to receive money to do something of their own free volition? That is not an imposition, that is called a "contract" and it is the cornerstone of market economics. You're not "putting" someone in anything, you're offering someone money for them to take a certain action and they are free to accept or reject your offer.

If you offered me $100 to cut off my pinky toe and replace it with a prosthetic, would I? No. $10,000? I'm thinking about it... $100,000? Offer is getting really good. $1,000,000? Can the surgeon get me in this afternoon? (or, alternately, "Hand me those bolt cutters"... ewww)

What's the problem?

Also, any addict can be reformed. I have seen it happen in front of my eyes. So, to permanently take from them what I think is the only way to leave a mark on this world- creating a legacy- having children that carry on their family name and history... well, that is just a really rotten thing to me, to take advantage of them in arguably their weakest hour.

Again - it's not permanently taking, they are giving of their own free volition. I would submit that addiction requires a certain personality and if you have that personality such that you choose your addictions over the fruits and responsibilities of productive society, there is almost no hope of you ever being a good parent - your personality is flawed, and no matter if you manage to wean yourself from one particular drug at one stage of your life, sooner or later that personality weakness will rear itself again and may end up manifesting itself in a behavior that is destructive to your children. (this is a global "you", not YOU, christibe )

But yeah, it was sterilization alone, and your suggestion to force every woman to submit piss-tests to the welfare office to test for contraceptive, led to my insane post. :) Sorry I didn't reply to your explanations much, I can't think of anything to say besides "Well, see what capitalism gets ya?"... and that is not very smart-like.

I didn't find your post to be offensive or disorganized or completely irrational, i just disagreed with it... no apology needed.

And I stand by my position that in order to receive government handouts from the taxpayers, a person must demonstrate that they are actively taking steps to mitigate their need for that handout. In addition to being on birth control to prevent additional mouths to feed and bodies to house, persons on social services should have to prove they are looking for suitable work or training for a field that will lead to suitable work (no matter their condition), getting any medical care recommended by doctors, properly attending all meetings with social workers, etc. If a person will not take steps to show that this handout is a temporary/emergency solution and is their last resort, why should they get it, since that is what it was designed for?