Paying drug addicts/alcoholics to be sterilized, or accept long-term birth control?

[Mia]

Woman On A Mission -- Courant.com

A billboard on the side of Harris' 30-foot RV read: "Attention Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. Get Birth Control & Get $200 CASH. Call 1-888-30-CRACK."

[Mia]

Is this not interesting to anyone?

[Praxius]

I just read it, and there are some pretty sick hidden goals in this.... perhaps not intentional, but none the less, they exist.

First... she wants to pay drug addicts $300 to steralize themselves because they do drugs? Possibly permenatly? That's one way to kill off a so-called problem.

The other factor is now you are giving these people who are addicted to drugs more money to supply their habbit.... $300 all at once apparently.... doesn't that pose a concern that.... gee... I dunno.... that they are given the money, which their habbit won't say no to.... they are made to no longer have kids.... therefore, what else do they have to live for? Drugs.... so most will eventually never get out of their situations and some will most likly O.d. on the drugs they bought with the $300.

Her intentions maybe good, but the end and hidden results not mentioned I see, are not.

In all, she has adopted four children born to the same drug-addicted mother.

She took in all kinds of kids from a woman addicted who can not take care of them, so she feels this is the logical step? All this does is give the addict an excuse, a method of passing off her problems without facing them..... "Oh gee, now I got someone who has sympathy for me, and will take my kids and give me money to continue my lifestyle."

She's just indirectly killing off the problem, considdering anybody who's of a low income lifestyle, who's addicted to heavy drugs, etc. are never going to turn down money..... and masking it with so-called good intentions.

Don't get me wrong, I don't always try and find the problems in everything..... but this stinks of her own ignorance on how to solve the problem..... and listening to Billionares who give her this money.... do you seriously think they care about drug addicts living in slums?

They're Billionares for a reason.....

[Mia]

I don't care - I like it. Women having babies and their crack-addled minds lead them to throw them in dumpsters. If they clean up their act someday, they can adopt if they chose steriliztion. And if they only chose the shot, doesn't that only last a few months, or is it a few years? Even if it's a few years, like the implants, it would take at least that long to clean up if they started right that minute.

As to the amount of money given, they might use it for rent or a hotel room, a shower and some clothes along with their next hit, I don't see it as enabling.

I think the positives outweigh any negatives.

[Praxius]

Well I was referring to the permanent solutions of making them barren..... pills and the shot arn't that extremely bad, and I can see the benifits for those.... but once I heard of the perminant surgical options, that sounded a bit more serious and that's where I seen the problems begin.

About the Shot.... from my memory, it lasts up to three months, then you need another shot.... unfortunatly, from what I was told, the longer you are on the needle, you require about the same amount of time off the needle as you had on the needle in order to have proper production functions again.... in other words.... if you took the needle for 2 years, you apparently require another two years off in order to start producing an egg again..... which also means if you were on it for 10 years or so, your odds of actually having a child before you get too old becomes a factor.

But with the goods and the bads, this overall to me doesn't seem practical or a benifit for those addicted. Not all of them throw their babies in dumpsters.... not all addicts are addicted to Crack, every situation is different, and although the majority may do one thing, that doesn't mean they all do.

This does not solve the problem of addiction and if anything it would fuel it even worse.

What actually is stopping these people from taking the $300 and the medication, only to go around and sell the medication to someone else for more money? If their willing to throw a baby in a dumpster, they probably don't care one way or another anyways.... and the extra few bucks could get them through a few more days.

[Mia]

the longer you are on the needle, you require about the same amount of time off the needle as you had on the needle in order to have proper production functions again.... in other words.... if you took the needle for 2 years, you apparently require another two years off in order to start producing an egg again..... which also means if you were on it for 10 years or so, your odds of actually having a child before you get too old becomes a factor.

If that were true there wouldn't be so many addicts having kids - but they do everyday.

[gopchick]

I like the idea - I can agree that yes we are giving them money to continue their habits, but most drug users never really quit or kick the habit.

To steralize these people you are saving 100's even 1000's of lives. Instead of killing and endangering innocent babies they are only harming and killing themselves.

The only times a person gets help is because they want to and they want a better life - most of these people don't - so yes steralize them.

[Maryjane]

Praxius,
That's false. My preferred method of birth contol was the depo provera injection. I was on it for 8 years. It only took 8 months for my body to re-adjust to normal cycles.

Depo-Provera > Thinking about using Depo-Provera?

I like it too. It's pretty much a no brainier. If you can't take care of your children because you have a drug problem, don't have them until you are in a position to put their basic needs above your chemical dependency.

However, I do not advocate sterilization unless someone has been convicted of certain cases of child neglect and all cases of physical abuse proving they are unfit parents.

I would advocate the use of norplant or an IUD over depo provera. The injections have to be given quarterly in order to be effective. The other two options are more invasive at first but require less maintenance in the long run. All three are reversible.

All three of my children were born in Richmond's only inner city hospital, the same city where this woman started her campaign. It's a state run teaching hospital and the least expensive. I remember being the only mother that was breast feeding her children. Drugs cross over in a mother's breast milk. It's no wonder inner cities are targeted.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Maryjane Praxius, That's false. My preferred method of birth contol was the depo provera injection. I was on it for 8 years. It only took 8 months for my body to re-adjust to normal cycles.

Cool, I stand corrected... as I said, I wasn't totally sure.... that's not too bad of a time.

I like it too. It's pretty much a no brainier. If you can't take care of your children because you have a drug problem, don't have them until you are in a position to put their basic needs above your chemical dependency. However, I do not advocate sterilization unless someone has been convicted of certain cases of child neglect and all cases of physical abuse proving they are unfit parents.

Also my stance.... I just am worried on the potiential of something like this being abused for alterior motives.

Also, there is the Male Birth Control I am told.... That's be cool... cuz then I wouldn't have to rely on someone else making sure they took a pill or what not.

[tivodan1116]

I would expand the solution, or maybe change it up some:

Just pass a law saying to receive public benefits of any kind you have to be actively using contraception. In other words, no more welfare/dss/section 8/TANF/SSI babies.

easy enough to enforce - a urinalysis can detect contraception in a woman. Each month when they go to pick up their check, they pee in a cup. No BC in them, no check.

[The Bacon Guy]

Seems like a good idea to me. It's voluntary, private and hopefully will have some small effect on the problem. Even if the $300 was spent on drugs, I think it's better to have someone take a few more hits of heroin than to have a child they are incapable of caring for.

Quote by: Tivo Just pass a law saying to receive public benefits of any kind you have to be actively using contraception. In other words, no more welfare/dss/section 8/TANF/SSI babies.

There was an MSP who suggested putting contraception into heroin users' methadone given out in government treatment programs. It seemed like a great idea to me, but I think he was shouted down and called a Nazi. That's what passes for debate in Holyrood.

Actually, I just remembered there was a thread on the subject here.

[christibe]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I would expand the solution, or maybe change it up some: Just pass a law saying to receive public benefits of any kind you have to be actively using contraception. In other words, no more welfare/dss/section 8/TANF/SSI babies. easy enough to enforce - a urinalysis can detect contraception in a woman. Each month when they go to pick up their check, they pee in a cup. No BC in them, no check.

Ok, so I didn't read the article in the OP yet. I will, though.

Tivodan- are you suggesting that EVERY woman who utilizes the limited human services we as Americans provide should be required to submit samples for urinalysis to determine if contraceptives are in their system?

EVERY woman?

Are you also suggesting, since this thread is very much in reference to drug use and careless reproduction by users, that every addict has the capacity to march to their local social services office and obtain help from the government? It requires an awful lot of ambition...

I just wanted to understand exactly what you were stating here. If you wouldn't mind clarifying your position, that would be wonderful.

thanks

[christibe]

Ok well the article is actually gone now.

In general, I think that if there are $300 to go to every drug and/or alcohol addicted woman, that money should be spent for rehabilitation purposes, instead of stating

"Well, you are addicted to drugs, and therefore you are a worthless human being. Since there is no hope for you, we do not want you to have any kids. So, you can take 300 whole dollars and we will either sterilize you so that you may never leave any kind of mark whatsoever on this world, except for the time I had to waste on you to fix ya', like so many stray dogs. Or, you can get these shots, or whatever the contraceptive-of-choice is for the lady in the article, and I would actually not like this one, 'cuz it means I'll have to see you again in another 3-6 months."

So, I think that this line of thought will eventually lead to, "Well, how about instead of wasting $300 on worthless drug addicts, we instead just kill them. That only costs the price of a bullet, and if we burn them, we will not have to rot next to them in our own graves."

Then, there is no more problem at all. And no more waste of government money on the crackheads, right?

So- like I said, I didn't read the article and the lady may have been very well respectful of addicts and seeks only to help them. I don't know what her plan is at all. But, the idea of it led me to write this post.

sorry.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: be In general, I think that if there are $300 to go to every drug and/or alcohol addicted woman, that money should be spent for rehabilitation purposes

I think rehab for a drug addict is going to cost a little more then $300.

Quote by: be Well, you are addicted to drugs, and therefore you are a worthless human being.

It's more along the lines of "Well, you are addicted to drugs and therefore are incapable of being a responsible parent." That doesn't seem like an unreasonable stance to me.

Quote by: be worthless drug addicts

This isn't about the drug addicts; it's about protecting the children they would bring into this world and be unable to care for, and protecting the taxpayer who would then be forced to pick up the tab.

Quote by: be So, I think that this line of thought will eventually lead to, "Well, how about instead of wasting $300 on worthless drug addicts, we instead just kill them. That only costs the price of a bullet, and if we burn them, we will not have to rot next to them in our own graves."

Man, that's out there even for a slippery slope argument. How on Earth would voluntary contraception lead to murder?

[christibe]

Bacon- The only reason I was out-there is that sterilization was said to be part of the lady's solution. I vehemently disagree with sterilizing anyone. And I also didn't get to read the article. :(

And I know, most definitely everything you said... except for sterilization- I responded to your thread from last year here http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10429 . Thanks for linking it.

And I guess I look out for the underdog, even if they did it to themselves. Everyone is redeemable if they want to be.

Sorry, though, for my crappyness...

I was surly yeah, but it's Friday night here and there's shenanigans.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: christibe Tivodan- are you suggesting that EVERY woman who utilizes the limited human services we as Americans provide should be required to submit samples for urinalysis to determine if contraceptives are in their system? EVERY woman?

Yes. It is nice to go on and on about how wonderful being a parent is, but having children costs money. If you cannot afford to take care of yourself, you cannot afford to have a child. It is irresponsible and unreasonable to have children when your budget is not at least balanced and even more so when you then ask taxpayers to increase their support of you merely because you cannot "hold a marshmallow between your knees," as they say.

I think this is a completely reasonable prospect. Just as a bank can give a loan with strings attached (for example - not taking on another loan on the same piece of property), the American taxpayers should be able to attach conditions they give to handouts.

If you want free money you have to be responsible with it. Having children when you cannot support yourself is stupid.

Are you also suggesting, since this thread is very much in reference to drug use and careless reproduction by users, that every addict has the capacity to march to their local social services office and obtain help from the government? It requires an awful lot of ambition...

No, but many do. If they are not seeking a handout from me, the taxpayer, they can do whatever they want. I don't tell Bill Gates how to spend his money because it's HIS. If he wants to buy a lamborghini and turn it into a fish tank, more power to him.

"Well, you are addicted to drugs, and therefore you are a worthless human being.

What it is saying is, "since you are addicted to drugs, you are therefore not a good candidate for parenthood"

Anyone disagreeing with that statement is not from this earth.

So, I think that this line of thought will eventually lead to, "Well, how about instead of wasting $300 on worthless drug addicts, we instead just kill them. That only costs the price of a bullet, and if we burn them, we will not have to rot next to them in our own graves."

PHEW! Look at THAT strawman... no one said anything of the sort.

What was said was
drug addiction = bad parent.

That's a pretty easy argument to make.

Quote by: christibe Bacon- The only reason I was out-there is that sterilization was said to be part of the lady's solution. I vehemently disagree with sterilizing anyone. And I also didn't get to read the article. :(

It wasn't by force. It is the addicts choosing to take $300 to be sterilized. That's not force. Are you saying that if a 40-year-old man chooses to get a vasectomy since he doesn't want (more) children, you vehemently disagree with that????

[Netopalis]

Would restricting this transaction be an abuse of civil rights? After all, it is merely a transaction between a corporation and a consenting individual, not unlike the tests conducted by pharmaceutical companies, who pay for human guinea pigs...

[christibe]

Quote by: Netopalis Would restricting this transaction be an abuse of civil rights? After all, it is merely a transaction between a corporation and a consenting individual, not unlike the tests conducted by pharmaceutical companies, who pay for human guinea pigs...

Can you explain more? I thought it was a single woman crusader who was offering money to addicts as incentive to get sterilized/ take long-term b.c.?

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.


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.

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. 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.

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

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.

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.

[Gods_Mercenary]

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.

How many truly, completely, addicted people really come back from a hopeless background? Seems to me better to have a few without offspring than thousands of children born without a chance (and a probability of making more children w/o a chance), or aborted and not born at all. It's completely voluntary and I have no objections.

[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?