Bribing addicts to get sterilized

Talk about your horrible conflict. Is this coercion, or just the exercise of an individual right, subject to financial incentives? She obviously has bad intentions:

As it has expanded, the tone of the group has also shifted. Ms Harris, who was quoted in one of her first interviews as saying “We don’t allow dogs to breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children,” has since toned down her language.

Why exactly is that comment bad? It seems remarkably honest, the sort of thing we’ve all said at one time or another, seeing impoverished mothers with whole litters of kids they can’t afford to feed. All the money in the world given to various social programs has done nothing to curb this problem, which we all subsidize. I’m not comfortable with offering permanent sterilization, though removable IUDs seem like a fantastic idea to me. It’s certainly more realistic than the current philosophy, summed up by that insane “many drug addicts become loving mothers and that their children in many cases do not suffer life-long health problems” line in the linked article.

Because it’s a rephrased version of the eugenics talk from the 30s? This is one of the few occasions where bringing up Hitler isn’t irrelevant; the Nazi’s got their eugenics plans from the US’s small versions.

Comparing drug addicts to dogs…

Are you aware that you are the precise type of person for whom Political Correctness was invented, Jason?

Political Correctness has not simply made things more polite… its made the truth far more concealed. So now everything has to be translated into English because it was translated in the first place away from clear English and into a polite, mangled form.

Every phrase becomes a euphemistic jungle, every word a hiding place.

When you fear others, Political Correctness is the logical solution…

I think offering money to have people sterilize themselves presents plenty of moral quandries, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s ethical.

It worked for Singapore.

I’ve heard CRACK’s founder speak on the radio about her organization. Her intentions seem legit to me; she has adopted four children who were born addicted to crack, so I’d say she cares about this issue beyond just wanting to get some people sterilized.

Her main failing (last time I looked into this) seems to be a lack of understanding how controversial something like this would be. The Washington City Paper had a great article a few years back where a reporter followed around a person from CRACK’s DC chapter. Seeing this person just randomly approach (apparent) drug users and try to strike up conversations about sterilization showed how unprepared this group was to get across what has got to be a pretty tough sell.

You mean “…from England’s small versions”. Can’t blame Bush this time, dude. 60+ years difference AND wrong continent.

Imagine how many of ya’ll wouldn’t be here if they sterilized pot smokers in the 60’s and 70’s. :lol:

You mean “…from England’s small versions”. Can’t blame Bush this time, dude. 60+ years difference AND wrong continent.[/quote]

I didn’t say Bush. I meant this.

Virtually all eugenicists supported compulsory sterilization for the unfit; some supported castration. By 1936, when expert medical panels in both England and the US finally condemned compulsory eugenical sterilization, more than 20,000 forced sterilizations had been performed, mostly on poor people (and disproportionately on black people) confined to state-run mental hospitals and residential facilities for the mentally retarded. Almost 500 men and women had died from the surgery. The American Eugenics Society had hoped, in time, to sterilize one-tenth of the US population, or millions of Americans. Based on the American eugenical sterilization experience, Hitler’s sterilization program managed to sterilize 225,000 people in less than three years.

Anyway, since its not the government doing it, it’s legal, but extremely disturbing.

Dup.

Sounds pretty passable to me, at least in the short run. Wouldn’t it be great if this really caught on, and years from now it was found that people who didn’t want to have children were becoming drug addicts for the free sterilization + money?

We’ll just have to offer them straight up drugs for sterilization.

We’ll just have to offer them straight up drugs for sterilization.[/quote]

What do you mean “them”? Gimme that crackpipe…

So no one would object if, say, a group started bribing gun owners to not have kids?

Hmmmm, we could bribe right-wing nuts to shut up? Only problem with that is their greed, so no amount would be enough…

If they’re stupid enough to take the money, they shouldn’t be reproducing anyway.

I certainly wouldn’t. Good luck, though, and if people like you think gun owners are as detrimental to society as drug addicts, then we must be doing something right.

Since the 2nd Amendment was written in the late 1700s, I propose that the only weapons that private citizens can carry are those that were available in the late 1700s.

Once we confiscate all other handguns and automatic weapons, the gang-bangers weapons of choice will be a standard flintlock modified into a 1860-era percussion cap rifle. These of course, will be illegal.

Citizens requiring greater protection in their house will be allowed to deploy Revolutionary War era field artillery pieces, so long as all members of the household are trained as a gun crew.

That’s sound thinking. Since the first amendment and any others implying a right to free thought were written at that time as well, I propose we consider any conventionalized morality since then an abuse of the original document. Goodbye, Bay Area, so long, Greenwich Village…we’ll miss you.

Maybe housing prices will come down then and I can get something more than an apartment.