Sterilizing Addicts

[Eleftherios]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1269355/BARBARA-DAVIES-Should-drug-addicts-paid-sterilised.html

Just read this article, and I'm sick to my stomach. Not only because of the stupid ***** who is actually doing this, but the fact that this is seriously considered by some people (just look at the comments section, most people actually agree with her). Aren't people forgetting what happened 70 years ago??

While I do agree that any addicts (or anyone else, for that matter) who neglect their children and don't offer them a good upbringing should have their children taken away, offering a monetary reward to people who might be desperate for money as "a permanent solution" (to what could very well be a temporary problem, since addiction doesn't have to be permanent) like this is pretty ridiculous.

But since we have come this far, hey, why don't we begin sterilizing people with dwarfism, or people who are genetically predisposed to certain illnesses? After all, the kids "didn't choose to be that way".

[Euronymous]

This makes me sick! Instead of treating the problem at hand, this ***** wants the easy route which is to treat their reproductive abilities. I hope many people don't get drawn into this scam.

Or maybe women who don't have health insurence and are not addicted can go to her for contraceptive implants and get paid for it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Good to see old and "viable" techniques of dealing with social problems, like destroying one's capacity to reproduce, still alive. It seems that people will come up with all sorts of shit just to turn away from facing with sober senses the concrete social conditions in which people live and act, and which shapes them into who they are and what they do.

Better yet, maybe some folks should provide a comprehensive framework which could specify the risk factors in advance - you know, stuff like which part of the city you were born into, your parent(s)' income, georaphical origin (no one would question it as a cover up for racial profiling! we're all color blind!), stuff like that.

Oh yeah, and this:


Not only because of the stupid ***** who is actually doing this..


This makes me sick! Instead of treating the problem at hand, this *****...

Sexism much?

EDIT: shit, I just noticed: 200 quids???? They want to offer people 200 quids for sterilisation? Shit, I can imagine where could this approach lead to. A new form of welfare, this time we just don't want you to overpopulate the country (the reserve army of labour's doing fine, thanks for asking), and better yet, we can't have our public healthcare (which incidentally is getting less and less public) overburdened, so we can throw in folks with mental illnesses too and other people as well.

[Tim Finnegan]

Um... At least she's not racist? :bored:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Apparently the sterilisation procedure can be reversed, so it's likely to be a tubal ligation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tubal_ligation).

Even so, this is ethically dubious. Beyond the surgery itself and the £200 (which seems an insultingly small sum to my eyes - that's the cost of a big night out, not an amount liable to change one's life drastically), what else is involved?

But even before we should be asking such questions, we should be asking: are the social services in the UK so poor now that Dickensian crap like the above seems like a good idea?

No wonder people have been rioting!

[Trelane]

Harris also says she promises to pay to have any of these procedures reversed. Her motives are pretty screwed up, but it doesn't sound like this is stopping any wanted pregnancies.

[Dogs On Acid]

RedStar 2000's opinion on the matter. (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory7f45.html?subaction=showfull&id=1144798240&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

I don't agree with him, but it's there if you want to read it.

[khad]

2 warnings:


Not only because of the stupid ***** who is actually doing this..


This makes me sick! Instead of treating the problem at hand, this *****...

Also, for Euronymous this is the second warning. He is now banned.

[Jazzratt]

But even before we should be asking such questions, we should be asking: are the social services in the UK so poor now that Dickensian crap like the above seems like a good idea? I saw a few years ago that this sort of thing was going to be coming over here (it is, unsurprisingly, an American invention) but assumed that shit wouldn't fly. Well, here it is. Flying.

Good grief.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Harris also says she promises to pay to have any of these procedures reversed. Her motives are pretty screwed up, but it doesn't sound like this is stopping any wanted pregnancies.

Her motives are screwed up because she looks at this as an individual problem requiring individual solutions, not a social problem requiring social solutions.

Even assuming some kind of treatment or therapy is involved along with the surgery and the £200, it merely treats the most obvious symptoms of the underlying social illness. Paying off drug addicts to sterilise them, even if they happen to stop being drug addicts into the bargain, does nothing to address the socioeconomic conditions which create drug addicts.

[khad]

I dismiss with contempt the notion that if we all "became vegans" then we could "feed more people" -- this planet groans under the weight of more than six billion people now and, by 2050, perhaps ten billion.

If you want to "do something for the planet", don't make babies!I never thought RS2k would be a Malthusian, but whatever.

Now we know.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I never thought RS2k would be a Malthusian, but whatever.

Now we know.


Sounds fairly sensible to me. It's easier to avoid having kids than it is to avoid eating animal products, and not birthing extra people like some outbreak of pink goo (http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Words/p.html#PINK_GOO) will do more collectively for the environmental state of the planet and our collective well-being than otherwise; the savings made from not having to support extra people exceed the saving made from having extra people, even if they are all vegan.

I am not in favour of schemes like the OP, but to ignore the fact that the more people there are then the more thinly our resources and energy production are spread (or under capitalism, the more tightly concentrated in a small minority while the rest gets next to nothing in comparison) is similarly loopy.

If we ever get around to industrialising space and gathering resources from the rest of the Solar system, then we'll be able to get away with breeding like rabbits. But until then we are limited to what we can find on this already well-explored planet.

[khad]

Sounds fairly sensible to me. It's easier to avoid having kids than it is to avoid eating animal products, and not birthing extra people like some outbreak of pink goo (http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Words/p.html#PINK_GOO) will do more collectively for the environmental state of the planet and our collective well-being than otherwise; the savings made from not having to support extra people exceed the saving made from having extra people, even if they are all vegan.

And bullshit. He's saying that 6 billion people on the planet is already TOO MUCH.
But enough about that irrelevant curmudgeon.

There's something to be gained from this article by reading between the lines. The problem with drug addicted babies in the UK is small, miniscule even. Why? Because of free access to sex education and contraception.

The UK, a country of 60 million people, has just 2,000 babies born per year to drug addicted mothers whereas the US, a country of 300 million, has 69,000. By percentages, the US has SEVEN TIMES as many children born to drug addicted mothers as the UK.

This is as convincing proof of any of the advantages of public health care.


'It's not OK to abuse children,' she says. Now, Harris appears to be winning tentative support in Britain, where about 2,000 babies are born each year to drug-addicted mothers. "
'Sex education and contraceptive advice is part of drug treatment work in this country,' he says. 'Women who use drugs can access contraception free on the NHS, including long-term options.
In America, where 69,000 children are born to addicts each year, her programme has been likened by some to Nazi eugenics.

[Dogs On Acid]

But enough about that irrelevant curmudgeon.

Thought twice about that sentence eh Khad?

I think that as a Mod you should apologize for that sort of language and petty-insults like "irrelevant old fucker".

[khad]

Thought twice about that sentence eh Khad?

I think that as a Mod you should apologize for that sort of language and petty-insults like "irrelevant old fucker".
Unlike various things you endorse, nothing I've said is against the rules.

You should quit while you're ahead.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And bullshit. He's saying that 6 billion people on the planet is already TOO MUCH.

Take into account the uneven nature of global development. The amount of people that the planet can support is not a fixed number, but a variable dependant on multiple factors. The current industrial architecture is not geared towards ensuring the greatest quality of life for the greatest amount of people, hence the fact that the vast majority of the world's 6 billion (I think more like 7 billion now) people are being failed by it daily.

Now, saying things like "TOO MUCH" (a phrasing I cannot find in the original Redstar2000 article, by the way) is far too simplistic a way of putting it to be useful, but "don't have babies" is far from the worst advice one could give.

Steering the subject closer OP once again, RS2k may not be hostile enough to the idea for your liking, but I fail to see what's wrong with his preferred solution: abortions on demand, with monthly payments to drug addicts as opposed to a one-off. Sure beats sterilisation and bounties.


But enough about that irrelevant curmudgeon.

Why bring him up in first place? Because you wanted to attack him for being "Malthusian", apparently.


There's something to be gained from this article by reading between the lines. The problem with drug addicted babies in the UK is small, miniscule even. Why? Because of free access to sex education and contraception.

The UK, a country of 60 million people, has just 2,000 babies born per year to drug addicted mothers whereas the US, a country of 300 million, has 69,000. By percentages, the US has SEVEN TIMES as many children born to drug addicted mothers as the UK.

This is as convincing proof of any of the advantages of public health care.

Quite so. Even so, it's worrying that such a charity seems to be able to operate in spite of that.

[Dogs On Acid]

Unlike various things you endorse, nothing I've said is against the rules.

You should quit while you're ahead.

Get off your high horse then you irrelevant fuck.

[Bud Struggle]

Well should society sterilize people that have a known severe incurable mental or physical disorder?

Maybe for the better overall health of society. If severe addictions to liquor or drugs was a biological disorder tansmitted through genes--would sterilization be worth consideration? Or would this be an intrusion into a person's private usiness?

[ComradeMan]

Well should society sterilize people that have a known severe incurable mental or physical disorder?

Maybe for the better overall health of society. If severe addictions to liquor or drugs was a biological disorder tansmitted through genes--would sterilization be worth consideration? Or would this be an intrusion into a person's private usiness?

It has already happened and happens.

Too much like Social Darwinism/Eugenics/Racial Hygiene for my liking.

[Ocean Seal]

These were the two things that RedStar2k said that really bothered me.



If there's a "communist position" in all this, it's that we should be telling young women DON'T HAVE KIDS!

Why do communists have to be involved in everything? Who are we to tell working class people to have or not have kids seriously? Sometimes we take this whole anti-capitalist crusader thing a bit far...



Unless, of course, you can marry a really rich bastard...that's your only chance -- not a very "inspiring" message.
Yep, if what you want is a family and children, your only chance is a rich bastard. Apparently if you want something as reasonable as that you should turn in your working class card, and join the class enemy. At this point he's just exaggerating. Some people are willing to put themselves through more to bring a child into this world. Who are we to say no.

[Bud Struggle]

It has already happened and happens.

Too much like Social Darwinism/Eugenics/Racial Hygiene for my liking.

Yup, that's the trouble with the government or society intruding into someone's private business. You can never trust the people making decisions like that about other people. Even with the best of intentions.

[ComradeMan]

Well of course we could solve the whole damn problem and go for that voluntary human extinction idea..... :crying: end of problem. :rolleyes:

[Dogs On Acid]

Well should society sterilize people that have a known severe incurable mental or physical disorder?

Maybe for the better overall health of society. If severe addictions to liquor or drugs was a biological disorder tansmitted through genes--would sterilization be worth consideration? Or would this be an intrusion into a person's private usiness?

Sterilize fellow humans? Doesn't sound very appealing to me.

But with those who have inheritable physical or mental disorders, adoption should be encouraged!

[ComradeMan]

Sounds fairly sensible to me. It's easier to avoid having kids than it is to avoid eating animal products, and not birthing extra people like some outbreak of pink goo (http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Words/p.html#PINK_GOO) will do more collectively for the environmental state of the planet and our collective well-being than otherwise; the savings made from not having to support extra people exceed the saving made from having extra people, even if they are all vegan..

Although I do see some reason in the idea of a finite world with finite resources having to deal with a sensible level of population at the same time this attitude irritates me. It fails to deal with the realities of life in most of the world. The countries that are usually named and shamed in the overpopulation debates are poor countries and in poor countries the only guarantee you have of not starving to death when you are older is your children- large families are a substitute for pensions and healthcare. It may seem paradoxical but overpopulation could be said to be a result of intrinsic poverty. I am not saying it's the only reason, but a look at the demographics begins to show stuff all over the place.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Although I do see some reason in the idea of a finite world with finite resources having to deal with a sensible level of population at the same time this attitude irritates me. It fails to deal with the realities of life in most of the world. The countries that are usually named and shamed in the overpopulation debates are poor countries and in poor countries the only guarantee you have of not starving to death when you are older is your children- large families are a substitute for pensions and healthcare. It may seem paradoxical but overpopulation could be said to be a result of intrinsic poverty. I am not saying it's the only reason, but a look at the demographics begins to show stuff all over the place.

Indeed. Availability of contraception is a must, but that alone would not necessarily lead to decreased birthrates in areas where it makes more economic sense to have lots of children. What's also necessary are better standards of living and empowerment of women through freely available education.

[#FF0000]

What's also necessary are better standards of living and empowerment of women through freely available education.

The pope shutting the fuck up would also go a long way, I imagine.

[Aurora]

Nah fuck that, sterilizing needles now that's an idea.

[Judicator]

Better yet, pay crack addicted preggos to get abortions!

[RGacky3]

Now Capitalism is dealing iwth Eugenics, its just a matter of time before Capitalism starts deciding who can and cannot have children.

[La Comédie Noire]

Who are we to say no.

He is merely saying that having a child in this world is not the best of ideas. Really it's sound advice.

[ComradeMan]

The pope shutting the fuck up would also go a long way, I imagine.

Why is that? Wasn't there a study that showed a lot of predominantly catholic areas of Africa have lower AIDS infection rates? The catholic church does not teach "have children randomly that you cannot look after". Neither Islam or Judaism take a positive view on birth control either.

Another factor is how come many predominantly catholic countries don't have overpopulation issues.

Now I am not saying that I necessarily agree with the Vatican's stance on these matters however it seems that the Anglo world is just as much hung up on anti-catholicism as it has been since Henry VIII.

[#FF0000]

Why is that? Wasn't there a study that showed a lot of predominantly catholic areas of Africa have lower AIDS infection rates?

WIth the unfortunate side effect that these people are now catholic. I imagine the rates might be a little lower if the pope wasn't the sort to literally go to africa and say "don't use condoms".

But yeah, that's actually the only reason I mention him.

[ComradeMan]

WIth the unfortunate side effect that these people are now catholic. I imagine the rates might be a little lower if the pope wasn't the sort to literally go to africa and say "don't use condoms".

But yeah, that's actually the only reason I mention him.

Well the statistics don't really support that - although you should be careful about statistics.

The official Catholic doctrine only recognises sex within marriage in order to procreate- the ban on birth control comes from the late 1960s before HIV/AIDS came about/was discovered.

I don't agree with the Vatican's position on this but I do think it's unjustified to blame the catholic church for the spread of AIDS too, especially seeing as the areas that seem to be hardest hit are the least Catholic and also Islamic areas (bringing in the religious dimension).

[piet11111]

He is merely saying that having a child in this world is not the best of ideas. Really it's sound advice.

This.

Having kids is a massive financial investment something most people will find difficult to accomplish especialy with increasing costs of living.
Most kids will be completely dependent on their parents until they are ~18 and in this age of Mcjobs you are very likely to end up unemployed for prolonged periods of times and that is not a situation fit for a child to grow up in.

Raising kids is flirting with financial ruin i can understand why many would still do this but it is sound advice to simply not have kids.

[Quail]

It's depressing to read articles like this and even more depressing to read the comments. I think this is actually a ridculous idea that completely fails to address the root cause of the problem. People suggest "solutions" like this to social issues like this all the time and it seems so painfully obvious what the real problem is. Capitalism and the poverty it causes.

[ComradeMan]

It's depressing to read articles like this and even more depressing to read the comments. I think this is actually a ridculous idea that completely fails to address the root cause of the problem. People suggest "solutions" like this to social issues like this all the time and it seems so painfully obvious what the real problem is. Capitalism and the poverty it causes.

Yeah, it's basically like saying end poverty by shooting the poor.

[RHIZOMES]

Well should society sterilize people that have a known severe incurable mental or physical disorder?

Maybe for the better overall health of society. If severe addictions to liquor or drugs was a biological disorder tansmitted through genes--would sterilization be worth consideration? Or would this be an intrusion into a person's private usiness?

The problem is, you can't make an objective value-judgement about how much these disorders are going to affect the next generation. There are too many unaccounted variables that determine how crippling the disorder might be.

If you have a genetic propensity for addiction or mental disorder, yet have a stable social support network that can help you grapple with this problem, I imagine this genetic characteristic wouldn't be as lethal as it would otherwise be.

Summary: the answer isn't sterilisation, it is in fact abolishing capitalism.