NationStates

Ethel mermania wrote:

Ifreann wrote:What are the colons meant to convey here?

In my experience Colons usually convey shit

That's going in my sig!

Im extremely skeptical of paying drug addicts for sterilization, for much the same reason as paying people for organs. It tends to exploit the poor and desperate for possibly irreversible bodily harm.

Now, for long term contraception (IUDs, vasalgel (if it works)), I feel no skepticism or concern. They may be long lasting, but are still temporary.

Disregarding the fact that it sounds an awful lot like eugenics, it also sounds downright abusive. These are vulnerable people we're talking about, and she's manipulating them into sterilizing themselves for a quick buck.

Liriena wrote:Disregarding the fact that it sounds an awful lot like eugenics, it also sounds downright abusive. These are vulnerable people we're talking about, and she's manipulating them into sterilizing themselves for a quick buck.

Not to mention she's cricket chirping on rich white drug addicts.

Gauthier wrote:

Liriena wrote:Disregarding the fact that it sounds an awful lot like eugenics, it also sounds downright abusive. These are vulnerable people we're talking about, and she's manipulating them into sterilizing themselves for a quick buck.

Not to mention she's cricket chirping on rich white drug addicts.

To be fair, Rich White Drug addicts don't need 300 dollars, they're rich remember? They can sterilize themselves.

This woman is messed up and Vice is messed up. Water is wet.
The woman is giving money to drug addicts to fuel their habits and sterilizing them. Not just giving them birth control, STERILIZING THEM.

The OP does make a good point about how awful it is for a drug addict to have a kid. The kid will likely have cognitive disabilities and the drug addicted mother's live will somehow get even worse. I do think giving drug addicts free birth control would be nice to prevent their lives from further being fucked up. Permanently sterilizing them seems a bit fucked up though.

It's really hard for these women to give consent. They likely just want money for their drug habits and probably don't think about the fact that if they somehow get their lives back together they would never be able to have children.

And then Vice comes in and says "Drugs during pregnancy has no adverse affects on children, BLACK GENOCIDE." Absolutely STELLAR journalism, amirite?

The Lone Alliance wrote:

Gauthier wrote:Not to mention she's cricket chirping on rich white drug addicts.

To be fair, Rich White Drug addicts don't need 300 dollars, they're rich remember? They can sterilize themselves.

But does she even tell them they should sterilize themselves? Fuck no.

Galloism wrote:Im extremely skeptical of paying drug addicts for sterilization, for much the same reason as paying people for organs. It tends to exploit the poor and desperate for possibly irreversible bodily harm.

Now, for long term contraception (IUDs, vasalgel (if it works)), I feel no skepticism or concern. They may be long lasting, but are still temporary.

They do either/or in US; in UK its only long term contraception.

Benjabobaria wrote:This woman is messed up and Vice is messed up. Water is wet.
The woman is giving money to drug addicts to fuel their habits and sterilizing them. Not just giving them birth control, STERILIZING THEM.

The OP does make a good point about how awful it is for a drug addict to have a kid. The kid will likely have cognitive disabilities and the drug addicted mother's live will somehow get even worse. I do think giving drug addicts free birth control would be nice to prevent their lives from further being fucked up. Permanently sterilizing them seems a bit fucked up though.

One use/short term birth control for drug addicts are not going to be very effective for quite obvious reasons; the charity offers sterilization or long term birth control.

Benjabobaria wrote:It's really hard for these women to give consent. They likely just want money for their drug habits and probably don't think about the fact that if they somehow get their lives back together they would never be able to have children.

'Being too desperate for money' basically defines a lot of modern transactions; it doesn't void any of those consents - presumably they're not on drugs while agreeing to the procedure so.

Wow, a charity that sounds like it actually accomplishes something.

Aethrys wrote:Wow, a charity that sounds like it actually accomplishes something.

How so?

This is at best analogous to thinking a beach umbrella will protect against nuclear fallout, and that's ignoring the numerous ethical issues with this pathetic excuse for a plan.

Vassenor wrote:

Aethrys wrote:Wow, a charity that sounds like it actually accomplishes something.

How so?

By stopping addicts from having children they're preventing needless suffering of children, and at the same time eliminating the need for welfare services to provide for their neglected/ abandoned offspring. That's money going to other people.

The Princes of the Universe wrote:This is at best analogous to thinking a beach umbrella will protect against nuclear fallout, and that's ignoring the numerous ethical issues with this pathetic excuse for a plan.

Sterilization and IUDs both offer almost 100% certain contraception forever and, respectively, for 3 to 12 years.

So yes either one of these is a long term solution to unwanted pregnancies in drug addicted women.

Nice try with your asinine analogy anyway.

In any case as I've said before this small charity just so happens to NOT be the US government.

Aethrys wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
How so?

By stopping addicts from having children they're preventing needless suffering of children, and at the same time eliminating the need for welfare services to provide for their neglected/ abandoned offspring. That's money going to other people.

Except, you know, getting rid of poor people doesn't actually get rid of poor people. It is in the system by design.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Ifreann wrote:What are the colons meant to convey here?

I'm secretly an alt-right antijew bowing to our Lord and Savior, Kek and those were used as substitutes for triple parantheses, you caught me red-handed

They're used to symbolize a stereotype, like for example how one might respond to a picture containing imagery perceived as stereotypically American with " 'merica.jpg " . The colons are like the .jpg . Used either in an ironic fashion or to actually show you agree with the stereotype, although I haven't seen them used too much.

In this particular instance it was meant to ridicule people so easily equating sterilization with eugenics.

Why colons? Why not scare quotes?

Ifreann wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:I'm secretly an alt-right antijew bowing to our Lord and Savior, Kek and those were used as substitutes for triple parantheses, you caught me red-handed

They're used to symbolize a stereotype, like for example how one might respond to a picture containing imagery perceived as stereotypically American with " 'merica.jpg " . The colons are like the .jpg . Used either in an ironic fashion or to actually show you agree with the stereotype, although I haven't seen them used too much.

In this particular instance it was meant to ridicule people so easily equating sterilization with eugenics.

Why colons? Why not scare quotes?

To be contrary and to keep us guessing, of course.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

AiliailiA wrote:That's fucked. Sterilization is essentially permanent: reversal operations, besides being expensive, usually fail. Just because you're a drug addict now, by the loose definition "need money for drugs that bad", doesn't mean you'll always be a drug addict and therefore not capable of raising kids properly.

Just because you're an abuser once, doesn't mean you'll always be an abuser.

We have to draw the line somewhere.

Not everyone gets to be a parent. Save that job for people who are better at it.

1. Argument by analogy ... deserves no reply.

2. Says you. I don't see the need to "draw a line" of who has a right to reproduce and who does not.

3. Says you. Not only do you draw that line, you're so callous of human rights that you see no problem with drawing that line at "uses drugs and needs money" rather than "is likely to be a good parent".


"We have to draw the line somewhere" I don't think I've ever heard a good idea come after that.

I don't know what's more sickening, paying people to get sterilized or the fact some of you people are okay with it.

You guys realize addictions can be kicked, right?

There is some serious Social Darwinism in this thread and it's appalling.

Gloriana Americana wrote:I don't know what's more sickening, paying people to get sterilized or the fact some of you people are okay with it.

You guys realize addictions can be kicked, right?

There is some serious Social Darwinism in this thread and it's appalling.

Children born in environment where the parents are addicts, or where parents don't want them are unlikely to have a good childhood - a not good childhood leads to poorer results and continuing of the loop. As long as the whole process is voluntary and consenting, it is good.

Great Nepal wrote:

Gloriana Americana wrote:I don't know what's more sickening, paying people to get sterilized or the fact some of you people are okay with it.

You guys realize addictions can be kicked, right?

There is some serious Social Darwinism in this thread and it's appalling.

Children born in environment where the parents are addicts, or where parents don't want them are unlikely to have a good childhood - a not good childhood leads to poorer results and continuing of the loop. As long as the whole process is voluntary and consenting, it is good.

You deliberately missed my entire point.

Sterilization is irreversible, so if they pick their life back up they're essentially fucked if they want to have kids and can afford to do so. Child services exists to take care of children in bad homes and give them good families. It's not perfect, but it works and it's better than this disturbing "charity".

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Bombadil wrote:Frankly I think it's awful to give an addict $300 in return for neutering them, of course an addict will take it. Why not get a kidney while you're at it.. let them all go to Candy Mountain..

they get the same $300 for an IUD but not all at once.

Which is reversible. Which means if they get clean, they can later have kids.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

AiliailiA wrote:That's fucked. Sterilization is essentially permanent: reversal operations, besides being expensive, usually fail. Just because you're a drug addict now, by the loose definition "need money for drugs that bad", doesn't mean you'll always be a drug addict and therefore not capable of raising kids properly.

I still fail to comprehend why it is such a great deal for people who want to have kids whether or not they are biologically theirs. Isn't this supposed to become an antiquated principle at some point? Shouldn't we become advanced enough at some point that we only reproduce once we've adopted every child that could be adopted?

Look at foster care in the US. Over 400,000 kids in the system and you're asking this question?

Gloriana Americana wrote:
You deliberately missed my entire point.

Sterilization is irreversible, so if they pick their life back up they're essentially fucked if they want to have kids and can afford to do so. Child services exists to take care of children in bad homes and give them good families. It's not perfect, but it works and it's better than this disturbing "charity".

Child Services are usually inefficient, slow and certainly do not work.

Also, sterilization is only one of the options presented by Barbara, the other being long-term contraceptives, which is hardly disturbing or morally wrong. Also, also, adoption is a thing, and would certainly help out the strained orphanages and orphans who sometimes suffer poor conditions and abuse.

Gloriana Americana wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:Children born in environment where the parents are addicts, or where parents don't want them are unlikely to have a good childhood - a not good childhood leads to poorer results and continuing of the loop. As long as the whole process is voluntary and consenting, it is good.

You deliberately missed my entire point.

Sterilization is irreversible, so if they pick their life back up they're essentially fucked if they want to have kids and can afford to do so. Child services exists to take care of children in bad homes and give them good families. It's not perfect, but it works and it's better than this disturbing "charity".

And? Many decisions made earlier in you life has a permanent impact on your life going forward.
So your solution is instead of voluntary operation to stop individuals who can't care for child from having children, it is preferable to have those people give birth, wait until the child is mistreated and underfunded children services notices, then take the child into care of underfunded local authorities waiting for years until foster family can be arranged just in case those people regret their choice at some point in the future? That is nonsensical.

Edit: also again, option is between long term birth control and sterilization.

Taostic Aesthetics wrote:It's a contract between two people, voluntarily, and I fail to see any objections against it.

Except that the people entering into the contract may be unable to give informed consent considering their state of addiction? None at all.