Nonprofit pays addicts for sterilization/l. term birth ctrl.

[The Adrelos Spinrim Cluster]

If this really was on such a large scale as it pretends to be, it'd be called eugenics.

[Great Nepal]

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.

If it were impossible to get informed consent from a drug addict, rehabilitation clinics, experiments involving addiction etc would have some explaining to do. Except of course that isn't really the case, an addict can give informed consent provided they're not under influence when they're doing so.

[Free Maronites]

If this really was on such a large scale as it pretends to be, it'd be called eugenics.

This constant use of the buzzword 'eugenics' is tiresome, untrue and really doesn't add to the discussion. She's not trying to socially engineer, but ensure that children aren't born in possibly dangerous conditions to parents who may not be able to care for them yet.

[Hakons]

This program sterilizes poor people and gives them money to buy drugs...

[Gloriana Americana]

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.

Then maybe we should, I don't know, improve child services instead of letting this "charity" bribe people into blindly shutting off access to their reproduction system while at the same time basically enabling their addictions. For fucks sake, at least forbid the sterilization thing. That is inexcusable.

And I'm pretty sure child services will take the child away right after birth if the mother is a drug addict or an alcoholic, though I might by wrong there.

I don't trust any contraceptives, either. They aren't fool-proof. I should know, my mom was on the pill when I was conceived.

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.

There is a difference between you consciously making a bad decision that affects your entire life, and you being goaded by someone else into making a bad decision that affects your entire life. This is the latter, and while the blame should fall on both parties, the fault should primarily be to the ones enabling addictions.

Because, you know, that's what they're doing.

Child care isn't perfect, I know, and it desperately needs overhauls but at least it doesn't enable drug addiction like this so-called "charity" does, at least the children do have a chance, and at least it doesn't deny someone access to an important part of human nature just because they made a mistake in their life. How many decisions can you make in life that will do that? Not a lot.

Your point is hypocritical too. Supporting child services is "nonsensical"? Yet the charity offers birth control, which has no guarantee of success and thus can still result in conception (I am living proof of this, as a matter of fact), and thus still result in a child being born by an unqualified parent that will then be taken away so it just ends the same way.

But yeah, I'm the "nonsensical" one.

If this really was on such a large scale as it pretends to be, it'd be called eugenics.

This constant use of the buzzword 'eugenics' is tiresome, untrue and really doesn't add to the discussion. She's not trying to socially engineer, but ensure that children aren't born in possibly dangerous conditions to parents who may not be able to care for them yet.

No one wants that, but it's impossible to avoid regardless.

Not to mention, again, they're enabling drug addiction.

[Isentria]

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.

Nice identity politics you got going there pal.

This program sterilizes poor people and gives them money to buy drugs...

Think about it, if someone would willingly get sterilized for money, especially for money they'd spend on drugs, what kind of parent would they have been anyways?

And further more, are you equalizing all poor people with drug addicts there for a bit?

[Great Nepal]

There is a difference between you consciously making a bad decision that affects your entire life, and you being goaded by someone else into making a bad decision that affects your entire life. This is the latter, and while the blame should fall on both parties, the fault should primarily be to the ones enabling addictions.

Because, you know, that's what they're doing.

Child care isn't perfect, I know, and it desperately needs overhauls but at least it doesn't enable drug addiction like this so-called "charity" does, at least the children do have a chance, and at least it doesn't deny someone access to an important part of human nature just because they made a mistake in their life. How many decisions can you make in life that will do that? Not a lot.

Your point is hypocritical too. Supporting child services is "nonsensical"? Yet the charity offers birth control, which has no guarantee of success and thus can still result in conception (I am living proof of this, as a matter of fact), and thus still result in a child being born by an unqualified parent that will then be taken away so it just ends the same way.

But yeah, I'm the "nonsensical" one.

Bollocks, again if drug addicts were incapable of providing informed consent, studies into addiction wouldn't exist neither would rehabilitation clinics - drug addicts aren't high on drugs 24/7, unless you've evidence the charity is entering into these contracts while the patients are high this is entirely the person's decision. Just as we don't consider researchers giving heroin to addicts enabling addicts, it's silly to consider this to be enabling addicts.

Lets make a list of shit that will have similar level of long term harm: flunking out of school, becoming a drug addict, punching someone because they goaded you, getting involved in any crime even on marginal levels, otherwise getting arrested etc etc. The list for shit that will royally screw you because of one thing is literally endless.

You can support child services, but given that no one is particularly interested in making huge funds available to them your support is rather meaningless unless you're also willing to write a billion quid cheque along with that support, therefore suggesting that as an alternative to something that will almost certainly prevent births is quite nonsensical.

[AiliailiA]

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

If it were impossible to get informed consent from a drug addict, rehabilitation clinics, experiments involving addiction etc would have some explaining to do. Except of course that isn't really the case, an addict can give informed consent provided they're not under influence when they're doing so.

The rehab patient doesn't always give consent though. It can be their relatives in consultation with a doctor.
There's also a presumption of medical or scientific ethics that what is done to them won't harm them, and in the case of rehabilitation, will actually help them.

Contraception to prevent pregnancy in the near future, could be argued to do no harm and perhaps do good, and in any case is not permanent so the good or harm only has to be accounted for over the term of treatment.
Sterilization, on the other hand, the patient may very likely regret later and may find is irreversible. It is plainly beyond what is necessary to get the patient through to a time when they CAN competently make their own decision.

---

If this really was on such a large scale as it pretends to be, it'd be called eugenics.

This constant use of the buzzword 'eugenics' is tiresome, untrue and really doesn't add to the discussion. She's not trying to socially engineer, but ensure that children aren't born in possibly dangerous conditions to parents who may not be able to care for them yet.

"Yet". That applies to the cash-for-contraception part of her program, but not the cash-for-sterilization part.

That someone uses drugs and urgently needs $300 probably is a good indicator they're not ready to be a parent yet.
It's just not a good indicator they never will be.

[Great Nepal]

If it were impossible to get informed consent from a drug addict, rehabilitation clinics, experiments involving addiction etc would have some explaining to do. Except of course that isn't really the case, an addict can give informed consent provided they're not under influence when they're doing so.

The rehab patient doesn't always give consent though. It can be their relatives in consultation with a doctor.
There's also a presumption of medical or scientific ethics that what is done to them won't harm them, and in the case of rehabilitation, will actually help them.

Contraception to prevent pregnancy in the near future, could be argued to do no harm and perhaps do good, and in any case is not permanent so the good or harm only has to be accounted for over the term of treatment.
Sterilization, on the other hand, the patient may very likely regret later and may find is irreversible. It is plainly beyond what is necessary to get the patient through to a time when they CAN competently make their own decision.

Sure but significant proportion aren't involuntarily committed; they're there to get clean out of choice so clearly an addict must be able to consent provided they're not under influence at the time.

Sure you could argue beneficence with rehab (but given there's monetary harm and majority of people don't get clean afterwards that's pretty weak), but we have addiction research where addicts are given drugs with treatment to see if the treatment helps counter effects of the drug - which presumably (I haven't read full paper) means there are placebos too. If we accept that addicts can't give informed consent, those research would be first on firing line.

Sure sterilization is more iffy then long term contraception (which I'd say is actively beneficial), but we can't know if the patients 'likely regret it' in the future - so it really comes down to if they can give informed consent at that time.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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.

The public didn't consent to having to deal with crack babies growing up to be criminals either.

[Alvecia]

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

The public didn't consent to having to deal with crack babies growing up to be criminals either.

And those criminals get arrested.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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?

Nitpicking on my punctuation 2 posts in a row doesn't really help your argument, you know?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Said son is if I'm not mistaken one of the 4 children she adopted from the same drug addicted mother.

I hold the view that obsessing over whether or not your children are biologically yours is dumb and primitive. There are plenty of children out there who need homes, which this woman has proven by adopting 4 of them, and I think we can all agree they're better off with an actual family rather than being cared for by the state.

I might not agree with the rest of the statement but what she does is still right. Allegedly (and I don't have any reliable source for this) a large majority of her "clients" choose the IUD option over sterilization, and they get the same $300 only in smaller increments.

If she was really this evil person out to enforce : eugenics : to get rid of black people, drug addicts or the poor or whatever, she wouldn't have offered alternatives to sterilization in the first place, or at least wouldn't have offered the same amount of money.

In any case she is doing more than you probably are so maybe you should look at yourself before calling her the "scum of the earth".

EDIT: As another poster has noted, whining about how this is a "band-aid" instead of a long-term or more comprehensive solution to the problems related to drug addiction, is dumb. This charity is not the US government.

She's bribing vulnerable people to submit to sterilisation. Rather than address the problem properly, we're suppose to treat people like dogs. You can incoherently ramble all you like but this shit is fucked. It's yet another reminder that it's stupid to think the only people we're supposed to worry about is the Trumpists.

I'm not the one who's "incoherent". Between randomly bringing up "trumpists" and bringing literally no argument towards your "conclusion", I don't know which one makes you shine at coherence more here.

[Litorea]

I'd hate to say it, but this whole project reeks of eugenics, and not because of any artificial racial angle. I'm not sure if controlling social I'll through birth control firstly actually solves anything and prevents people who aren't drug users from going down that path, and secondly if it's a moral thing to sterilize people on the basis of doing things that aren't necessarily socially accepted.

Like, it's easy to say "yeah, crack addicts might want to be sterilized", but what about marijuana users or even alcoholics or tobacco smokers? And not to mention how birth rates in most Western countries are already quite low.

[Free Maronites]

Then maybe we should, I don't know, improve child services instead of letting this "charity" bribe people into blindly shutting off access to their reproduction system while at the same time basically enabling their addictions. For fucks sake, at least forbid the sterilization thing. That is inexcusable.

And I'm pretty sure child services will take the child away right after birth if the mother is a drug addict or an alcoholic, though I might by wrong there.

I don't trust any contraceptives, either. They aren't fool-proof. I should know, my mom was on the pill when I was conceived.

Firstly, this project is not part of the US government and hence cannot help with poor child services. It's entirely separate and limited to one person.

Secondly, you may know this, but there are two major facets of drug crime. The selling, manufacture and production of drugs, and crimes done by addicts to be able to buy drugs. By enabling their addictions they're keeping them off crime for the time being, and ensuring that no children are born to a possibly dangerous existence.
Win-win.

Ehhh... they're supposed to, but as I said. Inefficient and slow. And sometimes kids are thrown into poorly funded orphanages or foster care, which can lead to abuse.

They aren't, but those are isolated incidents. But why do you care? You want them to be able to have kids, so why do you care if contraception offered by this woman fails?

[AiliailiA]

The rehab patient doesn't always give consent though. It can be their relatives in consultation with a doctor.
There's also a presumption of medical or scientific ethics that what is done to them won't harm them, and in the case of rehabilitation, will actually help them.

Contraception to prevent pregnancy in the near future, could be argued to do no harm and perhaps do good, and in any case is not permanent so the good or harm only has to be accounted for over the term of treatment.
Sterilization, on the other hand, the patient may very likely regret later and may find is irreversible. It is plainly beyond what is necessary to get the patient through to a time when they CAN competently make their own decision.

Sure but significant proportion aren't involuntarily committed; they're there to get clean out of choice so clearly an addict must be able to consent provided they're not under influence at the time.

Sure you could argue beneficence with rehab (but given there's monetary harm and majority of people don't get clean afterwards that's pretty weak), but we have addiction research where addicts are given drugs with treatment to see if the treatment helps counter effects of the drug - which presumably (I haven't read full paper) means there are placebos too. If we accept that addicts can't give informed consent, those research would be first on firing line.

Sure sterilization is more iffy then long term contraception (which I'd say is actively beneficial), but we can't know if the patients 'likely regret it' in the future - so it really comes down to if they can give informed consent at that time.

I think we can reasonably predict that drug users sterilized now will regret it in the future, just by comparison with people in general who have a sterilization operation (with no taint of unconsent hanging over it), and are later shown to regret it ... by the fact they have it surgically reversed. Which as I say does not always work.

In fact, you'd have to show that drug users are unlike people generally, if you'd claim they will never regret the decision later. The opposite is probably the case, and sterilization would be just one among a number of things a drug user does which they regret later in life ... at higher rates than people generally.

[Aethrys]

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.

Despite what you're implying, all poor people are not in fact drug addicts. A majority are actually decent hard working folk who take care of their children as best they can despite the fact that they're struggling.

This charitable organization is preventing children from being born with complications due to drug addiction. Access to contraception is known to be a poverty reducer. But suddenly because it's stopping children being born addicted to heroin, it's better to let people financially burdened by out of control addictions continue having kids.

You're supporting poverty and suffering in one go.

[AiliailiA]

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

The public didn't consent ...

That's a nonsense concept, so anything following it cannot make sense.

... to having to deal with crack babies growing up to be criminals either.

You could have rescued the point you tried to make, by staying on the individual level (where "consent" does make sense), and appealed to the welfare of the "crack babies" themselves.

Not that it's a good point, I'm just saying the only thing worse than your opinion is the obscurantist and utterly inept way you argue for it!

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

The public didn't consent ...

That's a nonsense concept, so anything following it cannot make sense.

... to having to deal with crack babies growing up to be criminals either.

You could have rescued the point you tried to make, by staying on the individual level (where "consent" does make sense), and appealed to the welfare of the "crack babies" themselves.

Not that it's a good point, I'm just saying the only thing worse than your opinion is the obscurantist and utterly inept way you argue for it!

No, because I know what people tend to say when that's brought up.

"The crack babies didn't consent to not being born either."

[Bakery Hill]

She's bribing vulnerable people to submit to sterilisation. Rather than address the problem properly, we're suppose to treat people like dogs. You can incoherently ramble all you like but this shit is fucked. It's yet another reminder that it's stupid to think the only people we're supposed to worry about is the Trumpists.

I'm not the one who's "incoherent". Between randomly bringing up "trumpists" and bringing literally no argument towards your "conclusion", I don't know which one makes you shine at coherence more here.

Look at your OP mate hahaha

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I'm not the one who's "incoherent". Between randomly bringing up "trumpists" and bringing literally no argument towards your "conclusion", I don't know which one makes you shine at coherence more here.

Look at your OP mate hahaha

Do you understand what "coherent" and "incoherent" even mean?

[Bakery Hill]

Look at your OP mate hahaha

Do you understand what "coherent" and "incoherent" even mean?

Yes. That was a coherent question, this is a coherent answer, while your OP was an incoherent ramble.

[Saiwania]

It is okay in my view, to impregnate a woman out of wedlock as a last resort. If I do that, it just means that I'm fixing to die soon and I'm sacrificing my life for a less than 100% chance that someone will get born to replace me.

[The Snazzylands]

If someone they sterilized wanted kids after they eventually cleaned themselves up and got a stable relationship, they would probably harbor resentment for the organization for taking advantage of them and their addiction.

Funding abortions and contraceptives for addicts and aiding in their recovery would be more effective in the long run and be much better for PR, which means more donations.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

If someone they sterilized wanted kids after they eventually cleaned themselves up and got a stable relationship, they would probably harbor resentment for the organization for taking advantage of them and their addiction.

"If someone to whom they gave a criminal record wanted a job after they eventually cleaned themselves up..."

Actions have consequences. Some of those consequences are permanent.