Heroin user 'bribed' £200 by charity Project Prevention for vasectomy | Mail Online
A US Charity has paid a British heroin Addict to have a Vasectomy.
How Immoral ???
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
oscar;1339423 wrote: Heroin user 'bribed' £200 by charity Project Prevention for vasectomy | Mail Online
A US Charity has paid a British heroin Addict to have a Vasectomy.
How Immoral ???Actually this brings about an interesting debate.
I can see the concern for witnessing children born through withdrawals with what I can only imagine is pure physical and mental hell so I'm wondering how immoral one would have to be to allow a child to be born to an addict mother.
Of course one would have to be 100% certain the mother would use throughout her pregnancy.
What if the child is born to eventually rob, steal, and murder other individuals to support a habit that was initially not his/her fault?
Could you expand on to whom is "Immoral ???" oscar?
A US Charity has paid a British heroin Addict to have a Vasectomy.
How Immoral ???Actually this brings about an interesting debate.
I can see the concern for witnessing children born through withdrawals with what I can only imagine is pure physical and mental hell so I'm wondering how immoral one would have to be to allow a child to be born to an addict mother.
Of course one would have to be 100% certain the mother would use throughout her pregnancy.
What if the child is born to eventually rob, steal, and murder other individuals to support a habit that was initially not his/her fault?
Could you expand on to whom is "Immoral ???" oscar?
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
oscar;1339423 wrote:
How Immoral ???
Compared to producing a bunch of kids who are basically orphans??
How Immoral ???
Compared to producing a bunch of kids who are basically orphans??
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1339638 wrote: Compared to producing a bunch of kids who are basically orphans??
"basically"? I doubt heroin withdrawals is anything remotely close to "basically"
"basically"? I doubt heroin withdrawals is anything remotely close to "basically"
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
K.Snyder;1339641 wrote: "basically"? I doubt heroin withdrawals is anything remotely close to "basically"
I am not referring to the withdrawals, at all. While that is, another problem for such children, as you pointed out. the children left behind by these "parents" seldom have anyone to raise them. If they are lucky, they are picked up by the state, and raised in the foster care system. Even luckier still, they might find foster parents who actually do care about them, rather than only about the money the state pays for their care and feeding.
I am not referring to the withdrawals, at all. While that is, another problem for such children, as you pointed out. the children left behind by these "parents" seldom have anyone to raise them. If they are lucky, they are picked up by the state, and raised in the foster care system. Even luckier still, they might find foster parents who actually do care about them, rather than only about the money the state pays for their care and feeding.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
K.Snyder;1339637 wrote:
Could you expand on to whom is "Immoral ???" oscar? Certainly kevvy:
For one... If The British National Party proposed such a scheme, there would be screaming of 'Nazi' from the roof-tops.
For two... It Is that old adage of once a thief etc. Just because some-one Is In the grips of heroin addiction right now, does not mean to say they will be In 20 years time when they could have kicked their habit and become a 'normal' ( for want of a better word) person. It is labelling some-one very early on In their life and labelling them for life.
Finally, for any charity or government body to decide who can have children and who can not Is Immoral. Who will they target next? Where does this lead? next on the list could be the disabled or mentally disturbed. No-one has the right to dictate what path any-one takes In their life.
Yes, It is a fact of life that babies are born addicted to drugs but how many are addicted to prescription drugs such as anti-depressants and sleeping pills that new-borns also have to be weaned off.
This Is the rocky road to dictatorship and Hitleresque over-tones.
Far better the money be Invested In helping addicts get their life back on track.
Could you expand on to whom is "Immoral ???" oscar? Certainly kevvy:
For one... If The British National Party proposed such a scheme, there would be screaming of 'Nazi' from the roof-tops.
For two... It Is that old adage of once a thief etc. Just because some-one Is In the grips of heroin addiction right now, does not mean to say they will be In 20 years time when they could have kicked their habit and become a 'normal' ( for want of a better word) person. It is labelling some-one very early on In their life and labelling them for life.
Finally, for any charity or government body to decide who can have children and who can not Is Immoral. Who will they target next? Where does this lead? next on the list could be the disabled or mentally disturbed. No-one has the right to dictate what path any-one takes In their life.
Yes, It is a fact of life that babies are born addicted to drugs but how many are addicted to prescription drugs such as anti-depressants and sleeping pills that new-borns also have to be weaned off.
This Is the rocky road to dictatorship and Hitleresque over-tones.
Far better the money be Invested In helping addicts get their life back on track.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
K.Snyder;1339637 wrote: Actually this brings about an interesting debate.
I can see the concern for witnessing children born through withdrawals with what I can only imagine is pure physical and mental hell so I'm wondering how immoral one would have to be to allow a child to be born to an addict mother.
Of course one would have to be 100% certain the mother would use throughout her pregnancy.
What if the child is born to eventually rob, steal, and murder other individuals to support a habit that was initially not his/her fault?
Could you expand on to whom is "Immoral ???" oscar?
Given that it's a vasectomy it does nothing to stop a child being born to an addict mother and if your worried that an unborn child might grow up to rob, steal or murder to support a lifestyle that they did not sow the seeds of then are you proposing to sterilise every potential parent living on an underprivileged ghetto estate?
I seem to remember that one of Indira Gandhi's kids (?Sanjay?) was kicked out of politics (?and jailed?) for doing the same thing.
I can see the concern for witnessing children born through withdrawals with what I can only imagine is pure physical and mental hell so I'm wondering how immoral one would have to be to allow a child to be born to an addict mother.
Of course one would have to be 100% certain the mother would use throughout her pregnancy.
What if the child is born to eventually rob, steal, and murder other individuals to support a habit that was initially not his/her fault?
Could you expand on to whom is "Immoral ???" oscar?
Given that it's a vasectomy it does nothing to stop a child being born to an addict mother and if your worried that an unborn child might grow up to rob, steal or murder to support a lifestyle that they did not sow the seeds of then are you proposing to sterilise every potential parent living on an underprivileged ghetto estate?
I seem to remember that one of Indira Gandhi's kids (?Sanjay?) was kicked out of politics (?and jailed?) for doing the same thing.
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
oscar;1339732 wrote: Certainly kevvy:
For one... If The British National Party proposed such a scheme, there would be screaming of 'Nazi' from the roof-tops.
For two... It Is that old adage of once a thief etc. Just because some-one Is In the grips of heroin addiction right now, does not mean to say they will be In 20 years time when they could have kicked their habit and become a 'normal' ( for want of a better word) person. It is labelling some-one very early on In their life and labelling them for life.
Finally, for any charity or government body to decide who can have children and who can not Is Immoral. Who will they target next? Where does this lead? next on the list could be the disabled or mentally disturbed. No-one has the right to dictate what path any-one takes In their life.
Yes, It is a fact of life that babies are born addicted to drugs but how many are addicted to prescription drugs such as anti-depressants and sleeping pills that new-borns also have to be weaned off.
This Is the rocky road to dictatorship and Hitleresque over-tones.
Far better the money be Invested In helping addicts get their life back on track.
The word you're looking for is eugenics and it still leave a bitter taste - it was immoral then and it's immoral now.
Maybe instead of spending people's charitable donations deciding who does not have the right to have children they should be trying to cure them of their addiction so they can be productive members of society.
For one... If The British National Party proposed such a scheme, there would be screaming of 'Nazi' from the roof-tops.
For two... It Is that old adage of once a thief etc. Just because some-one Is In the grips of heroin addiction right now, does not mean to say they will be In 20 years time when they could have kicked their habit and become a 'normal' ( for want of a better word) person. It is labelling some-one very early on In their life and labelling them for life.
Finally, for any charity or government body to decide who can have children and who can not Is Immoral. Who will they target next? Where does this lead? next on the list could be the disabled or mentally disturbed. No-one has the right to dictate what path any-one takes In their life.
Yes, It is a fact of life that babies are born addicted to drugs but how many are addicted to prescription drugs such as anti-depressants and sleeping pills that new-borns also have to be weaned off.
This Is the rocky road to dictatorship and Hitleresque over-tones.
Far better the money be Invested In helping addicts get their life back on track.
The word you're looking for is eugenics and it still leave a bitter taste - it was immoral then and it's immoral now.
Maybe instead of spending people's charitable donations deciding who does not have the right to have children they should be trying to cure them of their addiction so they can be productive members of society.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
Bryn Mawr;1339740 wrote: The word you're looking for is eugenics and it still leave a bitter taste - it was immoral then and it's immoral now.
Maybe instead of spending people's charitable donations deciding who does not have the right to have children they should be trying to cure them of their addiction so they can be productive members of society. That was the word I was looking for, Thank You.
Yes, I totally agree.
Maybe instead of spending people's charitable donations deciding who does not have the right to have children they should be trying to cure them of their addiction so they can be productive members of society. That was the word I was looking for, Thank You.
Yes, I totally agree.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
None of that is relevant to the "bribe" this outfit is offering.
Taking the bribe and getting snipped, is a personal decision.
And, at least for the male, the procedure is reversible. Should he decide later that he wants to procreate he pays the surgeon and he's back in business, as it were.
Meanwhile, he doesn't father any kids, and and there are a few less orphans on the streets.
Taking the bribe and getting snipped, is a personal decision.
And, at least for the male, the procedure is reversible. Should he decide later that he wants to procreate he pays the surgeon and he's back in business, as it were.
Meanwhile, he doesn't father any kids, and and there are a few less orphans on the streets.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1339783 wrote: None of that is relevant to the "bribe" this outfit is offering.
Taking the bribe and getting snipped, is a personal decision.
And, at least for the male, the procedure is reversible. Should he decide later that he wants to procreate he pays the surgeon and he's back in business, as it were.
Meanwhile, he doesn't father any kids, and and there are a few less orphans on the streets.
So you go out and find a young girl that's desperate for money and pay her for sex. Her taking the bribe and getting laid is a personal decision rather taking advantage of the vulnerable?
Taking the bribe and getting snipped, is a personal decision.
And, at least for the male, the procedure is reversible. Should he decide later that he wants to procreate he pays the surgeon and he's back in business, as it were.
Meanwhile, he doesn't father any kids, and and there are a few less orphans on the streets.
So you go out and find a young girl that's desperate for money and pay her for sex. Her taking the bribe and getting laid is a personal decision rather taking advantage of the vulnerable?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1339783 wrote: None of that is relevant to the "bribe" this outfit is offering.
Taking the bribe and getting snipped, is a personal decision.
And, at least for the male, the procedure is reversible. Should he decide later that he wants to procreate he pays the surgeon and he's back in business, as it were.
Meanwhile, he doesn't father any kids, and and there are a few less orphans on the streets.
Sorry but that does not make sense.
As Bryn said... It Is the woman who gives birth. I do not want to give you a basic biology lesson here but It Is down to the mother should a baby be born addicted. The male merely supplies the sperm. For 9 months gestation, the baby Is feeding from It's mothers blood supply, not the Father's. There-fore It is futile giving men the snip.
If any-one needed targeting by the charity It is the women who are addicted.
Taking the bribe and getting snipped, is a personal decision.
And, at least for the male, the procedure is reversible. Should he decide later that he wants to procreate he pays the surgeon and he's back in business, as it were.
Meanwhile, he doesn't father any kids, and and there are a few less orphans on the streets.
Sorry but that does not make sense.
As Bryn said... It Is the woman who gives birth. I do not want to give you a basic biology lesson here but It Is down to the mother should a baby be born addicted. The male merely supplies the sperm. For 9 months gestation, the baby Is feeding from It's mothers blood supply, not the Father's. There-fore It is futile giving men the snip.
If any-one needed targeting by the charity It is the women who are addicted.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
oscar;1339790 wrote: Sorry but that does not make sense.
As Bryn said... It Is the woman who gives birth. I do not want to give you a basic biology lesson here but It Is down to the mother should a baby be born addicted. The male merely supplies the sperm. For 9 months gestation, the baby Is feeding from It's mothers blood supply, not the Father's. There-fore It is futile giving men the snip.
If any-one needed targeting by the charity It is the women who are addicted.
Ah, think again, my dear.
One guy can knock up half a dozen women in a month, and hardly break a sweat.
So clipping one horny bastard can save the system hundreds of thousands in child support.
Not a bad investment for a few hundred.
I am mailing the lady a check so she can get another one snipped.
As Bryn said... It Is the woman who gives birth. I do not want to give you a basic biology lesson here but It Is down to the mother should a baby be born addicted. The male merely supplies the sperm. For 9 months gestation, the baby Is feeding from It's mothers blood supply, not the Father's. There-fore It is futile giving men the snip.
If any-one needed targeting by the charity It is the women who are addicted.
Ah, think again, my dear.
One guy can knock up half a dozen women in a month, and hardly break a sweat.
So clipping one horny bastard can save the system hundreds of thousands in child support.
Not a bad investment for a few hundred.
I am mailing the lady a check so she can get another one snipped.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1339839 wrote: Ah, think again, my dear.
One guy can knock up half a dozen women in a month, and hardly break a sweat.
So clipping one horny bastard can save the system hundreds of thousands in child support.
Not a bad investment for a few hundred.
I am mailing the lady a check so she can get another one snipped.
But the children will not be addicted unless the mother is.
So you're advocating clipping all horny bastards on the grounds that they won't be able to support all of the by-blows they father?
This gets worse with every post
One guy can knock up half a dozen women in a month, and hardly break a sweat.
So clipping one horny bastard can save the system hundreds of thousands in child support.
Not a bad investment for a few hundred.
I am mailing the lady a check so she can get another one snipped.
But the children will not be addicted unless the mother is.
So you're advocating clipping all horny bastards on the grounds that they won't be able to support all of the by-blows they father?
This gets worse with every post
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1339839 wrote: Ah, think again, my dear.
One guy can knock up half a dozen women in a month, and hardly break a sweat.
So clipping one horny bastard can save the system hundreds of thousands in child support.
Not a bad investment for a few hundred.
I am mailing the lady a check so she can get another one snipped. First of all... I am not 'your' nor am I any-one's dear. Do not be patronising, It does not wash with this 'old dear'.
Again... A man can produce several off-spring that may or may not be welfare dependant. That does not take away the fact that only a heroin dependant woman can give birth and be responsible for a heroin dependant new-born.
Besides which... Are you now trying to say that some-one with-out a job should not have children?
One guy can knock up half a dozen women in a month, and hardly break a sweat.
So clipping one horny bastard can save the system hundreds of thousands in child support.
Not a bad investment for a few hundred.
I am mailing the lady a check so she can get another one snipped. First of all... I am not 'your' nor am I any-one's dear. Do not be patronising, It does not wash with this 'old dear'.
Again... A man can produce several off-spring that may or may not be welfare dependant. That does not take away the fact that only a heroin dependant woman can give birth and be responsible for a heroin dependant new-born.
Besides which... Are you now trying to say that some-one with-out a job should not have children?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
oscar;1339843 wrote: First of all... I am not 'your' nor am I any-one's dear. Do not be patronising, It does not wash with this 'old dear'.
Again... A man can produce several off-spring that may or may not be welfare dependant. That does not take away the fact that only a heroin dependant woman can give birth and be responsible for a heroin dependant new-born.
Besides which... Are you now trying to say that some-one with-out a job should not have children?
I apologize. I had no intention to come across as patronizing.
But let's look back at the program:
It has paid out thousands of dollars to hundreds of U.S. women – and a few men – who agreed to be sterilised or commit to long-term contraception
So, the charity realizes the concerns voiced here.
They would like to see a majority of their cash go to females who would then not contribute to the population count.
Now to my point.
There is a certain logic to the idea that a drug-using male will most likely be having sex with folks who are also drug-users.
That has actually been my experience. Cokies hang out with Cokies, Crackheads hang out with crackheads, etc. ad nauseum.
So, this junky in the UK will most likely be boinking other junkies. And the junky women he will be boinking will be less likely to get preggers, at least from his efforts.
Any effort that helps to keep junkies from becoming parents has a certain merit, in my book.
And, by the way, I can tell you that for a lot of those kids, getting off the dependency is only the beginning of the problems a lot of them face.
Our family has adopted a dozen of these drug orphans into our households over the last few years.
Most of them went through hell before being adopted by our nieces and nephews.
Again... A man can produce several off-spring that may or may not be welfare dependant. That does not take away the fact that only a heroin dependant woman can give birth and be responsible for a heroin dependant new-born.
Besides which... Are you now trying to say that some-one with-out a job should not have children?
I apologize. I had no intention to come across as patronizing.
But let's look back at the program:
It has paid out thousands of dollars to hundreds of U.S. women – and a few men – who agreed to be sterilised or commit to long-term contraception
So, the charity realizes the concerns voiced here.
They would like to see a majority of their cash go to females who would then not contribute to the population count.
Now to my point.
There is a certain logic to the idea that a drug-using male will most likely be having sex with folks who are also drug-users.
That has actually been my experience. Cokies hang out with Cokies, Crackheads hang out with crackheads, etc. ad nauseum.
So, this junky in the UK will most likely be boinking other junkies. And the junky women he will be boinking will be less likely to get preggers, at least from his efforts.
Any effort that helps to keep junkies from becoming parents has a certain merit, in my book.
And, by the way, I can tell you that for a lot of those kids, getting off the dependency is only the beginning of the problems a lot of them face.
Our family has adopted a dozen of these drug orphans into our households over the last few years.
Most of them went through hell before being adopted by our nieces and nephews.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
Bryn Mawr;1339842 wrote: But the children will not be addicted unless the mother is.
So you're advocating clipping all horny bastards on the grounds that they won't be able to support all of the by-blows they father?
This gets worse with every post
Your selective reading sklls are truly amazing, sir.
not that I think that notion has no merit. But it is your idea, not mine.
So you're advocating clipping all horny bastards on the grounds that they won't be able to support all of the by-blows they father?
This gets worse with every post
Your selective reading sklls are truly amazing, sir.
not that I think that notion has no merit. But it is your idea, not mine.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1339846 wrote: I apologize. I had no intention to come across as patronizing.
But let's look back at the program:
So, the charity realizes the concerns voiced here.
They would like to see a majority of their cash go to females who would then not contribute to the population count.
Now to my point.
There is a certain logic to the idea that a drug-using male will most likely be having sex with folks who are also drug-users.
That has actually been my experience. Cokies hang out with Cokies, Crackheads hang out with crackheads, etc. ad nauseum.
So, this junky in the UK will most likely be boinking other junkies. And the junky women he will be boinking will be less likely to get preggers, at least from his efforts.
Any effort that helps to keep junkies from becoming parents has a certain merit, in my book.
And, by the way, I can tell you that for a lot of those kids, getting off the dependency is only the beginning of the problems a lot of them face.
Our family has adopted a dozen of these drug orphans into our households over the last few years.
Most of them went through hell before being adopted by our nieces and nephews. You are missing my point.
Many teenagers experiment with drugs.. I did.. It did not turn me Into a crackhead for want of a better word. For the record, I loathe drugs of any kind and I hate to see young people waste their lives on them but many become addicts due to an addictive gene during the experimentation period nit because they are born low lifes.
Most addicts are young people who have their whole lives ahead of them and If the money was better Invested, ie, helping them through their addiction, they can go on to recover and lead fulfilling lives. To condemn them to a life of childlessness due to a bad period In their lives Is rather Hitleresque and smacks of dictatorship.
What about all the alcoholics out there? Thousands of babies are born Into alcohol with-drawal at birth or defects due to mothers drinking whilst pregnant. Should we sterilise all of them?
So the charity gives a drug addict £200..... And where exactly do they think that £200 Is going to go? Straight Into a dealers pocket who then profits. Hardly economics Is It?
But let's look back at the program:
So, the charity realizes the concerns voiced here.
They would like to see a majority of their cash go to females who would then not contribute to the population count.
Now to my point.
There is a certain logic to the idea that a drug-using male will most likely be having sex with folks who are also drug-users.
That has actually been my experience. Cokies hang out with Cokies, Crackheads hang out with crackheads, etc. ad nauseum.
So, this junky in the UK will most likely be boinking other junkies. And the junky women he will be boinking will be less likely to get preggers, at least from his efforts.
Any effort that helps to keep junkies from becoming parents has a certain merit, in my book.
And, by the way, I can tell you that for a lot of those kids, getting off the dependency is only the beginning of the problems a lot of them face.
Our family has adopted a dozen of these drug orphans into our households over the last few years.
Most of them went through hell before being adopted by our nieces and nephews. You are missing my point.
Many teenagers experiment with drugs.. I did.. It did not turn me Into a crackhead for want of a better word. For the record, I loathe drugs of any kind and I hate to see young people waste their lives on them but many become addicts due to an addictive gene during the experimentation period nit because they are born low lifes.
Most addicts are young people who have their whole lives ahead of them and If the money was better Invested, ie, helping them through their addiction, they can go on to recover and lead fulfilling lives. To condemn them to a life of childlessness due to a bad period In their lives Is rather Hitleresque and smacks of dictatorship.
What about all the alcoholics out there? Thousands of babies are born Into alcohol with-drawal at birth or defects due to mothers drinking whilst pregnant. Should we sterilise all of them?
So the charity gives a drug addict £200..... And where exactly do they think that £200 Is going to go? Straight Into a dealers pocket who then profits. Hardly economics Is It?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
oscar;1339850 wrote: You are missing my point.
Many teenagers experiment with drugs.. I did.. It did not turn me Into a crackhead for want of a better word. For the record, I loathe drugs of any kind and I hate to see young people waste their lives on them but many become addicts due to an addictive gene during the experimentation period nit because they are born low lifes.
Most addicts are young people who have their whole lives ahead of them and If the money was better Invested, ie, helping them through their addiction, they can go on to recover and lead fulfilling lives. To condemn them to a life of childlessness due to a bad period In their lives Is rather Hitleresque and smacks of dictatorship.
Is that what your NHS is telling you, these days?
Sorry, but I have to tell you that you are mis-informed.
Most addicts are addicts. Period. end of story. They had the misfortune to get mixed up with the wrong people and caught up in something bigger than they could handle. No, that does not make them low-lifes, but it does make them poor parent material.
60% of them will never have the opportunity to "turn their life around" It is not just a "bad period in their life" like acne or dating.
Many young addicts are the children of addicts, and the children they drop are often left in the care of parents and grandparents who are often addicts themselves.
And it doesn't matter whether they are crackheads, junkies, or boozers, many are out to ruin their lives, and only the lucky ones meet up with some form of intervention, and get that opportunity to change their ways.
And, yes, I "experimented with drugs" too. I was fortunate. I could see where that was going to take me, and bailed out. most of the people I knew back then were not so lucky. There are only two of us left out of a crowd of 30 or so.
oscar;1339850 wrote:
What about all the alcoholics out there? Thousands of babies are born Into alcohol with-drawal at birth or defects due to mothers drinking whilst pregnant. Should we sterilise all of them?
Only the volunteers.
And you seem to be missing that point. Only druggies who would agree to the program get "clipped". It is strictly voluntary. If they are willing, they are either conscientious enough to get the concept, or they are so far gone, they will do anything for a few quid to buy more junk. Either way, If it's preventing one child being born into the cycle of addiction and poverty and pain, it is worth a few hundred bucks.
Many teenagers experiment with drugs.. I did.. It did not turn me Into a crackhead for want of a better word. For the record, I loathe drugs of any kind and I hate to see young people waste their lives on them but many become addicts due to an addictive gene during the experimentation period nit because they are born low lifes.
Most addicts are young people who have their whole lives ahead of them and If the money was better Invested, ie, helping them through their addiction, they can go on to recover and lead fulfilling lives. To condemn them to a life of childlessness due to a bad period In their lives Is rather Hitleresque and smacks of dictatorship.
Is that what your NHS is telling you, these days?
Sorry, but I have to tell you that you are mis-informed.
Most addicts are addicts. Period. end of story. They had the misfortune to get mixed up with the wrong people and caught up in something bigger than they could handle. No, that does not make them low-lifes, but it does make them poor parent material.
60% of them will never have the opportunity to "turn their life around" It is not just a "bad period in their life" like acne or dating.
Many young addicts are the children of addicts, and the children they drop are often left in the care of parents and grandparents who are often addicts themselves.
And it doesn't matter whether they are crackheads, junkies, or boozers, many are out to ruin their lives, and only the lucky ones meet up with some form of intervention, and get that opportunity to change their ways.
And, yes, I "experimented with drugs" too. I was fortunate. I could see where that was going to take me, and bailed out. most of the people I knew back then were not so lucky. There are only two of us left out of a crowd of 30 or so.
oscar;1339850 wrote:
What about all the alcoholics out there? Thousands of babies are born Into alcohol with-drawal at birth or defects due to mothers drinking whilst pregnant. Should we sterilise all of them?
Only the volunteers.
And you seem to be missing that point. Only druggies who would agree to the program get "clipped". It is strictly voluntary. If they are willing, they are either conscientious enough to get the concept, or they are so far gone, they will do anything for a few quid to buy more junk. Either way, If it's preventing one child being born into the cycle of addiction and poverty and pain, it is worth a few hundred bucks.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1339853 wrote:
And you seem to be missing that point. Only druggies who would agree to the program get "clipped". It is strictly voluntary. If they are willing, they are either conscientious enough to get the concept, or they are so far gone, they will do anything for a few quid to buy more junk. Either way, If it's preventing one child being born into the cycle of addiction and poverty and pain, it is worth a few hundred bucks.
Of course they will volunteer. £200 to a heroin addict Is 20 X £10 hits... Naturally they will accept which is what makes this charity all the more Immoral. They are taking advantage of a person whilst they are In the grip of an addiction looking for money for their next hit.
And you seem to be missing that point. Only druggies who would agree to the program get "clipped". It is strictly voluntary. If they are willing, they are either conscientious enough to get the concept, or they are so far gone, they will do anything for a few quid to buy more junk. Either way, If it's preventing one child being born into the cycle of addiction and poverty and pain, it is worth a few hundred bucks.
Of course they will volunteer. £200 to a heroin addict Is 20 X £10 hits... Naturally they will accept which is what makes this charity all the more Immoral. They are taking advantage of a person whilst they are In the grip of an addiction looking for money for their next hit.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
oscar;1339854 wrote: Of course they will volunteer. £200 to a heroin addict Is 20 X £10 hits... Naturally they will accept which is what makes this charity all the more Immoral. They are taking advantage of a person whilst they are In the grip of an addiction looking for money for their next hit.
So here's a question for ya.
Do they have such a thing as informed consent in tthe UK?
Can a medical procedure (a voluntary, non-emergency procedure, even) be performed on a patient in the UK, if the medical staff does not feel that the patient is sober and fully cognizant of the risks and potential complictions that could result from the procedure?
My point being that you don't just walk up to the guy (or girl) and say, "look here." pull out the wad of cash and say,"I will give you this money if you will just step into the van with me while we tie your tubes, or clip your gonads, and there are no strings attached. You'll be on your way to your next fix in no time. What'ya say, chum?"
So the guy or girl has to be sold on the concept, and has to be sober/straight enough to sign the proper forms, and then even show up at the pre-appointed time, at least clean enough to not give the doc a worry about drug interactions or over-anethsetizing them. Then, of course there is a day or so of recuperation from the surgery.
They have to actually spend some brain cells on the thing.
So here's a question for ya.
Do they have such a thing as informed consent in tthe UK?
Can a medical procedure (a voluntary, non-emergency procedure, even) be performed on a patient in the UK, if the medical staff does not feel that the patient is sober and fully cognizant of the risks and potential complictions that could result from the procedure?
My point being that you don't just walk up to the guy (or girl) and say, "look here." pull out the wad of cash and say,"I will give you this money if you will just step into the van with me while we tie your tubes, or clip your gonads, and there are no strings attached. You'll be on your way to your next fix in no time. What'ya say, chum?"
So the guy or girl has to be sold on the concept, and has to be sober/straight enough to sign the proper forms, and then even show up at the pre-appointed time, at least clean enough to not give the doc a worry about drug interactions or over-anethsetizing them. Then, of course there is a day or so of recuperation from the surgery.
They have to actually spend some brain cells on the thing.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1339839 wrote: Ah, think again, my dear.
One guy can knock up half a dozen women in a month, and hardly break a sweat.
So clipping one horny bastard can save the system hundreds of thousands in child support.
Not a bad investment for a few hundred.
I am mailing the lady a check so she can get another one snipped.
Bryn Mawr;1339842 wrote: But the children will not be addicted unless the mother is.
So you're advocating clipping all horny bastards on the grounds that they won't be able to support all of the by-blows they father?
This gets worse with every post
LarsMac;1339847 wrote: Your selective reading sklls are truly amazing, sir.
not that I think that notion has no merit. But it is your idea, not mine.
Not selective reading in the slightest, there is very little of your post not directly reflected in my response which is a straight extension of the logic you expressed.
If one guy can knock up half a dozen women in a month, hardly breaking sweat and, therefore, clipping one horny bastard can save the system hundreds of thousands in child support (because the horny bastard is not able to support the children he's fathered because he's an addict) then surely it follows that it would also be a good thing to clip all other horny bastards who would by unable to support any children they might father on the half a dozen women in a month he's not breaking sweat over.
Where does the logic of the response differ from the logic of your post? It is your idea reflected back to you, not my idea at all.
One guy can knock up half a dozen women in a month, and hardly break a sweat.
So clipping one horny bastard can save the system hundreds of thousands in child support.
Not a bad investment for a few hundred.
I am mailing the lady a check so she can get another one snipped.
Bryn Mawr;1339842 wrote: But the children will not be addicted unless the mother is.
So you're advocating clipping all horny bastards on the grounds that they won't be able to support all of the by-blows they father?
This gets worse with every post
LarsMac;1339847 wrote: Your selective reading sklls are truly amazing, sir.
not that I think that notion has no merit. But it is your idea, not mine.
Not selective reading in the slightest, there is very little of your post not directly reflected in my response which is a straight extension of the logic you expressed.
If one guy can knock up half a dozen women in a month, hardly breaking sweat and, therefore, clipping one horny bastard can save the system hundreds of thousands in child support (because the horny bastard is not able to support the children he's fathered because he's an addict) then surely it follows that it would also be a good thing to clip all other horny bastards who would by unable to support any children they might father on the half a dozen women in a month he's not breaking sweat over.
Where does the logic of the response differ from the logic of your post? It is your idea reflected back to you, not my idea at all.
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
Bryn Mawr;1339887 wrote: Not selective reading in the slightest, there is very little of your post not directly reflected in my response which is a straight extension of the logic you expressed.
If one guy can knock up half a dozen women in a month, hardly breaking sweat and, therefore, clipping one horny bastard can save the system hundreds of thousands in child support (because the horny bastard is not able to support the children he's fathered because he's an addict) then surely it follows that it would also be a good thing to clip all other horny bastards who would by unable to support any children they might father on the half a dozen women in a month he's not breaking sweat over.
Where does the logic of the response differ from the logic of your post? It is your idea reflected back to you, not my idea at all.
Yes sir. You did a fine job of extrapolating the logic.
And, if you could talk all the little horny bastards into submitting to a clip, at £200 a pop, look at the savings to be had for the child welfare devision over the course of 20 years.
But then there's the rub. You have to get them to sign up for it.
Good luck with that.
If one guy can knock up half a dozen women in a month, hardly breaking sweat and, therefore, clipping one horny bastard can save the system hundreds of thousands in child support (because the horny bastard is not able to support the children he's fathered because he's an addict) then surely it follows that it would also be a good thing to clip all other horny bastards who would by unable to support any children they might father on the half a dozen women in a month he's not breaking sweat over.
Where does the logic of the response differ from the logic of your post? It is your idea reflected back to you, not my idea at all.
Yes sir. You did a fine job of extrapolating the logic.
And, if you could talk all the little horny bastards into submitting to a clip, at £200 a pop, look at the savings to be had for the child welfare devision over the course of 20 years.
But then there's the rub. You have to get them to sign up for it.
Good luck with that.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1339971 wrote: Yes sir. You did a fine job of extrapolating the logic. A fine job, indeed. I commend you.
And, if you could talk all the little horny bastards into submitting to a clip, at £200 a pop, look at the savings to be had for the child welfare devision over the course of 20 years.
But then there's the rub. You have to get them to sign up for it.
Good luck with that.
If, Sir, you accept that the logic is fine then I presume that you also accept that it is the beginning of the slippery slope - firstly the addicts, then the downandout, then the unemployed then the low waged as none of them can afford the number of children they might potentially father.
It is eugenics all over again - it was immoral then and it's immoral now.
And, if you could talk all the little horny bastards into submitting to a clip, at £200 a pop, look at the savings to be had for the child welfare devision over the course of 20 years.
But then there's the rub. You have to get them to sign up for it.
Good luck with that.
If, Sir, you accept that the logic is fine then I presume that you also accept that it is the beginning of the slippery slope - firstly the addicts, then the downandout, then the unemployed then the low waged as none of them can afford the number of children they might potentially father.
It is eugenics all over again - it was immoral then and it's immoral now.
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1339683 wrote: I am not referring to the withdrawals, at all. While that is, another problem for such children, as you pointed out. the children left behind by these "parents" seldom have anyone to raise them. If they are lucky, they are picked up by the state, and raised in the foster care system. Even luckier still, they might find foster parents who actually do care about them, rather than only about the money the state pays for their care and feeding.I know, I was suggesting that the withdrawals and ultimate forever underlying temptation to indulge in their addiction at child birth is far worse than growing up in a foster care system but alas I suppose is arguable. On that, would you agree or disagree?
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
oscar;1339732 wrote: Certainly kevvy:
For one... If The British National Party proposed such a scheme, there would be screaming of 'Nazi' from the roof-tops.
For two... It Is that old adage of once a thief etc. Just because some-one Is In the grips of heroin addiction right now, does not mean to say they will be In 20 years time when they could have kicked their habit and become a 'normal' ( for want of a better word) person. It is labelling some-one very early on In their life and labelling them for life.
Finally, for any charity or government body to decide who can have children and who can not Is Immoral. Who will they target next? Where does this lead? next on the list could be the disabled or mentally disturbed. No-one has the right to dictate what path any-one takes In their life.
Yes, It is a fact of life that babies are born addicted to drugs but how many are addicted to prescription drugs such as anti-depressants and sleeping pills that new-borns also have to be weaned off.
This Is the rocky road to dictatorship and Hitleresque over-tones.
Far better the money be Invested In helping addicts get their life back on track.Sure, but wouldn't you agree that only one child having to go through withdrawals and ultimately a life long battle of addiction is far worse than giving the benefit of the doubt to one that has chosen to allow a chemical substance to control their lives, obviously speaking in divination, but the point is that the safety of a child is far more impressive than to trust one will not abuse while pregnant.
As for other drugs I think is irrelevant because each instance has to be looked at in favor of the child and not the reputation of the abuser. "The child is what's important" is the sentiment.
As for "demanding" people not bear children is a false gathering of what's been presented in this thread. There's a huge difference between "force" and "proposition", or even "bribe" as far as I'm concerned if you'd like to use the latter. It's purely the choice of the abuser and highlights just how much mind they pay toward the thought of not just a child but their own child which, in my mind, coincides with the very pragmatic implications asserted within the OP.
For one... If The British National Party proposed such a scheme, there would be screaming of 'Nazi' from the roof-tops.
For two... It Is that old adage of once a thief etc. Just because some-one Is In the grips of heroin addiction right now, does not mean to say they will be In 20 years time when they could have kicked their habit and become a 'normal' ( for want of a better word) person. It is labelling some-one very early on In their life and labelling them for life.
Finally, for any charity or government body to decide who can have children and who can not Is Immoral. Who will they target next? Where does this lead? next on the list could be the disabled or mentally disturbed. No-one has the right to dictate what path any-one takes In their life.
Yes, It is a fact of life that babies are born addicted to drugs but how many are addicted to prescription drugs such as anti-depressants and sleeping pills that new-borns also have to be weaned off.
This Is the rocky road to dictatorship and Hitleresque over-tones.
Far better the money be Invested In helping addicts get their life back on track.Sure, but wouldn't you agree that only one child having to go through withdrawals and ultimately a life long battle of addiction is far worse than giving the benefit of the doubt to one that has chosen to allow a chemical substance to control their lives, obviously speaking in divination, but the point is that the safety of a child is far more impressive than to trust one will not abuse while pregnant.
As for other drugs I think is irrelevant because each instance has to be looked at in favor of the child and not the reputation of the abuser. "The child is what's important" is the sentiment.
As for "demanding" people not bear children is a false gathering of what's been presented in this thread. There's a huge difference between "force" and "proposition", or even "bribe" as far as I'm concerned if you'd like to use the latter. It's purely the choice of the abuser and highlights just how much mind they pay toward the thought of not just a child but their own child which, in my mind, coincides with the very pragmatic implications asserted within the OP.
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
Bryn Mawr;1339975 wrote: If, Sir, you accept that the logic is fine then I presume that you also accept that it is the beginning of the slippery slope - firstly the addicts, then the downandout, then the unemployed then the low waged as none of them can afford the number of children they might potentially father.
It is eugenics all over again - it was immoral then and it's immoral now.
No, Sir.
We are not talking any slope, at all, here. This charity targets specific people, who are in a behavior pattern which creates a most hellish environment in which to bring children. The charity then offers a specific solution to a specific problem that is a result of anciliary behavior by those individuals.
There is no path for your logic to take that moves from a voluntary program targeting specific behavior to any mandatory program that targets people belonging to some socio-economic grouping.
I can say that were it up to me, I would like to see some sort of reversible sterilization that could be imposed on all young males, regardless of social or economic standing until such time as they become committed to the idea of raising a family. That would certainly solve a lot of the problems we have with unwanted children, would it not? (But that is far off-topic for this discussion)
Also, one should study up a bit on Eugenics, before waving that flag around.
It is eugenics all over again - it was immoral then and it's immoral now.
No, Sir.
We are not talking any slope, at all, here. This charity targets specific people, who are in a behavior pattern which creates a most hellish environment in which to bring children. The charity then offers a specific solution to a specific problem that is a result of anciliary behavior by those individuals.
There is no path for your logic to take that moves from a voluntary program targeting specific behavior to any mandatory program that targets people belonging to some socio-economic grouping.
I can say that were it up to me, I would like to see some sort of reversible sterilization that could be imposed on all young males, regardless of social or economic standing until such time as they become committed to the idea of raising a family. That would certainly solve a lot of the problems we have with unwanted children, would it not? (But that is far off-topic for this discussion)
Also, one should study up a bit on Eugenics, before waving that flag around.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
Bryn Mawr;1339738 wrote: Given that it's a vasectomy it does nothing to stop a child being born to an addict mother and if your worried that an unborn child might grow up to rob, steal or murder to support a lifestyle that they did not sow the seeds of then are you proposing to sterilise every potential parent living on an underprivileged ghetto estate?
I seem to remember that one of Indira Gandhi's kids (?Sanjay?) was kicked out of politics (?and jailed?) for doing the same thing.You're right but it's obvious what the ultimate goal is I think and the argument begins with what I'd initially presented.
And I'm not personally suggesting this as a means of government itervention persay but the fundamental logic behind it all. I'm simply asking if one feels a child being born to an addiction to a substance in which has proven to be very detrimental to individual lives as while as those around them is far worse than giving one a choice to care more for money and drugs than they do their personal aspirations to bear children.
The outright rejection of the idea I personally disagree with, that's all.
I seem to remember that one of Indira Gandhi's kids (?Sanjay?) was kicked out of politics (?and jailed?) for doing the same thing.You're right but it's obvious what the ultimate goal is I think and the argument begins with what I'd initially presented.
And I'm not personally suggesting this as a means of government itervention persay but the fundamental logic behind it all. I'm simply asking if one feels a child being born to an addiction to a substance in which has proven to be very detrimental to individual lives as while as those around them is far worse than giving one a choice to care more for money and drugs than they do their personal aspirations to bear children.
The outright rejection of the idea I personally disagree with, that's all.
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1339991 wrote: No, Sir.
We are not talking any slope, at all, here. This charity targets specific people, who are in a behavior pattern which creates a most hellish environment in which to bring children. The charity then offers a specific solution to a specific problem that is a result of anciliary behavior by those individuals.
There is no path for your logic to take that moves from a voluntary program targeting specific behavior to any mandatory program that targets people belonging to some socio-economic grouping.
I can say that were it up to me, I would like to see some sort of reversible sterilization that could be imposed on all young males, regardless of social or economic standing until such time as they become committed to the idea of raising a family. That would certainly solve a lot of the problems we have with unwanted children, would it not? (But that is far off-topic for this discussion)
Also, one should study up a bit on Eugenics, before waving that flag around.
Then we shall agree to disagree
We are not talking any slope, at all, here. This charity targets specific people, who are in a behavior pattern which creates a most hellish environment in which to bring children. The charity then offers a specific solution to a specific problem that is a result of anciliary behavior by those individuals.
There is no path for your logic to take that moves from a voluntary program targeting specific behavior to any mandatory program that targets people belonging to some socio-economic grouping.
I can say that were it up to me, I would like to see some sort of reversible sterilization that could be imposed on all young males, regardless of social or economic standing until such time as they become committed to the idea of raising a family. That would certainly solve a lot of the problems we have with unwanted children, would it not? (But that is far off-topic for this discussion)
Also, one should study up a bit on Eugenics, before waving that flag around.
Then we shall agree to disagree
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
K.Snyder;1339984 wrote: I know, I was suggesting that the withdrawals and ultimate forever underlying temptation to indulge in their addiction at child birth is far worse than growing up in a foster care system but alas I suppose is arguable. On that, would you agree or disagree?
I see where you are coming from.
The infant is only a few weeks old before the withdrawal period has abated. I don't know of any data that shows a link between birth addiction and future temptation. It certainly is not out of the question that the tendancy (temptation suggests a conscious action) could remain, I reckon.
However, Having known many who grew up within the foster care system, I can say that that is bad enough, to complicate it with a somewhat natural tendancy towards addiction to meth or junk or alcohol is truly frightening. actually.
I see where you are coming from.
The infant is only a few weeks old before the withdrawal period has abated. I don't know of any data that shows a link between birth addiction and future temptation. It certainly is not out of the question that the tendancy (temptation suggests a conscious action) could remain, I reckon.
However, Having known many who grew up within the foster care system, I can say that that is bad enough, to complicate it with a somewhat natural tendancy towards addiction to meth or junk or alcohol is truly frightening. actually.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
Bryn Mawr;1339999 wrote: Then we shall agree to disagree
Fair enough.
I do respect your concerns, I just don't see the one leading to the other.
Fair enough.
I do respect your concerns, I just don't see the one leading to the other.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1339863 wrote: So here's a question for ya.
Do they have such a thing as informed consent in tthe UK?
Can a medical procedure (a voluntary, non-emergency procedure, even) be performed on a patient in the UK, if the medical staff does not feel that the patient is sober and fully cognizant of the risks and potential complictions that could result from the procedure?
My point being that you don't just walk up to the guy (or girl) and say, "look here." pull out the wad of cash and say,"I will give you this money if you will just step into the van with me while we tie your tubes, or clip your gonads, and there are no strings attached. You'll be on your way to your next fix in no time. What'ya say, chum?"
So the guy or girl has to be sold on the concept, and has to be sober/straight enough to sign the proper forms, and then even show up at the pre-appointed time, at least clean enough to not give the doc a worry about drug interactions or over-anethsetizing them. Then, of course there is a day or so of recuperation from the surgery.
They have to actually spend some brain cells on the thing. Consent or not.. Any-one In the grip of Heroin addiction spending every waking moment looking for money for the next hit, Is not going to be of sound mind even In his most rational moments. That Is why It is bribery and this so called charity Is doing nothing but lining the pockets of the dealers. There Is every possibility that a heroin user used to a £10 hit will go out and blow the £200 on double or treble the hit and over-dose. Then this so called charity has a death on their hands. I doubt they would care because It seems that a few morons here have taken the moral high-ground without fully looking at the ramifications of their actions.
It Is down to tolerance. You seem Intolerant of heroin addicts. I am not exactly In love with them myself but any addiction Is an Illness and should be treated as such, not castrate them to take a moral stance which sounds as If It Is based on superiority or belief of superiority.
As for your argument that male addicts are more likely to mix with female addicts to spawn addicted babies, Yes, that is true, however, neutering male addicts Is a little like putting wall-paper up with shaving foam. If addicts mix like with like, then you are still going to have an addicted woman sleeping with any-one she likes and getting pregnant be It by an addict or not, given that many female addicts will sell the one thing they have In order to secure the next hit.
You did not answer my question... What about the thousands of babies born every day to women addicted to alcohol?
Do they have such a thing as informed consent in tthe UK?
Can a medical procedure (a voluntary, non-emergency procedure, even) be performed on a patient in the UK, if the medical staff does not feel that the patient is sober and fully cognizant of the risks and potential complictions that could result from the procedure?
My point being that you don't just walk up to the guy (or girl) and say, "look here." pull out the wad of cash and say,"I will give you this money if you will just step into the van with me while we tie your tubes, or clip your gonads, and there are no strings attached. You'll be on your way to your next fix in no time. What'ya say, chum?"
So the guy or girl has to be sold on the concept, and has to be sober/straight enough to sign the proper forms, and then even show up at the pre-appointed time, at least clean enough to not give the doc a worry about drug interactions or over-anethsetizing them. Then, of course there is a day or so of recuperation from the surgery.
They have to actually spend some brain cells on the thing. Consent or not.. Any-one In the grip of Heroin addiction spending every waking moment looking for money for the next hit, Is not going to be of sound mind even In his most rational moments. That Is why It is bribery and this so called charity Is doing nothing but lining the pockets of the dealers. There Is every possibility that a heroin user used to a £10 hit will go out and blow the £200 on double or treble the hit and over-dose. Then this so called charity has a death on their hands. I doubt they would care because It seems that a few morons here have taken the moral high-ground without fully looking at the ramifications of their actions.
It Is down to tolerance. You seem Intolerant of heroin addicts. I am not exactly In love with them myself but any addiction Is an Illness and should be treated as such, not castrate them to take a moral stance which sounds as If It Is based on superiority or belief of superiority.
As for your argument that male addicts are more likely to mix with female addicts to spawn addicted babies, Yes, that is true, however, neutering male addicts Is a little like putting wall-paper up with shaving foam. If addicts mix like with like, then you are still going to have an addicted woman sleeping with any-one she likes and getting pregnant be It by an addict or not, given that many female addicts will sell the one thing they have In order to secure the next hit.
You did not answer my question... What about the thousands of babies born every day to women addicted to alcohol?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
oscar;1340014 wrote: Consent or not.. Any-one In the grip of Heroin addiction spending every waking moment looking for money for the next hit, Is not going to be of sound mind even In his most rational moments. That Is why It is bribery and this so called charity Is doing nothing but lining the pockets of the dealers. There Is every possibility that a heroin user used to a £10 hit will go out and blow the £200 on double or treble the hit and over-dose. Then this so called charity has a death on their hands. I doubt they would care because It seems that a few morons here have taken the moral high-ground without fully looking at the ramifications of their actions.
It Is down to tolerance. You seem Intolerant of heroin addicts. I am not exactly In love with them myself but any addiction Is an Illness and should be treated as such, not castrate them to take a moral stance which sounds as If It Is based on superiority or belief of superiority.
As for your argument that male addicts are more likely to mix with female addicts to spawn addicted babies, Yes, that is true, however, neutering male addicts Is a little like putting wall-paper up with shaving foam. If addicts mix like with like, then you are still going to have an addicted woman sleeping with any-one she likes and getting pregnant be It by an addict or not, given that many female addicts will sell the one thing they have In order to secure the next hit.
You did not answer my question... What about the thousands of babies born every day to women addicted to alcohol?
Yes, truly the prime target for such a thing might be the female addicts, which, if you read my post, as well as the article, you would know already, is the case.
In my book, even one less baby produced into such a hell is worth the £200 spent, regardless of how the fellow spends it.
As for your alcohol question, what about it? Are you suggeting this organization expand its clientel to include drunks?
I am with you, there. Anything that prevents children from being born into a life of pain and addiction and abuse works for me.
I just don't think these people can afford to broaden their target that far.
As I said before,
In my book, even one less baby produced into such a hell is worth the £200 spent.
It Is down to tolerance. You seem Intolerant of heroin addicts. I am not exactly In love with them myself but any addiction Is an Illness and should be treated as such, not castrate them to take a moral stance which sounds as If It Is based on superiority or belief of superiority.
As for your argument that male addicts are more likely to mix with female addicts to spawn addicted babies, Yes, that is true, however, neutering male addicts Is a little like putting wall-paper up with shaving foam. If addicts mix like with like, then you are still going to have an addicted woman sleeping with any-one she likes and getting pregnant be It by an addict or not, given that many female addicts will sell the one thing they have In order to secure the next hit.
You did not answer my question... What about the thousands of babies born every day to women addicted to alcohol?
Yes, truly the prime target for such a thing might be the female addicts, which, if you read my post, as well as the article, you would know already, is the case.
In my book, even one less baby produced into such a hell is worth the £200 spent, regardless of how the fellow spends it.
As for your alcohol question, what about it? Are you suggeting this organization expand its clientel to include drunks?
I am with you, there. Anything that prevents children from being born into a life of pain and addiction and abuse works for me.
I just don't think these people can afford to broaden their target that far.
As I said before,
In my book, even one less baby produced into such a hell is worth the £200 spent.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1340026 wrote: Yes, truly the prime target for such a thing might be the female addicts, which, if you read my post, as well as the article, you would know already, is the case.
In my book, even one less baby produced into such a hell is worth the £200 spent, regardless of how the fellow spends it.
As for your alcohol question, what about it? Are you suggeting this organization expand its clientel to include drunks?
I am with you, there. Anything that prevents children from being born into a life of pain and addiction and abuse works for me.
I just don't think these people can afford to broaden their target that far.
As I said before,
In my book, even one less baby produced into such a hell is worth the £200 spent.
I would certainly never condone any organisation taking the moral high ground as to who can have children or not.
What next? The mentally challenged, the disabled, the gypsies? Have we not learnt any-thing from the Nazi regime?
You seem to assume that any child born to an addict Is doomed for life and there-fore castrating his or her potential father Is doing us and them a huge favour,
Many of the greatest genious's , artiste's, writers, sportsmen etc etc have been born to alcohol and even drug dependant parents. Where would this world be without them?
Because to take away some-one's right to have a child, you are actually talking about selection.
In my book, even one less baby produced into such a hell is worth the £200 spent, regardless of how the fellow spends it.
As for your alcohol question, what about it? Are you suggeting this organization expand its clientel to include drunks?
I am with you, there. Anything that prevents children from being born into a life of pain and addiction and abuse works for me.
I just don't think these people can afford to broaden their target that far.
As I said before,
In my book, even one less baby produced into such a hell is worth the £200 spent.
I would certainly never condone any organisation taking the moral high ground as to who can have children or not.
What next? The mentally challenged, the disabled, the gypsies? Have we not learnt any-thing from the Nazi regime?
You seem to assume that any child born to an addict Is doomed for life and there-fore castrating his or her potential father Is doing us and them a huge favour,
Many of the greatest genious's , artiste's, writers, sportsmen etc etc have been born to alcohol and even drug dependant parents. Where would this world be without them?
Because to take away some-one's right to have a child, you are actually talking about selection.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
oscar;1340030 wrote: I would certainly never condone any organisation taking the moral high ground as to who can have children or not.
What next? The mentally challenged, the disabled, the gypsies? Have we not learnt any-thing from the Nazi regime?
You seem to assume that any child born to an addict Is doomed for life and there-fore castrating his or her potential father Is doing us and them a huge favour,
Many of the greatest genious's , artiste's, writers, sportsmen etc etc have been born to alcohol and even drug dependant parents. Where would this world be without them?
Because to take away some-one's right to have a child, you are actually talking about selection.
There is a big difference between having a "right" taken away, and freely giving it up.
And for every one of those great artists or sportsmen you can think of, there are now hundreds, if not thousands of children suffering and dying in a hell you cannot even imagine, while you protect the imagined right of a junky who is willing to give up that right for a few quid.
I believe we might best pursue the following line of conversation on this.
Bryn Mawr;1339999 wrote: Then we shall agree to disagree
[QUOTE=LarsMac;1340003]Fair enough.
I do respect your concerns, I just don't see the one leading to the other.
With Respect,
L
What next? The mentally challenged, the disabled, the gypsies? Have we not learnt any-thing from the Nazi regime?
You seem to assume that any child born to an addict Is doomed for life and there-fore castrating his or her potential father Is doing us and them a huge favour,
Many of the greatest genious's , artiste's, writers, sportsmen etc etc have been born to alcohol and even drug dependant parents. Where would this world be without them?
Because to take away some-one's right to have a child, you are actually talking about selection.
There is a big difference between having a "right" taken away, and freely giving it up.
And for every one of those great artists or sportsmen you can think of, there are now hundreds, if not thousands of children suffering and dying in a hell you cannot even imagine, while you protect the imagined right of a junky who is willing to give up that right for a few quid.
I believe we might best pursue the following line of conversation on this.
Bryn Mawr;1339999 wrote: Then we shall agree to disagree
[QUOTE=LarsMac;1340003]Fair enough.
I do respect your concerns, I just don't see the one leading to the other.
With Respect,
L
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1340036 wrote: There is a big difference between having a "right" taken away, and freely giving it up.
And for every one of those great artists or sportsmen you can think of, there are now hundreds, if not thousands of children suffering and dying in a hell you cannot even imagine, while you protect the imagined right of a junky who is willing to give up that right for a few quid.
I believe we might best pursue the following line of conversation on this.
With Respect,
L I do not 'defend' Junkie's. As I said before, In the grip of addiction, I do not believe they can make sound judgement when offered a fairly large sum of money.
I agree, there are babies born Into hellish existences but I do not believe any-one has the right to take the moral high ground and bribe those less fortunate than our-selves.
We shall agree to disagree.
And for every one of those great artists or sportsmen you can think of, there are now hundreds, if not thousands of children suffering and dying in a hell you cannot even imagine, while you protect the imagined right of a junky who is willing to give up that right for a few quid.
I believe we might best pursue the following line of conversation on this.
With Respect,
L I do not 'defend' Junkie's. As I said before, In the grip of addiction, I do not believe they can make sound judgement when offered a fairly large sum of money.
I agree, there are babies born Into hellish existences but I do not believe any-one has the right to take the moral high ground and bribe those less fortunate than our-selves.
We shall agree to disagree.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1340002 wrote: I see where you are coming from.
The infant is only a few weeks old before the withdrawal period has abated. I don't know of any data that shows a link between birth addiction and future temptation. It certainly is not out of the question that the tendancy (temptation suggests a conscious action) could remain, I reckon.
However, Having known many who grew up within the foster care system, I can say that that is bad enough, to complicate it with a somewhat natural tendancy towards addiction to meth or junk or alcohol is truly frightening. actually.The hell these infants have to go through is enough to carve these people up like a Halloween pumpkin in my mind but I'll agree that we cannot generalize and assume every addict that is pregnant will continue to abuse,..right? Right?
What's the figures indicate? It's at least important to understand the exact figures is it not? From my personal experiences I've yet to see one pregnant woman I know to quit smoking but I assume with the utmost optimism that this is not the case on a significant scale,..right? Right?
Anyone?
The infant is only a few weeks old before the withdrawal period has abated. I don't know of any data that shows a link between birth addiction and future temptation. It certainly is not out of the question that the tendancy (temptation suggests a conscious action) could remain, I reckon.
However, Having known many who grew up within the foster care system, I can say that that is bad enough, to complicate it with a somewhat natural tendancy towards addiction to meth or junk or alcohol is truly frightening. actually.The hell these infants have to go through is enough to carve these people up like a Halloween pumpkin in my mind but I'll agree that we cannot generalize and assume every addict that is pregnant will continue to abuse,..right? Right?
What's the figures indicate? It's at least important to understand the exact figures is it not? From my personal experiences I've yet to see one pregnant woman I know to quit smoking but I assume with the utmost optimism that this is not the case on a significant scale,..right? Right?
Anyone?
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
I agree with Lars here. Snip away. There is nothing to stop these same folks from reversing the process when they have the means to do so. And up until the time that they can have that much money available to them and avoid spending it on drugs, I like the notion that they can't procreate.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
K.Snyder;1340237 wrote: The hell these infants have to go through is enough to carve these people up like a Halloween pumpkin in my mind but I'll agree that we cannot generalize and assume every addict that is pregnant will continue to abuse,..right? Right?
What's the figures indicate? It's at least important to understand the exact figures is it not? From my personal experiences I've yet to see one pregnant woman I know to quit smoking but I assume with the utmost optimism that this is not the case on a significant scale,..right? Right?
Anyone?
Well, I know some women who stopped drinking while they were pregnant. But, then, they were also middle class or so, and really were basically occasional drinkers, not really alcoholics.
I've seen several pregnant women that never let a thing like being "with child" slow them down a bit.
I should move to a nicer neighborhood, I guess.
What's the figures indicate? It's at least important to understand the exact figures is it not? From my personal experiences I've yet to see one pregnant woman I know to quit smoking but I assume with the utmost optimism that this is not the case on a significant scale,..right? Right?
Anyone?
Well, I know some women who stopped drinking while they were pregnant. But, then, they were also middle class or so, and really were basically occasional drinkers, not really alcoholics.
I've seen several pregnant women that never let a thing like being "with child" slow them down a bit.
I should move to a nicer neighborhood, I guess.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
LarsMac;1340312 wrote: Well, I know some women who stopped drinking while they were pregnant. But, then, they were also middle class or so, and really were basically occasional drinkers, not really alcoholics.
I've seen several pregnant women that never let a thing like being "with child" slow them down a bit.
I should move to a nicer neighborhood, I guess.
I claim separate subject on this one :wah:
Really? Because they were middle class they were not alcoholics - 'cos only working class people can be alcoholics? :yh_rotfl
I've seen several pregnant women that never let a thing like being "with child" slow them down a bit.
I should move to a nicer neighborhood, I guess.
I claim separate subject on this one :wah:
Really? Because they were middle class they were not alcoholics - 'cos only working class people can be alcoholics? :yh_rotfl
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
Bryn Mawr;1340823 wrote: I claim separate subject on this one :wah:
Really? Because they were middle class they were not alcoholics - 'cos only working class people can be alcoholics? :yh_rotfl
Oh, no. fact is, most of the alcoholic women I have known were either upper class, or not working class.
White collar and Blue-bloods are the worst when it comes to alcoholism.
Working-class women tend to be too busy taking care of the children and their working-class alcoholic husbands.
Really? Because they were middle class they were not alcoholics - 'cos only working class people can be alcoholics? :yh_rotfl
Oh, no. fact is, most of the alcoholic women I have known were either upper class, or not working class.
White collar and Blue-bloods are the worst when it comes to alcoholism.
Working-class women tend to be too busy taking care of the children and their working-class alcoholic husbands.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
U.S. Charity bribes British Heroin Addict...
Besides, a little booze isn't going to hurt the kid that much, but the Yuppies always take everything to extremes.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence