# Charity bribes drug addicts to sterilise themselves **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 17, 2010, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489 "2010-10-17T22:37:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/141 "2010-10-20T00:34:27Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Not to ‘completely voluntary’ as in “We’re offering free sterilizations to those who want them.” but absolutely to ‘voluntary’ as in “Hey, I’ll give you $300 for smack if you let me tie your tubes!” You sound like you’re under the impression the people offering the money are deriving some kind of sexual thrill from it, akin to fondling a Japanese schoolgirl in a crowded subway. It’s also unclear to me how the verb “exploit” applies. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/142 "2010-10-20T00:51:27Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > If they’re offering free sterilization, I think that’s great. If they’re offering money to get sterilized, I think that sucks. I really don’t think I can be any clearer about this. Do you object to paying the women the same amount of money to participate in a long-term birth control method? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/143 "2010-10-20T01:05:14Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Eh, maybe. But I think it’s rather a clever rubric. This group is self selecting. It’s the people who are the most short-sighted, unable to delay gratification and truly caught in the trap of their addiction that will take the offer. … > Well, okay. That’s \*exactly \*the sort of people that shouldn’t be having kids. I’d even argue that that’s exactly the population that won’t make great parents, even if they \*do \*later manage to clean themselves up and straighten out. Those are conjectures, empty of empirical support. You may be correct. But that’s a thin reed to base policy on. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Really, you think an abortion is preferable to a permanent sterilization (which would, in fact, be completely voluntary, by the way)? Absolutely in the first trimester. Abort a fetus, and you’re not eliminating the possibility of having another kid. Sterilization is relatively irreversible. > [@WhyNot](#): > > Because repeated abortions aren’t medically safe. More than two, and the brows of your OB staff furrow… Um, does that apply to RU-486? **Hello Again** : Inserting facts was all kinds of awesome. It seems that Project Prevention is not using sterilization as a first resort, but rather to those addicts who have already had kids. Also, they take at least some care to keep records and screen clients. If a private organization is providing a comprehensive set of services, is serious about collecting data and opening it up to third party researchers and thinks carefully about medical ethics then I’m all for it. Whether Project Prevention does these things or their equivalent is not yet clear to me though. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/144 "2010-10-20T01:52:05Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Because repeated abortions aren’t medically safe. More than two, and the brows of your OB staff furrow because they know that placenta previa, placental insufficiency, placetal abruption, cord prolapse, prematurity and a host of deformities are a very real likelihood…even assuming a woman with many repeated abortions can get and stay pregnant in the first place. So in other words, it’s not safe for the fetus. Understood. But my concern here is clearly not for the fetus. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > You sound like you’re under the impression the people offering the money are deriving some kind of sexual thrill from it, akin to fondling a Japanese schoolgirl in a crowded subway. It’s also unclear to me how the verb “exploit” applies. I’m simply under the impression that they’re trying to bribe vulnerable people into an irreversible decision. I don’t think that’s okay. > [@Hello Again](#): > > Do you object to paying the women the same amount of money to participate in a long-term birth control method? Not if it’s easily reversible. Kinda makes you wonder why they don’t opt for that. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/145 "2010-10-20T02:10:25Z")
> [@Hello\_Again](#): > > Statistics from Project Prevention: > [http://www.projectprevention.org/statistics/](http://www.projectprevention.org/statistics/) > > 1. Most of their clients are caucasian > 2. The organization offers a variety of long-term birth control options, most of which are NOT permanent. > 3. **No one is sterilized who has not already had children.** > > They offer the following remarks about their last 20 patients who opted for Tubal Ligation: > …Average of 4 living children each. Emphasis added. I feel some unease about offering sterilization to someone not in their right faculties who has never sired a child. But this charity doesn’t do that. It seems to me that Project Prevention’s interventions are not especially aggressive, in light of this fact. Heck, it’s not like they’re offering $30,000 or even $3000. Independent verification is always welcome, but it seems to me that the charity passes my cost-benefit tests with flying colors. ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/146 "2010-10-20T02:21:20Z")
The more I look at this the more I like it. This charity clearly does provide long-term reversible methods as an option. Good on them. From the website: [http://www.projectprevention.org/statistics/](http://www.projectprevention.org/statistics/) > [@](#): > > **The following are the statistics as of October 17th, 2010:** > > ``` > The following numbers were obtained through our Client Survey Form which all participants fill out. These numbers are prior to obtaining long-term birth control through our program: > > ``` > > [ul] > [li]3,600 - Total number of paid clients.[/li][li]16,462 - Total number of pregnancies. (Not including miscarriages)[/li][li]10,838 - Total number of births (some resulted in multiple births).[/li][li]4,695 - Total number of abortions[/li][li]750 - Stillborn births. Also, another 396 had very brief lives, dying soon after birth from complications.[/li][li]5,710 - Total number of these children remaining in foster care to date.[/li][li]1,059 have chosen Depo-Provera, 1,319 Tubal Ligation, 963 IUD, 167 Implanon, 38 Norplant, and 54 Vasectomies.[/li][li]1,804 clients have been Caucasian, 943 African-American, 457 Hispanic, and 396 of other ethnic backgrounds.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/147 "2010-10-20T02:37:58Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > So in other words, it’s not safe for the fetus. Understood. But my concern here is clearly not for the fetus. I think **WhyNot’s** talking about _future_ fetuses. If multiple abortions now is putting future fertility and/or future pregnancies at risk, how is it better than the sterilizing? At least with sterilizing the outcome is clear, they don’t have to consider some complex risk assessment regarding the effect of the abortions. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/148 "2010-10-20T03:02:17Z")
I personally hate how fertility is held up to be this indespensable right, as if by removing someone’s fertility you were committing them to a horrible life. A huge portion of evil and harm in the world - perhaps most of it - stems from having people who shouldn’t be having kids having kids. Looking at removing their fertility as a massive harm in itself is backwards - their having kids is the great harm. This isn’t mean to say that I support eugenics or anything like that. Almost always the attempted solution is worse than the harm it would prevent. But in this case it’s voluntary, paid for by volunteers and done to people who agree with it. If you think these people are such fucking wastes that they’re incapable of giving consent, then that’s even more proof that they’re going to be fuckups as parents. If they hypothetically become awesome down the road and end up being good parents - well they can still adopt. The idea that adoption isn’t even a concern here because people are such narcissists that they don’t consider that fulfilling or something is disturbing. If the people in question really clean up enough to be good parents, then let them be good parents to some adopted kids and improve both their lives. ---
**Author:** ![lavenderviolet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/cdc98d/32.png) [@lavenderviolet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lavenderviolet)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/149 "2010-10-20T03:04:26Z")
It’s worth noting that the founder of this organization has adopted a number of crack babies herself, and is married to a black man. I definitely believe that her motives are a sincere concern for drug-addicted children instead of anything racist or classist. Addiction often does run in families. Kids raised in drug-using environments often do grow up to drug abusers themselves - not necessarily because of genes but simply because it’s the only way of life they know. Anything we can do to stop the cycle is going to stop a lot of suffering well into the future. I also agree with [her point on the FAQ page](http://www.projectprevention.org/faq/#f) that having children taken away by social services probably is another form of suffering for these women that may make them want to sink further into drug use. Having crack babies one after the next is not good for the women either, even if you don’t give a shit about the kids. ---
**Author:** ![lavenderviolet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/cdc98d/32.png) [@lavenderviolet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lavenderviolet)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/150 "2010-10-20T03:09:03Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > So in other words, it’s not safe for the fetus. Understood. But my concern here is clearly not for the fetus. Placental abruption and placenta previa are both dangerous to the mom as well. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/151 "2010-10-20T03:39:52Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Um, does that apply to RU-486? Yes, it does. It applies to surgical abortions, mifepristone (RU-486) or induced home abortions, as well as spontaneous miscarriages. It applies to any pregnancy loss where an implanted fetus and placenta are detached and evacuated from the uterus, leaving behind a scar on the uterine wall. They’re all part of the “A” of “GTPAL”, a list of previous pregnancy histories which your OB and nurses look at to determine your risk of complications with your current or future pregnancies and deliveries. (“Gravida, Term, Premature, Abortions [including “miscarriages”], Living [Children]”) What doesn’t cause later complications is use of Emergency Contraception (called Plan B in the US) or the IUD, even should ovulation and conception occur. That’s because nothing has implanted yet, so there is no scar tissue on the uterus created when the “products of conception” are evacuated. Good luck getting a junkie to come in for a medical (as opposed to surgical) abortion in time, though. Plan B must be given in the first 120 \*hours \*after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure. Mifepristone you have to give within 63 days in Britain (49 in most countries) after the last menstrual period. That’s not even two skipped periods. Plenty of women, junkies or not, have no idea they’re pregnant at that point. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/152 "2010-10-20T04:59:59Z")
I think the problem here is that when you pay people for stuff like this, you are basically paying them to do something they do not really want to do. If they were so keen on sterilization, they would be willing to do it for no compensation. But that’s not what is happening. Under ordinary circumstances, that would be a small issue. But the fact is you can get a junkie to do just about ANYTHING for $300. In this situation I do think it is unethical to use that money to do things you know they have a good chance of regretting later. And since they would not get the sterilization without payment, I think that is a sign that they do not have any real desire for sterilization. I think published drug addiction recovery rates are generally only counting those who seek treatment, who are generally going to be the worst of the worst. There are plenty of others who have experienced limited periods of addiction. There are towns where basically every teenager has experience with speed or oxycotin…I know because I’m from one of them. Luckily most of these guys who did some pretty dumb ass stuff as teens have recovered and are not living with permanent consequences later. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > If they hypothetically become awesome down the road and end up being good parents - well they can still adopt. The idea that adoption isn’t even a concern here because people are such narcissists that they don’t consider that fulfilling or something is disturbing. If the people in question really clean up enough to be good parents, then let them be good parents to some adopted kids and improve both their lives. Adopting is not something you can “always do.” It’s a long, complicated and expensive process that has a much higher chance of leaving you with a child with emotional problems. Adopting is a great thing, but it’s by no means a sure thing and if that is your only option for having children then there is a good chance that you will end up without children. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/153 "2010-10-20T05:01:54Z")
Who cares if they end up without children? Why is that supposed to be some horrible tragedy? Why is that worse than the suffering of a crack baby? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/154 "2010-10-20T05:03:15Z")
I’d like to make the adoption process easier of course, but yes, **Dio** expresses my sentiment. It’s not like being blind or crippled or something not to have a kid. Whatever harm is caused to fuckups by not having kid is, on average, far lower than the damage done to kicks by being had by fuckups. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/155 "2010-10-20T05:06:42Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > There are towns where basically every teenager has experience with speed or oxycotin…I know because I’m from one of them. Luckily most of these guys who did some pretty dumb ass stuff as teens have recovered and are not living with permanent consequences later. Would you have volunteered to be sterilized for $300? If not, why? Because you weren’t so badly off that you still had the ability to take delayed gratification. Do you think you’re capable of making that decision for yourself, but these other people aren’t? And if they are so far gone that they aren’t capable of making that decision, are they the sort of people that would cause a net good on average if they had kids? > [@](#): > > Adopting is not something you can “always do.” It’s a long, complicated and expensive process that has a much higher chance of leaving you with a child with emotional problems. Adopting is a great thing, but it’s by no means a sure thing and if that is your only option for having children then there is a good chance that you will end up without children. I’d like to make the adoption process easier of course, but yes, **Dio** expresses my sentiment. It’s not like being blind or crippled or something not to have a kid. Whatever harm is caused to fuckups by not having kid is, on average, far lower than the damage done to kicks by being had by fuckups. You guys are essentially acting like people are asking the worst, most desperate junkies if they’d allow us to take their kidney or something for $300. That isn’t the case - we’re not doing it to seek our own riches at their expensive, we’re doing it as a way to prevent future harm to a potential child. Again, having a kid when you really shouldn’t is one of the greatest sources of evil in the world - it branches out in so many ways. It’s not the long term interest of the druggie that’s in question here. They’ve proven to either be very far gone or have bad judgement if having kids is a big deal to them. It’s the interest of the potential kids. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/156 "2010-10-20T06:02:44Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Would you have volunteered to be sterilized for $300? If not, why? Because you weren’t so badly off that you still had the ability to take delayed gratification. I was never addicted (indeed, I’d never try an addictive drug), but many in my social circles were. It comes with being from Northern California. Yes, some of them probably were so desperate that they would have made this decision. Many of these same people are now clean, beautiful, healthy, productive mothers whose relationship with drugs is now simply a memory of when they were young and stupid. I get the impression that you do not consider fertility to be that important. While that may be true for you, people vary. I’ve recently hit the realization that my family is aging and there is only one person under 50 in it besides myself. I can’t imagine life without a family, and if I want to still be part of one I need to get cracking. Not all people feel a deep need for children, but you’ll have to trust us that when you start feeling it, it becomes REALLY important. In any case, even if there are people who should never had children, there is no person or organization I trust enough to make that decision. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/157 "2010-10-20T07:49:24Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > It’s not like being blind or crippled or something not to have a kid. Whatever harm is caused to fuckups by not having kid is, on average, far lower than the damage done to kicks by being had by fuckups. That’s an interesting theory, but not especially relevant. The charity in question only offers sterilization to those who already have children. The average addicted client who receives $300 for the procedure already has 4 kids. I understand that having multiple kids taken away by the state doesn’t do wonders for self-esteem. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/158 "2010-10-20T11:06:18Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > This isn’t mean to say that I support eugenics or anything like that. Almost always the attempted solution is worse than the harm it would prevent. But in this case it’s voluntary, paid for by volunteers and done to people who agree with it. If you think these people are such fucking wastes that they’re incapable of giving consent, then that’s even more proof that they’re going to be fuckups as parents. So really you just don’t support \*calling \*it eugenics when you happen to agree with it, since your argument implies that criminals, crazy people, desperately poor people, and any other ‘undesirable’ who can be swayed by $300 deserves to be ‘voluntarily’ sterilized. As I’ve said before, if they were coming in for FREE sterilizations, I’d have no problem with that. If they were coming in for free sterilizations, and $300 worth of hotel or food vouchers, I’d have no problem with that. If they were coming in for free sterilizations, and some meaningful amount of money applied toward a treatment program, I’d work there. What I have a problem with, and can’t believe that so many people think is okay, is for them to essentially offer a drug addict the means to buy some drugs in return for their fertility. That? Is fucked up. I’m also more than a little bemused at everyone’s willingness to take their word on the stats. I guess nobody can be bothered to dig a little deeper about a project that pushes both their superiority and warm fuzzy buttons. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/159 "2010-10-20T11:54:51Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > So really you just don’t support \*calling \*it eugenics when you happen to agree with it, since your argument implies that criminals, crazy people, desperately poor people, and any other ‘undesirable’ who can be swayed by $300 deserves to be ‘voluntarily’ sterilized. It’s not eugenics when it’s not forced. If offering free sterilizations resulted in more amongst some sort of demographic group, would you call that sterilization? > [@](#): > > As I’ve said before, if they were coming in for FREE sterilizations, I’d have no problem with that. If they were coming in for free sterilizations, and $300 worth of hotel or food vouchers, I’d have no problem with that. If they were coming in for free sterilizations, and some meaningful amount of money applied toward a treatment program, I’d work there. Wait - so if I support giving them $300 for sterilization, I’m an evil eugenics advocate, but if you advocate giving them $300 in cheetos for it, that’s just fine? > [@](#): > > What I have a problem with, and can’t believe that so many people think is okay, is for them to essentially offer a drug addict the means to buy some drugs in return for their fertility. That? Is fucked up. Net good all around. By a huge, huge amount. No one is being forced into anything and it’s massively in favor of the utilitarian. > [@](#): > > I’m also more than a little bemused at everyone’s willingness to take their word on the stats. I guess nobody can be bothered to dig a little deeper about a project that pushes both their superiority and warm fuzzy buttons. I’m a little less than bemused at your insistence that we’re all racist. You assume that this organization is racist to the point of fabricating stats, and because it’s so obvious they’re racist liars, the people advocating in the thread must know that too. And since we’re all okay with it, we’re basically Hitler. Yeah, that woman who runs the thing that’s married to a black man who’s personally adopted crack babies is EEEEVIL. Maybe she’s lying about that too. Maybe he’s a white guy in blackface and she got her own healthy infants addicted to crack for the PR value. Couldn’t possibly be because we recognize what a shit sandwich a kid born to a completely unfit parent gets and are fine with taking non-forced steps to prevent it. No, we’re racist. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489/160 "2010-10-20T12:00:44Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > It’s not eugenics when it’s not forced. If offering free sterilizations resulted in more amongst some sort of demographic group, would you call that sterilization? I meant eugenics of course. And there’s no evidence here that the program is directed towards any particular ethnic group. Except of course that you think the stats are all lies to cover up the hidden racist agenda that you just know is there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/charity-bribes-drug-addicts-to-sterilise-themselves/557489.md?page=9)