You’re in luck. This is a British story. In Britain all health care is free at the point of delivery for everyone.
Ditto, absolutely ditto. The only part of this I feel is unfair is I am not getting offered $300 to be sterlized. If I want my tubes tied, which I do, I have to jump through hoops to do it.
Because you are responsible enough to not have a baby you can’t take care of, of course.
I have a serious, serious problem with this. First of all, saying this is voluntary misses the point. A street junkie, unable to plan beyond the next high is simply not capable of making a rational decision about something like this. I presume everyone who’s ok with this also has no problem with the guy who used to go around giving homeless people ten dollars to fight each other on camera? It’s exploitative and based on the worst type of class racism. They are only targeting street people, the poorest of the poor. Taking away such a fundamental right from people this desperate is at best ruthlessly cruel. I don’t see this as a charity trying to help people. I see this as a charity of middle-class people manipulating down-and-out poor people to give up their right to reproduce for a pittance. Why? Because they have decided that these people aren’t worthy, and society would be better off if they didn’t have kids. Ever. Well who the fuck gave them that power? I might believe they had good intentions if they offered temporary sterilization, but permanant sterilization is far too extreme a measure, imo.
I imagine it all stems from a belief that people who use drugs are Bad People. There are many people in this world who are not suited to parenthood. Why don’t we sterilize anyone who gets convicted of a crime? Why don’t we sterilize fat people? Or ugly people? Or stupid people?
No. Because she doesn’t want a baby. Not because she wants a baby but feels she will never be able to care for one.
(I presume, anyway)
You also said,
Some folks who work with addiction would find that to be a concise statement of not caring about addicts’ futures, full stop.
even sven there was speaking of people who have recovered, not current active addicts. It’s quite relevant. If we give a shit about addicts’ future, that necessarily includes considering the capacity for recovery and the possibility that people who are desperate now may be “upright, normal” in the future.
The desire to have a family, or to recover a lost or broken family, has served as a powerful incentive for some former addicts to turn themselves around.
Thanks, Sparks.
As for people who are currently “upright” addicts- Where, pray tell, is your deep concern for their children?
A quick trip to the “memoirs” section fo the library will reveal that children of upper-class addicts suffer just as badly, and often ended up with screwed up childhoods because their parents were to concerned with their addiction to give them the love and protection they needed. The world is ripe with stories of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and abandonment by otherwise “high functioning” addicts. Even though they may find financial stability that the children of street junkies are lacking, they are still subject to the same mental anguish.
Why isn’t anyone concerned about the children they are having? Why aren’t they busy finding incentives that will keep these horrible monsters from inflicting life? I know they have programs for addicted doctors and lawyers- why don’t they tie sterilization into these programs?
It’s because this isn’t about addiction at all, that’s why.
Maybe you can tell me, though: as a practical point, is it possible for a young man or woman with no children to get a permanent sterilization? Here in the US, even if you have the money to pay for it, it’s not. There’s no *official *ban, but the unofficial stance of the vast majority of doctors is to refuse to sterilize a woman before the age of 35 (sometimes 40) or before she has at least 2 children. They also refuse vasectomy to men under 40, with a few very rare exceptions - so rare that it made the newspaper a few years ago when a 25 year old man in Chicago managed to convince his doctor to give him a vasectomy.
So, to be more precise, I think if you’re going to offer to pay people to be sterilized, the same offer should be extended to anyone, not just addicts, or you risk the accusation of racism and paternalism and other isms…and the procedure should be available on demand to addicts and non-addicts alike.
Here it comes:
“Poor people with different values than me (like, say, valuing drugs) simply can’t make decisions without my input.” :rolleyes:
Fights hurt other people. Sterilization doesn’t. Besides, fighting for money is a time-honored tradition in our society and I’m all for it if it’s voluntary on both sides and considerations have been made for safety. Again, otherwise you’re saying poor people can’t make decisions that pertain to themselves, that that’s your job. Well, that’s classist and wrong. Get back to us when it’s your choice that’s being denied you by society or the government.
Again, this is voluntary. You’re the one who is trying to take choices away from poor people whose decisions you disagree with.
We should seriously consider subsidizing sterilization procedures for anyone who wants it, yes. Some people shouldn’t have kids, and most of those people know so. The only reason they do is because birth control is expensive and unreliable, and/or they’re too ignorant to use it or use it correctly. Condoms cost a dollar apiece! :eek: Poor people having regular sex probably have a tough time with that.
And I’m a drug user myself and I support complete and total revocation of all drug prohibition, I’m not even a fan of making things prescription only. I advocate choice in all matters. I think poor people should have the choice to make money with their bodies, by having sex or fighting or selling off their ability to have future children. I don’t think I’m being inconsistent here.
What I meant was that their potential for recovery is irrelevant to this particular question. Having said that, I don’t particularly care if they recover or not. Why should I? It’s their life, not mine.
The topic is about active addicts.
If they don’t want to get sterilized, they don’t have to. No one is forcing this on them.
Having said that, given a choice between seeing them make a crack baby, then letting it starve to death or seeing them regret getting their tubes tied for rock money, I don’t really think there’s a choice at all.
I’m concerned about addicts of any class having babies amd would be happy to bribe any of them not to. I don’t feel any differently about seeing Britney Spears have babies than any random crackhead on the streets. Trying to insinuate racism is weak. I’ve seen what happens to the kids,a dn that’s all I care about.
If there’s a difference, it’s only that money is not an incentive for rich addicts not to have babies, but if there’s anyway at all to get them to sterilize themselves, I’m all for it.
Fine by me. I’ll do the procedures myself. Just give me a knife.
Why care about the babies, then? Why care about anyone outside the scope of your own personal relationships?
The babies are helpless and aren’t making a choice. If an adult wants to choose to stay in active addiction, that’s none of my business, but I would prefer that they not create new innocent victims while they do it.
I’ve listened to articulate former hard-drugs addicts speak about the internal psychology of addiction. Desire and volition are often decoupled. It’s quite possible to desperately want to escape addiction, and at precisely the same moment to act in ways that perpetuate it. Addicts don’t “choose” courses of action as whole adults.
I don’t care. They choose to remain active in addiction. For reasons I won’t go into, I’ve exhausted all my understanding and sympathy for active addicts. They are the scum of the earth while they’re active.
Then let them adopt, if they’ve truly turned their lives around. Or get a cat. Being childless myself, I’m not particularly inclined to see childlessness as some kind of tragic gap in one’s life.
Damn, I’m fat, but already had both a tubal ligation and an hysterectomy … can I haz 300 pounds anyway?
Can no one have a well meaning desire to see kids not born into horrible situations? To cast racist or classist aspersions on anyone who actively tries to reduce that harm is… sort of a cop out. You’re invoking slippery slopes and assume that anyone trying to accomplish this goal must have some racist or classist motivation. But why? Creating a kid into a horrible situation is among the most evil things you can do - and the fact that we’re totally unwilling to address this as a society, and that it’s almost a thought crime to suggest that anyone - even the most ill prepared or evil people - not have kids - is weird to me. Why is having your own kids so ridiculously important that we can’t even discuss whether or not it’s a good thing if obviously unfit people do it?
That’s basically it. Scum, in human shapes. And before like minded druggies and their advocates weep big wet tears over the junkies sad plight, yeah - that means YOU, too. Even if they hypothetically “clean up”, they never really make much of their lives, washing dishes and mopping floors, before relapsing. Spare the innocent from these parents, I say. And cats, too. Even cats deserve better.