Actually force need not have anything to do with it. Eugenics is essentially defined by intent; if the intent is to promote breeding by “desirable” people, or to discourage breeding by “undesirable” people, that’s eugenics, regardless of what the specific standards or methods are.
It doesn’t meet any definition of eugenics. It doesn’t have anything to do with desired “breeding” otcomes, or anything to do with demographics.
I tend to identify eugenics as a forced attempt to promote some specific genetic goal. I don’t think there’s a dipshit drug user gene, and I don’t think they’re trying to weed a specific gene out. Rather, they’re trying to prevent damage from potential children.
You’re projecting, dear. I didn’t say anyone is racist. I, in fact, didn’t mention race at all, because it never occurred to me. I don’t think that one need be racist to get a hard on for persecuting drug addicts. Such an easy target, after all.
Um… they do?
The stats people wanted to see earlier in the thread were the ethnicities of the “victims” of this charity. I assumed you were questioning those numbers. If you weren’t talking about that, what stats were you implying were fabricated?
Sorry if I’m unfairly misinterpreting your implications. It seems like a lot of the people objecting to this program imply that it’s a secret program to sterilize poor minorities under the guise of protecting babies, and I thought you implying the stats linked earlier (including ethnicity) were part of that secret intent.
I question ALL the stats, since the only source providing them is the ‘‘charity’’ in question.
What is it that you disbelieve and why?
Do you think they’re also making up the fact that they provide various methods of birth control, including many that are temporary and reversible?
If you think they’re making that up too, well, then they could really be lying about anything, couldn’t they? Maybe they really ARE prowling the streets in unmarked vans and forcibly sterilizing druggies against their will. To me, it seems a bit paranoid to believe a bizarre scenario like this, but since apparently not a single word from this organization can be trusted, that leaves us with no real grounds for discussion.
No, I don’t think they’re making up everything they say, but since they’re sketchy enough to buy drugs for drug addicts and call it charity, I’m not inclined to blindly take their word for much, either.
Who’s advocating the persecution of drug addicts?
What could they be lying about and why? What’s the worst practical case scenario here?
What if we offered them $10,000,000 to get a vesectomy?
If the consent was fyully informed and competently made without compulsion then I could see giving up my fertility for $10,000,000.
I wonder what sort of situation I would have to find myself in where $300 would be enough to convince me to get a vesectomy I would not otherwise get, I imgaine that for a woman it would take even more compulsion. If you were going to get the vesectomy anyway then just offering free vesectomies would be enough wouldn’t it?
I don’t think the consent is really consensual. Not for $300.
Get real for heaven’s sake.
Project Prevention is not buying drugs for drug addicts.
You shouldn’t make up facts to suit your argument.
They’re giving cash to the most desperate addicts, and they’re not running a treatment program. Of course they’re buying drugs.
So what? At least they’re not having babies. Why is a junkie buying drugs worse than a baby going through crack withdrawal or being neglected by a crackhead parent?
Those charities that give addicts clean needles are pretty sketchy too.
How so? Is it better for addicts to get AIDS?
“Are there no workhouses?”
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I should have made it more obvious.