pld: I think your choice of words says far more than I could:
So it’s a curse to have a disabled child, huh?
Hell is Other People.
Oh, pshaw, Samurai. If you had the chouce between having a child with average or better intelligence, and a child who was mentally retarded, which would you chose?
Wake up, jackass. I was using your own attitudes against you, since you appear to harbor some nameless hostility against the retarded. I have no doubt you would regard such a child as a curse.
Say, just what marginal rate of increased crack addiction are you in favor of, anyway?
“Come on, Phonics Monkey–drum!”
I do not know of any normal family who would want a retarded child above a normal one. I do know many familles who have retarded children and love them dearly, though I’ve noted the strain and problems which have come along with the child.
If there is a potential for such a child to breed another retarded individual, then, yes, in my opinion he or she should be sterilized. I know that today there are several genetic diseases where, if the fetus is found to carry them, the parents are given the option to abort it.
Drug addiction could be based in a disease, for it seems that the majority of addicts of legal or illegal drugs (especially alcoholics) have it running in their family tree. Many drug abusers have an initial history of depression. There is also speculation now that heavy drug use can alter the genes and a child born from such a union may have serious problems. I have no problem with uncontrollable drug addicts, men and women, being paid to get sterilized because they aint going to do it on their own and even if offered for free, most will not accept it. So ‘candy’ is needed to ‘seduce’ them into getting the job done to prevent the dumping of unwanted normal or abnormal children onto society.
Restricting the spread of defective children is not genocide. Restricting the ability of obviously unfit parents to breed is not genocide. I, for one, would not want to be the one to make the judgments as to who or who should not be sterilized because I’m not unbiased nor am I wise enough to consider all of the factors.
Now, I will admit that I’ve seen a lot of contestants on the Jerry Springer show who, were I in charge, would be forcefully sterilized so that they could not breed anything like themselves.
The Night Watch always knows things.
NIT, I dunno about that! When we conceived,my husband had smoked crack roughly 7 hours earlier,which is why I hesitated. Well,I’m glad I didn’t. My son is quite healthy,especially since his father had full-blown AIDS at the time! A case study for ya. And I doubt if addiction runs in the family either.
pld: Ahhhh. . .
. . .schoolyard name-calling always gets to the bottom of a great debate.
My nameless hostility is not aimed at the retarded, but is often directed at politically-correct half-wit fucks who want to sanitize everything and everyone so we can all live in a utopia of white bread, skim milk, free love, good vibes and retarded doctors performing brain surgery to remove the will to dissent and form an opinion that differs from Phil.
orangecakes: Damn, you all got lucky! Glad your son’s OK. Did you know about the crack-smokin and AIDS-havin at the time or just in retrospect?
Hell is Other People.
Read the Bell Curve. Loved it! 
For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes.
Eat the Bell Pepper - loved it too!
Hell is Other People.
Of course, strawman arguments work nearly as well as schoolyard name-calling, huh?
So, tell me, Sake, just how “retarded” does one have to be to be forced to submit to your sterilization plan in Sake Samurai’s Brave New World? And who gets to be in charge of deciding who is juuuuust retarded enough? Is the mere presence of Downs enough? Or does it have to be significantly worse?
“Come on, Phonics Monkey–drum!”
You frequently mistake sound examples for strawmen and you frequently fail to read the actual words on the screen. Why bother, right! You clearly prefer the words in your head.
For example:
I say, “Who decides who is productive, you ask? Me? No, not me nor anyone. No one needs decide who is productive.”
The voices in your head must have heard “Retarded people are subhuman and must be crucified!!!” So you wrote: “And who gets to be in charge of deciding who is juuuuust retarded enough?”
You have not comprehended that I have no criteria for measuring mental faculty or productivy to decide who gets sterilized and when. I have stated that this is not necessary - there is no need to judge this. I’m not going to be rounding anyone up in my New World Order.
Except maybe Jews and Blacks.
Hell is Other People.
Wait a minute. Sake was against this his/her original post. What happened here?
Some mornings, it’s just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
– Emo Phillips
I hate to break into the debate over who’s worthy of sharing our oxygen and all, but I think the actual idea behind the program is that crack addicted mothers are likely to have crack addicted babies. On occasion, crack addicted mothers give up their babies for adoption because they can’t afford to raise them and still buy crack. Or, on occasion, the mothers try to raise them and have an overdose and the kid winds up an orphan anyway. The woman who started this program has 4 adopted kids who were crack babies, but not everyone has it in their heart to do the same. I don’t think this is an issue of “who should be allowed to have babies?” but rather “would it be better that a child not be conceived if it’s possible it may die of neglect or malnutrition, or grow up without a home or family?” I choose not to have children of my own because I don’t think I’d be any good at raising them, and if someone offered to pay me to be sterilized I’d most likely jump at the chance. I don’t think that makes me or the person offering the service guilty of genocide. If crack addicted women were being rounded up without their consent it would be a different story. Likewise those with what some of us perceive to be disabilities. I don’t buy the argument that it’s wrong to give them money because “they’ll only spend it on more crack.” This is true but perhaps they would also get the $200 for crack by other means such as prostitution or theft? Which is the better way to earn money? Just because they may be broke doesn’t mean they’ll give up their addiction. Should you not buy things at the yard sales of alchoholics because “they’ll only use the money to buy more booze?” Seems like a pretty unfair way to judge people, if you ask me. (Not that you did.)
Darn it, I wish I hadn’t just looked at Orangecakes’ homepage. (The abbie4ever one she has a link to in her personal info.) Now that I know how much of a cutie she is, I might pull my punches in an argument with her! (I’m such a pushover when it comes to babes.)
thank you tracer! Lets see Your photo! I was thinking about this op lately: what if the women who are on drugs while pregnant were arrested for abuse of a fetus? It would at least stop the drugs til birth,then…nah,people can get drugs in jail. If they Want to be sterilized,should the goivernment pay for it? Some thoughts to ponder.I don’t have the answer.
Good call, vogue. I was waiting for this to come back around to the original subject.
Cooper’s argument does not take into account that the far-sighted decision that some of these drug-addicted women are making is to not bother to use birth control in the first place. The options available include Norplant (lasts 5 years) and Depo-Provera (lasts 3 months, they have to stay on it for a year to get the bounty). These options prevent causing anyone to choose to be “sterilized” permanently just to get the cash. Anyone who does get permanent surgery and regrets it can adopt a crack baby later - the woman who started this organization has already adopted 4, but I’m sure that at an average of 8 drug-addicted babies born per day there will be enough to go around.
Next…
Why would this ever show up on a ballot? This isn’t tax money we are talking about. This is a volunteer-based organization operating to make a change in a deteriorating sector of our communities. On the other hand, it is tax money that pays the WIC /welfare payments and the medicare expenses for the children when the women deliver the child and stay on the dole or drop the baby in a dumpster or on a doorstep. You are already paying them to have the children. Why NOT pay to make it stop?
And let’s leave God’s Green Earth out of this, that’s what caused all of this population growth talk and that’s not the issue. I don’t think anyone could argue that there should be more people brought into a squalid, inhospitable, drug-saturated crack-smoke filled household.
Some mornings, it’s just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
– Emo Phillips
Oohh, ::leering like a total creep:: post that link here, orangecakes! In my mind I’ve pictured you looking like this:
http://www.portalofevil.com/fatchicksinpartyhats/fathat84.jpeg
Don’t tell me I’m wrong!!
Hell is Other People.
woops - that’s right, I’ve pictured you as two small red lines intersecting in a while box. They say “X” marks the spot - gggggrrrowwwll!
Hell is Other People.
Oh, Jett - my comment that you quoted was very sarcastic. I wasn’t really saying that the issue was up for a vote (kinda like that Reservoir Dogs scene).
I think we have similar sentiments - I all for private programs, just not hypothetical public ones like that.
I am, of course, against welfare too.
Hell is Other People.
Forgiven, Sake. I think welfare should last one year at a MAXIMUM and include employment training and/or parenting education (if children are involved).
So far this program has not been proposed as a government-sponsored initiative, but to be honest I’d rather see my tax money go to sterilizing crack-smoking baby machines than to $300 screwdrivers for government contractors.
Some mornings, it’s just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
– Emo Phillips
Now wait just a minute! You need a $300 screwdriver to fasten those $8 screws to the $1,200 toilet seats! Can’t have someone falling in!
Hell is Other People.