Here’s the problem with your analogy - not necessarily your line of reasoning, but the analogy at least:
The problem overweight people have is that they weigh too much. Thus, encouraging them to lose weight solves the problem. Doing so properly gets at the root causes of the problem, i.e. not exercising enough, eating the wrong foods, and so on.
The problem drug addicts have is their addiction. Encouraging them not to have kids doesn’t address that. As I said, I think it’s better to allocate resources to treating and overcoming their illness.
I do support the program. I also support a woman’s right to choose.
First, I’d answer that question with a resounding “never.” Second, isn’t a slippery slope by definition a logical fallacy?
You certainly could make that argument, but that’s a far cry from “coerced” sterilization. Personally, I think all women (and men!) should be encouraged to get sterilized. Too many damn people as it is. I don’t think anyone should ever be forced to get sterilized, but I don’t think that’s remotely what’s happening here.
Good answer. But like I just said, I don’t think that’s remotely what’s happening here. If anything, society is facilitating women’s right to choose by financing a choice they might not otherwise be able to afford to make.
Absolutely correct, but again, not remotely what’s happening here. The decision resides entirely in the hands of the drug addict. Any coercion involved arises solely from their addiction, which means it is entirely internal. No one forced these women to be addicts, no one is forcing them to be sterilized, and no one is penalizing them in any way for not getting sterilized.
I don’t care what horrible chemicals someone wants to put in their bodies, so long as they aren’t hurting anyone but themselves. All this program does is reduce the opportunities for drug users to harm innocents: namely, their own children. This program has nothing to do with restricting choice, and everything to do with creating a pragmatic and effective solution to a very real social problem.
Well, the only problems with focusing solely on treatment are that a)some addicts don’t want treatment, and you can’t effectiively treat an addict who doesn’t want treatment, b) it costs a lot more to build and staff adequate inpatient facilities (or even outpatient facilities) than it does to use existing facilities for birth control during the waiting period and c) if nobody’s addressing the birth control issue in those who don’t want treatment or who aren’t sticking with the treatment, those folks are still having addicted babies, which are a disproportionate drain on everyone’s resources.
You’re using force and coerce interchangeably. I didn’t say anyone was being forced to do anything. If I’m starving and you offer me money not to eat, you’re not forcing me to take it or not eat. But you’re encouraging someone in a disadvantaged position to make a choice based on the reward. That is, I think this encourages drug addicts to get sterilized because someone else think it’s a good idea. As I said, people sometimes go for a reward if they’re desperate, whether or not they think it’s right. The coercion isn’t coming from the program, it’s from the program using leverage from the situation. If you go out on the street and start offering people $200 to get sterilized, few would take you up on it. But if you pick demographics who are generally poor and in need, they’re more likely to say yes.
It’s of additional concern to me when the government gets involved with encouraging specific demographics not to reproduce.
That’s almost all I can say there. “Too many damn people” isn’t true to begin with.
That sounds like the same deal most of us have with our employers. Most of us accept that drug addicts bear some responsibility for their actions. If they’re competent enough to serve time for stealing or murdering to support their habits then they must be competent enough to decide their reproductive status. Either drug addicts are responsible for their actions or they aren’t. If they aren’t then they need to be committed to some mental health facility.
What’s the connection? I’m not debating competence from a legal standpoint or otherwise. And I’m not arguing drug addicts bear no responsibility for their situation. What I’m saying is more like ‘putting them into this situation is unfair.’ I don’t see the connection between that and competence or responsibility.
Sure, if the demographic is, say, “blacks” or “Jews.” But when it’s “meth addicts,” who really cares? We don’t need more meth addicts, especially when they’re newborns. Drug addiction cuts across all races and all classes. Yeah, drug addicts usually end up poor, but only because they can’t hold down a job and have sold everything they own.
Look, we’re not talking about a historically oppressed and disadvantaged minority. We’re talking about people who have voluntarily fucked up their lives by destroying their bodies with illegal substances. These people shouldn’t be reproducing. This program makes everyone happy: drug addicts get more drugs, society as a whole gets less half-pound babies. The savings on incubators alone ought to recoup the costs of the procedure and the $200 incentive combined.
The point is, they’ve put themselves in that situation. If they’ve reached the point where getting high again is more important than having children, it’s no one’s fault but their own. And assuring that these people don’t have kids is to the social good, because if they’ve reached the point where they’d rather get high than have kids, then we really don’t want them in the position of deciding between getting high and taking care of their kids.
Look at it this way: whatever the downside to this program is, it pales in comparison to a ward full of severely disabled, three-months premature drug addicts in incubators.
I’m willing to bet people from poorer backgrounds end up on drugs more often, not just the opposite way round. Drugs aren’t confined to any economic class, obviously. I’m not sure how I’d look into that. And not all drug users are destitute and jobless, many addicts are “functional.” This program wouldn’t help them in the least.
Given the state of the war on drugs, I’m inclined to disagree. People on drugs - though drug addiction is massively stupid - are being punished rather than helped, and it’s doing harm to everyone. And most addicts are certainly disadvantaged, by virtue of their addiction alone if nothing else.
Taking drugs is voluntary, but addiction is also a disease. You make it sound as if everybody on drugs is perfectly happy to be so. People choose to be on drugs in most cases, but they don’t decide to have wrecked lives.
No matter how clear-cut it seems to you, that’s not your call. Whatever you think the benefit to society might be. You’ve also reduced drug addicts into a one-dimensional class of their own. People on drugs aren’t JUST druggies, they’re complete human beings as much as you are, suffering from a tremendous and difficult problem.
Some children of drug addicts do live productive lives. While children being born on drugs isn’t a good thing either, you’re dismissing them en masse as a useless burden to society, which is unfair.
So this is a cost-benefit thing now? When did the object of social programs change from helping people to easing the tax burden?
Sounds to me like your position is based primarily upon making disturbing and shocking images and sweeping generalities.
This program is worth it “whatever the downside?” Even if the downside includes the government getting involved in eugenics on its citizenry?
It’s not a fallacy to ask for consistency, beginnings, ends or aims of a position, no. It’s fallacy to carry every argument to absurdity.
The War of Drugs? Fuck that. This is an alternative to the War on Drugs. Instead of persecuting these people, we should let them burn themselves out and just try to limit the number of other lives they destroy along the way. Encouraging them not to have kids is one way of doing this.
They chose to do drugs. The wrecked lives are a consequence of their choice. Just like not having kids is a consequence of their choice to get sterilized.
And I’m not making the call. The addicts are making the call.
Oh, come on. You make it sound like I’m calling for the euthanization of crack babies. Help the ones we’ve got as much as we can. A lot of them have a shot of making something out of their lives. But meanwhile, lets try to cut down on the number of children who have to grow up with negligent parents, or in foster homes, or with serious disabilities. Or all three.
Who ever said it was about helping people?
Sounds to me like your position is based on abstract, fuzzy-headed morality, and damn who has to suffer as a result of it.
Eugenics? This has nothing to do with eugenics, it’s about reducing the social cost of drug addiction.
They put themselves in that situation. Of course I don’t think you can coerce someone at least the threat of force so we’re just going from two different places.
Obviously this program wouldn’t appeal to many functional addicts. I do question whether or not people from poorer backgroudns are more likely to end up on drugs. In 1900 the face of the average drug addict was a white, middle class, southern female. If we count all the middle class people who abuse prescription drugs I think we might be surprised by who the addicts really are. Luckily for them their drug isn’t illegal so which makes it easier for them to function.
I am with you in believing that addicts can be productive members of society.
**
That’s correct, it isn’t your call, my call, or the call of the people offering the finiancial incentive. Ultimately it is the individual’s choice.
Marc
I think the point about the danger to children is the operative one here.
While there is a slippery slope between free will and coercion in this instance of offering desperate people money, the bottom line is that sterilizing a behaviorally dysfunctional and self destructive human being who has a very high probablity of putting potential children into very dangerous environments, is a greater social good in the long run than having them create large numbers of endangered, ignored and otherwise uncared for children living in desperate circumstances.
I’m willing to bet things have changed. There was no crack in 1900, for one.
Ah, shoot, apparently I lost a reply last night.
‘Fuzzy headed’ me finds this position highly apathetic, almost hostile, actually, toward anybody’s well-being.
No, it’s got nothing to do with eugenics. It’s encouraging certain groups not to reproduce, which is totally, totally different. Wouldn’t a better way to reduce the social cost of drug addiction be finding a way to reduce drug addiction? This doesn’t actually do anything to solve the problems caused by drug addiction or deal with the situation at its roots, which I think is a higher priority. This just deals with one perceived side-effect of drug abuse.
There is allocation of resources towards this goal, but ultimately some addicts are not willing to help themselves. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
Some people you just can’t help. And the best you can do is damage minimization.
Offer the addict drug rehab first. If they refuse, then offer the sterilization. Hell, give them a 5 day waiting period like we do with firearms before they can get sterilized and collect the money.
I’d be willing to make the procedure some appropriate safeguards from rash decisions.
