Paying Drug Abusers to be Sterilized

[anonemouse 1]

Has anyone thought of the fact that while drug-addicted children would not be born because of the program, paying drug-addicted women to be sterilized would be funding illegal drug activity and all that goes with it? It'd be horrible to think that a woman went to her drug dealer to buy drugs with the $300 she was paid and someone innocent got killed if something went wrong.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

A drug-addicted woman is unlikely to take advantage of free birth control (too much trouble), but she might drag herself down to the clinic and get the IUD in order to collect the incentive of $300.

And presumably, $300 would be a mere drop in the bucket, compared to the cost (to society) of raising the 5 or 6 children each woman might thrust upon the system.

And castrating Black men would also lower the crime rate.

In fact, castrating every man in the country would lower the crime rate.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Has anyone thought of the fact that while drug-addicted children would not be born because of the program, paying drug-addicted women to be sterilized would be funding illegal drug activity and all that goes with it? It'd be horrible to think that a woman went to her drug dealer to buy drugs with the $300 she was paid and someone innocent got killed if something went wrong.

Well, then welfare does the same thing.

[Carlene 12]

Has anyone thought of the fact that while drug-addicted children would not be born because of the program, paying drug-addicted women to be sterilized would be funding illegal drug activity and all that goes with it? It'd be horrible to think that a woman went to her drug dealer to buy drugs with the $300 she was paid and someone innocent got killed if something went wrong.

Not exactly....no more than, say, paying the same woman to shine your shoes would be perpetrating the drug trade.

Society can't be held responsible for the way people spend their money. Druggies sell their blood for drug money, and no one seems to have a problem with that.

[anonemouse 1]

It takes both a male and a female to have children. If he is sterilized and she isn't, she won't get preggers.

True, but only the woman would produce drug-addicted children, and that's the aim of the program, correct? Paying him to be sterilized would be a waste of money, since he can't produce drug-addicted children in the first place. Even if the group is privately funded, I doubt the people overseeing it would waste money. If the woman is also addicted, it's a safe assumption to make that she's sleeping with other men, also. I doubt the guy wouldn't tell her about the program, since her $300 would probably help fund his addiction, also.

[Carlene 12]

And castrating Black men would also lower the crime rate.

In fact, castrating every man in the country would lower the crime rate.

Apples and oranges. Castration is permanent - an IUD is removable with no lasting effects.

[anonemouse 1]

Not exactly....no more than, say, paying the same woman to shine your shoes would be perpetrating the drug trade.

Society can't be held responsible for the way people spend their money. Druggies sell their blood for drug money, and no one seems to have a problem with that.

Yes, but if you know without a doubt that the person is going out to buy more drugs, you are knowingly funding drug traffic. With this program, drug addicts are specifically targeted. It would be different if, say, you were offering $300 to anyone willing to be sterilized. If you know that the only reason someone is doing something is to get money to buy more drugs, you are taking advantage of that.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

True, but only the woman would produce drug-addicted children, and that's the aim of the program, correct? Paying him to be sterilized would be a waste of money, since he can't produce drug-addicted children in the first place. Even if the group is privately funded, I doubt the people overseeing it would waste money. If the woman is also addicted, it's a safe assumption to make that she's sleeping with other men, also. I doubt the guy wouldn't tell her about the program, since her $300 would probably help fund his addiction, also.

A Man is too macho to have his manhood played with. He'll say he will do it and then smack the guy in the head and take the $300 and run.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Not exactly....no more than, say, paying the same woman to shine your shoes would be perpetrating the drug trade.

Society can't be held responsible for the way people spend their money. Druggies sell their blood for drug money, and no one seems to have a problem with that.

I do and the government does and the blood banks are supposed to have a problem with that.

[Carlene 12]

I do and the government does and the drug banks are supposed to have a problem with that.

Drug banks? We have drug banks now?

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

True, but only the woman would produce drug-addicted children, and that's the aim of the program, correct? Paying him to be sterilized would be a waste of money, since he can't produce drug-addicted children in the first place. Even if the group is privately funded, I doubt the people overseeing it would waste money. If the woman is also addicted, it's a safe assumption to make that she's sleeping with other men, also. I doubt the guy wouldn't tell her about the program, since her $300 would probably help fund his addiction, also.

You are starting to use a lot of straw man debate techniques.

The fact remains that if he is sterilized and she is not, they aren't going to produce a drug addicted baby.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Yes, but if you know without a doubt that the person is going out to buy more drugs, you are knowingly funding drug traffic. With this program, drug addicts are specifically targeted. It would be different if, say, you were offering $300 to anyone willing to be sterilized. If you know that the only reason someone is doing something is to get money to buy more drugs, you are taking advantage of that.

A LOT of welfare dollars are going to people we know full well are using it for drugs. What people do with their own money is their business. Again, we can't keep protecting people from themselves. It just doesn't work.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I watched South Park the other night and they were given Kenny money to eat things. Being dirt poor he ate anything. He was being belittled. The people who run this program are so full of their own self-worth that they belittle the weakest among us while claiming to be helping the babies.

Help people into drug programs. Don't sterilize them.

I wonder how many of the people posting here have ever lived in a drug infested neighborhood. I lived for a brief while on the block with the highest murder rate in the whole country, and it was 99% drug related.

Yes, drugs are a scourge on our communities, but this attempt at eugenics (under a guise of a humanitarian effort) is just another attempt at showing superiority.

We need to do something about the problems that brings drugs into the lives of our youth. It is hopelessness and pain that causes most addiction in the poor neighborhoods. It the middle-class neighborhood, it is the materialism of the parents who are keeping up with the Jones working two jobs, but never showing true love to their children because there is not enough time, that causes addiction.

You do not help people my mutilating their bodies and then going home and patting yourself on the back saying I saved a baby today. That is not much different from blowing up a “Planned Parenthood Center” and then going home and patting yourself on the back saying I saved a baby today.

[Carlene 12]

Yes, but if you know without a doubt that the person is going out to buy more drugs, you are knowingly funding drug traffic. With this program, drug addicts are specifically targeted. It would be different if, say, you were offering $300 to anyone willing to be sterilized. If you know that the only reason someone is doing something is to get money to buy more drugs, you are taking advantage of that.

No one knows "without a doubt" what another person is going to do. And other than setting up shop in a neighborhood known for the availability of drugs, I'm not sure how the program would target drug addicts to the exclusion of everyone else. You could drug test them, but that just proves they've used. A user and an addict are not the same thing.

I'm only willing to pay the ladies for getting IUDs...I don't go along with the sterilization thing.

[anonemouse 1]

A LOT of welfare dollars are going to people we know full well are using it for drugs. What people do with their own money is their business. Again, we can't keep protecting people from themselves. It just doesn't work.

Yes, but we aren't giving welfare to only drug addicts, are we?

You are starting to use a lot of straw man debate techniques.

How?