Don't forget not being Aryan, the look of your face, different political views. We’ve been there and won't go back.
US Charity aims to neuter UK junkies
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
Don't forget not being Aryan, the look of your face, different political views. We’ve been there and won't go back.
Oh my god, how hideous.
*Which would be utterly unnecessary in this country anyway, given that, despite all these "rewards", the birth rate hovers just under 2.
Whilst I wouldn't have a problem with, say, a sort of reverse benefit/tax system that tried to encourage low number families*, I'm not sure I particularly like the moral idea of offering potentially mentally unfit people an incentive to have a permanent operation such as this. In fact, "don't like" is a pretty heavy understatement to my feelings on this.
*Which would be utterly unnecessary in this country anyway, given that, despite all these "rewards", the birth rate hovers just under 2.
Yup, I think embracing sterilisation is less of leap than some cases I've seen though!
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,261
- Location
- Surrey
Ambiguous statement is ambiguous.
IMO it takes advantage of people who have a serious problem, and who may not be able to think logically for themselves.
Whilst it is not anyone's job to decide who can and can't have children, I would have to agree that there are people who really shouldn't have kids. I'm all for a parenting license or something similar, rather than sterilisation.
Last edited:
£200 to never have children again? And this is targeted at drug addicts that are likely not to be in the right state of mind? How is this going to help anyone. I can understand sterilization for junkies that keep pumping out damaged babies, but for the rest? Nope. That's too much.
And the scary thing, imagine if this becomes bigger? It could no longer be voluntary.
And the scary thing, imagine if this becomes bigger? It could no longer be voluntary.
I'm not saying that this kind of surgery should be done on people who don't believe in a certain belief or anything like that.
I'm saying that something like this should be used on people who should not be parents. Yes, i'm not qualified to say who should and should not have kids but that's where something like Social Services comes in.
well if you're a dude as it's only a vasectomy it's pretty likely you'll be able to have it undone in future.
It kinda makes sense if you can undo it in the future. But if it's permanent, that sort of money is a joke.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,749
- Location
- Southampton, UK
[Dolph]The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy[/dolph]
They have the potential seriously to damage the gene pool - if they can be bothered to get up off the couch and out onto the fresh air where they may encounter other similar persons and conceivably manage to procreate
Much like the potential you have to warp childrens minds if you were ever allowed out of your cave.
Such scary thoughts
My, aren't you adorable....
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,749
- Location
- Southampton, UK
When the US legalised abortion, the crime rate dropped significantly due to people such as drug addicts not having children. This sort of initiative will benefit all of us.
Short of these Americans building an army and invading Britain i don't see how.
It's just a what if. No need to get hung up on that comment. 
More background, the lady behind this is crazy. The group has been around since the late '90s. She actually tried to make it so that any mother's whose babies tested positive for cocaine would be sterilised. Original group name = Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity aka Crack.
Doubt anything big will come out of this but it's horrible either way.
More background, the lady behind this is crazy. The group has been around since the late '90s. She actually tried to make it so that any mother's whose babies tested positive for cocaine would be sterilised. Original group name = Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity aka Crack.
Doubt anything big will come out of this but it's horrible either way.
As much as it is a very good idea in general to prevent regular users of class A drugs from raising kids there are a fair few less drastic measures we could try first.
We've currently got a system where a family earning benefits can be better off than a working family - reforming the benefits system is a good start. Better targeting of resources within social services could also help - I can't help thinking that either the rules/guidelines they adhere to are very poor or they are very badly managed in some cases - it shouldn't have taken so many visits and still nothing to be done in say the case of baby p. Tbh... criminal records should be shared with social services for anyone who has had a convictions for a violent or drug related offense and they should instantly be given a higher level of scrutiny.
We've currently got a system where a family earning benefits can be better off than a working family - reforming the benefits system is a good start. Better targeting of resources within social services could also help - I can't help thinking that either the rules/guidelines they adhere to are very poor or they are very badly managed in some cases - it shouldn't have taken so many visits and still nothing to be done in say the case of baby p. Tbh... criminal records should be shared with social services for anyone who has had a convictions for a violent or drug related offense and they should instantly be given a higher level of scrutiny.