Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cash offered to addicts, alcoholics who agree to sterilization
American Papist ^ | December 19, 2008 | Thomas Peters

Posted on 12/19/2008 10:18:33 AM PST by NYer

This is so offensive to the dignity of the human person!

Instead of attempting to cure the cause of people's ills, some are attempting to nullify the inconvenience these people cause to the rest of society:

Folks at downtown's Ronstadt Transit Center on Tuesday afternoon had a way to make a quick $300.

The only stipulation was that the people be drug addicts or alcoholics who agree to long-term birth control.

The group Project Prevention, started by Barbara Harris in 1997, has so far paid more than 2,800 men and women across the nation.

.... Acceptable long-term birth control includes tubal ligation, Depo Provera shots and IUDs for women, or a vasectomy for men. (Tuscon Citizen)

Here's how Project Prevention responds to criticism:
"Those who oppose what we're doing should be willing to step up and adopt a few of the babies," Harris said. "These women can't raise these children."
Don't bother mentioning why people might oppose this.

I wonder how these unfortunate addicted people are going to use this $300 ... oh, that's right.


TOPICS: Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: az; catholic; moralabsolutes; prolife; sterilization; tucson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 12/19/2008 10:18:34 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 12/19/2008 10:20:41 AM PST by NYer ("Run from places of sin as from a plague." - St. John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Works for me.

People with these problems shouldn’t be having children.


3 posted on 12/19/2008 10:21:43 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Sounds like a good idea to me too. After all, nobody is forcing them.


4 posted on 12/19/2008 10:23:18 AM PST by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Abort retarded babies, sterilize alcoholics (as a first step). Yet another step on the road back to Eugenics.


5 posted on 12/19/2008 10:23:38 AM PST by Opinionated Blowhard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Wow.


6 posted on 12/19/2008 10:24:31 AM PST by LongElegantLegs (Deplore the profligate scattering of corpses!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Should be a prerequisite for welfare.


7 posted on 12/19/2008 10:25:18 AM PST by the_devils_advocate_666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“wonder how these unfortunate addicted people are going to use this $300 ... oh, that’s right.”

You’ll never stop them from being addicts, but you might stop some abortions and unwanted pregnancies.

Good idea, I hope they can get away with it.


8 posted on 12/19/2008 10:25:18 AM PST by AuntB (The right to vote in America: Blacks 1870; Women 1920; Native Americans 1925)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666
Should be a prerequisite for welfare.

A bit harsh for me. However, I would happily support it after one year of welfare! : )

9 posted on 12/19/2008 10:27:16 AM PST by Bluegrass Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Sterilization isn't anything new. At least, well, they're voluntary. (Heavy sarcasm.)

Wikipedia:

The United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics. The heads of the program were avid believers in eugenics and frequently argued for their program. They were devastated when it was shut down due to ethical problems. The principal targets of the American program were the mentally retarded and the mentally ill, but also targeted under many state laws were the deaf, the blind, people with epilepsy, and the physically deformed. Native Americans, as well as Afro-American women, were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge, while they were in a hospital for other reasons (e.g. childbirth). Some sterilizations also took place in prisons and other penal institutions, targeting criminality, but they were in the relative minority. In the end, over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in 33 states under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States.

It's hard to justify programs like that after you've seen hills of corpses, so they lost popularity after WW2.

10 posted on 12/19/2008 10:28:12 AM PST by CE2949BB (Fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666

As long as it’s voluntary, sounds like a good idea.


11 posted on 12/19/2008 10:30:29 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

“Abort retarded babies, sterilize alcoholics (as a first step). Yet another step on the road back to Eugenics.”

Yep, eugenics rears its ugly head again.

Anyone who wants to see where this ends just has to look back to NAZI Germany.


12 posted on 12/19/2008 10:33:50 AM PST by Brookhaven (The Fair Tax is THE economic litmus test for conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

i like it. Sterilize all liberal democrats too. Children born to chronic junkies and alcoholics have a horrible life.


13 posted on 12/19/2008 10:34:04 AM PST by Frantzie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
If the choice is between paying for abortions or paying for voluntary sterilizations, count me as a supporter of the latter. Still, I'm weary of anything with the hint of eugenics to it. Centralized control of human breeding would be a disaster in moral and biological realms. If experiments like this act to curry public support for involuntary extensions (for whatever pretext), count me as an opponent.
14 posted on 12/19/2008 10:37:20 AM PST by M203M4 (Bill Kristol: Piltdown conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
This is so offensive to the dignity of the human person!

It's completely voluntary, and some of the methods offered are reversible. What's so offensive to the "dignity of a human person" ?

15 posted on 12/19/2008 10:39:43 AM PST by Red Boots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"Those who oppose what we're doing should be willing to step up and adopt a few of the babies," Harris said. "These women can't raise these children."

There's babies for adoption??? HOLY MOLY!!! I've gotta tell my brother about this! He's been waiting four years to get his adoption from the Philippines (another Christmas without children looks like it's in the cards this year.)

My friend here at work too, who's been trying for three years with no luck to adopt. He's going to have to pay $10,000 to get a Guatemalan kid.

The wife and I would LOVE to have another baby, but we figured it was such a task that it would be a dream deferred.

NYer, I can't thank you enough for posting this. I'm going to call this Harris person right now and ask for information on her adoption service!

Owl_Eagle

“When the stock market crashed,
Franklin Roosevelt got on the television
and didn’t just talk about
the princes of greed, he said,
‘Look, here’s what happened.’"
-Slow Joe Biden

16 posted on 12/19/2008 10:40:53 AM PST by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_devils_advocate_666
Should be a prerequisite for welfare.

Damn straight, along with drug testing.

17 posted on 12/19/2008 10:41:14 AM PST by Travis T. OJustice (Change is not a destination, just as hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

I know we can’t support this program, but I don’t think it’s the same thing as aborting retarded children. An unborn baby already exists as an actual person. Taking life and preventing life are not the same.


18 posted on 12/19/2008 10:41:28 AM PST by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“As long as it’s voluntary, sounds like a good idea.”

It’s not voluntary, it’s coerced. They might as well dangle a bag of heroin in front of a junkie. Addicts will do almost anything for the next ‘fix.’

I can’t believe some of the comments here.


19 posted on 12/19/2008 10:46:45 AM PST by Enosh (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I’m for this as well.

This way I don’t have to pay for their mostly illegitamate and uncared for children who then grow up and also become a burden and cost for society.

Do they have a similiar program for liberals?


20 posted on 12/19/2008 10:58:21 AM PST by SoConPubbie (GOP: If you reward bad behavior all you get is more bad behavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Then again, all these childless addicts will be a burden on society in their dotage as well. No kids to look after them.

Funny how easy it is to prescribe contraception for others once the notion that contracpetion in and of itself was immoral was eroded.


21 posted on 12/19/2008 11:29:54 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

Doing something for an inducement is not coercion. That they may be incapable of resisting the inducement is only additional evidence that they shouldn’t be having kids.


22 posted on 12/19/2008 11:39:23 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NYer

This is a wonderful idea! It is too bad that this is not a requirement to become a welfare recipient.


23 posted on 12/19/2008 12:05:59 PM PST by pnh102 (Save America - Ban Ethanol Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
I can't blame your brother and your friend for wanting to adopt from abroad. Even if they were able to adopt children of those who are targeted by this program, there's an unending maze of legal difficulty that would befall them should one of the birth parents decide to contest the adoption.

At least when children are adopted from dirt poor people in third world countries, this is less likely to be a problem.

24 posted on 12/19/2008 12:12:10 PM PST by pnh102 (Save America - Ban Ethanol Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Am I too late for the cash? I quit drinking 32 years ago and had a vasectomy 17 years ago. Does retroactive count?


25 posted on 12/19/2008 12:17:17 PM PST by muir_redwoods (B. O. Stinks!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Then again, all these childless addicts will be a burden on society in their dotage as well. No kids to look after them.

I seriously doubt that any of their spawn would be inclined to "support" them; most likely, they, too, would be wards of the state in one form or another (behind bars, addicted, etc.)

Funny how easy it is to prescribe contraception for others once the notion that contracpetion in and of itself was immoral was eroded.

Yeah, funny how at least 80% of the population of the U.S. feels that it is not immoral to prevent unwanted conception.

But contraception isn't being "prescribed" here; it's being offered.

Regards,

26 posted on 12/19/2008 2:09:53 PM PST by alexander_busek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek; SoothingDave
Yeah, funny how at least 80% of the population of the U.S. feels that it is not immoral to prevent unwanted conception.

So, you subscribe to moral relativism?

By your methodology, it was moral for Bill Clinton to have sex with an intern.

Morality IS NOT determined by polling data.

27 posted on 12/19/2008 5:32:26 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Pinged from Terri Dailies


28 posted on 12/19/2008 6:05:24 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; 185JHP; 230FMJ; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


29 posted on 12/19/2008 6:19:40 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Victimless both parties consent. So I think it’s a good idea. Besides, if he/she cleans up and eventually becomes some upstanding member of the community they can always have a reverse tubal or vasectomy done.


30 posted on 12/19/2008 6:23:08 PM PST by Centurion2000 (To protect and defend ... against all enemies, foreign and domestic .... by any means necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Funny how easy it is to prescribe contraception for others once the notion that contracpetion in and of itself was immoral was eroded.

There is NOTHING immoral about contraception.

31 posted on 12/19/2008 6:23:57 PM PST by Centurion2000 (To protect and defend ... against all enemies, foreign and domestic .... by any means necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pnh102; Owl_Eagle

There is no problem with adopting US children as long as parental rights have been relinquished and that the child is not tribal claimed (1/8 indian)

That said, one would want to look closely before adopting any child with a difficult genetic heritage of substance abuse or mental illness. It can be a very tough adoption. There are plenty of middle class babies available. Particularly now that there has been an economic downturn.

I adopted middle class babies, I told my adoption agency that I wanted children that were from families of similar construct.


32 posted on 12/19/2008 6:37:08 PM PST by Chickensoup (we owe HUSSEIN & Democrats the exact kind respect & loyalty that they showed us, Bush & Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Then again, all these childless addicts will be a burden on society in their dotage as well. No kids to look after them.

Those addicts won't have their children looking after them in their old age even if they do have them. I they manage to keep the kids, what makes anyone think that they would raise them that responsibly?

All we'd have is another generation of addicts joining their parents. The addict parents won't come off the welfare roles, the addict children will just join them.

33 posted on 12/19/2008 6:48:50 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I’m having a hard time finding a moral objection to this.

Sterilization can be reversed. I’m betting that most of those addicts only get pregnant by accident anyway and never really wanted the babies.

Better that than abortion or crack babies.


34 posted on 12/19/2008 6:52:18 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

Absolutely.


35 posted on 12/19/2008 8:41:09 PM PST by Pinkbell (Liberals are only tolerant of those with whom they agree.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
People with these problems shouldn’t be having children.

Wow, and I thought the eugenics movement died in 1945.
36 posted on 12/19/2008 8:43:13 PM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: dannyprimrose1

This isn’t really eugenics either. It’s not trying to breed out certain physical characteristics or races or disabibities. It’s not forced.

Those people in such bad shape from drugs are not likely motivated enough to go and have it done just for kicks, if the idea ever crossed their drug fogged brain. That would mean medical treatment and possible law involvement and being without their drugs for some amount of time.

Nobody is forcing them to do it. If they’re willing to do it, why should I stop them?


38 posted on 12/19/2008 9:05:02 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: Owl_Eagle

Aren’t there plenty of babies suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome or other disabilities stemming from their mother’s drug abuse during pregnancy who go unadopted here?

Because these are the babies who would be born if the women participating in this program had children.


40 posted on 12/20/2008 12:13:31 AM PST by Arguendo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

No, but it’s not determined by the doctrines of the Catholic Church either.


41 posted on 12/20/2008 12:14:57 AM PST by Arguendo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Sounds like an excellent program. Those opposing it should be prepared to pay to support the kids who would otherwise be born, since it’s highly unlikely their parents would be supporting them.


42 posted on 12/20/2008 12:16:41 AM PST by Arguendo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bluegrass Conservative
Should be a prerequisite for welfare.

A bit harsh for me. However, I would happily support it after one year of welfare! : )

Sheesh, man, they could have five or six more welfare babies in that length of time!

< / sarc >

43 posted on 12/20/2008 5:08:17 AM PST by Bat_Chemist (Only 7 days left until the Meineke Car Care Bowl!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mysterio

Eugenics is the theory that some people should not have children because they are inherently defective. They have bad genetics. It assumes that we have the wisdom to breed humans for desired traits. Out of this great wisdom we will force some people to never have children

The program in question assumes that some people engaged in behavior that is demonstrably destructive to themselves and those around them are less likely to be good parents. Are you seriously arguing that this is not the case?

Therefore it’s a good idea to encourage, NOT FORCE, them to choose not to become parents.

If and when they clean up their act, some of these methods are reversible and they can hopefully become good parents.

Frankly, I see nothing different in this from common European practice of encouraging people to become parents by monetary incentive. This is just the flip side.


44 posted on 12/20/2008 6:59:20 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Arguendo; NYer
No, but it’s not determined by the doctrines of the Catholic Church either.

I never said it was. The FACT is that ALL Protestant denominations condemned contraception prior to the mid-20th Century (Anglicans condemned it as late as 1930, but changed their mind at the 1958 Lambeth Conference). It is no coincidence that this is about the same time that Planned Parenthood was pushing contraception throughout America.

Protestants followed popular opinion while Catholicism did not.

45 posted on 12/20/2008 11:30:15 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
There is NOTHING immoral about contraception.

How thoroughly modern of you.

Fewer than 100 years ago not a single Christian church would agree with your statement.

Is it likely that morality was misunderstood for 1900 years, or that society has traded morality for convenience?

46 posted on 12/20/2008 11:47:14 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: metmom
This isn’t really eugenics either. It’s not trying to breed out certain physical characteristics or races or disabibities. It’s not forced.

Get to the thinking behind the effort. This group is decidinig whom it thinks should breed. That's eugenics.

47 posted on 12/20/2008 11:49:33 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Eugenics is the theory that some people should not have children because they are inherently defective. They have bad genetics. It assumes that we have the wisdom to breed humans for desired traits. Out of this great wisdom we will force some people to never have children The program in question assumes that some people engaged in behavior that is demonstrably destructive to themselves and those around them are less likely to be good parents. Are you seriously arguing that this is not the case? Therefore it’s a good idea to encourage, NOT FORCE, them to choose not to become parents.

Say I had a large fortune and I decided that since the black community disproportionately is responsible for crime in this country it would be a good idea to discourage them from breeding.

So I offer $1 million dollars for the successful sterilization of any black man. Voluntarily.

IS there any moral objection to this? It is voluntary.

48 posted on 12/20/2008 11:52:36 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

You can see no difference between discouraging reproduction of a race and discouraging reproduction of those engaged in certain behaviors, regardless of their ethnicity?

I sure do.

Now if you want to encourage voluntary sterilization of criminals, a disproportionate number of whom are black, I have no problem with it.

In fact, the program in question targets druggies, a disproportionate number of whom are black.

But it’s the behavior that’s targeted, not the race.

That’s a huge difference, IMHO.

Also, if you want your program to be truly effective on limiting the number of black people born, you need to target black women, not black men. A small number of fertile black men can keep a large number of black women pumping out black babies. In fact, they’re probably happy to volunteer for the chore.

(Note for those who are sarcasm-challenged: The above suggestions are not meant to be seriously considered for implementation.)


49 posted on 12/20/2008 12:17:31 PM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Arguendo

It turns out the crack babies everyone was convinced were doomed to a horrible life were not nearly as badly damaged as we all thought.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/dec/crack-baby-unfounded-stigma

Fetal alcohol syndrome, OTOH, causes horrible and permanent damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome


50 posted on 12/20/2008 12:22:22 PM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson