Posted on 12/19/2008 10:18:33 AM PST by NYer
Here's how Project Prevention responds to criticism: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)
"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.
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.
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.
This is a wonderful idea! It is too bad that this is not a requirement to become a welfare recipient.
At least when children are adopted from dirt poor people in third world countries, this is less likely to be a problem.
Am I too late for the cash? I quit drinking 32 years ago and had a vasectomy 17 years ago. Does retroactive count?
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,
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.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
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.
There is NOTHING immoral about contraception.
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.
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.
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.
Absolutely.
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?
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.
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.