Controversial... Project Prevention

Bangerchick

tomterm8 wrote: »

Secondly, project prevention doesn't just target people who have done crime, it also targets alcoholics. It's quite a short step from this to targeting people with mental health issues... or physical disabilities... or who belong to some segment of society we deem undesirable.

This is pretty much what I thought when I read some of the earlier responses, especially the one about it being cheaper to sterilise than it is to look after the kids. Remember the old asylums for mentally ill people. I am sure they were cheaper than proper care and supported living, but would anyone say that it is the right way to treat mentally ill people?

ILW

tomterm8 wrote: »

Firstly, I don't really think this thread belongs on this board.

Secondly, project prevention doesn't just target people who have done crime, it also targets alcoholics. It's quite a short step from this to targeting people with mental health issues... or physical disabilities... or who belong to some segment of society we deem undesirable.

Personally, I believe contraception should be made available to everyone, but I don't think it is the job of a charity to decide who is desirable and who isn't. The idea that someone who is currently a drug addict or alcoholic can't turn their life around and that they should be prevented forever from having children is, frankly, reprehensible to me.

Cobblers, druggies and alcies have chosen that lifestyle, and by making that choice have shown that they are incabable of being responsible members of any society. As such all possible measures should be taken to stop them bringing unwanted and un cared for offspring into the world.

blueboy43

♫ ♪ ♪ ♪ "Tomorrow belongs to me" ♪ ♫ ♫ .........

Bangerchick

ILW wrote: »

Cobblers, druggies and alcies have chosen that lifestyle, and by making that choice have shown that they are incabable of being responsible members of any society. As such all possible measures should be taken to stop them bringing unwanted and un cared for offspring into the world.

The natural conclusion to this train of thought is to kill them, as that meets your goal of stopping them having offspring and also stops them causing problems is society while they are here. While you're at it, kill anyone else who doesn't fit to your norm - smokers? fat people? ginners?

lemonjelly

tomterm8 wrote: »

Firstly, I don't really think this thread belongs on this board.

I'm with tomterm8. I fail to see any relevance here to house prices or the economy?

lostinrates

tomterm8 wrote: »

Firstly, I don't really think this thread belongs on this board.

I agree. Although an interesting topic, its not, ATM for here. The possibilty is that a stretcahed social services/pubic purse makes it relevant.

Fwiw I'm very, very torn. But it was interesting to here the number of adicts families on radio yesterday saying they thought it was good nd that their kids had 2/4/6 chilldren they couldn't care for.

Perhaps a better guideline would be to do it only after proven they can't step up after a first child is born. Tough on that first child though. On a voluntary charitable basis I have no issue with it, tbh. Its if it became the social norm which might then lead to mandatory sterilisation that I become very edgey.

The_White_Horse

not at all. i don't think addicts should have children, but once they are clean and can support kids, they should be able to have them.

I am very liberal. in fact I think drugs should be legalised and taxed. if people want to shoot heroin, let them do it. it is no bones to me as long as i am not paying for it. plus, even if the state subsidises it - like prescription drugs - it will save a fortune in police time, as literally hundreds of thousands of crimes by addicts will stop. The police should still go after suppliers though.

nicko33

ILW wrote: »

Cobblers, druggies and alcies have chosen that lifestyle, and by making that choice have shown that they are incabable of being responsible members of any society.

And overweight people, and smokers, and people who break the speed limit, and...

michaels

Are you quite well? - I find myself surprised to be thanking one of your posts.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

not at all. i don't think addicts should have children, but once they are clean and can support kids, they should be able to have them.

I am very liberal. in fact I think drugs should be legalised and taxed. if people want to shoot heroin, let them do it. it is no bones to me as long as i am not paying for it. plus, even if the state subsidises it - like prescription drugs - it will save a fortune in police time, as literally hundreds of thousands of crimes by addicts will stop. The police should still go after suppliers though.

Wookster

Oddly I find myself agreeing with TWH!

Do what you want as long as it isn't encroaching into my rights and as long as I'm not paying for it. Be prepared to put up with lip from me if I am subsidising your life choices for any length of time.