Controversial... Project Prevention

ILW

nicko33 wrote: »

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

Nobody should be having children that they know they cannot support. It is unfair on the rest of society and disastrous for the children.

Bangerchick

ILW wrote: »

Nobody should be having children that they know they cannot support. It is unfair on the rest of society and disastrous for the children.

That's true enough - but is the answer permanent sterilisation?

Percy1983

This issue is actually very close to home for me.

My uncle has 3 adopted children, 2 of which are from an unfit drug taking mother (I believe she has had 7 in total). Now one of these children has several mental problems and is never going to live a normal life as a direct effect of her mother taking drugs while pregnant. Now the other has turned out ok(ish) no mental problems we can put a tag on anyway.

Now as much as they are here now etc, they would have been better off never being born, I don't know hoe the other 5 children are but at a guess they won't be much better.

I do agree that to block them from ever having children might be wrong, as they may clean themselves up and still be fertile by the end of it, but in the short term they really should be having children.

chewmylegoff

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

There can be no such single thing as "Human Rights" any more than there is "Free Speech".

The latter sounds good, but in fact doesn't really exist. It only exists in the context of other laws like libel, slander, harrassment, creating a disturbance, inciting racial hatred.........

Same as "Human Rights". Yes, they exist, but again only in context. What we are finding is that political commentators seem reluctant to talk about, or discuss what that context should be. If discussed, surely there would be common sense proviso's that include terms such as 'Human Responsibilities', or 'Except when another life or 'human right' is infringed', or 'Along with the right goes the consequences....'

So OK, if you have a "Human Right" to take drugs to the point of addiction, then fine. But that in no way means that (a) I should pay for that irresponsible 'right', (b) anybody else (including taxpayers) should pay for that right, or (c) anybody must employ you.

presumably if this is all a human rights issue, then someone has the human right to agree to sterilise themselves in return for a cash payment. as long as the person making the decision is lucid, then i don't really care. i don't think it's an issue that we in this country are going to have to worry about anyway, only in america...

ILW

Bangerchick wrote: »

That's true enough - but is the answer permanent sterilisation?

It may be one of the answers, after all in this case it is voluntary.