Here is the scenario (I understand this is happening in the US but I have not confirmed anything):

A private organization gets together and obtains private donations to fund their program. They advertise that they will pay men and women over the age of 18 $300 to voluntarily have themselves sterilized if they are active drug abusers.

They do not recruit, they advertise. They do not approach anyone, the drug abusers read the advertisements and go to the program on their own. They must prove they are active drug abusers, they will be paid $300 for submitting to the procedure of being sterilized. They will never be able to have children again.

The medical procedure is done by licensed medical providers in a local hospital with all the advantages of modern medicine. The procedure is paid for via private dollars, not tax dollars.

Is this morally objectionable or the correct moral decision?

To be honest, I don't know what to think. On one hand, the organization isn't forcing anyone to do anything. On the other, they are taking advantage of people's need for money to fund their drug use. I guess what I find truly objectionable about the scenario is the thought that simply being a current addict means that people shouldn't be allowed to have children in the future, even if they kick the habit.

So what if they kick the habit? If I am a drug abuser and I am currently using drugs AND preggers, I am risking the health and the life of the child. This kid could be born mentally retarded because of MY actions.

How is this justified if the person is 18 or older and they are making their own decisions? Nobody is forcing anything. Who has more moral rights, the child born MR or the drug addict's ability to multiply in the future? Whether or not they clean up their act has nothing to do with anything. They are actively using illegal drugs. They are actively harming their child if they are preggers. Who do we care more about, the innocent child or the active drug abuser?

So what if they kick the habit? If I am a drug abuser and I am currently using drugs AND preggers, I am risking the health and the life of the child. This kid could be born mentally retarded because of MY actions.

How is this justified if the person is 18 or older and they are making their own decisions? Nobody is forcing anything. Who has more moral rights, the child born MR or the drug addict's ability to multiply in the future? Whether or not they clean up their act has nothing to do with anything. They are actively using illegal drugs. They are actively harming their child if they are preggers. Who do we care more about, the innocent child or the active drug abuser?

But you are also forgetting about the children they could have after they kick the habit, years down the road. If it was temporary sterilization, then I could agree fully with it. But I don't think it is right to completely take away someone's right to bear children just because they made a drug-hazed decision.

But you are also forgetting about the children they could have after they kick the habit, years down the road. If it was temporary sterilization, then I could agree fully with it. But I don't think it is right to completely take away someone's right to bear children just because they made a drug-hazed decision.

How is anyone violating the rights of another? They are not recruiting, they are offering a fee and paying the patient for the service. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything so rights are not an issue here.

But, if you want to talk about rights what about the rights of the drug addicted babies? Why don't they have the moral right to be born without mental retardation?

How is this justified if the person is 18 or older and they are making their own decisions? Nobody is forcing anything. Who has more moral rights, the child born MR or the drug addict's ability to multiply in the future? Whether or not they clean up their act has nothing to do with anything. They are actively using illegal drugs. They are actively harming their child if they are preggers. Who do we care more about, the innocent child or the active drug abuser?

That's true that no one is forcing them, but they are also not able to make a fully informed decision in their right minds. Legally, I would assume that this would open the organization up to litigation because they were taking advantage of the fact that someone might not be legally competent when they sign the consent. To me, it's the same as someone expecting a mentally retarded person to be able to fully understand the implications of what they would be signing. If a drug addict is in need of a fix, and is signing something to get money to buy more drugs, they aren't mentally competent to understand the full implications of what they are signing.

But, if you want to talk about rights what about the rights of the drug addicted babies? Why don't they have the moral right to be born without mental retardation?

This gets into a slippery slope, to me. If you start arguing about babies having rights, then you will eventually slide into an anti-abortion argument. I'm pro-choice. I think that with certain limitations (how far into the pregnancy, etc.), a woman's body is her own to control, even if she chooses to put drugs into it. If she is choosing to put illegal substances into it, arrest her and put her in jail. Otherwise, it's hers to control. That's one reason I oppose laws against pregnant women drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes. I may not agree with their actions, but I think a woman should be able to do whatever she wants to her body.

That's true that no one is forcing them, but they are also not able to make a fully informed decision in their right minds. Legally, I would assume that this would open the organization up to litigation because they were taking advantage of the fact that someone might not be legally competent when they sign the consent. To me, it's the same as someone expecting a mentally retarded person to be able to fully understand the implications of what they would be signing. If a drug addict is in need of a fix, and is signing something to get money to buy more drugs, they aren't mentally competent to understand the full implications of what they are signing.

We disagree. Being mentally retarded is not a choice. It's the cards someone was dealt by being born. Using illegal drugs is a choice. If someone is driving drunk and kills a family is it their fault they were drunk? Or is it just something the family has to accept as they die? According to what you are suggesting then we should not punish someone for killing a family driving drunk, they didn't really know what they were doing.

I see a clear difference between telling a mother what she can do with her body and letting her make her own decisions. How far must we go to protect people from themselves? Seriously, just how far shall we go?

This gets into a slippery slope, to me. If you start arguing about babies having rights, then you will eventually slide into an anti-abortion argument. I'm pro-choice. I think that with certain limitations (how far into the pregnancy, etc.), a woman's body is her own to control, even if she chooses to put drugs into it. If she is choosing to put illegal substances into it, arrest her and put her in jail. Otherwise, it's hers to control. That's one reason I oppose laws against pregnant women drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes. I may not agree with their actions, but I think a woman should be able to do whatever she wants to her body.

I'm talking morality here, not law.

I'm not pro-abortion by any stretch. I hate it, I won't participate in it, I won't assist with an abortion. I won't have anything to do with it. But I also won't stop someone else from getting an abortion. For ME it is wrong, it is not wrong for everyone and I won't be a part of telling someone else what they must do with their own body.

I see both sides of the coin. I respect the rights of another to end a pregnancy, I just won't have anything to do with it. Never have and never will and there is no law that will make me do so. This is, of course, assuming Mom's life is not in jeopardy. However, I've yet to be a part of that scenario.

If someone is driving drunk and kills a family is it their fault they were drunk? Or is it just something the family has to accept as they die? According to what you are suggesting then we should not punish someone for killing a family driving drunk, they didn't really know what they were doing.

That is not what I said. If they perform an illegal act while intoxicated, then yes, they should be punished. But a person that is unable to understand the future ramifications of a legal consent form should not be allowed to sign it. There is a clear difference between someone not being legally competent to sign a consent form and them not being legally liable for killing someone. It doesn't matter whether whatever making them incompetent to sign a release form is a factor of their own actions or not.

Furthermore, I don't necessarily think that the scenario is immoral. I personally think that there are a lot of things that fall into different shades of morality, and I think this is one of them. I think it is on the very edge of morality, because of the fact that they are doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. Like I said ealier, temporary or reversible sterilization is completely fine, IMO, just not permanent sterilization.

I know of quite a few people who were drug addicts at one time, who have become productive citizens and do not use drugs anymore. I have written in another thread about the person that Tina and I consider one of our closest friends, who once was a crack addict and has become a wonderful mother and a decent provider. She is married to another reformed addict and neither one of them has used drugs for over 15 years and they are raising 4 children.

I can also recount many others who screwed up when they were young but are doing well now.

This program is wrong (IMHO) because, it will be utilized mostly by the poor and minorities, because others will pay for their habits. The average American pictures coke addicts (that includes crack which is a form of coke) as poor Blacks. Almost 90% of coke addicts are white and many are Wall Street and Hollywood types. Is Britney going to take the $300?

It is also anti-female. While they might offer the money to both genders, I will venture a guess that females would be the primary victim, I mean patient.

Punishing people for life for a mistake early in life is wrong. This is a shortcut around civil liberties and a slippery slope towards eugenics.

Works for me.

A friend of mine had a vasectomy done on her adult Down's Syndrome son. She had it done purposfully and to protect him from things such as that which happened under protective care to the women who conceived.

Interesting concept.....are you suggesting that one who is not competent enough to understand the form, somehow IS competent enough to perform parenting tasks?

No, I'm not. I personally feel that drug users shouldn't be able to have custody of their children while they are using drugs. But parenting ability has nothing to do with their competence to sign and understand the legal ramifications of signing a medical release form. When I say that being high may make them legally incompetent to sign legal documents and be able to understand the ramifications, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions if they kill someone, and I'm not saying that they would be competent parents. I'm saying that being high could make them incompetent to sign the forms and understand them.

Link Please...:welldoneclap:

Link Please...:cry

It's a hypothetical situation.

I think if the organization really cared about the addicts and the chance they may conceive children while addicted, they would pay for temporary sterilization and offer them assistance to find treatment.

Lots of people get "down on their luck" so to speak. Someday, they may beat it, and want to have a family and leave their past behind them.

I tend to not judge addicts. It is easy for a person who has never used to drugs to sit back and say, "How can they do that to themselves? Why did they even take drugs in the first place? They knew the drugs could kill them." Well, I am addicted to food. I know Chipotle, McDonald's or any of that high fat, high cal food is essentially killing me. I did it anyway. I am no different than those people. I got pleasure by killing myself with food. They get pleasure by killing themselves with drugs. It doesn't necessarily make them bad people.

Get them help. Give them the tools they need to help themselves. If babies are a concern, pay for their birth control.

That is not what I said. If they perform an illegal act while intoxicated, then yes, they should be punished. But a person that is unable to understand the future ramifications of a legal consent form should not be allowed to sign it. There is a clear difference between someone not being legally competent to sign a consent form and them not being legally liable for killing someone. It doesn't matter whether whatever making them incompetent to sign a release form is a factor of their own actions or not.

I didn't claim you did say that. I was comparing your logic to a different kind of situation.

I think it is ironic that we have no problem with them getting preggers and raising a child while supposedly incompetent but it's not okay to use sterilization because they don't know what they are doing.

So if they do something illegal while under the SAME influence, that's bad. If they do something of their own free will under the SAME influence then they are not responsible. What's the difference?

How do you know they are unable to understand the future ramifications? Sounds to me more like they'd rather have drugs than future children. There are drug abusers all over that are fully functioning working adults. They just want their drugs. They work to support their habit. Being a drug abuser is not the same as being mentally retarded. They are making their own choice. Might they regret it later? Could be. I regret what I have done to my body with food and many of those effects will never be able to be repaired. Doesn't mean I didn't know what I was doing while I was doing it. It means I made some decisions yesterday that I regret today. It's mine, I own it, I am responsible for it, it's my problem.

Furthermore, I don't necessarily think that the scenario is immoral. I personally think that there are a lot of things that fall into different shades of morality, and I think this is one of them. I think it is on the very edge of morality, because of the fact that they are doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. Like I said ealier, temporary or reversible sterilization is completely fine, IMO, just not permanent sterilization.

I disagree that it is the wrong thing for the right reason. I think it is the right thing for the right reason.