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?

There is no discussion going on here. It is everyone gives their opinion and you stomp it to the ground. You seem confrontational and respond as if noone elses points are valid.

Debating a topic is different than looking for an argument.

Then I would suggest the option of not reading threads I start. Honestly, not sure how else I can help you.

Having dealt with a drug addicted brother for two decades and seeing the devastation that it causes to family and friends, I am all for voluntary sterilization. When you see infants detoxing from heroin and other drugs and see the effects... developmental delays, fetal alcohol syndrome, AIDS, etc., it's a VERY GOOD thing when addicts are offered the opportunity to not procreate.

Not to belabor this as hypotheticals are extremely difficult to get a real handle on....

1) are you saying that one may be high temporarily and during that time be incompetent to sign a legal document?

2) are you saying there is a different degree of capacity which makes it possible to be 'a GOOD parent' while being incompetent to understand an agreement to be sterilized?

3) are you saying there is some kind of 'time out' where otherwise 'good parents' can be temporarily incompetent due to drugs while remaining 'competent parents'?

This also does not address my attempt to understand what your position is on 'right to bear children'....

Perhaps I've missed your point.

Yes, you have. I was never talking about them being competent parents. I was talking about them being incompetent to sign legal papers. That's what I meant by "but parenting ability has nothing to do with their competence to sign and understand the legal ramifications of signing a medical release form." I was talking about this supposedly hypothetical situation and this supposedly hypothetical situation only, not implying anything about any other situation, including the parental ability of the people in question. I never mentioned their parental ability because I was never talking about their parental ability. But I'll still answer your questions.

1) Yes (well, while they are high or looking for a fix to get high)

2) No

4) No

IMHO, I think drug addicts are not competent parents, at least not while they are addicted. I personally think that they should all be forced to give up custody of their children while they are addicted.

And I think there is clearly a "right to reproduce" in this country, or at least a "right to control our own reproduction". Otherwise, why all the fuss about China forcing women to have abortions to enforce their "1 child per family rule"?

re: ""right to reproduce"

Can you point to some legal document somewhere that makes that assertion in so many words? Primary source please.

No, I can't. I think we consider it to be a human right, not one that has to be spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Just like the right to be clothed and fed is not spelled out anywhere in a legal document.

re; "I think it reeks of exploitation."

Just who is it that is being exploited in such a circumstance?

Isn't the child, unwelcomed perhaps, unexpected probably, unplanned for, most definitely, one of those 'exploited'?

What about a responsible society which attempts to replace the missing parenting skills with the network of agencies and programs, that even at their best, are somewhat lacking?

What about the putative father, on whom every fault, flaw and blame is placed? Isn't he also being exploited?

How does the 'sterilizee' become 'the exploited'??

When we (society) offer free sterilization to drug addicts, that's a good thing. When we start PAYING drug addicts to be sterilized, then we're taking advantage of desperate people, in order to entice them into doing something that is in OUR (society's) best interest - primarily because we don't want to be responsible, financially and socially, for any children they might produce.

I don't understand your references to a "putative father", or potential children. We aren't talking about children who have already been born, or even conceived. You can't exploit a person who "might have been".

No, I can't. I think we consider it to be a human right, not one that has to be spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Just like the right to be clothed and fed is not spelled out anywhere in a legal document.

Laurend...

I agree that each of us is born with a presumed right to reproduce. It's what is generally referred to as a "God-given" right (although I don't know what Atheists would call it). I don't agree, however, that we have a right to be fed and clothed. We have to provide those things (food and clothing) ourselves.

No it isn't. I didn't make claims I could not back up. I explained that I understood this to be happening but I had not confirmed it. No bad netiquette there in the least.

Yes it is, you made a claim that was based upon factual evidence without backing it up, instead you stated that it was in fact happening to the best of your knowledge. Nor did you state that the subject was a hypothetical question.

Any seventh grader knows better than to cite proof without evidence.

It took me less than 20 seconds of Google time to:

a) find sources

:eek: Copy the address of the sources and paste them to this board.

Google is your friend, use it http://www.google.com

Yes it is, you made a claim that was based upon factual evidence without backing it up, instead you stated that it was in fact happening to the best of your knowledge. Nor did you state that the subject was a hypothetical question.

Any seventh grader knows better than to cite proof without evidence.

It took me less than 20 seconds of Google time to:

a) find sources

:eek: Copy the address of the sources and paste them to this board.

Google is your friend, use it http://www.google.com

Wrong. I did not know if it was factual or not and it didn't matter to me. I'd heard about it before, that's all. Had I claimed this was factual and it was indeed happening you would be correct but I did not do that. I was about as clear as I could be. It was merely a concept up for discussion. I never claimed to have proof of anything thus there is nothing to provide evidence.

The ends do not justify the means.

On the same radio show that I originally heard this idea to offer money so that addicts would voluntarily be sterilized discussed, a caller phoned in and suggested a solution to the crime problem that the US was facing. (BTW, this was about 1996, when the crime rate was dropping like a rock.) The caller suggested that any Black male arrested for a violent crime be castrated so that he could not pass on "His known violent Genes".

The show's host, Bob Grant, of WABC Radio, saluted the woman for her great idea and said it should be looked into. He said that it was not racist because it was the choice of the person to be a criminal that would bring on the castration.

I called the show to ask why a white man who commits a violent crime should not also be castrated and was told that Mr. Grant would not be speaking to me on the air.

Of course, I did not actually want white men castrated, nor Blacks, but I was curious:

#1. If it was not racist then why only should Black men be castrated?

and

#2. Isn't this approach going a little too far for a civilized society?

The ends do not justify the means.

Whether we are discussing protecting children from their parents by sterilization or castrating people to reduce crime.

Actions can only be considered morally right or wrong by virtue of the morality of the outcome.

Not suggesting that black men should be castrated for violent crimes (or any racist crap like that)

However I can see merits of castration for some crimes, sexual abuse of a child for one.

Actions can only be considered morally right or wrong by virtue of the morality of the outcome.

Not suggesting that black men should be castrated for violent crimes (or any racist crap like that)

However I can see merits of castration for some crimes, sexual abuse of a child for one.

Do you castrate right after the trial or do you wait long enough to find out that the abuse never happened as in the McMartin cases about 20 years ago?

There was a case in about 20 years ago, where a rapist chose to be castrated in return for an early release from prison. His next rape victim was found with a soda bottle in her vagina and light bulbs screwed into her breasts.

These are not crimes of sex. They are crimes of anger and revenge.

The vast majority of pedophiles were sexually abused as children and most often by a family member or friend of the family. Less than 10% of pedophiles ever get convicted, so taking societies anger out on that small group will not make our children appreciably saver.

We need to stop teaching our children to be afraid of bogeymen, when it is Daddy, or uncle Bill, or the brother, or clergy who is most likely to be the molester.

Most of all, we need screening of all children at a very young age to find out who is holding in that horrible secret which will eat at their soul until they either molest or turn to drugs or some other form of aberrant behavior.

Here is an interesting article: http://www.yale.edu/yfp/archives/commencement04/commencement04_repro.html

There are these things called fundamental, natural, positive, or negative rights (depending mostly on how you look at them). They are rights created by society. I would say the majority of them are not listed out in governmental laws.

There is a point where we have to say that the government has no place in creating laws, such as our right to reproduce. You let something start making laws on that and you are in trouble.

Where would we draw the line? Should poor people be allowed to have babies? How about ugly people? Fat people?

Anyone could have an argument for why someone should not be having babies, but essentially it is their right and it isn't something that should be governed on a routine basis.

So, Tom, we may not be able to direct you to a right in our constitution, but it is still a right.

I am in know way agreeing that drug addicts should be having children. But, I also don't believe that the answer is permanently sterilizing them. Especially when 13 and 14 year old girls are out there that are meth addicts. Do we sterilize them now? Then when they are 26, clean for 10 years, married...tell them, "too bad, you messed up".

Will someone answer my question about temporary sterilization? Why does the sterilization have to be permanent, regardless of whether it's free or not?

Will someone answer my question about temporary sterilization? Why does the sterilization have to be permanent, regardless of whether it's free or not?

Laurend...

I think sterilization, by definition, is permanent. Anything less is called birth control.

Laurend...

I think sterilization, by definition, is permanent. Anything less is called birth control.

Then we should be considering birth control instead of sterilization. Chemical castration in men, long-term birth control in women. I still think that would solve everyone's problems. An extremely low chance of babies being born to addicts, and those addicts still having the ability to reproduce once they are clean.