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?

I'm all for temporary sterilization. Is there a reliable method?

Even permanent sterilization isn't 100%, in some cases. I've heard of men having children after vasectomy and women having children after tubal ligation.

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

I did respond, I asked you how we do that.

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.

Specifically, which chemical shall we use for men?

Yes. I have as well. Few and far between and much more reliable than say the birth control pill. Especially if someone fails to buy it because they took the money and got drugs. Maybe implantables? I'd advocate that. I'm no longer well versed on the options, but I'm sure there are some. I think more than anything, the idea that they have a place to seek medical assistance and guidance - in all cities and states would be a major improvement. As it stands now, they are pretty much treated like human garbage which only perpetuates the problem.

Yeah, I wouldn't consider using a form of birth control like the pill, which relies too much on the woman being responsible enough to take it. An implantable long-term birth control device seems much more appropriate.

I did respond, I asked you how we do that.

I'm sorry, I didn't see your response. There are implantable long-term birth control devices for women and chemical sterilization for men.

Specifically, which chemical shall we use for men?

Depo Provera, probably.

BTW, I'm not going to turn this into a race issue. I don't give a crap if someone is black, white, purple, or green. The issue here are drug abusers, regardless of color.

Of course it is a race issue. Who do you think the predominantly poor drug users are?

The white drug users on Wall Street don't need $300, nor do the Movie Stars. It will not be only minorities, but it will be disproportionately minorities as compared to the actual ratio of white to minority addicts.

Of course it is a race issue. Who do you think the predominantly poor drug users are?

The white drug users on Wall Street don't need $300, nor do the Movie Stars. It will not be only minorities, but it will be disproportionately minorities as compared to the actual ratio of white to minority addicts.

Sorry, not biting. I told you I was not going to play race games in this thread and I'm not.

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

Are you referring to me?

I never said anything to the contrary and in fact agree with that.

I believe a society has the right as well as the responsibility to take care of it's young.

How do you consider sterilizing addicts *free* to be any different as far as your notion that *paying* somehow takes advantage of desperate people?

What does society taking care of its young have to do with anything?

Offering free sterilization to drug addicts is just that - an offer with no strings attached. If they accept, they have presumably done so for the right reasons - they realize they would make lousy parents. But if you offer money as an incentive, then you are dangling a carrot that an addict, always desperate for money, is unlikely to refuse. These people, after all, think nothing of selling their blood, stealing, or prostituting themselves for drug money.

exploitation - an act that exploits or victimizes someone (treats them unfairly)

Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.

I believe it is SOCIETY being exploited by those drug addicts who prey on the rest of us to perpetrate their mode of existence.

Still and all, that doesn't make it okay for society to take advantage of its drug addicted citizens. How about homeless people, or winos? Would it be okay to bribe them with the same $300?

re: "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.

Agree. However, how does 'provide those things ourselves' differ from such widely proclaimed 'right to medical care' 'health insurance' 'right to reproduce' etc?

Even though food, clothing, and shelter are essential to human life, it is no one's obligation to provide them for us. Health insurance is not a right - it's a commodity, as is most ordinary medical care.

I believe the model of social order that gives too much power to those who abdicate making good personal decisions, do not have the right to impose the fruit of their loins upon the rest of us, just because 'we' may feel some obligation to nurture in the absence of the parents.

Again, the fact that drug addicts cost society money, time, and God knows what else does not preclude our responsibility to uphold their basic human rights.

Even though food, clothing, and shelter are essential to human life, it is no one's obligation to provide them for us. Health insurance is not a right - it's a commodity, as is most ordinary medical care.

Most of the other advanced industrialized countries disagree with that notion regarding medical care. It is a macho USA phenomena.

Yeah, I wouldn't consider using a form of birth control like the pill, which relies too much on the woman being responsible enough to take it. An implantable long-term birth control device seems much more appropriate.

Many women cannot use those kinds of products. If they are overweight or if they smoke. While they aren't likely to be obese they are quite likely to smoke. They couldn't use such a product.

I'm sorry, I didn't see your response. There are implantable long-term birth control devices for women and chemical sterilization for men.

Depo Provera, probably.

Depo Provera is usually used for sex offenders, not chemical castration. It does not stop men from having sex, it stops them from wanting to. Totally non effective. Actually, I think it would be cruel to do that to men. It can cause blood clots, depression, and a lack of desire for sex. I don't want them to stop having sex if that is what they want, I just don't want them reproducing at that point in time. I'm not interesting in making them depressed, they likely have enough of that as there is.

Depo does more to stopping anger and impulse control in men, it does very little to stop them from reproducing.

Hard-core drug addicts don't have much libido anyway, so pregnancy is only a big issue for women who trade sex for drugs (or money with which they can buy drugs).

I say give those women the $300 to have an IUD implanted.

The Depo Provera injections, either for men or women, would be much harder to monitor. Addicts are desperate and foolhardy. Some of them would go to every clinic in town, repeatedly, and sign up for the injections. And too much of that stuff is undoubtedly bad for you.

Many women cannot use those kinds of products. If they are overweight or if they smoke. While they aren't likely to be obese they are quite likely to smoke. They couldn't use such a product.

Why not? The side effects caused would be offset by the fact that there wouldn't be drug-addicted children being born, right? Why are those side effects not acceptable, but the women never being able to have children again is acceptable?

Depo does more to stopping anger and impulse control in men, it does very little to stop them from reproducing.

Well, it's women that you want to stop from reproducing, right? Since men can't give birth to addicted kids, I fail to see why they would be included anyway. You can solve the problem of finding a reliable means of birth control for men by not allowing them to take part.

So, what would be the purpose for wanting to pay them for this opportunity?

A drug-addicted woman is unlikely to take advantage of free birth control (too much trouble), but she might drag herself down to the clinic and get the IUD in order to collect the incentive of $300.

And presumably, $300 would be a mere drop in the bucket, compared to the cost (to society) of raising the 5 or 6 children each woman might thrust upon the system.

Why not? The side effects caused would be offset by the fact that there wouldn't be drug-addicted children being born, right? Why are those side effects not acceptable, but the women never being able to have children again is acceptable?

Well, amazingly I don't think it is right to kill the women. I see a clear difference between their not being able to reproduce and dead.

Well, it's women that you want to stop from reproducing, right? Since men can't give birth to addicted kids, I fail to see why they would be included anyway. You can solve the problem of finding a reliable means of birth control for men by not allowing them to take part.

It takes both a male and a female to have children. If he is sterilized and she isn't, she won't get preggers.

Now, you said to chemically sterilize men, what drug will work?

Has anyone thought of the fact that while drug-addicted children would not be born because of the program, paying drug-addicted women to be sterilized would be funding illegal drug activity and all that goes with it? It'd be horrible to think that a woman went to her drug dealer to buy drugs with the $300 she was paid and someone innocent got killed if something went wrong.