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?

This issue is very hard to debate because there are many special rules for humanity that are easily forgotten, and that are easily left out of the logic. I am a Christian, but I know that contrary to what some (or most) Christians think, that human beings are part of the animal species. However, because of their superior brains and their special consciousness, the human animal is given special privileges (though we call them rights).

Though humans have this higher intelligence, it has been agreed upon as the human race has become more civilized that humans must still be protected from themselves and that certain rule of conduct are generally accepted. We do not allow humans to be slaves, even indentured slaves, nor do we allow them to sell off their body parts.

As a theist, I know that humans are animals, though others of my religion say that they are not animals, but God made creatures in his mold. I resist the dogma of my religion, but atheists can easily fall into the trap of religious dogma, by replacing the standard deities with the deity of money. Just like the 911 pilots thought that the killings of thousands of Americans were ok, because they were doing it for their God, many atheists and capitalists think that selling body parts, slavery and selling reproductive rights are ok as long as it is done in the name of God, their God; MONEY.

No! Money does not make things right. No more that strong people pushing weak people around when you line up for the movies, rich people have no rights to buy life from poor people. When a Mike Tyson type character says to me a 61 year old man, “get out of my way or I will kill you”, he is no worse than when a Bill Gates says “get out of my way or I will pay someone to kill you”. The use of money does not make it any less a form of bullying or abuse.

Paying the poor, whether because it is their fault that they are poor and no matter why they are poor, is wrong when you take away their humanity or their special privileges we have bestowed on all humans and that we call human rights. It is generally accepted (except by organizations like PITA) that we do not have to pay a horse for it to pull a wagon and most civilizations believe that other animals can be used for food or other human needs, but we have degreed that humans are special. The Christian/Judeao/Muslim religions have all agreed as have most non-traditional groups. It is only the one religion of the money worshipers who think that taking away the human rights of human beings is ok if done under the name of their God; MONEY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by laurend

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, it's women that you want to stop from reproducing, right? .

Have you ever had a blood clot, heart attack or stroke? We're already talking about people with suppressed immune systems.

Leatha, thank you! I had TWO blood clots that went to my lungs (pulmonary emboli) and I would not wish that on anyone. I never smoked but I was on oral borth control and obese. Imagine diving down too low in a pool. You fight your way to get to the surface to take a deep breath. With PEs, that breath won't just won't fully expand your lungs.

One other point, the United States no longer purchases blood or blood products. Donations are voluntary and tested for many diseases. In addition, a person CAN donate blood knowing it's not safe and then elect to use the "don't use my blood" sticker in the privacy of a cubicle.

I totally agree. There should be no money exchanged. Only free services. Even $2 to a serious drug addict is only enabling them. The idea here is help. I guess I'm a bit confused as to why anyone would even consider paying them anyway. Can someone explain the motive here?

The motive of paying was essentially to get people to show up. "Was" last time I really studied this (in undergraduate university when Crack and PP made its way into classroom discussion). I would assume that hasn't changed too much.

Few addicts are going to seek voluntary sterilization because they're concerned about the ethics of having addicted babies or burdening a welfare system, or because they are concerned about their ability to raise a child. They're going to do it because they see some immediate gain for themselves. To an addict, cash (next to drugs) is probably the biggest motivator to do something. Offer an addict "free sterilization" and see who shows up. Offer an addict "$200 for sterilization" and your turnout will probably be much greater.

I'm neither condoning nor condemning the practice, just trying to answer the question.

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.

Ok then...they are defective, kill them

I haven't read through this tread, but what's the issue? My body, my choice, my right to decide -- right? If they want to get sterilized for money, who am I to interfere with their reproductive rights? Why is there even a question? I thought reproductive rights were sacrosanct. It doesn't really matter what a person is going through at the time they make the life-altering decision; what matters is they have control of their body and no one should be able to interfere, whether they interfere with an argument, money, offers of assistance, or anything else. Right?

Ok then...they are defective, kill them

Where should we start to line up the 10,000,000 people that you would like executed?

I haven't read through this tread, but what's the issue? My body, my choice, my right to decide -- right? If they want to get sterilized for money, who am I to interfere with their reproductive rights? Why is there even a question? I thought reproductive rights were sacrosanct. It doesn't really matter what a person is going through at the time they make the life-altering decision; what matters is they have control of their body and no one should be able to interfere, whether they interfere with an argument, money, offers of assistance, or anything else. Right?

How about if I hold a gun to your head and give you the right to decide if you want to sign this contract?

I love the hypocrisy of people who have the free will to say "no" to over-eating, but can't, so they have their bodies mutilated, saying that people addicted to drugs have the free will not to take the money to have their bodies mutilated.:frusty:

How about if I hold a gun to your head and give you the right to decide if you want to sign this contract?

Yeah, uh, TOM, in case you hadn't noticed there was just a TOUCH of sarcasm in my post.

Yeah, uh, TOM, in case you hadn't noticed there was just a TOUCH of sarcasm in my post.

I guess there was a lot more than a touch of sarcasm in mine.:deadhorse:

Where should we start to line up the 10,000,000 people that you would like executed?

Take them out, dump them in the ocean, will help the enviroment. Fish food! :mad:

TOM, I have never heard of sombody obese killing,robbing,etc. just to get thier next fix.

Call me a nazi or whatever you like but, at some point the communitys needs/safty take precedence over any indvidual right.

Take them out, dump them in the ocean, will help the enviroment. Fish food! :mad:

TOM, I have never heard of sombody obese killing,robbing,etc. just to get thier next fix.

Call me a nazi or whatever you like but, at some point the communitys needs/safty take precedence over any indvidual right.

I will not call you a Nazi, but this is a medical problem that has been made into a police/law enforcement crisis. And the only people that gain anything from the problem are the people who work in the government.

There has to be a better way that killing our own children. Who will the community (that needs safety) be when the children of the community are dead?

It didn't work with alcohol and it will not work with drugs.

Comparing Alcohol and meth/cocaine/heroin/etc. is apples and oranges.

Comparing Alcohol and meth/cocaine/heroin/etc. is apples and oranges.

Tell that to Elliot Ness.

Still apples and oranges