Sterilization. At last a good news story.

mahamageehad

Odysseus wrote: »

Would you mind expanding on the borderline mental issues? As with addicts mental illness does not equate with being a bad parent, especially when you qualify it as borderline, what would you do with a serious psychosis if you appear to think that a "borderline issue" is serious enough to qualify as barring a person from being a parent?

Hmm i seriously thought about that phrase before I wrote it. I meant mental issues that make the person unable to look after themselves, psychosis, schizophrenia would be good examples. I thought that if I said mental illness i would get a barricade of people implying that I meant all people with mental illness- eg depression, ADHD etc. And if i said severe mental illness I'd have been called on to define what was severe and what wasn't. Borderline was the wrong word looking back.

Karmaman

When I saw this thread I thought great! get rid of all the junkies, but after reading some of the posts, yeah probably is a bad idea.

I think that people are for this either because thay dont want children born into misery as in the the American woman that started it and thats ok.
But alot of people are for this because they think junkies breed junkies, skangers breed skangers and this aint true.

optogirl

mahamageehad wrote: »

Hmm i seriously thought about that phrase before I wrote it. I meant mental issues that make the person unable to look after themselves, psychosis, schizophrenia would be good examples. I thought that if I said mental illness i would get a barricade of people implying that I meant all people with mental illness- eg depression, ADHD etc. And if i said severe mental illness I'd have been called on to define what was severe and what wasn't. Borderline was the wrong word looking back.

Jebus.

candy-gal1

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I call them people.

I am defending this scheme on the basis that it is about choice. If we are to treat drug addicts like any other member of society, then they have the choice to get the snip like the rest of us.

If we want to argue that addicts have no capacity to make this choice, then they have no capacity to have or raise children either. So when it comes to welfare of a child or welfare of an addict, I choose the child.

so are you saying that its just normal human life to harrass people and we should just get used to it/fight our corner etc?

optogirl

candy-gal1 wrote: »

So we all do this then?

No Candy Gal - my point is that it is all too easy to point at other sections of society and declare them worthless or having 'no point'. They are human beings however and get all the same rights you do. It doesn't matter that you find them worthless.

candy-gal1

Karmaman wrote: »

When I saw this thread I thought great! get rid of all the junkies, but after reading some of the posts, yeah probably is a bad idea.

I think that people are for this either because thay dont want children born into misery as in the the American woman that started it and thats ok.
But alot of people are for this because they think junkies breed junkies, skangers breed skangers and this aint true.

Eh I think more than the majority of times it is true.

optogirl

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Eh I think more than the majority of times it is true.

CandyGal I get the feeling you are unable to look objectively at this because you have been harassed by junkies before. This does not mean that they don't deserve to breed however.

Orando Broom

optogirl wrote: »

Wow. Just as well you are not president of the world.

Likewise, you. Just remember to lock the gates to your castle tonight. The Queen of Silver Spoon bleeding hearts.

candy-gal1

optogirl wrote: »

No Candy Gal - my point is that it is all too easy to point at other sections of society and declare them worthless or having 'no point'. They are human beings however and get all the same rights you do. It doesn't matter that you find them worthless.

I get your point their alright, as i wouldnt say all homeless arent worthwhile human beings, and it really doesnt matter if i think certain people are ****, after all im not a politician lol

Odysseus

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I call them people.

I am defending this scheme on the basis that it is about choice. If we are to treat drug addicts like any other member of society, then they have the choice to get the snip like the rest of us.

If we want to argue that addicts have no capacity to make this choice, then they have no capacity to have or raise children either. So when it comes to welfare of a child or welfare of an addict, I choose the child.

I could see a person jumping on the money because they own dealers etc money. However, a lot of addicts I know would not take the choice of a few bags if it meant hurting their child.

The ability to make an informed unbiased choice around getting the snip, would not to me tell me that the person cannot look after their child. I regularly call social services in accordance with Children First, which all health care workers have to work within. There is a big difference here.

I'm currently working through this issue with a group of students on a course I teach. On the first night most of the class felt that with the example I was using [I have a really good documentary by HBO, its called methadonia people here should goggle it] the child should be taken away.

It's an emotive topic, and I certainly don't have the answers; however, simplistic answers like this don't give me any direction/options when I have to make that phone call to social services, who may turn around and ask me if I believe that the child is in immediate danger, if not nothing much will happen. In this case immediate does really mean immediate.

candy-gal1

optogirl wrote: »

CandyGal I get the feeling you are unable to look objectively at this because you have been harassed by junkies before. This does not mean that they don't deserve to breed however.

Okay, But scangers, junkies, they are really all the same- people who just dont want to do anything else and make a new start for themselves.

Karmaman

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Eh I think more than the majority of times it is true.

I'm not defending skangers and scum, but alot of decent familys can have scumbag kids and vice-versa, parents skangers - kids semm ok (against the odds)

candy-gal1

Karmaman wrote: »

I'm not defending skangers and scum, but alot of decent familys can have scumbag kids and vice-versa, parents skangers - kids semm ok (against the odds)

Oh I know, its usually when their kids are brought up in a **** area so they know nothing more.

optogirl

Orando Broom wrote: »

Likewise, you.

Thank Fup.

Odysseus

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Okay, But scangers, junkies, they are really all the same- people who just dont want to do anything else and make a new start for themselves.

The thing is they are not. You are associating all addicts with those you see on the boardwalk, or wherever you see them. There are plenty of functioning addicts out there, by functioning I mean no history of criminality, working full time, etc. No every heroin addict ends up annoying people on the street.

As someone else pointed out addiction can knock on anybodies door, and it is often only then that people see there is another side to it. People who often hold the "they are all scum" viewpoint often change their mind when their son/daughter/brother etc get caught up in it.


Another example would be during the chemist strike a few years back, people had to return to their local addiction unit, I earn what could be described as an ok amount, some people think it is a lot, personally I don't but my point is during that time I met addicts who where earning 3+ times my wage. So no not every addict is a scumbag who can't see past their next score

Karmaman

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Oh I know, its usually when their kids are brought up in a **** area so they know nothing more.

Yeah, spot on. I knew you would come around.;)

Seriously, cant just sterilize them to fix the problem. Addicts come from all walks of life before addiction, when you see them bangin up you might think they've always been scum, sometimes true, sometimes not. It's all about choices - stupid choices by them.

Odysseus

Karmaman wrote: »

It's all about choices - stupid choices by them.

Everyone has their own opinions, but addiction is a tad more complicated than choices, unless of course you Glasser [Developer of choice theory]. To be fair as well since you seem quite open minded in your posts "nothing is neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so" to quote old Hamlet.

I could never describe addiction as a series of stupid choices, its not always the same but when you spend a long time listening to some of the horrific life stories I hear, its very understandable why someone would want to be off their cake 24/7. Being able to understand it [to some level in anyway] do not of course mean I aggree with criminality etc, before someone picks me up on that.

Call Me Jimmy

Most of you sicken me

readyletsgo

Karmaman wrote: »

When I saw this thread I thought great! get rid of all the junkies, but after reading some of the posts, yeah probably is a bad idea.

I think that people are for this either because thay dont want children born into misery as in the the American woman that started it and thats ok.
But alot of people are for this because they think junkies breed junkies, skangers breed skangers and this aint true.

I understand a lot of peoples points on here at the end of the day.
I dont want a child born into misery, it will happen no matter what at the end of the day, with junkies or even with people who have a good track record but, as a gay man who is not allowed to have children in Ireland........

If the law changes then dont sterilize the junkies and I'll adopt a kid from them and make sure it has a good home.

Odysseus

readyletsgo wrote: »

I understand a lot of peoples points on here at the end of the day.
I dont want a child born into misery, it will happen no matter what at the end of the day, with junkies or even with people who have a good track record but, as a gay man who is not allowed to have children in Ireland........

If the law changes then dont sterilize the junkies and I'll adopt a kid from them and make sure it has a good home.

It's a bit of a guess, but I would imagine that a lot of the fundamentalists who agree with this would deem you to be just as unsuitable because of your sexuality. Personally of course I would deem that to be ethic either, but sweeping prejudices are often that broad and sweeping

Odysseus

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Most of you sicken me

Great, that's wonderful, please, please, tell me is it my posts that sicken you.

Karmaman

Odysseus wrote: »

Everyone has their own opinions, but addiction is a tad more complicated than choices.

I agree, it is a bit more complicated, the "fors" claim that the children have no hope and no choice and will just end up junkies like their parents and that will be bad for them and society.

The "against" claim everyone should have the opportunity to turn thier life around.

Although they shouldn't have kids, it really is up to them!

Odysseus

Karmaman wrote: »

I agree, it is a bit more complicated, the "fors" claim that the children have no hope and no choice and will just end up junkies like their parents and that will be bad for them and society.

The "against" claim everyone should have the opportunity to turn thier life around.

Although they shouldn't have kids, it really is up to them!

I see the kids close up; I have reported abuse and neglect. I’m sure other here to see it up close and some in a professional role. Hope I think one of the last posters showed where ideas like this can go, where some would think a person’s sexuality would mean they could not be a good parent.

This is the problem you have the general and the specific, say in treating addiction there are plenty of sign, symptoms or characteristics that are associated with addiction; however, then you have the specifics of the individuals you are treating.

Just because I seen an addict of her cake today pushing a buggy around in a dangerous manner near busy traffic, does not mean the next addicted female with a small child that comes into my office is not a good mother.

Bottle_of_Smoke

General Zod wrote: »

without seeing the statistical levels for both increase in STI's and children born addicted to heroin you can't dismiss one as statistically irrelevant and accept the other (which I would say would be close to being the same). There's no coorelation or causation between the two but it's fair for both to be discussed.

Sterilisation isn't something that should be entered into lightly, especially not with immediate cash reward to mentally vunerable people.

For some reason people online seem to think stds are a bigger deal than they actually are.

Aside from HIV/Hep/HTLV stds are easily cured (bacterial infections) or a minor skin problem(warts/herpes). They're embarrassing but medically not a big deal.

Being conceived and born to a heroin addict IS medically a big deal. That's why I wouldnt consider the argument relevent. What you're suggesting is junkies tend to practice safe sex but won't if we make them infertile.

If someone's the type of person who despite being a junkie uses condoms, they're probably still going to use them after they've been sterilised.

So when it comes to the obvious benefit of saving even one child from being born from a geared up placenta, I do not see the point in worrying about hypothetical std increases for a tiny amount of people

Sisko

Screw ignorant religious fundamentalism.

Better these people make the choice to get rid of their kid before the child is ever even conceived then after it.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sisko wrote: »

Screw ignorant religious fundamentalism.

Better these people make the choice to get rid of their kid before the child is ever even conceived then after it.

That's another point. Being a junkie is gonna make you much more likely to have a miscarriage or backstreet abortion. this is definitely a win win idea

PAULWATSON

have to love the amount of ignorance on display here.

disgusting that anyone would support this, have you no respect for yourselves?

LarrytheLantern

PAULWATSON wrote: »

have to love the amount of ignorance on display here.

disgusting that anyone would support this, have you no respect for yourselves?

if we're gonna start talking respect, did you ever see any of the mothering junkies taking a piiss in broad daylight with their little darlings in tow?
i have and it would do your little bleeding heart good to see it.

Odysseus

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's another point. Being a junkie is gonna make you much more likely to have a miscarriage or backstreet abortion. this is definitely a win win idea

Back street abortions, what's going on here have I travelled back in time or something? I have come across a lot of things in during the course of my career. Whilst I have worked with a lot of girls who had abortions, I have never heard of a backstreet one. I had girls who where assaulted by their partner so they had a miscarriage, or "have it kick out of them" to use other words.

Seriously where have you heard of backstreet abortions in Ireland? Then you think that somebody having a miscarriage is a win win!!! Seriously mate, I have worked with some very disturbed minds, that is disturbing if you really believe it.

Ronin247

PAULWATSON wrote: »

have to love the amount of ignorance on display here.

disgusting that anyone would support this, have you no respect for yourselves?

It isnt ignorance just because they dont agree with you.

I disagree with paying people to get sterilised,there should be a f*cker with a big net out catching them on street corners and a doctor with a rusty razor castrating them.

The physical and mental harm done to the crack babies in the womb far outweighs a junkies human rights in my opinion.

They should all be in prison where they cant breed anyway.

Odysseus

Ronin247 wrote: »

It isnt ignorance just because they dont agree with you.

I disagree with paying people to get sterilised,there should be a f*cker with a big net out catching them on street corners and a doctor with a rusty razor castrating them.

The physical and mental harm done to the crack babies in the womb far outweighs a junkies human rights in my opinion.

They should all be in prison where they cant breed anyway.

Ignorance equals a lack of knowledge. I have not stats, but I do know there were fewer babies with neonatal withdrawal syndrome due to crack than heroin, in other words there would not be that many crack babies born here. Neonatal withdrawal syndrome NWS due to benzos causes more problems here than any other drug, NWS due to alcohol being the most common.

It's not about people not agreei9ng with me, everyone has an opinion, but there are different types and some are worth less than other. There is a significant lack of knowledge about drug addiction here, so I have to agree with the other poster; the ignorance displayed by people here, due to a lack of education and basing their opinion on what they see on the street, is very significant.

kowloon

Choice or no choice, the potential for this to set some kind of social precedent is enough reason not to touch it with a barge pole.

PanchoVilla

LarrytheLantern wrote: »

i find it disturbing that we allow these types to procreate.

"a snip in time .............":)

So how much would I have to pay you to get a vasectomy? I find the thought of a person like you having children and passing on this mentality quite disturbing.

PanchoVilla

By the way, here's a list of famous addicts. I'm sure some will be a surprise to people, others not so much. Addiction is not something to be ashamed of or looked down upon, almost every single person has some addiction or another. Gambling, shopping, sex, exercise, etc. Addiction is not limited to drugs or alcohol.

http://www.drugalcohol-rehab.com/famous-addicts.htm

Edit: Some of the greatest literary minds in history, all addicts.

http://www.life.com/image/50698313/in-gallery/38742

senordingdong

No!
You're logic is wrong and disgusting and it offends me.
Junkies are people too! And deserve to have children if they want.

I shudder to think of an Ireland that is free from unwanted and neglected children.
The thought of an Ireland that is not wasting millions every year trying to take care of unwanted, unhealthy babies, or children that have neglected upbrinings turns my stomach!

Ugh....sick.

LarrytheLantern

PanchoVilla wrote: »

So how much would I have to pay you to get a vasectomy? I find the thought of a person like you having children and passing on this mentality quite disturbing.

too late :rolleyes:

LarrytheLantern

optogirl wrote: »

No Candy Gal - my point is that it is all too easy to point at other sections of society and declare them worthless or having 'no point'. They are human beings however and get all the same rights you do. It doesn't matter that you find them worthless.

Oh! yes it does. If enough ordinary decent taxpayers of this and other countries find them repulsive enough, then it will get sorted.

Just you wait 'n see!:D