Jump to content
N-Europe

Drug Addict Vasectomy "Bribe"

Goafer

By Goafer
in General Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Goafer Newbie

Goafer

Posted
Posted

Link

 

Anyone got an opinion on this?

 

I think it's a good idea in theory, but I am skeptical about where the money will end up (a dealers pocket).

 

I heard an interview with the guy who was the first and he seemed quite genuine about it. He basically said something about how he could barely look after himself, looking after a child would be impossible for him.

 

The way people are talking about it though, you'd think the charity was pinning them down and letting angry dogs chew off their ball sacks.

 

Also, I want to know if a similar deal is available for women. Edit: Yes it is, just Googled it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jayseven Newbie

jayseven

Posted
Posted

At 38 years old, I doubt having kids was still a realistic option for the guy, so in essence it was a free £200 to score with. Why wouldn't he say yes?

 

Getting younger skagheads to give up their family jewels is dangerous because their situation may lead them to falsely weight their available options.

 

But these days the snip can be reversed, so meh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grazza Newbie

Grazza

Posted
Posted

It does have the nasty whiff of eugenics about it.

 

My alternative plan for the welfare system is more general: we simply shouldn't give people money, we should give them vouchers. The whole point of the welfare system is to make sure people don't starve when they can't find a job. Why the heck should we give them money to buy what they like with? If we gave them vouchers, they wouldn't be able to buy drugs anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raining_again Newbie

Raining_again

Posted
Posted (edited)
It does have the nasty whiff of eugenics about it.

 

My alternative plan for the welfare system is more general: we simply shouldn't give people money, we should give them vouchers. The whole point of the welfare system is to make sure people don't starve when they can't find a job. Why the heck should we give them money to buy what they like with? If we gave them vouchers, they wouldn't be able to buy drugs anyway.

 

This is a very good theory, the money for rent etc should go straight to the renter, and the rest of stuff like food and petrol should be provided via vouchers. Its like going back to the war with rations :P

 

Benefits isn't something one should want to be on. and imo (maybe a harsh one) but once a child is of school age the mother should receive less money so they have to go back to work if they want to live the way they've become accustomed to.

Edited by Raining_again
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Will Explorer

Will

Posted
Posted

I don't really see the point, its not really going to help, and as has been said it can be reversed if they change their mind in the future.

 

I agree that benefits need a big change too, it should be something no one wants to be on, and do their best to get off. Right now it seems all to easy to live your whole life puff the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goafer Newbie

Goafer

Posted
  • Author
Posted

As far as I know, eugenics isn't what the scheme is aiming for. It's more about babies being born addicted due to the mother taking drugs whilst pregnant. The woman who started it adopted several addicted babies before coming up with the scheme.

 

Not entirely sure how this applies to the vasectomy side of things though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MoogleViper Newbie

MoogleViper

Posted
Posted
As far as I know, eugenics isn't what the scheme is aiming for. It's more about babies being born addicted due to the mother taking drugs whilst pregnant. The woman who started it adopted several addicted babies before coming up with the scheme.

 

Not entirely sure how this applies to the vasectomy side of things though.

 

I think it's more about preventing child abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pestneb Newbie

Pestneb

Posted
Posted (edited)

I get the idea, but it seems a bit blunt, it basically takes the view point that those lives are now sub human in some way. I know of addicts who have turned their lives around, got a family, job, being regular members of society, just with a past that they would rather not have had. Had those people come into contact with the scheme they would have had a free £200 hit, and as individuals are no better, just the possibility of a family is removed. While they may genuinely not want a family, the very existance of this scheme could sway them that way.

 

I agree it's an issue that needs to be dealt with, but its a very cold approach.

So its good to stop kids being born into an environment were drug abuse is rife, but there are ways to do that that also deal with the parents.

the kids are potential victims, the adults being sterilised ARE victims, and are basically being discounted, there's no point trying to help them, they are a waste of space and time, which imo is an awful point of view, and one that is reinforced (and perhaps made true) by such schemes as this.

 

Also quick edit, I recall a woman who was an addict, hadn't planned a family, she got pregnant and then she saw her child go cold turkey and realised she had to change her life. Once she succeeded she then went on to form a charity to help other addicts. Had she been sterilised she probably would still be an addict/dead and wouldn't have helped all the addicts she has since helped.

Edited by Pestneb
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gaggle64 Newbie

gaggle64

Posted
Posted

Although I certainly agree that babies being harmed by drug addiction is a problem, I'm not sure a form of social eugenics is the answer. Eugenics have not generally proven to be a particularly good answer to anything, despite numerous attempts by various groups in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dannyboy-the-Dane Newbie

Dannyboy-the-Dane

Posted
Posted
I get the idea, but it seems a bit blunt, it basically takes the view point that those lives are now sub human in some way. I know of addicts who have turned their lives around, got a family, job, being regular members of society, just with a past that they would rather not have had. Had those people come into contact with the scheme they would have had a free £200 hit, and as individuals are no better, just the possibility of a family is removed. While they may genuinely not want a family, the very existance of this scheme could sway them that way.

 

I agree it's an issue that needs to be dealt with, but its a very cold approach.

So its good to stop kids being born into an environment were drug abuse is rife, but there are ways to do that that also deal with the parents.

the kids are potential victims, the adults being sterilised ARE victims, and are basically being discounted, there's no point trying to help them, they are a waste of space and time, which imo is an awful point of view, and one that is reinforced (and perhaps made true) by such schemes as this.

 

Also quick edit, I recall a woman who was an addict, hadn't planned a family, she got pregnant and then she saw her child go cold turkey and realised she had to change her life. Once she succeeded she then went on to form a charity to help other addicts. Had she been sterilised she probably would still be an addict/dead and wouldn't have helped all the addicts she has since helped.

 

YES! Thank you! My exact feelings about this! I just sucked at putting them down in words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pyxis Newbie

Pyxis

Posted
Posted

What kind of person donates £200 (plus the cost of the operation) to a charity that gives drug addicts money to buy drugs? Are they that twisted and disturbed to not realise that there are far more worthy charities out there than this one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beast Newbie

Beast

Posted
Posted
I get the idea, but it seems a bit blunt, it basically takes the view point that those lives are now sub human in some way. I know of addicts who have turned their lives around, got a family, job, being regular members of society, just with a past that they would rather not have had. Had those people come into contact with the scheme they would have had a free £200 hit, and as individuals are no better, just the possibility of a family is removed. While they may genuinely not want a family, the very existance of this scheme could sway them that way.

 

I agree it's an issue that needs to be dealt with, but its a very cold approach.

So its good to stop kids being born into an environment were drug abuse is rife, but there are ways to do that that also deal with the parents.

the kids are potential victims, the adults being sterilised ARE victims, and are basically being discounted, there's no point trying to help them, they are a waste of space and time, which imo is an awful point of view, and one that is reinforced (and perhaps made true) by such schemes as this.

 

Also quick edit, I recall a woman who was an addict, hadn't planned a family, she got pregnant and then she saw her child go cold turkey and realised she had to change her life. Once she succeeded she then went on to form a charity to help other addicts. Had she been sterilised she probably would still be an addict/dead and wouldn't have helped all the addicts she has since helped.

 

Couldn't put it better myself. It's absolutely stupid, it's like saying "there's no hope for you". Look at Davina McCall, she was hooked on drugs, she got off them and now has 3 kids and you wouldn't have known she used to be addicted. Just shows you can turn your life around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...