MRbrownJAY:

sterilization is no better than the electric chair WHEN IT COMES TO HAVING CHILDREN.

[size=14pt]WHAAAA!!!![/size]



Come again!!!  

Stop trying to use strawman arguments on me, I really don't like it.

Drop it!!! If you are REALLY confident in your dialectics, you will not try and twist arguments by using exaggerated euphemistic linkages.

Electric chair does not sit here. Drop it.  

MRbrownJAY:

unless we can prove without a doubt that these addicts will be bad parents for life, then IMHO this procedure is wrong.

So it is wrong to lock up people with mental problems (e.g. Schitzos) that can be violent based on the fact they are deemed potentially a risk to society?

Unfortunately if you insist on this guidance, a lot of laws will be invalid. A lot of laws are based on HIGHEST probability.

MRbrownJAY:

meaning that some people would use drug for many different reason. should THAT mistake be taken as a death sentence or a sign of an irresponsible parent?

Not as a death sentence. No one suggested that.

If their mistake is likely to lead to other mistakes where OTHERS SUFFER, then I will gladly make sure I apply rules that make THEM be the ones to suffer for THEIR CHOICE.

MRbrownJAY:

if that person can function perfectly under the influence of drugs (which most do) then why should we automatically ostracize them?

The most that do are highly unlikely to be the ones that take £200. They are likely to still have their heads barely screwed on.

MRbrownJAY:

its to show you that many start taking drugs for different reasons thus should be judge in different ways rather than saying "he who take drugs is guilty and punishable by death". yes they are guilty but let us give everyone a second chance to redeem themselves!

Apart from if you started to take drugs at a young age due to irresponsible parenting e.g. drug head parents (which is more of a reason we should stop them from having kids to break a circle), then I really could not give a hoot. If someone makes a moronic choice, they should face the consequences.

You will be given 2 chances, if you fail then you will get the offer to protect suffering of children.

MRbrownJAY:

you make it sound like all children of drug addicts suffer?! lol

For the serious drug heads that are likely to take £200, majority do.

MRbrownJAY:

i am sure there are many people who USE to take drugs, stopped, clean their act and became great parents.
none of us are perfect human beings and we ALL make mistakes along the way of life and hopefully learn from our mistakes. castigating all addicts because of a mistake of judgment they made is IMHO wrong.

If you can clean up, good. You will be offered the chance.

If you fail, then we protect others.

MRbrownJAY:

^^^^^bro, they may have been aware of the damage it could cause but thought they were psychologically stronger (like they most do) and thus started using.

just like with anything in life, there are dangers but we think we can handle them. driving a car is DANGEROUS if you put it in the hand of the wrong person. just as drinking alcohol etc

And I am suppose to feel sorry for them? 

MRbrownJAY:

would you therefore blame the alcoholic for having that first drink KNOWING that they could have been addicted to the pleasure alcohol brings to some?!

There are those of us that do not drink.

If you choose to drink, fine.

If you choose to drink in excess "enjoying your life", I am suppose to feel sorry for you? 

Choices, mate!!!

Sagamite:


[size=14pt]WHAAAA!!!![/size]



Come again!!!  

Stop trying to use strawman arguments on me, I really don't like it.

Drop it!!! If you are REALLY confident in your dialectics, you will not try and twist arguments by using exaggerated euphemistic linkages.

Electric chair does not sit here. Drop it.  

from the momen i used "electric chair" it was to compare it with the notion of doing something irreversible, got it? thats why i wrote (sterilization) next to it. . . . . . but since you didnt get what i was getting at,lets just drop it.

So it is wrong to lock up people with mental problems (e.g. Schitzos) that can be violent based on the fact they are potential a risk to society?

Unfortunately if you insist on this guidance, a lot of laws will be invalid. A lot of laws are based on HIGHEST probability.

thats EXACTLY my point: there is nothing wrong with locking a potential violent mental case BUT there should be a POSSIBILITY to release them if/when we see that they are no longer a threat.
sterilization is like locking them up and throwing away the key, with no chance of rehabilitation or freedom!

Not as a death sentence. No one suggested that.

can these people have a family and children when they finally get better and want to procreate?!

If their mistake is likely to lead to other mistakes where OTHERS SUFFER, then I will gladly make sure I apply rules that make THEM be the ones to suffer for THEIR CHOICE.

of course, no one wants addicts to have kids but dont you think there are other ways than sterilization?

Sagamite:

And I am suppose to feel sorry for them? 

no, and on the same note, you shouldnt look down on them either.

There are those of us that do not drink.

If you choose to drink, fine.

If you choose to drink in excess "enjoying your life", I am suppose to feel sorry for you? 

Choices, mate!!!

the point i was trying to make was not about drinking but about how people start doing these things with GOOD/POSITIVE intentions not knowing the addictive strength of these substances.
by the time they realize how strong these substances are, its too late.

but hey, we've been going back and forth on the issue and i doubt we will ever see eye to eye on the issue.
anyway great discussion!

You guys still arguing about this

MBJ leave Saga alone jor, let's talk about 'us' . . .

As much as I like the idea, some crackheads/alcohol abusers dont get up one morning and plan to have kids.
They sell their body for drugs, not caring how protective or save the se x is. Now, how are we sure that the money awarded to them wont be used to but MORE drugs/alcohol?

So what happens if they eventually get pregnant? Abortion or money back?

MRbrownJAY:

thats EXACTLY my point: there is nothing wrong with locking a potential violent mental case BUT there should be a POSSIBILITY to release them if/when we see that they are no longer a threat.
sterilization is like locking them up and throwing away the key, with no chance of rehabilitation or freedom!


can these people have a family and children when they finally get better and want to procreate?!

You have a point there. I used that example to challenge your "without a doubt" restriction. Mental people get locked up based on A BELIEF they MIGHT attack people.

Yes, sterilisation might not be ideal but it is faaaar better than the risk of a child suffering. To hell with the so-called rights of the moronic adult, I will protect the right of the kid that can not protect itself.

The sterilization is voluntary. And if one will take £200 to get sterilized, after 2 bouts of costly rehabs, they have usually reached a stage they deserve it.

MRbrownJAY:

of course, no one wants addicts to have kids but dont you think there are other ways than sterilization?

I can't think of other ways that are also cost effective and results productive to correct the actions of morons or prevent suffering of the kids.

MRbrownJAY:

no, and on the same note, you shouldnt look down on them either.

I hold them and their choice in utter disdain, and I will never hide that.

MRbrownJAY:

the point i was trying to make was not about drinking but about how people start doing these things with GOOD/POSITIVE intentions not knowing the addictive strength of these substances.
by the time they realize how strong these substances are, its too late.

but hey, we've been going back and forth on the issue and i doubt we will ever see eye to eye on the issue.
anyway great discussion!

In the UK, for someone not to know the addictive strength of drugs is a fallacy. Majority do! They teach it in schools, GP provide information, there are TV adverts, it is in popular culture and TV programmes.

If they don't then maybe we need to put them in a mental institution for their own protection instead of just sterilizing.

I really have zero pity for adults that take drugs by choice.

Ileke-IdI:

As much as I like the idea, some crackheads/alcohol abusers dont get up one morning and plan to have kids.
They sell their body for drugs, not caring how protective or save the se x is. Now, how are we sure that the money awarded to them wont be used to but MORE drugs/alcohol?

Good for them!!!

That is the least of our problems, they will do it anyway.

Ileke-IdI:

So what happens if they eventually get pregnant? Abortion or money back?

Huh??

The point of sterilization is you can not procreate again.

Sorry, only read the topic title

Ileke-IdI:

Sorry, only read the topic title

OK, I thought you were giving me what Dede1 taught you ni.

Sagamite:

In the UK, for someone not to know the addictive strength of drugs is a fallacy. Majority do! They teach it in schools, GP provide information, there are TV adverts, it is in popular culture and TV programmes.

If they don't then maybe we need to put them in a mental institution for their own protection instead of just sterilizing.

I really have zero pity for adults that take drugs by choice.

more than 75% of people in the UK who are between 12 and 18 has had contact with drugs or alcohol one way or the other. for the most, its marijuana/beer etc and most would gladly tell you that it AINT really dangerous/bad or addictive.

these people will grow up not fearing the dangers of such substances.

Ujujoan:

You guys still arguing about this    

MBJ leave Saga alone jor, let's talk about 'us' . . .    

i though the freak in me had you running for the hills?
are you ready to swing from the chandelier or do you really believe that you can satisfy a man "forever" with JUST your mind and the same old se-x routine you are accustomed to?

^^^ Ahhhhh . . . you strike a hard bargain I tell you!

Okay, how about we try it my way first and if it doesn't work, we can try yours. I'm open to suggestions you know. As far as they won't earn me a broken neck!

MRbrownJAY:

more than 75% of people in the UK who are between 12 and 18 has had contact with drugs or alcohol one way or the other. for the most, its marijuana/beer etc and most would gladly tell you that it AINT really dangerous/bad or addictive.

these people will grow up not fearing the dangers of such substances.

Yep. I highlighted the key point.

If they are not addicted when young and get addicted when older, they will have no pity from me.

The information is still available when they do grow up and if they (keyword) choose to ignore it then, to hell with them.

^^^^but dont you think that this money would be better spent "educating further" our younger ones instead of waiting for them to get hooked and then simply sterilizing them?

Ujujoan:

^^^ Ahhhhh . . . you strike a hard bargain I tell you!

Okay, how about  we try it my way first and if it doesn't work, we can try yours. I'm open to suggestions you know. As far as they won't earn me a broken neck!

how can you fully discover and know me if i wont get to open up? it will simply be a sham.
asking me to lower my standards would be the same as to asking you to not be yourself: A WASTE OF TIME!

Sagamite:

Yep. I highlighted the key point.

If they are not addicted when young and get addicted when older, they will have no pity from me.

The information is still available when they do grow up and if they (keyword) choose to ignore it then, to hell with them.

Hellooooooooooooo! Can't you see a love quest in progress here? Quit interrupting!

MRbrownJAY:

how can you fully discover and know me if i wont get to open up? it will simply be a sham.
asking me to lower my standards would be the same as to asking you to not be yourself: A WASTE OF TIME!

Says who

Who says strange things don't happen? I mean look a me, shamelessly soliciting a man on NL

I told you, I'm open to suggestions. You should too . . . since you are so 'open-minded'!

Ujujoan:

Hellooooooooooooo!  Can't you see a love quest in progress here? Quit interrupting!    

Sorry, pardon me and have a little bit more patience. You will get your boning soon.  

MRbrownJAY:

^^^^but dont you think that this money would be better spent "educating further" our younger ones instead of waiting for them to get hooked and then simply sterilizing them?

As I said earlier, it cost £200 a week to foster a child taken into care because of drug head parents.

If we give a one-off payment of £200 to sterilize a drug head we would have saved circa £200 X 52 weeks X 18 years = £187,200 just for each child (they could be up to or even more than 4) that can go into further educating on drugs.

Sterilization definitely makes more financial sense.

Our (taxpayers) rights and the kids' rights should take priority over irresponsible people.

Sagamite:

Sorry, pardon me and have a little bit more patience. You will get your boning soon.

As I said earlier, it cost £200 a week to foster a child taken into care because of drug head parents.

If we give a one-off payment of £200 to sterilize a drug head we would have saved circa £200 X 52 weeks X 18 years = £187,200 just for each child (they could be up to or even more than 4) that can go into further educating on drugs.

Sterilization definitely makes more financial sense.

Our (taxpayers) rights and the kids' rights should take priority over irresponsible people.

Okay we've heard . . . now run along!

Ujujoan:

Says who  
Who says strange things don't happen? I mean look a me, shamelessly soliciting a man on NL        

I told you, I'm open to suggestions. You should too . . .  since you are so 'open-minded'!    

as open minded as i may be, there are some areas i wont compromise in life simply because i've tried and tested it with failure as the result each and every time!
this is who i am and how my relationships have been the most rewarding.

btw: are you coming to South America soon?! should i dump my gf in anticipation of your arrival?
you do know that i have no idea who you are, apart from what you write, right? wouldnt that make me look irresponsible (or simply desperate) considering your "proposal"?! lol

Sagamite:

As I said earlier, it cost £200 a week to foster a child taken into care because of drug head parents.

If we give a one-off payment of £200 to sterilize a drug head we would have saved circa £200 X 52 weeks X 18 years = £187,200 just for each child (they could be up to or even more than 4) that can go into further educating on drugs.

Sterilization definitely makes more financial sense.

Our (taxpayers) rights and the kids' rights should take priority over irresponsible people.

as much sense as you are making and as much as i believe no child should be made to suffer, there ARE other ways!

TEMPORARY (reversible) VASECTOMY for men and IMPLANTS for women are far better (and cheaper) modes of birth control than sterilization in this instance. . . . . . .but thats just my opinion!

MRbrownJAY:

as much sense as you are making and as much as i believe no child should be made to suffer, there ARE other ways!

TEMPORARY (reversible) VASECTOMY for men and IMPLANTS for women are far better (and cheaper) modes of birth control than sterilization in this instance. . . . . . .but thats just my opinion!

The addicts can choose to reverse this at will, even if they are not cured, especially as this approach is very unlikely to be implemented by a govt (it just is not politically pragmatic), it is implemented by NGOs.

So they can have the vasectomy/implants, take the £200 and then go and reverse it. And if records are not kept properly, come back for another £200 to do it again.

If it was not so, then it would have been better.

@ MBJ

Aha! There is a girlfriend? I see now why you've been doggedly  turning me down  

Ok, you know what . . . I give up! I can cross the distance, break the barriers, try the kinky and all what not; but I can't 'solicit' a man who's already been spoken for.

I'm just gonna go nurse my wounded heart and hope our love gets a chance to breathe and live,  sometime, somehow . . .

And for he record, we could totally have made it work!

^^^^lol, i dont think my gf is the "main" problem (i am soon moving to Bali and for a short period of time, serious gf i wont have) but it has to do with A) our different views on whats important to make a relationship work B) the fact that we do not know squat about each other C) we live at opposite side of the world and D) you forgot that i dont believe in marriage. lol!

@sagamite
give the kids a chance, better to try with a temporary approach than a final irreversible one!

It's okay honey . . . . somehow I always pick the ones I can't have!

[size=18pt]Mom allegedly kills baby in washer[/size]

[img]http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/?src=http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2010/11/07/fiddler248.jpg&size=248x186[/img]

A mother of three suspected of using crystal meth was charged with second-degree manslaughter after police found her 10-day-old baby dead inside a washing machine.

Lyndsey Fiddler, 26, of Bartlesville, Okla., allegedly put her daughter, Maggie May, into the washing machine along with a load of laundry. The Daily Mail reports the baby went through an entire 40-minute spin cycle before being discovered.

Local news site News OK reports Fiddler's aunt, Rhoda Coshatt, who lived in the same house, said Fiddler took the baby out of the living room to feed her but returned later without the baby and passed out on the couch. When the aunt heard a strange noise coming from the washing machine, she lifted the lid and saw the baby.

Fiddler called 911 saying, "My baby is dead." The baby was pronounced dead on the way to the hospital.

Fiddler's two other boys, aged four and three, are being taken care of by social workers.

The mother was previously arrested in April for using drugs while four-months pregnant. Her criminal record also includes arrests for assault, driving without a licence and not putting her kids in car seats.

News OK reports Coshatt told police the mother had been up for three days using meth.

"Inside my heart, I can't believe Lyndsey would have hurt our little girl. I don't believe it in my heart to be honest with you," Maggie May's father Benjamin Trammel told the Daily Mail.

Oh Lord! that is sickening. This is one of the reasons I support most actions taken to protect the lives of children.

On the one hand I feel like yeah they should be castrated even, but then you have to think about those who for one reason or the other are sucked into the whirlpool of this horrid lifestyle innocently and who sometimes come out of it better human beings. Its a dicey one for me really.
I think that what I really want to know is, is child bearing or rearing the major problem with this group of people? Are there other areas that need to be considered so that they may have healthier lives?

iaabc:

I think that what I really want to know is, is child bearing or rearing the major problem with this group of people? Are there other areas that need to be considered so that they may have healthier lives?

I considered this also then came to the decision that NOTHING can be more important than bearing and rearing children.


I think the idea of sterilizing drug addicts seems to be a way to target the poor and those suffering from mental illness.

What of the 1 in 6 UK doctors who are addicted to drugs and drink.

I think many addicts do manage to turn their life around, so sterilization maybe a step too far.

madlady:

I considered this also then came to the decision that NOTHING can be more important than bearing and rearing children.

A child having a decent and supported life is more important than bearing and rearing a child.

madlady:

I think the idea of sterilizing drug addicts seems to be a way to target the poor and those suffering from mental illness.

I would disagree that the approach would successfully be able to target poor people as I believe not a majority or even significant number of poor people are drug addicts.

I would also disagree people there is a strong link between drug addiction and mental illness.

madlady:

What of the 1 in 6 UK doctors who are addicted to drugs and drink.

If they take drugs and still can support their families, I see no reason why they should not be able to have kids.

madlady:

I think many addicts do manage to turn their life around, so sterilization maybe a step too far.

I doubt this is the case. Only a minority will be able to and that is after a severe exhaustion of public or family funds.

Sagamite:

A child having a decent and supported life is more important than bearing and rearing a child.

I would disagree that the approach would successfully be able to target poor people as I believe not a majority or even significant number of poor people are drug addicts.

I would also disagree people there is a strong link between drug addiction and mental illness.

If they take drugs and still can support their families, I see no reason why they should not be able to have kids.

I doubt this is the case. Only a minority will be able to and that is after a severe exhaustion of public or family funds.

To me rearing a child in a decent and supportive way must be one of the best things a human being can ever do.

There have been quite a few  studies done on the link between drug/alcohol  abuse and mental illness.

Many addicts do turn their lives around, doctors are amongst those who do.

^^^ Many or most?

What level of addiction were the sample pool we are talking of?

In regards to this scheme, the kind of addict that will collect 200 bucks will not be a doctor.

Sagamite:

^^^ Many or most?

What level of addiction were the sample pool we are talking of?

In regards to this scheme, the kind of addict that will collect 200 bucks will not be a doctor.

That's why I said the scheme takes advantage of the poor and needy.

madlady:

That's why I said the scheme takes advantage of the poor and needy.

No, it takes care of children that will have suffered due to a parent that is on an addiction they cannot afford.

Drug use is expensive, even if one is going to use it, then be able to afford it.

If someone is willing to take £200 to be sterilized, then they are not in a good frame of mind to look after a child. Only God knows what they might force the child to do to get their fix when the child matures a bit if they will take a mere £200 for the right not to have kids. Giving the £200 is simultaneously a good test of the right kind of drug addict not to allow to have kids.

If the majority of people that will end up taking it are poor, so be it. The ends justifies the means. Not being done is likely to lead to worse consequences.

OK your last statement really did hit home.

No child's life or upbringing should be sacrificed so maybe the ends justifies the means.

I still say they should find another way to go about solving the problem.

madlady:

OK your last statement really did hit home.

No child's life or upbringing should be sacrificed so maybe the ends justifies the means.

I still say they should find another way to go about solving the problem.

I agree too. Much as i wouldn't trade a child's life for any drug addict's, i still think there should be another way out, even if its just for the minority that would one day change their ways.