Anger at move to stop drug users having children

~

This case has nothing to do with "who can and can not breed". It has to do with adding contractual repercussion to those irresponsible/dire enough to have children while addicted to OPIATES.

Has anyone against this proposal stopped to think of the absolute shit one is setting a child up for in dependently using this class of drug during term of pregnancy? The "who is and who isn't fit to raise the child after birth" question that keeps popping up here is only half the issue of this particular policy. What we've failed to address here is the reality of a Mother bringing a child into the world to face his/her first week of life in severe opiate withdrawal. Beyond that - She brings into the world a child whos term in the womb was (often[OR]always) defined by heroin like intoxication. A child who is exponentially prone to lifelong addiction, should they eventually delve into experimentation with opiates themselves.

Let alone upbringing and term of pregnancy; during pre-conception - It's the shared responsibility of both potential parents to prevent this kind of tragedy from unfolding. Yet a lack of strength and responsibility in either half of the parental unit during this time can cause the whole to fail. And after those genuine, heartbreaking stories of why it failed - the best option for the welfare of the child, (unless the Mother can then quickly and safely kick methadone treatment), is clear.

It then becomes nothing but the unfortunate duty of the state to provide the best chance that this new and absolutely innocent child can get in his/her earliest and most important developmental stages. After, of course - nursing the newlyborn through a week of torment that so many chosen, adult addicts can't even handle. I also strongly believe that this should be the case for children born with pronounced and detectable Fetal alcohol syndrome, perhaps even more so.

"Welcome to the World, my precious baby. Sorry I didn't have it in me to spare you of this, but you're still MY child; and no one can take you away from me"

"I'm sorry I couldn't support your Mother and make the right decisions during her treatment... but it happened, and you're my child; and even if I can't make the right decisions from here on in - no one can take you away from us"

WHY should scenarios like this ever be considered acceptable?

[...]

We should love to hear the against all odds stories of the single Mother to be who sacrificed methadone treatment early in her term; (though questions regarding the increased chance of miscarriage and sustained exposure of the fetus to opiates resonate)

At the same time, we should love to hear the socially redeeming stories of parent(s) who allowed the initial tragedy to take place; yet who eventually reformed themselves in love & diligence to eventually re-claim their child.

And these stories are possible, and do happen. So support the stories that work, rather than the grim opposites that so often dot both our most hyper-liberal and most uncaring-conservative societies. An inbetween solution is desperately needed to strike balance and promote the former - and this proposal is imaginative enough to possibly strike such a form.

Dave Soviet and Raybeez have brought up excellent issues that need further exploration.. and I wish I had the time to do so tonight. Darthmom, your posts are outright wonderful. Yet in between these few contributions, we've the usual and unimaginative one-liners:

-Fearmongering of the slippery slope.
-The Godwin Strawmen.
-The simplistically abstract and the blindfolded constitutionalism; all unwilling for an extended and individual examination of why these quick-parrotings may or may not be appropriate for this particular, real life issue.

...And all in all, so much talk about "compassion". How about compassion for the child, before the addict.

Anger at the move to stop drug users from reproducing during addiction treatment? How about "anger at the unmoving defense for scales of irresponsibility". C'mon guys. This stops being an issue of individual rights for the parent once they can't even uphold the well-being of a completely dependent CHILD.
 
The whole point is that services are already in place for removing children who are at risk from neglect/abue whether they are *junky* children or just the children of rotten parents. To think that two of my kids wouldn't exist and that I'd have lost the other two, worries me, all this is bullshit headline grabbing shite. I say people who are in favour of illegal acts of war are the sort who ought to have their kids removed from them!!!!!!!









zophen
 
^ I do tend to agree that giving birth to a chemically dependent baby is not ideal, however I got the impression that we were talking all kids.
Whilst the scenario of drug addict babies is a bad one it does not necessarily mean that the parent will be a bad one , sure they could be better but who's to say one way or another without waiting to see.
People who smoke in their own homes with children are putting then at greazter risk of actual physical harm than a drug addict would be , assuming it's i.v. drugs only.




zophen
 
Hey isn't it statistically proven that people from poor socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to end up in prison? I think we can solve this problem by making the poor sign social contracts stating that they will not reproduce. After all, I don't want their filthy, ugly children out on the street as I'm driving past in my mercedes.
 
ahhh....Mr Howards policy makers have had a brain wave in Australia to deal with that, they are just going to import labour from overseas on guest worker visas!
8)
 
This is eugenics plain and simple. I cant believe they're actually considering it.

What's even harder to believe is the shortsightedness of those in this thread that have not only supported the idea, but suggested a RETURN to eugenics of proportions comparable (or even exceeding) that of Nazi Germany.

What makes you smug vertebrates so sure that YOU would qualify to breed under your own ridiculous system? There are no absolutes when it comes to valuing the net worth of a human. It is foolish to try.
 
zophen said:
^ But who will work in dangerous conditions for a pittance to continue keeping you in luxury if you kill all the slaves off ????








zophen
Click to expand...

Crap I didn't think of that. Back to the ol' drawing board hey? I wonder what other scheme I can dream up to pick on some marginalised part of society for political gain? Hmmmm..... drug users.......
 
>"What's even harder to believe is the shortsightedness of those in this thread that have not only supported the idea"<

Imagine: we're short-sighted because we privilege the welfare of children born into such conditions over the "right" for people who abuse and fail to properly care for themselves to drag yet more victims into their scene.

It's interesting that you didn't mention anything about the welfare of such children...

>"What makes you smug vertebrates"<

Look who's talking...
 
Couldn't agree more, you're right we are fairly emotive when it comes to stuff like this, some would say hysterical.
My point is that such bad parents should be *caught* by the system anyway making it equal across the board, I also see that leavesv a part of your point unanswered but it's how I feel.








zophen
 
As much as I strongly disagree with this idea as it is an absolute atrocity to human rights, I am disgusted by the amount of people on this thread are in defense of heroin addicted mothers reproducing while under the influence of highly addictive and mind altering substances. You sit here and make ludicrous statements like "you can't measure a persons ability to be a good parent by the drugs that they take". Yes you absolutely can! I'm not saying drug addicts are the only unfit parents because that is not the case by far - But there is no way a mother smacked up on H is capable of taking care of an innocent child when she can't even be responsible to take care of herself.

Then you have the incomprehensible scenario of babies born into addiction! It is horrific enough for a grown adult to go through the withdrawals of heroin addiction, let alone a tiny new born child. The simple fact is... A childs parents are their only or main point of contact for the first impressionable years of their lives... and if they are being exposed to this lifestyle from birth... What hope do they possibly have?

So while I whole-heartedly disagree with the idea of taking away someones right to have a child, I am sickened by anyone here who honestly believes that anyone exposing their children to any drug is a fit parent. Kids and drugs do not mix - nothing anyone can say can justify otherwise
 
i don't think its that bad of an idea.

i do think the proposal needs to be changed a little. alot of addicts aren't capable of bringing up a child, in the end its the child that suffers.

i think there should be assessment of how the addict lives there life before one says they cannot have children.

in the end though do you really think that a addict, who is fucked on hard drugs half the time really capable of bringing up a child.
 
En_warp said:
i think there should be assessment of how the addict lives there life before one says they cannot have children.
Click to expand...

The point is though, a child shouldn't be exposed to drugs at all.

as adults we have a choice to take drugs but children cannot choose. It's selfish and not fair to choose a life surrounded by drugs for an innocent child
 
>"That is, if there is a very clear line between the anti-drug and the pro-drug with very little middle ground, then there are also two armies."<

I feel this way about Politics in general: I've moved past being 100% anti-Conservative. Well, not really... :) but at least I now feel quite free to heap scorn on 100% of the Democrats--Jesus Christ they're all Hypocrites!!!...

Your point is a powerful one: if you're too Partisan, then you're Blind to the Faults of your own "Team"--and to the Merits of The Other. I think that Democrats, e.g. ["for example"], should be THE FIRST to denounce fellow Dems if they find out some wrong-doing, instead of CIRCLE-ING THE WAGONS, digging in their heals, and trying their best to defend an in-defensible Position... On this Board, the in-defensible Position is: "Addicts should have as many babies, WHEN-EVER, WHERE-EVER, AND WITH WHOM-EVER they bloody well please!"

Please.
 
If you want addicts to help themselves the best way to go about is to help them, not by taking everything away from them, which includes having kids. This law is not going to help anyone. All it is imo is another move to make drug users look bad....

Having said that, what are the chances of this happening?
 
I think that there is a difference between drug addicts who already have children and those who become pregnant whilst addicted.
most of the ladies that I know (correction) all of the ladfies I know who have become pregnant whilst adicted to heroin got themselves clean, before the last trimester.
Not all do and they ought to be encouraged to do so.
Removing personal responsibility from people gets them acting like children coz they're being treatedas such.








zophen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top