Project Prevention pays addicts 300$ to be sterilized

Kenickie

Kenickie

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 23, 2008
Messages
13,526
Location
House of Gaunt
article

US campaigner Barbara Harris runs Project Prevention - a group which pays drug addicts $300 (about £200) to be sterilised so they cannot have any more children.

Supporters of the organisation - which is funded by donations - applaud the initiative for preventing the birth of babies to addicted mothers.

But critics say it exploits desperate women by funding their habit and depriving them of reproductive choice.

The child of alcoholic parents, 33-year-old Felicia, from Albuquerque, New Mexico, started taking meth at 18.

Speaking from her run-down home, she says: "I couldn't stop the drugs, so my son Reuben was born in 2008 addicted to meth. But my only concern was where my next lot of meth would come from.
"I will never forgive myself for what happened to him. Reuben has to see a speech therapist and we don't know what other problems he will have when he's older."

Last year Felicia was found guilty of possessing methamphetamine - crystal meth - which heightens the libido and impairs judgment, often resulting in users having lots of kids. She and her husband Albert, a fellow addict, went into rehab and have now been drug-free for ten months.

Of the sterilisation procedure, which was recommended by a social worker, Felicia says: "At first I was scared but then I thought, 'I have too many kids already'. They've suffered so much through having both parents addicted. I had my children taken away for two years because of my meth addiction.

"That was the worse time of my life. I didn't want to risk putting any more babies through the same thing."

Felicia, who was sterilised after having her ninth child three months ago, used the £200 she received to pay household bills.
Click to expand...

way to take advantage of desperate and vunerable women, guys.
 
Ok. There is a point where recovery could be possible. But I don't really see THAT much of an issue with this. It is a choice, BUT people do stupid things under the influence of drugs.
Now about implanted birth control for the women that lasts several years? Less money though.
 
Whoa that is pretty crazy. I could see a lot less of a moral issue if there was no monetary incentive.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the whole drug babies who are born addicted to drugs was propaganda. How can a baby fiend for something they dont even know what it is? They may have low birth weight and be more irritable when born (if that can be legitimately measured I am not sure), but they ain't tweakers or crackheads. It sounds like Felicia bought in to the hype.

which heightens the libido and impairs judgment, often resulting in users having lots of kids
Click to expand...

So we should sterilize people who use alcohol too right? lol
 
Honestly this is hilarious. The people behind it must be getting a kick.

I don't think they are taking advantage of anyone. Everyone has free will, even when strung out.
 
cybervisionx said:
Honestly this is hilarious. The people behind it must be getting a kick.

I don't think they are taking advantage of anyone. Everyone has free will, even when strung out.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I think it's a pretty good option to prevent potential children from having to work through some nasty problems they didn't do anything for. And since the sterilization is chosen, I don't think it's unethical at all, maybe just stupid to do, but not unethical.
 
How is it not unethical? It's clear that they're basically trying a different form of 'cleansing'. Trying to get the 'addict' out of the human gene pool.
 
If people choose to themselves, it's their own choice, isn't it? It's not like they force them to. Now that would be unethical...
 
the ethics of the situation is brought in to question because:

These people consider "addicts" to be unfit for child raising. While the one example they cite sounds pretty bad, I am sure the people behind this would consider most bluelighters to be addicts unfit for parenting. While the program is voluntary, this reasoning could also endorse forced sterilization if possible.

Second, sterilization is permanent, drug use is not. This program is taking advantage of people who in a moment of weakness, may permanently sacrifice their reproductive capability for a pittance. Is $300 enough to affect meaningful change in someone's life? It is not going to get someone a job, pay for rehab, put a roof over your head, or otherwise improve ones life. Indeed, if given to a truly self-destructive and irresponsible addict, that money is just gonna be spent on more drugs.

I think it is noteworthy that Felicia was born to alcoholic parents. However, the idea of sterilizing people who drink heavily would never fly.

The basic logic is these people have too many children and are unable to take care of them. I am sure there are a lot of situations where this is happening and drugs (maybe alcohol just because it is so prolific in society) are not involved. Should we sterilize these people too? The idea is only acceptable because stigmatized drug use is involved. Consider women (while the program is available to men, the article states close to 4,000 women have been sterilized with only 35 men being sterilized) who are mentally or physically handicapped and thus unable to take care of their children. Should we pay them to be sterilized too? What about women over 40 who have a much greater chance of giving birth to an autistic or otherwise "defective" baby? Do mentally handicapped women have the right to reproduce? Do they have the mental and legal capability to determine if they really want to be sterilized?

I don't know the answers to all these questions, but I hope to show that there are A LOT of potential issues that this program raises. The money, I think, would be better spent on drug rehab than just sterilizing people and turning them loose.

It would be great if the whole article was posted as per forum guidelines because I think it provides more background and allows for a better understanding of the program.
 
Last edited:
I can certainly see why a lot of people would have moral objections to this, but I really don't see how you can support it being illegal.

Sterilization is a process anyone can undergo. If one of these addicts decides for themselves that they want to be sterilized, no one has a problem with that. If I announce I want to give an addict, that isn't illegal either (some might have a problem with me enabling them, but still, not illegal). Joining these 2 events is most definitely not justification for making it illegal.

We could have hours worth of debate on the ethics of doing this, but I don't think there is much debate to be had on the legality. Giving someone money to perform a legal task does not produce a crime, except in the cases of public officials/bribery, etc.

Some of the people opposed to this are using language like "we aren't going out and sterilizing alcoholics, are we?". This is very misleading and strawman-ish. They aren't "going out and sterilizing" anyone. They are offering $300 to addicts who choose to get sterilized. That is a far cry from the forced sterilization you are trying to oppose. Oppose that all you want, and I'll agree with you, but that is not the topic here.
 
I see why people think that this is wrong, I really do. My brother was adopted by my family when he was 4, his birth mother had 7 other children, and she was addicted to coke and crack, and was an alcoholic. My brother is now 16, he was diagnosed adhd when he was 8, and autism last year. Although his autism is not that bad, it still has a great impact on his life, and I doubt he will ever be "normal". The doctors say that his autism was caused by his moms addictions, I dont know if that is true or not.

BUT...

His birth mom had 6 other kids before him, was majorly addicted to two things. Had no job, and was turning tricks to support her habit, and what little money she had left to feed her kids. When my brother first came to live with us, every time he ate his stomach would get HUGE from not eating, which is a sign of starvation.

People who have no intention of getting pregnant, and then GET pregnant while addicted to drugs and do not stop for the baby, NEED to be sterilized. They pop another kid out every year most of the time horribly messed up because of the drug use. I am all for this.

For the men, I really dont care. It just really pisses me off that a women has a shit ton of kids, and they all have problems because of their mom.

Sorry it was so long, just wanted to share.
 
I agree with you entirely. I work at a poverty stricken downtown-projects pawnshop
in a fairly big city. I see this shit all the time. Drug addict mothers pawning stuff with a trail of kids behind them getting screamed at the whole time. It's a real mess. I would never blame the whole problem on drugs, but this seems like a good solution to a huge problem for some people.
And for fucks sake---think about these children! It's no kinda life for anyone....
 
orangescrewpen said:
Whoa that is pretty crazy. I could see a lot less of a moral issue if there was no monetary incentive.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the whole drug babies who are born addicted to drugs was propaganda. How can a baby fiend for something they dont even know what it is? They may have low birth weight and be more irritable when born (if that can be legitimately measured I am not sure), but they ain't tweakers or crackheads. It sounds like Felicia bought in to the hype.



So we should sterilize people who use alcohol too right? lol
Click to expand...
Well, the whole crackbabies thing ended up being more propaganda than anything else. Fortunately, most ended up with no handicaps. But, using various other substances can have serious effects.

"How can a baby fiend?"
If we're talking about mothers addicted to opiates, their kid will be born dependent. Meaning it'll go through physical withdrawal. Fiend, well no. But suffering, sure.
 
phrozen,

Is the dependence/withdrawal thing specific to opiates only? Does cocaine/crack, meth, nicotine, caffeine, etc, (substances that also create physical dependence) have similar effects? Does this have to do somehow with what substances do/don't pass through the placenta?

Also, do you know the severity of the withdrawals? Are they pretty much full on symptoms? From what I've learned, opiate withdrawal is pretty fucking terrible. Can a baby even survive such severe effects on the body?

This also raises an interesting question. If a mother is shooting up say til month 8 (and assume the baby isn't born early), will the baby go through withdrawals in the womb? A baby all shaking and vomiting on an ultrasound, as terrible as it is, kinda makes me laugh to think about. (I have a dark sense of humor and can pretty much laugh at anything, before I get flamed as some sort of baby hater lol)
 
disasterline said:
For the men, I really dont care. It just really pisses me off that a women has a shit ton of kids, and they all have problems because of their mom.
Click to expand...

Actually, drugs effect mens sperm too, so it's not always entirely the mothers fault for taking drugs.

orange - Pretty much all drugs, if not all, that the mother takes will effect the baby. Because the baby is getting blood directly from the mother.
I lol'd at the withdrawing foetus too lol don't worry. And yes I assume it probably would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top