chem1st Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Does that include not intervening if they are killing themselves or their neglect is harming a child? No, neither does it include; not intervening based upon income, tv ownership, religious belief, postcode, eye colour or the rating out of 10 they would give cheesecake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 No, neither does it include; not intervening based upon income, tv ownership, religious belief, postcode, eye colour or the rating out of 10 they would give cheesecake.So in your opinion it is acceptable to allow a child to be neglected and suffer because of the right of the parent to be addicted to drugs and be incapable of looking after themselves or the child? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 So in your opinion iit is acceptable to allow a child to be neglected and suffer because of the right of the parent to be addicted to drugs and be incapable of looking after themselves or the child? It is mine, yes. The alternative is lowering us to the level of sadists and self-proclaimed gods, removing the right of anyone whose habits we disapprove of to have children. Once you buy the 'it stops children suffering' argument, you've opened the doors to all manner of legislated nastiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 It is mine, yes. The alternative is lowering us to the level of sadists and self-proclaimed gods, removing the right of anyone whose habits we disapprove of to have children. Once you buy the 'it stops children suffering' argument, you've opened the doors to all manner of legislated nastiness. I applaud you. I'd like to think i'm fairly liberal but theres no way i'm as liberal and accepting as that. To not even want to protect a child that already exists takes some doing. Would you also not remove a child from a home where there is physical abuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 The alternative is lowering us to the level of sadists and self-proclaimed gods, removing the right of anyone whose habits we disapprove of to have children. They are allowed to have children, which is why it isn't eugenics. Mrs Harris says that in America nobody has yet taken them up on the offer of sterlisation without having children first. Nobody has had their rights to procreate removed. What has happened (so far) is that people have been paid to stop having more children that they can't look after. It isn't eugenics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 So in your opinion it is acceptable to allow a child to be neglected and suffer because of the right of the parent to be addicted to drugs and be incapable of looking after themselves or the child? I'd classify them as separate issues, instead of trying to justify sterilisation of a minority group. A disabled person is unable to look after a child as well as an able person. Sterilise them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 I don't think it's a liberal view. Mrs Harris says she doesn't care if the people she gives the money to actually tells the doctors they are receiving payment. So, the doctor has no idea the desperate addict has had a financial inducement to be sterilised. It's bribing desperate people into an irreversible decision never to become a parent. Even Project Prevention admits the money will almost always go to feed the addict's habit. Martin Barnes, chief executive of DrugScope, an independent organisation that examines drug issues, accused Project Prevention of applying what could be "a simplistic, moralistic and exploitative approach to addressing the difficult and complex issue of drug use and pregnancy". He added: "The welfare of children is paramount, but using cash incentives to often poor and vulnerable women is highly questionable. For many women with drug problems, the chance to become a mother can be life-changing and a powerful motivation to seek help for their addiction and other problems in their lives." He warned that legitimising Project Prevention could have significant repercussions. "Where should the line be drawn? Women who drink? Women who smoke? Women with mental health problems? Women who themselves have been the victim of abuse?" http://whyprohibition.ca/blogs/jacob-hunter/anti-drugs-campaigner-barbara-harris-brings-crusade-sterilise-addicts-uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 I'd classify them as separate issues, instead of trying to justify sterilisation of a minority group. A disabled person is unable to look after a child as well as an able person. Sterilise them? I'm not talking about the steriliseation issue i'm talking about an existing child. The whole idea of sterilising people by force or bribe is foul. That said some disabled people are sterilised. Mainly mentally retarded people and severely autistic and sometimes people with severe psychological problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 19, 2010 Author Share Posted October 19, 2010 Poll update: 38.78% Treat and rehabilitate 28.57% Sterilise and remove 26.53% Execute to remove 06.12% I'm confused Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Give them clean gear, education, healthcare and treatment if they need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.