Forced Contraception for Drug Abusers

Professur said:
Brilliant. Yet another Gov't trained stooge with no family upbringing, living on the dole. I thought you were smarter than that, Gonz.

Somebody's gonna be on the dole either way. I prefer an innocent baby over some junkie who voluntarily threw his/her life into the toilet.
 
A relevant anecdote: The oldest born-addicted baby in the ex's family is a girl who has a body most girls would kill for, and perfectly normal hormones for a teenager... and the brain of a six-year-old. I think she'd be 17 by now... and yes, she already has a kid.

I think of forced contraception for drug users as an investment. The drug users will remain a drain on the system somehow, whether through welfare or unpaid hospital stays, regardless of whether they have kids or not. I'd rather not have the government support either one but I'm realistic enough to know that that's a pipe dream. It's a lot cheaper to put someone on forced contraception than to pay for two druggies to pump out a drug baby a year for six years in a row, while paying for their methodone treatments, and welfare, and medi-cal for those drug babies, special eeucation costs that could have been prevented, and the list goes on and on. I'm just trying to cut costs where it's easiest first.
 
:hmm:
If you guys had your way, my boyfriend would never had been born. *handonhip He was the product of a pair of hippies who were drug addicts. They were both using (and on/off the methadone) when he was conceived. They cleaned up and got married after he was born.
 
BeardofPants said:
:hmm:
If you guys had your way, my boyfriend would never had been born. *handonhip He was the product of a pair of hippies who were drug addicts. They were both using (and on/off the methadone) when he was conceived. They cleaned up and got married after he was born.

Bop, no offence, but the list of people what would never have been born, given my way, is a helluva lot longer than just your boyfriend. He got lucky. Ask anyone who's looking to the lotto for their retirement fund how well that works.
 
Same with my personal experience. Again, pumped out a drug baby a year (more or less) until there were six kids... and they still use to this day, or at least last I heard.
 
Professur said:
Oh, yeah. People will be lining up around the fucking corner to adopt babies...

Yes, they are. People are willing to take infants at damn near any cost.
 
Really. Well, given that my cousin was adopted. Given to my aunt. Who's application for a healthy infant was turned down. She got him ... because noone wanted a baby with health problems (exact words of the case worker).

I'll believe it, Gonz, when you bring forth some substantiated statistics to back it up.
 
Professur said:
Really. Well, given that my cousin was adopted. Given to my aunt. Who's application for a healthy infant was turned down. She got him ... because noone wanted a baby with health problems (exact words of the case worker).

I'll believe it, Gonz, when you bring forth some substantiated statistics to back it up.
He should have said SOME people are willing to take infants at damn near any cost. Your aunt obviously was and I'm sure she's not the only one in the world. Some people aren't...but there are many people who would deal with it just so they can have a baby.
 
The majority of people in the adoption process want a healthy, normal, caucasian infant. Since there are relatively few of those, and states have limited (or stopped) cross race adoptions, they list of perspective adoption oriented parents grows.

Foster care is the current orphanage of choice since the state is unwilling to make a decision about dropping parents rights, more often than not.
 
I think we've gone a bit far afield here. This is about contraception, not sterelization. Contraception wears off and one can go one and have kids when one is capable of basic social responsibility. The article isn't talking about permanet nad-ripping.
 
Back
Top