Paying for addicts to have Vasectomies

Published On October 18, 2010 » 1606 Views» Random

In the press today, there is the first man who has taken £200 from Project Prevention.

A lot of people are saying this is a bad thing and a bribe.

But

When you consider just how many children are born to addicts and more importantly what sort of life they have to look forward to, is this not actually a fairly responsible thing to do, for the sake of civilisation. I don’t see this as a pro-life issue as you are stopping any conception at all, therefore the abortionesque arguments don’t apply.

I think there is something wrong about the “bribe” but then again it is probably a better investment for civilisation.

Thoughts?

Share this post
Tags

4 Responses to Paying for addicts to have Vasectomies

  1. cilla says:

    It’s a great preventative idea, just for the sake of the poor babies born into agonising withdrawal.

  2. Eddie says:

    Would you apply this to alchohol as well ? After all, medical opinion is that alchohol is one of the most dangerous drugs we tolerate.

  3. bazkirby says:

    Cilla – Having seen the effects of that, then your right – But it is also very easy to get drawn into the steriotypical view too. The pain of “crack babies” is very bad, and that is the worst case scenario, but there is a wide variety of circumstance and I find myself really drawn to the children who are born into relationships of drug dependance and the issues that that brings.

    Eddie – Thats a good point, and fits well with what I commented to Cilla, as Domestic Violence in the home often has an alcohol related element to it. I guess its up to the Charity as to what their conditions/process is.

    On mulling it over a bit more, I think there is a fundemental flaw to the plan, in that if someone is thinking that they don’t lead a lifestyle that is conducive to bringing up and loving a child, could they be encouraged to go for the snip anyway without the £200? Or has the Charty found that having the incentive of money helps sway the balance? Surely it is the more reckless people that don;t think like that who are more of a problem? Is that where the £200 has most effect?

  4. There’s much more to PP than meets the eye. For example they now target people in Haiti because they’re ‘too poor’.

    Here in UK there are serious legal and ethical issues related to safeguarding legislation and it may well be hhat Barbara Harris will find herself in a British Coirt before too long.

    you can get more info from my blog category here:

    http://stuartsorensen.wordpress.com/category/project-prevention-2/

    cheers,

    Stuart

Leave a Reply