Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Sterilisation for Drug Addicts Options · View
Guest
Posted: Saturday, October 23, 2010 4:44:40 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 671,677
LittleMissBitch wrote:
tell you what nudie...when the weak and pitifully downtrodden do even ONE thing to help themselves instead of just taking taking taking all they can get then ill care. then ill help. fuck..i could easily be one of them, im no stranger to addiction but the difference is i dont WANT to be weak and downtrodden. people have said here that they they were high functioning addicts, why? cuz they chose not to be one of the weak and pitiful.

and why are we protecting them and not the children they are going to bring into the world and abuse and turn into addicts themselves? i fully understand addiction is a disease but you can CHOOSE to get clean, to go to rehab. but they dont, or rather not always. im SICK of paying for people, and their offspring, that contribute NOTHING to society. sure they COULD contribute, sure there is POSSIBILITY and they choose not to exercise it. so fine, thats their choice. yet im required to pay their bill. no thanks.

ok, how about we pay them the $200 to go to rehab so that they might contribute to the society they have been leaching off of? would that be better? sure. will they go? doubt it.

im all for helping your fellow man nudie but they have to at least try. no one did it for me, no one made my life the way it is. i did. i chose it, i work for it. i got no hand outs. well except for the stimulus check Bush gave me a couple years ago. ;)



I have to say I agree with you. I've known several abused children, now adults, that were an addict in one form or another. I've had my own demons to deal with as well. They all pulled themselves up and out of the shit hole they were in and helped themselves. The point is that they took responsibility for themselves. Without whining for help from the government or anyone else. If at the time their addictions were full blown they would have all taken the $200.00 and been glad for it. Now that they're all clean and sober they wouldn't have regretted it a bit. Again, because they have taken responsibility for themselves. No excuses. Boohoo, I was abused in one way or another. Bullshit. Take responsibility for your own actions. Go adopt or use a surrogate.
And look, no child was born a burden on society.
rxtales
Posted: Saturday, October 23, 2010 11:59:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/28/2008
Posts: 2,589
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
LittleMissBitch wrote:
tell you what nudie...when the weak and pitifully downtrodden do even ONE thing to help themselves instead of just taking taking taking all they can get then ill care. then ill help. fuck..i could easily be one of them, im no stranger to addiction but the difference is i dont WANT to be weak and downtrodden. people have said here that they they were high functioning addicts, why? cuz they chose not to be one of the weak and pitiful.


I don't think I chose not to be weak. It was more of the way the drugs affected me. I am pretty smart and they definitely dumbed me down a little, but I could still do things without people knowing I was high. I would just make sure I wasn't completely off my head when I was around people that weren't using. Being female it's was a little easier to obtain drugs without having to pay for them with money. Sex was always a good substitute.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, October 24, 2010 7:56:30 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 671,677
rxtales wrote:
I would just make sure I wasn't completely off my head when I was around people that weren't using.


this is my point. you chose that. you did not choose to go live on the streets begging or stealing from others to get high. you still went to school. still contributed to your society. even if you were "dumbed down" a bit.

really, i am speaking of, when debating this topic, the lowest members of our society. those who will never pull themselves up and out. yes, id like to think they would but that is really not the reality. and i do think temporary but long term BC is better than outright sterilization but until that happens then yes, most street living drug addicts that choose not to contribute to their own lives much less society should not be reproducing.

nudie said (and im paraphrasing) that our society is based on the needs of the monied rather than the needs of the needy. i say we should base it on the needs of the contributing members, money or not, and not the needs of those who choose to leech. im all for helping the fellow man when they need it. but if you are not at least putting forth some effort then why should i?

WellMadeMale
Posted: Sunday, October 24, 2010 10:11:38 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,465
Location: Cakeland, United States
I would rather belong to a community or society which addresses and takes care of the weakest among us: it's sick/ill, it's mentally and physically handicapped, it's turned out non-violent convicts who seek to turn a new leaf, it's struggling booze and drug addicts who seek a 'do-over', it's aged/shut-ins and it's youth - born into pitiful situations not of their control. I don't believe an advanced society should turn it's collective backs upon the poorer, less fortunate (or even those who have slipped into the less-fortunate caste). Situations and circumstances can strike any woman or man in our life times.

I do not often quote scripture, mostly because I don't know it well enough to do so. But a phrase which has always vibrated for me, is:

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone - or however that proverb or mismash is actually written.

There are many who would look at things I have done in my life (from a sexual point of view) and label me a blaspheming hedonist, yet they persecute drug addicts, homosexuals, strong minded women and every ethnicity of the human race (except for their own).

Okay, so I'm a pervert, and I've done drugs to the point where I willingly addicted myself to them for 36 months of my mid 30's and I've always enjoyed drinking wine or beer to the point of being waxxed. Oh, and I definitely enjoy pleasuring myself in damned near anyway I can (legal or illegal) - to certain points where I draw my own moral line in the sand.

My right to lead a hedonistic lifestyle ends where it impinges upon someone else's right to enjoy their life.

I'm all in on helping those who are on the bottom of the ladder, to climb upwards. Taking advantage of someone when they are at their lowest point(s) in their lives is not helping them.





Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident.
mrplow
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 2:18:48 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/5/2007
Posts: 1,030
Location: Here and now
Why stop at drug addicts?

I would sterilise all stupid people, the lowest IQ quartile maybe. dontknow You know, the people that never try to get jobs, commit crimes, don't contribute to society in any way whatsoever. Trailer Park trash.

Why would anyone want those kind of people to make more of themselves?

Overpopulation is a massive problem for the whole world, it's time to start Operation Sterilisationazi.

evil5
She
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 3:24:21 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,547
Location: Europe
No one is without a sin WMM, and certanly no one will throw a stone first, however we all make our one life and live with consequences of our choices and that all that is and that is all that matters.

Every single person has their one demons and every single family have their one tragedies but how we survie does matter, how we deal with it does metter. You managed to get out of it, it was your brave choices but for most addicts is simlper to get high daily. I've seen it.. some of them died, some of my former friends have children and grandparents are rasing those and some of my former friends are still repeating the same fucking story over 10 years, "..just this once B. and I am done with it.." so, yes I am saying no drugaddicts or alcoholic should raise children.

Just to be clear, I am not some overemothional mother and I will never give a birth to a child. That was my decision in my very early 20ies and reasons become even stronger with years.


Ladies rxtales and Dancing_Doll what I will say now it might sounds brutal but I do not know how to express myself diferenty.. my appologies


Dancing_Doll wrote:

Of course, you are all the same people who will rant about protecting children from abuse. The addicts are usually those same children... just the grown up versions... But I guess once they hit 16, nobody gives a fuck about them anymore anyway, right?


That is the reason why they should get sterilized at first place.


sorry Chef that I am using one of "your posters" but really I love this one
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 5:12:41 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,465
Location: Cakeland, United States
She wrote:
Every single person has their one demons and every single family have their one tragedies but how we survie does matter, how we deal with it does metter. You managed to get out of it, it was your brave choices but for most addicts is simlper to get high daily. I've seen it.. some of them died, some of my former friends have children and grandparents are rasing those and some of my former friends are still repeating the same fucking story over 10 years, "..just this once B. and I am done with it.." so, yes I am saying no drugaddicts or alcoholic should not raise children.

Just to be clear, I am not some overemotional mother and I will never give a birth to a child. That was my decision in my very early 20ies and reasons become even stronger with years.


She - there was nothing brave or courageous about doing drugs nor about quitting the ingestion of drugs. There is a lot of reckless and apathetic carelessness involved, but no bravery whatsoever by the user/abuser.

Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 7:18:08 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,207
Location: United States
LittleMissBitch wrote:
rxtales wrote:
I would just make sure I wasn't completely off my head when I was around people that weren't using.


this is my point. you chose that. you did not choose to go live on the streets begging or stealing from others to get high. you still went to school. still contributed to your society. even if you were "dumbed down" a bit.

really, i am speaking of, when debating this topic, the lowest members of our society. those who will never pull themselves up and out. yes, id like to think they would but that is really not the reality. and i do think temporary but long term BC is better than outright sterilization but until that happens then yes, most street living drug addicts that choose not to contribute to their own lives much less society should not be reproducing.

nudie said (and im paraphrasing) that our society is based on the needs of the monied rather than the needs of the needy. i say we should base it on the needs of the contributing members, money or not, and not the needs of those who choose to leech. im all for helping the fellow man when they need it. but if you are not at least putting forth some effort then why should i?



What I'm really saying is it would be way too easy to take advantage of the disadvantaged using this program. Show me the safeguards, show me how it can never be used for monetary gain, or as a form of punishment, and we'll talk. Show me how there will never be roving bands of illegal "sterilization squads" hunting down drunk coeds, and convincing them to sign on dotted lines for the cash, and I'll look upon this plan a little bit more favorably. Part of what makes America great is that we DON'T sacrifice the weak just because they can't keep up.

Yes, I'm all for individual choice, and taking responsibility for your actions, but I'm also for protecting the weak when they need protection the most. The way I see it, plans like this are just too rife with opportunities for corruption and abuse, there are too many ways for the cash to disappear (my cash, dammit) and the end result is too permanent for someone to decide on who is not in her full and sober mind.
Here's a birth control option that's good for "up to three years". What's wrong with that? If there are other choices available, why would we only take the one that's all or nothing?

Guest
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 7:31:15 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 671,677
its too early to work the damn quotes so ill just do it this way...

roving bands? come on nudie you are being dramatic.

im all for a 3 year thing. totally. anything to keep babies coming into that situation (they cost a fuck ton more than the $200 for sterilization or BC)

i wonder...if given the choice..$200 for door A sterilization or long term BC or $200 for door B rehab and a chance for a real life which door would they walk thru.
She
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 9:31:46 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,547
Location: Europe
MrNudiePants wrote:
Part of what makes America great is that we DON'T sacrifice the weak just because they can't keep up.

Yes, I'm all for individual choice, and taking responsibility for your actions, but I'm also for protecting the weak when they need protection the most.


Exactly what you said, except that the weak ones are children, it is alway children. Those smal people cannot stend up for themselfs, so they need adoults to do it for them.


MrNudiePants wrote:
..why would we only take the one that's all or nothing?


Because addicts wouldn't do it if money is not involved, because they do not care for anything, they do not give shit about anything, they just want to get high and their first thought when they wake up is dope. They are very iresponsible and selfish people and you cannot expect fro them that they will go to the clinic and got for themselfs birth control solution, they don't give fuck about anything if it is not related to drugs or alcohol.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 9:37:52 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
She wrote:

Because addicts wouldn't do it if money is not involved, because they do not care for anything, they do not give shit about anything, they just want to get high and their first thought when they wake up is dope. They are very iresponsible and selfish people and you cannot expect fro them that they will go to the clinic and got for themselfs birth control solution, they don't give fuck about anything if it is not related to drugs or alcohol.


Drug addicts aren't zombie robots, She.

They're still real people with real lives going on. The junkie that hangs out under the bridge, half-conscious, is a vivid stereotype, but far from the norm. Most still function, they still live life, although with extra problems. Plus, they are somebody's child, brother, mother, best friend, and many if not most still care about those people and other things in their lives, just as anybody would. Having a drug or alcohol dependency doesn't negate feelings. Of course there is a problem with drug addicts reproducing, but to reduce them all to being selfish beings that don't give a fuck about anything else, and therefore no longer worthy of consideration as fellow citizens, smacks of judgement, and certainly not any real understanding.

At first glance I don't oppose the offer of money for sterilization, especially if its temporary, but I have to say I agree with some of the comments offered above. I hope many of you never have a loved one go through an addiction, or worse, multiple addictions- I fear that you might actually practice the lack of compassion that you preach. I agree that people eventually come to a place where they have to help themselves, but it's far easier to just call them lazy and selfish from the start, hiding their judgements behind a 'tough love' bullshit approach. All _______ are ________.

If only everyone could meet the lofty standards that many of the members here hold for them. The world would be a much more orderly place, wouldn't it?

She
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 10:21:33 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,547
Location: Europe
LadyX wrote:
She wrote:

Because addicts wouldn't do it if money is not involved, because they do not care for anything, they do not give shit about anything, they just want to get high and their first thought when they wake up is dope. They are very iresponsible and selfish people and you cannot expect fro them that they will go to the clinic and got for themselfs birth control solution, they don't give fuck about anything if it is not related to drugs or alcohol.


Drug addicts aren't zombie robots, She.

They're still real people with real lives going on. The junkie that hangs out under the bridge, half-conscious, is a vivid stereotype, but far from the norm. Most still function, they still live life, although with extra problems. Plus, they are somebody's child, brother, mother, best friend, and many if not most still care about those people and other things in their lives, just as anybody would. Having a drug or alcohol dependency doesn't negate feelings. Of course there is a problem with drug addicts reproducing, but to reduce them all to being selfish beings that don't give a fuck about anything else, and therefore no longer worthy of consideration as fellow citizens, smacks of judgement, and certainly not any real understanding.

At first glance I don't oppose the offer of money for sterilization, especially if its temporary, but I have to say I agree with some of the comments offered above. I hope many of you never have a loved one go through an addiction, or worse, multiple addictions- I fear that you might actually practice the lack of compassion that you preach. I agree that people eventually come to a place where they have to help themselves, but it's far easier to just call them lazy and selfish from the start, hiding their judgements behind a 'tough love' bullshit approach. All _______ are ________.

If only everyone could meet the lofty standards that many of the members here hold for them. The world would be a much more orderly place, wouldn't it?



I don't know for you but I do live by my principles, by every single one of them and in my lil world is no room for double standards as well,so if I can do/say something the other person have the same right as well and if I say that quitting off addiction is a brave thing to do I don't preach I say it because it needs guts to do it and change your life all over again, rarely few of them are capable of doing it.

And yes, addicts are zombies, they are emotional zombies who cares nothing but themselfs and drugs or alcohol. And yes, I had friends using them and like I said some of them are dead (overdose) and some of them are keep saying the same thing for years now and 70% of my adoult extended family are alcoholics. I didn't google this subyect, it is my experiance. I lost too many friends because of addictions and again none of them was/is capable of reising a child.
And yes World would be much more orderly place to live in.

rxtales
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 11:38:29 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/28/2008
Posts: 2,589
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
She wrote:


And yes, addicts are zombies, they are emotional zombies who cares nothing but themselfs and drugs or alcohol.


I really don't agree with this statement. It's a serious generalisation. Sure there are addicts who are like that, but I think a lot of them aren't completely selfish people who only act for themselves.
DirtyMartini
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 1:09:54 PM

Rank: Purveyor of Poetry & Porn

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 5,839
Location: Right here on Lush Stories..., United States
LadyX wrote:
She wrote:

Because addicts wouldn't do it if money is not involved, because they do not care for anything, they do not give shit about anything, they just want to get high and their first thought when they wake up is dope. They are very iresponsible and selfish people and you cannot expect fro them that they will go to the clinic and got for themselfs birth control solution, they don't give fuck about anything if it is not related to drugs or alcohol.


Drug addicts aren't zombie robots, She.

They're still real people with real lives going on. The junkie that hangs out under the bridge, half-conscious, is a vivid stereotype, but far from the norm. Most still function, they still live life, although with extra problems. Plus, they are somebody's child, brother, mother, best friend, and many if not most still care about those people and other things in their lives, just as anybody would. Having a drug or alcohol dependency doesn't negate feelings. Of course there is a problem with drug addicts reproducing, but to reduce them all to being selfish beings that don't give a fuck about anything else, and therefore no longer worthy of consideration as fellow citizens, smacks of judgement, and certainly not any real understanding.

At first glance I don't oppose the offer of money for sterilization, especially if its temporary, but I have to say I agree with some of the comments offered above. I hope many of you never have a loved one go through an addiction, or worse, multiple addictions- I fear that you might actually practice the lack of compassion that you preach. I agree that people eventually come to a place where they have to help themselves, but it's far easier to just call them lazy and selfish from the start, hiding their judgements behind a 'tough love' bullshit approach. All _______ are ________.

If only everyone could meet the lofty standards that many of the members here hold for them. The world would be a much more orderly place, wouldn't it?



Yep...


You know you want it, you know you need it bad...get it now on Amazon.com...
Lush Erotica, an Anthology of Award Winning Sex Stories

She
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 1:29:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,547
Location: Europe
Ok, lets reverse a little..



rxtales wrote:

I really don't agree with this statement. It's a serious generalisation. Sure there are addicts who are like that, but I think a lot of them aren't completely selfish people who only act for themselves.


Are we talking about addicts who are starting to get high when they wake up or are we talking about addicts who are consuming substances on weekends, when the party is right, in the afternoon with some good music on..? It is a major difference and I would like to know what are we talking about because I had definitely on my mind the first group and could be wrong as well.



LadyX wrote:

They're still real people with real lives going on. The junkie that hangs out under the bridge, half-conscious, is a vivid stereotype, but far from the norm. Most still function, they still live life, although with extra problems. Plus, they are somebody's child, brother, mother, best friend, and many if not most still care about those people and other things in their lives, just as anybody would. Having a drug or alcohol dependency doesn't negate feelings. Of course there is a problem with drug addicts reproducing, but to reduce them all to being selfish beings that don't give a fuck about anything else, and therefore no longer worthy of consideration as fellow citizens, smacks of judgement, and certainly not any real understanding.



Are we talking about that addicts are human beings with every civil right and with every opportunity for second, third, fifthied chance to change their life like the rest of the human population or are we talking about that addicts should get sterilized because they are consequently not capable to raise a children?
Major diferences as well, because to reise a child is a job that needs 100% of a person 24/7 and not just when momy or dady are not doing drugs.

LadyX
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 2:34:53 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
She wrote:

Are we talking about addicts who are starting to get high when they wake up or are we talking about addicts who are consuming substances on weekends, when the party is right, in the afternoon with some good music on..? It is a major difference and I would like to know what are we talking about because I had definitely on my mind the first group and could be wrong as well.


It's not one or the other. First of all, your leading example is probably a recreational drug user, not an addict at all. But lots of people have a little to get through their day, then a little more when they get home, then a little more later that night. And the amounts gradually climb as their dependency increases, and before too long, they can't really resist having some. But all the while, they're probably still going out on dates, attending their kids' birthday parties, working their jobs, etc. That's when addiction starts, and that's what addiction looks like for millions of people, not just those in the final throes of heroin addiction, balled up in the fetal position in a club bathroom.


She wrote:


Are we talking about that addicts are human beings with every civil right and with every opportunity for second, third, fifthied chance to change their life like the rest of the human population or are we talking about that addicts should get sterilized because they are consequently not capable to raise a children?
Major diferences as well, because to reise a child is a job that needs 100% of a person 24/7 and not just when momy or dady are not doing drugs.



Again, if it's temporary that's one thing. But if it's permanent:

1) you're arguably taking advantage of somebody in a compromised position to offer them a paltry sum for permanent sterility. I'm undecided on it for now, but I'd feel way better if it was temporary.

2) you're making a determination that addicts can never recover and be fitting parents, which would be criminally short-sighted and a major tragedy.

There seems to be this idea that all addicts are the same, but because all addicts are people, they're all different. So which ones would you say are unworthy? I agree that some are, but to make policy you have to draw the line somewhere. I think this is not a subject where lines should be drawn at all. It's not a policy issue nor should it be.

There's a lot of things in life that I think are basically hopeless, but I'd hate to have to accept that we've reached a place where we just write people off for mistakes, past and present. There are a lot worse things in life than drug dependency- I'd hate to think of the judgments that might rain down if others knew some things that friends of mine and I have done in life. Yet, I'm pretty sure I'm both functional and redeemable.
She
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 3:50:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,547
Location: Europe
LadyX wrote:

It's not one or the other. First of all, your leading example is probably a recreational drug user, not an addict at all. But lots of people have a little to get through their day, then a little more when they get home, then a little more later that night. And the amounts gradually climb as their dependency increases, and before too long, they can't really resist having some. But all the while, they're probably still going out on dates, attending their kids' birthday parties, working their jobs, etc. That's when addiction starts, and that's what addiction looks like for millions of people, not just those in the final throes of heroin addiction, balled up in the fetal position in a club bathroom.


Exactly.. before too long they can't really resist having some more. So how long is that not too long? A year, two, three? And then what, child is 1-2 years old and then what? Is that parentship? Have those children been provided with security, love, guidenes for future or..? What? I don't get it. Addiction is disease and if it is not cured it is going to get worse and in the mean time what will be happening with those children?
They cannot help themselfs something has pover over them and that is drug/alcohol addicition and no metter how you called recreational or fetal position it is disease and needs to be cured and addicts should not have children because when drugs is possesing them they think only on one thing and that is selfishnes when they have a baby at home waiting to get attention from parents. When something has pover over you that means you are no longer in controle no metter how strong you wish to be.



LadyX wrote:
Again, if it's temporary that's one thing. But if it's permanent:

1) you're arguably taking advantage of somebody in a compromised position to offer them a paltry sum for permanent sterility. I'm undecided on it for now, but I'd feel way better if it was temporary.

2) you're making a determination that addicts can never recover and be fitting parents, which would be criminally short-sighted and a major tragedy.

There seems to be this idea that all addicts are the same, but because all addicts are people, they're all different. So which ones would you say are unworthy? I agree that some are, but to make policy you have to draw the line somewhere. I think this is not a subject where lines should be drawn at all. It's not a policy issue nor should it be.



But addicts are all the same. They are all the same by one single characteristic, they all have one the same thing on their mind and they cannot helpthemselfs. So yes they are all the same, something has pover over them and that sure is no love.

How many addicts do you know that they did recover and changed their life? And how long it took them to clean themselfs? And what was happening with children in that period of time when parents were not there? or should we take a risk and jeopardize thousents of children for ten newly clean addicts who wants children of their one. You know what, live with concecuences of your choices and get addoption.

LadyX wrote:
There's a lot of things in life that I think are basically hopeless, but I'd hate to have to accept that we've reached a place where we just write people off for mistakes, past and present. There are a lot worse things in life than drug dependency- I'd hate to think of the judgments that might rain down if others knew some things that friends of mine and I have done in life. Yet, I'm pretty sure I'm both functional and redeemable.



No body is writting people off, help is offered, but to prevent some horeble events in the future yes, they should get sterelized even if "we" can save only 1 child misery.
..no body is judging, but to give a birth to a child is very responsible decision to make and that is all about, I know that I am not right person to be a parent but if I will ever changed my mind I will try to adopt one.





LadyX
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 4:27:43 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
To say that no addict can ever recover, and therefore be redeemed, is writing people off, and is judgmental. You're doing some serious logic-twisting to claim otherwise.

I know of addicts that recovered and didn't go back, and I know of some that haven't been able to. It would be easier if I could see it your way, in absolutes ("any addiction at any point in your life means you can't be a parent, ever") but I never will. The world doesn't work in broad-brush, one-judgement-fits-all rules- and giant groups of people don't fit in neat little drawers.

I couldn't agree more that drug-addicted people have no business having children, but I couldn't agree less that all should be sterilized, no matter how lastingly clean they become from that point forward.

By the way, do you stop at drugs and alcohol? What about sex addiction, or gambling addictions? What about becoming addicting to fishing, or shopping? Are they all unredeemable and judged as unable to ever be worthy of parenthood? All take precious attention away from the responsibilities of parenting. We all have our shortcomings, so how perfect do we need to be, in your wisdom, to qualify to be parents?

If you were able to be ruler of your own country, I think you'd have a birth-rate problem pretty quickly.
She
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 4:51:59 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,547
Location: Europe
LadyX wrote:
To say that no addict can ever recover, and therefore be redeemed, is writing people off, and is judgmental. You're doing some serious logic-twisting to claim otherwise.


Serious logic-twisting?
I did not say that no addicts can recover, I asked you how many do you know them and writting people off is if you do not care for them if you despise them and no it is not judgemental if I have oppinion that they are not capable of being a parents.




LadyX wrote:
By the way, do you stop at drugs and alcohol? What about sex addiction, or gambling addictions? What about becoming addicting to fishing, or shopping? Are they all unredeemable and judged as unable to ever be worthy of parenthood? All take precious attention away from the responsibilities of parenting. We all have our shortcomings, so how perfect do we need to be, in your wisdom, to qualify to be parents?

If you were able to be ruler of your own country, I think you'd have a birth-rate problem pretty quickly.



Carefully there you are kicking below the belt, I did not even once called you out personaly.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 4:53:47 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
LOL Relax, She, this isn't personal at all. Where did you get the idea it was?

I'm just saying: if those who experienced addiction in your country were all sterilized, you're knocking down the number of eligible parents considerably.

EDIT: I was talking about a hypothetical- if you could come up with your own country that you are able to rule as you see fit, not the country that you live in. Just in case that caused any confusion.
DirtyMartini
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 5:08:03 PM

Rank: Purveyor of Poetry & Porn

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 5,839
Location: Right here on Lush Stories..., United States
LadyX wrote:
To say that no addict can ever recover, and therefore be redeemed, is writing people off, and is judgmental. You're doing some serious logic-twisting to claim otherwise.

I know of addicts that recovered and didn't go back, and I know of some that haven't been able to. It would be easier if I could see it your way, in absolutes ("any addiction at any point in your life means you can't be a parent, ever") but I never will. The world doesn't work in broad-brush, one-judgement-fits-all rules- and giant groups of people don't fit in neat little drawers.

I couldn't agree more that drug-addicted people have no business having children, but I couldn't agree less that all should be sterilized, no matter how lastingly clean they become from that point forward.

By the way, do you stop at drugs and alcohol? What about sex addiction, or gambling addictions? What about becoming addicting to fishing, or shopping? Are they all unredeemable and judged as unable to ever be worthy of parenthood? All take precious attention away from the responsibilities of parenting. We all have our shortcomings, so how perfect do we need to be, in your wisdom, to qualify to be parents?

If you were able to be ruler of your own country, I think you'd have a birth-rate problem pretty quickly.


Damn...LadyXuani....I keep agreeing with you...

But, that's just from someone who was addicted to heroin for 19 years...
And yes, other addictions can take "precious attention" away from responsibilities in general...not just parenting...
Not that anyone would ever let something like, say, a site like this interfere with day to day responsibilities...
But, I think we may be going off topic...I think it's a great idea to offer money for people who want to be sterilized...
But, not necessarily because they are drug addicts...



You know you want it, you know you need it bad...get it now on Amazon.com...
Lush Erotica, an Anthology of Award Winning Sex Stories

JayDee
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 5:55:36 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 7/2/2009
Posts: 7
Unless I am sadly mistaken, a not unthinkable conclusion, painful anger can be imputed in the words of one or more of the participants in this topic, empathy in some others, pathos in one or two. In this sterilization scenario, sans the equivocation of temporary this-and-that and the hyperbole generated by emotional involvement, it appears all that's left is to appoint an arbiter of who, and when, a casual user devolves into a hopeless addict and when he or she is to be deprived of his reproductive rights. From amongst which group will you look first, the understanding or the legalistic? Or will the matter be turned-over to what we hope will be the cold calculations of a beneficent government?
MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010 9:26:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,207
Location: United States
It becomes a simple question of human rights. When does a human being stop being a human being? As lady X has noted, there are lots and lots of different kinds of addicts. Some are perfectly capable of handling their affairs in a perfectly ordinary fashion. You'd never know they were addicts at all. Others have reached the bottom of the barrel, where they've lost all vestiges of a "normal" life, and would gladly sell their soul, or their firstborn child for another hit. Apparently, somewhere on the way from functioning businessman to dysfunctional junkie, you lose your humanity. You no longer can claim to be a person, actual and whole.

Apparently, once you cross that line, you cede all your personal and civil rights for the good of the many. You should not be allowed to procreate any longer. It should be perfectly allowable for society to take advantage of your sub-human state, and coerce you into being sterilized. For the good of society. And what should it matter? You no longer qualify as human. You're an addict.

Once you cross that line, what other human rights should you lose? For the good of society? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Should you be rounded up with all the other addicts, and sent to special treatment areas? To special "camps" where all the evil addicts can be "concentrated" so they no longer influence society? This is my fear, and looking at human history I believe it's a rational one. Once you've singled out a group as sub-human, then the only thing that matters is what other people you choose to have fit into that group.

How about mentally unbalanced people? There are indications that mental illness is genetic. Maybe we should sterilize anyone that's ever been diagnosed with a form of mental illness. It should be easy enough - just choose a time when they're deeply under the influence of their medications, and get them to sign a slip of paper. Done. How about people with Downs Syndrome, or any other form of mental retardation? Wouldn't want THEM to be able to procreate now, would we? And what about alcoholics? Alcohol is just another drug, right? Shouldn't let them procreate either. Damn addicts.

This is how the future could well turn out, once we start categorizing people by their productiveness, and possible future behavior. Individual rights will have no meaning. "Freedom" will be an archaic concept, and we'll live in a world where anything not against the law will be mandatory because of it. Personally, I'd rather people have the right to make their own decisions on what to do with their bodies. Those decisions may not be in the best interests of society, or even in the best interests of the people themselves, but it's better that a person have the freedom to be an idiot than the government take all freedoms away.
She
Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:18:23 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,547
Location: Europe
MNP when I was a teen and did something wrong my parents grounded me, they took my phone away... basically they cut off my freedom from one point of wiev, right, so when people choose to become addicts (and yes it is a choice) they should be grounded as well, they shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of the population have, meaning that their civil right for voting, driving and reproducing should be taken away until they become clean again.

And people with mental illness are most definitely are not the same as addicts! Mentally ill people did not choose to become mentally ill.
As I said before help is offered to addicts, they are not left in the corner to live and die there, but they need to make a first small step.

"LOL Relax She, it isn't personal at all." That is your respond?
I was relaxed, couldn't sleep though but in my bed having fun here at Thank.. but let me tell you what we can do, we can pretend that I was tired because it was 3 am, we can say that English as my third language sucks and I couldn't understand you well, we can say as well that I cannot see the difference between the sarcasam and when people are beeing mocking (..however you did it twice, first post on this page and one before last one. The first one I did ignore because we all do make mistakes and we all get overemotional sometimes but I cannot ignore it twice in the same nigh.)
So if you were trying to be sarcastic you should scroll up and see mrplow's post that is pure beautiful not personal sarcasam and I could choose to responde to it or not (it is adressed to pepople who are for sterilization) but I choose not to because I am not familiar with his posts and I really didn't know if he is up for discusion or was he just making a statement..

or we can get infront of the mirror and call for Master of sarcasam himself tree times, maybe He can explain to us a difference between mocking at someone or just beeing sarcastics. And BTW MrNudiePants that was really good and cute joke, hopefuly he will laugh as well.


toast






LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:28:28 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
I use both sarcasm and jokes a lot- and I often use them together. They're almost never personal, and in your case, She, I can tell you that they never are. Points are argued forcefully here, and opinions are sometimes mocked, but you personally are not. I did have a feeling that a language barrier might be contributing to the misunderstanding, and I'm sorry if your feelings got hurt somehow.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 9:01:30 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,465
Location: Cakeland, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:
It becomes a simple question of human rights. When does a human being stop being a human being?


One of the most coherent and well worded responses in this entire thread. thumbup

Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:17:56 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,207
Location: United States
She wrote:
MNP when I was a teen and did something wrong my parents grounded me, they took my phone away... basically they cut off my freedom from one point of wiev, right, so when people choose to become addicts (and yes it is a choice) they should be grounded as well, they shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of the population have, meaning that their civil right for voting, driving and reproducing should be taken away until they become clean again.

And people with mental illness are most definitely are not the same as addicts! Mentally ill people did not choose to become mentally ill.
As I said before help is offered to addicts, they are not left in the corner to live and die there, but they need to make a first small step.


There has been a lot of thought recently given to the idea that those traits that lead to someone becoming an addict are genetic. That they're passed on from parent to child. My father was an alcoholic - I have certain addictive traits, as do all his male children. You haven't addressed other kinds of addiction - what about the gambling addiction that causes people to lose their homes, and all their personal property? What about alcoholism? What about addictions to food, exhibitionism, sex, or danger? These addictions can all have negative effects on someone's life, health, or family. Should they be treated the same as drug addicts? And if addiction truly is a genetic trait, why would you separate it from any other mental illness? If that's the case, an addict doesn't "choose" to be an addict, he is one from birth. His addiction is there, hiding. It's just waiting for the right moment to make itself known.

If you're going to revoke the civil rights of all the drug addicts, then you had better revoke the civil rights of a lot of other classes of people as well.
She
Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:44:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,547
Location: Europe
LadyX wrote:
I use both sarcasm and jokes a lot- and I often use them together. They're almost never personal, and in your case, She, I can tell you that they never are. Points are argued forcefully here, and opinions are sometimes mocked, but you personally are not. I did have a feeling that a language barrier might be contributing to the misunderstanding, and I'm sorry if your feelings got hurt somehow.



Oh no LadyX, it takes much more to hurt my feelings. Maybe I should have explained myself or at least updated my bio on my profile page..
When someone say or do something that I do not appreciate it I simply say it. We all do and say things that are not always under contrtrol of our mind that is why I like to mention it to the person that I am interacting with and I expect that people do the same thing to me when I go over their line..You know only this part of me that I show here at Lush so it was my mistake, I should explain myself before posting complain.


EDIT: This was not my personal march against addicts and I certanly do not judge them or their choices, they are who they are and I can accept them or not live around them. What I do judge is when people are making excuses for addicts or addicts them selfs, such as: "..my life sucks, it is my parents fault, I am not happy, I dont have future, I dont have enough money, I have too much money..."
Accept, live or change but please do not lament about it, they are who they are and it is all in choices and how will they make a personal difference in another day.
No one can escape from consequences of our choices.
She
Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 12:13:05 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,547
Location: Europe
MrNudiePants wrote:

There has been a lot of thought recently given to the idea that those traits that lead to someone becoming an addict are genetic. That they're passed on from parent to child. My father was an alcoholic - I have certain addictive traits, as do all his male children. You haven't addressed other kinds of addiction - what about the gambling addiction that causes people to lose their homes, and all their personal property? What about alcoholism? What about addictions to food, exhibitionism, sex, or danger? These addictions can all have negative effects on someone's life, health, or family. Should they be treated the same as drug addicts? And if addiction truly is a genetic trait, why would you separate it from any other mental illness? If that's the case, an addict doesn't "choose" to be an addict, he is one from birth. His addiction is there, hiding. It's just waiting for the right moment to make itself known.

If you're going to revoke the civil rights of all the drug addicts, then you had better revoke the civil rights of a lot of other classes of people as well.


Exactly, I do believe in C. Darwin and theory of evolution, I do believe that everything we do to our mind or body does effect us/changes us, for some changes takes years but yes they do effect our DNA and consequently because of that addiction is genetic. That does not mean that child of a addict will become addict but it mean that child has more predisposition to become one.
As I said before my family does alcohol a lot and I had periods in my life that I was drinking heavily but you always reach that point where you can choose to continue or quit and that is why I still think that being a addict is a state of choice and nothing else and cannot be compered with mental ilness not in this context anyway.

I didn't mention other addiction because of two reasons. First one is that there is a difference between chemical addiction and non-chemical addiction, the other reason is because I don't know much about non-chemical addictions, I know that addicts get abstinence crisis if they don't get their 'drug' in specific time such as sex, food, gamble.. I know that when they get one the chemical reaction in their brain releases hormone of happines, endorphin, but that is pritty much I know about those non-chemical addictions.

They should be cured the same way but you have to admit that chemical and non-chemical addictions are not the same addictions. Drugs and alcohol has completely different impact to our bodies and mind then gambeling or sex and food, they are addictions but somehow I doubt that non-chemical ones can fucked up people's judgment as much as chemical addictions can. But then again I don't know much about those addictions and could be easily be wrong.

..and I still think that drug addicts and alcoholics should not vote, drive and reproduce
Reprehensiballs
Posted: Sunday, October 31, 2010 4:50:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 8/22/2010
Posts: 76
Location: Bedford
Drug addiction is an illness, by all means make rehabilitation compulsory (or offer them money if that makes you feel better) but sterilising drug addicts seems utterly wrong to me. If some poor kid has been forced to take drugs so her pimp can control her with them should she be sterilised now that she's not pretty enough to earn drug money and gets desperate enough to take the $200? What about all the people that take drugs for a time but later go on to lead fruitful and productive lives, raising families and paying plenty of tax dollars. True some kids suffer as a result of being born into drug induced poverty but let's not make the mistake of thinking the addicts are the villains here, they are not.

The real villains are the drug pushers, growers, importers and refiners. The fat cats who sit in their ivory towers living it large on the misery of other people. I include all the tobacco barons in this too, these bastards know what their products have done and continue to do, yet they continue (and are allowed to continue) doing it. The money they make from slowly killing people worldwide is used to buy them a fantastic lifestyle most of their victims can only dream about. If someone sat in their penthouse flat firing round after round into the streets below, painfully and randomly killing the inhabitants, would we pay them money to do it?

I say make things utterly impossible for the drug dealers. By all means sterilise them, their families, everyone who works for them and anyone else who condones or attempts to protect them. Stop whinging about human rights as applied to these filthy amoral gits and break down their doors to get the job done. I bet the various agencies worldwide know exactly who most of them are and just can't touch them because the law continues to protect villains whilst getting stronger and more brutal against victims. How anyone can advocate punishing drug addicts when the dealers are still at large baffles me. No offence peeps, I know there are plenty who feel differently to me and I respect your right to your opinion but laying into victims and protecting their abusers is just wrong on so many levels it's not even funny.

If you're going through hell, keep going. - Winston Churchill
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.