Program pays addicts to use birth control (Libs whine racism)

Kansas City Star ^ | July 19, 2006 | John Schultz

[JamesP81]

That’s the same economic argument that was used to justify eugenics.

While these are the words of what's probably a lib, this time the lib is right. Telling people who can and can't have children is a dark road that we don't want to see the end of.

[Graybeard58]

The way I'm reading it, they aren't "telling" them.

[JamesP81]

From where Barbara Harris sits, drug addicts give up a lot of things. Procreation should be one of them.

But that's what they want. What they're doing is legal as they force no one, but do not be deceived: they would force it on people if they could. For that reason alone, they should be dealt with the same as any other eugencist: with ostracism and ridicule.

[weegee]

We've already been there as a country (including forced sterilization).

Low-income abortion assistance goes hand in hand with a program like this (financial incentive to get "sterility"). But no pro-abort congressmen will agree with that assessment.

If "low income" families were paying their own way through life, they could be in control of their lives. When they abdicate responsibility to the government, especially in the medical arena, they should not be surprised to find their life choices restricted and dictated to them. "their house, their rules"

[domenad]

That’s the same economic argument that was used to justify eugenics. Someone should tell this idiot that an argument can be used to justify some actions (paying people to voluntarily refrain from procreating) but not others (forcibly removing people from the gene pool). I don't expect she'd understand that though.

[BenLurkin]

Except there is no genetic component. That means it cannot by definition be 'eugenics".

There is no distinct genetic characteristic that makes someone an addict.

[dirtboy]

But that's what they want. What they're doing is legal as they force no one, but do not be deceived: they would force it on people if they could.

Why don't you wait for them to call for government force first, instead of assuming what their end goals are? I would oppose sterilization, but paying an addict to get on birth control is reversible, and prevents the addict from creating children the addict cannot care for.

[JamesP81]

There is no distinct genetic characteristic that makes someone an addict.

Determining who should reproduce and who should not is Eugenics. That is what this is about.

[yoe]

Telling people who can and can't have children is a dark road that we don't want to see the end of.

?

[mockingbyrd]

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

[mockingbyrd]

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

[Graybeard58]

Ironic that the same groups of people protesting these women being on voluntary birth control would be all for her having an abortion.

[weegee]

If a woman is a drug addict, she runs a considerable NON-GENETIC risk of abusing her child (even via alcohol or tobacco use during pregnancy).

Either the state can intervene or it can't.

Sterilization is an alternate to murdering these children. The adult can still be irresponsible and engage in sex-love-dope but won't be taking a toll on an unwanted child. And there is a difference between abortion and a failure to conceive.

I do not consider this to be "eugenics", preventing any further breeding from that person. "Clean up your act" and "rejoin the civilized world". The other option would be to lock up the irresponsible in jail until clean and sober and repentent.

[weegee]

Eugenics is the "science" of "bettering" the gene pool.

That is not the case here. I have called for including protection against genetic discrimination in any constitutional amendment about abortion (a whole sanctity of life amendment).

[JamesP81]

Why don't you wait for them to call for government force first, instead of assuming what their end goals are? I would oppose sterilization, but paying an addict to get on birth control is reversible, and prevents the addict from creating children the addict cannot care for.

If we wait for government force first, we've waited too long. We're already a fascist state by then.

Also, find me an article in the Constitution anywhere that empowers Congress to expend federal funds on birth control pills for drug addicts.

As I said, what this group is doing is legal since they can't force anyone. Yet. Do not dismiss this so easily because they would extend their control over who can and cannot have children if they could, and while that's not legal now, tomorrow is a new day altogether.

Eugenics is an evil practice and anyone who subscribes to it is dabbling in an inhuman evil that has been going on since the foundations of the world and Eugenics is exactly what this group is all about. It doesn't matter how pretty a face you put on it. It's still evil.

[JamesP81]

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Indeed she would.

[Redbob]

"Ironic that the same groups of people protesting these women being on voluntary birth control would be all for her having an abortion."

Bingo!
We HAVE a winner!

[Fido969]

“She makes it all about individual blame,”

Drug addiction is not an individual thing? Is George Bush shooting these junkies up?

[Omedalus]

That’s the same economic argument that was used to justify eugenics.

Actually, this is eugenics. The founder of eugenics was a fellow named Galton (a cousin of Darwin, actually) who established a society of British aristocracy that was doing exactly what this woman is doing right now. They weren't killing anyone, they simply paid poor people to not have kids. Back then their program "unfairly targeted" Irish single mothers. It was only much later that the term "eugenics" was applied to removing already-living people from the genepool.