Sterilisation for money?

[Theincrediblesulk1]

I know there is another thread on this, but the op makes no good points!

Ok the scenario.

Heroin addict goes out and hits an old lady over the head, takes her handbag and runs off. But is caught. Should they go to prison? I think most would say yes
So they are responsible for their actions in that account.

So why are they unable to make a decision to take £200 to be sterilised, If they are unfairly tempted by money, the same logic could surely be applied to any crime they commit.

I am all for this actually, i like the lady don't give a shit about the addict, they are big enough and ugly enough to stick a needle in their arm, so they can jog on. I am all for the children!

AIBU?

TFW -

So if my fertility treatment hadn't worked you think I could take the Government to the European Court of Human Rights?

thefruitwhisperer So because they are addicted they are not able to make any decisions at all then? Because they all they want is money for drugs? So when their child is born what then? If the child is so physically damaged they die? or they are in a wheelchair there whole life?

Where are their rights? who is sticking up for them? Why should they have been polluted? born with std's ?

Or perhaps they are "lucky" enough to not be physically or mentally affected. And they then become the same?

No. Because thats stupid...

Ahh, so it's not a 'human right' to have children then?

That is what you are saying though! so few ivf treatments work! some people cant adopt so you are just waffling aren't you!

I think you are confusing human rights with human facts.

And we are making alot of assumptions here. Not all children of addicts turn out the same! There should be many many options offered to these people before their last option is selling their fallopian tubes!

But TFW many options are offered to addicts. They just don't want to know. There's someone else to pick up the pieces.

Yeah and not all don't! do me a favor! please stop talking you have given me a nose bleed!

Perhaps I just have more tolerance for people than you all do. I dont think people should be punished for having a mental illness. I think they should be treated.

Thanks x i think part of my brain just dissolved!

Thats the whole thing with addiction. Its hard to kick! So it does take many times to get though to them. If you cant have children, thats unfortunate, but if you can why shouldnt you - once you are clean. That choice would be denied these people once they recover.

So do i and i also think they should not be patronised! I have incredible tolerance, and i think drugs should be available to addicts! i don't think that we should treat them like they are unable to make a decision.

My friend "ginger Paul" was an addict, he still had morels and scruples and could still think for himself.

Addiction is a physical dependency. Maybe I am intolerant, but I get sick to death with people blaming a 'mental illness'.

I have an 'addictive nature' as in I find it very easy to get addicted to things. It is not a 'mental illness'.

Oh and I dont think the Human Rights Act is relevant here. Its more an ethical question. Its unethical to deny people the right to children if they agreed to it without informed consent (ie, were ill)

Again, it depends on the level of dependancy. Some people can live as functioning addicts.

I agree, using the Human Rights Act is a bit stupid and pedantic here. If you have a womb, you have the right to use it.

My SIL has a womb. She can't use hers.

Its more a basic human right, does the HRA even cover it??? (Our pedant Timothey will know )But there are so many options for people, everyone can at least try and have children.

Mammie81, if that is your stance, how can they then be prosecuted for crimes they have committed? or do you not think they should be? Or if they sign for a credit card? Or if they take out a loan? Where is the line here?

Addiction is not in itself a mental illness. You can't cure it by applying a treatment, in that simple way. I think most reasonable people would agree that people who are addicted to drugs should be helped, not condemned, and of course there is always the possibility that they will be able to turn their lives around and become good parents. Some do manage this, some don't.

The question is: how many children's lives do you wreck while waiting to see if this can and will happen? How many do you put through the agonies of neonatal addiction, which is not just a couple of days of hospital treatment, but often several weeks heavily medicated, followed by a lifetime of developmental and behavioural problems? That's before you even begin on the social repercussions of addiction, which may include exposing a child to homelessness, crime, violence, poverty, neglect and abuse (not necessarily from the birth parents)?

Why do so many people on both sides of this debate pretend this is a straightforward issue? It's anything but.

I think a mixture of therapy and prison is good. Repeat offenders should get worse sentences for sure. But just locking them up is horrid. They shouldnt be left to rot - Look how well Robert Downey turned out with help! (And Fruits mum)

Such a pedant that I'll take the opportunity to correct your spelling Timothy.

However, it is now past my bed-time so I'm off.

Good night! :)

Thank you hester .

I think if someone is ready for it that would be a good idea, also you cant force anyone to be ready, What do you feel about legalisation

Good night Timothy