Is it immoral to pay drug addicts to be voluntarily sterilised?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Requiring_A_Caring_Kommunity

It's called 'project prevention', and they get about $300.

Answer 1

The answer to this question depends upon whether one views a drug addict as "willfull". If you see them as victims of a disease like diabetes or cancer, you would then have to ask if it is morally correct to sterilize these people as well.

Drug addicts, just as alcoholics, CAN and DO recover from this disease by the thousands and go on to live very productive, law abiding lives.  Those who dont recover eventually die of this disease. Unfortunately, they can take many with them if allowed.

I vote to "euthanize" the child molesters, the murderers, those who lack repect for human life and force their own will on others.  This includes crooked politicians and corporate leaders whose sole focus is the "bottom line".

Answer 2

Yes it is immoral.  Not only that, but offering financial reward to poor, needy, vulnerable and desperate people is exploitation.  It is putting people in a position that is very difficult refuse.  Addicts are also normal people.  Most of the time they get into drugs accidently and then it's a slippery slope that is out of their control.  They need help for their addiction, not for us to blame them and then remove their rights to have children.

Answer 3

Let me answer your question like this. To say that one that is addicted to crack should be sterilized and that it is fine so long as they take the money falls in line to sterilizing the retarded so long as they sign on the dotted line. They are unable to understand and thus it is an immoral and overall an illegal act.

Also why don't you make this what it clearly is, your not asking a question, you just want support for your beliefs based on bias against chavs.

Answer 4

Yes that is disgusting you give them $300 (money for more drugs)  and take away another reason to live a normal life.

Answer 5

No its not immoral and should be extended world wide

Answer 6

I think there are many other groups of people that should be sterilised

Answer 7

Yes.   Sterilization of poor, uneducated, female ethnic minorities amounts to eugenics. Also, this program is not intended to benefit the people it targets- it's really supposed to help society.  YEs, it's easy to have compassion for a drug addicted baby.  It's hard to have compassion for a drug addicted adolescent.  Remember that the pregnant 17 year old crack addict mother from the ghetto is somebody's baby too.  They deserve more than to be steralized and tossed on the garbage heap.  There isn't a better way that I can think of to solve the problem of drug addicted babies, but that doesn't mean this option is morally justified just because we haven't come up with anything better.  The people who came up with the program are folks who love little black and brown babies but don't care much for them after they come of age in a society that is set up to work against them.

Answer 8

Excellent idea.  I'd rather have the addicts shot though.

Answer 9

is it immoral to do the same to Chavs????

Answer 10

If someone is addicted to drugs, it's not entirely voluntary to pay them to do something, as they are slaves to the drug, not free.

What would make much more sense would be to fund treatment programs. Now, if someone wants off the drug, they are told to come back in nine months, rather than getting help.

That's just dumb.

No, I don't think it's moral to pay addicts to be sterilised; it's not truly voluntary. It's coersion.

Answer 11

No - it should be extended out - kiddie fiddlers etc!

Answer 12

Its about as immoral as offerring the service to  someone with a disability or a genetic tendency towards a serious disease.