Project prevention (that is sterilization...)

[Tony]

I read on Wiki:


Project Prevention (founded and formerly known as Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity [sic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic)] or C.R.A.C.K.) is an American non-profit organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization) which also has a presence in the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), which pays drug addicts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_addict) cash for volunteering for long-term birth control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control), including sterilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_(surgical_procedure)). Since January 2006 Project Prevention has offered US$300 (£200 in the UK) to each participant. As of 26 April 2010 Project Prevention said it had paid 3,388 "clients" including 1,260 women sterilized by tubal ligation, 4,428 abortions and 47 men having vasectomies.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention#cite_note-1) These and other statistics, including ethnic background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_background), are cited on the PP website, with the description "The following numbers were obtained through our Client Survey Form which all participants fill out. These numbers are prior to obtaining long-term birth control through our program".
Barbara Harris founded the organization in 1997 after she and her husband adopted four children from a drug-addicted mother. After the experience of helping the children through withdrawal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal) and other health problems, she attempted to get legislation passed in California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) which would have mandated sterilization for mothers who gave birth to drug-addicted babies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_cocaine#Effects_in_pregnancy_and_nursing). After this failed, she opted instead to start what is now called Project Prevention.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_Prevention&action=edit&section=1)] Controversy

The organization has provoked controversy, partly from the way in which it promotes its activities, including allegedly targeting poor and minority neighborhoods for the placement of billboard advertising, and distributing flyers with slogans such as "DON'T Let a Pregnancy get in the way of your crack habit". In interviews Barbara Harris compared pregnant women to dogs that need to be neutered. This stance has invoked comparisons to the eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) movement of the early 20th century.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention#cite_note-2)

CpzI0D_VteE

ok let's pretend not to see the 4 little nigga...

would you fund such association or something like that?

[lei.talk]

http://www.googlecommunity.com/forum/images/ranks/googleguru.gif (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GZAZ_enUS281US281&q=c.r.a.c.k.+sterilization)
"We don't allow dogs to breed," she told the British edition of Marie Claire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Claire) magazine in 1998. "We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted children, and yet these women are literally having litters of children."

http://projectprevention.org/images/project-prevention-logo.png (http://projectprevention.org/)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Eugenics_congress_logo.png/275px-Eugenics_congress_logo.png (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=61316#post61316)

[Agrippa]

Obviously yes, at least if the right people being targeted and it largely happens at their own will, unless their danger for the community being proven - f.e. after a series of pregnancies with defect-low level children.

So this organisation is definitely a good thing, as long as it works in an Eugenic way and as humane as possible.

To let low level individuals which are drug addicted give birth to children which might have all kinds of genetic deficits, will be influenced by the drug addiction of the mother and bad prenatal situation, as well as in the public service afterwards is irresponsible.

Tough I would look at the individual cases and try to help the persons in question with other programs too or first even.

[Liffrea]

Perhaps it’s worth making the point that just because the parents are defective the children need not necessarily be so, probably adoption would be a better idea.

[Curtis24]

. The reality is that something like is not and will never be feasible in the real world. Its too open to political interests and thus corruptible. The results would be disastrous, with whichever interest groups could come up with the most money getting to sterilize those demographics they consider their enemeis.

[Agrippa]

Perhaps it’s worth making the point that just because the parents are defective the children need not necessarily be so, probably adoption would be a better idea.

Well, if the mothers are under heavy drug influences, which means their whole organism is, the future children will have definitely problems, this or that way, whether they are genetically ok or not.

In many cases they aren't "genetically desirable" neither, which means case closed.

Though as I said, I would try to get them clean and in social-Euphenic programs first, looking at their genetic make up in detail etc. before coming up with a decision and whether or not it is a good idea to sterilise them.

But in their "usual condition", pregnancy is really no good option...

[antonio]

Perhaps it’s worth making the point that just because the parents are defective the children need not necessarily be so, probably adoption would be a better idea.

I hate to say (as always as I pronounced the "word") that I am very skeptical on that assertion, at least on last years: not much decades ago it was more plausible.

[Liffrea]

The problem I see with removing certain lines (leaving aside any moral qualms, if any) is that it removes potential. Consider that only a tiny percentage of possible protein combinations exist in the world, even taking into account the role of selection in preserving the most viable forms for life on earth that is still a tiny number compared to forms that haven’t ever arisen (an argument for genetic engineering perhaps).

Or more bluntly the more shit you have the more potential fertiliser as it were. Human reproduction is a cheap way of generating more stuff to work with, a cold calculating view but none the less it seems to work. The womb is the engine of evolution after all.

[Agrippa]

Once they are born, they are persons and to deal with them becomes much more difficult, also from the moral and social perspective.

Fact is, in many cases you can say with a high enough certainty that nothing of great value, nothing desirable will get lost.

If you think otherwise in such cases, save some eggs or sperms for future analysis, but to spread that deficit-genes and memes is no advantage - so if you can deal with that in a humane and effective way...

[Curtis24]

Actually, what Agrippa says just made me think of something. We already have a "prevention" measure in place: abortion.

Why not just pay them to have abortions? I know that would cost taxpayer money, but it seems a more practical solution than sterilization. No human society will ever accept sterilization, it just goes too far against human nature.

[Curtis24]

i accidentally quoted this trying to edit my last post, go ahead and delete it.

[Agrippa]

Actually, what Agrippa says just made me think of something. We already have a "prevention" measure in place: abortion.

Why not just pay them to have abortions? I know that would cost taxpayer money, but it seems a more practical solution than sterilization. No human society will ever accept sterilization, it just goes too far against human nature.


As of 26 April 2010 Project Prevention said it had paid 3,388 "clients" including 1,260 women sterilized by tubal ligation, 4,428 abortions and 47 men having vasectomies

Obviously that's what they do the most time anyway and it is part of the project and yes I agree.

Especially for cases in which the persons in question might be generally desirable or could be good mothers once they got rid of "their problem" with hard drugs - I mean I knew people which might have never made it, but they for sure had certain above average qualities.

Yet during the hard phase of their addiction pregnancy would have been a mess - afterwards a different story if they made it.

To put it simple, my approach is to reach out a hand for help to everyone, but for some people with serious defects or deficits or in such situations, abortion or even sterilisation would be the precondition for further help, because helping them to get more children or get any at all would be no progress for the group, but harm it.

Still its a difficult individual decision and as long as we don't have a too big problem, I prefer always a free & voluntary approach.

Fact is, that's what this organisation does, so its just great they do it, as long as they don't sterilise the wrong people - for some people I knew, as I mentioned, the drug addiction was part of their life, but they had good traits too, better than the average. For some at least I can definitely say, that in a healthier community-society-group or better GEMEINSCHAFT they wouldn't have come in that situation to begin with...

But an HIV-hepatitis crack whore with an IQ of 70 of an archaic-disharmonious Negrid type, with genetic defects and zero responsibility for anybody including herself, which acted brutal or criminal on various occasions, which got pregnant from suitors - well, abortion & sterilisation would be the minimum, in fact her sheer existence is a threat, if just thinking about the other problems she caused or will cause in the future and "her offspring" too most likely...

On the other hand, if a high level girl lost her parents, came into a bad peer group, was depressed and tried some hard drugs - oh well, obviously the only thing I would think about is to help her out of that mess, make social-medical and Euphenic programs for such people - better than we have now - bring them back on track again and would like to see her founding a healthy family again.

So "drug addiction" to me means little, it is about the individual's qualities and individual case which matters, what potential and chances one can see if really trying to help.

In the USA the social-medical programs are insufficient to begin with...

[antonio]

Perhaps it’s worth making the point that just because the parents are defective the children need not necessarily be so, probably adoption would be a better idea.

Adoption and abortion are two way more antinatural alternatives. Specially first one, for me the idea of calling son a potential criminal absolutelly unrelated with me (maybe of another race) it's for me really repugnant. And, what about abortion? If our societies regard to be more aceptable abortion than sterilization, then they are sicker than Id think. Curiously on the TV, a ridiculous program is talking about the horrend crime of...selling sons yet to be born. It's sick and disgusting to consider a crime to sell a son on a country where it's totally legal (and even gratuite) to kill him before born: Spaniards Leftists are turning values upside down.

[Agrippa]

If our societies regard to be more aceptable abortion than sterilization, then they are sicker than Id think.

Well, a forced sterilisation would be "violence" against a person, abortion is stopping the process which could lead to a person.




It's sick and disgusting to consider a crime to sell a son on a country where it's totally legal (and even gratuite) to kill him before born

Would depend on what happens to the son then - if he would come into a horrible situation as a person - it would be against his rights as a person, once he is one - this would be like slavery or worse.

When the embryo is still "a bunch of cells in the pipeline without a consciousness", things are different.

But that's another debate which was done here on the board already...

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15298

Adoption is something which can be only acceptable if being the exception from the rule, especially for left-alone children and childless couples.

But even then, a minimal standard of relatedness should be given as a rule of thumb.

I would not adopt an unrelated child - unless I would know that the genetic make up and traits are very similar to mine, then direct relatedness would be probably less important, but I can't imagine to adopt anyway (by now)...