Project prevention (that is sterilization...)

[Tony]

I read on Wiki:

Project Prevention (founded and formerly known as Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity [sic] or C.R.A.C.K.) is an American non-profit organization which also has a presence in the United Kingdom, which pays drug addicts cash for volunteering for long-term birth control, including sterilization. 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][2] These and other statistics, including 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 and other health problems, she attempted to get legislation passed in California which would have mandated sterilization for mothers who gave birth to drug-addicted babies. After this failed, she opted instead to start what is now called Project Prevention.
[edit] 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 movement of the early 20th century.[3]

[YOUTUBE]CpzI0D_VteE[/YOUTUBE]

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

would you fund such association or something like that?

[lei.talk]

"We don't allow dogs to breed," she told the British edition of 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."

[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.