INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

Enter here to explore ethical issues and discuss the meaning and source of morality.
Message
Author
User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#21 Post by Paolo » April 28th, 2010, 9:48 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Sounds right - fewer people being born with disabilities, but more surviving. For example, according to Mittler this resulted in there being four times as many Down's Syndrome people in 1979 than there were in the 1930s. This trend seems to be continuing from what I've seen reported.

So although birth rate is lower, the population is larger thanks to society offering more effective support.

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#22 Post by Marian » May 1st, 2010, 4:38 pm

getreal wrote: All children deserve the best start in life possible... giving birth to damaged children and/or fucking up their lives as they grow up, can be avoided for some. Surely that's a good thing?
I've got a question. How does this organization purport to ensure that these women continue taking birth control? And no birth control method is 100% effective, save sterilization.

In an ideal world, all children would get the best start in life but it's not reality. I'm not saying we should just shrug our shoulders at the babies produced by drug addict mothers. OTOH, isn't this program just a way to avoid having to deal with the bigger issue in the US regarding health care and availability? Or that the US isn't really the land of opportunity and not everyone is entitled to a slice of the 'pie'?

There are plenty of middle class/wealthy women who are addicted to drugs, although they tend to be more along the lines of alcohol abusers or prescription painkillers. What about these mothers-to-be? Just because they seem to conform to social norms or have more money doesn't mean their kids won't have problems/addictions at birth. I dislike the idea of catering this program to those who had the unfortunate luck of being born on the wrong side of the tracks.

Re: Paolo and improved life expectancy
As for disabled children/people have more community service support, I'd have to disagree wholeheartedly. I live it everyday. Yes, medical advances have increased the life expectancy of disabled people in case such as Downs syndrome but not necessarily across the board with all disabling issues. ie. no cure for DMD.
Transformative fire...

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#23 Post by Lifelinking » May 2nd, 2010, 1:50 am

This is the interview with Barbara Harris that a few folk mentioned.
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#24 Post by Nick » May 2nd, 2010, 10:45 am

Thanks for that, Lifey. That was indeed the interview I heard. Interestingly, looking at my earlier post, I remembered it differently than from how it actually was. I remembered it as helping the women, rather than saving the kids. Hmm.. I wonder what that signifies? If anything.....

Having listened again,I think she acquitted herself very well. She was asked some searching questions and answered them all.


Marian, I think many of your queries are addressed in the interview. I'd be interested to hear if you think so too, so I'll give you a chance to listen and comment (if you so wish) before responding to your post. :)

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#25 Post by Marian » May 2nd, 2010, 12:09 pm

Nick wrote: Having listened again,I think she acquitted herself very well. She was asked some searching questions and answered them all.
I'd have to disagree there. She avoided answering some questions by simply stating that she didn't care. That's not an answer as far as I'm concerned. Although it is telling about the woman in question, imo.
She claims to care for the children and on some level, I'm sure she does but what I found appalling was that she stated outright that she wished she left her eldest in foster care. Lovely... :rolleyes: What a terrible thing for that child to hear. 'Well dear, seeing as you've turned out like shite, I wished I'd have given you up.' Should we be all that surprised at his added difficulties?
It also really bothered me that she, in essence, was saying that she would rather her four adopted children hadn't been born at all. That it would have been better. Do you hear the derision in her voice when she talks about the one child who isn't 'normal' now?
I was struck by how often she talked about her father and that her 'i don't care' attitude is exactly what she received from him when she got pregnant as a teen.

Nick wrote:Marian, I think many of your queries are addressed in the interview. I'd be interested to hear if you think so too, so I'll give you a chance to listen and comment (if you so wish) before responding to your post. :)
I think the questions were asked but not answered. Wealthy women may not have half a dozen children but the effects of drug/alcohol addiction don't discriminate based on money.
The US is doing nothing to deal with the systemic issues that create drug/alcohol dependencies and the cycle of poverty.
The only question that was answered was that the women are fitted with an IUD but those can easily be removed by any doctor/clinic. Under the skin type contraceptive could work.
I think the interviewer brought up a some excellent points, particularly about her going into poverty-striken areas and advertising her offer. Why is she not going door-to-door in the wealthy neighborhoods and offering the same? Maybe because she is not that far removed from her father??
Transformative fire...

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#26 Post by Paolo » May 3rd, 2010, 8:09 am

Marian wrote: She claims to care for the children and on some level, I'm sure she does but what I found appalling was that she stated outright that she wished she left her eldest in foster care. Lovely... :rolleyes: What a terrible thing for that child to hear. 'Well dear, seeing as you've turned out like shite, I wished I'd have given you up.' Should we be all that surprised at his added difficulties?
It also really bothered me that she, in essence, was saying that she would rather her four adopted children hadn't been born at all. That it would have been better. Do you hear the derision in her voice when she talks about the one child who isn't 'normal' now?

You may find it appalling, but at least it's honest. Too many people self-censor when talking about these sorts of issues, through fear of social perceptions of their opinion. I'd agree that it would be better to not be born at all than have a damaged childhood, but such a consideration is meaningless.
Marian wrote: I think the questions were asked but not answered. Wealthy women may not have half a dozen children but the effects of drug/alcohol addiction don't discriminate based on money... I think the interviewer brought up a some excellent points, particularly about her going into poverty-striken areas and advertising her offer. Why is she not going door-to-door in the wealthy neighborhoods and offering the same? Maybe because she is not that far removed from her father??
I'd guess that in wealthy neighbourhoods the offer of cash for contraception would be a bit pointless - I doubt she'd be offering enough to make it worth anyone's while if they were already well-off...

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#27 Post by Marian » May 3rd, 2010, 12:13 pm

Paolo wrote: You may find it appalling, but at least it's honest. Too many people self-censor when talking about these sorts of issues, through fear of social perceptions of their opinion. I'd agree that it would be better to not be born at all than have a damaged childhood, but such a consideration is meaningless.
:laughter: Hold on a second here. Now you want to talk about being honest. In another thread, you mentioned that we ought not to tell a little old god-fearing woman that there is no god but here it's ok to tell your kids that you didn't want them? Wtf? Oh right, it's the old it's good to be honest when it suits ourselves. Isn't telling your kids that you wished they'd not been born or at least been given away just as cruel as the telling the little old lady she's full of shite?

Perhaps self-censoring is a good idea sometimes, especially if it helps us to not be cruel to those who weren't blessed with the perfect childhood. Perhaps it's less about social perception and more about teaching people that cruelty isn't a given.

Such a consideration is meaningless to you. But most people, if not all, are damaged in some form or another. Who are you to say they shouldn't have been born?

Paolo wrote:I'd guess that in wealthy neighbourhoods the offer of cash for contraception would be a bit pointless - I doubt she'd be offering enough to make it worth anyone's while if they were already well-off...
First off, they'd still take the money imo. Secondly, you've missed the point. If children shouldn't be born because they are damaged (ie. FAS or addiction etc), then those children born to the wealthy addicted parents shouldn't really have a go just because they're parents are wealthy, if we are to follow her line of thinking.

We haven't even touched on whether the addictions of the male donor effect the development of the embryo/fetus etc not to mention the effects of parental addiction on children already born, alcoholism and drug addiction is not just the plight of the poor. But I suppose that's for another time.
Transformative fire...

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#28 Post by Paolo » May 3rd, 2010, 12:55 pm

Marian wrote:
Paolo wrote: You may find it appalling, but at least it's honest. Too many people self-censor when talking about these sorts of issues, through fear of social perceptions of their opinion. I'd agree that it would be better to not be born at all than have a damaged childhood, but such a consideration is meaningless.
:laughter: Hold on a second here. Now you want to talk about being honest. In another thread, you mentioned that we ought not to tell a little old god-fearing woman that there is no god but here it's ok to tell your kids that you didn't want them? Wtf? Oh right, it's the old it's good to be honest when it suits ourselves. Isn't telling your kids that you wished they'd not been born or at least been given away just as cruel as the telling the little old lady she's full of shite?
Impressive misrepresentation of my argument Marian. Discussion of these sorts of issues when addressing an active campaign that directly impacts on the lives of mothers/children is rather different to simply ignoring the misguided beliefs of some old lady who's not going to influence anyone. There's a time and a place for self-censorship. Moreover, we are discussing a radio interview and the opinions voiced in it, rather than a situation where someone is only addressing their children, in which case I would agree that self-censorship would be more appropriate than honesty.
Marian wrote:Perhaps self-censoring is a good idea sometimes, especially if it helps us to not be cruel to those who weren't blessed with the perfect childhood. Perhaps it's less about social perception and more about teaching people that cruelty isn't a given.

Such a consideration is meaningless to you. But most people, if not all, are damaged in some form or another. Who are you to say they shouldn't have been born?
And who is to say that they should have been? As I said, saying these things is pointless - the issue is moot since there is no way in which the situation could occur where someone who already exists can be made to have not been born. Thinking something and saying it are different things.
Marian wrote:
Paolo wrote:I'd guess that in wealthy neighbourhoods the offer of cash for contraception would be a bit pointless - I doubt she'd be offering enough to make it worth anyone's while if they were already well-off...
First off, they'd still take the money imo. Secondly, you've missed the point. If children shouldn't be born because they are damaged (ie. FAS or addiction etc), then those children born to the wealthy addicted parents shouldn't really have a go just because they're parents are wealthy, if we are to follow her line of thinking.

We haven't even touched on whether the addictions of the male donor effect the development of the embryo/fetus etc not to mention the effects of parental addiction on children already born, alcoholism and drug addiction is not just the plight of the poor. But I suppose that's for another time.
These sorts of campaigns aren't meant to solve all of the problems, they're intended to target the worst hit, which almost always equates to the socioeconomically challenged. I don't feel I've missed the point, because I'm not saying that anyone should or shouldn't be born.

In my opinion the only person who has any right to say if someone should or shouldn't be born is the mother carrying the unborn infant. Everyone else's opinion is irrelevant, as long as the mother is willing to live with the consequences of the decision (if she's not then the people who will have to deal with the consequences should get a say). Hopefully I will never have to deal with those consequences, so it doesn't fall to me to make those decisions, but I know what my decision would be should the situation arise.

User avatar
getreal
Posts: 4354
Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#29 Post by getreal » May 3rd, 2010, 9:40 pm

but I know what my decision would be should the situation arise.
I don't think it's possible to know how you would feel in a situation such as this. You would only know how you would react when it actually happens to you--otherwise you are merely making an assumption.
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#30 Post by Paolo » May 3rd, 2010, 9:49 pm

getreal wrote:
but I know what my decision would be should the situation arise.
I don't think it's possible to know how you would feel in a situation such as this. You would only know how you would react when it actually happens to you--otherwise you are merely making an assumption.
You're right, but based on other experience and my general opinions on the matter I think I know myself well enough to know how I would choose - I can't see me making a particularly uncharacteristic choice...

User avatar
getreal
Posts: 4354
Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#31 Post by getreal » May 3rd, 2010, 9:50 pm

:)
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#32 Post by Fia » May 3rd, 2010, 10:02 pm

I've just had another thought about this. Contraception is free in the UK through one's GP surgery. I don't think this is the case in the USA.
If I'm right it's far more likely that "substance misusers" in the UK will have relatively regular contact with with their health care professionals than their US counterparts. Which makes me even more queasy about the idea...

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#33 Post by Marian » May 3rd, 2010, 10:51 pm

Paolo wrote: Impressive misrepresentation of my argument Marian. Discussion of these sorts of issues when addressing an active campaign that directly impacts on the lives of mothers/children is rather different to simply ignoring the misguided beliefs of some old lady who's not going to influence anyone. There's a time and a place for self-censorship. Moreover, we are discussing a radio interview and the opinions voiced in it, rather than a situation where someone is only addressing their children, in which case I would agree that self-censorship would be more appropriate than honesty.
Not trying to misrepresent your argument. I'm answering based on my perception. If it's incorrect, then it's up to you to rectify that, if you want to be understood differently.
Your comment about the little old lady not having any influence just reeks of ageism, imo.
So, it's okay to tell your children over international radio that you really didn't want them? Don't you think that child might be a little hurt when he's heard that? Did i mention it was international radio?
Did you actually listen to the broadcast in full?
Paolo wrote:And who is to say that they should have been? As I said, saying these things is pointless - the issue is moot since there is no way in which the situation could occur where someone who already exists can be made to have not been born. Thinking something and saying it are different things.
If I am someone who has had a difficult childhood or has FAS or was a crack baby, then in essence you are saying I shouldn't be here. That gives me the right to say that I should have been born. Get it?
If saying these things are moot, then why say it? To fill in dead air?
Paolo wrote:These sorts of campaigns aren't meant to solve all of the problems, they're intended to target the worst hit, which almost always equates to the socioeconomically challenged. I don't feel I've missed the point, because I'm not saying that anyone should or shouldn't be born.
I didn't expect that one campaign would solve all problems and I find it rather patronizing that you assumed I did. My point, which you seem to have missed again, is that if we are going to deal with this issue via sterilization or BC, then it needs to apply across the board. Not just to the poor.
It also needs to be said that there is only one way to 100% prevent pregnancy. All other methods are not foolproof. Babies are born to women who've had IUD's put in. In fact, I've heard of one case where the IUD was embedded into the baby's face! Oh dear, that baby isn't quite perfect, we'd better do away with it!
Paolo wrote:In my opinion the only person who has any right to say if someone should or shouldn't be born is the mother carrying the unborn infant. Everyone else's opinion is irrelevant, as long as the mother is willing to live with the consequences of the decision (if she's not then the people who will have to deal with the consequences should get a say). Hopefully I will never have to deal with those consequences, so it doesn't fall to me to make those decisions, but I know what my decision would be should the situation arise.
Interesting caveat you've put in there. What does you mean by 'if the mother is not willing to live with the consequences of her decision, then other people should have a say?' Who are these other people? Doctors? Family members? Random strangers off the street? If a child is born with difficulties, there are an awful lot of people who might be effected at one point or another, do they all get a say? Might get pretty crowded in the birthing room or the doctor's office.

If the mother to be has the resources to deal with her less-than-perfect baby (ie. Wealth, family support etc), since it won't be a 'burden on society', does that mean no-one gets to have say in the decision but if it's a poor mother-to-be, who might need extra help, then these 'others' get to have a contribution? Isn't that just a bit discriminatory?
Transformative fire...

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#34 Post by Paolo » May 4th, 2010, 2:27 pm

Marian wrote:Not trying to misrepresent your argument. I'm answering based on my perception. If it's incorrect, then it's up to you to rectify that, if you want to be understood differently.
I’m sorry, but that is total hogwash. If you take what I write out of context and add layers of interpretation that I did not include, then you have misrepresented my argument. I have no control over that since it is at the whim of your perception and whatever associated issues you feel like getting confrontational about.
Marian wrote:Your comment about the little old lady not having any influence just reeks of ageism, imo.
The “little old lady” in question is a construct used in previous discussions and is meant to encompass the concept of a person who has adherence to nonsensical beliefs, but is harmless because they do not have significant influence. That’s what the “little old lady” metaphor means, so denouncing my comment reeks either of ignorance of the concept, or a wilful attempt at an ad hominem attack on my integrity.
Marian wrote:So, it's okay to tell your children over international radio that you really didn't want them? Don't you think that child might be a little hurt when he's heard that? Did i mention it was international radio?
Yes, a child might be hurt to hear that, but I think the fact that it was on international radio discussing a programme like this makes it more important to be honest and frank – clearly she thought the issues discussed were bigger and more important than the sensitivities of her children. Something I would agree with.
Marian wrote:If I am someone who has had a difficult childhood or has FAS or was a crack baby, then in essence you are saying I shouldn't be here. That gives me the right to say that I should have been born. Get it?
When you say “in essence you are saying” is entirely misrepresentative since I don’t actually say anything about what should or should not be the case and in fact I take pains to avoid doing that – because I feel that “should” and “should not” do not enter into this discussion. No-one has the right to say what should or shouldn’t happen in this instance – there is no moral absolute that deals with the situation. The only people who have any perceivable moral rights in decision making here are the people influenced by the outcome of the decision – the unborn baby, the parents and the wider support network likely to be called upon to enact the decision either way. Unborn babies are not in a position to make the decision, so it has to fall to the person with next greatest amount to lose – the mother.
Marian wrote:If saying these things are moot, then why say it? To fill in dead air?

I avoided saying it. If you recall you are the one who started this issue when you said:
Marian wrote:Who are you to say they shouldn't have been born?
When I had said no such thing.
Marian wrote: I didn't expect that one campaign would solve all problems and I find it rather patronizing that you assumed I did.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood when you said…
Marian wrote:If children shouldn't be born because they are damaged (ie. FAS or addiction etc), then those children born to the wealthy addicted parents shouldn't really have a go just because they're parents are wealthy, if we are to follow her line of thinking.
…and then…
Marian wrote:My point, which you seem to have missed again, is that if we are going to deal with this issue via sterilization or BC, then it needs to apply across the board. Not just to the poor.

…when I explicitly say “they're intended to target the worst hit”. A targeted approach, by definition, means not applying things across the board as I am sure you are aware.
Marian wrote: It also needs to be said that there is only one way to 100% prevent pregnancy. All other methods are not foolproof. Babies are born to women who've had IUD's put in.

I’m not sure it does need to be said – I think we’re all aware of this. I think some slippage is an acceptable risk and I still maintain that sterilisation would be eugenics in all but name.
Marian wrote: In fact, I've heard of one case where the IUD was embedded into the baby's face! Oh dear, that baby isn't quite perfect, we'd better do away with it!

Poor little tyke, still, I don’t see any rationale for doing away with it unless the damage done by the IUD was sufficiently bad to mean that there was a poor chance of survival to birth (thereby posing unnecessary risk to the mother) or there would be permanent damage that would severely restrict the quality of the life of that individual. Sounds to me like a decision for the mother to make with input from the father, medical experts and the rest of the family (which is who I mean by “other people”).
Marian wrote:If the mother to be has the resources to deal with her less-than-perfect baby (ie. Wealth, family support etc), since it won't be a 'burden on society', does that mean no-one gets to have say in the decision but if it's a poor mother-to-be, who might need extra help, then these 'others' get to have a contribution? Isn't that just a bit discriminatory?
Isn’t it a bit socially irresponsible to bring a child into the world if you can’t look after it? If a mother is likely to rely on substantial external support for her child, then those providing that support should have a mechanism by which they can ensure their support is not being abused. I don’t mind paying my taxes and National Insurance that go towards social welfare for example – I think it’s a good thing, but I would rather that the money benefitted people who took a responsible stance – and part of that means listening to professional advice about what is likely to lie in store.

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#35 Post by Marian » May 5th, 2010, 2:52 am

paolo wrote:I'd agree that it would be better to not be born at all than have a damaged childhood, but such a consideration is meaningless.
You can try to flip the tables and place the blame on me but this is your statement. This statement is what caused the ruckus. Yes, I interpreted your statement; it's a very loaded one. The statement is not difficult to interpret. In fact, it's pretty clear. Sure, we can play an intellectual game of saying, 'I didn't say anything outright' but the implication is clear, imo.
Am I confrontational? Damn right! This is personal. When the issue deals with children/babies with special needs and mothers, you bet I'm outspoken

There is more to life than just concepts and logic. These are good things but not well-rounded and ignores the fact that people's feelings are legitimate. It's not reasonable to think that hurtful statements can be made without some kind of reaction. For instance, you want to turn the discussion into a mere intellectual exercise but that's not always possible.
I can appreciate concepts and academia but I can't live there when the issue affects me directly.

You stated you feel that 'should' or 'should not' doesn't enter into the equation but several paragraphs later, you ask this question: Isn’t it a bit socially irresponsible to bring a child into the world if you can’t look after it? Isn't this a 'should' in disguise? A 'should' formulated into a question that makes one appear irresponsible if you say 'no' or want to include caveats. Could we not take this a step further and look at the implication of the question. As in: only rich people should have children because they can afford to do so.

You can say that I'm misrepresenting you. You can downplay my perceptions. I don't think I've taken anything out of context and saying I have done so is an easy way to get out of explaining what you really meant.
Transformative fire...

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#36 Post by Paolo » May 10th, 2010, 11:27 am

Marian wrote:
paolo wrote:I'd agree that it would be better to not be born at all than have a damaged childhood, but such a consideration is meaningless.
You can try to flip the tables and place the blame on me but this is your statement. This statement is what caused the ruckus. Yes, I interpreted your statement; it's a very loaded one.
It's not really all that loaded - I state my opinion and in the same sentence I dismiss that opinion as being meaningless. I hold my opinion because my childhood was pretty crappy and it wasn’t until a few years ago that I finally started to feel that it was actually worth being born. But circumstances are everything, so my opinion is worth very little in a wider context.
Marian wrote:The statement is not difficult to interpret. In fact, it's pretty clear. Sure, we can play an intellectual game of saying, 'I didn't say anything outright' but the implication is clear, imo.

You are right, the statement is easy to interpret - I don't think that my personal opinion on this issue has much meaning. If you want to add more layers of interpretation that's fine, but don't put words like ‘should’ in my mouth when discussing issues like this - the only ‘should’ I will use in this context is that the mother should have the right to decide and that decision should be an informed one.
Marian wrote:Am I confrontational? Damn right! This is personal. When the issue deals with children/babies with special needs and mothers, you bet I'm outspoken
It’s only personal because you make it personal, which means you are perceiving slights where none are intended. I don’t mind confrontation, but I do mind the meaning of my words being twisted to justify someone else’s righteous indignation.
Marian wrote:There is more to life than just concepts and logic. These are good things but not well-rounded and ignores the fact that people's feelings are legitimate. It's not reasonable to think that hurtful statements can be made without some kind of reaction. For instance, you want to turn the discussion into a mere intellectual exercise but that's not always possible.
Hurtful statements? I certainly intended no hurt and I went out of my way to make clear that I acknowledge that my opinion is meaningless. My opinion is mine and I would never dream of suggesting that everyone should agree with it. If you find my opinion hurtful then I think you are being overly-sensitive.
Marian wrote:I can appreciate concepts and academia but I can't live there when the issue affects me directly.
The issue doesn’t affect me directly, so I only appreciate concepts and academia. This discussion started as a discussion about a particular programme that operates at a policy level, therefore it seem appropriate to deal with it at a wider, rational level rather than a personal, emotional level.
Marian wrote:You stated you feel that 'should' or 'should not' doesn't enter into the equation but several paragraphs later, you ask this question: Isn’t it a bit socially irresponsible to bring a child into the world if you can’t look after it? Isn't this a 'should' in disguise? A 'should' formulated into a question that makes one appear irresponsible if you say 'no' or want to include caveats. Could we not take this a step further and look at the implication of the question. As in: only rich people should have children because they can afford to do so.

I think I asked a valid question and both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ are valid responses as long as there is a rationale that accompanies the response - and that rationale may be ‘yes, but freedom of choice for all is more important than expecting social responsibility from all’. So I don’t see that as a ‘should’ in disguise.
Marian wrote:You can say that I'm misrepresenting you. You can downplay my perceptions. I don't think I've taken anything out of context and saying I have done so is an easy way to get out of explaining what you really meant.
Except I am telling you that you have taken what I’ve said out of context. I will explain exactly what I really mean if you like.
I would not choose to bring a child into the world if it was likely to spend much of the time suffering physical pain, social exclusion or restricted freedom and independence. I would not choose to bring a child into the world if a large proportion of my time would be required to care for it into its adulthood – if it survived that long. I think it would be better for that child to never be born than to be passed from carer to carer if I couldn’t cope with raising it. This is what I think, but I want to be crystal clear when I say that I do not extrapolate my opinions for what I would do onto other people. The decision should always lie with the mother, with input from the other people who will have to live with the consequences of her decision (as I have now said several times). I have nothing but respect for anyone who can raise a child with a disability and provide that child with an enjoyable life, but I know I couldn’t do it, so I would choose not to have it in the first place. There is no other ‘should’ or ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in my opinion – it’s called choice and I’m all for it.

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#37 Post by Marian » May 10th, 2010, 3:31 pm

Paolo,
I am unable at present to answer your post in much detail. Things at home seem to be coming unravelled and I think I over-reacted to your post. Yes, it was your opinion and you did state that but I guess I'm just a little paranoid when it comes to my son. In light of his and my experience, and what's currently happening, I hope you can understand.

I like the way you clarified your position in your last paragraph. That helped a lot for me to understand your point of view and I really appreciate your taking the time to write it. I wanted to add that knowing more about your personal position has helped because then I feel like you're 'in my corner' and that is not such a common event, as I'm sure is now mightily apparent.

Sorry about my reaction again.
Transformative fire...

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#38 Post by Paolo » May 10th, 2010, 5:09 pm

Marian wrote:Paolo,
I am unable at present to answer your post in much detail. Things at home seem to be coming unravelled and I think I over-reacted to your post. Yes, it was your opinion and you did state that but I guess I'm just a little paranoid when it comes to my son. In light of his and my experience, and what's currently happening, I hope you can understand.

I like the way you clarified your position in your last paragraph. That helped a lot for me to understand your point of view and I really appreciate your taking the time to write it. I wanted to add that knowing more about your personal position has helped because then I feel like you're 'in my corner' and that is not such a common event, as I'm sure is now mightily apparent.

Sorry about my reaction again.
No worries - I probably got a bit overly-defensive because I thought I was in your corner and didn't get why you were taking it the wrong way. Communication is a two-way street and I should have been clearer in what I meant - apologies for not being better at communicating my opinions.

I hope things at home get re-ravelled (is that a word?) with the minimum of fuss - very sorry that I won't get to meet you at the end of the month.

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#39 Post by Marian » May 10th, 2010, 7:06 pm

Paolo wrote: I hope things at home get re-ravelled (is that a word?) with the minimum of fuss - very sorry that I won't get to meet you at the end of the month.
Re-ravelled. I think we've got a new word :) Thanks for your concern about home stuff; not sure how that is all gonna pan out but there you have it. :)
Who says we can't meet? How about after school at the OK corral? :wink: Actually, I'm flying in next Monday and I'm with Nick until the 21st. Perhaps we ought to drop round your museum? What do you think? No pressure though. Just an idea.
Transformative fire...

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#40 Post by Paolo » May 11th, 2010, 9:26 am

Marian wrote:Re-ravelled. I think we've got a new word :) Thanks for your concern about home stuff; not sure how that is all gonna pan out but there you have it. :)
Who says we can't meet? How about after school at the OK corral? :wink: Actually, I'm flying in next Monday and I'm with Nick until the 21st. Perhaps we ought to drop round your museum? What do you think? No pressure though. Just an idea.
Aha! I didn't realise you'd be with us in the South for so long - in that case there is a good chance I will get to meet you :)

I have a researcher visiting for that whole week, so I'll be at our study collections centre in Greenwich rather than the main museum (which is certainly worth a visit anyway). Are you likely to be heading into Greenwich for a look around? It's lovely - with the spectacular National Maritime Muesum (where Melissa works) as well as lots of boutiques and traditional English pubs, etc. If you are heading that way then it would simplicity itself for myself and probably Melissa (depending on clashes with her astronomy class) to meet up with you.

Of course, I'm sure we could organise meeting up elsewhere to fit in with your plans if you're not thinking of going to Greenwich!

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Paying Substance Misusers to be Sterilised

#41 Post by Marian » May 11th, 2010, 2:47 pm

Not sure how far away Greenwich is. If Nick is willing to drive it, I'd be happy to come out that way. What do you think Nick? I love marine museums, btw. My grandfather was the captain of a ship that sailed along the St Lawrence River and the Atlantic coastline to the West Indies so it's in my blood :)
Transformative fire...

Post Reply