Thursday, 21 October 2010

Barbara Hitler (or something)

Oh dear. The clitterati are up in arms because some charity bint is trying to get druggies to get sterilised to stop having kids that they can't take care of.

I had several nearly identical discussions on twitter with people who were all clearly of the opinion that drug addicts were worthless imbeciles who couldn't be trusted to find their own arseholes with both hands because they were so drug-addled. But at some point, they might turn round and become solid, upstanding fellow-statists who would raise more unquestioning cattle to feed the state, so their balls and ovaries deserved protection.

Now, I think that Barbara Harris's Project Prevention is a pretty disgusting thing. It's judgemental and has some very nasty undertones. But the fact of the matter is that this is all an entirely voluntary transaction. The addict gets some money in exchange for submitting to a (probably reversible) surgical procedure. At no point is anyone threatening the druggie with jail time.

I think it sounds like a patronising, demeaning, almost nasty deal. I wouldn't want to undergo it it. But crucially, I don't think it's my place to tell druggies how to live their lives, nor do I think it's any of my business to tell Barbara Harris how to spend her privately-raised charity money that other people have given freely knowing what the charity's objectives were, nor do I think I have all the answers for other people.

It is, in a sense, like defending neo-nazis' right to talk loads of bullshit. I don't agree with it, but it's their right to say things other people don't like, just like it's my right to call people cunts.

It's people's right to enter into voluntary transactions that they believe are mutually beneficial. And it's nobody else's business but those of the people transacting.


patently said...

As you say, someone is offering their own £200 to someone who willingly accepts it in return for surgery carried out on their own body.

Now, if I was forced to contribute to the £200, then I'd have a problem with it. But I'm not; it is just 2 consenting adults making decisions about their own money and their own bodies. The fact that I disagree does not give me the right to intervene and boss them about.

Ah, yes, say the Nannies, but the addict is not in a fit state to make the decision so we need to "protect" him. Rubbish, say I, he made a decision to place himself in that state, so he consented to the consequences while capable. Instead of embarking on a hopeless crusade to protect every addict, publish his story far and wide so that the next generation of potential addicts realise what a miserable and worthless existence addiction really is.

(It is effectively irreversible, though)

BTS said...

According to Wiki they distribute 'flyers with slogans such as "DON'T Let a Pregnancy get in the way of your crack habit."'

Sadly, they don't have any t-shirts available on their website. I may to get my own printed..

Just Woke Up said...

Being a junkie is a self-inflicted injury. It is not an unavoidable illness, it is not a disease, it is not anyone else's fucking fault that these witless morons decide to do themselves in the slow way. They know what they are doing.

Yes, its a private transaction between two parties. End of. Oh, and if the argument is that junkies aren't able to contract this opens up a whole new can of worms.

Where do I donate?

alfstone said...

Why does your site not update any more, have you given up completely?