I think you’ve hit on the main tension: we want people to have maximum choice over their lives, but may need to limit that when their choices cause significant harm to others. A utilitarian would probably suggest weighing the harm of removing the choice against the benefit gained by avoiding the unwanted pregnancy. On the other hand a Kantian would be sceptical of anything which threatened someone’s autonomy…

I don’t say all drug-born babies will be deformed, but I’m sure there is an increase in risk that it would happen if someone is doing drugs.

It boils down to “Choice” really. Having the choice, then acting on it.

The problem is….so many can’t even be responsible enough to make a logical choice.

I was not aware that all/most/a significant number of the accidental babies which drug addicts give birth to are deformed/disabled. If that is true, I suppose it makes things a bit different. I will try to find some evidence for this, though a quick search doesn’t suggest any strong link.

I should think a more plausible reason to encourage addicts not to have children is that they may not be good parents. But this reason is much less clearly-defined than a supposed clinical risk. It seems risky for society to decide who is and isn’t likely to be a good parent, then sterilise accordingly, don’t you think?

Even if there was an inevitable link between drug addiction and the health of babies, I think consent is still a problem. You say ‘if someone wants to live their life in a drug induced state…’ I wonder how many long-term addicts really choose their way of life, even if they willingly took decisions which set them on that path?

The other problem around consent is in saying something like ‘for their own good, let’s encourage these people to get sterilised’ (already morally questionable). That argument, in my view, is totally undercut by the short-term payments Project Prevention offers.

If the people targetted by Project Prevention are capable of informed consent (and medical ethics says they must be), then there shouldn’t be any need to bribe them. And if they are capable of informed consent, and reflective about the consequences of getting pregnant, how about using the money to help them put their life on track, instead of trying to breed them out of society, as it were.

I’d suggest there is a long way between free birth control (the sensible idea you suggest) and sterilisation. Free (and accessible) birth control might have about the same effect, without selling off people’s autonomy.

Babies that are born with defects, are a burden on families and/or the government. It is very expensive to raise such a child.

People who aren’t under the influence also have a problem with “popping out babies”….there should be free birth control for those people.

I understand that there are some people who are ok with having a child with birth defects….they make the choice to keep it…so that is their responsibility. But people who willingly do drugs, and increase the risk of such, don’t need to have babies.

Having a child is a big responsibility…..and there are too many people who don’t look at it that way.

whereas i’ve come to embrace the ebook concept quite dramatically – i now do all my book reading with .pdfs on a nokia n810 (with a full colour touchscreen bigger even than the iphone), i don’t understand the enthusiasm for paying a lot of money for a black & white device which only does one thing – which if you get the decent versions of look nice on the train, but are a bit bulky for reading in bed; i think the real ebook device breakthrough will come when people realise they can read them on mobile devices they already have, & when the big screen touchscreen smartphone becomes the standard rather than the preserve of phone geeks. much as i tend to harrumph at apple, i’ve got to hand it to them for making smartphones mainstream.

but you’re completely correct in the way the book industry is set to make all the same mistakes the music industry made – & continues to mistake – in fearing digital & trying to control it rather than embracing it & capitalising on openness.

just as what initially fed ‘illegal’ downloading of music was the way record companies refused to release content in the format people wanted it, relying on 20th century economics of scarcity, so the book industry is being far too slow to release content in open, portable formats – most of my growing ebook collection has been sourced via bittorrent for free precisely because there isn’t a mechanism for me to pay for it & download it in my preferred format.