Charity Pays Drug Addict To Sterilize Himself

  • Share
  • Read Later

Getty Images

Project Prevention, an American charity that pays drug addicts to go on long-term birth control or undergo a tubal ligation or vasectomy, has completed work with its first client in Britain, marking the start of the group’s international expansion.

The BBC is reporting that “John,” a 38-year old addict, received £200 ($318) for completing the procedure that will prevent him from having children.

TIME interviewed  the charity’s controversial founder Barbara Harris last April, shortly after she began searching for addicts in Britain. She explained that her charity discourages unfit parents from giving birth—thereby reducing the number of children born addicted to crack and easing the burden on social services.

“Even if their babies are fortunate enough not to have mental or physical disabilities, they’re placed in the foster-care system and moved from home to home,” she said. “What makes a woman’s right to procreate more important than the right of a child to have a normal life?”

She speaks from the heart: Harris has adopted four children born to one crack-addicted woman in Los Angeles.

Even so, a number of addict rights groups and drug charities have compared Harris’ project to Nazi-era social engineering. DrugScope, a charity in Britain, told the Press Association that the Project Prevention scheme is “exploitative, ethically dubious and morally questionable.”

(Read TIME’s article on Project Prevention, “Why Drug Addicts Are Getting Sterilized for Cash.”)


SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ETERNAL because it could not have sustained itself eternally due to the law of entropy (increasing net energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein showed that space, matter, and time all are physical and all had a beginning. Space even produces particles because it’s actually something, not nothing. Even time had a beginning! Time is not eternal.

The law of entropy doesn't allow the universe to be eternal. If the universe were eternal, everything, including time (which modern science has shown is as physical as mass and space), would have become totally entropied by now and the entire universe would have ended in a uniform heat death a long, long time ago. The fact that this hasn't happened already is powerful evidence for a beginning to the universe.

Popular atheistic scientist Stephen Hawking admits that the universe had a beginning and came from nothing but he believes that nothing became something by a natural process yet to be discovered. That's not rational thinking at all, and it also would be making the effect greater than its cause to say that nothing created something. The beginning had to be of supernatural origin because natural laws and processes do not have the ability to bring something into existence from nothing. What about the Higgs boson (the so-called “God Particle”)? The Higgs boson does not create mass from nothing, but rather it converts energy into mass. Einstein showed that all matter is some form of energy.

The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence and power for the origin and order of the universe. Where did God come from? Obviously, unlike the universe, God’s nature doesn’t require a beginning.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws may explain how the order in the universe works and operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports.

Some things don’t need experiment or scientific proof. In law there is a dictum called prima facie evidence. It means “evidence that speaks for itself.”  

An example of a true prima facie would be if you discovered an elaborate sand castle on the beach. You don’t have to experiment to know that it came by design and not by the chance forces of wind and water.

If you discovered a romantic letter or message written in the sand, you don’t have to experiment to know that it was by design and not because a stick randomly carried by wind put it there. You naturally assume that an intelligent and rational being was responsible.

I encourage all to read my popular Internet articles: NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION and HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. Bible/Biology)


*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I've been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who in The East" for my writings on religion and science.


That seems like allot of wrighting for a comment haha. But really though saying all that, all you are really doing is saying science dosnt have to be at odds with a world view that incorporates the idea of a creatorial being. Ok now what? Because science really dose refute every religious text to such an extent as to make it impossable to reconsile without twisting one or the other into unrecognisable forms. So now what?