I always thought a bribe was an illegal incentive.
No, and neither would the people who designed this program, since it’s not targeting middle class drug addicts. Anyone who can afford prescribed opiates must be okay to raise kids, I guess.
Not by your own definition, since the person offering the money isn’t “being allowed to do something they shouldn’t.”
Nothing is an incentive to absolutely everybody, though, especially not money, so by your own logic, money can never be defined as an incentive for anything, only as a bribe.
Who’s saying that?
I will say that there are levels of unfitness, though, and a broke drug addict is more unfit to be a parent than a solvent drug addict.
Sure they are. They’re being allowed to exploit desperation. It’s ugly, and like I said, decent people should be able to very easily see what’s wrong with it.
How are they exploiting it? They’re just trying to stop it from hurting more people. Decent people should care about what kind of situations innocent babies are born into.
What would you do to limit or prevent the damage to children resulting from drug addicted middle class parents.
Or for the lower class ?
Decent people should care about not mistreating other humans based on a sliding scale of their ‘worthiness’. One can help babies without abusing addicts.
How is this mistreating anybody? How are they being “abused,” and what do you actually know about the social services in place for helping children born into these situations? How easy do you think it is? I’ve actually been on the ground working with these kids, and so has my wife. The help available is very minimal, and we’re not talking about helping babies anyway, we’re talking about preventing them from being made in the first place. An ounce of prevention is worth a gram of rock.
I’m torn on this issue, but it’s really really hard to help babies of addicts. My mother is a child psychologist, and worked for a time in the county hospital here in Chicago, doing developmental assessments of babies who were born very premature or sick. Being the county hospital, the majority of these babies were born drug-addicted, and getting the parents to bring them in for the assessments and needed treatments and therapies was practically a full-time job in itself. That kind of medical follow-up is voluntary, though, and if they don’t want to bother, there’s not much you can do to make them.
That should comfort the foster parents I know who look after children with fetal alcohol syndrome children.
Or the nurses who look after crack babies suffering through withdrawal.
You really don’t have a viable alternative, do you?
Then why not give them free abortions instead?
Why is that a preferable choice?
Do you really think that option is as effective as voluntary sterilization ?
I’m all for it, but isn’t it preferable to prevent the pregnancy in the first place?
Not permanently, not unless that’s absolutely and unquestionably what they want.
Really, you think an abortion is preferable to a permanent sterilization (which would, in fact, be completely voluntary, by the way)?
Not to ‘completely voluntary’ as in “We’re offering free sterilizations to those who want them.” but absolutely to ‘voluntary’ as in “Hey, I’ll give you $300 for smack if you let me tie your tubes!”
What’s the difference? They are both completely voluntary.
I covered that, and I don’t have the fondness for repeating myself that you do.
I suppose if they want babies, exercise their free choice rights, we should not stand in the way of creating crack babies.
Somehow you seem to believe that they should have an opportunity to decide yea or nay for a crack baby, but that they shouldn’t have the opportunity to decide yea or nay for $300 and no crack babies.