I suppose you believe they should have the opportunity to sell their crack baby for $300 after it’s born, if they like. Hell, anybody willing to pay $300 for a baby must really have it’s best interests at heart, right?
I would pay $300 to rescue a baby from a crackhead parent.
Buying and selling children is illegal and immoral. (its okay to buy children out of slavery)
Sterilization is legal and moral and quite often encouraged as a matter of contraception and /or population control.
And then what? Adopt it ?
Hey, that’s better than what the adoption industry gives mothers who produce healthy (highly marketable) infants.
Agreed. This whole “you’d think it was OK for them to sell a baby!!!” hijack is ridiculous. Buying and selling human beings is not legal, nor is it what is being discussed here.
What’s being discussed here is buying and selling fertility, which is a sticky issue all around, just check out any discussion of surrogacy.
If nobody else will, sure. In a heartbeat.
Yes. Which is very different from buying and selling actual human babies. I am glad we are in agreement on this point.
I am not even getting involved in this whole ridiculous “Dio adopts a crack baby” sidebar. There is not enough popcorn in the world. In the world.
You are a better man than me, and I say that sincerely.
It is a stupid sidebar, but I was really just rebutting the implication that anyone willing to pay for a baby can’t have its best interests at heart, not advocating for baby selling. To put it another way, if it was legal, I’d be willing to pay $300 for a crackhead to give a baby up for adoption to someone responsible, and would be willing to be that someone if necessary.
I’ve already got three, what’s one more? 
If you’re ever in situations where you see these kids for real, not as hypothetical, and hold the babies and see what their life is, it gets to your heart and you find youself thinking that you would be willing to take that kid in as your own rather than send them back to the zombies they have for parents.
I don’t think Diana G is the only one troubled by the notion of offering a drug addict a method of getting more drugs in exchange for sterilization. I don’t know if I would really consider that consent. If it were temporary chemical sterilization, I’d be much more supportive.
what’s not consensual about it, and why would permant sterilization be a worse outcome than a crack baby?
I remember seeing a crack baby in the nursery of the baby ward and it was under a heat lamp and was always crying (literally). It probably cried at least 8 hours a day.
My understanding is that crack does not have nearly the long term effects taht alcohol has if they can survive past their first year. Crack babies are frequently born premature and often succumb to SIDS but once they have gone through withdrawal, they are not that different from other babies. If you put them in good homes, there is nothing about them that makes me think they are better off never being born… assuming you can take them away from the mother at birth.
Because crack addiction at birth is not a permanent disability (except to the extent that premature birth can result in disability). Fetal alcohol syndrome is a far worse affliction that cocaine addiction.
Of course its better if they get off the crack before they have the baby. I would support temporary sterilization for drug addicts until they recover. I would put a lot of other people int his category but I am probably in the minority here.
There are only two ways we can help the babies of addicts:
- Rehabilitate the addict.
- Take the baby away from the addict.
The success rate of rehab is, what, 5-10%? That means at least 90% of the time you have to take away the baby and you have to do it before the baby ends up having lots of emotional and/or physical issues. And what about relapses? This is not a better option than voluntary sterilization.
A good compromise might be some process that sterilizes the addict for 5 years and they can volunteer to “renew” it every two years. Since there is no such process (that I know of) I’ll support the permanent one.
That’s an awfully iffy assumption, and I’ve never understood the langage of the phrase “better never having been born.” if they were never born, there isn’t any “they.” It’s better not to make a baby than to make a baby that will suffer. If the abby is never made, then it’s senseless to talk about it being “better off.”
So the responsible thing in this case is to refrain from an opportunity to prevent crack babies ?
What’s wrong with a week of stress free drug use for a suffering addict who would probably steal the money otherwise?
So what if crack babies can recover? For one thing, they still suffer greatly at birth, so how is imposing that suffering on them more desirable than seeing a recovering drug addict not be able to have babies any more? Why is the addict’s desire for more babies a worse thing than a crack baby suffering withdrawal.
For another thing, those crack babies are almost always going to go home with the crack heads, which means their troubles are only just beginning. How is that any less of a tragedy than a former addict not being able to reproduce (by thir own choice, I hasten to add)?