C.R.A.C.K. is a program in place that offers cash incentives for those addicted to drugs or alcohol to get sterilized or accept some other form of birth control. The purpose is to prevent babies from being born who suffer with after effects of the substance, and are often placed in foster care. Is this a viable solution to parental substance abuse?

Personally, I think it reeks of Hitler’s Germany.




20 Comments

Leave a response

You must be to post a response.

  1. Yin 2 months ago

    I heard about this a while back, and I honestly don’t know how to feel about it. Even though I am an antinatalist, I am still against eugenic kinds of things. In saying that though, these people are making the choice themselves. One can easily argue though that it is gross to let them decide something like that when they are in such state and to basically bribe them with money when they have addictions. I, though, also have to think of the kids that could come from parents having them when in the position they are in. I also have to take into account my stance on assisted suicide since those people are also making a decision when in a vulnerable position.

    Overall, I may have to be ok with this. It isn’t a totally comfortable position for me, but I feel that it could be a bit more logical to allow it than not. Here is the thing: A person with addictions has a kid. They can’t take care of them right, the kid goes through hell, and may end up in the system. Happens all of the time, and I think we can safely say that it isn’t good. Other side is that the addicted person goes through with this, gets money for more stuff to potentially harm themselves, maybe they get help and get clean, and then they regret their decision. That, I really do have sympathy for them, because I know they are probably taking it hard.

    Weighing the two though: One side has a kid that may go through hell when they never made the choice themselves. The other has a person who made regrettable decisions themselves. I think when it boils down to it, I would rather the hell be placed on the person who decided than the one who didn’t. As I said earlier though, it isn’t an easy choice and I’m not sure how to really feel. If there are holes that I’m not seeing in what I said, let me know. I mean, I can see how maybe the parent manages to get clean and can raise the kid, but that is a lot of faith to put on people that we see failing that daily. Maybe the person who is addicted would have never had a kid anyway during that time and regrets it when they are clean. While I do feel bad about that, better that than that potential kid going through hell. It’s very complicated, I feel.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Jear77 2 months ago

      @Yin that’s a new term: antinatalism. Thanks for the vocab.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

    • Author
      Scarlett 2 months ago

      @Yin It has been proven that people under the effect of a substance show physical and cognitive impairments. To me it seems like coercing people’s reproductive choices.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • Yin 2 months ago

        @Scarlett That is true, but I think I’d rather that than the outcome. Again, it isn’t an easier choice or answer, but I feel that at least they have a choice there. The kid they may have won’t. To me, that is the bigger issue. I think trying to help the person should come before that decision though.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  2. Jear77 2 months ago

    I think it is an option… but instead of criminalizing drug possession with jail (prison) time, perhaps the people need to be forced into treatment and rehabilitation programs making them be productive members of society.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      Scarlett 2 months ago

      @Jear77 Yeah, I don’t think this is the best solution, and doesn’t address the root issue.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

  3. Fletch 2 months ago

    if it’s offered voluntarily, where does it reek?

    I don’t think there were many options in “Hitler’s Germany”

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

  4. spitfire3dc 2 months ago

    I am pro choice so I can’t cherry pick when it is acceptable and when it is not.

    Pro choice isn’t anti abortion, It is about allowing the parents to decide what their conscience determines is right.

    My conscience in this case would be somewhat pragmatic. A child who has no choice but to suffer from addiction with no original choices is unfair. A parent who is incapable of caring for their child is unfair. A society that would be incapable of providing an equitable lifestyle, even with specific focused attention would be unfair.

    I know several parents of children with autism and Downs Syndrome. Those specific parents are incredible, but it takes an effort that can only be founded on complete and total love for that child. A drug addict has to know their personal condition would influence the creation of new life. That show right off the bat that they don’t care. When a baby materializes; it doesn’t represent joy, as much as it represents a burden and although the word burden is harsh, it is a word that describes what occurs when a mostly willing society takes on the care. Loving care will be an exception, rather than the rule and awareness of that harsh reality has to be taken into consideration.

    Does this make me a monster to accept the realities? Maybe, but I hope not.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      Scarlett 2 months ago

      @Spitfire3dC no, not a monster. However, I will say that addiction is a disease that is housed in the brain. We disagree on your statements about addicts not caring. I see them more as struggling with a chronic disease.
      Society could take care of those children if they wanted to, just as poverty, world hunger, anything could end almost if enough people agreed to it.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • spitfire3dc 2 months ago

        @Scarlett as a social worker, it is not surprising you feel that way. Empathy for the struggles for a substance ABuser should be something that is rooted at your core.

        My core has a foundation on being aware of ramifications and making the choices before initiating on a course going forward. A big part of that includes taking responsibility for those choices.

        The world cannot be made up of the same kinds of people. Thankfully there are people like you who have been shaped by your choices and I think people like me contribute something to the overall structure of makes the world go around too. That also means that there will be the kinds of people who struggle with their choices for whatever circumstances they encounter that will shape them into whatever they become.

        Just because that is as it is, doesn’t let them off the hook, but it does allow people like you to exercise your choice to be there to help them through it. I choose to help people that may be struggling through no choice of their own and taking a stance that suggests that I will not encourage bad choices in the first place.

        Perhaps that illustrates a holier than thou attitude, but I prefer to think of it as an attitude that place responsibility squarely on our own shoulders.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  5. BelleMadre 2 months ago

    that Crack sounds Whack!

    sounds more like population control with a dark twist, than support and assistance. i guess societal proactivity, but … defining the value of a life based on some ideal or perfection makes me sad. i love the people i have supported who live with disabilities and i dont see them as invaluable. you know?

    ill also say this, i had a child with an addict. a role i will not deny. whatever came in our lives since, and whatever state i was in when i made that decision. if that addict had gotten sterilized or whatever is the male version, i wouldnt be mother of elf… ya know?

    reeks i tells ya!

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Fletch 2 months ago

      @BelleMadre isn’t it offered voluntarily?

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • BelleMadre 2 months ago

        @Fletch sounds like, yes. but also… are there multiple options or just the one offer?

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Fletch 2 months ago

        @BelleMadre no clue, wonder if you can negotiate as well?

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • BelleMadre 2 months ago

        @Fletch good question!

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

    • Author
      Scarlett 2 months ago

      @BelleMadre Yes, yes, yes! This is exactly what I thought. I recoiled as soon as I read about it.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • BelleMadre 2 months ago

        @Scarlett it might sound like an ‘option’ but if its the only one offered, or made to desperate people, or if the purpose reeks, well, i would suggest that other forms of support and care would be worth more?! like to get clean or healthy? might be more in order. if they are so worried about cost to society of ‘unproductive off spring?’ then maybe they can do something to change that factor instead of wiping it out? remember the uproars about sterilization of people with developmental disabilities? there are other means. imagine if someone gets clean, changes their life and then cant fulfill the urge to become a parent? that loss! i dont know. i dun like it

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  6. griz 2 months ago

    I understand the . . . zeal . . . to blackball EVERYTHING to do with an evil and repressive regime as safeguard against finding ourselves back at the same horrendous place.

    But let’s remember a lot of good also came out of this evil regime that chances are most people reading this benefit from daily.
    It is good to keep our eyes open for similar processes. But there is a very real weakness in the US for over-doing this — to the point where some will dismiss all things Canadian for example, as “evil socialism”. They are trying to cast some sort of link between an extreme example of say the USSR, with a peaceful neighbour who simply values society up there with valuing money and capital.

    At what point do we trade off “the sanctity of the individual” . . . against seeding a generation of children ravaged by the effects and after-effects of addiction? Who then pass this on in varying degrees to their children and then to their children?

    At what point do we let the fear of “where this might lead”, keep us from addressing where it actually IS leading right here; now; today???

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      Scarlett 2 months ago

      @griz sorry, not following…

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • griz 2 months ago

        @Scarlett
        The idea is that the fear of Hitler’s regime, can have us fearful of anything that bears even disassociated similarity to some aspect of it.

        I understand that sterilizing problem addicts smacks of that regime. But we cannot let the fear of “what it might become”, keep us from at least trying to protect children from their own living holocaust.

        “Voluntary but with cash incentive” can seem like taking advantage or twisting the arm of someone not in their right mind. But what it saves, is generations of children who are exposed to the ravages of addiction who are not in their mature adult minds — who will be shaped and twisted by the addictions of their parent(s). Who will then struggle not to visit a similar twisting upon their children.

        BTW, an interesting factoid that addiction is a “illness in the brain”. Consider though, that almost everyone has some manner of addiction or another. It’s just certain extreme classes and manifestations of this addictive mindset . . .that we classify as “addiction”. Most people will not (cannot) see themselves as addicts of some sort.

        So does that mean we’re all “ill in the brain” to some extent?

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

©2017 Soul Sequel | All Rights Reserved

 
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account