Home (Post) Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

C.R.A.C.K. ‘Smokes Crack’

So, there is a program/organization which pays crack-addicted women a few hundred bucks cash to get IUDs so that they won’t have crack babies born into lives of despair, suffering, etc. Children Require A Caring Kommunity. Wow.
I think there are a few red flags here that one could pause to ponder. Seriously. It is my understanding that there are currently approx. 7,000 women partaking in this program in the US.

1) Soon (if not already) taxpayers will be footing the bill. Is giving anyone money for crack (that is what, in effect, this is) okay, no matter the circumstances? My tax money? And I can’t smoke crack, because its ILLEGAL.
1a) It should be noted that paying people a one time fee ain’t that bad when one considers the amount of tax money repeated visits to rehab and the hospital by these sorts of people cost in tax money… or to lock them up… for their illegal activities… This is a weak counterpoint, IMO.
2) It seems there are autonomy and consent issues when we are talking about crack-addicted individuals who are being coerced, in effect, with cash into significant transfers of autonomy, such as reproductive autonomy.
3) The sort of precedent that is established by allowing this sort of thing seems like it is going in the wrong direction. What sorts of other types of laws or policy might be enacted that is going further, but close enough to C.R.A.C.K. to use it in a justificatory manner?
4) I suspect that the demographics for the roughly 7000 females currently involved in the program may lead some to think that this program has a not-so-distant affinity to eugenics.
5) IUDs are abortives. Does the concern for the child, on the part of the anti-abortion crowd, leave them open to similar policies in which other sorts of more pre-emptive methods of birth control are used? Can anyone speak Chinese?

I urge you guys to think about this stuff. Discuss it. Call someone and talk to them about it. Its odd. It smells fishy. I don’t necessarily have a strong Christian ethic or anything, but this strikes me as being in an ethical grey area whose depths might best be left unexplored.

Are we reasonably to think that this is the sort of case where some sort of overall benefit can rationalize the situation? DO we even achieve a benefit with this?

I was discussing C.R.A.C.K. last night with a couple law scholars I know. I find it deeply disturbing, do you? Do the ends justify the means?

Comments

Drinking. If you drink, we will give you a case of bourbon to install an IUD. The poor child.
Ugliness. If you are ugly, we will pay you to install an IUD. The poor kid.
Smoking. The poor kid.
Conservatives. The poor kid.

I take it all y’all agree with the CRACK program because you are all anti-abortion. You don’t mind when women’s autonomy is stepped on for non-existant others, no?

And no one commented? I’m sorry, I thought this was a political blog. I forgot Rob had eased it over into gossip, drama, and pop culture rag.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on January 31, 2008 at 10:07 am

Probably the biggest thing I can think of in objection to this is that a crack addicted person needs help getting off crack, not a band-aid designed to prevent her from bringing crack babies into the world.  Maybe better than an IUD would be a concerted effort to use women caught smoking crack to locate the dealers?

Bike Bubba on January 31, 2008 at 11:08 am
Proof
Proof
11094 comments
Send a private message

It’s a marketplace of ideas, Spark.

(BTW: Nothing says “pathetic” like commenting on your own post because no one else will!)

I thought this was a political blog. I forgot Rob had eased it over into gossip, drama, and pop culture rag.

So when you post a shot of your family coat-of-arms or your latest grocery bill, it’s Rob’s fault?
This is a very discriminating political blog, in the traditional sense of the word!
You’re lucky to get a “pity post”!



For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Proof on January 31, 2008 at 11:17 am

Nothing says “pathetic” like commenting on your own post because no one else will!

dude. nothing says pathetic like pointing that out. this crack money for the poor program is a veritable goldmine of fuckedupedness. no one said a thing about it.

family coat-of-arms or your latest grocery bill

also, don’t be sour if my coat of arms is treading on you, protestant snakes!
and my grocery bill has a shitload more credibility than any of y’alls figures, indexes, GDP quotes, or reconstructed histories.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on January 31, 2008 at 10:18 pm

And no one commented?

Panties in a wad over not getting enough attention?

Grow up.


Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

robert108 on January 31, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.