It’s a tricky one for me. 1/2 a lifetime ago, I’d have thought it was a logical solution. They thought babies “born addicted to crack” would suffer lifelong impairments. But they didn’t and don’t. They go through withdrawl after birth, which is probably awful for them but then, it’s all clear. It’s their free choice and yet if they’re deep in the throes of addiction, is it a free choice? Yet, if sobriety isn’t coming, should the children have a hard life? Maybe if they’re not born at all, it makes their lives easier? So, it can overlap into pro-life / pro-choice in an awkward way. It’s fascinating. Part of me finds it to be like a private eugenics campaign. Part of me wants to say, “and so what?”

It’s a tricky one for me. 1/2 a lifetime ago, I’d have thought it was a logical solution. They thought babies “born addicted to crack” would suffer lifelong impairments.

But they didn’t and don’t. They go through withdrawl after birth, which is probably awful for them but then, it’s all clear.

It’s their free choice and yet if they’re deep in the throes of addiction, is it a free choice?

Yet, if sobriety isn’t coming, should the children have a hard life? Maybe if they’re not born at all, it makes their lives easier?

So, it can overlap into pro-life / pro-choice in an awkward way.

It’s fascinating. Part of me finds it to be like a private eugenics campaign. Part of me wants to say, “and so what?”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


1 + = three

Leave a Reply