Com. Monaco,
I think you make the mistake generally common to statist-communist analyses which is, in short, to simplify away the important legal-economic distinctions among different acts of what might loosely be termed "production". Production as such refers to activities of economic interdependence. There are secondary and informal markets for white teeth, hard bodies and dinners but as I said, this is to be expected with such generalized activities. The proportion is small. While badly-raised kids may indeed increase the probability that money will be spent on social ills, that does not create an economic arbitrage because parent-child relationships are not for sale. People like baby smiles but if babies are not smiling enough, it creates no economic opportunity for surrogate parents.
There is an absolute difference between a parent's shaking a rattle to amuse a baby and the work of the person who makes the rattle. The parent is consuming and the worker is producing. The parent is acting autonomously for her own ends and her actions have no direct effects in the economy of interdependence. Even if the parent makes her own rattle, we don't care. She is then consuming raw materials rather than finished goods and since she produces nothing of use value for another economic actor, she is consuming and not producing. No, babies are not economic actors. What they produce, as a general matter, nobody wants.
Think of it this way: if I make baby bottles, what I need you to do is buy bottles. What you do with those baby bottles is your own business. It is very dangerous to forget the distinction between public and private.
peace,
boddi