Selling Children.

[hadespussercats]

Thinking is boring?

Dude.

Not understanding when someone is being sarcastic can make you seem boring.

[hadespussercats]

Also-- giving a child up for adoption is just a turn of phrase-- the child isn't being given (at least not in an enlightened society.) The biological parent is agreeing to entrust the child to another's guardianship. This is not ownership, and the child is not property.

Then what claim, legal or moral, does a biological parent have if they get to decide what happens to the child and if it is assumed they have automatic rights and authority over it's disposition?

It seems to me as if the law, by practice, does treat (if not regard) children as the property of biological parents.

Seems nearly identical in practice and attitude to property ownership to me.

Well, I see what you're saying, but I think the idea is that parents makes decisions for a child that the child is not yet capable of making for himself-- with a view to protecting a child's interests and well-being until they reach the age of majority. But parents do abuse that power.

It's not unlike being someone's medical proxy, though-- the proxy is supposed to provide a valuable service to the invalid, but if the proxy is one of the invalid's heirs, conflicts of interest can make things ugly fast.

[Warren Dew]

Then what claim, legal or moral, does a biological parent have if they get to decide what happens to the child and if it is assumed they have automatic rights and authority over it's disposition?

It seems to me as if the law, by practice, does treat (if not regard) children as the property of biological parents.

Seems nearly identical in practice and attitude to property ownership to me.

Usually one can destroy one's property without running afoul of the law. That's not true of one's children.

I think the situation with children is more of a grey area between property and being an independent human.

[Warren Dew]

The Good Lady Strange provoked this quandry to me tonight, but I was probably not the best person to ask, since I'm not particularly fond of children. So I thought I'd ask here since I know I'll get a range of interesting amusing and bizarre answers.

Why is it alright for a mother to give up her child for adoption for free, yet people would consider it wrong for that same woman to sell her child for a profit?

First, let's examine how a system that allows a woman to sell her child for a profit would differ from one that does not.

If women are not allowed to sell her children for profit, a woman looking for profit will engage in some other activity. That means that women who do end up with children were not motivated by money, and while they may not be able to support the child, they will still have the child's best interest at heart. That means that if they do give up the child for adoption, they have an incentive to ensure the child is given up in such a way that it will be well treated - either they'll find good parents and arrange a private adoption, or they'll find a reputable adoption agency.

If women are allowed to sell children for profit, a woman looking for profit may turn to having a child to sell. Her primary motivation will then be money, rather than the child's best interest. That means the child may end up being sold to people who will exploit it - in the worst case, a house of prostitution, say - or to a shady adoption agency that places some of its children with such people. This is the situation we want to avoid.

Now, turning to your question, I doubt most of the people who would consider it wrong have thought through that whole argument, but I think that argument underlies the cultural norms that cause people in our culture to think it's wrong for children to be sold into adoption, even though it's okay for them to be given into adoption.

[Warren Dew]

But gestational surrogates, egg donors and such get paid for their services. Why is that okay, but paying for an adoption isn't?

Indeed...I wonder what answer a right to lifer has for that.

They generally oppose the assisted reproductive technologies necessary for gestational surrogacy or use of donated eggs.

[Schneibster]

Thankfuckinggod that biology endows reproductively active humans with ethics.
Nothing can possibly go wrong then.

Assertion without evidence; the prospective parents are proven unethical, whereas the biological parent isn't.

Just to clarify please, Schneibster ... are you calling Gallstones comments that you're quoting "assertion without evidence" ...

Yes. Gallstones is rhetorically sarcastically attempting to negate my statement without evidence, using sarcasm to attempt to override the lack of evidence with an emotional cue.

[Schneibster]

Thinking is boring?

Dude.

Not understanding when someone is being sarcastic can make you seem boring.

Using sarcasm to mask lack of evidence is underhanded.

Failing to understand why such things should be short-circuited... not to mention assuming the sarcasm was unrecognized when it was in fact recognized, and turned out to be an underhanded debate trick... well, I'll just leave that be.

[Schneibster]

Going hypothetical here: A mother of five delivers another child. She is offered a substantial amount of money to give up the child for adoption. She meets the prospective parents who are well off, stable and anxious to raise a child. The money will help the other children be fed and clothed. What should the mother do?

The mother has an ethical dilemma; I wouldn't try to say what she should do. It's the prospective parents who have bad ethics, because they're offering money for a human life. I question how well off the child would be with unethical parents.

Interesting hypothetical, though.

I wouldn't consider it bad ethics to help out six children and their mother, especially if the prospectives have the funds to spare. The mother can solve several problems with one stroke, and know that she's giving her kids a big boost. If we get past the reflexive response to the slightest hint of "slavery" I think the process would sound rational, responsible and in the whole very good for all parties concerned.

There's the ethics, which I exposed, of the question of the monetary value of a human life. I would say that treating a human life as if it had a monetary value would be a big, heavy piece of negative value. Therefore, even the values of the other childrens' and the mother's lives might well weigh less as a positive, than that would as a negative, for me.

And it has nothing to do with slavery. Slavery and it have something to do with the value of human life, not necessarily with each other.

Keep in mind, it's the quid pro quo that is the ethical problem. It's not necessarily a problem for the prospective parents if it's not a quid pro quo. Very touchy ethical ground, though. Very tricky.

Also, I'm not saying anything about law; just about ethics. That's stuff that happens inside peoples' heads. And note as well I explicitly said I wouldn't care to be in the mother's shoes, and wouldn't try to second-guess her. From her POV, she's fine either way, IMO. I'm trying to look out from behind their eyes and saying how I'd look at it, ethically, if I were them.

[Schneibster]

Well, I see what you're saying, but I think the idea is that parents makes decisions for a child that the child is not yet capable of making for himself-- with a view to protecting a child's interests and well-being until they reach the age of majority. But parents do abuse that power.

I'd agree with both statements.

It's not unlike being someone's medical proxy, though-- the proxy is supposed to provide a valuable service to the invalid, but if the proxy is one of the invalid's heirs, conflicts of interest can make things ugly fast.

And this one as well.

These are all ethically tricky situations. Much careful thought should attend such things, and unfortunately too often does not.

[Gallstones]

Thinking is boring?

Dude.

Not understanding when someone is being sarcastic can make you seem boring.

Using sarcasm to mask lack of evidence is underhanded.

Failing to understand why such things should be short-circuited... not to mention assuming the sarcasm was unrecognized when it was in fact recognized, and turned out to be an underhanded debate trick... well, I'll just leave that be.

I kind of see it as having a sense of humor.
But, we don't all have one of those.
I got my chuckle, and that's what counts.

[Schneibster]

You took me by surprise, then- the forum is, after all, not only in the Serious Stuff area, but is called Serious Discussion.

I suppose I should have known. I'll try to keep it in mind.

[JimC]

Mine are too old to fetch a good price...

[Svartalf]

breed them and sell the results.

[JimC]

breed them and sell the results.

They both seem like prime breeding stock, I might set up an AI stud program for them...

[lordpasternack]

But gestational surrogates, egg donors and such get paid for their services. Why is that okay, but paying for an adoption isn't?

Indeed. Although I would point out that in the UK, gamete (egg and sperm) donors aren't paid for their services - at most they will be reimbursed out-of-pocket expenses. I don't know about gestational surrogates, but I'd expect the story to be similar.

And I suppose in those cases, the 'commodity' in question is either non-sentient, or it's the temporary use of the body of a fully consenting adult - whereas in the case of child-selling, the commodity is a child.