Selling Children.

[hadespussercats]

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.

Yes. That's where I ended up, too.

I guess selling children is slavery-- but developing children, in part or in whole, is a service. You pay for the service, not the kid.

[lordpasternack]

Curiously though, we're generally happy about the paid 'adoption' of other sentient beings (other animals) - and we are happy to view that as essentially benign, since in most cases it is. Most people who buy pets, either off breeders or owners who suddenly found themselves with a litter on their hands, buy them out of the best of intentions. Why do we find that okay, but squick at the thought of doing likewise with human young?

[mistermack]

I used to process adoptions in my early career as a social worker

Hey Rum, do you ever listen to "Clare in the community" ?

I love it, best thing on the radio.

[Svartalf]

Curiously though, we're generally happy about the paid 'adoption' of other sentient beings (other animals) - and we are happy to view that as essentially benign, since in most cases it is. Most people who buy pets, either off breeders or owners who suddenly found themselves with a litter on their hands, buy them out of the best of intentions. Why do we find that okay, but squick at the thought of doing likewise with human young?

I thought that the issue was about adopting kids as a paid commodity, not ladies offering 9 months of their lives as a womb surrogate.

The latter case (assuming the lady got impregnated especially for the occasion, and the child ideally has the genes of at least one of the destinated parents), is indeed one where a person renders a service, and some would deem she deserves to be handsomely compensated for it. Of course, it might also be argued that such a service, given how closely it touches to the basics of human personhood, even involving long term use of the lady's genital tract and the creation of a new human, should simply not be made commercially available. There are countries where surrogate mother services are illegal, and children born through them won't be recognized as belonging to the destination parents by the powers that be, even if they are those parents' genetic offspring.

The former case, however, is more clear cut. A humman person is not within the realm of commerce, nor is parental responsibility over a minor. Actually, a parent who cannot take proper care of a child, and is ready to relinquish it, should be happy that it will be raised by a good family, not looking to make additional profit, in addition to the savings made from not having expenses from the kid any more. The adopters are already willing to take up the considerable costs of raising a kid to adulthood, and possibly beyond, and they should not be milked for more, as more actually is tantamount to an actual commercial transaction, and that is no longer adopting one's descent, that's buying a slave or toy.

[Warren Dew]

Curiously though, we're generally happy about the paid 'adoption' of other sentient beings (other animals) - and we are happy to view that as essentially benign, since in most cases it is. Most people who buy pets, either off breeders or owners who suddenly found themselves with a litter on their hands, buy them out of the best of intentions. Why do we find that okay, but squick at the thought of doing likewise with human young?

With humans, we're more concerned with the minority of cases where it isn't benign.

[charlou]

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.

Yes. That's where I ended up, too.

I guess selling children is slavery-- but developing children, in part or in whole, is a service. You pay for the service, not the kid.

Aye ... that's the most reasonable position, I think.

[charlou]

Curiously though, we're generally happy about the paid 'adoption' of other sentient beings (other animals) - and we are happy to view that as essentially benign, since in most cases it is. Most people who buy pets, either off breeders or owners who suddenly found themselves with a litter on their hands, buy them out of the best of intentions. Why do we find that okay, but squick at the thought of doing likewise with human young?

With humans, we're more concerned with the minority of cases where it isn't benign.

Many of us are concerned about the purchase/procurement of animals, particularly wrt subsequent use/treatment of those animals.

[JimC]

Curiously though, we're generally happy about the paid 'adoption' of other sentient beings (other animals) - and we are happy to view that as essentially benign, since in most cases it is. Most people who buy pets, either off breeders or owners who suddenly found themselves with a litter on their hands, buy them out of the best of intentions. Why do we find that okay, but squick at the thought of doing likewise with human young?

With humans, we're more concerned with the minority of cases where it isn't benign.

Many of us are concerned about the purchase/procurement of animals, particularly wrt subsequent use/treatment of those animals.

As we should be, but sometimes, the abuse issue occurs in the prior set up; puppy farms are the best example, a pretty horrible place for the bitches, even if all or a vast majority of the puppies end up with a good life with responsible owners...

[lordpasternack]

Bitches ain't shit.

Sorry.

[Tyrannical]

I found an ancient Roman practice of selling children into adoption but not as slaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_ancient_Rome

In Roman law, the power to give children in adoption was one of the recognised powers of the pater familias. The adopted boy would usually be the oldest, the one with proven health and abilities. Adoption was an expensive agreement for the childless family and quality had to be ensured. Adoption was agreed between families by the mother giving the person they wanted to adopt (for the most part) equal status, often political allies and/or with blood connections. A Plebeian adopted by a Patrician would become a patrician, and vice versa; however, at least in Republican times, this required the consent of the Senate (famously in the case of Publius Clodius Pulcher[1]). A sum of money was exchanged between the parties and the boy assumed the adoptive father's name, plus a cognomen that indicated his original family (see Roman naming convention). Adoption was not secretive or considered shameful, nor was the adopted boy expected to cut ties to his original family. Like a marriage contract, adoption was a way to reinforce inter-family ties and political alliances. The adopted child was often in a privileged situation, enjoying both original and adoptive family connections. Almost every politically famous Roman family used it.

[Svartalf]

It's still from a culture that didn't respect the intrisinc value of the human person where slaves were bought and sold, and a clan chief could freely use and abuse his dependants in every possible way, including killing them or selling them away in slavery or any other status he deemed fit.

[Santa_Claus]

Many years ago I designed a way to legally get the value of Romanian Orphans listed on the London Stock Exchange

They were popular on TV at the same. and nothing like free advertising. (and yes I did manage to get around that "Not for sale" thing - effectively it was a complicated lease arrangement. The key to making the scheme viable (£££££!) was that unlike most assets they increase in value over time - as folk seem to get attached to them Everyone would have been a winner

But my bosses did not go for the idea - I was simply ahead of my time...........I think most of the kids froze to death the next winter