Selling Children.

[Svartalf]

Does anyone object if the child is put into a better situation and money changes hands during?

A slave living a better life than his/her free peasant parents? unheard of...
doesn't change the status of the bought person though.

[Audley Strange]

I'm not buying the slavery angle unless one assumes that giving away an unwanted child is also akin to the child being enslaved. Since we don't expect adoptive parents to use their children as slaves why should we expect adoptive parents who have to purchase the child would.

Slavery is taking a person for use whithout their consent until such time that they die or the owner releases them. I don't see how giving a mother who has no ability to look after her child some cash for it rather than expecting her to hand it over for free equates to that unless we consider all children as slaves until they reach legal age to leave home.

[Svartalf]

Well, parents getting money for giving up their child are selling it, and even if they expect it to live the good life of the pampered adoptive kid of the wealthy, that doesn't change the fact they sold it, and it might as well be enslaved.
Adoptive parents who effedtively buy the child may also be more prone to treating it like property, or an expensive toy. We have enough bad natural parents who make the child live their fantasy rather than its own life without having adoptive one who feel entitled due to additional expenses.

[hadespussercats]

I'm not buying the slavery angle unless one assumes that giving away an unwanted child is also akin to the child being enslaved. Since we don't expect adoptive parents to use their children as slaves why should we expect adoptive parents who have to purchase the child would.

Slavery is taking a person for use whithout their consent until such time that they die or the owner releases them. I don't see how giving a mother who has no ability to look after her child some cash for it rather than expecting her to hand it over for free equates to that unless we consider all children as slaves until they reach legal age to leave home.

But the child is his own person-- not the mother's possession to sell. And the child can't consent to being sold. Also-- what exactly is the buyer buying? Does the buyer then own the child? If not, what's the money for?

If you could spin it that she was being paid for the service of gestation, and for taking care of the child until she hands it over, I could see it.

[Schneibster]

I'm not confusing it with slavery; I agree it's not the same. Note that Alf said, "for the same reason that slavery is unacceptable," not that it was in fact slavery (at least at first). However, it is selling a human life.

From an ethical standpoint, I think the value of saying a human life is priceless, i.e. beyond the value of money in any amount, is greater than the good done by delivering the child from a parent who cannot raise it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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?

[Svartalf]

not changing my stance.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

not changing my stance.

Child's situation improves. Siblings' situation improves. New parents situation improves. Mother's situation improves. If there were no money involved would you approve? Even if meant the other children would go hungry and poorly clothed?

[Gallstones]

She could enter a contract for financial remuneration in exchange for transferring her parental rights to the remunerating couple.

[Audley Strange]

But the child is his own person-- not the mother's possession to sell. And the child can't consent to being sold. Also-- what exactly is the buyer buying? Does the buyer then own the child? If not, what's the money for?

If you could spin it that she was being paid for the service of gestation, and for taking care of the child until she hands it over, I could see it.

When a woman gives up her child for adoption the child is not her possession to give away, and the child cannot consent to being given away. The buyer is buying the child rather than it being handed over for nothing as is currently the way of it. Such profits could be shared by the adoption agency and the parent. Does an adoptive family own the child it adopts? No more so than a mother owns the child she keeps.

Why does adding monetary value for that service, nothing else, cause such an issue. I'm not suggesting Amazon have a children for sale section, but that adoption could be charged for.

I'm also not asking people to change their minds. I'm happy to hear various opinions because I'm uncertain as to why it would or would not have a moral aspect to add cash to what we already do.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

She could enter a contract for financial remuneration in exchange for transferring her parental rights to the remunerating couple.

That was what I was suggesting. Say the prospective parents were wealthy enough to see the other five kids through school as far as they wished to go, trust funds or such.

[hadespussercats]

(@Gallstones)

Or the rich couple could just give the poor family a gift of money, or set up a fund for their education and maintenance, or something.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

While we're at, what about surrogate mothers? They get compensated.

[hadespussercats]

But the child is his own person-- not the mother's possession to sell. And the child can't consent to being sold. Also-- what exactly is the buyer buying? Does the buyer then own the child? If not, what's the money for?

If you could spin it that she was being paid for the service of gestation, and for taking care of the child until she hands it over, I could see it.

When a woman gives up her child for adoption the child is not her possession to give away, and the child cannot consent to being given away. The buyer is buying the child rather than it being handed over for nothing as is currently the way of it. Such profits could be shared by the adoption agency and the parent. Does an adoptive family own the child it adopts? No more so than a mother owns the child she keeps.

Why does adding monetary value for that service, nothing else, cause such an issue. I'm not suggesting Amazon have a children for sale section, but that adoption could be charged for.

I'm also not asking people to change their minds. I'm happy to hear various opinions because I'm uncertain as to why it would or would not have a moral aspect to add cash to what we already do.

The money paid can't be for the child without making that child a commodity. But the services involved in adoption could be paid for, as I indicated above.

[laklak]

I've often thought of opening a baby farm somewhere in the Caribbean. Nice little island, nice little 70 foot schooner, a few nice broodmares ladies. I wouldn't be so crass as to sell them, but would certainly need a bit of dosh for medical care, food, shipping, handling, restocking fees - that sort of thing. What could possibly go wrong?