Selling Children.

[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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

And thus not a commodity.

[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.

And thus not a commodity.

Yes. I was finishing that earlier thought.

[Audley Strange]

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.

Okay well what if as part of that guarantee of guardianship was financial?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

And thus not a commodity.

Yes. I was finishing that earlier thought.

But if we agree a child can't be actually sold, then renumeration for the parent would not be an issue, yes?

[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.

And thus not a commodity.

Yes. I was finishing that earlier thought.

But if we agree a child can't be actually sold, then renumeration for the parent would not be an issue, yes?

Yeah-- it's just that it's important to clarify what exactly is being bought and sold. In some respects, this may be semantics-- but legally, it makes a world of difference.

[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.

And thus not a commodity.

Yes. I was finishing that earlier thought.

But if we agree a child can't be actually sold, then renumeration for the parent would not be an issue, yes?

Yeah-- it's just that it's important to clarify what exactly is being bought and sold. In some respects, this may be semantics-- but legally, it makes a world of difference.

Oh, and to clarify-- people are never commodities. But this doesn't change the fact that people have been bought and sold since ever.

Morally, no one owns a slave. But legally, de facto, slaves are owned by the people who buy them. That's why buying a child will never be right-- but reimbursing a biological parent for time and services rendered could 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.

[Gallstones]

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.

[Gallstones]

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.

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

[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.

[Gallstones]

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.

Dude.

[Schneibster]

Thinking is boring?

Dude.

[charlou]

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" ... or are you intending to give an example of assertion without evidence with your comment that "the prospective parents are proven unethical, whereas the biological parent isn't" ?

[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?

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.