Why is this illegal?

#27
#27
utvolpj said:
So can a person be sold at any age? Could a 55yo man buy a 10yo boy for example?
Click to expand...

I missed this earlier. I imagine that any parent who would willingly sell their child to such a person is most likely not establishing a secure and stable environment for the child, anyway. For those that are, I would imagine the price would be high enough that if the 55 year old was a rich enough predator, he is either already running a foundation that is his candy shop or he is taking trips to SE Asia to do the same at a reduced cost.

It is not as if these "independent third parties" have been doing a great job keeping children away from predators.

A 1986 survey conducted by the National Foster Care Education Project found that foster children were 10 times more likely to be abused than children among the general population. A follow-up study in 1990 by the same group produced similar results.

...

In California, as of 1989 Los Angeles County alone had paid $18 million in settlements to children who had been abused while in its custody.

One such case involved a nine-year-old boy who weighed only 28 lbs., and who could hardly speak after the suicides of his parents. County social workers failed to visit him in his foster home for four months.

During that time, he was beaten, sodomized, burned on his genitals and nearly drowned by his foster parents. He became a spastic paraplegic. By 1990 the state was threatening to take over Los Angeles County's child welfare system.

A Critical Look at Foster Care: How Widespread a Problem?
Click to expand...
 
#29
#29
therealUT said:
In this situation, would you rather have the child being raised by the person who just wants to score some quick cash and get rid of that thorn in their side?

Ostensibly, sans any other factors, I would want the person who is willing to remove that child from that situation at a personal cost to raise the child.
Click to expand...

True, if you assume the accepting party has the best intentions of the child at heart. Come on, as a philosopher (as opposed to the rest of the posters on VN) I would expect you to make no assumptions when articulating your argument.

The accepting party could be into the human trafficking business. Sex slave business. Maybe the accepting party is a dirty old man who would kill to be able to buy "pure" children to satisfy their own perverse vices (similar to Sandusky or Brian David Mitchell who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart; btw he had a wife who could easily have played the part of a sympathetic grandmotherly figure to secure a child if need be. don't underestimate a child predator's ability to fly under the radar. hell look at Sandusky, he has adopted children). Presuming that the accepting party are good parents with admirable morals is quite naive. It is akin to believing that humans are inherently good or altruistic. They are not.

Finally, you seem to be operating under the notion that two consenting adults can engage in any economic transaction they please. As a libertarian, I completely agree. If a girl wants to sell her body or her virginity then I believe they have every right to do so. The problem with this argument arises when the "economic good" is a third party who does not have the ability to consent. Which is the case when biological parents are in essence selling their baby. As I said before, when dealing with a baby/small child, it is not a bad idea to have a third party make sure all things are done above board. The minor ought to have someone independently looking out for their best interest.

The money which is collected during an adoption does not go to the biological parents, thus eliminating any intentional economic incentive on their part. The money is primary used to address both the legal and health needs of the child. Again, I think this process should be more efficient thus increasing the economic incentive for adoption by willing, good parents. And yes I understand the waste/bribery foreign governments collect in the name of adoption. Yet another reason American adoptive parents should focus on adopting children from the homeland instead of abroad.
 
#30
#30
therealUT said:
I missed this earlier. I imagine that any parent who would willingly sell their child to such a person is most likely not establishing a secure and stable environment for the child, anyway. For those that are, I would imagine the price would be high enough that if the 55 year old was a rich enough predator, he is either already running a foundation that is his candy shop or he is taking trips to SE Asia to do the same at a reduced cost.

It is not as if these "independent third parties" have been doing a great job keeping children away from predators.
Click to expand...

understood but to say that since they aren't doing a great job we will just remove all barriers is a stretch IMO.

As for the OP, how do you handle repossessions when the payments stop coming? If you declare bankruptcy are children now an asset or a liability?

If people want to enter into a surrogate agreement then that's fine but I can't see how the ability to buy/sell humans has much of an upside.
 
#32
#32
utvolpj said:
understood but to say that since they aren't doing a great job we will just remove all barriers is a stretch IMO.

As for the OP, how do you handle repossessions when the payments stop coming? If you declare bankruptcy are children now an asset or a liability?

If people want to enter into a surrogate agreement then that's fine but I can't see how the ability to buy/sell humans has much of an upside.
Click to expand...

Bankruptcy could be handled either by the two parties or they could ask for third-party mediation. If the buyers cannot pay their bills, would you rather keep the child in that situation? If the biological parent wanted money instead of a child, would you want to keep the child with the biological parent?

Of course, this possibly leads to instability and insecurity for the child; yet, it is not more instability and insecurity than already exists in the foster care system which is monitored and controlled by independent third parties.

There are certain acts that should be illegal: forced labor, sexual abuse, abuse, etc. The act of selling a child is not, in itself, an immoral act and there is plenty of empirical data that suggest that the legal structure that surrounds child placement is flawed and places plenty of children in harm's way.
 
#34
#34
There is a process to determine if families are fit for adoption. Otherwise the baby could wind up in a sex slave operation or worse. At least if the family has to appear fit to raise a child on the surface, probably the worst that's going on is a little behind the scenes abuse, which is a step up from where they could wind up if the process isn't monitored.
 
#35
#35
I don't get how saying the current system of checks is flawed so we should remove them all is sound thinking. Maybe in a world filled with rational human beings this would work but not in the one we currently live in. What would pop up would be akin to the puppy mills seen in the animal breeding world.
 
#36
#36
Thrasher865 said:
There is a process to determine if families are fit for adoption. Otherwise the baby could wind up in a sex slave operation or worse. At least if the family has to appear fit to raise a child on the surface, probably the worst that's going on is a little behind the scenes abuse, which is a step up from where they could wind up if the process isn't monitored.
Click to expand...

Did you really just preface "a little behind the scenes [child] abuse" with "the worst that's going to happen"?
 
#37
#37
Did you really just suggest people should be allowed to lawfully participate in human trafficking?
 
#38
#38
The point of my post was to put it out there because I knew you were going to go back to the idea that foster children are frequently abused. My point was, abuse in an otherwise semi-stable household is better than being sold on the street for drug money. Capiche?
 
#39
#39
Thrasher865 said:
Did you really just suggest people should be allowed to lawfully participate in human trafficking?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Thrasher865 said:
The point of my post was to put it out there because I knew you were going to go back to the idea that foster children are frequently abused. My point was, abuse in an otherwise semi-stable household is better than being sold on the street for drug money. Capiche?
Click to expand...

Abuse is abuse.
 
#40
#40
Sometimes Trut is intellingent version of Billy C.

If you sincerely believe that selling children is okay and not wrought with pitfalls & dangers far greater than the current system, then the only rebuttal is what old southern women say - "Bless your heart"
 
#41
#41
tri_vol said:
Sometimes Trut is intellingent version of Billy C.

If you sincerely believe that selling children is okay and not wrought with pitfalls & dangers far greater than the current system, then the only rebuttal is what old southern women say - "Bless your heart"
Click to expand...

So, you think it is right that these two women are facing charges?

"It was a one-on-one kind of thing, just someone who wanted a baby," Beard said.

Huerta remained in the Taylor County Jail on $5,000 bond. Munoz was released after posting bail Friday.

Neither woman could be reached for comment, and no attorneys were listed for either of them in jail records.
Police said Huerta admitted that she had been pregnant and told officers where she thought the baby might be. Police found the child at an Abilene residence unharmed.
Police said they did not know who the baby's biological father was or how the two women had initially crossed paths. Munoz's husband, an illegal immigrant whose name was not released, was placed on an immigration hold at the county jail, Beard said.

"The first priority was finding the child," Beard said.

The infant was taken into custody by Child Protective Service, authorities said.

"We have placed her in a foster home where she is being nurtured and loved," said CPS spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner.

The Associated Press: 2 Texas women charged with buying, selling baby
Click to expand...

These two women are facing the possibility of $10,000 fines and 10 years in prison; and, the baby is now in foster care which is no guarantee of a better environment.
 
#42
#42
therealUT said:
So, you think it is right that these two women are facing charges?



These two women are facing the possibility of $10,000 fines and 10 years in prison; and, the baby is now in foster care which is no guarantee of a better environment.
Click to expand...

Yes I do think it is right. The posters above laid out an abundance of reasons.

You are being overly dramatic with the charges though. News outlets always list the maximum punishment. It is highly unlikely they are going to jail for 10 years.

When you have kids your view will alter.
 
#43
#43
tri_vol said:
Yes I do think it is right. The posters above laid out an abundance of reasons.

You are being overly dramatic with the charges though. News outlets always list the maximum punishment. It is highly unlikely they are going to jail for 10 years.

When you have kids your view will alter.
Click to expand...

I will be less dramatic. These two should not be fined even $1 or spend 1 minute in jail/prison.
 
#44
#44
therealUT said:
the baby is now in foster care which is no guarantee of a better environment.
Click to expand...

from reading the details you posted I would bet that the child is in a better environment. Unknown father, new father in jail and she had to get on a payment plan to come up with $2k.
 
#45
#45
What is the current success rate of human trafficing operations facilitating people into better situations?
 
#46
#46
tri_vol said:
What is the current success rate of human trafficing operations facilitating people into better situations?
Click to expand...

Not sure that I care. I do know that the legal system in no way guarantees a better situation. I know that nothing is a crime without someone (or someone's property) actually being harmed. The simple act of selling a baby to someone else is not inherently harmful. Therefore, the act in itself is not criminal.

Of course, maybe you should just push to outlaw anything and everything that goes against your sensibilities; anything that makes you feel uncomfortable when you see it, read about it, etc. Feelings, being that they are never completely subjective (this is sarcasm, by the way), should always be used to apply universal laws.
 
#47
#47
As a former foster family and now having adopted through the state system, I can tell you that there are lots of things wrong with the system. But, vetting the adoptive families is not one of them. Criminal backgrounds are checked, business references are checked, extended family is checked. After the family is approved and the child is placed, the state does follow up home visits for two years. Yes, people that are abusive can always hide it, but the system does as good as can be done to moniter.
These two women only had to hire an attorney and do the paperwork to make their "transaction" legal. So, yes, they should be in jail.
 
#48
#48
therealUT said:
Not sure that I care. I do know that the legal system in no way guarantees a better situation. I know that nothing is a crime without someone (or someone's property) actually being harmed. The simple act of selling a baby to someone else is not inherently harmful. Therefore, the act in itself is not criminal.

Of course, maybe you should just push to outlaw anything and everything that goes against your sensibilities; anything that makes you feel uncomfortable when you see it, read about it, etc. Feelings, being that they are never completely subjective (this is sarcasm, by the way), should always be used to apply universal laws.
Click to expand...

If you are proposing the elimination of one system for another than you should care about the results. To not care is to see only half the truth.

To apply your logic, then anything that is not inherently harmful is legal. I should be able to drink a fifth if liquor and then drive. No proof that I'm actually going to harm anyone. If I get mad at my neighbor, I should be able to aim a gun at him, threaten his life and shoot above him. No real harm done.
 
#49
#49
T-TownVol said:
As a former foster family and now having adopted through the state system, I can tell you that there are lots of things wrong with the system. But, vetting the adoptive families is not one of them. Criminal backgrounds are checked, business references are checked, extended family is checked. After the family is approved and the child is placed, the state does follow up home visits for two years. Yes, people that are abusive can always hide it, but the system does as good as can be done to moniter.
These two women only had to hire an attorney and do the paperwork to make their "transaction" legal. So, yes, they should be in jail.
Click to expand...

according to truts logic, babies and children require less legal oversight than cars, real estate & guns.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top