Why is this illegal?

#51
#51
tri_vol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correct. Of course, in the latter situation, out of respect for the preservation of his own life, your neighbor would be justified in shooting you if he truly felt that his life was immediately threatened (Kant does have a just war theory that would apply in this situation).
 
#52
#52
"Nonsense!" one will say. "How should all these people be wrong?" -- But is that an argument? Is it not simply the rejection of an idea? And perhaps the determination of a concept? For if I speak of a possible mistake here, this changes the role of "mistake" and "truth" in our lives.

Wittgenstein
Click to expand...

I still have not seen an argument as to why the sole act of selling a child is inherently wrong.
 
#53
#53
This kinda reminds me of that documentary Marathon Boy....the bureaucracy and custody theme, I mean.
 
#57
#57
T-TownVol said:
Your world view is all-some Trut. Like one of the first posts stated.....this is a 5* troll. Have fun!
Click to expand...

What's sad is that you can't even see his position as reasonable...we don't question government enough. Government is not good...why do we trust them when it comes to the good of children?

This is what happens when you trust government with something as important as a child's future:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWrdz-Aqw-U&feature=channel_video_title[/youtube]
 
#58
#58
therealUT said:
So, you are not going to try to argue that the sole act of selling a child is inherently immoral?
Click to expand...

you're trying to talk about the act in a vacuum. Not really sure that's possible when discussing selling humans with zero regulation/oversight
 
#60
#60
If there were no government oversight and agencies just handled adoption details, there would be enough oversight. Agencies would do their own background checks. Nobody would want to be known as the "agency who sells babies to perverts".

Moms who "sell" their babies to wanting parent(s) should be free to do so. We can pass a law that states you can't sell your baby into slavery or apprenticeship or whatever and not need to ban all sales.
 
#61
#61
nbakerld said:
If there were no government oversight and agencies just handled adoption details, there would be enough oversight. Agencies would do their own background checks. Nobody would want to be known as the "agency who sells babies to perverts".

Moms who "sell" their babies to wanting parent(s) should be free to do so. We can pass a law that states you can't sell your baby into slavery or apprenticeship or whatever and not need to ban all sales.
Click to expand...

whoa whoa whoa! Why all the regulation needed? Just say sale of humans under 18yo is legal and be done with it. Keep the gov't out of it altogether
 
#62
#62
utvolpj said:
whoa whoa whoa! Why all the regulation needed? Just say sale of humans under 18yo is legal and be done with it. Keep the gov't out of it altogether
Click to expand...

I don't understand why it's OK for certain parties to make money when a child is adopted and for others it is not OK. It's not OK for the people who put in the most work.
 
#63
#63
I think that those taking issue with this line of thought are looking at the fact that we are talking about a human life with no say in a transaction, that in fact IS the transaction, with nobody directly involved in the specific interests of this human being. It is one thing to try to argue things aren't "perfect" with how it's currently regulated as opposed to saying the best plan is to eliminate oversight completely. (or that it was wrong to ever have oversight in the first place)

I've no love for government intervention but there's just a little too much "just a piece of meat for money" in this scenario for me to think it's how things should be handled.
 
#64
#64
nbakerld said:
I don't understand why it's OK for certain parties to make money when a child is adopted and for others it is not OK. It's not OK for the people who put in the most work.
Click to expand...

surrogates don't make money? I can understand when talking about a single act with no consequences entering the equation. However that's not really how life works. I think the OP is actually an example of how it could go wrong.
 
#65
#65
hndog609 said:
I think that those taking issue with this line of thought are looking at the fact that we are talking about a human life with no say in a transaction, that in fact IS the transaction, with nobody directly involved in the specific interests of this human being. It is one thing to try to argue things aren't "perfect" with how it's currently regulated as opposed to saying the best plan is to eliminate oversight completely. (or that it was wrong to ever have oversight in the first place)

I've no love for government intervention but there's just a little too much "just a piece of meat for money" in this scenario for me to think it's how things should be handled.
Click to expand...

It's just a difference in philosophy. I trust individuals to act morally more than I trust government to do so. Government is just an institutional reflection of society that isn't as dynamic. Slavery lasted longer than majority support for it did. If government had never institutionalized slavery, we would have been rid of it before 1864. Then government gets credit for ending slavery...go figure.
 
#66
#66
utvolpj said:
surrogates don't make money? I can understand when talking about a single act with no consequences entering the equation. However that's not really how life works. I think the OP is actually an example of how it could go wrong.
Click to expand...

Read somewhere that surrogates can only be paid for the costs associated; they cannot legally profit.
 
#67
#67
wow, if I'd known we could sell our kids I never would have let my ex-wife have her tubes tied
 
#68
#68
nbakerld said:
What's sad is that you can't even see his position as reasonable...we don't question government enough. Government is not good...why do we trust them when it comes to the good of children?

This is what happens when you trust government with something as important as a child's future:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWrdz-Aqw-U&feature=channel_video_title[/youtube]
Click to expand...

Did you read my post stating that I am an adpotive parent? I said there are problems in the system. This video is not an example of any thing that is relevant to the OP.
It took us over two years to adopt our son through all the hoops we had to jump through.
Have you ever been involved in the foster or adoptive system?
Trut's "position" is against the law. He is free to think it should not be. I will not argue with him.
This is one area that the government must advocate for the child.
 
#69
#69
T-TownVol said:
Did you read my post stating that I am an adpotive parent? I said there are problems in the system. This video is not an example of any thing that is relevant to the OP.
It took us over two years to adopt our son through all the hoops we had to jump through.
Have you ever been involved in the foster or adoptive system?
Trut's "position" is against the law. He is free to think it should not be. I will not argue with him.
This is one area that the government must advocate for the child.
Click to expand...

The point is government doesn't do anything well. I hate it when trust them with anything important. **** up the mail for all I care, but why do you have to screw up education, and health care, and adoptions, etc.?
 
#71
#71
nbakerld said:
The point is government doesn't do anything well. I hate it when trust them with anything important. **** up the mail for all I care, but why do you have to screw up education, and health care, and adoptions, etc.?
Click to expand...

Do you have any first hand knowledge/experience with the adoption system?
 
#72
#72
nbakerld said:
It's just a difference in philosophy. I trust individuals to act morally more than I trust government to do so. Government is just an institutional reflection of society that isn't as dynamic. Slavery lasted longer than majority support for it did. If government had never institutionalized slavery, we would have been rid of it before 1864. Then government gets credit for ending slavery...go figure.
Click to expand...

I have a high degree of sympathy with your position in distrusting government. However, to simply say a human child could be sold with ZERO advocacy specifcally on behalf of the child is putting way more faith in individuals than I can muster.
 
#73
#73
therealUT said:
Correct. Of course, in the latter situation, out of respect for the preservation of his own life, your neighbor would be justified in shooting you if he truly felt that his life was immediately threatened (Kant does have a just war theory that would apply in this situation).
Click to expand...

What justification would he have? If I'm on my property and have not physically touched him. Feeling threatened is an emotional reaction. By your reasoning, I should be able to sue and/or criminally charge my neighbor for shooting me.

However by your logic, if I feel threatened by a drunk driver, then I should be able to shoot him.

So which course of action would be correct?
 
#74
#74
hndog609 said:
I have a high degree of sympathy with your position in distrusting government. However, to simply say a human child could be sold with ZERO advocacy specifcally on behalf of the child is putting way more faith in individuals than I can muster.
Click to expand...

The government is only a corporation of individuals. If your premise is that you cannot trust individuals to do the right thing then how do you trust a group of individuals to do the right thing?
 
#75
#75
hndog609 said:
I have a high degree of sympathy with your position in distrusting government. However, to simply say a human child could be sold with ZERO advocacy specifcally on behalf of the child is putting way more faith in individuals than I can muster.
Click to expand...

I am for FAR LESS government involvement in our lives and pocket book, but having been a foster family for three years in FL and then going throught the adoption system, the things that some of the human trash, that father and birth children, put these kids through is not something that we as a nation can ignore. Call me a hypocrite all you want, but come with me to a group foster home and listen to the stories of what these kids have been through and it will change you mind on your idea of trusting people in THIS matter.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top