Why is this illegal?

#101
#101
T-TownVol said:
because the parents have rights agains the government just entering their home, there must be a reason.......as for the parents wanting to adopt, we invite the scrutiny
Click to expand...

So, the welfare of the child only takes precedence over the rights of a potentially non-biological parent but not over the rights of the biological parent?

You keep talking about how other rights should be pushed to the curb when discusses the safety of children, yet, you hold the rights of the biological parents as paramount?

You have a consistency problem.
 
#103
#103
Ok, I've adopted 2 kids and am the guardian of a 3rd. In short, I would be against the legalization of "selling" kids simply because you would have to put a value on the commodity, which I think would be problematic.

For example, for which child would you pay a higher price: a 20 month old boy born 2.5 months premature, HIV positive, with chronic respiratory illness, developmental delays and assured extra costs due to the need for early intervention, counseling etc, but with some level of background/biological information?

Or an 8 month old girl with unknown biological background but is relatively health?

In US Domestic and Foreign adoptions Caucasian boys are the most highly sought after for adoption and would automatically be priced the highest. Therefore, most incentive to move children out of bad and into good family situations would be removed by the market.

That said, I wholeheartedly support removing some of the regulations regarding transferring parental rights and responsibilities from one parent to another. If the parties are known to each other and want to come up with a contract that transfers full parental rights between them, I say great. It would definitely help in a lot of situations where the "struggling" parent does not want to go through the system of Child Protective Services and may not even want to lose all contact with their child. Open adoptions take forever and closed adoptions are often too permanent for some mothers (and fathers) to accept, so the kids end up in a home that may never be functional. I could see this helping certain situations like grand parents adopting grand children and so forth.
 
#104
#104
therealUT said:
Yes, if you can argue that you felt immediately threatened by a drunk driver, then the act of preserving your own life is neither immoral nor a crime. You would have to convincingly argue that in front of a jury, though.

Immediate self-preservation accounts for latitude in pure reason and moves into the realm of practical reason and judgment.

Morally, if your intent is to do everything possible to preserve your own life, their is no luxury for deliberation, and you act off the best information you have at the time in choosing your act, then your act is moral.
Click to expand...

Try again. You have failed your argument. You have reintroduced morality into the debate and discussion. Your original premise was that laws should be based on logic and reason exclusive of moral judgments. Now a jury has to make a moral judgement and yet the law should have no such basis according you.
 
#105
#105
nbakerld said:
You've just described current circumstances, you haven't offered reasoning as to why it's right or useful.

Why do biological parents have rights adoptive parents do not have? Government has a right to invade your privacy if biology denied you children, but you're protected if you had the good fortune to shoot live rounds? I think in both cases they have to show probable cause.
Click to expand...

once again, it is not about the parents when a child is involved....you are going in circles that make no point as far as why the child's best interest has to be the number one consideration.....there has to ba a parant/parents that want to give up their child and a parent/parents that want to adopt a child for the government to be involved SO THAT the childs best interest, as far as humanly possible, can be advocated.
We are actually on the same page as to probable cause, just coming at it from two different perspectives.
 
#106
#106
therealUT said:
So, the welfare of the child only takes precedence over the rights of a potentially non-biological parent but not over the rights of the biological parent?
You keep talking about how other rights should be pushed to the curb when discusses the safety of children, yet, you hold the rights of the biological parents as paramount?

You have a consistency problem.
Click to expand...

if that is what you took from that statement, I did not do a good job....I am coming from the standpoint of kids that have been taken from bad parents
 
Last edited:
#107
#107
T-TownVol said:
once again, it is not about the parents when a child is involved....you are going in circles that make no point as far as why the child's best interest has to be the number one consideration.....there has to ba a parant/parents that want to give up their child and a parent/parents that want to adopt a child for the government to be involved SO THAT the childs best interest, as far as humanly possible, can be advocated.
We are actually on the same page as to probable cause, just coming at it from two different perspectives.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. I go in circles?....you say it's not about the parents when a child is involved. If that were true you would advocate case-workers being assigned to every child in the US. But you don't. You advocate this only for adoptive parents...which means it's not about the children, it's about the parents.
 
#108
#108
tri_vol said:
Try again. You have failed your argument. You have reintroduced morality into the debate and discussion. Your original premise was that laws should be based on logic and reason exclusive of moral judgments. Now a jury has to make a moral judgement and yet the law should have no such basis according you.
Click to expand...

My original premise was that laws should be based on harm caused. It is unreasonable to expect someone to just accept their fate when they perceive that they are in an immediately, life-threatening situation; therefore, pure reason is allowed to give way to practical reason and judgment, in those situations. The jury then decides if one could reasonably, in such a situation, have expected and/or done anything else.

Feel free to read Kant's just war theory within his treatise Perpetual Peace. Certain degrees of provocation can incite acts that would not regularly be labeled as moral and these acts in certain situations are considered moral and in other situations where provocation is present fall outside the bounds of moral and immoral.
 
#110
#110
nbakerld said:
This makes no sense. I go in circles?....you say it's not about the parents when a child is involved. If that were true you would advocate case-workers being assigned to every child in the US. But you don't. You advocate this only for adoptive parents...which means it's not about the children, it's about the parents.
Click to expand...

that is not at all what I said......I said that the adoptive parents asked for the adoption, therefore ask for the scrutiny SO THAT the best situation/placement of the child is served
Private adoptions are a different animal and can be done fairly quickly and easily. I am coming from the side of children being taken from bad homes. Sorry for the confusion.
 
#111
#111
therealUT said:
Why should I have a say?

Who is qualified to pick qualified persons to oversee these processes? Who is qualified to pick the qualified persons who pick the qualified persons?

Half the electorate in America is below average; yet, they have as much say in how the government conducts its business as those who are above average.
Click to expand...


Well, you personally do not have to worry about it at all.

Who is qualified to do anything? The point is that either a child is a piece of meat that can be sold whenever by whoever for whatever or somebody is going to have some kind of say on behalf of the child. There may well be a lot that could be done to improve the adoption system we have but I see that as another issue entirely. I'm not interested in debating matter of degree on the primary issue...a living child is the equivalent of a used car or XBox for the purposes of "ownership" or it isn't. If only speaking for myself I'm saying that's just not good enough.
 
#113
#113
PKT_VOL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bump. Curious, response trut?
 
#114
#114
T-TownVol said:
that is not at all what I said......I said that the adoptive parents asked for the adoption, therefore ask for the scrutiny SO THAT the best situation/placement of the child is served
Private adoptions are a different animal and can be done fairly quickly and easily. I am coming from the side of children being taken from bad homes. Sorry for the confusion.
Click to expand...

Does pregnancy and the carrying of a fetus to birth just happen without any consensual actions of the parties involved?

Biological parents "ask" for the baby, therefore, if we are placing the welfare of the child above the individual rights of adults, they "ask" for the scrutiny.
 
#115
#115
hndog609 said:
Well, you personally do not have to worry about it at all.

Who is qualified to do anything? The point is that either a child is a piece of meat that can be sold whenever by whoever for whatever or somebody is going to have some kind of say on behalf of the child. There may well be a lot that could be done to improve the adoption system we have but I see that as another issue entirely. I'm not interested in debating matter of degree on the primary issue...a living child is the equivalent of a used car or XBox for the purposes of "ownership" or it isn't. If only speaking for myself I'm saying that's just not good enough.
Click to expand...

Children are already traded as commodities; they are just done so under the guise of adoption agencies and foster care systems that are looking out for their best interests.
 
#116
#116
therealUT said:
Does pregnancy and the carrying of a fetus to birth just happen without any consensual actions of the parties involved?

Biological parents "ask" for the baby, therefore, if we are placing the welfare of the child above the individual rights of adults, they "ask" for the scrutiny.
Click to expand...

weak sauce
 
#117
#117
therealUT said:
My original premise was that laws should be based on harm caused. It is unreasonable to expect someone to just accept their fate when they perceive that they are in an immediately, life-threatening situation; therefore, pure reason is allowed to give way to practical reason and judgment, in those situations. The jury then decides if one could reasonably, in such a situation, have expected and/or done anything else.

Feel free to read Kant's just war theory within his treatise Perpetual Peace. Certain degrees of provocation can incite acts that would not regularly be labeled as moral and these acts in certain situations are considered moral and in other situations where provocation is present fall outside the bounds of moral and immoral.
Click to expand...

so who sets that standard?
 
#118
#118
therealUT said:
Children are already traded as commodities; they are just done so under the guise of adoption agencies and foster care systems that are looking out for their best interests.
Click to expand...

this, sadly, is about what we have come to expect from your world view
 
#119
#119
therealUT said:
Children are already traded as commodities; they are just done so under the guise of adoption agencies and foster care systems that are looking out for their best interests.
Click to expand...

But there IS oversight and regulation. This isn't semantics; somebody is supposed to be looking out for the welfare of the child (even if poorly and/or inefficiently) or the child might as well be a copy of the latest Gears of War sold in a parking lot transaction.
 
#120
#120
PKT_VOL said:
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.
Click to expand...

My argument is simple: the sole act of selling a child is not, in itself, morally wrong.

My attempts to defeat the arguments of those who seem to rely on empiricism and context-dependent reasoning, is to concoct situations with assumptions of which they will have to digest and accept or reject on the basis of feelings.

PKT_VOL said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is where I part with Kant; I think humans are inherently good and I base this off of the only human that I truly know: myself. While I often fall short, I am very much striving to do good. If I say that others are not, then I have arrogantly privileged and valued myself above others.

I think there are certainly situations where a child can be exploited and abused; I think this can happen regardless of whether or not measures are in place to try to prevent that outcome. I think that once a crime is discovered (a real crime), then the assailants should be charged and punished.

PKT_VOL said:
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.
Click to expand...

If someone knowingly sells their child into an abusive situation, then they are morally culpable. If someone sells their child into an secure and stable situation with the intent to sell them into an abusive situation, they are morally culpable.

That said, I see nothing wrong with someone selling their child, in and of itself.

PKT_VOL said:
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.
Click to expand...

I do not see what would be wrong even if a woman was popping out a baby every eighteen months with the intention to sell it.
 
#122
#122
Not sure what the record is for a trolling thread, but at 121 posts this one has to be near the top. Well done. :clapping:

therealUT said:
I think humans are inherently good and I base this off of the only human that I truly know: myself. While I often fall short, I am very much striving to do good. If I say that others are not, then I have arrogantly privileged and valued myself above others.
Click to expand...

With the humility you demonstrate in most of your posts I can't imagine that anyone would consider you to be arrogant. :whistling:

therealUT said:
Half the electorate in America is below average; yet, they have as much say in how the government conducts its business as those who are above average.
Click to expand...

Very under appreciated post. I can't decide if it is a reflection of how ignorant you really are, or more a reflection of how ignorant you seem to think the rest of us are.
 
#124
#124
therealUT said:
My argument is simple: the sole act of selling a child is not, in itself, morally wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes. I actually agree with you. However, outside of the simple moral question, it opens up a can of worms.

Just another example of the difference between theory and realism. Although I am an amateur philosopher, I tend to consider myself a realist. There is a prodigious difference between the way things ought to be and how things actually work

therealUT said:
My attempts to defeat the arguments of those who seem to rely on empiricism and context-dependent reasoning, is to concoct situations with assumptions of which they will have to digest and accept or reject on the basis of feelings.
Click to expand...

Not hard to do on this board. Although I think you should articulate your position better. If you really only want to argue your simply moral inquiry, then you shouldn't engage in realist hypothetical situations. Your argument is strong as long as your remain in a purely philosophical manner. Once you cross the threshold into realism, your argument does not hold as much water.

therealUT said:
This is where I part with Kant; I think humans are inherently good and I base this off of the only human that I truly know: myself. While I often fall short, I am very much striving to do good. If I say that others are not, then I have arrogantly privileged and valued myself above others.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree. I am sure we could devote an entire thread to this. Another reason there should be a philosophy forum in VN (distinct and separate from Politics).

I will say, this is the faulty premise which destroys your theoretical argument once you cross the threshold of realism as mentioned above.

therealUT said:
I do not see what would be wrong even if a woman was popping out a baby every eighteen months with the intention to sell it.
Click to expand...

From a theoretical perceptive, it shouldn't be different than women selling their eggs or men selling their sperm.

From a realistic perspective, I think it would be fine so long as the demand outweighed the supply. That way each child born from a "mother mill" would have happy loving home provided by parents who are unable to have kids of their own. However, this would not happen.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top