Should you be able to sell bone marrow?UPDATE, compensation approved by court!!

[TimmySmith]

ACW, do you support the right of expectant mothers to sell their babies rather than just "giving them up" for adoption? (a contract entered into during pregnancy to have the baby and immediately hand it over to someone else to be the legal guardian, permanently relinquishing all rights as a parent - assuming controls against pedophiles. Just normal married couples who want a baby) The adoption companies and doctors and nurses are all making money, why not the mother?

I am not ACW, but it happens all the time here in the US. Private adoptions are big business.

[Bliz]

I am not ACW, but it happens all the time here in the US. Private adoptions are big business.

The big difference between what I asked and private adoptions is, in private adoptions you can only pay certain expenses, like medical, insurance, etc. You absolutely cannot pay someone to give up their child.

It does happen, but that's black market child trafficking (according to the courts anyway).

[TimmySmith]

The big difference between what I asked and private adoptions is, in private adoptions you can only pay certain expenses, like medical, insurance, etc. You absolutely cannot pay someone to give up their child.

My point was that wealthy people have a leg up when it comes to acquiring a child through adoption. Sounds like baby selling to me.

[Bliz]

My point was that wealthy people have a leg up when it comes to acquiring a child through adoption. Sounds like baby selling to me.

I agree. Just like they do with black market organs.

That's why I asked ACW the question. Would he extend the same logic approving of organ sales to also allow for-profit child trafficking. And apparently the answer is yes. So....well...at least he's consistent

[twa]

Doesn't the govt itself profit from someone adopting?

Why not cut out the middleman

[Hubbs]

Who am I? I am a person with a conscience who doesn't think it's right to take advantage of people. You're right that a gun is not physically being held to their head. Something much more important is being held over them: the lives of their loved ones. Just because someone isn't physically forced to do something doesn't mean they have a fair choice in front of them. If you ever have had the experience of dealing with truly, truly desperate people, you will understand why this isn't as cut and dried as you guys are trying to make this out to be...

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

I'm using your example. You brought up the poor woman from the Philippines who was willing to not see her family for years, not see her friends for years, and commit to living in a foreign country that speaks a different language and has different customs for years, all for monetary gain. I asked you why you get to be the grand moral arbiter who decides that if she can get the exact same monetary gain by selling one of her kidneys, and therefore stay with her family, stay with her friends, and stay in her country, she should not be allowed to do so. You're declaring that years of time with the people you want to be with in the place that you could very well want to be is inherently less valuable than a kidney. I'm saying that this is one hell of a declaration, and it deserves to be called into question.

Absolutely horrible comparison. Offering a desperate individual a job at McDonalds is not even in the same stratosphere as offering, for monetary reward, to take a body part from someone and place them at serious physical risk of complications and even death.

It would be a horrible comparison if I were comparing the negatives of working at McDonald's to the negatives of selling an organ. You're committing one of the most common logical fallacies that exists in our culture, and it is unfortunately one that's consistently allowed in our politics. If some public figure dares to say that, for example, allowing the military to hold American citizens indefinitely without trial (a discussion from another thread) is something that would have happened in Nazi Germany, the comparison police erupt all over the cable news networks and say, "You're comparing our own generals to Nazis! You're a horrible person! How dare you say that our soldiers are exactly like people who baked Jews in ovens!" When in reality, that's not what anyone was saying. In that instance, the comparison was one of tactics, not one of people. But too many hear "Nazis" and immediately fly into a blind rage about the comparison.

In this case, the comparison was between one avenue of monetary gain and another. It has been repeatedly claimed in this thread that poor people "couldn't say no" to selling a kidney simply by virtue of their being poor. My assertion is that if that's true, then poor people are equally incapable of saying no to working at McDonald's, because the claim is that being poor makes you incapable of saying no to an offer of money. Either poor people are incapable of refusing an offer that involves money or they're not. Ironically, you seem to be saying that the more seemingly horrifying an offer is, the more likely a poor person is to accept it. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

---------- Post added December-2nd-2011 at 04:26 PM ----------

I agree. Just like they do with black market organs.

That's why I asked ACW the question. Would he extend the same logic approving of organ sales to also allow for-profit child trafficking. And apparently the answer is yes. So....well...at least he's consistent

I'll step in for ACW here and say that the difference is that selling a children obviously involves a third party, namely the child, and therefore cannot be considered morally acceptable.

[twa]

I'll step in for ACW here and say that the difference is that selling a children obviously involves a third party, namely the child, and therefore cannot be considered morally acceptable.

But you are not selling the child, you are selling your right and obligations of raising one.

Is it morally more acceptable to allow simply dumping a child and the obligation onto the state,which then finds someone to relieve them of the rights and obligations of providing for it?

[Hubbs]

But you are not selling the child, you are selling your right and obligations of raising one.

Is it morally more acceptable to allow simply dumping a child and the obligation onto the state,which then finds someone to relieve them of the rights and obligations of providing for it?

What in God's name are you talking about? The question to ACW was whether or not the selling of children should be legal.

[twa]

What in God's name are you talking about? The question to ACW was whether or not the selling of children should be legal.

That's certainly not the way I read it....nor I believe how he intended

the use of parental rights and guardianship suggest strongly to me he is not speaking of ownership

[Hubbs]

That's certainly not the way I read it....nor I believe how he intended

How exactly do you read...

ACW, do you support the right of expectant mothers to sell their babies rather than just "giving them up" for adoption?

...as anything other than asking ACW whether or not mothers should be able to sell their children?

[twa]

Blizz!!!!

we need clarification(see above for my thoughts)

[twa]

To run off on a tangent( Rambling;))....Is the increasing ability to swap blood,marrow,body parts,sperm,eggs leading towards society having more of a claim/control of our bodies?

this court decision seems to affirm individual control,yet others such as cornea harvesting seem to support a trend towards society having a claim(as does the food police/mandated treatments trend on a smaller scale)

Then again the persohood movement creates a conflict between the womans control and society's obligation to life.

In a society that you can pay to get impregnated with sperm and eggs (purchased or donated) from two other people is it much of a stretch to selling custody of a newborn?

We already allow surrogates.

Life is complicated