http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...aby-Outside-Walmart-for-25-Cops-97152394.html
I find this story an interesting Ethical dilemma.
For a start, "what if" the couple happened to hit the lottery in the sense they sold their child to a wealthy, but childless couple?
How about a working class couple who wanted children but could not afford to adopt (8k last I checked) or afford fertility treatments that may or may not work?
Is the State a better parent than a well meaning couple?
What if it were a homosexual couple that they offered the child to?
As a Biblical matter, spontaneous adoption is not unheard of (Moses) and I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions?
-
-
They were trying to sell it. They put a price on their baby. It's just not likely they were trying to do it a service by finding a good home for it; they sought compensation for it ($25 at that). Hell, of all sites, they chose Wallmart as the place to search for the ideal couple (not that there's anything wrong with people who shop there; I myself do).
-
What difference between selling a child for 25 dollars and an adoption fee in the thousands and multi year wait to adopt a child from the State?
And wouldn't the typical Wally World shopper be more money savvy? -
Either $25 is a high rate for a ****ed up kid, or a kid is getting severely under-sold.
Not to mention the other issues I've got with it. -
and what if they sold the baby to a pedophile?
-
The State can just as easily deliver a child to a pedophile who just has not been convicted as of yet.
Even one who has had multiple State approved adoptions. -
Which issues?
And I'd argue that the kid is not messed up...yet.
This is a baby, it only knows what has been inputed into it's tiny level of life experiences, given time and a lack of love, who knows what damage will be done? -
Don't want crazy cat-lady raising my kid. Lord knows she might just take it for the bargain price.
-
If they drive something along these lines:
That's the first clue.
Mustache that follows this pattern:
Second clue.Fin-Omenal likes this. -
Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box
While the story is horrific, the question you ask is interesting. I suppose the ethical/moral difference in adoption versus sale, is the thought and safeguards built into the adoption process (when done properly, ask The Rev.) versus the randomness of selling a child at Wal-Mart.
With adoption you have a thoughtful system designed to match couples seeking children with those folks who (hopefully) lovingly are saying I am not able to raise this child properly and wish the child to go to a better home. The sale is a random act and subject to horrible problems.
If I had been in the women's shoes I might have "bought" the baby to safeguard it until law enforcement arrived. I don't know? -
A thoughtful system that has produced more than it's fair share of horror stories OhioP and one that is expensive enough to effectively bar those capable, able and willing to adopt from ever adopting due to cost.
Save for Children with extreme medical conditions, of which the same financial burdens of adopting would be multiplied via the additional costs of caring for such children properly.
Well, I'd think at worst the child could be dropped off in a safe harbor situation at a hospital or what have you.Ohiophinphan likes this. -
i'll wait..they will put the rollback price on it in about a week!! boy inflation and the economy is really hitting everyone as i can remember being able to buy a kid like charles manson for a pitcher of beer which back then was what?maybe 2 bucks?bah you could probly pick one up at costco or k-mart for about $15 and if theres any defection in the child whatsoever you can probly hagle the manager down another $5.
-
And the chances would more then likely go up they do so given they probably would not have done research. At least the state would have done research.
-
No system is perfect. However, I'd personally feel a lot more comfortable with the government's process of trying to get a child adopted, then the sheer randomness of standing out in front of Wal-Mart.
At the same time, I've never been completely comfortable with the notion of a private business selling humans. -
To think, my wife and I are trying to have a baby yet idiots out there pop 'em out right away and try to sell them.
FMLfinyank13 likes this. -
-
Fixed.
-
Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box
I wondered about the location of this thread when it was first posted. Should it be here ?, maybe Outreach ?, maybe POFO ?, I wasn't sure. Like you I am a person of faith and as such respect the government as the "Kingdom of the Lefthand" (Check Luther's doctrine of the two Kingdoms).
As such it has a place here.
But on the other hand, placing the thread here somehow, it seems, subtely suggests that only people of faith have a moral compass. While my moral view of the world is shaped and directed by my faith, I freely admit that people who do not express a religious faith can be and often are people who likewise have a moral compass.
Caring for children and seeing they are properly cared for in my world arises from my faith, but clearly many other folks share that same conviction and abhor the act of these baby sellers.
I am not sure if I would use the phrase "socialist" because to me that is a phrase of economics, that is who owns the sources of production, etc. But I think I know what you mean.
American law arises largely from English common law. In the early days of England the Church was the arbiter of all matters which today would be the venue of a probate court. That is, the care of widows and orphans and the orderly transfer of wealth from one generation to the next.
During the days of the English Reformation those duties were taken over by the government. In part it was to break the strength of the Church in secular matters and to increase the power of the King. In other ways it was also a revenue source for inheritance taxes, fees, etc.
It is a part of most religious and/or political systems that someone has to guard those who are unable to protect themselves. It is the police function you spoke of Fin D. It is not much of a stretch to go from there to insert government into the protection of minor children whose parents can't or won't care for them. One of the larger chapters of Roman law was about guardianship of children and property transfer. No different today.
Clearly we all have anecdotal stories of adoption processes which have gone horribly wrong and governmental agencies which have failed in their responsibilities for children. But given there will always be people who have kids and then don't care for them or worse... I join you two in continuing to support some kind of governmental oversight of the adoption process and a legislative review of the orderliness of that process. -
Thank you for the defense of us "heathens". I still wish you had a TV show, so you could reach more Christians!:up:
I might be wrong, but I don't think padre was implying that though. I think this forum is best suited for a question of ethics/morals.
When anything is as big as a government is, there will always be cracks. Its unfortunate, but the truth. I do wish some of the financial restrictions were lessened though. A lot of good potential parents out there, that may not have the money for the large upfront fees. If my wife and I every decide what we want a child, our plan is to adopt. She was adopted and we both feel there are so many kids out there that deserve a good home, why bring another one into the world.Ohiophinphan likes this. -
-
In most states in the U.S. too I'd imagine :wink2:
-
Agreed OPP, I was speaking in relative terms of the populations reliance on the govt for certain things that are of need...strictly. In that case, we are and always have been soclialist in that regard, it isnt a bad thing either. I love the ultra-rights argument of no govt reliance ever!!!! It cant happen...America would crumble without it, I just have a problem when the systems in place to help people get abused, and the fraud.
Using this for instance, the govt comes in and helps these children, who dont deserve whats happening to them, are inncoent, and without such agencies I shudder to think what might happen to these children......Ohiophinphan likes this. -
Well, not always, several Denominations also run Orphanages, before there was such a overwhelming .Gov presence that is to say.
Put it this way, I'm sure you have played Monopoly?
Ever wonder where "Community Chest" came from? -
Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box
Never said they didn't. But throughout American history, government dealt with the legality of adoption. The actual guardians of "wards of the state" were often faith based orphanges or if they were community run, then often run by people of faith. While there are some glaring examples of abuse within this system, the vast majority were places that were well run and did their best for the children in their care.