Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Legitimate Answer: Because I don't think human beings should be bought or sold as a commodity. You know that I don't believe that all humans are completely equal, but I do believe that every human is above this practice.

Plus we had a minor tiff about that about 160 years ago. My ancestors earned the righ for me to say human beings should not be bought and sold as a commodity.

KK wins the thread. It's those same statements that I use to back up my pro-choice beliefs.

+1

I find it interesting that my comments have caused so much discussion. My point, originally, was that direct adoptions, where a family takes a new born directly at birth, is fairer to the child than abortion. The mother, however, has to go through some pretty tough stuff to get there: lost wages, physical stress, etc. What's being bought or sold isn't the child, but the time and effort of the mother to carry that child. You'd pay a nanny or a babysitter, why not pay a woman to carry the child?

That white babies are in more demand is a sad reflection on our society, not any attempt on my part to demean or cleanse.

Chattel slavery wasn't that humans could be bought or sold, but rather held as personal property. Rights to people are bought and sold every day. Professional athletes, lawyers on retainer, non-compete clauses, divorce proceedings, etc.

Human lives are invaluable, but the rights to enjoy aspects of those lives have cash value. When you read that there are hundreds of thousands of abortions each year, and then read that there are millions of childless people out there that want children... I guess maybe I'm a little cold blooded, but I see supply and demand.

I currently work at Target, and we don't throw away our display trees. Instead, they are donated to local charities. Throwing them away would be wasteful. I'm sure target takes a small tax break on each on thrown away, and why shouldn't they?

Likewise, why don't we seek out women looking to have abortions, and tell them "this family will compensate you fro your time and effort, pay all medical bills and buy a life insurance policy for the term of your pregnancy, if you'll allow them to adopt your baby instead of terminating it." How is that not win/win?

Good points all, Polonius. But I do see a problem with that scenario. Some women may see pregnancy and birth as an alternative means to making money than actually working. Worst case scenario would be that we get a whole range of 'baby factories' of sorts.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Good points all, Polonius. But I do see a problem with that scenario. Some women may see pregnancy and birth as an alternative means to making money than actually working. Worst case scenario would be that we get a whole range of 'baby factories' of sorts.

And I guess I don't see that as a problem, not if there are adoptive families lined up before.

I was talking with my mother about this issue a year or so ago, and she said that since she had no real problems being pregnant, if she were younger now she'd consider surrogacy and the like as a source of income. Gestating and giving birth to children is, if not a skill, at least a useful attribute. Why not allow women to use that for profit?

I think it's stupid that old white men primarily decide whether it gets to happen or not.

@Cannerus: And it's much sounder for the decision over a childs life (if it is to b e considered alive) to rest with a woman who is on crack and couldn't be bothered with using protection or the pill?[sarcasm]

@Polonius: I'm not quite sure what the problems involving overpopulation would entail. I think that there are plenty enough orphans to go around without baby factories. And there's also the problem that a lot of these children may have inherited fualty genes and diseases from thier parents.

Again, I feel that putting a price tag on someones life (ranking them due to race and colour) is incredibly cold. However, I'm the sort of young lad who (given the choice) would ensure that my Gran (were she not on dialysis) got on the boat before me.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Polonius: I'm not quite sure what the problems involving overpopulation would entail. I think that there are plenty enough orphans to go around without baby factories. And there's also the problem that a lot of these children may have inherited fualty genes and diseases from thier parents.

Again, I feel that putting a price tag on someones life (ranking them due to race and colour) is incredibly cold. However, I'm the sort of young lad who (given the choice) would ensure that my Gran (were she not on dialysis) got on the boat before me.

I think you're seeing past my point, and fixating on "Polonius wants to put a price tag on babies."

I'm a fan of free markets. Allowing people to decide what they do with their time and resources, and how they can work with them and trade with others for what they want. If Person A wants an infant, and Person B can provide an infant, isn't everybody better off with what they'd rather have (a baby and some cash) than with what they have without the trade (some cash and nothing).

By definition, childless couples getting a baby or two don't affect overpopulation. Replacement is just over 2 children per woman. Now, that figures infertility into it, but nearly all industrial nations have low or negative organic population growth.

As for genetics, that's up the people involved. And I'm not ranking by race, I was just pointing out there is a demand for white new borns. Foster care is full up with minorities of all ages, and older white kids. The market, not I, am putting a price on white new borns.

This stuff happens all the time (it's basically the plot to Juno). As a kid, in the last book in the Little House on the Prairie series Laura Ingalls Wilder is offered a pair of horses by a family friend for their first born baby. She refuses, but the point is, it happened in 1880.

Polonius wrote:I find it interesting that my comments have caused so much discussion. My point, originally, was that direct adoptions, where a family takes a new born directly at birth, is fairer to the child than abortion. The mother, however, has to go through some pretty tough stuff to get there: lost wages, physical stress, etc. What's being bought or sold isn't the child, but the time and effort of the mother to carry that child. You'd pay a nanny or a babysitter, why not pay a woman to carry the child?

That white babies are in more demand is a sad reflection on our society, not any attempt on my part to demean or cleanse.

Chattel slavery wasn't that humans could be bought or sold, but rather held as personal property. Rights to people are bought and sold every day. Professional athletes, lawyers on retainer, non-compete clauses, divorce proceedings, etc.

Human lives are invaluable, but the rights to enjoy aspects of those lives have cash value. When you read that there are hundreds of thousands of abortions each year, and then read that there are millions of childless people out there that want children... I guess maybe I'm a little cold blooded, but I see supply and demand.

I currently work at Target, and we don't throw away our display trees. Instead, they are donated to local charities. Throwing them away would be wasteful. I'm sure target takes a small tax break on each on thrown away, and why shouldn't they?

Likewise, why don't we seek out women looking to have abortions, and tell them "this family will compensate you fro your time and effort, pay all medical bills and buy a life insurance policy for the term of your pregnancy, if you'll allow them to adopt your baby instead of terminating it." How is that not win/win?

We already have surrogate mothers. It often goes wrong.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Cannerus: And it's much sounder for the decision over a childs life (if it is to b e considered alive) to rest with a woman who is on crack and couldn't be bothered with using protection or the pill?[sarcasm]


.

I'm sure you don't think crack heads make good mothers, so why force them to be?

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Cannerus: And it's much sounder for the decision over a childs life (if it is to b e considered alive) to rest with a woman who is on crack and couldn't be bothered with using protection or the pill?[sarcasm]

Really? You don't earn a legitimate response.

@Polonius: Sorry, I wasn't saying that you were trying to put a price tag on babies. But I do think that, in a free market, this would eventually happen. (Although maybe not as blatant as that)

@Cannerus: Why is the decision over someones life (IF the child can be considered alive) not suitable to be heard in a court of law?

Emperors Faithful wrote:I realise this is a very touchy subject so can people please behave?

I've wondered about the right to choose vs the right to life, and all the trouble that comes from both legalising AND illegalising it. A sort of Win-Win situation occured to me.

If a mother truly does not want to have a child, why does she not have it and then give it up for adoption?

I think that only if having the child, or if the childs life would be painful or cruelly disfigured, would endanger them should abortion be considered.

I understand that this would put a lot of kids inside orphanages, but surely this is a better alternative to killing them wholesale?

if you feel the need to ask people to behave, it's probably not a topic worth bringing up, because that just sounds like "Hi, I'm going to leave this flamebait here, please don't flame me." really?

I think that abortions should be mandatory until both parents pass a test. They should also have a clause to allow for retroactivity.

Howlingmoon is showing the subtle difference between realizing that people often flame in sensitive topics, and caring if people flame.

Well done sir.

Howlingmoon wrote:

I think that abortions should be mandatory until both parents pass a test. They should also have a clause to allow for retroactivity.

What kind of test would you have to pass or fail to get an abortion?

I agree some people shouldn't be allowed to breed but for those types I'd do the abortion for free for them. Can't guarantee the safety of the mother but then again maybe that too wouldn't be so bad.

...