NEWS: 'Babies For Sale' On Chinese eBay

This seems like a good idea... There are many people out there that have to go through so much red tape to adopt a child, why you could just purchase one that looks good right on your computer!

I'm sure Angelina Jolie would love this idea and folks like her, it would save her thousands of dollars from all those flights she takes around the world searching for 'thee one'...

Originally posted by subz
I think people universally find this practice abhorrent because it places a definable value on a babies life.

It isn't putting a value on the life of the baby, it's putting a value on the parental rights of the baby. I guess I don't see anything wrong with that (assuming precaustions are taken to prevent theft of babies or sale for exploitation etc.)

I'm against black market sales of kids because of where they would end up - sex rings or slavery.

I'm all for adoption.

If these kids are not adopted, what future do they have?

Originally posted by spamandham
It isn't putting a value on the life of the baby, it's putting a value on the parental rights of the baby. I guess I don't see anything wrong with that (assuming precaustions are taken to prevent theft of babies or sale for exploitation etc.)

I suppose when you buy a car you're actually buying the ownership rights from the manufacturer too? They are one and the same thing. These people are "selling" babies. There is no regulatory body set up to vet the sellers or the buyers because the practice is illegal. And rightly so, no one can tell whether these babies have been kidnapped and no one can tell whether the person who buys the babies has the kids best interests at heart. Thats enough reasons to atleast see a major problem with this kind of behaviour.

Originally posted by subz
I suppose when you buy a car you're actually buying the ownership rights from the manufacturer too?

When you buy a car, you are purchasing absolute rights to that car. If you want, you can drive your new car to the junk yard and have it crushed.

If you 'bought' a baby, you are really only purchasing the right to raise that baby as your own. The baby still has its rights that are separate from that transaction. Paying for a baby would not give you the right to abuse or kill the baby. "putting a price on it's life" implies that you could then kill it if you wanted to. That's the difference.

There's no fundamental reason babies could not be bought/sold with the same assurances of above board behavior as with adoption. As it is, since the practice is generally illegal, those who want to engage in the legitimate transfer of parental rights can not do so, which creates a black market that fuels the kidnappng and sale of babies for exploitation.

Passing laws does not stop behavior you don't like. Virtually everyone systematically ignores the law unless they think they will get caught and the penalty is high enough. There is always a significant portion of the population that thinks they won't get caught or views the risk as worthwhile, even if the penalty is death.

The reason most of us don't kill and rape is because we think it's wrong, not because it's illegal. For "crimes" where there is no significant risk of hurting anyone, it's very easy to convince yourself it isn't wrong (and it isn't!). These reasons are why black markets always thrive and can not be stopped regardless of how many laws are passed, how severe they are, or how well they are enforced (unless you could find a foolproof way to detect the law was about to be broken and intervene). When the market becomes lucrative enough, police, judges, and juries can be bought and enforcement against the worst offenders becomes almost impossible.

Every action that is criminalized carries with it secondary criminal effects such as corruption of public employees, secondary crimes committed to hide evidence, squelch witnesses, etc. Criminalizing behavior that is not in itself harmful increases this secondary criminal activity that would not otherwise be of the same magnitude. If you accept that (and hardly anyone does until they study the history of law), then it is foolish to criminalize anything that does not directly harm (or pose direct significant risk to) anyone, even if you personally find the activity repugnant.

Originally posted by spamandham
When you buy a car, you are purchasing absolute rights to that car. If you want, you can drive your new car to the junk yard and have it crushed.

If you 'bought' a baby, you are really only purchasing the right to raise that baby as your own. The baby still has its rights that are separate from that transaction. Paying for a baby would not give you the right to abuse or kill the baby. "putting a price on it's life" implies that you could then kill it if you wanted to. That's the difference.

You're not being fair with this discussion. Either you are talking about why its not ok to sell babies now (with it being illegal) or in theory (if it was not illegal). It changes the ramifications dramatically either way.

If you bought a baby today it would not be legally your own. This baby, if it crossed into your country illegally, would not be on record. Therefore the baby has no rights to such things as an education or even public health care. The baby could be killed and no one would miss them. All this is a result of the practice being illegal. So when you say the baby would still have rights, and these people havent bought "absolute rights" over these babies, is not accurate. If you bought a baby today, you would have "absolute rights" over them because you are not legally their parent and the child would not legally exist if you bought them from another country. Therefore, since they dont legally exist, and are not legally tied to you you could do anything you wished free from legal scrutiy (assuming you dont get caught in the act).

If it was not illegal the above problems would go away, but the fact that people can put a price on their child is innately wrong. Do you sell to the highest bidder as some kind of gauge to whether or not they'll be a good parent? Why would the parents want money in the first place? Doesn't that point to the parents putting their wallet into higher regard than their child?

If parents decide they cannot look after their child and they dont want to give their child away (free of charge) to a good home, they are not good parents. The child should be taken away from them.

If a parent gives up their baby for reasons of money instead of giving the child a better life you will spawn professional breeders. How do you prevent babies from being kidnapped to make money?

These are the reasons that selling babies is outlawed. It puts babies at risk of being made into a commodity. And you cannot escape that fact when you allow the sale of something. Your "selling parental rights" argument is valid but you are still trying to sell something that is priceless and not yours to sell. You might be a parent but you are the baby's parents too. You are selling something that is the baby's, and not yours to part with.

You are obviously not a bad person so I assume you raised the issue because there are a lot of childless couples out there who are stopped from adopting due to red tape and bureaucracy. I agree with you there, but that should mean the adoption procedure needs streamlining. Allowing parents to sell their babies without the current safeguards adoption provides is an end run around the problem but it causes vastly more problems than it would solve. It would also put the babies at an unacceptably large risk of being abused or mistreated. Its just not a viable solution to a legitimate problem.

[edit on 24/10/05 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
You're not being fair with this discussion. Either you are talking about why its not ok to sell babies now (with it being illegal) or in theory (if it was not illegal). It changes the ramifications dramatically either way.

I made it clear up front I was referring to the principle of selling babies when I asked the question "what is inherently wrong" with it. I have not wavered on that. If that wasn't clear, then I apologize.

That aside, there is merit in such discussions, since, if no harm can be identified (assuming the activity were legal), then there is a case to be made for changing the law.

Originally posted by subz
If you bought a baby today it would not be legally your own. This baby, if it crossed into your country illegally, would not be on record. Therefore the baby has no rights to such things as an education or even public health care.

I don't know that what you're saying is universally true. If I were to guess, I would guess there are places where babies can in fact be bought and sold legally. Purchasing parenting rights takes with it parenting responsibilities as well. If your newly acquired child is inelligible for public services for some reason, then a responsible parent would not engage in such activity unless they were of sufficient means to provide these services privately. Of course, what your saying could also be used as an argument for not excluding babies that enter the system by illegal means. Is it the child's fault that the parents were irresponsible? That's the typical argument used by social liberals.

Originally posted by subz
but the fact that people can put a price on their child is innately wrong.

Assuming that what you mean by 'putting a price on the child' really refers to putting a price on the right to parent a child rather than a price on their actual life, then why is it innately wrong? That was the question I originally asked, and simply asserting that it's wrong does not address the question.

Originally posted by subz
Do you sell to the highest bidder as some kind of gauge to whether or not they'll be a good parent?

There are no restrictions on parenting skills for naturally acquired children. Why should the standard be higher than that for economically acquired children? You could argue that the very fact someone wants to buy a baby and someone else wants to sell it implies the buyer would ba a better parent than the seller.

Originally posted by subz
Why would the parents want money in the first place? Doesn't that point to the parents putting their wallet into higher regard than their child?

Are you arguing my point or yours?

Originally posted by subz
If parents decide they cannot look after their child and they dont want to give their child away (free of charge) to a good home, they are not good parents. The child should be taken away from them.

First, you're assuming that the seller lives somewhere with a social structure in place to care for the child free of charge. That is generally not the case.

Second, you're assuming that an anonymous state provided baby raising factory is better than a parent that wants to buy a child, or even one that wants to sell it. That is not intuitively obvious in the least.

Finally, you're implicitly assuming that someone who would pay for a child is necessarily a subpar parent. My intuition says that someone who is willing to part with money simply to acquire a child is likely a good potential parent, as they have already demonstrated a willingness to make sacrifices for the child.

Originally posted by subz
If a parent gives up their baby for reasons of money instead of giving the child a better life you will spawn professional breeders.

It already happens. The question isn't whether decriminalizing such activity is utopian, the question is how does decriminalizing compare to the status quo regarding such problems.

Originally posted by subz
How do you prevent babies from being kidnapped to make money?

How do you prevent that now?

If such activity were not criminal, then potential parents would have a greater expectation of being provided with proof that the seller is a biological parent, since sellers could be in the open. Some evil capitalist would realize there is money to be made in providing potential buyers with such peace of mind, as well as potential sellers with the peace of mind that the buyers do not have serious criminal records, and agencies wold pop up for the express purpose of matching potential buyers with potential sellers and verifying the authenticiy of both for the peace of mind of the other - at a profit of course.

Buyers and sellers in the current system do not find each other through personal ads. The matches are made by criminal brokers. Thus, the black market drastically reduces these potential checks since those who would act as brokers are criminals by definition. It also increases desparation for potential buyers and sellers, giving them incentive not to verify the other party independently.

If it were legal to buy/sell parental rights, then the number of brokers involved in illegal activity would drop dramatically, making it much more difficult for unscrupulous buyers and sellers to find eachother.

The current law thus increases the incidence of kidnap for sale, as well as increasing profits for organized crime.

Originally posted by subz
These are the reasons that selling babies is outlawed.

There are many arbitrary laws. Virtually all laws get passed to placate some special interest group, and then are rarely reviewed to see if they actually made things better or worse. It isn't enough to note that some activity is illegal to conclude that it is inherently bad.

Originally posted by subz
You are obviously not a bad person so I assume you raised the issue because there are a lot of childless couples out there who are stopped from adopting due to red tape and bureaucracy. I agree with you there, but that should mean the adoption procedure needs streamlining.

Government can not be significantly streamlined. It's the nature of the beast to expand at all opportunity, which requires purpetually more red tape, not less. Even if you succeed in streamlining it today, it will revert to it's old ways as soon as the cameras go away. It isn't news the second time, so the cameras never come back.

Government officials know this, so the reforms are on the front page, but the rapid march back doesn't even make the editorials.

As an aside, within the current system, the desparation of would be parents also gives incentive to bribe adoption officials. You can't realistically streamline the process without removing the checks intended to prohibit this behavior, so streamlining virtually guarantees bribery will increase as a result. Now you would not only have the buying and selling of children, but increased public corruption as well and have not reduced criminal baby brokerage. That seems counter productive.

by spamandham
Every action that is criminalized carries with it secondary criminal effects such as corruption of public employees, secondary crimes committed to hide evidence, squelch witnesses, etc. Criminalizing behavior that is not in itself harmful increases this secondary criminal activity that would not otherwise be of the same magnitude. If you accept that (and hardly anyone does until they study the history of law), then it is foolish to criminalize anything that does not directly harm (or pose direct significant risk to) anyone, even if you personally find the activity repugnant.

This is not a hard and true fact. If the behavior in this case, child commerce, were not criminalized, then secondary criminal activity could sprout up just as well. What is to stop someone from buying a dozen children and using them for child porn if the commerce were not criminalized, or at least regulated (adoption)?

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by marg6043
No, you should care about the market for south American, asia and chinese children because US is one of them.

This is not about the market marg. As long as there are people unable to have children there is going to be a market for homeless children. It is the practice of selling them on the black market I object too.

Now with that said, I do not care what you say or do, I am not about to change my mind. As I said I do not have a problem with legal adoption fees but I do have a huge problem with selling babies on the black market and you will not change that no matter what you say.

"legal adoption fees"? dont make me laugh. Why don't you find out how much "legal" adoptions through a facilitator cost?

Try a google search of the name Lauryn Galindo.

The market matters as much as the crime.

If you want to stop the buying, trafficking and selling of children, stamp out the market.

We always blame the poaching of endangered species on traditional Chinese "herbal" medicine, why can't we blame the trafficking of children on the Americans who buy and "adopt" them?

The selling of babies will only be stopped when general corruption within a society or legal system has also been stopped.

Originally posted by jsobecky
What is to stop someone from buying a dozen children and using them for child porn if the commerce were not criminalized, or at least regulated (adoption)?

What stops them now?

What stops them now? The buying or the porno shops?
Buying: Nothing, totally uncriminalized or regulated
Porn shops: Criminal laws.

Now you may argue that porn shops still do exist in spite of the laws, but that is irrelevant.

What stops people from buying babies for exploitation today? If there is such a mechanism in place, why could it not still be in place if parental rights could legally be sold?

Decriminalizing the basic fact of buying and selling parental rights does not necessarily imply the practice would be totally unregulated.

But even if it were, do you disagree that criminal brokers would be replaced with legitimate brokers if it were decriminalized?

Do you disagree that buyers (and many sellers) have an interest in validating the other party and that such private brokers would then have incentive to facilitate that validation?

Originally posted by spamandham
What stops people from buying babies for exploitation today? If there is such a mechanism in place, why could it not still be in place if parental rights could legally be sold?

Human trafficking laws. You are proposing a new scenario with no criminalization. Nothing would stop porn slugs.

Decriminalizing the basic fact of buying and selling parental rights does not necessarily imply the practice would be totally unregulated.

Unless specific steps are made to regulate it, it wll be left up to the individual to do the right thing. That will never work.

But even if it were, do you disagree that criminal brokers would be replaced with legitimate brokers if it were decriminalized?

Yes. They would be even more overwhelmed by the lawless.

Do you disagree that buyers (and many sellers) have an interest in validating the other party and that such private brokers would then have incentive to facilitate that validation?

Once again, yes. They are interested in validation only insofar that they would not lose their monetary stake.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Human trafficking laws. You are proposing a new scenario with no criminalization. Nothing would stop porn slugs.

I'm not proposing anything. I asked what is inherently wrong with the practice and have recieved no actual explanation of what is inherently wrong.

I further pointed out that there is practical merit to decriminalizing. If I were to propose decriminalizing the sale of parental rights, that in no way implies that laws against exploiting children go away. This is why I didn't liek the use of the phrase "putting a price on children" - it implies that the children would lose their legal rights.

Of course, if selling parental rights were legal, some people would illegally exploit children, just like they do today. But I don't see how it would increase the incidence of exploitation. I think I already made a solid argument as to why the opposite is true; decriminalizing the sale of parental rights would decrease exploitation by making it more difficult for illicit buyers and sellers to find eachother.

If the practice were generally legal, law enforcement could more readily concentrate on finding those with illicit intents rather than being distracted by those who technically violate the law but otherwise have the baby's interests in mind. This more concentrated enforcement would drive the illicit costs up even higher; further reducing the incidence.

Originally posted by jsobecky

But even if it were, do you disagree that criminal brokers would be replaced with legitimate brokers if it were decriminalized?

Yes. They would be even more overwhelmed by the lawless.

That's totally nonintuitive. Explain why.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Do you disagree that buyers (and many sellers) have an interest in validating the other party and that such private brokers would then have incentive to facilitate that validation?

Once again, yes. They are interested in validation only insofar that they would not lose their monetary stake.

People are in business to make money. If customers want the other party validated, someone will offer it. Customers that want that (which I would think is the vast majority) will do business with those brokers/agencies that offer validation. Those businesses grab market share as a result. Everyone else follows.

Such agencies have a second incentive for validation, which is to avoid charges of facilitating child exploitation.

What's wrong with that argument?

[edit on 25-10-2005 by spamandham]

I'm about finished here; I've begun to repeat myself.

I don't care about the buyers or the sellers. They can watch out for themselves.

Children cannot watch out for themselves. A three year old will overdose on candy if you let him. They are weak and unable to reason. Always always there must be an agent in place, parent, guardian, or the state, to look out for their best interest. Sit in a divorce/custody courtroom for a week and see how society feels about the child's best interests. It is always the first thing to take into account.

Your proposal works if we're talking about buying and selling cattle. Not humans.

Nice talking to you.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I'm about finished here; I've begun to repeat myself.

Yes, unfortunately.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Sit in a divorce/custody courtroom for a week and see how society feels about the child's best interests. It is always the first thing to take into account.

I explained why decriminalizing the sale of parental rights would in fact benefit the children's best interest. You have countered only with assertions.

Don't you realize that the status quo is not necessarily in the best interest of the children? Failure to seriously consider that your gut instinct could be wrong may in fact be putting the lives of these children at greater risk.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Your proposal works if we're talking about buying and selling cattle. Not humans.

We aren't talking about selling humans, we're talking about selling parental rights. But, I agree the conversation has hit a dead end.