#babyforsale

[Valentine Z]

As many have said, babies or anyone for that matter, should not be allowed to be sold. Even with the draconian abortion laws in some places, I think we can all agree that there's at least an adoption center to drop a child.

It's not exactly good to blame the mother either for bearing a child, because that's where it gets a little too tangled up.

[Infected Mushroom]

If you are legally allowed to abort babies, then it follows logically that selling them should be legal.

It’s already clear that the law favors parents over babies (and this is a good thing since parents generate immediate government revenue through paying income tax).

This isn’t drugs or weapons dealing, there’s no social harm.

[Genivaria]

Human beings cannot be property and therefore cannot be bought or sold, to do so would imply that they are slaves.
The parents should all be arrested for abuse at the least, and at most crimes against humanity.

[Dahon]

If you are legally allowed to abort babies, then it follows logically that selling them should be legal.

It’s already clear that the law favors parents over babies (and this is a good thing since parents generate immediate government revenue through paying income tax).

This isn’t drugs or weapons dealing, there’s no social harm.

... what barbarity is this?

[Genivaria]

If you are legally allowed to abort babies, then it follows logically that selling them should be legal.

It’s already clear that the law favors parents over babies (and this is a good thing since parents generate immediate government revenue through paying income tax).

This isn’t drugs or weapons dealing, there’s no social harm.

If you are legally allowed to abort babies, then it follows logically that selling them should be legal.

That doesn't logically follow at all and I'm not really surprised that you think so.

This isn’t drugs or weapons dealing, there’s no social harm.

No it just involves selling babies, what an utterly daft statement.

[NERVUN]

If you are legally allowed to abort babies, then it follows logically that selling them should be legal.

It’s already clear that the law favors parents over babies (and this is a good thing since parents generate immediate government revenue through paying income tax).

This isn’t drugs or weapons dealing, there’s no social harm.

... what barbarity is this?

IM. IM has, shall we say, a unique worldview.

[NERVUN]

Unfortunately, I get the buying. Childless couples. Couples without males (Especially in Asian cultures), etc.

Then it gets dark.

Childless couples maybe. Couples without males? Not entirely sure it's as likely. I personally think it's more likely people buy the babies to, well, turn into slaves. Sex slavery or slave labor of some kind.

If you're in an area where male children are needed to carry on the family farm/business/whatnot... It could be a pressure. For example, while Japan doesn't have this going on, certain families still feel the need for a male heir to continue the family, this leads to men marrying daughters, and being adopted into her family. HE changes his name, just so the family will continue.

As for slaves... Ok, sex slaves, unfortunately could very well be a thing. But slave labor is less likely I think. It'd take a lot of resources and some years before you get a return on investment.

[Galloism]

... what barbarity is this?

IM. IM has, shall we say, a unique worldview.

That’s a very carefully neutral word choice.

Kudos to you my friend. Saki all around.

[The Liberated Territories]

Sure. After all, she produced that baby by mixing in her own labor, obviously she gets the right to do whatever she pleases with it.

[Darussalam]

I disagree with Rothbard on nearly everything except on childcare rights, in which he is absolutely spot-on.

[Dahon]

Sure. After all, she produced that baby by mixing in her own labor, obviously she gets the right to do whatever she pleases with it.

And the kid? What about the kid? Does he get no say in this at all? Are we gonna be dicks because free market? What the fuck?

[Risottia]

I guess I'll be my usual European cultural imperialist commie self and state that humans can't be property of anyone for fuck's sake.

[Valentine Z]

If you are legally allowed to abort babies, then it follows logically that selling them should be legal.

It’s already clear that the law favors parents over babies (and this is a good thing since parents generate immediate government revenue through paying income tax).

This isn’t drugs or weapons dealing, there’s no social harm.

I have to respectfully disagree on that, and here's why.

While it is indeed true that "I am your Mother" statement stands, there's also human rights for a baby, because you know, they're a human to begin with. Technically, yes, you do own your child as a mother, but it stops when you are selling your kid to a worse fate.

And it is indeed harmful. Countless number of people has missing childhoods or worse, abusive ones. I know I have not cited proper examples, but I can say that this is not a hypothetical situation. By selling a child to someone, he should count his lucky stars if the adoption went well (which in a good majority, it did), but it will take a turn for the worse when the adopting family are abusive towards him, and it is indeed harmful.

Also to re-iterate this: Yes, you have the rights to your child as a mother, but that right stops and you need to be intervened when you are selling your kid to someone else with no intention of taking care of them. Child has rights too.

[Kowani]

If you are legally allowed to abort babies, then it follows logically that selling them should be legal.

It’s already clear that the law favors parents over babies (and this is a good thing since parents generate immediate government revenue through paying income tax).

This isn’t drugs or weapons dealing, there’s no social harm.

Y’know, this thread was almost sane. Almost.

[Dumb Ideologies]

As the old song (almost) says:

Buy buy baby, baby buy buy.

[Proletarian Republic of Americanada]

No of course you can't sell babies. You'd need a national adoption service to take care of that, with no payment required, assuming the adopters pass background check and mental exam.

[Risottia]

If you are legally allowed to abort babies, then it follows logically that selling them should be legal.

It’s already clear that the law favors parents over babies (and this is a good thing since parents generate immediate government revenue through paying income tax).

This isn’t drugs or weapons dealing, there’s no social harm.

The thing is that no one is allowed to abort babies, as embryos and foeti aren't babies, that is humans that have been born and are endowed with legal personhood. Your implication rests on a false analogy.

The law favours minors over adults basically everywhere, as adults have duties to the minors, as specified by UN.

social harm is done by considering a human as an item of property. Aka slavery.

[The Liberated Territories]

Sure. After all, she produced that baby by mixing in her own labor, obviously she gets the right to do whatever she pleases with it.

And the kid? What about the kid? Does he get no say in this at all? Are we gonna be dicks because free market? What the fuck?

Babies don't have a legal say, please pay attention.

[Right wing humour squad]

I thought most of the world came to agree that selling human beings was wrong years ago

not in its entirety.

Hmmm this map doesn’t seem to include income tax and the welfare state which are also forms of slavery.

[Infected Mushroom]

If you are legally allowed to abort babies, then it follows logically that selling them should be legal.

It’s already clear that the law favors parents over babies (and this is a good thing since parents generate immediate government revenue through paying income tax).

This isn’t drugs or weapons dealing, there’s no social harm.

The thing is that no one is allowed to abort babies, as embryos and foeti aren't babies, that is humans that have been born and are endowed with legal personhood. Your implication rests on a false analogy.

The law favours minors over adults basically everywhere, as adults have duties to the minors, as specified by UN.

social harm is done by considering a human as an item of property. Aka slavery.

I disagree with that. The law basically allows parents to kill babies.

But For the abortion of the fetus, the baby would (in all foreseeability) be born. Hence its the equivalent of the law allowing killing in this parent vs baby context.

If that is allowed, then its inconsistent not to allow the mere selling of a baby from one parent to another; especially in the absence of evidence showing the new buyer wouldn't make a good parent.

[Infected Mushroom]

If you are legally allowed to abort babies, then it follows logically that selling them should be legal.

It’s already clear that the law favors parents over babies (and this is a good thing since parents generate immediate government revenue through paying income tax).

This isn’t drugs or weapons dealing, there’s no social harm.

I have to respectfully disagree on that, and here's why.

While it is indeed true that "I am your Mother" statement stands, there's also human rights for a baby, because you know, they're a human to begin with. Technically, yes, you do own your child as a mother, but it stops when you are selling your kid to a worse fate.

And it is indeed harmful. Countless number of people has missing childhoods or worse, abusive ones. I know I have not cited proper examples, but I can say that this is not a hypothetical situation. By selling a child to someone, he should count his lucky stars if the adoption went well (which in a good majority, it did), but it will take a turn for the worse when the adopting family are abusive towards him, and it is indeed harmful.

Also to re-iterate this: Yes, you have the rights to your child as a mother, but that right stops and you need to be intervened when you are selling your kid to someone else with no intention of taking care of them. Child has rights too.

why do you assume a parent who wants to sell their child would make a better parent than the buyer?

Only one party is willing to make a sacrifice here, and sacrifice is what is necessary for good parenting... the buyer is willing to pay cash, that's more than what the original parent is willing to do

[The Liberated Territories]

The thing is that no one is allowed to abort babies, as embryos and foeti aren't babies, that is humans that have been born and are endowed with legal personhood. Your implication rests on a false analogy.

The law favours minors over adults basically everywhere, as adults have duties to the minors, as specified by UN.

social harm is done by considering a human as an item of property. Aka slavery.

I disagree with that. The law basically allows parents to kill babies.

But For the abortion of the fetus, the baby would (in all foreseeability) be born. Hence its the equivalent of the law allowing killing in this parent vs baby context.

If that is allowed, then its inconsistent not to allow the mere selling of a baby from one parent to another; especially in the absence of evidence showing the new buyer wouldn't make a good parent.

What's more, there is nothing incredibly different between the foetus and a born child. The birth canal changes little about our arbitrary preconceptions of what makes somebody human with legal rights. And even then, you aren't afforded full legal rights until arbitrarily 18!

[Risottia]

And the kid? What about the kid? Does he get no say in this at all? Are we gonna be dicks because free market? What the fuck?

Babies don't have a legal say, please pay attention.

It is you who should be paying attention, unless you're living in the only backwards country that has failed to sign and ratify into law the UN CRC.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/United ... _the_Child
Articles 9, 12, 14 just to begin with.

[Risottia]

I disagree with that. The law basically allows parents to kill babies.

But For the abortion of the fetus, the baby would (in all foreseeability) be born. Hence its the equivalent of the law allowing killing in this parent vs baby context.

If that is allowed, then its inconsistent not to allow the mere selling of a baby from one parent to another; especially in the absence of evidence showing the new buyer wouldn't make a good parent.

What's more, there is nothing incredibly different between the foetus and a born child. The birth canal changes little about our arbitrary preconceptions of what makes somebody human with legal rights. And even then, you aren't afforded full legal rights until arbitrarily 18!

I see basic legal concepts such as legal personhood via legal fiction aren't exactly your cup of tea.

[The Liberated Territories]

Babies don't have a legal say, please pay attention.

It is you who should be paying attention, unless you're living in the only backwards country that has failed to sign and ratify into law the UN CRC.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/United ... _the_Child
Articles 9, 12, 14 just to begin with.

I am fully aware of the arbitrary standards imposed by the UN. I talk in doctrina