i need ideas philosophical about the morality of baby selling of poor mothers .. Anyone interesteted to share?

Answer 1

My personal opinion, baby selling sucks. It takes human life and reduces it to a commodity, like something you would buy from a store. Human life is priceless and those who would sell their own baby, regardless of the reason, are themselves inhuman. If you can not care for a child, there are alternates, but to use a baby as a "product" or barter good is inexcusable. Just my own thoughts on the matter.

Answer 2

First of all, let's dispel a little bit of the nonsense in here:

LIFE HAS A FINITE VALUE. This is true for everybody and very easy to demonstrate. What have you personally done to save a life? There are - right this moment - lives that you might be saving by donating time and money. People are starving, dying of disease, and bleeding to death even now. And most of us wouldn't even spend an hour in a day to help stop this. Our hour is MORE VALUABLE than someone else's life. Anyone who suggests that life is beyond value but doesn't back it up with action in this way is simply a hypocrite.

Okay. So now that we have established that even human lives have a finite value, how does trading on this value become a problem? On one hand, if a person gives you a lot of money for a baby, it suggests that they HAVE a lot of money to give. You know that the child will not want for material things. Isn't that a terrific position to put a child in? Likewise, if a mother is exceptionally poor now, it is the government who has to pay for her hospital bills and for the child's care and adoption... would it be better for SOCIETY if we didn't have to incur this cost?

What people worry about in such a situation is that this becomes the ONLY qualification involved. They envision hateful parents who want for some bizarre reason to buy children only to ignore or mistreat them. But here's the question - does GIVING a child away assure that parents are going to be loving? I would argue that it is the opposite: if a person has to SACRIFICE to get a child, they are LESS likely to treat it like garbage. How many ferraris have you seen rusting away on someone's front lawn?

The other concern, I suppose, is that this might be percieved as a form of employment for some women - continual pregnancy and sales of children. If the mother has nothing but an economic interest in the child but cannot for some reason sell it, then that child would seem to have a bleak future indeed. In a similar vein, there are ALREADY many children awaiting adoption, and they may never find homes if children that are more desirable are suddenly 'mass produced'. I have to grant that these are pretty good arguments to a degree... but again, these are problems that are already present. Just because some prospective parents would pay a lot of money for a specific kind of child, it doesn't mean that would accept a different kind of child for free. And just because mothers cannot sell children, it doesn't mean that they don't have ones that they don't like. There are arguably mothers who keep their child rather than cram it into foster care and perhaps they would find selling it to be more attractive.

Lest the spectre of child workhouses of the past or physical abuse be raised, allow me to point out that these things are ILLEGAL. No matter how you acquire your children, you cannot do these things or you will be put in jail. They are a peripheral issue at best.

Answer 3

The only good thing I can see about that is the benefit of life.
The poor woman doesn't have to abort and the wealthy woman receives a child she couldn't have by her own body.
Three lives are affected by this: 1) the child, 2) the childless woman, 3) the poor woman who might have had to abort a beating heart.
All three are rewarded in some small or great way, but ...like everything else we do for the good; someone, somewhere will find a way to abuse it for greedy gains.
As good as it sounds, I don't think it's a good idea. I think that it would be abused by many. That would be a sin and in every case three people would end up hurt, the child, the childless mother and the poor mother.

Answer 4

see dear in this kind of circumstances morality dosen't work.
As per Maslow's hierarchy of needs if an body is unable to fulfill his physiological needs he will be ready to do all the kinds of act s, moral or immoral doesn't matter.
second thing is that there is nothing wrong in selling your baby if you are no able to give him/her a good life. if you yourself are in misery you have no right to bring the poor baby in misery.
If a mother sells her baby she certainly saves her self and her baby from many miseries............
second benefit is to the poor baby less couple who get the child. they enjoy having a baby and its love.
third thing is that if the mother doesn't have an option of selling her baby than she will certainly opt for abortion which is far more contemptible act because one child loses her/ his life because of poverty of her mother. it is a shame for her and as well as for the society she lives in.

Answer 5

If the mother gave her baby away so that it may survive, I think that's moral. The act of selling her baby is just evidence of greed.

Answer 6

Because God lays out rules for slave ownership, He clearly thinks the practice is okay. Who am I to argue with God?

Answer 7

You need Gail Collins!