Unlawful Sale of a Child
- Thread starter chanel
- Start date
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
Now why is this illegal?
I understand some might view it as reprehensible but why illegal?
Parents put their children in the care of other people all the time; sometimes permanently so why is this illegal?
Is it because the parent was given something in return?
I understand some might view it as reprehensible but why illegal?
Parents put their children in the care of other people all the time; sometimes permanently so why is this illegal?
Is it because the parent was given something in return?
chanel
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #3
Um. There are ways to do it legally. The child is two, and she may even have a father. Imagine that?
Certain "reprehensible" acts are illegal. Thank goodness. It's people like this that should be given the option of free sterilization. We could even give them a gun in exchange for their eggs.
Certain "reprehensible" acts are illegal. Thank goodness. It's people like this that should be given the option of free sterilization. We could even give them a gun in exchange for their eggs.
eots
no fly list
obsesses much ??
Is there such thing as LAWFUL Sale of a Child?
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
I would call this more of a trade than a sale.
JD_2B
Little Vixen
Trading is the same concept as selling, because the trade is for something of monetary value.
I find the "industry" of buying and selling children to be amoral and disgusting.. Including adoption agencies that work for profit... Not trying to hijack the thread here, but how is this any worse than an adoption agency that works to get paid, even if the total added cost paid by the adoptive parents only goes towards the employees paychecks? I think it is ridiculous to claim that the huge amount of money that people pay to adopt a child goes towards the mother's health care, food, or the child's care. The mothers are generally on medicaid, along with the children, and food stamps/ WIC tends to pay for the food, etc. The only exception to this would be for the children who are no longer in the care of the parents, and are wards of the state, as the state needs to be recompensated somehow for providing the money for that care. Even this should not be tolerated, though, because that enables the state to do what the average person may not do. The average person on food stamps is not required to pay the money back, or the medicaid expenses, etc. Why then should some adoptive parent have to make reimbursements, too? All of this, in my mind, adds up to selling of children.
I would rather see our tax dollars going to a free nationwide adoption service, where the person also has the option to decline adopting the child. Also, a registered child sex offender would have to decline, as well as people who are on probation, etc, for drug charges, unless they can prove that they are clean and sober. You know, certain people being high risk to a child would have to decline, but the majority of the population would have the option of accepting a new person into their home. I think that this system would cut down on the overall costs incurred relating to the welfare system, and it would give kids a home to live in, where they are chosen and wanted.
Oh and the adoptive parents would not get to pick and choose so much, either. They would only know the gender, race, age, and whether that child had a disability or was under constant physician's care for a condition. I think that many people DO want an older child, but the costs are just too high for them to take one in. Making it free, and random in the way the potentially adopting person of choice is picked, would help this issue immensely. ALL of the kids could potentially have 12 chances a year to be adopted, as long as there is some stipulation that the adoptive parents respond within a certain time frame, of like 30 days, or whatever.
Eh maybe this is just me being a dreamer, but I think that this is the most ideal way to handle the problem of millions of children not having a family to love them.
I find the "industry" of buying and selling children to be amoral and disgusting.. Including adoption agencies that work for profit... Not trying to hijack the thread here, but how is this any worse than an adoption agency that works to get paid, even if the total added cost paid by the adoptive parents only goes towards the employees paychecks? I think it is ridiculous to claim that the huge amount of money that people pay to adopt a child goes towards the mother's health care, food, or the child's care. The mothers are generally on medicaid, along with the children, and food stamps/ WIC tends to pay for the food, etc. The only exception to this would be for the children who are no longer in the care of the parents, and are wards of the state, as the state needs to be recompensated somehow for providing the money for that care. Even this should not be tolerated, though, because that enables the state to do what the average person may not do. The average person on food stamps is not required to pay the money back, or the medicaid expenses, etc. Why then should some adoptive parent have to make reimbursements, too? All of this, in my mind, adds up to selling of children.
I would rather see our tax dollars going to a free nationwide adoption service, where the person also has the option to decline adopting the child. Also, a registered child sex offender would have to decline, as well as people who are on probation, etc, for drug charges, unless they can prove that they are clean and sober. You know, certain people being high risk to a child would have to decline, but the majority of the population would have the option of accepting a new person into their home. I think that this system would cut down on the overall costs incurred relating to the welfare system, and it would give kids a home to live in, where they are chosen and wanted.
Oh and the adoptive parents would not get to pick and choose so much, either. They would only know the gender, race, age, and whether that child had a disability or was under constant physician's care for a condition. I think that many people DO want an older child, but the costs are just too high for them to take one in. Making it free, and random in the way the potentially adopting person of choice is picked, would help this issue immensely. ALL of the kids could potentially have 12 chances a year to be adopted, as long as there is some stipulation that the adoptive parents respond within a certain time frame, of like 30 days, or whatever.
Eh maybe this is just me being a dreamer, but I think that this is the most ideal way to handle the problem of millions of children not having a family to love them.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Supreme Court refuses to hear Michigan Republican lawsuit seeking to roll back voting rights measures- Started by John Edgar Slow Horses
- Replies: 0
-
Dan Bongino and Kash Patel are compromised and need to resign or be fired.- Started by TheGreatSatan
- Replies: 12
-
Companies rolling back DEI, The Momentum is clear: DEI will DIE- Started by Mr. Friscus
- Replies: 1
-
SCOTUS orders Maine Legislature to Restore Vote of Lawmaker who Criticized State's Transgender Policy- Started by TemplarKormac
- Replies: 1
Latest Discussions
-
I know why old joe's cancer was never reported/tested..... answer inside.- Latest: el midgetron
-
Noem confuses a constitutional right with its abuse. Imagine my surprise.- Latest: NewsVine_Mariyam
-
-
Dan Bongino and Kash Patel are compromised and need to resign or be fired.
- Latest: TemplarKormac
-
