Hypocrisy and Double Standards
This continues entry 53, Profiting from Modern Slavery.
Some years ago, there was a story in the newspapers about an infertile woman, who paid a sum of money to a woman in a much poorer European country, who allowed her to take her 6th child and pretend it was hers.
It sounded to me like a perfect arrangement. Since the invention of the pill and the permission to have an abortion, there are by far more people, who want to adopt a child than children to be adopted.
The mother had the chance to supply a decent life for her five children, who else would have been doomed to detrimental consequences of malnutrition, lack of health care and lack of enough schooling. The sixth child also was going to have a good life as being wanted.
But selling a child is illegal, and someone denounced these people.
The hypocrisy of rich and carefree people in a wealthy country, who by law forbid, what is a good solution, is an outrage, as long as the same rich countries are the cause of the misery of the people in the poor countries.
Of course, selling children for adoption should be rigorously controlled, no third party should ever make any profit from it. But considering the price of all infertility treatment, that health insurances pay for, that money could be better used for an agency to find children for adoption for parents, who in return renounce infertility treatment.
Also, why on earth should a woman give away a child for free, after all the pain of giving birth, all the unpleasant time of having a swollen belly, all the other inconveniences and extra costs? If someone is damaged by an accident or neglect, they often are entitled to receive money as a solatium.
An unwanted pregnancy is also an accident, so why deny the same compensation?
But the hypocrisy goes on, because the same people, who make selling babies illegal, often buy the products of child labor or even as men go to some countries and abuse child prostitutes.
It is the same with selling body parts like for example a kidney. As an example, there could be two young men at the age of 18 in a very poor third world country. One slaves away in a mine, on construction, or under dire unhealthy other conditions. With poor nutrition and lack of healthcare, living in a slum, he dies at the age of 40 taking two kidneys into his grave.
The other sells one kidney, and with the money he can afford to learn a trade and to afford a healthy life style and live until he is 80.
Again, the money saved on dialysis would be more than enough to finance an agency.
Who dares to claim, that the one with two kidneys had a better life, because he was protected from himself by a hypocritical law?
Who of those hypocrites, who has caused the first man's misery by paying outrageously little money for his labor, has a moral right to stop him from selling his kidney?
This continues entry 53, Profiting from Modern Slavery.
Some years ago, there was a story in the newspapers about an infertile woman, who paid a sum of money to a woman in a much poorer European country, who allowed her to take her 6th child and pretend it was hers.
It sounded to me like a perfect arrangement. Since the invention of the pill and the permission to have an abortion, there are by far more people, who want to adopt a child than children to be adopted.
The mother had the chance to supply a decent life for her five children, who else would have been doomed to detrimental consequences of malnutrition, lack of health care and lack of enough schooling. The sixth child also was going to have a good life as being wanted.
But selling a child is illegal, and someone denounced these people.
The hypocrisy of rich and carefree people in a wealthy country, who by law forbid, what is a good solution, is an outrage, as long as the same rich countries are the cause of the misery of the people in the poor countries.
Of course, selling children for adoption should be rigorously controlled, no third party should ever make any profit from it. But considering the price of all infertility treatment, that health insurances pay for, that money could be better used for an agency to find children for adoption for parents, who in return renounce infertility treatment.
Also, why on earth should a woman give away a child for free, after all the pain of giving birth, all the unpleasant time of having a swollen belly, all the other inconveniences and extra costs? If someone is damaged by an accident or neglect, they often are entitled to receive money as a solatium.
An unwanted pregnancy is also an accident, so why deny the same compensation?
But the hypocrisy goes on, because the same people, who make selling babies illegal, often buy the products of child labor or even as men go to some countries and abuse child prostitutes.
It is the same with selling body parts like for example a kidney. As an example, there could be two young men at the age of 18 in a very poor third world country. One slaves away in a mine, on construction, or under dire unhealthy other conditions. With poor nutrition and lack of healthcare, living in a slum, he dies at the age of 40 taking two kidneys into his grave.
The other sells one kidney, and with the money he can afford to learn a trade and to afford a healthy life style and live until he is 80.
Again, the money saved on dialysis would be more than enough to finance an agency.
Who dares to claim, that the one with two kidneys had a better life, because he was protected from himself by a hypocritical law?
Who of those hypocrites, who has caused the first man's misery by paying outrageously little money for his labor, has a moral right to stop him from selling his kidney?
