Gary's Boring Blog

Gary,

Could I convince you to change your MT template such that links are more prominent? Say automatically underlined or bolded? It's hard to tell where the link was- I had to search over the post to find it.

Just my 2 yen,

Gen

Gen. Yes, you can. I'm convinced.
Truth is, I have been thinking about that for a while. Need to get onto it. Thank you for your valuable feedback, Mr Kanai!

Gen's right. Makes Gary's Boring Blog far too exciting, this link-hunting.

It is because link colour and normal body text colour are the same.

I know, I know. I didn't MAKE the template, you know. I just BORROWED the damn thing. Don't shoot the messenger,....or something....
I will change the link colour, as soon as I can...

Borrowed? I really have to read that Free Culture book now, because I am starting to suspect he simply substituted the definition of "to steal" with the one of "to borrow" ;-)

So what is wrong with selling your baby to a family that wants it? Is it the fact that she took too many deposits, what if she gave the other couples the option on the next baby?

I thought it was the woman's right to choose.

Errr, ethics for one?

Funny how a business aspect can override ethical or moral issues quite easily. Maybe that's also why gay marriages are a no-no for neo-con, because there's no money to be made... as opposed to genetic engineering, cloning etc.

Well ethics are in the religion of the eye of the beholder.

There is money to be made in Gay marriage though. Insurance benefits etc...Companies in the US have to provide health benefits too to the partner of gay employees, but if you are heterosexual you must be married. So let the gay folks get married.

Let people sell their babies if they do not want them, why not. The lawyers and the adoption agencies are making money and they are not "producing" anything!!!

Well ethics are in the religion of the eye of the beholder.

There is money to be made in Gay marriage though. Insurance benefits etc...Companies in the US have to provide health benefits too to the partner of gay employees, but if you are heterosexual you must be married. So let the gay folks get married.

Let people sell their babies if they do not want them, why not. The lawyers and the adoption agencies are making money and they are not "producing" anything!!!

So if she didn't take deposits it would have been leagal? I'm pretty sure selling a human is a no-no in the US. It's not in UK?

I am sure selling into slavery is illeagal but dosen't a woman have the right to decide. It is her body after all.

What about surogate mothers, they charges for the product of what comes out of their womb.

Chinese are making a bundle letting westerners adopt girl babies. Many families in the area I live in, in the US have baby girls from China. There are fees associated with the adopting why not let the mothers make a little coin on the deal.

Paul,
You are clearly confused. 'Right to choose' means the right to terminate the life of a foetus, not the right to sell it.
On the selling issue, I'm pretty sure it is illegal in the UK, and the US, to take payment for a baby. I think this extends to surrogate mothers as well - any lawyers reading?

You see, that is just the way for men to opress women even more. It should be a woman's right to sell her baby. Why let male dominated courts decide that. The lawyers, mostly men make money off of the fees. The issue is so discriminatory

Men can sell their sperm, why not let women sell their babies. Is there really a prblem with it? once again we are not talking slavery we are talking about loving wealthy couples that want to buy a baby because they do not want to wait for the social welfare system to find them one.

Have you considered selling yours? Or produce one to sell? I can't believe you're opposing shagging comic rabbits and supporting unregulated trade in defenseless human beings.

And the counterpart to sperm is female eggs -- not complete babies... dude!

Ok once again we are not talking about slavery. We are talking about loving parents, think about it for a minute. I have friends that have adopted (legally) 2 children, and it costs money, everyone in the process makes money EXCEPT the mother, the agency, the hospital, the lawyers and without the mother there is no process.

Doesn't it seem like the mothers and their situation are getting taken advantage of? "Donating" their babies no one else is "donating" their services. "Oh you are giving your baby up for adoption well then we won't charge you for delivery then", I don't see it And chances are if they do not want the baby, they could use the money because they are poor.

Maybe if the mothers could make a little for pain and suffering there would be less abortion.

I wanted my children so the thought never came up

It is interesting how you make the "defenseless human being" Euro Amnesty International comment when you do not support the the US freeing the citizens of the opressed Iraqi dictator their new freedom, human and civil rights.

Out of curiousity, would you know where one would go to find more information on selling your child?

Jeez Camila, that was the longest post I've ever seen! I realize that it's pretty old, but what the hell!
You both raised a few valid points in your essay, but as with all good points, there's always a rebuttal....or an agreement.
For some reason, the birth mother's financial state is commonly referred to as 'poor', but come now, that's not always the case!
There are always extenuating circumstances, as with everything.

I was going to go into a nice long diatribe, but it's getting late..so I'll save it for another time.

Having a baby is expensive, whether or not you're going to keep it, is the birth mother to go out of pocket? As terrible as it sounds, you're not going to waste $200 dry cleaning a coat if you're going to throw it out the next day.

Maybe a terrible comparison, but you get my point.

Why shouldn't adoptive parents help alleviate the burden on the mother? They are getting the spoils of her effort, she just gets stretch marks. It doesn't seem to be a win/win to me. Not at all.

As well, if adoptives can afford $60k US to adopt from elsewhere in the States, Canada, and the UK, what's the big deal? I mean if the child is coming from one of the 1st world countries, where none of the major issues exist, or at least aren't as predominant.

Sure, it could come down to slavery, but that can happen with legal adoptions as well! There was a couple in Canada somewhere that adopted two boys, and kept them locked in cages.

That seems like something to be expected from people who get free kids, free cheques, free slaves.

At least if they help out with some cash, adoptives who can afford it usually won't do crazy things, but then again, everything's become crazy now, hasn't it?