| I agree that we have very little information on which to base a judgement. But I think there are some things which at least need to be considered:
@Lestat
1. I cannot accept this in terms of cultural relativism. Sorry Lestat, but the fact that some places give fathers (or parents) ownership rights over their children does not make it OK. I am conscious that you probably know a great deal about the effects of such power, but I am not easily persuaded that the mothers of children sold by their fathers are not distressed. No culture is homegeneous but to say it is not emotive would need some filling out for me.
2. I am also a little uneasy by the implication that "life is cheap" in places where infant mortality is high. This was the situation in Europe not that long ago and everything I have read suggests that people were very unhappy about the deaths of their children. Siblings may not have felt the same but I do not imagine that acceptance of an inevitable situation indicates contentment
3. You are correct when you say we do not know whether he chose to raise the child alone. I will stick my neck out and guess he did not...any more than millions of other single parents. I cannot see the relevance of this
4. You say the child is young enough that this may be less traumatic, and it is true that there is some evidence that young children fare better in adoption. It is also true that there is a high incidence of breakdown particularly in adolecence; that is improving with better matching - another argument in favour of a lengthy process. But the child will not be young forever - what do you think she would make of the circumstances of her adoption when she is older?
@ Darzog
1. You say that the man wants to get rid of the child, and the money is perhaps secondary. Perhaps. The wrong lies in the first wish, as I thought you agreed when you discussed the context in which people should have children in another thread.
2. You say that he did not sell the child into slavery. How do you (or he) know that. The regulations surrounding adoption exist because baby farming and other forms of abuse were discovered to be dangers within private arrangements. No system will be perfect in reducing those risks but such problems are far less common now than in the past and I contend that regulation is the reason for this
3. The second family could also have applied for a legal adoption. It takes time for proper inquiry to be made, but at least in this country families willing to take older, disabled or ethnic minority children are like hens' teeth. Why circumvent a system designed to safeguard children when the service you are offering is in short supply? The article says they wished to do it legally. But as the situation appears they were not willing to pay to speed up the process; they were willing to pay to circumvent it completely
@ Damuna Nova.
You say that social workers, social services and the quality of child care provided are "crap". May I ask what you base your opinion on?  |