What value home improvements?

[Fiona]

This story is probably not controversial but it caught my attention. I am puzzled by the priorities but if those are his values it may be no bad thing for the child to be placed, perhaps? Or does he need a different kind of help?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/22/da....ap/index.html

[Magrus]

Vu "understands what's going on and thinks it's very unfair," Bartman said.

Umm, yeah, I say break him half for that one. He wanted to sell his daughter and never see her again, and sees nothing wrong with that? Disgusting filth of a person.

[Phreddie]

Hey mag, who are you to judge someone just because they have different values than yourself?

Having said that, I personally have noe respect for that man, the least he could of done was to put her up for adoption legally. There is no reason he couldnt have, and every reason why he should he have. Some people just dont get it sometimes...

[Magrus]

Originally Posted by Phreddie

Hey mag, who are you to judge someone just because they have different values than yourself?

Having said that, I personally have noe respect for that man, the least he could of done was to put her up for adoption legally. There is no reason he couldnt have, and every reason why he should he have. Some people just dont get it sometimes...

It is fully my right to have any opinion I wish to have on any issue. The man had no interest in his daughter's welfare. He was only concered with getting paid to get rid of her. He even mentioned that he understood what was going on and thought it was wrong that he was being punished for it.

[shana]

It is in the child's best interest to be as far away from her dad as possible. I wonder where the mom disappeared to? This is a sad situation, understatement, I know.

[Damuna_Nova]

At least the guy knew he couldn't cope and wanted to put his daughter into the hands of those capable. I agree with Phreddie that he should hae put her up for adoption legally, but also I beliee that is flawed, as children are put in "care" while awaiting foster parents, and foster parents are not always good parents. I say "care" because social workers, the social serices and the quality of childcare proided are, well...crap.

Mag, maybe he thought it would be best if he neer saw his daughter again? He may hae felt that it was shaming not to be able to raise your own child. That would also explain why he didn't go about it legally.

In my opinion selling a child for home improements is an atrocity, if he had just been giing away his child, well, then people might judge him harshly still, but he would appear more like a caring father than a jackass.

[Darzog]

Well, I don't think the home improvements make a bit of difference in this case. He wanted to get rid of his kid. Going through the black market he was going to make a profit from getting rid of her. Just because he already had ideas for what to do with the money doesn't mean he was getting rid of his kid just because he wanted to do some work on his house. The driving force was getting rid of his daughter. And getting paid for it was probably a close second.

[Lestat]

Selling off a child if it becomes too much of a burden is fairly frequent in some parts of the world and not that badly regarded. Some cultures, also in our past, acknowledge(d) a far more proprietary relationship between parents (but mainly fathers) and children, and parents could freely choose to have their children killed (if they showed some handicap at birth or similar).
If I'm not mistaken this could be the case for South-East Asia, the region where Mr. Vu originally comes from. So it might be in part cultural. Though the fact that he sold her for improving his home, rather than making it easier to raise remaining kids, shows some healthy American consumerist influence.

That said, there were no signs of abuse or neglect according to the article, so I think the reactions of "filth" and "atrocity" are a bit overreacting. Moreover the child seems to be of an age were adoption might be less of a traumatic event.

And the article leaves some questions open:
- Did he choose to raise the baby alone or was he left with it by the mother?
- What was the guy's economic situation?
- Darzog's comments raise an important point: was he desperate to get rid of his daughter (because he felt he couldn't care for her correctly) and the money came second and the home improvements only something he thought most useful to do with it or was he looking to find money to improve his house and thought "hey, why don't I sell my daughter?".

So too many unknowns for me to make a moral judgment. He ain't nice, for sure, but "filth" or "atrocious"? I don't know.

[dj_venom]

Damn, Mag beat me to quote that bit, as I think it sums up the whole thing. Frankly, I fail to see any justification for this, as I think the guy is a totally inconsiderate looney.

If he had bothered to check the law, he would have known it was illegal, and was actually losing money from this 'sale'.

Originally Posted by Damuna_Nova

I say "care" because social workers, the social serices and the quality of childcare proided are, well...crap.

Perhaps some members here might object to that generalisation...

[TonyMontana1638]

Well this is... Odd. Maybe Lestat is right that it is a culture thing, but I can't see any justification for 'selling' your children. I can see something in giving him away (if that makes sense) because they want them to have a better life, but selling them implies they expect something in return for their children and obviously don't have their best interests at heart. This dude's an idiot, pure an simple.

Phred I may just be being daft (I've missed s a bit of humor earlier today ) but was what you said to mag meant in seriousness or fecetiously? I couldn't tell, especially the way mag responded because that's just a silly objection to raise.

[Darzog]

I still think that people may be villifying this guy more than he deserves.

Think about this scenario. For whatever reason, the guy wants to get rid of his kid (can't hack it, mother left and he's not equipped do to it alone, whatever). He asks around about how to find someone to take his daughter.

Someone mentions that he can get a few thounsand dollars for her on the black market. So now he has a choice of giving his daughter away or getting a few thousand dollars to give her to someone else. If the outcome is the same but one way you get more money for it, can you really blame him for wanting to sell it? Yes, it is illegal, but everyone does things that are against the law to one degree or another. How many of you drive over the speed limit, or drank alcohol while under-age, or have done drugs? Read the most evil thing you've done thread for more examples. Just because these are "less" illegal doesn't absolve you from guilt for doing something illegal. It just goes to show that just because selling your child is illegal doesn't automatically make it a bad thing.

So maybe the first thought was that the guy wanted to get rid of his daughter and selling her was just one of the way to do it. Nothing I've read makes me believe that his primary goal was the $7,000.

I know that this is an overly optimistic view of what might have happened but I think this is just as likely as the overly pessimistic thought that his daughter was just a commodity to him. I have a feeling if we had more information we would find that it is somewhere in the middle.

[dj_venom]

@Darzog:

It's not a bloody playstation, or cursed trampoline, or anything else like that. IT IS A HUMAN! And being a human, what gives you the right to sell it to people? If you can't care for it, that is one thing, but you have no right to profit off the potential suffering experienced by that child. If you don't want the responsibility of a child, then don't have a child. You can't just have it for a couple of weeks, try it out, and see how you go. It is a big decision, which once you make, you stick with it!

[Lestat]

Originally Posted by dj_venom

It's not a bloody playstation, or cursed trampoline, or anything else like that. IT IS A HUMAN! And being a human, what gives you the right to sell it to people?

Being her father would be enough of a right in many cultures. For you it might be a very emotive issue, in other cultures it's not, especially if you come from a culture/country where e.g. only one in two infants of that age make it to adult life for instance and there is less "commitment" or "attachment" to an infant as we see in our cultures were infants are rare and precious.
E.g. when I asked one of my African colleagues how many brothers and sister he had, he answered "Thirteen, of which six surviving".

Originally Posted by dj_venom

If you can't care for it, that is one thing, but you have no right to profit off the potential suffering experienced by that child. If you don't want the responsibility of a child, then don't have a child. You can't just have it for a couple of weeks, try it out, and see how you go. It is a big decision, which once you make, you stick with it!

As I said before, the circumstances of how this guy ended up alone with his kid are not clear.

I'd suspend judgment until I'd have more information.

Oh, and, giving her away for free in stead of selling her, could also be interpreted as associating no value at all to her being.

[dj_venom]

Yes, in his culture perhaps it is accepted, however not in the current culture he existed in. As such, if you are in a place where you are not familiar with the law, you should check it first.

[Darzog]

DJ,

I don't doubt that he understood it was illegal, but that's not really the point. And I understand your point that it is a human life, but this all points back to my arguement in the other thread that you shouldn't be having sex until you've committed yourself to a relationship and the responsibilities associated with one.

Back to the topic at hand. It's not like this guy was selling his daughter into slavery. He was selling her to a family that wanted a child of their own. I think the reason I'm not as upset by this as you are is that I don't see this as treating a child as a commodity. I see the money as a convenience fee. Think about it this way... if you go into a grocery store and buy popcorn that you have to take home and cook yourself, you will pay much less than if you buy popcorn at the movies. Why? Because they have cooked it for you and have it ready for you at the place you want to eat it at (the movies). You are paying more for the convenience of getting what you want in an easy and timely manner. You are not paying for the popcorn itself, you are paying for the way that it is given to you.

I see this situation in a similar way. The family wasn't paying because they wanted to own a child. They were paying so they could skip the red tape associated with a formal adoption process and the lengthy delays in getting a child. They were interested enough in having a child they were willing to pay (sacrifice money) in order to speed up the process. The father was getting payment for offering that convenience. The process itself is what is dictating the payment, not ownership of the child. The child would not be property to the new parents, she would have been a member of the family.

I see this as very different from selling a child as property or as a slave. Because of that difference in opinion I am not as emotional or appalled by the situation as you seem to be.

And the point that Lestat and I both keep coming back to is that we don't know what the motivation of the situation was. We don't know everything that was going on, and until we can know for sure what really happened, we're not ready to just cast the guy to the wolves.