|
|
#21 |
|
FFR Player
|
The government won't set the price, the market will. That's how it works and how I hope it works for years to come.
Q |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
FFR Player
|
umm but there are some things that are illegal to sell on an open market, illegal drugs for example... I made this point earlier, that an illegal slave trade could form, but then why doesn't one exist for slavery now? There's a price set on manohours as working or livery or anything, so I don't think any business will ever form
__________________
but for now... postCount++
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 69
|
Another possibility, only give the compensation to lower tax bracket citizens...
On second thought, that wouldn't make much of a difference, but rather than 1000 dollars, maybe you can make a choice of either, keeping the baby and getting the normal pregnancy compensation crap, or giving it for adoption, and be paid equal to what you would have normally earned in the time that the pregnancy took. Meh Although I'm against abortion, I think theres one solution i can understand, morning after pill... then, if you are raped, you will take it regardless, but if you're just a whore who got knocked up, you probably wouldnt know within that short of tiem after... Edit: Also, whoever said "black / gangster guys" would go around screwing chicks for money... is an idiot. 1) Men wouldn't see a cent unless they were married, or bylaw, or whatever. and 2) Im really tired. Damn racist. -.- |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Problems: Overpopulation. Considering the amount of unwanted pregnancies is already too high (1 would be too high), encouraging having children and selling them puts a terrible example to anyone and would create a vast majority of people that would rather be free of the responsibility of raising a child then those willing.
Also, marketing a living human would make them faceless. The whole point of having a child is to share a loving bond with it, but if you strip that bond you should have and just start selling them, nobody would want them. Let's not forget about how morally wrong this is. This goes with my other two points, but where is the government going to get the money to pay the increase of merchant parents that sell their children? The cost of buying the child would steadily increase to compensate the parents giving birth to the kids, and the market would crash in under a year. Finally, there's already enough kids in Africa and the middle east that need parents. Why should we ignore them when it's essentially the same thing to buy a kid as it would be to adopt one that actually needs help and care for it?
__________________
![]() Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
FFR Player
|
Supply and demand, I agree in essence your points are valid, but not in actuality... right now the wiating list to adopt a kid is aroudn 2 years at a minimum... This is because the supply is low, I"m just trying to offer an alternative to abortion for those that are morally against it but can't afford a child. It isn't faceless, because you can say the same thing about adopting achild, the onyl difference is being paid to hand yours over to the adoption agency versus not being paid... and any horrrible parent that wou8ld hand their kid over JUST to get paid is not the parent we want raising a kid in our society anyways!
__________________
but for now... postCount++
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 298
|
Sure, we don't want a parent who is willing to sell their kid to have one in the first place, but who are we as a society to actively tempt them? This idea does not improve any situations and cuts away at the ethical foundations of society while chewing up money better spent- if a parent needs money THAT badly, they shouldn't be paid to sell the kid, we should give the kid a home or remove the kid from the parent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Banned
|
humans shouldnt have a price tag on them. No matter if they are kids or not, it just isn't right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Not for everyone ![]()
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Banned
|
rofl. wow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
FFR Player
|
Not put a price tag on human life? Why not, don't we do it regularly?
Let me use a model. A firefighter gets a 10000 dollar raise for a 1% increase of losing his life. It's safe to assume that he values 1% of his life at 10000 dollars or less. That means that 1000000 is the amount he would value his live at. It's how economists find the value of human life, it's flawed, but it's the best we have. I came up with another method, but you can't determine it while the person is living and the records that it would require are absolutlely insane. Oh, and it technically isn't putting the price tag ON the baby, it's using an incentive to get the parents to not abort the child. There's a huge difference. It's not saying "we'll take that baby for so much $" it's more of a "We know you need to get rid of that child, so we'll do you a favor. We'll make sure it get's a nice home and help you along financially." From there, the agency must compensate for it's financial aid and pump up the price of the child more. This will decrease the incentive to adopt a child, though, which could end up bad for the child's well being. And to hit the human price tag again...we do it with animals. The only difference between us and them is the side of the fence you're closest to. Why not make humans go to the other side of the fence and stick a tag in their ear. It's just as immoral as selling a sheep. Q |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
FFR Player
|
It would also be bad for the child's well-being knowing the only reason it is alive is because the government bought it to make some easy cash.
__________________
![]() Signature subject to change. THE ZERRRRRG. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
FFR Player
|
The government wouldn't buy the children. Private agencies would. If the government does so much as touch anything that has to do with my economy I freak out and try to heal the violated area. If the government had any say in this whatsoever, I say it's a bad idea. That's the truth, that's what I stand by.
Q |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
FFR Player
|
The price is already at a prohibitive enough level that say a 20 % increase won't effect anything... no one else seems to understand I"m just saying adoption agencies would have to pay instead of being given a commodity for free vs having to pay for it... its also to show that anything can be argued well by the right person... but leading into the point on value of a human life goes into this topic
ACTUARIES ARE THE DEVIL ok the job of an actuary is to put a price on human life, so it must exist... case in point in the news : Firestone tires... Firestone knew their tires were defective and dangerous so what they did was to hire an actuarial firm... what that firm does is estimate the number of fatalities that will be caused by the tire, multiply that by the acerage settlement of each civil suit based on that death, and then compare that number to the amount it would cost to recall the tires.... since it was cheaper to just pay the settlements for the projected number of deaths, they didn't recall the tires... people died, Firestone paid them the settlement fees.... CHEW ON THAT
__________________
but for now... postCount++
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
FFR Player
|
You're an econ major. Of all people, you should know that everything has a price. Even human life. You can buy anythings with the right amount.
Q |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|