Feb
25
A 20 year old woman was charged for selling her newborn child in Andhra Pradesh.[1]
Her husband abandoned her and as she wanted to remarry and start a new life again.
Thus, she decides to sell her newly borne child to an auto rickshaw driver for 6,500 rupees.
Now when the police has caught them and has charged an FIR against them, both the woman and the driver may suffer imprisonment for 10 years.
I wonder what can be termed as a crime in all these proceedings.
The girl as it seems was not in favour of giving birth to a child as her husband had abandoned her and she wanted to remarry. Obviously, she might have found herself unable to support the child properly so she looked forward to sell the child.
The driver was interested in adopting a child so he made the deal.
How can one say it is a crime?
Furthermore, it is not a new thing. Children are being sold to better parents who can afford the child. Poor parents give up their kids for money all the time. Of course, that money is given off the books.
In addition, government cannot stop this activity. Many a times, poor parents let their kid to grow in some of their relatives who are comparatively rich and able to provide a lovable and secure environment. Although such dealing does not involve money all time. Can government stop such acts? In many cases, when the mother dies while giving birth to a child, the child is given to some of the relatives to provide him a good breeding. Many a times, the people living in rural areas send their kids to some relative living in some urban city to let the kids’ proper education in better schools.
Apparently, giving up the children to someone else is not a crime.
Then what was the crime for which that woman and the taxi driver were charged and arrested?
Many of us will point out at the Rs6500; the money involved made the simple act a crime. I wonder how any sane person can call it a crime.
Parents are not allowed to sell their children for money freely. Some would doubt whether the person buying a kid for money might abuse the kid, yet the question is who is more likely to abuse the kid, the parents who want to sell their kid or the one who is actually paying for the kid?
Why will anyone sell her child to someone whom she cannot trust that, (s) he will provide a better life to her child than what she can afford?
The woman was not likely to keep the child, she had her whole life to care for, and she might have thrown that child from some railway bridge or might have left it in front of some orphanage, better she tried to sell the child to someone who was willing to keep the child alive.
What people do not realize is the fact that the auto rickshaw driver who paid Rs6500 for the child is obviously willing to invest much more in the well being and upbringing of the child.
Furthermore, if the woman had an option to give the child to someone who was ready to pay Rs65000, i.e. 10 times more than what the driver offered, would she not have sold the child for that person? Obviously yes, that would have ensured further good and opulent upbringing for the child.
In addition to all this, surrogacy is allowed in India, that is, a mother can sell her eggs, and even womb too, adoption is also allowed, what is not allowed is selling of child, and as the woman and the driver were involved in selling of a child, they can be punished and sentenced for 10 years imprisonment and nobody will ever be able to exactly suggest that what was the crime.
The crime was not selling of a child, nor was it the involvement of money in the deal.
The crime was to not to follow the governmental criteria of selling the parental rights.
Indian government disqualifies any deal regarding parental rights if it is not permitted by a registered agency for adoption.
That is, if the woman had taken permission from a governmental registered adoption agency to give off her parental rights over the kid to the driver, it might have been a permissible case. In absence of the involvement of a registered adoption agency, it is a crime.
Even surrogate mothers and the couple employing the surrogate mother suffer from such governmental interventions.[2] These governmental interventions often make process bulgy and convoluted, they consume time, money and often provide no way for choosing the kid one really wanted to adopt or had paid for.
Government argues that such registered adoption system confirms the well being of the child. Yet that cannot be the rational way. Who can think better for the child than the mother herself or the parents themselves?
It is actually just a means to net the selling of child under the taxation system. When nothing can be sold without government’s permission, how can one sell his or her own child without government’s permission and how can one buy the child?[3] The problem is, neither the woman nor the driver were so rich to facilitate a lawyer and complete the governmental paper work. It would have been extreme monetary burden for both of them hence it was not viable.
According to me, parents, or single mothers should have freedom to sell their child if they feel it is good for them and the child and government has no role in interfering with the mother’s decision to do so.
On libertarian point of view, neither mother nor the auto rickshaw driver committed any crime, and there is no need to involve any governmental registered agency to facilitate a deal regarding a child.
It is not selling of Human child, rather it is selling of Parental Rights
One can suggest that government intervention is necessary to avoid any crime and may avert criminals to kidnap innocent kids and sell them in market.
Yet that is not what happens, such crimes are not rare even with government interventions, although the genuine cases like that of the rickshaw driver and the woman are being officially propagandized.
On the other hand, if there will not be any government interference and people will be allowed to have a free market, then there is a possibility to reduce such crimes effectively to zero. As the required children by the desperate infertile couples will be available easily, and the parents willing to sell their parental rights on their kids will have a proper channel to satisfy the demand of the infertile couples, the role of criminals will be effectively reduced.
Some may point out that, such freedom may tend certain parents to sell their kids to evil doers who may engage kids in extreme child labour like begging or working in dangerous situations, and even in prostitution or paedophilic activities.
Even this argument holds no strength because such activities are also not rare. To stop such activities, police need to divert its all attention to look for violation of children rights rather than looking for who is selling the child.
Furthermore, any sort of selling of kids to devilish people can be avoided by the high pricing of children. If free market is allowed, I do not think any woman will sell her kid only for mere Rs6500, higher price will ensure better treatment, well-being and upbringing of the kid. After all, if a couple pays say Rs10, 00000 for a child, he will not be buying that child for engaging him in begging. In addition, when a couple or single parent sells their or his/her parental rights, the child rights remain unaltered, any couple buying the parental rights is officially responsible for maintaining the child rights, if they violates them they will be punishable.
Thus, providing a free market for selling of parental rights is actually the right way to avoid and reduce any such petty crimes.
One thing, which must be understood, is, such acts are not at all selling of human child, and the act is of selling off parental rights. Child and his/her rights remain totally unaffected by any such deal
- Indian woman accused of selling her child, CNN [↩]
- Surrogacy in India, Reason for Liberty [↩]
- What really are Taxes, Reason for Liberty [↩]
Related Posts
1 viewsNo Responses to “Mother's crime”
Leave a Reply
GP Says:
February 25th, 2009 at 9:38 amI wonder what can be termed as a crime in all these proceedings.
<<<<<<<<I hope u understand the that from legal point of view - its crime to sold your own children.>>>>>>>
The girl as it seems was not in favour of giving birth to a child as her husband had abandoned her and she wanted to remarry. Obviously, she might have found herself unable to support the child properly so she looked forward to sell the child.
The driver was interested in adopting a child so he made the deal.
How can one say it is a crime?
<<<<<<<<<I think the child must be a result of her out of wedlock activities. No wonder her husband decided to abandon her and plan to marry another gal.
and ONLY immoral and characterless mother can take this hard,cruel and complicated decision of selling a child made of of her own blood and flesh!!No matter how poor she is!
and for your kind information - Not every poor mothers are same! and some of them even perform act of sex worker to support their family.
In this case - Her husband must have come to know about her illegitimate relations and decided to call his marriage off by planning to wed another gal
and to get rid of this child she decided to sell it off so that she can be free to woo another guy for her enjoyment!
If she was real mother she could have persuade her husband or took legal help to prevent her husband to get married.
Now, you will say - How come a poor gal like her afford a legal help ? ..But you are forgetting that there are Women rights organisation/social activists
who could have helped her to file an FIR in police against her husband (for to prevent his marriage without taking due divorce) or suaght legal help or perhaps, helping couple to sort out the differences and to get back together
but in this case , None of this seems to have happened??
Its preety easy to foul a cry against law and order in country by switching sides - sometimes to legal aspects and sometimes to moral/ethical/humanity aspects as per your own convenience
but its prety difficult / or i wud say complicated to rationalise the things from all angles! Hope sense prevails!
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 25th, 2009 at 11:55 amWho will define character? What if the man was simply a looter never ready to accept the responsibilities of married life? I know you hate humans and especially women. That won’t help anyone.
Many women prefers to abort their child rather than giving birth to an unwanted child that is why anti-pregnancy pills are so common everywhere. And woman fight for their right to abort too.
That is just your wild imagination of wild human hater mind. Her husband might have run away just to destroy some other girl. it is not very rare.
Why are you even trying to explain things on your wild guess and abhorrent imaginations?
Better hold your dreaming horses and claim only that which you can actually prove.
The woman’s family and her husband’s family too have not left her even though her husband abandoned her.
And Extra-marital affairs are not at all crime nor they shows weak character.
Kunti had four son, Arjuna, Bheema, Yudhisthir and Karna, none was the son King Pandu (husband of Kunti).
Karna was dropped down the river and some other couple brought him up. Kunti surely was not characterless, nor was she any weak character, she was one of the strongest character of the epic mythology Mahabharata.
in Epic mythology Ramayana, King Ram abandons Seeta, and after he abandons her, she give birth to two son, Lava and Kusha. Some mad people even called her characterless. it doesn’t make sense GP, you are no better than those people because of whom Seeta was abandoned even after the Fire-test.
Mridara Says:
February 25th, 2009 at 8:37 pmwell argued… i accept your argument…
Abhishek Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 4:28 amHi,
@ d author. You are both right and wrong. A woman sold her flesh and blood for the sake of money. A henious crime? Or an act of desperation? We cannot decide this, and the country’s govt. will only decided this once the case gets some publicity. It is not the woman’s mistake. Instead of growing up as a destitude, the child has a higher probability of having a better life. Instead of trying to penalize the mother, the authorities should keep the child’s best interest as top priority. Check out the Irony of the society though, just a couple of pages behind this article, we shall see our pages splattered with images of Oscars and praises for which movie……SLUMDOG MILLIONARE!!! India Shining………….?
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 4:39 amWhy? why should government decide that? Why should you be slave of government? Did you never heard the slogan “Swaraj mera janm siddh adhikar hai”?
Why should the mother be penalized by the way? have you got any reason?
You are too much dependent on government, that much that you deny even thinking for what is right and what is not.
Irony is not slumdog millionaire, irony is your comment which represents slavery, your love for slavery and dependence on government. How can you even imagine of India shining when you want government to keep leading you about your own life and mind. Why should not a woman be allowed to give her child away to some infertile couple desperate to adopt a child?
Even government doesn’t disallows it nor it can. I guess you missed reading the article, it clearly explains that selling parental rights is no crime.
And by the way, there is no praise of slumdog millionaire on this site.
I wonder what are you talking about.
Ok got you. You might be talking of MSN site.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 5:17 amFunny thing which I noticed is, people are talking of the child, people are talking of the woman too, yet no body is concerned about the Auto Rickshaw driver.
Even the Auto Rickshaw driver is in imprisonment and he may suffer jail for 10 years.
How logical it is, even his family will suffer. Plus, no body committed any crime. I call it tyranny, tyranny of government.
Mridara Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 11:49 amlets say u dont agree with the government diva, does writing this article do anything towards the mother and child… does talking about humanity and blowing your thoughts and expression, do anything towards those who suffer?…
Abhishek Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 4:51 pmHey…we all know that India is a country whose judicial system has MANY loopholes. Here, people tweak the law according to their demands. And you cannot denounce a country’s government completely. For the survival of a society, some form of governance is required, otherwise the progress of the society is retarded. So, it is not being slaves…just adjusting to the authority. As for the Auto driver, try looking at the case from both sides- The driver may want a child desperately OR he may be buying the child for other reasons. if the later is the case, then we again find a scapegoat in the go0vernment. Oh yea, if she was in such a financial turmoil then why did she deliver at a private hospital? And yea parental rights are transferred not sold.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:21 pmMridara,
Why do you think it doesn’t do anything?
I wrote it, cos I got the point, you read it and agreed, because you also got the point. Many others read it too, hope they also got the point.
That is how things works. How do you think you are any different from those who suffers? You are one of them.
And now you know the cause of your suffering. Obviously knowing the disease help to find out the cure too.
Now you can apply brain atleast to save yourself from suffering and try to seek for the cure.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 9:31 pmYou can start doing that.
Anyways Read this http://www.reasonforliberty.com/current-affairs/the-prospects-of-private-judicial-system.html
You will find that the transition is not too far.
And yea, selling is nothing but TRANSFERRING.
You are wrong. First of all society is a human construct, it is imaginary, it survives in your mind, in my mind in people’s mind as an imagination, helping them out, it is not a real thing. Since it is not real, it doesn’t exist, it does not need your concerns for its survival. What exists is you, me the Individual. Society should be secondary concern. First is Individual.
Do not talk like a fool. it is not about poverty or richness. Why should not a rich woman be free to sell her child? it is righteous it is no different than sending your child to boarding school. And who the heck is you or me or any other body to decide for what and how should a mother raise her child. it is ridiculous.
What others can look for is, the sanctity of child’s right.
About the woman, she didn’t delievered in private or government hospital, she delivered in her home.
Buying child for any cause, how does it matter to you?
IF any child is molested by anyone, it is crime. It will remain crime always. So what? How does it relate with selling parental rights?
You are too much confused. And I have already covered those points, please read the article first.
Mridara Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 11:46 pm“Why do you think it doesn’t do anything?
I wrote it, cos I got the point, you read it and agreed, because you also got the point. Many others read it too, hope they also got the point.
That is how things works. How do you think you are any different from those who suffers? You are one of them.
And now you know the cause of your suffering. Obviously knowing the disease help to find out the cure too.
Now you can apply brain atleast to save yourself from suffering and try to seek for the cure.”
You are so optimistic diva, but that is not how the world works, alot of people are aware of their suffering and the cause, but they dont protest, its like- they have taken some drug thats permanent, and it seems to have completely numbed their nervous system and senses, even if the mosquito bites, people so rarely hit it…. numb indifference….
But there’s also another numbness thats interesting- it is one that possessess intellectual people, they discuss things left to right, come to the root cause of everything, lament, give suggestion etc etc etc… but in the end, nothing happens…. the doers are so few…. maybe we should actually find ways to do things, i mean, i for one, would like to know how to do things, i am conscious of things, i realize things, i stand for my rights, i know i suffer, but what is the balm, who are the doctors, thats something i would love to know….
I am disturbed by these MMS scandals- how does a man have the heart to strip and display his women?…. what do u say? do any of them get caught?
Mridara Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 11:51 pmGP, ur very anti- women aren’t you….
Mridara Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 11:53 pmWhat exists is you, me the Individual. Society should be secondary concern. First is Individual.
diva ur wrong… read a little bit of sociology….
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 2:19 amMridara, I am not wrong, sociology is wrong.
You do exist, society doesn’t.
Anyways, you can keep denying your existence :).
The concept of society comes only when an “Individual” realizes that he is not alone, that there are other “Individuals” too and all of them have to live free with harmony. So, to make the free living possible, they make an open contract, that we term as “Social Contract” and the processing of that contract is known as society.
Such contract is always voluntary, and it is enforceable too.
Like, if in a society, some erratic person says that he do not agree to the accord of social contract which states killing of human beings is crime, saying does not actually breaches the social contract, yet if he tries to kill someone, the contract breaks, and that person who has been attacked by the killer, automatically get the authority by social contract to kill the attacker during the safety actions, we call this as right to self-security, or self-defense.
A killer if fails to prove that the person whom he killed was a criminal and he deserved death as per “social accord” deserves punishment.
So basically, whatever the social accord is, is designed to serve the individual, it is designed to let the individual in better and reasonable way, as we improve, our understandings improve, we keep changing the social accords, that is why we say, culture is changeable and so is society.
Now about changing things, see mridara, you cannot force people to change. if you do so, you will end no better than any dictator. people will have to improve by themselves.
How do you think you can force government to stop intervening in individual’s life? Can you even make government to stop intervening in market?
We can do so only by one means, and that is by spreading awareness, or we can group together
and run away to make a new and better world.
When I wrote this article, I was not moved by the fact that the woman, her child and the auto rickshaw driver will suffer… I was motivated by the fact that by writing this article, I may get success in spreading some of correct idea, right ways to the masses who will read it.
And that is more important.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 2:26 amWhy do you think you are disturbed? And well, how can you actually say that those women were not willing to support those MMS?
Weren’t those MMS showing men too? Why cannot women make MMS of their men, strip their man and display them? What is wrong in that?
See, taking pictures is not crime, pornography is not crime. it is not crime because there is nothing criminal in it.
Nobody is physically forcing anyone.
Yes if someone physically forces someone and acts rouge, than it is crime. If some girl is bathing in her personal washroom and some thief enters in her house and takes her naked pictures, it is crime, not because he took pictures, but because he forcibly entered her private property.
But if some woman is bathing in her washroom while the windows are open and someone from the roof on other side of her house takes pictures of her, then there is actually no crime in it.
MMS scandals can be said criminal only if girls were physically forced in it.
Anyways, I know many girls just love exhibitionism. it is nothing wrong in that.
GP Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:40 am@ Mridara
<<<<<<<<Nope I am not Anti-woman. My only point is - You cannot justify crime of selling your own child
on moral or ethical grounds. Crime is crime as defined by law of the country! I have expresed my views just to present other side of coin. Not necessarily press/media always analyse situations from all angles and print truth so what unpretentious diva has presented in this article is her own perception which she is calling facts which I am not saying is wrong. Coz each person’s perception and interpretation is different.
Reagrding media/press publishing such stories …They are just interested in their TRPs,popularity stuff,etc.
I read your comments about - Whats the practical way to do it..or whats the cure ,etc.
and I totally agree with you its not always possible to find solutions to all the problems.But honestly speaking, each person should no his/her tolerance level and be prepared to take action before anyone try to cross that level….
BUT you shud keep in mind that your action shud fit in within law and order of country.>>>>>>
Mridara Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:43 pmso what kind of a word do u prescribe with the individual…. how will u administrate anything if there is no collectivity…. the individual right now has become so much a part of the collectivity that he seems to strive only to maintain appearances with the collectivity, and has totally forgotten his individual self…. and those who live as individuals, normally live outside the borders of society, not really one with the stream, doesn’t ur entire system strive to merge u completely with the collectivity, from the very time your born…. But u should also except that we cannot have a efficient system without a collectivity… for example in this forum, we are still a collectivity with a certain set of views, individuality is just a set of nuances that constitute you….
No the women aren’t aware, and most of them showcase only women and not men…. do u think a young college girl would like to be showcased on a mms, and become a reject from her society and everything around her….
It would be interesting to have a women strip a man- mms….
they are physically forcing someone- the person doesn’t know that she will be displayed the next day- pornography is different from these mms scandals… why dont u consider it a violation of rights…. those mms’s were taken in the privacy of their encounter, just as we have many secrets within closed walls…
“MMS scandals can be said criminal only if girls were physically forced in it.
Anyways, I know many girls just love exhibitionism. it is nothing wrong in that.”- those who get caught in mms scadals are not those who love to exibit, ur logic is crocked, this is not a case of exihibitionism, maybe some of them are, not all… do analyse ur opinion, and see the situation for what it is, instead of mixing random perceptions into it….
GP,
ground level poverty and rules are nasty…
we living in a different strata of society have so many rights and we understand our environment better..
leaving the child at the government hospital, will facilitate its adoption, but she required money for her monetary gain, that was the only place where she varied, from those who abandoned their children at door steps… lots of out baby transactions involve money- how about womb on sale- she gets nearly 2 lakhs for delivering and giving the baby, and there are so many other systems…. the west has alot of systems and people are aware of their avenues, maybe if we had alot of avenues, we wouldn’t be pushing people into dead end corners and shooting them down…. agreed- crime is crime as defined by the law in the country- but who gets caught in the judicial system- it is generally the poor and hapless, the rest go scotfree, especially those with money, so isn’t our system predudiced and baised, do we have trust in the system…. also agree- that press and media and everyone who comes across a crime present it in their own perspective- but every human being is subjective, i guess only science can be considered objective….
yes, the action should be within the law, but its not always possible to sit to the framework….
Brahmo samaj and Araya samaj, and all out thinkers, reached to a particular lot and they failed…. i repeat again, the strata of people ur reaching for in this forum, are the realized ones, thats why i am even able to understand what u are saying, tom **** and harry wouldn’t bother stoping by at this forum- to them it would be uneccary and complex- this is the attitute of the everyday man…. action shall never be….. just like out tv people, they make all the noise about right, in the end nothing happens, someone dead- and they go interview the widow without any consideration for her greif or emotional state of mind, where is their humanity there, is awareness more important, doesn’t the individual fail there…. as for the social contract- realize that every system will be eventually institutionalised, when u get married- its a new field- ur all thrilled and unaware of what and how ur doing- but eventually down the line- it becomes a well thought out insitutution…. and the institution cannot be broken as it would lead to choas and anomie, and its always nice to have some direction…
Mridara Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:50 pmNo the women aren’t aware, and most of them showcase only women and not men…. do u think a young college girl would like to be showcased on a mms, and become a reject from her society and everything around her….
It would be interesting to have a women strip a man- mms….
they are physically forcing someone- the person doesn’t know that she will be displayed the next day- pornography is different from these mms scandals… why dont u consider it a violation of rights…. those mms’s were taken in the privacy of their encounter, just as we have many secrets within closed walls…
“MMS scandals can be said criminal only if girls were physically forced in it.
Anyways, I know many girls just love exhibitionism. it is nothing wrong in that.”- those who get caught in mms scadals are not those who love to exibit, ur logic is crocked, this is not a case of exihibitionism, maybe some of them are, not all… do analyse ur opinion, and see the situation for what it is, instead of mixing random perceptions into it….
Mridara Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:59 pmGP,
ground level poverty and rules are nasty…
we living in a different strata of society have so many rights and we understand our environment better..
leaving the child at the government hospital, will facilitate its adoption, but she required money for her monetary gain, that was the only place where she varied, from those who abandoned their children at door steps… lots of out baby transactions involve money- how about womb on sale- she gets nearly 2 lakhs for delivering and giving the baby, and there are so many other systems…. the west has alot of systems and people are aware of their avenues, maybe if we had alot of avenues, we wouldn’t be pushing people into dead end corners and shooting them down…. agreed- crime is crime as defined by the law in the country- but who gets caught in the judicial system- it is generally the poor and hapless, the rest go scotfree, especially those with money, so isn’t our system predudiced and baised, do we have trust in the system…. also agree- that press and media and everyone who comes across a crime present it in their own perspective- but every human being is subjective, i guess only science can be considered objective….
yes, the action should be within the law, but its not always possible to sit to the framework….
Mridara Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 1:10 pmBrahmo samaj and Araya samaj, and all out thinkers, reached to a particular lot and they failed…. i repeat again, the strata of people ur reaching for in this forum, are the realized ones, thats why i am even able to understand what u are saying, tom **** and harry wouldn’t bother stoping by at this forum- to them it would be unnecessary and complex- this is the attitude of the everyday man…. action shall never be….. just like out tv people, they make all the noise about right, in the end nothing happens, someone dead- and they go interview the widow without any consideration for her greif or emotional state of mind, where is their humanity there, is awareness more important, doesn’t the individual fail there…. as for the social contract- realize that every system will be eventually institutionalized, when u get married- its a new field- you are all thrilled and unaware of what and how you are doing- but eventually down the line- it becomes a well thought out institution…. and the institution cannot be broken as it would lead to chaos and anomaly, and its always nice to have some direction…
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:06 pmMridara, it is you who need to reanalyze your wrong perceptions.
A girl goes out with his boy friend, he cajoles her, they get mixed in sexual pleasant period. Later on girl comes to know that the boy had made a cd of their lovely time period and is now selling of. So, what is the crime in all this?
If you can understand the real crime, you can remove the possibilities of that crime too.
The crime in this case is, the girl was used by the boy without her knowledge to work for him. She worked without any contract, without her will or knowledge and without pay too. Pornography is not crime, crime is not giving proper credentials, nor asking for consent.
So the girl can complain and demand for monetary compensation, nothing else.
Now about the problem that the girl’s image is hurt now in society. it is silly situation, and it is not crime of her boyfriend, it is crime of society which considers that if a girl is on TV showcasing her voluptuous body, then she is ruined. it is silly you know.
Anyways, even that can be catered with the fine which can be lodged on the person who used her for his pornographic project work without her consent.
The crime is of category of cheating with the employee, it is not a sex crime. Not only cheating with employee, the man who made the video/MMS actually dodged the girl to work for him without consent and that is also crime.
if you want to project is as a sex crime sex-scandal etc, than it make no sense and it will get no objective strength and hence will never be rectified.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:11 pmYour idea of subjectivity and objectivity is a bit nasty and confused.
Human perceptions are subjective, life cannot be lead with subjective emotions and perceptions. Life goes on, on the rational basis of objective premises.
It is an objective reality that in a cold night, burning some wood or grass will help a man to have some warmth.
Yet, it is also an objective idea that if he burns his neighbors field where his neighbor worked hard to produce some wheat and collect some wealth for his and his family’s livinghood, than it is crime.
His subjective perception that he can burn anything to get warmth is not that worthy to let him provide freedom to burn his neighbors field.
if he would do so, the neighbor will react and oppose in anyway possible, and his objection and opposition, will be objective.
A man is free, either to waste his energies in irrational, subjective manner, he is free to engage his energies in rational objective manner too.
No man is free to confiscate the freedom of other man/men on behalf of his subjective irrational perceptions or ideals. Once he engage in deploying his subjective ideals on others, others start revolting. And that is Objectivity.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:20 pmWhat system are you talking about?
A collectivist system or an Individualist system?
There is no role of any collective premise in an Individualist system, in collectivist system, people may pretend to be individualist, they can never be free of the collective society though, at the best, they can strive and try to achieve freedom.
Freedom here means the objective right of a man to deny other to force him for anything. Freedom is his right to make choices with consent.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:28 pm@GP
get it right, law is not above Individual life, whenever the law tries to subvert individual liberty, people revolt to change the law, that is why even constitution has provided space for amendments.
Indian law and supreme court is full of idiotic premises.
Afzal Guru was sentenced death penalty though he never killed anybody, he was penalized because some bogus phone bills suggest that he was talking with some people connected with parliament attack. Such is indian law and its sanctity.
Indian law has no objectivity and that is why it is repulsive. people fear police, people fear lawyers, people fear courts. They do not consider Indian judiciary as helpful protective layer, they do consider it as a burden on their life and tries as much as possible to avoid any indulgence with court/police/lawyers.
And even indian law makers understand this fact. That is why indian system has provided So Many loopholes in judiciary system.
These loopholes are not its weakness, these loopholes are sort of ventilators which let the poisonous air of indian judiciary to get out and provide common man a little relief to live for.
Indian law can never be applied strictly because if it happens, it will be the extreme on Indian common man.
The only way to profess a corruption less and unbiased legal system is to stress maximum on Objectivity, Rationality and provable analogies.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:32 pm@ GP
You cannot prove that there is any crime in selling your own child.
Today at Raipur Railway station, a five year old boy was found, he was left alone with his parents. Now nobody is claiming him. I say it would have been better if his parents have sold him to some needy couple instead of leaving him on a railway station to suffer hunger, criminals, cold and destitution.
Seond thing is it is never selling of child, it is selling of parental rights. and in India selling of child is completely legal. What the government want is just its interference. Sell your child with the help of registered adoption agency and then it will be legal, otherwise it is illegal.
Why cannot you read the article properly.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 9:41 pm@Mridara
Do you really think that I should worry for those tom **** and hardy when even Mridara and GP are yet not able to understand the dangers of subjectivity and importance of objectivity?
I Have No right to teach others if they do not want me to. It is their objective right to learn by themselves.
Anyways, we should try to analyze our ownself first, that how reasonable, how objective our own life standards are, and if their is any subjective premise we follow that make us loot others free premise of existence, we should rectify our mistake.
Sanket Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 5:13 pmNow, as a child is the creation of the parents and they have the right to sell it, it can be argued that the child remains the property of the parents and hence they have the full right to demand hs/her earnings and force him to do any job. That is, in short, the child is the slave of the parents. So, is this what libertarianism says- Every person is born a slave until his/her person die.
Second thing is abuse. If well being is the criteria, how do we define it? Are human beings machines, that an objective criteria of well-being can be formulated ?
You said: Why will anyone sell her child to someone whom she cannot trust that, (s) he will provide a better life to her child than what she can afford?
What is a better life? Who defines that? And why cannot the woman look at the child as an investment.
How do you know prices in a free market will be higher and cannot be compensated by begging.
And what do you mean by child rights? How can an object have rights? Who formulates child rights?
If the woman did not want the child, she could have aborted it. What prevented her?
Sanket Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 5:22 pmSorry. It says ‘Every person is a slave until his/her parents die.
What are the obligations of the child towards its owner. If it has no obligations, there is no sale. If it has obligations, why should it have obligations when it did not make a contract?
Does the child have the right to be told about its sale? If it need not be told, than the child can also sell any portion of the owner’s property without informing him/her. Or is the child an inferior human?
Sanket Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 5:51 pmI support the “sale” provided the child is notified of its sale at, say the age of 12. Once notified, it can stay with its owner, return to its mother, or leave both of them. The mother may or may not accept it.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:52 amA person cannot sell the child. What he sells is his parental rights over the child.
The child rights remain intact and so does his freedom.
Parent-child relation is non-voluntary for the child. The child actually is never in a position to demand, it is parent’s decision to have a child, it is sort of voluntary duty for them.
Parent does not mean biological parents, but those, who hold the parental rights (they may be biological parents as in most cases, may not be too).
The parents holds no right over the child once he attains adulthood (that is ability to make genuine decision for himself). Yet, a child generally prefers to serve his parents in oldage, it is natural for him/her. Although we suggest girl is not to be accepted to serve her parents, she has to serve her would be husband’s parents.
It is voluntary relation, unbounded. often children serve and care their parents because of the good relation which is actually the emotional wealth and very precious and reasonable. yet the child cannot be forced to serve his/her parent. In many cases, there may rise situations where the child may simply abhor his/her parents. like some fathers do rape their own girls etc.
GP Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:38 pm@Mridara
Liberty comes with responsibility.
Responsibility comes with accountability.
Accountability comes through obligations,rules,law and order enforcement!.
So if you think that if specific law or rule is outdated or inefficient to consider all possible scenarios then you should make an active efforts to bring it to the attention of judiciary
through PIL.
There is another way which is called as 9th amendment in US constitution which is safeguarding the natural/fundamental rights of ppl people which are not included in first 8 amendments..Now something similar can be implemented in indian judiciary..how?..awareness from every individual is the answer!
well, entry of intellectuals with fresh ideas in their mind in politics and unanimous support by general public to them. Perhaps, initiavies like “Lead India - by Timegroups ” are really commendable in this regard coz they surely act as motivatory boost and make people think.
I mean ONLY thing we can think of now is - creating more and more awareness, sharing the thoughs of course this is not overnight activity
but yeah I can say - discussing on suhc subjects through internet blogs can surely help people to know whats wrong but in the end - its up to them to decide whether they just want to be part of spectators or actors to bring that change.
GP Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:40 pm@Unpretentious
Seond thing is it is never selling of child, it is selling of parental rights. and in India selling of child is completely legal. What the government want is just its interference. Sell your child with the help of registered adoption agency and then it will be legal, otherwise it is illegal. Why cannot you read the article properly.
<<<<<Thats wht my point is -The mother in your artical tried to transfer her parental rights to Rickshaw driver without involving third party (read - accredited adoption agency)
and hence, as per law of country its illegal and anything which is not legal is crime..simple! >>>>>>
GP Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:40 pm@Unpretentious Diva
get it right, law is not above Individual life, whenever the law tries to subvert individual liberty, people revolt to change the law, that is why even constitution has provided space for amendments.
Indian law and supreme court is full of idiotic premises.
Afzal Guru was sentenced death penalty though he never killed anybody, he was penalized because some bogus phone bills suggest that he was talking with some people connected with parliament attack. Such is indian law and its sanctity.
<<<<<<<<I never said anywhere in my statements that people are above the laws or constitutional amendments are not at all required.
Regarding Afzal Guru case, my understanding is - SC have awarded him death penalty to re-assure general public that such acts(i.e. Attacking on indian parliment) won’t be taken lightly and whosoever
involved in such activities directly or indirectly would be punished severely. Its like teaching lesson / setting a precedent for any such future cases.
So again, legally speaking - he shudn’t get punished if there are no concrete evidences to prove that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
But SC have not done this first time and if u rememember few months back - they just accepted rape victim’s statement( i.e. no medical evidences,eye-witnesses)
before issuing capital punishment to the accused. So what would you call that ? A fair judgement considering safety of thousand other gals residing in premises of that accused or an attack
on individual liberty by some highly prejudiced SC judges who just give in to their emotions rather than focussing on tangible evidences before awarding judgement?
judges are also humans so they are susceptible to errors coz to err..is human. Things will always remain grey and you have to live with it.
And about Afzal Guru - well, the congress govt. won’t complete the proceedings(i.e. forwarding necessary docs to president to review his mercy plea)
untill election to get the votes of minorities so if ur his supporter then just chill! >>>>>>>>>
Sanket Says:
March 9th, 2009 at 11:10 pmWhat he sells is his parental rights over the child.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
How can the person sell his/her parental right without the consent of the child and without the child’s right to revoke it. And if the parent-child relation is not voluntary, having children should be banned or other non-voluntary relationships should be allowed.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 1:25 amNo child decides who should be or would be his parent. There is no consent of child to take birth in a particular house/parent.
Who is saying that child-parent relationship is not allowed? But it is non-voluntary. No child offers a consensual deal for a couple to be his parent.
The child rights remain intact even if a person sells his parental rights over child because the child rights have nothing to do with parents.
No matter a father rapes a 9 year old girl or a person in neighborhood, if the 9 year old girl is being sexually used, it is against her child right. Being a parent does not provide you to molest your child. Parental right has nothing to do with child right.
it is so simple. Parental rights can be sold off, Child rights cannot be sold.
Child rights cannot be sold because for selling them, the child need to be able to make a meaningful consent but before a certain age of maturity we do not accept a child to be able to make any meaningful consent.
Still we cannot affirm the same age limit for a child in all cases.
As for example, a 9 year old girl has a proper right to denounce his parent and seek for some outside help if she find herself in some understandably difficult situation in her parental house, as for example, if a the girl is being forced for child marriage, she can surely deny marrying and demand for outside help/asylum.
it does not make sense.
Parent-child relation is obviously non-voluntary, because no child decide for who should be his parent. he just takes birth without deciding it, taking birth in a particular house for a particular couple cannot be a pre-decided action of a child.
Obviously, such non-voluntary relation is legal and applicable. Where is your doubt?