Sarah's Thoughts
Trading Diapers for a Sweet Ride!
Three people were arrested on charges of swapping a 5-month-old boy for a down payment on a used Dodge Intrepid and cash, police said Tuesday.
Nicole Uribe, 23, is accused of trading the baby to Jose-Juan Lerma, 47, and his wife, Irene, 27, in exchange for $1,500, $500 which was to be the down payment, Pueblo police Sgt. Brett Wilson said.
Lovely. But, I guess this type of transaction might be OK with some. (Please notice I use the word “might”, because I wouldn’t want to make absolute assertions and end up being incorrect, as others have done.) After all, children are just our property and we should be able to do with them whatever we think is best without silly laws or social standards getting in the way. I mean, who are we to judge that a couple who is willing to lay down $1500 of hard-earned money would not be excellent caregivers? Right?
Why does a woman who is willing to trade her baby for a car even have the kid in the first place? Was she looking for a possible bargaining chip at the local CarMax all along? How does that thought process go?
“Dang, I’m really tired of taking the bus every day. I know! I’m going to get somebody to knock me up and then, in fourteen months … I mean, I wouldn’t want to sell a newborn. That’s just wrong … I’ll offer up the baby in return for my very own ride. That’s a sweet plan, for sure!”
February 28th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Please. This is what it’s come to? “I didn’t say that Aunt B. thinks selling babies is okay. I just said that she might think selling babies is okay.” Is this Moore Thoughts or The National Enquirer?
Anyway, I surmise you might think all funny, fat bloggers are the same, since you seem to have difficulty telling us apart and so I’ve made you this handy guide:
Coble–Libertarian who doesn’t cuss and who is against the nanny state. Easy to recognize by her ability to come up with something spot-on to contribute to any conversation and her willingness to call others on their “stuff” when she thinks it’s necessary.
Aunt B.–Liberal who does cuss and who is not that opposed to the nanny-state in some of its guises. Easy to recognize by my snarky bad attitude and my needing to look things up on wikipedia in order to appear as smart as Coble.
Again–Coble: likely to call you on your “stuff.” Aunt B.: Sits in the back and makes snarky comments about you.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Please note that Coble will cuss from time to time. As long as it’s not on her own blog because she doesn’t want her mother to say “why are you cussing on that blog?”
As far as the okayness of selling babies goes, it does happen all the time. Whether or not I’m okay with it would seem to be immaterial.
What I do not understand is why if it’s a private adoption it’s alright to pay upwards of $20K for “medical and related expenses” but if you’re poor people it’s bad to pay $1,500 for a car payment.
Is it the whitewashing of the attorneys that legitimises a private adoption or the fact that all kinds of garbage gets buried in that “related expenses” clause or what?
Maybe someone can explain that to me over here in my densehood.
February 28th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
What’s most disturbing is they only wanted $1,500.
February 28th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Aunt B — I don’t think either one of you is funny, so no problem there. And, I am also not aware of your physical stature. I understand that you are two distinct people. I’m just referring to your shared defense of “caring” for children in any way a parent sees fit. I’m a fan of snarky comments, though, so I look forward to more!
Kat — I think the cost of private adoptions is outrageous, since there are so many children waiting for a loving home and so many great parents who may not be wealthy who want them. However, I don’t think that makes it OK for poor people (maybe she’s not poor … just really cheap) to sell their kids on the black market like a knock-off Rolex. There has to be a middle ground where some background check is done on the potential parents — you know, to make sure they are Christian liberals who advocate female circumcision.
February 28th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
“I don’t think that makes it OK for poor people (maybe she’s not poor … just really cheap)”
I think the key here is that all three adults are possibly illegal immigrants. I think their immigration status was a constraint against using the proper legal process.
“I don’t think either one of you is funny, so no problem there.”
It’s a truly sad day.
“And, I am also not aware of your physical stature.”
If you had met us you would realise that we a) look alike b) are funny c) are most definitely not the same person.
Also, we were born one day apart. Okay, five years and one day. Whatever. And we’re Gemini, so that means we’re actually FOUR people instead of two.
Regardless, we do crack us up, at least.
“I’m just referring to your shared defense of “caring” for children in any way a parent sees fit.”
Yeah, I’m nutty like that with all those crazy personal freedom things. Good times!
March 1st, 2007 at 9:16 am
Dang it, Kat - never in my wildest dreams would I think I’d end up siding with Sarah in a tiff between the two of you (no offense Sarah). But you ARE straddling a line that views children as property.
Let’s get the players straight here. I’ll use the abbreviations we use in the adoption community.
B-Parents. There are no financial requirements. You just sign the forms. Whether agency adoption or private adoption, that’s it. Immigration status comes into play, but can be overcome. A B-Mom doesn’t have to be rich to take place in the process. Usually, she’s in the process because she’s NOT rich.
A-parents. These are the ones who acted illegally because (it is assumed) they were poor. These are the people whose side you are taking (once again, the B-Mom has no financial requirements). The feminist argument about the poor, desperate girl do not come into play here.
A wild-west approach to child trafficing would not be very healthy. There is too much desperation on all sides.
I’ve been through the process. Twice.
I can tell you that there are parts of the process that government MUST be involved in (for instance, in international adoptions, you have treaties to adhere to). The government is less an imposing nanny in these cases as it is a mediator between two parties.
It’s my understanding that even libertarians view that as a legitimate function of government.