At least the kid is alive, no?
A Drudge headline caught my eye yesterday:
And my first thought was, why is this even a crime? We’ve come so far, haven’t we, that the trafficking of an infant seems a better prospect than infanticide.
From the story:
A Delaware mother, along with a Philadelphia man, are facing charges after investigators allege the two agreed to the sale and purchase of the woman’s newborn son.
“I didn’t want to give my baby away,” said 33-year-old Bridget Wismer of Brookside Park, New Castle County Delaware.
Wismer, charged with selling her newborn for $15,000, said she did nothing wrong.
According to her, she had an agreement with friend, John Gavaghan, who wanted to help Wismer raise her son, Christian.
“He told me he would help out,” explained Wismer. “Whenever I needed something for the baby, I would call him. There was no organized thing.”
Wismer said she is already raising two children. She doesn’t have a job and she lives at home with her mother. Gavaghan doesn’t have any children but wanted one.
Peter Singer has argued that if we accept the premise of abortion, we must accept the notion of infanticide as well. In that vein, why is this a crime? If it’s “morally acceptable” to a noted bio-“ethicist” at Princeton who teaches doctors to ignore the Hippocratic oath, then why is the sale of a live infant a problem? OK to kill, morally offensive to sell?