Posted on 11/22/2006 1:08:10 PM PST by Kitten Festival
I hope they were smart enough to begin the auction at $ .99.
The parents made a good faith effort to renegotiate the debt under hardship conditions. The bank told them no. That's the outrageousness of it. They sought a pound of flesh and now they got it. I hope they are happy. They have been paid back. As for the baby, well, big deal, it's only a baby and his or her future, sold to someone with cash /s
Talk about missing the point!
It wouldn't make much sense to buy an infant for prostitution and go through all the trouble of raising it when there is a surplus of children immediately available for prostitution.
The worst thing that would happen if they did not repay the loan is they would merely be ineligible for another one.
Furthermore, it is clear that the child was sold because they could not afford to support it not because of their debt. (despite the Marxist anti-microloan spin)
That's how it is in the U.S. - I believe there are harsher consequences in places like Bangladesh. It's not really a land of consumer protections. Jail, goon beatups, visits from eunuchs and public humiliation could be some of the Bangladesh consequences, among many.
The movie Salaam Bombay was pretty much an illustration of that story - and it is realistic.
Besides, I'm in the US...if a beggar walks up to me, hand out, I can simply say, "go ask the State for my money...that's where it is..." They've taken over the role of private charity.
Yep. We need to open up the free trade a bit more so these parents could have gotten a market rate and not be so poor anymore!
Was meant to be a private message, but oh well...
Did the same thing myself, more times than I care to remember. :-)
That's where you and I differ then. I've never turned them down.
We've been homeless ourselves. Lived in a car with three small children till we had enough to get a motel with a kitchenette. Been there done that, which is why we help others when we can. Being poor sucks, especially if you don't suck on the state's teat.
Actually, I have offered to share a meal with them, when asked for food money. Am I cruel to request some fellowship with my handout? Is it improper to ensure the money goes to food, not other things (if the request is "food for kids," I've offered to shop and pay, without asking to sit down and share a meal)?
Please re-read my statement...I never said I don't help, but I was pointing out that the State is gumming up things. Still, a simple handout can be more detrimental than some more effective techniques like getting the person hooked up with assistance.
And now I think of what a friend of mine used to say... She said, "Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day... Teach a man to fish, and you get the house to yourself all weekend!" ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.