Baby as a prize in TV show....

[Bubble181]

Plenty of sites writing about it the past few days - a big Pakistani TV show (that airs seven hours a day), in concept somewhat similar to "the price is right", but based on Koran-knowledge, is giving away, amongst other prizes such as TVs, cars and microwave ovens, babies.

Now, the "obvious" and "easy" reaction is disbelief and the idea that it's scandalous, and wrong, and what have you - it's clearly demeaning and devaluing of the human life, right? It'll be easy for the right to make yet another propaganda point out of it - "see how little these people care about life! About children! Think of the children!".

Now, mind you, I do think this idea merits at the very least a decent "WTF?!". I'm not, however, convinced it's a necessarily evil thing.
In short, there's plenty of orphans living on the streets and being abandoned in Pakistan, most of whom don't make it to adulthood and/or end up in drugs, prostitution, slavery, or terrorism. The parents who had/have a chance of winning a baby were all screened in advance by an adoption agency (though adoption is technically impossible in Pakistan). These children will, more than likely, have a much better future because of this than they'd have had living on the street.

So....Scandalous child abuse, "a new low" in ethics, a weird-but-okay way of improving children's lots?

Some random links so each can read about it in the tone of voice they prefer:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/29/world/asia/pakistan-baby-giveaway/?hpt=hp_c1
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...in-battle-to-win-ramadan-ratings-8732227.html
http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcom...nds-out-babies-in-ramadan-ratings-battle.html
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/...-gives-away-babies-on-primetime-ramadan-show/

 

[Shawn]

I don't know how I feel about this. I think that something like this really warrants an in-depth check into exactly what is occurring. But if I had to give it a quick opinion right now I guess... I'm okay with it? If the babies have no other home, I'd rather they be allowed to have a family that cares about them. I find it odd that, if receiving a baby in Pakistan is so damn easy you can win them on a show, why are these couple's not getting them through normal adoption? Do they even know they will win a baby? Is there going to be a couple, going in to win a vacation for two with which they hope to solidify their ability to go and do whatever they please, suddenly handed a baby and informed that they have to give up not being tied down? I'm scratching my head here.

 

[bhamv3]

When you say adoption is technically impossible in Pakistan, do you mean the laws there don't allow it? And is this game show therefore a way to circumvent the law? Basically, allowing kids to be adopted via a loophole?

 

[Bowielee]

After reading about this, yes, it's weird, but it's the opposite of child abuse. These are children that would be dying on the street, otherwise. Is it outrageous and possibly only a publicity stunt? Possibly, However, if the end result is a child ending up with a family rather than starving on the streets, I'm all for it.[DOUBLEPOST=1375244159][/DOUBLEPOST]Holy crap, that CBC link comments section has some of the most racist comments.

 

[Bubble181]

When you say adoption is technically impossible in Pakistan, do you mean the laws there don't allow it? And is this game show therefore a way to circumvent the law? Basically, allowing kids to be adopted via a loophole?

It's not technically illegal, but near-impossible due to a combination of legal and religious hurdles. These couples get custody, not legal parental status, for which they'll still have to go to court.

This does, indeed, however, provide an "easier" way for children and parents to find each other.

After reading about this, yes, it's weird, but it's the opposite of child abuse.[...] if the end result is a child ending up with a family rather than starving on the streets, I'm all for it.

I agree - but I feel kind of weird about it still. It's an end-and-means thing, I guess. The end result is definitely good; the means are iffy, and I can't quite make up my mind whether or not I should be okay with it.

 

[bhamv3]

It probably also helps raise awareness towards the adoption issue in Pakistan. I, for one, had no idea it was hard to adopt there.

 

[Dave]

I view this like prostitution - on paper it's victimless and not necessarily a bad thing, but when greed gets involved bad things happen. If this show gets bigger I can see kids getting nabbed to give away as gifts, sold by poor parents, or used as a black market commodity.

So while I think it could be a good thing, I don't have any faith in the human race's ability to keep it that way for long.

 

[strawman]

Human life, whether in the form of a baby or in the form of a life-saving transplant organ, should never be bought, sold, or used as a prize for a contest or lottery*.

There should exist an impenetrable wall between human life and any sort of barter/currency/trade system - or as close to impenetrable as practically possible.

*Yes, lottery is often used to select the the recipient among a group of equally eligible transplant recipients, but at that point it is a tool, and you can't buy into the lottery.

 

[Bubble181]

*Yes, lottery is often used to select the the recipient among a group of equally eligible transplant recipients, but at that point it is a tool, and you can't buy into the lottery.

50 couples are all "equally deserving" of getting a baby, there are only 10 adoptive children available. Assuming they're really all equally worthy in as far as possible (like in your example of transplants), is a lottery an acceptable way of deciding who gets which baby?

I'm not arguing with you - I do absolutely see where you're coming from. This is just a (rare) moral question that I honestly haven't really thought about all that much. Another follow-up question could be about "random" sperm donors and such, if you want to look at it from that sort of angle.

 

[strawman]

50 couples are all "equally deserving" of getting a baby, there are only 10 adoptive children available. Assuming they're really all equally worthy in as far as possible (like in your example of transplants), is a lottery an acceptable way of deciding who gets which baby?

Same as organ recipients. As long as they aren't paying money just for the lottery, the babies aren't a "prize", and it's just being used as a tool for equitable distribution among equally able parents, then it might not be a problem. I'd say they should have to prove that the lottery is necessary, though, and that there isn't a better way of selecting among seemingly equally qualified applicants.

For instance, if 100 people each pay in $5,000 for a "chance" to get one of 10 babies, I'd say that's bad.

If 100 people apply for 10 babies, the selection process finds the best applicants but there are 30 that are best qualified and there are no other methods to figure out who's the best 10 among them, then using a lottery to select the ten that get the babies would probably be fine.

When money changes hands, however, it becomes more worrying. Adoption agencies usually have fixed fees up front whether you get a child or not, reducing the link between money == baby, and usually it's the person putting the child up for adoption that makes the final decision.

I'd be worried, in terms of this game show, about where the birth mother fits into all of this. Was she paid for the child? What choice does she have, or what's in her contract? Should a contract with a game show company govern the life of a baby? Does the game show company, at any point, have legal guardianship over the baby, or do they merely effect the transfer between the mother and the winner? What happens to the baby if the transfer process breaks, legally or otherwise, at some point?

 

[Dave]

You get a baby! You get a baby! YOU ALL GET BABIES!!

 

[Bowielee]

Same as organ recipients. As long as they aren't paying money just for the lottery, the babies aren't a "prize", and it's just being used as a tool for equitable distribution among equally able parents, then it might not be a problem. I'd say they should have to prove that the lottery is necessary, though, and that there isn't a better way of selecting among seemingly equally qualified applicants.

For instance, if 100 people each pay in $5,000 for a "chance" to get one of 10 babies, I'd say that's bad.

If 100 people apply for 10 babies, the selection process finds the best applicants but there are 30 that are best qualified and there are no other methods to figure out who's the best 10 among them, then using a lottery to select the ten that get the babies would probably be fine.

When money changes hands, however, it becomes more worrying. Adoption agencies usually have fixed fees up front whether you get a child or not, reducing the link between money == baby, and usually it's the person putting the child up for adoption that makes the final decision.

I'd be worried, in terms of this game show, about where the birth mother fits into all of this. Was she paid for the child? What choice does she have, or what's in her contract? Should a contract with a game show company govern the life of a baby? Does the game show company, at any point, have legal guardianship over the baby, or do they merely effect the transfer between the mother and the winner? What happens to the baby if the transfer process breaks, legally or otherwise, at some point?

The news stories make it pretty clear that these are war orphans.

 

[bhamv3]

Oooo, we have a minion smiley now? Awesome!

 

[strawman]

 

[Shakey]

 

[Bowielee]

Isn't it a bit ironic to use the smiley of a character from a movie where a villain adopts children for his own nefarious purposes given the thread content?

 

[bhamv3]

Isn't it a bit ironic to use the smiley of a character from a movie where a villain adopts children for his own nefarious purposes given the thread content?

The villain eventually comes around to love the children like his own, and turns out to be a good father. The minions are a symbol of the hope that these Pakistani children will be similarly loved.

Also,

Spoiler

 

[Dave]

I have others I could add if you wanted.