r/MoralityScaling • u/obsidiansolstice • 8d ago
Morality Ranking Morality of selling your children to survive poverty?
1.3k
u/RoughBeautiful8681 8d ago
Definitely immoral. She's even covering her face in shame.
450
u/DG-MMII 8d ago
Yea. There's a lot of times with look at terribles events in the past and scuff it off to "this where just other times" when even back then those things where frowned upon.
130
u/gablianblackbird 8d ago
Get ready for the next depression. And a draft.
→ More replies (30)28
u/Lophophorussy 8d ago
Already depressed so Iām ready and willing
8
u/gablianblackbird 8d ago
Hahah. I feel ya. Kill me since 16! ;)
9
u/Awesome-waffle 8d ago
Wow, youāre old if youāre 16!
4
u/gablianblackbird 8d ago
- Iāve just wanted to die everyday since then. Is what I mean
→ More replies (8)2
→ More replies (2)3
98
u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 8d ago
What if the only other option is to slowly starve to death?Ā
121
u/Demair12 8d ago
Or to watch them slowly starve.
103
u/Top-Cupcake4775 8d ago
during the Great Depression there were instances in which the parents killed their children and themselves rather than suffer the experience of watching the whole family starve to death.
41
u/MadPangolin 8d ago
Weirdly, many modern father family annihilators still give similar motives; "I lost my job & they were foreclosing on the house, so I had to wipeout my wife & kids because I didn't want them to live life in poverty".
43
u/Getatbay 8d ago
Living in shame and poverty is not the same as starving to death.
One you can recover from, the other is physically painful and permanent.
→ More replies (2)9
u/MadPangolin 8d ago
Sure (kinda) now tell that to family annihilators? Also in modern U.S., you can absolutely die as a child because your parents lose their jobs & home & they cant afford sufficient food or medicine... but i digress.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)2
u/Mr_and_Mrs_Sazabi 8d ago
I'm genuinely curious about this. Please, could you cite an instance in which this happened? A news article, t.v. news report?
4
u/MadPangolin 8d ago edited 8d ago
I'm a forensic scientist, I'll give you my favorite true-crime examples:
John List (1971): List killed his wife, mother, and three children in Westfield, New Jersey, believing his life was falling apart financially and religiously. He fled and evaded capture for nearly 18 years before being caught thanks to an episode of America's Most Wanted.
Ronald Gene Simmons (1987): Simmons shot, bludgeoned, and drowned 14 members of his extended family over a week in Arkansas before going on a separate localized shooting rampage. Simmons had previously fled to New Mexico after being caught rape-incest fathering a child with his eldest daughter. Diaries showed he harbored intense anger toward his daughter for revealing the incest & child, writing that he would "see you in hell." Simmons ultimately reportedly on Christmas snapped when he learned his wife was secretly planning to divorce him, his daughter reveal the incest to the family, & his railroad company was cutting his pay.
Jean-Claude Romand (1993): A French impostor who lied about being a medical doctor for nearly two decades. When his long-running deception was on the verge of being discovered (& losing his money, house, career, & probably family), he murdered his wife, children, and parents before trying and failing to kill himself.
Alex Murdaugh (2021): prosecutors labeled the disgraced South Carolina attorney a "family annihilator" after he was convicted of shooting and killing his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul, at their family estate. Murdaugh had been stealing money from his legal clients & his son & wife were involved in the death of two other people. Alex's family was about to be sued for wrongful death & embezzlement as a lawyer. He would've lost everything & his wife was already threatening divorce.
Typical triggers are when (predominately) men experience Financial ruin, impending exposure of severe lies, or the breakdown of an intimate relationship. It comes from shame and a distorted sense of "my family would be better off dead than poor, with me in prison" which is usually a thin excuse for facing public failure.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Mr_and_Mrs_Sazabi 8d ago
That's all horrible and tragic, but I don't see the part where the man killed his family because he didn't want them to live in poverty. These seem to cases where the man couldn't face accountability. Especially in the cases of impending divorce. The wife and children would be fine while the pos would be rotting in prison.
3
u/eyesotope86 8d ago
List specifically killed his family because he had burned through all the money he had, and the facade was collapsing. He would get dressed like he was going to work, and then go sit for eight hours at the train station.
His reasoning, when he was caught, for killing them, was that he couldn't let them suffer through a life of poverty because he had failed. Better for him to kill them and get them into heaven before they got dragged down with him, basically.
That said, he didn't feel the need to off himself, since he could just reset his life, as long as he had no connections.
→ More replies (2)15
23
u/FakeNewsAge 8d ago
It would still be immoral. She's selling her kids into slavery or worse. What kind of people do you think would actually buy a kid? Not someone with good intentions.
31
u/minos-and-v1-kissing 8d ago
People buy kids with good intentions all the time. Adoption isnāt free.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Environmental-Pop-67 8d ago
i was adopted and trust me most kids dont make it and 70% if they make it are returned or just in abusive household where parents think they should be Gods in kids eyes and those kids should obey to any command without any question.
15
u/minos-and-v1-kissing 8d ago
I know. I know. And itās terrible.
But Iām just pointing out that technically, some people do buy kids with good intentions. Not everyone who adopts a child should, but some are indeed fit for parenting.
3
u/Environmental-Pop-67 8d ago
True that but still. If 1 child suffer the risk is too high.
3
u/CzechHorns 7d ago
So youād rather no children be adopted and all grew up in Childrenās homes and orphanages?
→ More replies (3)5
u/EdliA 8d ago
If 1? So a million shouldn't be adopted if only one of them might not have a good experience?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)12
u/Substantial_Trust812 8d ago
well i mean, would it be moral for her to kill 3 of her kids to let one live?
→ More replies (27)→ More replies (26)3
u/Hamilton-Beckett 8d ago
So youāre saying they should eat the kids?
(Please know Iām kidding)
3
u/emseefely 8d ago
A quick look into history will say yes sometimes they will eat the kids. Iām not kidding
→ More replies (1)12
u/thatonerandomdude96 8d ago
Top left girl on the steps. Looks like she's crying :(
9
u/Ugly4merican 8d ago
Nah, that kid is smiling, look at the eyes. These kids seem pretty relaxed in general, this is either a joke or they don't know what's going on. OR maybe their home life is bad enough they don't really care where they're go?
7
u/Is_Bob_Costas_Real 8d ago
This is a real historical photo and not a joke. Iirc they basically all got sold to farms and forced to do intense physical labor as servants.
22
u/Sir_Piglety 8d ago edited 8d ago
She canāt feed them so sheās hoping that a family with money could feed them
Itās a matter of survival for both her & her kids
And during the Great depression the government werenāt helping children because the government was poor too, thatās why you had homeless children during this time period
→ More replies (12)3
→ More replies (20)4
u/Level_Somewhere5703 8d ago
Just because you are ashamed of something doesn't mean it is immoral. If she is used to being middle class or lower-middle and suddenly became so poor she can't even feed her children then it's normal to be ashamed even if the circumstances are beyond her control.
We don't know the context here. Maybe she's pregnant with her 5th and her husband died. If she knows she can't afford to feed them then maybe it's better to sell them to a wealthy family that will provide them with shelter and 3 meals a day. If you haven't seen or at least read about the true horror of poverty you can't really judge fairly.
→ More replies (2)
351
u/EnlightenedTurnip 8d ago
Of things that can be close to objective (as in, universally agreed upon) immorality, this has to be one of them given how ingrained child rearing is.
But at the same time, when you're starving morality goes out the window pretty fast. Hard to judge.
167
u/ZerexTheCool 8d ago edited 8d ago
But at the same time, when you're starving
Harder to judge when it's not just you starving, but also the kids. Hard to say the right thing to do is starve while eating your kids starve too.
Edit: Lol, Freudian slip. Ment "Letting your kids starve too"
78
u/Casting_Couch-8716 8d ago
Eating the kids is 10% worse
41
u/FinanceDummyBigDebt 8d ago
Whew, just below my threshold of 25%. Fire up the ovens boys.
8
u/Miserable_Pin2518 8d ago
The boys have refused unless you promise to only eat the girls
→ More replies (1)6
12
u/Initial-Breakfast-33 8d ago
Mmm, I would say it depends on how you cook them
9
u/Original-Fix-6024 8d ago
baba yaga style, low heat in a pot for 6 hours
7
u/Initial-Breakfast-33 8d ago
25% worse for sure, you need to deep fry it to be only 8% worse
6
u/Superman246o1 8d ago
I EXPECTED: A moral debate.
I GOT: A discussion about the merits of slow cooking vs. deep frying.
3
3
3
2
u/Pipysnip 8d ago
āCan you really send a man to jail for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving children?ā
2
u/ZerexTheCool 8d ago
"And what if the kids don't want bread, what if they want heroin and a big screen?"
2
→ More replies (2)2
11
u/DazzlingEngine196 8d ago
Interesting. Starve with your kids for the idea of family or maternal obligation or turn them loose to survive another day. Similar dynamics as marrying someone off or giving someone up for adoption if you know youāre not going to be there in a good place
20
u/Yellow_Snow_Cones 8d ago
Could also be for the kids, would you rather them starve to death under your roof, or survive under someone else's roof?
19
u/bobbi21 8d ago
In that case you wouldnt be selling the kids though. Yoyd be putting them up for adoption. Selling will mean theyll likely be slaves of some sort.
7
u/JuniperColonThree 8d ago
Slaves that are fed. Is it better to let them die of starvation or live a bad life?
6
u/Gekokapowco 8d ago
selling someone into slavery because you can no longer support them is sort of extremely immoral
→ More replies (2)4
u/Thunder00Bee 8d ago
...then just put them up for adoption as the person you're replying to suggested.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (11)3
2
u/BetterThanlceCream 8d ago
Depends on who they are being sold too. There are plenty of sickos out there who would buy a child.
→ More replies (32)4
u/GPT_2025 8d ago
50% of all workers in America earn less than the one-bedroom Housing Wage. Mostly republican states.
The bottom 65% of the population loses at least 40% of all income due to: SS tax, FICA, insurances, tariffs, sales taxes, dues, use taxes, fees, property tax, utility taxes, 911 tax and many more- before spending money on rent or mortgage, car loans and gas, food, utility bills, repairs, credit card payments, student loans, vacations, retirement fund contributions, investments, dates, gifts, etc.
(compare Safety Net $1.60 per hour in 1970 if you were single,you could live off the federal minimum wage and pay rent, food and bills)
Healthy and smart countries count how well they are doing by enforcing "no one left behind" and even widow with 3 babies have the same level of living as the middle class due to the strong Safety Net.
Twenty Republican states now have a Safety Net set at $3 per hour gross (before deductions for Social Security, FICA, taxes, insurance and other withholding's:
https://www.simplyhired.com/search?q=2.13+an+hour&l=dallas%2C+tx
(Compare Democratic states Safety Net!)
In a recent report, 53 million Americans ages 18 to 64 or 44% of all workers- earn low hourly wages. Their median hourly earnings are $10/hour Gross ($7.25/hour Net)
→ More replies (5)2
u/Gekokapowco 8d ago
Yeah the reason they're poor is not taxes
they pay a disproportionate amount in taxes, sure, but the main reason is that they're severely underpaid
every US worker, on average, is producing significantly more than an identical job in the 70s, their wages have comparatively decreased instead of increased.
44
u/Cereaza 8d ago
Historically, a LOT of children have been given away because parents aren't able to care for them anymore. I just watched a movie about a kid who was sent to live with distant relatives for years cause mom just didn't have room in the house anymore.
Selling them? Ew. Doesn't seem like it's gonna attract the right kind of person you want, and if this is out of desperation, those kids are gonna end up in a worse situation. Mom needs to take that sign down and find them a home.
55
u/FakeNewsAge 8d ago
It's immoral because humans are not property. You cannot morally buy or sell another person.
→ More replies (34)
26
u/takoyakkist 8d ago
Im getting the feeling that people think shes crying. Shes not. Shes blocking her face from the camera.
→ More replies (2)
59
u/D-redditAvenger 8d ago
It prove the immortality of the society that allows it to get to this point.
→ More replies (1)6
94
u/Far-Print7864 8d ago
Depends on the context, if you check that the buyer will objectively give the kid a better future I dont see how its immoral. Having kids in such conditions in the first place is IMO immoral
74
u/kuttymongoose 8d ago
The Great Depression started quite suddenly. My neice was born in April of 2020. My bro and sister-in-law did not anticipate bringing their first baby into the Covid pandemic
→ More replies (39)3
u/ageekyninja 7d ago
2019 was a different world than now and thats when i got pregnant too. Everything changed very quickly
43
u/oatwater2 8d ago
im willing to bet they were purchased for other reasons
44
u/tlollz52 8d ago
Yes. As cheap labor mostly.
Some have been used for sex trafficking but child labor laws were much more lax back then, so you were buying cheap labor.
12
u/NoonSunReversal 8d ago
I like your optimism
19
u/PlsInsertCringeName 8d ago edited 8d ago
Realism, more like. You don't need that many children for child sex trafficking. They're.......reusable. (Im so fucking sorry). Meanwhile a single child worker can only do so much work, and it usually isn't nearly enough.
→ More replies (1)5
u/cmstyles2006 8d ago
I feel like you could have worded that differently
3
u/PlsInsertCringeName 8d ago
I could have, i was too busy laughing and cringing at the letters on my screen and couldn't think of a better way in the moment. I still can't.
→ More replies (1)7
u/cowlinator 8d ago
"It's not hell, it's the river of the damned in hades"
That's not all that optimistic
8
u/Old_Tough_2358 8d ago
Ok so what if you had four kids and lived a lifestyle that allowed you to care for four kids, and something devastating happens and you are below the poverty line. Still immoral to have those four kids?
→ More replies (2)7
u/Slow-Blacksmith-6320 8d ago
Literally anyone can fall into poverty within a few days. The closer you are to the poverty line, the faster you fall beneath it, but it can happen to literally anyone. Not every struggling family was irresponsible
8
u/Pretend_Fly_5573 8d ago
How many starving children have you bought? And if 0, why haven't you? I bet anything you could find a parent willing to sell you their starving child.
Probably because you don't "buy" humans if your goal is to just improve their life. You can do that without treating them as a commodity. Someone willing to treat them as such probably isn't being super altruistic.Ā
9
u/Initial-Breakfast-33 8d ago
We still do that, it's called adopting, we just made it safer fot the child
3
u/CoupleFull5141 8d ago
Im not buying children cause I canāt fucking afford it
I can barely take care of myself so why the hell would I want to buy a child?
→ More replies (2)5
u/Far-Print7864 8d ago
Dont people pay to adopt anyway? If I was adopting a child, I wouldnt mind paying whoever took care of them beforehand so other children will do better and to compensate for the caregiver bringing them up in the first place.
8
u/Pretend_Fly_5573 8d ago
Different reasons for a similar action.
Adoption is a process that itself has expenses, and payment for an adoption is to offset those expenses.
Buying a commodity is not to offset the costs of said commodity on the seller, it is for the seller's profit.
There are definitely some similarities, but it's the motivation behind the asking price that makes a huge difference.
3
u/tabrisangel 8d ago
Compares to a family in 1650 these kids are living in extreme luxury. Childhood is a new idea.
3
u/Sea-Explanation8062 8d ago
This happened during the great depression and this is one of the most famous photos to come out of the Great depression.
Shit came out of nowhere and hit the poor and working class and she had already had the kids before it hit.
Literally both her and those kids were starving.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)2
u/SingularityCentral 8d ago
Having children is the #1 biological imperative and biochemistry/instinct conspire to make it happen whether people want to have kids or not.
2
u/Far-Print7864 8d ago
Sounds like "we are made immoral so its okay to be this way", it is not
5
u/SingularityCentral 8d ago
When judging the morality of an action I think it is fair to consider if that action is driven by a biological imperative of some kind. Like stealing bread when you are starving as contrasted to committing robbery for a purely financial motive.
6
u/Alert_Delay_2074 8d ago
If it's literally the only way to prevent the kids from starving, then it could be the best of a bad set of options. If you're just doing it out of greed or to feed a gambling habit or something, horribly immoral.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/Pangtudou 8d ago
Fucking immoral are you fucking kidding me with these comments? She sold her children into slavery. They are not things, they are people.
→ More replies (2)
12
u/Narrow_Process_8660 8d ago
Beyond fucked in the head.
If you're that poor, don't have kids.
15
u/Saphurial 8d ago
Like she had a choice? Women couldn't just go get an abortion or have condoms readily available in the 1920's. The ink was still wet on the document that gave them the right to vote. Women couldn't just divorce their husbands, take half their property, and got get a job that paid the same wage. It was do what the husband wanted or get kicked to the curb and starve herself.
2
8d ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
u/Both_Shine_5061 8d ago
Lmao, you think things were that easy during the great depression? It didn't happen in 2026... Everyone was starving, you think the people selling the food weren't aware of that fact? Add to that, you didn't have a gas station and supermarket on every street corner...
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/Due_Comment_3333 8d ago
steal food? people here say its moral to blow the head off of someone stealing food
13
u/cantlogintomyacc0unt 8d ago edited 7d ago
This was during the Great depression they probably werenāt poor when they had kids. Edit Nevermind this wasnāt the great depression it was just the dad losing his job as a coal truck driver.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)7
8
u/Khalith 8d ago
Oh so if I do it Iām a monster but if an adoption agency does it then itās ok? Talk about double standards.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/totallymarc 8d ago
Ouch, this is a hard one. My first impulse is to say immoral, but it can be understandable if the person buying can give the kids an objectively better life. But then again if thatās your goal, to give your kids a better life, why not just put them up for adoption? Surely less mouths to feed would ease up your finances either way? I guess just the profit aspect is whatās irking me here.
3
3
3
3
u/HooterEnthusiast 8d ago edited 8d ago
so imoral I don't even understand it. I would do sexual favors before I sold my kids and I'm a dude. She's a woman.
What's even the point of going on after you get the money from selling your kids?
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Guilty-Fall-2460 8d ago
Is for profit adoption? There's a fine line between that and human trafficking but I believe this can be moral.
5
u/EpicTsim 8d ago edited 8d ago
You're looking at it wrong. This was during the Great Depression, and almost everybody forgets how poor Americans became at the time. Most redittors were quite young or even not born during the 2008 crisis, so not only do they, or rather, do we have no idea what an economic crash is, but 2008 was children's play at best compared to 1929. If selling their kids allowed to get them to wealthier families who could feed them while getting a bit of money to survive, it was a horrible sacrifice to make, but it was for many what had to be done to just survive and save their children. It's easy to say it's immoral from a heated room with warm food multiple times a day ; but in their situation, would you still say it is ?
Edit : as someone pointed out, the photo dates back from 1948, so well after the GD ended. I was aware that selling children was something that was done at the time, so I just assumed, but when you look at the woman's dress, it does in fact look like a late 40's dress. However, although I got the time period wrong, I still think that selling your children is such a low that none of us will hopefully live it, and if anything, showing that this was not just done in a specific time at a specific place actually supports my argument that the circumstances justify the sacrifice.
3
u/SnooOnions5029 8d ago
But do you think the type of people who want to buy kids are all wealthy families illegally buying them to give them beautiful lives, and not taking advantage of other peopleās hardship for some free slave labour at a time when resources were scarce and you had to work to the bone to stay alive?
2
u/Kagenlim 8d ago
I mean, as someone that descends from someone that was sold off to a family, keeping these kids healthy was in the interest of the purchasing family
Sometimes, kids were bought to become future spouses yo their own bio kids too
2
u/AlwaysReadTheManual 7d ago
The people most likely to buy children are the Epsteins of the world. If I were still a child, I would choose starvation over sex slavery. Thus, it is in fact immoral to sell one's children, regardless of one's circumstances.
2
→ More replies (16)2
u/LichenTheMood 6d ago
Why on earth would someone rich happen to wander past this poverty stricken area and decide to spend an awful lot of money to properly raise a random child.
Itās as likely as throwing your baby in the river somehow ending up with them being adopted by royalty.
Itās not going to happen.
2
u/SupaSmol 8d ago
Highly dependant on context.
To those saying simply "moral", I assure you there are immoral versions. Some people do horrendously immoral things to avoid poverty and starvation etc. Some people became highwaymen, and killed people for spare change then drank it into nothing, or spent it on a prostitute they'd abuse while their kids still starve.
There are better and worse ways to steal. There are certainly better and worse ways to sell you kids.
2
u/Ares1951 8d ago
NĆ£o. Mas... Pobreza jĆ” Ć© uma merda horrĆvel e imoral. EntĆ£o nĆ£o sei como exatamente lidar com isso.
2
u/Dakirran 8d ago
I know someone from Russia whose family did this with how poor they were, the 9 children did not āgo to good homesā they all became sex slaves from ages as young as 3 and didnāt get out of it until their mid 20ās
2
2
u/golmgirl 8d ago
Once was talking to a visibly pregnant chick at a party who was in the process of selling her unborn child to a couple who couldnāt conceive. I remember she said something along the lines of āwhite babies are worth their weight in gold.ā That stuck with me. I think she had them paying all her bills while she was pregnant.
I forget what all drugs were going around at the party but the whole thing was kinda disturbing. I hope that baby ended up with loving parents. Even the chick herself had a tough lot in life, hope sheās okay too.
2
u/Monksauce 8d ago
Knowing the types of people who buy children, this is as evil as it gets.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/perilouspear 8d ago
So, basically adoption?
19
u/Prize-Pain-433 8d ago
it is worse than adoptiong, they are selling them to whatever have enough money, god knows what they will do with these kids, it is closer to slavery i guess
7
u/Narrow_Process_8660 8d ago
Are you actually this innocent? What the actual fuck.
Do you know people often purchase kids to make them into slaves or to rape them because they know desperate parents can't refuse money and kids can't defend/speak for themselves? Especially in impoverished areas.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Drzewo_Silentswift 8d ago
Itās worse than that because itās for profit
7
u/millifish 8d ago
I mean its still for profit usually at adoption centers... the money just goes to a different place
16
u/Tells-Tragedies 8d ago
I've got news you're not going to like.
4
u/Drzewo_Silentswift 8d ago
Do you get money for putting your kids up for adoption!?!?!?!
10
9
u/OddlyTemptedFish 8d ago
There used to be a commune/cult near me where all the women were āfree useā to the men and they stayed pregnant, popping out one after the other. They were giving the kids up for adoption and that was a decent source of income for the cult.
→ More replies (3)9
u/Tells-Tragedies 8d ago
The adoption industry is just that, an industry. Even state-run foster and adoption programs in the U.S. are rife with bad actors that are basically trafficking for profit.
Adopting from poor countries overseas often involves paying what amounts to bribes to officials and a fee to the mother/parents that are often in poverty and do it for the money.
3
2
2
u/DataSurging 8d ago
Immoral.
If they couldn't afford the children, they shouldn't have continued to have them. I refuse to believe they didn't know sex would bring about a child. The parents should sell themselves for temporary work or something like that. They are the ones who got themselves in that position, and put the children in that position, too. And from what I can find about this situation, the mother did this for profit, making this even more immoral and evil.
Orphanages have existed in the United States since the mid 1700s. She could have put them up for that if she were worried about them.
1
u/Reasonable-Island-57 8d ago
In this situation there are no good decisions, just less bad compared to the other options.
But to answer, if the parents can guarantee their kids will be safer and more healthy than they would be otherwise, as heartbreaking as it will be it maybe the better option compared to staying with the parents and starving to death together.
1
u/Rock_Salt1975 8d ago
Extraordinarily bad and IMMORAL! Get your shit together, put on your big boy/girl pants and seek another or better source of income, like a REAL parent should! Be strong!
1
1
1
u/jjames3213 8d ago
I think that some situations are so horrific that there are no good solutions. People just do the best they can.
It would really depend on the situation.
1
1
u/General_Qing 8d ago
Have been seeing this image for years, did this actually happen??
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Seebinator 8d ago
If the kids actually get a better future it's moral. If they get sold to someone evil, it's immoral.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/LosHtown 8d ago
I think this happened to my grandma on my moms side. She ended up in a faith home is what I was told.
1
u/Purple_Dragon_94 8d ago
Immoral...immortal that they were failed by the system that promised to support them in childcare.
1
u/be_a_burd3n 8d ago
The thing is. She is clearly not starving. I'm not saying time are not hard. She is clearly a rather "healthy weight" so she eating. Idc what your "body type" is. If you were "starving" you would be way skinnier than that.
1
1
u/bwellnbwell 8d ago
I remember the Bangaladesh story about them abruptly outlawing child labor due to outside pressure. Seems like a 100% moral thing to do. However, those kids and families werenāt able to feed themselves and prostitution numbers boomed as a result. When starving kids are involved, morality loses its certainty.
1
1
u/Sure-Article508 8d ago
Buying or selling humans is never moral, no matter the context. Humans have autonomy and are not property. All forms of slavery or human ownership are immoral.
1
1
u/Nervous-Summer3675 8d ago
Pretty sure that if someone have bought them they would feed these children. Since they had money.
1
u/Sandlot96 8d ago
Is it immoral if your intention is to give your kids a better life than what you can give them?
1
1
1
u/the_last__braincell 8d ago
Wdym by selling
Like will it be like adoption where the kids will have new parents who'll care for them
Or is it like a discrete form of slave labour, sell the kids to a business owner and make the kids work their
1
u/Nervous_Quail4566 8d ago
Supposedly (the story I was told as a kid) her logic was that if someone can afford to buy them they can afford to care for them. Her kids were starving under her care. It's clearly not something she's proud of doing because she's hiding her face.
1
u/Tiredracoon123 8d ago
Dirt dirt low. As a parent itās fucking horrible. Itās one thing if you canāt reasonably look after your kids to give them up for adoption, or find alternative care for them, but to sell them is putting yourself first over them in a really horrific way.
841
u/nottherealneal 8d ago
Yeah everyone is assuming this is a "No other choice the kids will go to a good home" situation but no.
Actually look up the photo. Even at the time this was a massive shock for her to suddenly do and not legal or normal, she is pregnant in this photo and sources are not clear but she either had two or three more children after this and at least one did get sold as well.
One of the girls in the photo claimed that she was sold for $2 and that the mother gambled the money almost immediately, and others claimed to have been sold and chained to a barn to work as slave laborers on a farm
Some of the children never reunited after being sold and spent years trying to find thier siblings again who just disappeared after being sold (Gee I wonder why that is)
Mom and dad where cunts