For starters, any headline that has both President Clinton and "breast" is likely to be a hoax, something from the Onion or what Hillary called "the vast right wing conspiracy."
But it turns out to be a serious question.
Viz., is it morally allowable for wealthy mothers with inadequate breast milk to buy breast milk from poor women? It's true that both parties to the exchange are made "better off," given their disparate bargaining positions. One might claim that the exchange is plausibly voluntary, but certainly not euvoluntary.
If the poor women are selling breast milk that otherwise might nourish their own babies, and are selling more of it than would be prudent because they--being poor--need the money more than most people would....well, is that okay? How would one decide? Is this an over-reaction?
But it turns out to be a serious question.
Viz., is it morally allowable for wealthy mothers with inadequate breast milk to buy breast milk from poor women? It's true that both parties to the exchange are made "better off," given their disparate bargaining positions. One might claim that the exchange is plausibly voluntary, but certainly not euvoluntary.
If the poor women are selling breast milk that otherwise might nourish their own babies, and are selling more of it than would be prudent because they--being poor--need the money more than most people would....well, is that okay? How would one decide? Is this an over-reaction?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Do you have suggestions on where we could find more examples of this phenomenon?