silentone wrote:I do think it should be illegal.
Well, there we go.
However, the costs of making it actually safe could be prohibitive regardless. There is the issue of diseases. New classes of retroviruses are being discovered in humans. Even with cow's milk there is (now) a supposed danger with Bovine Leukemia Virus. Several new retroviruses have been identified in humans, and certainly these are possible sources of contamination that could be spread.
It's a fairly simple process to pasteurize it. They wouldn't sell the ice cream, which they already do, if it wasn't rigorously tested for quality control. And besides, all that aside, just because something isn't economically viable does not mean it should be made illegal. Your desire to outlaw the practice stems directly from some moral or another of yours.
But I think the source of your original post was that I was somehow attempting to legislate morality. First of all governments come with a set of ethics or morals. You can't have a rules without having reasons for them.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here - are you saying that there's good reason to outlaw the practice, or you recognise that your objection is simply rooted in your morals?
Its really that simple. Frankly, as a gay person, I think your comparison is erroneous. I hardly think you can equate orientation (which I believe is a characteristic you are born with), to commodity exchange of bodily fluids.
The comparison was made to highlight how ridiculous it is to say 'This offends my morals and therefore nobody should do it,' rather than a direct comparison (although one could make the argument that the moral outcry against people of various orientations is exactly an argument over who exchanges bodily fluids with who, snicker snicker snicker!)
Additionally, I do not believe corporations have freedoms or morals. They operate for the dollar. If women choose to individually sell their milk, sure let them. I think a private market for this could be an important step for mothers (who are willing) to share their milk with women who are unable to breatfeed (medication or disease), or perhaps even medical patients with some strange dietary requirements. Health exams would be necessary though with regulators to oversee it. Any market however would have to directly line the women up with buyers, and I do think that there should be recommendations and procedures in place to protect the health of the women. The funds should be directly transacted with no middle men and there should be health guidelines and limits placed on the amount that they can give. Even dairy farmers have limits and regulations. Even prostitutes have to submit to health exams. Even if you think that legislating such a practice is legislating morality (if not hygiene) there are still health considerations to be taken into account.
All of this is a straw man argument. Of course women selling their milk have to have rigorous health checks, for the reasons you've elucidated. No government is going to allow women to sell their product without it passing the quality-control checks in place such as the FDA or whatever, and nobody here is suggesting the women in question operate on some sort free market basis with no regulation.
What I object to is a corporate adventure that turns women into commodities. There is no "morality" at stake when curtailing a corporation.
First sentence: moral objection. Second sentence: denial of moral objection. Think about it, what if I was to say 'What I object to is a corporate adventure that turns cows into commodities. There is no "morality" at stake when curtailing a corporation.' Besides, the women in question are hardly 'commodities'. They are not slaves, they are not owned. I would argue that a regular businesswoman who spends 8 hours of her day cooped up in a cube in a sky scraper is more of a corporate commodity than a woman who sells her breastmilk away.
Yes I do think it should be illegal for corporations to control this process and to create a product market aimed at "mass' consumption. Corporations have impacts and effects: economic ones on communities and families.
You could say this about any corporation. Is it still applicable?
Those I believe we have a moral imperative to place legal limitations on.
Of course. Once again, you're arguing against a straw man. Nobody is suggesting we remove regulation or anything of that sort.
I think prostitution is horrible and has detrimental effects on women. I still believe it is their right to do what they want with their bodies. Having said that, I still think it should be illegal to having a "WalMart" style brothel. You can imagine the consequences.
While it's a little tangential, in my country prostitution was actually recently legalised, because it was recognised that women are going to be prostitutes whether it's illegal or not. With the legalisation of brothels, it's actually a lot safer for the women involved, as well as the customers. They have to pass sexual health tests every month, have a safe place to conduct their business, etc etc.
Moral outrage here is appropriate,
Says you, same as the preacher who blames gay people, or the ultra-orthodox who blame us for picking up sticks on a sunday.