You're Selling What?

Becasue I recently moved to Seattle, I spend much of my time trying to live as cheaply as possible while unemployed. Part of that means constantly trolling Craigslist's forsale section to cut down on the enormous expense of moving to a new city. The items folks list to sell run the gamut. Some great items for great prices. Often people seem to be trying to get rid of their stuff as quickly and effortlessly as possible, which makes for some great deals. Then you get the folks that are slightly out of touch with the value of their goods: the outdated tube TV for $50, the 70s couch with saggy cushions and stains for $300. Craigslist has no shortage of overpriced junk. But the other day I found a forsale post that was so outlandish I couldn't help but comment.

So to the post, by "B." "B" is selling his/her "entire" Tupperware collection for only $12. I clicked this link because I am in need of Tupperware and, while $12 felt a little steep for some used plastic, if B had a significantly large collection I could swing it.

There seem to be two main problems with B's post.

                   1. It's a ridiculous product
                   2. It's a complete rip off

Turns out "B" does have a somewhat large collection, but not of what I would call tupperware. Rather, the collection consists of his emptied plastic yogurt and humus containers. I am all for recycling used containers and using them as tupperware. In fact it's what I primarily use. They are super useful. However your old yogurt and humus containers are the type of thing that you give to a friends or finally relegate to the recycling bin when you move or no longer need them. They are not sales worthy products. These great containers were a useful byproduct of the yummy semi solid foods you enjoy, but they were never products in and of themselves. Hence problem number 1: It's a ridiculous product.

Had seller "B" posed his collection on the free list I would have probably chucked and clicked away. Thinking it was nice of him to donate his old yogurt container but that I would be surprised if anyone really took him up on it.

This brings us to problem number 2: It's a complete rip off. "B" claims  "Each peice initially cost between $2-$4, but am asking for $12 for all 7 pieces and assorted lids." What "initially cost between $2-$4" is the product inside the container like you organic yogurt, sour cream or humus not the 10 cent plastic container those products were housed in."B" is actually making money off his trash.

To be fair, "B" offers to drive to meet you somewhere to make sure his tupperware goes to a good home, which suggests he's a well meaning guy that is perhaps a bit out of touch rather than a jerk passing off his recyclables as products.

What’s wrong with Wisconsin’s “Cocaine Mom” Act?

I read the New York Time’s October 23^rd article “Case Explores Rights of Fetus verses Rights of Mothers” and was initially dumfounded. I was dumfounded because the question of a women’s rights verses the fetuses has been answered time and time again. I was also dumfounded because it’s complicated. Explaining what’s wrong with Wisconsin’s “Cocaine Mom” Act is complex because it makes something we generally consider morally repugnant (that is drug use by pregnant women) illegal. Yet the law still fundamentally violates women’s rights and should be declared unconstitutional.

The issues of a fetus’s rights verse it’s mothers was most famously and notably decided in Roe v. Wade when the Supreme court ruled that a women’s right to bodily autonomy was fundamental. This right is so fundamental, the court ruled, that it guarantees us freedom from government intrusion when it comes to the personal issue of weather or whether or not to beget children.

            What makes Wisconsin’s “cocaine mom” act more complicated is that the law does not attempt to interfere with one’s choice of whether or not to begat children but rather how and in what way one does so.

            I tend to agree that someone who willing becomes pregnant and freely intends to bring a child into the world, is morally obligated to act in such a way to make that life as healthy as possible.  However moral obligations do not necessitate legal obligations. Simply put, there are lots of things we consider morally wrong, but don’t have laws to declare them illegal. For example it would be morally repugnant to accost my young child about their body and eating habits to the point that they developed a severe eating disorder.  But we wouldn’t make such a thing illegal because it would interfere with my first amendment rights, however wrong it may be. For whatever reason we seem to be willing to sacrifice more when it comes to bodily autonomy than we do for free speech.  

            As a society we should work on bigger and better solutions to drug and alcohol abuse. Education, support and aid are what these women need. The current system makes women afraid to go to the doctor, which harms the fetus even more.

The implications Wisconsin’s law are scary, because the value the fetus wellbeing over the mothers freedom.  How much are we willing to sacrifice for a future being’s potential well being? Can the government compel women to stay bed ridden if the doctor decides the fetus’ wellbeing is at stake? What about smoking while pregnant, should that be illegal? Drinking? How about diet? Sleeping on your back while pregnant can be dangerous for the fetus, should there be a law against that? All those things can affect a fetus’ wellbeing in serious way. This is a very slippery slope, and enacting the Wisconsin law flirts with that slope.