自建国以来，拐卖儿童犯罪就是我国刑法重点打击的犯罪行为，而刑法理论界对拐卖儿童犯罪中的一些问题则存在争议。本文以王献光等拐卖儿童案为例，对拐卖儿童罪中的三个主要争议问题进行论述：第一，出卖亲生子女行为如何定性？第二，对拐卖儿童罪中的介绍行为如何认定？第三，对拐卖儿童罪的既遂标准如何予以确定？ 笔者认为，对出卖亲生子女的行为应以拐卖儿童罪论处。对出卖亲生子女的行为不应以遗弃罪论处，这是由这两个罪名的构成要件以及拐卖儿童罪的犯罪客体所决定的。目前刑法理论界对拐卖儿童罪的客体存在多种学说，但笔者提倡“人格尊严说”。拐卖儿童罪的犯罪客体应当是被拐卖儿童的人格尊严权，即被拐卖儿童作为一个人所拥有的独立的、不被他人所侵害的，应受到他人和整个社会尊重的基本权利，其中当然包括但不限于其不能被作为商品进行买卖的权利。出卖亲生子女的行为毋庸置疑地侵害了儿童作为一个独立的人所享有的人格尊严权，将亲生子女作为商品出卖的行为更为刑法所禁止，因此，出卖亲生子女的行为有可能构成拐卖儿童。据此，对被告人王献光的行为应按照拐卖儿童罪定罪处罚。 关于拐卖儿童罪中的介绍行为如何定性的问题，笔者认为，主要应从拐卖儿童犯罪的主客观特征以及《刑法》总则中关于共犯的处理原则等角度加以考虑，结合《收养法》的相关规定进行具体分析。首先，应该明确，由《刑法》第240条可知，拐卖儿童罪中的介绍行为本质上是拐卖儿童罪的帮助行为，对介绍人应以拐卖儿童罪的共犯论处。其次，关于民间收养中的介绍行为与拐卖儿童罪中的介绍行为的区分标准，可从行为人的主观动机以及收取财务数量得多少等方面进行判断。最后，对拐卖儿童罪中的介绍行为，应根据主客观相统一的原则，对不同的情况加以区分。对于只存在帮助卖方的故意的行为人，应以拐卖儿童罪论处；对于只存在帮助买方的故意的行为人，应以收买被拐卖的儿童罪论处；对于存在帮助买卖双方故意的行为人，其行为同时构成收买被拐卖的儿童罪和拐卖儿童罪，根据想象竞合的原则，应择一重罪处罚，结合《刑法》第240条拐卖儿童罪以及《刑法》第241条收买被拐卖的儿童罪的规定，对其应以拐卖儿童罪定罪处罚。因此，本案中，被告人刘永贵的行为构成拐卖儿童罪。 就拐卖儿童罪的既遂标准问题，本文对该问题在刑法理论界目前主要存在的五种意见一一加以列举和说明，最终得出应以被拐卖儿童的卖出作为该罪既遂标准的结论。主要理由如下：第一，拐卖儿童罪客观方面的构成要件决定了应将被拐卖儿童实际卖出作为本罪既遂形态的判断标准，这是在对法条做出全面理解的基础上得出的合理结论；第二，拐卖儿童罪侵犯的犯罪客体，即被拐卖儿童的人格尊严权，决定了应将出卖行为作为本罪既遂形态的判断标准，因为只有在儿童被实际卖出这一行为实施完毕之时，被拐卖儿童的人格尊严才得到了现实的侵害；第三，将拐卖儿童罪的既遂标准定为被拐卖儿童的实际卖出，并不会如有些学者抨击的那样，违背犯罪构成理论齐备说的基本要求。本案中，被告人王献光及被告人刘永贵未将儿童实际卖出，法院对其定拐卖儿童罪未遂，这是值得支持的。

Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, the crime of children abduction has been a major crime in the Criminal Law, and the theoretical circle of criminal law has some disputes on the problems of child abduction. This paper takes Wang Xianguang Child Abduction Case as an example to discuss three main controversies about the crime of children abduction in the theoretical circle of criminal law. First, how to define the behavior of your own children? Second, how to identify the introduction of child abduction? Thirdly, how should the standard of the crime of abducting and selling children be determined? In the author's opinion, the act of selling biological children should be regarded as child abduction instead of abandonment crime, which is determined by the constitutive elements of these two crimes and the object of the crime of child abduction. At present, there are many different theories about the object in child abduction, and the author advocates "personal dignity theory". Child abduction’s object should be abducted children's right of human dignity, which is the basic right of abducted children as an independent man. The whole society should respect this right, which including but not limited to the right that the people can not be bought and sold as a commodity. The acts of selling one’s own children undoubtedly ruined this rights of children, and these behaviors are abandoned in the Criminal Law. Accordingly, Wang Xianguang shall be punished according to the crime of child abduction. When it comes to the judgment of introducing behavior in the crime of child abduction, the author believes it is necessary to consider several aspects, including the form of the subjective, objective characteristics of child abduction crime and the general principles of the Criminal Law. First of all, the Article 240 of the Criminal Law clarifies that the introduces behavior is essentially a kind of helping behavior of child abduction, which means the doer should be regarded as an accomplice of crime of child abduction. Second, there are some items should be judged when analyzing particular case, such as the motivation, the price, and the methods of introduction. In the end, the introduction to the crime of child abduction should be distinguished according to the principle of the unity of subjectivity and objectivity. When the doer only wants to help the seller in the behaviors of abducting and selling children, the doer’s acts shall be punished as child abduction. For the doer that only wants to help the buyer, the introducing behaviors should be judged as the crime of buying the abducted child. When the doer wants to help buyers and sellers at the same time, his behaviors can be judged as both the crime of buying abducted children and child abduction. Based on the principle of concurrence of imagine, we should choose a felony punishment to punish the doer. Combined with the Article 240 and 241 of the Criminal Law, the doer shall be convicted and punished as the child abduction crime. Therefore, in this case, the defendant Liu Yonggui's behavior should be regarded as the crime of child abduction. When it comes to the completion form of child abduction, this article lists and explains five main opinions in the theoretical circle of criminal law, and finally concludes that we should take the abducted children sold as the completion standard. First, the objective aspect of child abduction crime determines that only the abducted children have been actually selling, could the crime be accomplished. And it is a reasonable conclusion based on comprehensive understanding of the law. Second, the criminal object of the child abduction, which is the human dignity, determines that we should take the selling behavior as the accomplished patterns in this crime. And this is because only when the abducted children have been sold, will the personal dignity be damaged for real. Third, taking the actual selling of child abducted as the completion of this crime does not obey the basic requirement of the constitutive elements in crime theory. In this case, the defendant Wang Xianguang and the defendant Liu Yonggui did not sell the child actually, so the court judged that they had not finished the crime. In author’s opinion, this conclusion should be supported.