An ethical question involving adoption

[Sikratua]

No see, i'd also have to be raped to be able to actually say 100% that you're wrong... while atm i was simply pointing out that you lack an actual way to be able to tell...


Plus, unless Santa is actually real we've all had experience with out parents building our lives around lies...

I'm very likely about to catch a mod warning for this reply, but, at this point, I genuinely do not fucking care.

I'm not even going to go into how many charges of rape are based solely around either being considered too young to give consent, or the woman deciding afterwards that she wasn't in her right mind at the time, and making the claim. To bring that up would be insulting to anyone who has been actually raped. But, that said, given exactly how fast you threw that out there, frankly, I think you're lying about that, so I have no further reason to discuss that. Moving on.

I, literally, sat at my computer, slack-jawed, for about 5 minutes, trying to figure out exactly what level of stupidity you put into this statement. I was trying to decide whether or not I thought you were being sincere, or just taking a piss. I'm officially of the opinion that you were being sincere with your comparison of kidnapping an infant, and teaching that infant to love his kidnapper to lying about Santa Claus.

You honestly believe that an actual parent telling a child "there's a Santa Claus" is just as bad as as a kidnapper telling an infant "I'm your real parent." What is your major malfunction? No. Seriously. What in the fuck is wrong with you? Giving a child a direct quantifiable reason to behave in a way that reflects basic human decency, through positive re-enforcment, all the while not taking credit for said re-enforcement to avoid spoiling the child is a bad thing, in your mind?

But, that also leads into your belief that "there is a Santa Claus" is somehow a belief that a person builds their entire reality upon. Let's be blunt. If a person uses "Santa" as the sole means of re-enforcing a child's behavior, one way or the other, then that is a terrible parent. Period.

And, to add to the problems I have with your post is your premise that "Santa Claus is a lie. There actually was a Saint Nicholas. He's the actual patron saint of children, sailors, fishermen, merchants, broadcasters, the falsely accused, prostitutes, repentant thieves, pharmacists, archers, and pawnbrokers.

Even after typing this, I still find myself awestruck by exactly how you could possibly make that leap. How the fuck does one get from ""Santa Claus" to ""brainwashing a child to believe that a kidnapper is a biological parent?" I know I already asked this, but what the fuck is wrong with you? I don't know what else to say.

 

[4li3n]

Yes, it's not like there are a million examples of biological parents being awful to their kids ever...

Hell, some might even care more about their car window then their kids life and no one is talking about taking the kid away: http://www.postroad.com/news/2006/20060124.stamford.pd.fd.lawsuit.baby.locked.in.car.html

Because clearly the criminal on the run who kidnapped a young child and has hid their action from everyone in their life is a better choice than the child's parents because they might be bad parents. Yes. That is a perfect assumption to make.

It's about as logical as your assumption that the biological parents are better... (the OP doesn't give any info on the bio parents, so any assumptions about them are based on nothing).

I'm not even going to go into how many charges of rape are based solely around either being considered too young to give consent, or the woman deciding afterwards that she wasn't in her right mind at the time, and making the claim.

And that has what to do with an actual case of rape being worse then anything else?

I, literally, sat at my computer, slack-jawed, for about 5 minutes, trying to figure out exactly what level of stupidity you put into this statement. I was trying to decide whether or not I thought you were being sincere, or just taking a piss. I'm officially of the opinion that you were being sincere with your comparison of kidnapping an infant, and teaching that infant to love his kidnapper to lying about Santa Claus.

You honestly believe that an actual parent telling a child "there's a Santa Claus" is just as bad as as a kidnapper telling an infant "I'm your real parent." What is your major malfunction? No. Seriously. What in the fuck is wrong with you? Giving a child a direct quantifiable reason to behave in a way that reflects basic human decency, through positive re-enforcment, all the while not taking credit for said re-enforcement to avoid spoiling the child is a bad thing, in your mind?

But, that also leads into your belief that "there is a Santa Claus" is somehow a belief that a person builds their entire reality upon. Let's be blunt. If a person uses "Santa" as the sole means of re-enforcing a child's behavior, one way or the other, then that is a terrible parent. Period.

And, to add to the problems I have with your post is your premise that "Santa Claus is a lie. There actually was a Saint Nicholas. He's the actual patron saint of children, sailors, fishermen, merchants, broadcasters, the falsely accused, prostitutes, repentant thieves, pharmacists, archers, and pawnbrokers.

Even after typing this, I still find myself awestruck by exactly how you could possibly make that leap. How the fuck does one get from ""Santa Claus" to ""brainwashing a child to believe that a kidnapper is a biological parent?" I know I already asked this, but what the fuck is wrong with you? I don't know what else to say.

Dude, joke... the giant leap makes it funny... probably should have been more obvious by adding PARENTS ARE EVIL or something...

 

[4li3n]

words

Yes, my assumption that a kidnapped child should be returned to their parents and removed from the care of a criminal who stole an infant, is clearly insane. Obviously if they are unfit parents the law can step in and remove the child. Is this not obvious? Surely it should be.

No, your assumption that the biological parents would be better was what i objected to... pay attention.

...

And again you show little regard for the child, by disregarding if the parents are fit until they screw up the kid enough for the law to be able to step in (it takes a lot for them to remove kids from bio parents in most civilized places).


But hey, i'm sure that if i ever kidnap a kid from paedophiles (that have never been caught) and then they get it back and molest it at least he'll be taken away after being molested, so it's fine...

 

[Vault101]

Shared custody?
I saw that show! I also don't remember what it was called. I remember very specifically the kidnap parents and child having mugs with their names on.
And about social issues.... yeah. There's a pretty defined class barrier. I go to a fairly middle class school but went to middle and first school in a "rough" neighborhood and my family are working class so I have influences from both classes, and there is a very set separation of each class.

I think it was called "Torn" or somthing like that, anyway the scenario I presented there isnt 100% the same, but similar as to what I can remember

anyway yeah at least in Britan it seems that way, it seems on TV most lower class british youths would bash you up as soon as look at you, however thats probably not true

 

[Vault101]

A lovely intellectual/emotional thought piece.

There's one question I would like to post to you:

How can a 'kidnapping' parent be a good parent, at all?

You know, as in lying to the kid from birth for selfish reasons. Hard as it may sound to the kid to place him/her back with the biological parents, this is a problem created by the 'kidnapping' parent.

How can the kid live with the kidnapping parent, at all?

Well except jail visitation?

well in the situation similar to the mini series, the woman was distraught at not being able to have her own children...she wasnt a bad person just not very stabel at the time, I mean the kid is lost on the beach...she finds her...you know?

anyway it doesnt justify it, its just her motivations

 

[rabidmidget]

Two things:
1) To say that it is morally acceptable for the child to stay with the kidnapper, removes any reason for kidnappers not to take children.

2) If a mother kills someone, are they let off scot-free because they have a child? Just because there's a child in the picture doesn't make the crime any more heinous.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Whatever they do, they can't let that child play Portal 2.

It has cruel, crass, and well thought out attacks towards adopted children!

 

[Brutal Peanut]

The kidnapper, once discovered, would (more then likely) be arrested and the child would be taken into care and placed with strangers anyway. Despite what is actually considered right here, the child wont be able to stay with the kidnapper for a period of time (especially if the kidnapper was eventually found guilty and sentenced), regardless of personal choice - even though it's taken into consideration. During this time, he/she should be able to stay with the 'birth'-parents (but also should be allowed the option to stay in contact with their kidnapper), and eventually come to terms with everything that has happened and see how life treats him/her there and who these people really are and what it could mean to keep them in his/her life. Really the placement couldn't be any worse then foster care.

A child who is already fourteen when this happens, only has four years until the age of 'maturity'. Once he/she is an 'adult', they can certainly decide who they'd rather have in their lives, especially if they have kept in contact with their kidnapper. It just might turn out to be both. Or perhaps they just don't care and were just bidding their time until they were an adult to get out of this whole mess. Counseling isn't a heal-all-wounds deal, but it would probably be nice for the kid to talk to someone who isn't on either side. Someone with open ears. I don't think it would hurt, but it should be optional unless the child is showing obvious signs of mental distress.

Though I think anyone who just takes a baby for themselves (especially out of desperation) is dangerous. But that's just me.

 

[Spade Lead]

Well actually now that I think about, its not really about adoption per se but I guess it deals with similar themes.

This is inspired by some british mini series I half saw once and I cant remember the name.

Ok the scenario is a child is Kidnapped at a very early age, by a woman.While what she does is inherintly wrong she does it because she is distraught because she cant have children, not "thinking clearly" at the time (doesnt justify it, just her reason)

ok so fast forward the kid is 13 or 14 she has been raised perfectly fine by the "kidnapper", basically its found out.

So whats the right thing to do? give the child to her original family? not only is the news that your mum kidnapped you, thats a very vulnerable age...basically what Im saying is that shit might not go down well

however the biological parents have a right dont they?

so anyway as I can remember in the original miniseries I DONT agree with the decision they made,

1.ok kid automatically goes and lives with biological parents...who are upper class, she came from a lower class background, doesnt fit in so much (and from what Ive seen on TV britan has some serious social issues, like its youth are friggin scary) anyway in regards to that I honestly dont know

2. "kidnapper" mother isnt allowed to see kid....ok THATS fucked up, not only are you made live with strangers but you cant see your mum again

anyway Im interested to what you guys think

Is this what brought this issue up in your head?

http://www.hulu.com/watch/235811/bones-the-signs-in-the-silence

I agree with the FBI. Arrest the kidnappers, send the child back with their original parents.

 

[Oliman43]

Just throwing this out into the open, but this is almost exactly the main concern in the unsolved Madeline McCann case. She dissapeared from a motel room while the parents were having dinner literally, 120 meters away. When the parents came back she was gone.

That was 2007, and the girl was about 4. Already, one of the main concerns held (if it was a kidnapping) is that in just 4 years she would quite actually be a completely different person, and would almost definitely speak primarily Portugese (Kidnapped in Portugal). So not only would she not recognize her parents, she would have no way of properly interracting with them.

What has failed to be noted is that it may not just be the kidnappers fault. If, as above, the parents did something neglectful, then the kidnapper should be treated with moderation.

In my honest opinion, I think that the bio-parents should have the least say in what happens as they are trying to dictate what should happen to someone they, to be perfectly honest, know nothing about.

Btw, consider that counseling "Ok, today we're here to try and discuss possibly the most serious event in your life, and to try and swing you towards some folks that you've never met, and would probably not stop if you passed them in the street."
"..."
"How does that make you feel?"

 

[Haydyn]

Default answer: It depends on the situation. I guess the "Mega Happy Ending" would be getting to live with biological parents, but still see the woman that raised you. In reality, that is a very hard thing to deal with. That's why it is questionable when parents that put their kid up for adoption want to come back into their life at a later point. I say let the kid decide. In reality it's not genetics that make somebody your parent. My parents are my parents because they raised me. I'm losing a step dad right now, and it's a strange feeling. We were never close, but I've known him for most if my life.

What's even worse is I'm losing my step sister. We have bonded so much in the last two years. I'd take her to the mall and we would go shopping together. She would hook me up with her friend's older sisters. We went from enemies to a tag team, only to be torn apart. Am I not to see her grow up? Help teach her to drive? Let her meet my eventual children, what would have been her nieces and nephews? It rips my heart out.

The reality is that there are people who have it worse off. Orphans who never get to meet their parents, or losing a close family member at a young age. All we can do is make the best of things and adapt to whoever our family is at the time.

 

[Haydyn]

words

Again - so, so glad the law agrees with my side, not yours.

Damn, from the two of your posts I've seen the law sure does agree with you a lot. That must kick ass, man.

 

[Your once and future Fanboy]

No matter the justification and how she raised the child, the fact is still that she kidnapped a child, and even though she was "emotionally and psychically troubled" at the time of the crime.
She still didn't realize her mistake and delivered the child back (as she could have done anonymously, so the fear of getting caught isn't the issue) after the kidnapping incident.
So she have proven herself to not be emotionally stable and not a suitable parent.
She basically choose to take away the happiness of parenting from two people and put them through a shitload of sorrow (the kind that often leads couples to split up) just so that she could be happy.
So she doesn't deserve to see her kid, that selfish *****

 

[exampleAccount]

Kidnapper should do some time, Kid should be allowed to visit them. You can't let people get away with a crime as serious as kidnapping, if the legal system did that more psychos would try to steal kids.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

The kidnappers go to gaol for what they have done obviously.

As far the child, I don?t know. The two groups aren't family, they are stranger and I don't think it would be fair, for either of them, just just thrust them together and leave them to it. They will probably need some help if a relationship is to be salvaged and built up from this giant mess the kidnappers caused.