If the child is 13 or 14, they should be given the choice. Though it will be incredibly hard for them.
Actually i'm pretty sure if kids ended up with paedophiles because of a court decision the law would demand someone to get fired...Dulcinea said:Again - so, so glad the law agrees with my side, not yours.4li3n said:words
Ive looked at your responses and youre making this so clear cut when it just isnt.Dulcinea said:SNIP
well Im just showing what the hypothetical situation was, like as you said, she didnt do it because she was some kind of deviant and she rased the kid well enoughdunam said:You say it's just her motivations, but you seem to think that it's a little justifying, or ameliorating. Yes, you would want to be more merciful in court towards her compared to someone who would do it in an effort to take revenge, or put the kid in a porno dungeon.Vault101 said: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
Still, it's a reckless disregard for the child's welbeing, and its parent's well being. (which of those spellings is correct?
In essence this situation asks the question: Which is more important: Punishing someone who did a horrid crime in the nicest way possible or making sure the kid gets what's best for him or her?
I'm curious to reading your answers. For now I'll stick with: "What about the rights and what's best for the parents?"
Well it's hard to agree with someone that seems incapable to even consider any implications of his own narrow view of a situation... i might as well try convincing a binary system that 2 exists. OMG, are you Skynet...Dulcinea said:Your assumptions lend your case no strength.
We're obviously not going to agree, so let's drop it. Enjoy your day.
If they're good parents what's best for them is what's best for the child...dunam said:I'm curious to reading your answers. For now I'll stick with: "What about the rights and what's best for the parents?"
Not that I disagree with you...but the kid being described is EXACTLY the kid I would expect to be that maladjusted. Was kidnapped at birth and finds out they've been living with a kidnapper for 13 years? That'd fuck me up FOREVER.Gralian said:People adjust. I doubt that a child would be so maladjusted that they couldn't get used to the idea of new guardians. Not to mention by early teenage years, maturity is starting to develop. The child wouldn't be as dependent on their parents for emotional support and stability at 13 or 14 as opposed to a much younger age between 5 and 10. Hell, you get some minors in their early teens who are more independent than people in their late teens.4li3n said:So, who else want to go back to when Dulcinea is 13-14 and force him to live with new parents that he's never seen before? See how he likes it.
The child is a minor. All rights reside with any guardian(s). A crime was committed when the child was kidnapped and deserves the full force of the law. It will be up to the court to decide how lenient the sentencing should be.
Yeah, it's not true. When I said class divide divide I didn't mean it was violent.Vault101 said: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 rememberLuckyClover95 said: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.
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
And as I just said. Law has absolutely nothing to do with ethics and morality. They are separate systems after all, law is created to control and maintain order so society can function at its best. Morality is an intuitive and if I may say so, objective system(that's a different argument for a different topic)Dulcinea said:I don't think leaving a child in the care of a criminal who has demonstrated their willingness to break the law and steal a life from parents, hiding their actions and living a lie for however many years is all that sound in reasoning.Doom-Slayer said:
It isn't actually a straw man, though. A straw man is...well, here's a good example.zarguhl said:The question is illogical. The kidnapper mother wouldn't raise a child well, she'd be a horrific mother. It's a straw man argument to say there could exist a good parent who did that.
It's like saying "Lets say a man beats a woman until she agrees to marry him, but after that he's a perfect husband and years later people find out what happened should he get in trouble?"
Both hypothetical situations are impossible.
Wow...you just took everything I said out of context and made about...3 unfounded statements. And...mentioned the law again, which as Ive said twice, does not come into moral and ethical debates, and if you think it should, you don't understand what morality is. Lets take this logically if at all possible shall we? Remembering of course I'm talking on a general level, not the specific case in the OP, but if you read my posts you'd know that.Dulcinea said:Hey, if you feel leaving someone in the care of an individual who lives a lie and is willing to steal a child from their parents, effectively crushing them and ruining their life, depriving the child too of growing up with their mum and dad is the more 'right' thing to do, rather than return the stolen child to its home, that's your prerogative.
I'm just glad the law disagrees with you and would send the nutjob to prison for a very long time.