Holy crap, folks...this one's a doozy...

[Maze1125]

snip

That makes absolutely no sense.

She's never going to stay in America without a court case, and if the judge decides she can stay she'll get legally adopted and get all that stuff.

Without permission from the parents, they can't. Guatemala won't allow it, and refuse to send her the paperwork. The biological parents and national authority trumped the adoption, so they have no case.

Because it's impossible for the paperwork to be created from scratch?
Oh wait, no it's not. It may be hard, but it's quite possible.

The Hague abduction convention clearly lies all this out. Its the US government that refuses to send her back because the treaty wasn't "retroactive" despite it containing wording that it is.

Its the US dragging its heels on an treaty they have a legal obligation to fulfill.

Again, I don't care in the slightest.
If the law says she should go to the biological mother then the law is wrong and should be changed, or bypassed for this case.

snip

"Blah blah blah, law this, law that. Blah blah blah, repercussions, blah."

None of that matters in the slightest as to what is morally right.

Yeah, the law isn't designed to deal with a case like this, no shit, yeah people might view it badly (or they might not, or people from other countries really might not care that much at all, you don't know any better than me) but none of that matters.

What matters is that the right thing to do is leave the child with her current parents.

The right thing can be an uphill struggle, but that doesn't change the fact that it's right.

My apologies I seem to have momentarily forgotten that law doesn't matter. In that moment of madness I must have forgotten all about the magical fairy godmother who waves her wand and makes everything better by spreading love and compassion throughout the world...

No wait... No I didn't.. Laws and ethics still govern our daily lives like it or not. Its cases like these have absolutely no use for people who do not understand the realities of living in a society built upon laws and justice.

You say you have no wish to return to your biological mother, well the law has clearly ruled in your favour so don't pick and choose when you want to accept the laws of society.

None of the changes what I said in the slightest.

I don't care what the law says. What matters is what is right. If the law disagrees with what is right, then the law is wrong.
I never said the law didn't have power, but might does not make right.

 

[Maze1125]

Unless you have actual evidence to say what is right or wrong, shut the hell up.

Are you really suggesting a law that returns internationally kidnapped children is wrong? Really? Just because of your own personal bias?

Unless you can give objective evidence, its an appeal to emotion. A fallacy used only by those who cannot control their own personal emotions in any way.

and actually, the Hagues law does prohibit it just being "made up." So the US cannot legally make up someone's paperwork without international backlash. Period.

What the hell?
There is no objectivity when it comes to morals.

You think that the law is somehow the highest moral standard. But where's your objective evidence for that?

As for international backlash, why must there be some?
Obviously Guatemala would get upset, but there no reason to assume any other country would. International treaties are broken all the time, with no-one complaining.

You know what is else is a fallacy the Appeal to Fallacy, which is the act of throwing the word "fallacy" at your opponent without really know what you're talking about.

 

[Rose and Thorn]

This is a tough situation.

In reality, they are both her parents, but the adoptive parents raised her with there culture and change like that for one so young could be dangerous. Than again, the blood mother has every right to want her baby back after it was kidnapped. After all she had to push the thing out and carry it for 9 months.

I think if I had to choose I would say give it back to the real mother, though it would be tough for both parties in either decision that is made.

The only solution for this is obvious: Rock, Paper, Scissors.

 

[Maze1125]

snip

"Blah blah blah, law this, law that. Blah blah blah, repercussions, blah."

None of that matters in the slightest as to what is morally right.

Yeah, the law isn't designed to deal with a case like this, no shit, yeah people might view it badly (or they might not, or people from other countries really might not care that much at all, you don't know any better than me) but none of that matters.

What matters is that the right thing to do is leave the child with her current parents.

The right thing can be an uphill struggle, but that doesn't change the fact that it's right.

Could you project any harder?

We get it, you love your adoptive parents.

Really? I mean, really?

A page ago people were complaining that no-one knew what the experience was like themselves.
Then someone who has actually had a vaguely similar experience gives their opinion, and suddenly they're "too emotional" or "projecting".
Double standards or what.

I guess you were raised by your biological parents, and you're in favour of her returning to her biological mother?
Wow, could you project any harder?

Fact is, you know fuck all about these people. All you actually know is that they CLAIM to have not known that she was kidnapped. That's it. You don't even know if they really didn't buy a kidnapped child because it was the path of least resistance. Nothing in the article gives any real reason to believe that these are wonderful people that she should be staying with. In fact, a few things in the article could be claimed cause for suspicion.

And we don't know anything about the biological mother either, for all we know she sold her daughter to the traffickers for a quick buck.

We don't know anything about either side, so we have give them both the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Brutal Peanut]

I lean heavily towards the decision to send her back to her biological mother. However, she should also be allowed to remain in contact with the people who raised her for that period of time, maybe even spending school breaks with them if the adoptive couple still wish to see her. Cutting off all contact (from either party), without any real explanation - is not okay.

 

[Micalas]

Kill the kid. That way there isn't a winner or loser in this case

 

[Maze1125]

So are you suggesting that if she sold her child it would have been a good idea to immediantly call attention to her being gone? Do you even think for a split second before you post your nonsense?

It's fairly obvious that you are EXTREMLY biased. You know fuck all and are outright claiming:

"I AM RIGHT! SHE BELONGS WITH THE ADOPTIVE PARENTS WHO COULD HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN PART OF THE KIDNAPPING AND I TOTALLY HAVE REASONS OTHER THEN MY OBVIOUS MENTAL PROBLEM BECAUSE MY MOTHER TRIED TO TAKE ME AWAY FROM MY ADOPTIVE PARENTS I AM SIMPLY NOT NAMING THESE REASONS!!!"

You are projecting and if you can't stop you need to get out of the thread and take a walk until you've cleared your mind.

You're just randomly insulting me now.
I'm not projecting, this is a completely different situation than mine.

I have given reasons on the previous pages. This particular part of the discussion didn't seem to benefit from me repeating them, so I didn't.

It seems like you're just posting for the sake of flaming people. To the point of making stuff up to attack me with.

 

[Freechoice]

Snip

Well, I don't have any knowledge about legal technicalities, but will the child really be considered American (without court intervention)? No passport, social security number etc. These documents don't just appear, nevermind pressure from the Guatemala government demanding a kidnapped (and in their eyes, still being kipnapped) child back.

Fair enough, but I would imagine that this turning into a press event will get someone to file some paperwork. Everything I didn't quote I agree with.

The argument that the child should be staying with the adoptive parents simply because due to a better standard of life in the US is flawed and reeks of cultural bias - thus should not be used as the the major argument for the adoptive parents,

Really, don't try to argue that. I'm sick of reading these statements implying that Guatemala has even remotely similar living and educational standards as the United States. It's bullshit and you know it.

however the bio mother has herself been completely reasonable and said that she would accept having visitation rights.

That's more than fair. I looked at the report where she said that and thought "that is responsibility there." I reiterate this though: leaving the child in the United States will be in her best interest as it will give her more opportunities and less risk than living in Guatemala.

 

[Maze1125]

Oh really? Wanna know why? Because that paperwork won't hold up until Guatemala allows it. It will be struck down in any court, any where. It has no validity.

You're still making absolutely no sense.
If a court orders the paperwork be made, then the paperwork would hold up in court.

Objectively, there are causes for concern about the adoptive parents. Yet you seem to use your own personal bias to make it out to be a black and white issue.

Oh good, more personal attacks.
It seems no-one on your side thinks your arguments can hold up on their own sake, so you have to pad them out by calling the opposition biased.

Ever thought of becoming a politician?

1. They hired a PR firm for the case. Minimum cost is 10K. Yet they complain they were too poor to afford an American child. For one, why would they need some good PR instead of a fucking lawyer? Secondly, why did they go for the country where adoptions are known to be kidnapped if they had so much money? Where did they suddenly get so much cash, unless an organization is involved? If that's the case, which organization?

2. The US government made a VERY PUBLIC announcement that adoption services stay AWAY from Guatemalan adoptions. Period. Anyone who researched adoptions for 10 seconds on google would know this. Any reputable firm would have stayed away. There is NO WAY the parents would NOT know this. If they didn't they just went in blindly and threw money at someone to get any kid.

3. Now does this sound like a responsible adult to you? Hiring a PR firm, not researching adoptions, diving head first into something they know nothing about? No, they don't.

Maybe they came into money since the adoption.
Maybe they didn't even consider that adoptions could be problematic.

Maybe the just made a mistake.

But, yeah, it would have totally been better if they hadn't adopted the girl and she'd just been left with the traffickers. I'm sure she would have had a much better quality of life then...

And that stuff about the PR firm has already been addressed. It would still be a sensible move if they were perfectly innocent. PR is very important either way.

Morality can be objective if you provide objective evidence a choice has more negative consequences or suspicion. Right now, the adoptive parents are looking very suspicious, and the legal consequences will be devastating for the kid.

Except you've proven none of that, none at all.
You're randomly pulling out things you think are suspicious, but could just be honest mistakes.
We don't know anything about either side. You're just pulling up bits of circumstantial evidence to try and grubby the name of people you know nothing about to try and make your case better.

If your argument that she should be sent back hinges on the adoptive parents being "suspicious" then it really isn't a very good argument at all.

Also, pro-tip, both "negative consequences" and "suspicion" are subjective things.

 

[ceeqanguel]

Funny how very few people mentionned the fact that, within this premise: the child WAS KIDNAPPED!

First of all, the child will go back to his/her natural parent/s.

Second of all: The child will still retain his/her double nationality. In this case: Guatemaltan/American.

Both families will have to find an arrangement, and the kid HAS NO SAY IN THIS BECAUSE IT IS A KID!

Now we can worry about the really important stuff. If this situatio n happened, then there is a cause and effect. FBI will start with where the adoptive parents got the child to begin with. Then investigations might turn up all that has happened since the baby was born.

Then we might either uproot a child-slavery business or such horrible things.

We live in 2012, but child slavery, sex-slavery, human-trades still exist.

THAT is the real question we as a collective should be debating about

 

[newwiseman]

The mother can have visitation but it wouldn't be in the best interest of the child to ship her to her mother.

 

[DeepComet5581]

I think everybody needs to chill out before people start spamming that Report button.

I'm not going to voice an opinion on this, because all it's going to do is get caught up in this flame war.