Holy crap, folks...this one's a doozy...
- Thread starter RJ 17
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Why not? I've been civil for this. You would probably replace the word "civil" with "emotionally stunted" but I can take that.Monoochrom said:I cannot give that post the answer it deserves without getting a infraction. I cannot word how impossibly stupid that post was within the confines of the code of conduct. It simply cannot be done, atleast not by me.Vern5 said:Monoochrom said:So instead of forming an intelligent and informative response to the admittedly unsympathetic things I say both of you opt to run and hide behind a facade of morality? Well, I wont stop you but I was hoping to come away from this thread by learning something interesting. Adios! I eagerly look forward to more stirring future debates.Raven said:
What is best for the child's welfare to stay with a well off family in a first world country or go live the ghetto in a third world country, which makes more sense?
You have a very low opinion of second graders. Most 7-year-olds are fairly lingual, and very comprehensive.Raven said:
Besides, regardless of what the biological mother remembers, the girl has no memory of the first mother and believes she has lived with her current family her whole life. Taking her away would be a crime, and entirely unfounded. Another person suggested the mother be allowed visitation rights, while the child stays in her adopted family. I second this idea. The mother should be comprehensive enough to know that her daughter belongs with the family she knows and loves. Would you like to be pulled away from the arms of the family you've been lovingly raised by and be given to a woman you're certain you've never before, just because the world says you're her daughter/son? It's cruel, and it shouldn't happen.
Okay, that makes more sense now.Mortai Gravesend said:
Technically, I guess you could call it rewarding the adoptive parents if you want to consider the child as some sort of prize to be won or lost as opposed to an innocent human being. I'm still of the mind that the adoptive parents should suffer some sort of penalty for knowing that the child was kidnapped and not reporting this information to the correct authorities.
However, what should truly determine the foster parents' right to keep the child should be their parenting abilities and not their criminal record (unless said records fall into the category of domestic violence, drug-abuse, murder, rape, etc.). The child has already spent the largest portion of her life with these foster parents and removing her from that environment (provided her foster parents are good parents) could be traumatizing for her.
On the other hand, if the foster parents' parenting abilities are found to be lacking (as discovered by a competent social worker or another specialist of this kind) then the child should be returned to her true parents.
"It's kind of hard to stop people from committing the same offense when they get off free with exactly what they want." <- This bothers me. Are you telling me that, should the foster parents keep custody of the child, their victory will prompt a trend of similar child-kidnapping/adoption situations?
Mortai Gravesend said:
While I respect your enthusiasm for making sure that criminals get what's coming to them, my primary concern goes towards the ultimate well being of that child. This is not solely an issue of punishing criminals; the future of an innocent child is at stake.
It is an argument of the utmost importance when we are talking about traumatizing a child.
This issue is far from being so simple. Like I said before, depending upon what happens withe the custody battle, that child's life could be saved or ruined as a result.
The only deterrent I can think of would be to find all of the people within that shady agency and shut them down permanently and with extreme prejudice as a warning to all other agencies like them. It is not fair that families that are already together should be broken up now just to prove a point. Again, my sympathies and worry go to the child rather than the foster parents; she needs the family that raised her more than she needs the one that birthed her.
(This section by section response stuff is annoying)Mortai Gravesend said:
Look, if you're just going to say things like "No, it isn't" and "Prove it" then we're going to be here all day.
If you really want my "cold-hearted" assessment of this whole debacle then it would probably go something like this: Nobody should get that kid.
Put that child up for adoption with someone else, someone better, because none of these parents deserve to keep her. The foster parents went through criminal dealings in order to get her and so, are unfit to keep her if they are willing to ignore the law so effortlessly. The original parents were not able to keep their own child safe and so, do not deserve to have her back.
Why do you care more about punishing the foster parents than the upbringing of the child? What makes you think that the birth parents are better suited to raise the kid? You do know that no amount of deterrence can stop those who are desperate for a child?
Whether or not there are smart children is meaningless, just as whether or not there are idiotic adults. A line is (perhaps arbitrarily) drawn based on the average human's decision making ability. Across the world, it has been agreed upon that a person is an adult at roughly 18, meaning they are responsible for themselves and capable of acting in their own best interest.Vern5 said:
That is why we have a distinction between child and adult.
I don't have to prove anything to you. I've given my reasons so what are yours?Mortai Gravesend said:
You seem to believe that this problem ends when the foster parents are punished and the child is torn from her most familiar setting to be placed with people she hardly knows. What proof do you have that the child will not be psychologically harmed by being torn from her current family?
Everything you have posted (section-by-section) points to you being more concerned with deterring other adoption agencies than sparing an innocent child from having to choose between two families or, worse, being forced from a familiar family to a family of strangers.
What is point of saying "in the real world bad things happen"? In the real world bad things can also be prevented. If bad things always happened then what would be the point of having home security? If bad things just happened all the time then you might as well leave your own home unlocked with the doors wide open.
Now, i'm open to having my opinions changed by good reasoning. Please try to phrase your response without attempting to insult me as I have only shown you respect and civility.
If you're just going to rage at me then I see no reason to answer you. This argument was over before it began since you're just looking to see me flustered by some passionate shouting rather than simple reasoning. If I made you angry then I apologize; that was not my intent. I had an opinion and you challenged me on its validity and that is admirable.Mortai Gravesend said:
The reason I would prefer to "cry over one child" without any concern for the parents or the adoption agencies is because the fate of one child is much more easy to control than adoption crimes that have yet to be committed. The "big Picture", as you call it, is too big to control by anyone. Deterrence is an effective sounding theory when it comes to crime prevention but it is not a sure thing. Just because criminals are arrested and even put to death does not mean there are no more crimes. Like you said "in the real world bad things happen" and sometimes they are impossible to predict much less prevent.
We are dealing with a situation that has already happened. A child was kidnapped at a very young age and raised by an adoptive family for most of her life. In her mind, the people that raised her are her family. They were the ones who were there for her. You could spend all day trying to tell her that the strange lady claiming to be her mother is, in fact, her mother and that child will still think of her foster mother first when you ask her "who's your mommy?"
Again, I would ask that you try not to insult me by claiming that I am having "tantrums" and such. I have yet to treat you with such disdain.
It's entirely possible that she was kidnapped, abandoned, and then discovered by authorities, who then put her into an adoption agency.
As far as the morality goes, it is a very difficult issue. I'm thinking that the child should go back to her original mother, providing that she can properly care for the child. It would be sad for teh adoptive parents, but it seems like the right thing to do.
As far as the morality goes, it is a very difficult issue. I'm thinking that the child should go back to her original mother, providing that she can properly care for the child. It would be sad for teh adoptive parents, but it seems like the right thing to do.