User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 95

Thread: abortion

  1. #71
    Mamma said knock you out Mempy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    If a child is in clear and present danger, that is a good indicator that the child is not being raised the "right" way. Is it possible to know if the definition of "clear and present danger" extends beyond the current definition used by CPS?

    There may also be a pertinent distinction between allowing a couple to bring a child into the world, and allowing a couple to keep a child once they have been allowed to bring that child into world.

    Thoughts?
    I think what Ivy is bringing up is entirely valid: she says she had her first child when neither she nor her husband had insurance, and she gives the statement that she was relatively poor at the time. Is that clear and present danger? It is a question of proximity and degree: HOW poor, HOW bad-off, etc. There's a lot of gray area even when trying to define "clear and present danger," but I think what Ivy wants to prevent is a highly ambiguous standard that could prevent people from having children (or keeping them after they're already conceived) even in absence of identifiable danger. Furthermore, if a court had ruled she and her husband afforded "clear and present danger" for a newborn child, based on their financial circumstances at the time, she wouldn't have her first born today. I agree with her that the less gray area, the better, and that parents, if possible, should be given the benefit of the doubt. If the government is worried that a particular atmosphere and environment is dangerous to a child, but isn't able to call it "clear and present danger," the best they can do, I suppose, is have a regular case worker come in and evaluate the situation with a practical and unbiased eye. Another helpful thing to do would be to afford that family money, food stamps and practical items to make sure they're not going to dip below sustenance level.
    They're running just like you
    For you, and I, wooo
    So people, people, need some good ol' love

  2. #72
    Mamma said knock you out Mempy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,226

    Default

    I wiki'd what Child Protection Services looks most critically at, and this is what I found.

    Each state must also have statutes that provide more detailed definitions of what child maltreatment means, for instance, defining terms such as:

    [1] abuse, which might include:
    • physical abuse
    • sexual abuse
    • emotional abuse (not recognized by all states)

    [2] neglect, which might include:
    • lack of supervision
    • failure to provide necessary medical or remedial care
    • inappropriate discipline
    • exposure to domestic violence
    • exposure to parental substance abuse

    [3] alleged perpetrator, which might include:
    • parents
    • other relatives
    • other in-home adults
    • guardians, custodians, caregiver/caretaker
    • daycare staff (not all states)
    • residential treatment (e.g., group home) staff (not all states)
    So it does vary from state to state. Do you think that that about covers it, Owl, or are you unsatisfied with how CPS seems to run things? Here's the wiki page I looked at, by the way: Child Protective Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    They're running just like you
    For you, and I, wooo
    So people, people, need some good ol' love

  3. #73
    Mamma said knock you out Mempy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,226

    Default

    Another point I have to make is this: what happens in cases of severe depressions, droughts and wars? What if the government had told people not to have children during the Cold War because there was an external enemy posing a "clear and present, catastrophic danger" to the US? Is it fair to deny otherwise capable adults from having children in times of need and desperation? I'd say it's not recommended to bring a child into a world where circumstances look insurmountable, but you have to admit there's a HECK of a lot of gray area. People who aren't well-off today may be better off a few months from now. People who don't give their children the best structure or discipline can reform their ways and start doing a better job. It's not cut-and-dry. I think the best way to handle it is generally how CPS seems to handle it now: if there seems to be danger that isn't quite "clear and present," the family environment will be checked in upon now and then until the danger passes. It's certainly not perfect, and there are mistakes made daily, I'm sure.

    I remember the poignant scene in Mrs. Doubtfire, when, right after he's caught impersonating an old female maid, he goes before the same judge that first ruled that full custody rights would be given to the mother. The first time, the reason was because he had no job and no residence. The second time, it was because the judge thought that he had psychological problems and presented a danger to the children. It was obvious to the viewers that he posed no harm to them and that he'd only gone to such preposterous lengths (impersonating a woman for months) because his children were like oxygen to him (nevermind even I might think that behavior was a bit nuts if a real person had done it). I just remember how horrible that scene made me feel for him. There are parents out there who are really trying, who love their children, and, if they had the means, would provide for their children as well as anyone else. When is an environment just too dangerous for a child to be put in? It seems so subjective, even with the "clear and present danger" clause.

    Edit: In hindsite, I am getting SO FREAKING off-topic! Sorry!
    They're running just like you
    For you, and I, wooo
    So people, people, need some good ol' love

  4. #74
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mempy View Post
    I think what Ivy is bringing up is entirely valid: she says she had her first child when neither she nor her husband had insurance, and she gives the statement that she was relatively poor at the time. Is that clear and present danger? It is a question of proximity and degree: HOW poor, HOW bad-off, etc. There's a lot of gray area even when trying to define "clear and present danger," but I think what Ivy wants to prevent is a highly ambiguous standard that could prevent people from having children (or keeping them after they're already conceived) even in absence of identifiable danger. Furthermore, if a court had ruled she and her husband afforded "clear and present danger" for a newborn child, based on their financial circumstances at the time, she wouldn't have her first born today. I agree with her that the less gray area, the better, and that parents, if possible, should be given the benefit of the doubt. If the government is worried that a particular atmosphere and environment is dangerous to a child, but isn't able to call it "clear and present danger," the best they can do, I suppose, is have a regular case worker come in and evaluate the situation with a practical and unbiased eye. Another helpful thing to do would be to afford that family money, food stamps and practical items to make sure they're not going to dip below sustenance level.
    I wasn't even thinking about sustenance levels; a couple's ability to merely sustain a child physically has very little to do with the good of the child and the good of the community. Physical life without spiritual life is worthless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mempy View Post
    I wiki'd what Child Protection Services looks most critically at, and this is what I found.

    [...]

    So it does vary from state to state. Do you think that that about covers it, Owl, or are you unsatisfied with how CPS seems to run things? Here's the wiki page I looked at, by the way: Child Protective Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I'm unsatisfied with a lot of things. I'm glad CPS exists, but making CPS better would require making the institutions that support CPS better. Treating the symptoms without treating the disease wouldn't help.

  5. #75
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    I'm not sure I want it regulated. But C.P.S. already takes children away from bad parents, and newborns are taken away from mothers who give birth in prison.
    Whoa, I think you are mistakenly misrepresenting that. CPS is obligated to do whatever it can to maintain the family. They very seldom ever permanently take away children. Usually CPS first helps families get supportive services (daycare, respite care, counseling) and if the child is in perceived danger they will utilize a combination of supportive services with temporary substitutive care (foster homes, kinship care, groups homes) until the parent or parents can provide sufficient care. Only in cases of extensive and/or persistent abuse and neglect would CPS ever seek long term substitutive care for children (Resident programs, Adoption). It is far more cost effective, as well as ethical, for CPS to do what it can to keep the family together. Of course there are social workers out there who don't follow the NASW code of ethics and ignore ideas like "informed consent." Some new mothers in prison aren't even informed that they don't have to give up their child for permanent adoption, and are more or less tricked into doing it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  6. #76
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    I wasn't even thinking about sustenance levels; a couple's ability to merely sustain a child physically has very little to do with the good of the child and the good of the community. Physical life without spiritual life is worthless.

    I'm unsatisfied with a lot of things. I'm glad CPS exists, but making CPS better would require making the institutions that support CPS better. Treating the symptoms without treating the disease wouldn't help.
    Let's take this out of the abstract. Specifically, what would you like CPS to require of parents that it isn't requiring now? What kind of requirements for providing a "spiritual life" to one's children would you prescribe?
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  7. #77
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mempy View Post
    Another point I have to make is this: what happens in cases of severe depressions, droughts and wars? What if the government had told people not to have children during the Cold War because there was an external enemy posing a "clear and present, catastrophic danger" to the US? Is it fair to deny otherwise capable adults from having children in times of need and desperation? I'd say it's not recommended to bring a child into a world where circumstances look insurmountable, but you have to admit there's a HECK of a lot of gray area. People who aren't well-off today may be better off a few months from now. People who don't give their children the best structure or discipline can reform their ways and start doing a better job. It's not cut-and-dry. I think the best way to handle it is generally how CPS seems to handle it now: if there seems to be danger that isn't quite "clear and present," the family environment will be checked in upon now and then until the danger passes. It's certainly not perfect, and there are mistakes made daily, I'm sure.

    I remember the poignant scene in Mrs. Doubtfire, when, right after he's caught impersonating an old female maid, he goes before the same judge that first ruled that full custody rights would be given to the mother. The first time, the reason was because he had no job and no residence. The second time, it was because the judge thought that he had psychological problems and presented a danger to the children. It was obvious to the viewers that he posed no harm to them and that he'd only gone to such preposterous lengths (impersonating a woman for months) because his children were like oxygen to him (nevermind even I might think that behavior was a bit nuts if a real person had done it). I just remember how horrible that scene made me feel for him. There are parents out there who are really trying, who love their children, and, if they had the means, would provide for their children as well as anyone else. When is an environment just too dangerous for a child to be put in? It seems so subjective, even with the "clear and present danger" clause.

    Edit: In hindsite, I am getting SO FREAKING off-topic! Sorry!
    The mods can move these posts if they feel it is necessary. But I think that these issues are more basic to the problem of abortion and need to be discussed if abortion is to be addressed meaningfully.

    Nightmare scenarios of the government forbidding procreation for whatever reason can be imagined. This is horrible; it does happen, and it's happening today. It even happens through genocide.

    What have we to fear? Even if we were kept from having children, by whatever means, would that keep us from doing good if we wanted to?

  8. #78
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Whoa, I think you are mistakenly misrepresenting that. CPS is obligated to do whatever it can to maintain the family. They very seldom ever permanently take away children. Usually CPS first helps families get supportive services (daycare, respite care, counseling) and if the child is in perceived danger they will utilize a combination of supportive services with temporary substitutive care (foster homes, kinship care, groups homes) until the parent or parents can provide sufficient care. Only in cases of extensive and/or persistent abuse and neglect would CPS ever seek long term substitutive care for children (Resident programs, Adoption). It is far more cost effective, as well as ethical, for CPS to do what it can to keep the family together. Of course there are social workers out there who don't follow the NASW code of ethics and ignore ideas like "informed consent." Some new mothers in prison aren't even informed that they don't have to give up their child for permanent adoption, and are more or less tricked into doing it.
    Hey Kiddo ! It's been a while. I hope you're well.

    I don't disagree. This is why I'm contemplating whether or not there is a relevant difference between allowing a couple to procreate in the first place and taking their children away after they have been permitted to have children. (And if there were a law against having children w/o the permission of the state, that does not mean the children ought to be removed immediately after they are born.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Let's take this out of the abstract. Specifically, what would you like CPS to require of parents that it isn't requiring now? What kind of requirements for providing a "spiritual life" to one's children would you prescribe?
    Well, for starters, I'd require a much better education be provided for every child. 32-40 students per teacher is absurd. I'd like to see no more than 16 students per teacher. I think any parent that is satisfied with the public education system in the U.S. does not know what the "right" way to raise a child is.

    What are parents teaching their children, anyway? Is it permissible to teach your children anything? Would we allow a private school to teach Nazism? What about universal naturalism?

  9. #79
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    Well, for starters, I'd require a much better education be provided for every child. 32-40 students per teacher is absurd. I'd like to see no more than 16 students per teacher. I think any parent that is satisfied with the public education system in the U.S. does not know what the "right" way to raise a child is.

    What are parents teaching their children, anyway? Is it permissible to teach your children anything? Would we allow a private school to teach Nazism? What about universal naturalism?
    Well, right on to the first part, and that's why we picked a public school with a class size cap of 14 and a teaching philosophy with which we agree. Not everyone has that option, though, and not everyone is able to homeschool, whether for logistical or temperamental reasons.

    I don't know what the laws are on what private schools can teach, but I don't think I'm in favor of restricting it further. I think Waldorf schools are a little (okay, a lot) nutty in some of the things they teach, but I would never in a million years want to make it illegal to choose Waldorf education. Maybe one reason I'm okay with it is that I don't believe kids are little buckets that just fill up with whatever beliefs and knowledge you give them- they're fully capable of rejecting what they're given as they grow into adulthood. Hence the number of ex-Christians on these forums.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  10. #80
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    Hey Kiddo ! It's been a while. I hope you're well.


    I don't disagree. This is why I'm contemplating whether or not there is a relevant difference between allowing a couple to procreate in the first place and taking their children away after they have been permitted to have children. (And if there were a law against having children w/o the permission of the state, that does not mean the children ought to be removed immediately after they are born.)
    There is a huge difference between taking kids away from those who have consistently and/or extensively demonstrated that they cannot be good parents and restricting people who have never had kids from having them. The way you are approaching the issue reminds me of the Shadow Children books I read growing up.

    Well, for starters, I'd require a much better education be provided for every child. 32-40 students per teacher is absurd. I'd like to see no more than 16 students per teacher. I think any parent that is satisfied with the public education system in the U.S. does not know what the "right" way to raise a child is.
    And who is going to pay for all this?

    What are parents teaching their children, anyway? Is it permissible to teach your children anything? Would we allow a private school to teach Nazism? What about universal naturalism?
    Economic restraints keep most parents from spending time with their kids, let alone teaching them anything. You gotta work to eat.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

Similar Threads

  1. Abortion: The Ethics of Liberty
    By TheLastMohican in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 03-21-2009, 07:49 PM
  2. Abortion, gay rights, and other social issues.
    By Angry Ayrab in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 11:54 PM
  3. Proposed (Bush Admin.) Rule equates Contraception to Abortion
    By spirilis in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-22-2008, 10:22 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO