End of Roe Vs Wade?

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
There's plenty of cases where there isn't and noting the number of people on the planet is hardly relevant. If you fall through a piece of ice in the arctic ocean then there ain't gonna be many of those 8 billion people around to help are there?

We're not talking about "falling through the ice in the arctic," though, are we. We're talking about families in neighborhoods.

There's no good reason for a child in such circumstances to die, period,

Agreed!

not when there's authorities that could be called in to prevent such a tragedy from coming about

What you just said assumes that all of that neglect happens in a vacuum, which just simply isn't the case.

- which there are.

It's not the government's responsibility to care for people from cradle to grave.

What's immoral is depriving children in such situations outside help that could save their life.

No one is depriving anyone of anything.

And the solution I have proposed above allows the government to stick to its two sole responsibilities, rather than trying to care for children.

Your gun culture hardly came about through the Bible

Our CURRENT gun culture, sure.

I'm talking about 100-250 years ago, however.

and America has the most unenviable record in tragedies relating.

And guess what, the worst places in the US are run by, you guessed it, GUN CONTROL FREAKS!
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Removing a child from his parents is child abuse.

Punish the parents, don't abuse the child.



They are if the government takes their child that they don't really care about away. At the very least, the child they don't care about enough to neglect them being taken away means they have less of a burden on them.



Wrongfully so.



All of which should be taken care of by the parents, as part of their punishment for abusing or neglecting their child.



No. The alternative is to punish the parents in such a way that they fear going back to neglecting their child, so that they begin to take care of their child.

Flogging them for neglect/abuse (or execution if the child has died as a result of such), and forcing them to pay for any medical care needed to bring the child back up to health. That way the government doesn't have to scrounge up the money through taxing the people to pay for it.
Removing a child from abusive parents is care. Leaving a child in an abusive environment is complicit to abuse. There is no good reason for a child to die as a result when preventative measures are at hand. Frankly, this is going around in circles and hashing out the same over and over isn't going anywhere. This is my last on the issue.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Removing a child from abusive parents is care.

No, it's not.

Leaving a child in an abusive environment is complicit to abuse.

Who said we're leaving them in the abusive environment?

What is it about "Punish the parents so that they stop neglecting/abusing their child" that you don't understand?

What is it about "Punish the parents for murdering their child through neglect/abuse, so that the next pair of parents are deterred from doing the same" do you not understand?

There is no good reason for a child to die as a result when preventative measures are at hand.

Such as punishing the parents!? YES!

Letting the government step in to take care of the child? NO!
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
So we should just kill, babies!

Hooray!
Nobody actually said that except you. But if you thought that banning abortion would make societal problems associated with foster care magically disappear, guess again. Those things are going to get worse, not better.
 
Top