Ab_Normal

Ah, so my high school friend who was raped by her father for years shouldn't have turned him in to the police. Rather, she should have borne her suffering gracefully until she had the economic resources to move out on her own.

I begin to wonder if we live in the same universe. Or maybe you're a cleverly written AI. 'Cause I'm not sure I want to be in the same species as you.

meritocrat

Who is 'society'? Why should literally every member of a society care about ONE child?!

meritocrat

If she got raped then she should eventually come to terms with it. I don't see how that is relevant though.
Because I don't share society's view of safeguarding children?

Ab_Normal

[self-edited]

Because I don't think you have the human trait of empathy. I'm outta here, man, before I get myself in too much trouble. You're either a very good troll or a human being with whom I will no longer interact.

Tom Sawyer

This is your solution to parents raping their children - that the victims should just come to terms with it?

It is also extraordinarily relevant in the sense that this is a case where the parents were not only not taking care of their kids, but actively harming them. Are you saying that this should be ignored by the rest of society?


What should happen in the case of abuse, then? There was a case here in Georgia a few months ago where parents starved their kids and locked them in a closet for months. If you were their neighbour and found out about this happening, would you ignore it because the safety of those children isn't your business or would you try and do something to stop it, like calling Children's Services, etc?

Gunnaheave

Since you regard the novelty of Wetern rights as an argument against it, I hope you will reconsider your reliance on this rathe novel view of faily structure. It is only in modern capitalist societies that nuclear families are so radically isolated from other political/economic interests. In most societies aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. would all take an active role in keeping paents in check. And if the increased interest of government agencies in the welfare of children strikes you as novel, you should consider the fact that it is largely filling in a gap that has occured precisely because the post-war economies of places like the U.S. have effectively placed children in a uniquely vulnerable position with respect to their parents.

meritocrat

Again, who is 'society' in this instance? Do you mean literally everyone?



They wouldn't be my business in the sense that they are not my responsiblity.

Tom Sawyer

Yes, I mean literally everybody. That doesn't mean that each person should go over to the house and give the kids food or anything like that, though. Part of the benefit of living in a society is that tasks can be delegated to certain members who are then supported by the rest of society through taxation and the like. There are specific agencies, such as Children's Services who deal with the issue directly and the rest of society supports their efforts through taxation.

Despite the fact that society as a whole doesn't directly deal with the issue, it is the responsibility of everyone in society to let the people who do directly deal with the issue know that there is an issue to deal with. As a member of society, it is as much our responsibility to let the authorities know when child abuse is going on as it is to call the fire department when the house across the street catches on fire.

OK, imagine this scenario. While you're at work one day, someone kicks in the door of your house and starts walking out with your stuff and throwing it in a van. Your neighbour is sitting on his patio watching this happen. Do you think that he should:

a) Call the police and have them try and stop this guy so your stuff won't get stolen.
b) Ignore the situation since protecting your property isn't his responsibility.

Please explain why you have chosen either option and also, would your answer change if it was you sitting on the patio watching this happen at your neighbour's house?

meritocrat

I could help my neighbour through altruistic feelings but I see no reason to 'care' for the child.


Please explain why you have chosen either option and also, would your answer change if it was you sitting on the patio watching this happen at your neighbour's house?[/quote]

Again, alturism and 'decency' if you will.

extinctionist

Missing the point.

Society protects children not for the sake of one child, but for any child, now or in the future, who may be unlucky enough to be born into an abusive family. It sees these children as part of itself, which is why it wants to take care of them.