Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Stick to the question at hand. We can speculate all we want about what the other reasons might be for the rejection of their application to adopt. Frankly I don't care to do this other than to acknowledge that there may be other reasons.
The fact remains that the OP was set up to discuss whether or not being different, and in this case specifically vegetarian, should be grounds for refusing the application to adopt. I think we have clearly shown that being a vegetarian is not sufficient ground to reject an application for adoption. Introducing other possibilities is not relevant to the question.
|
I think you show clearly you consider your own views more relevant to whether someone should be allowed to adopt than childcare professionals in the above post.
I should hope that I have clearly shown I would prefer to leave such decisions to people who are trained to make them.
From the original wire story, which is written only from the couples point of view, we can draw a clear inferrence that there was an expectation that the child would be forbidden to eat meat or fish.
Given that the adoption process CAN involve children of any age, it is not possible to exclude the possibility that the child in question could have been aged 10 or even 14 and used to eating meat. To call this speculation and then dismiss it is not satisfactory. We do not know the age of the potential child and we do know it could be anything from 1 month to say 15 years. Therefore the impact of the parents refusing to let the child eat meat (of the govts expectation that they would do so) must be considered for children of all ages.
in my opinion it IS correct that some people are not allowed to adopt.
I do not believe that anyone here would argue that someone with child pornography convictions should be allowed to adopt. I think in fact that we ALL agree that some differences do mean that adoption should not be allowed.
The situation here is that the authorities suspected that this couple would enforce certain dietary restrictions on the child whatever the childs own will was in the matter.
As we do not have the information to hand, we cannot tell if this is a true judgment or not, we can only ask ourselves - if the authorities believe this to be true is it correct to disallow adoption.
Given that we do not know the age of the child who could be adopted.
Given that we do know the authorities believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that the couple would prevent the child eating meat and fish whatever the wishes of the child itself were.
...I consider this a justified position.
_
Furthermore, and more importantly, I support the right of TRAINED PROFESSIONALS to make these difficult judgment calls.
It seems that you instead believe that this isnt the case?
You're entitled to your view, but for you to prevent it as the only possible view seems to me to be a difficult case to argue.