Jump to content

Welcome to Rune Tips, the first ever RuneScape help site. We aim to offer skill guides, quest guides, maps, calculators, informative databases, tips, and much more to help you get the most from the Massive Online Adventure Game, RuneScape, by Jagex Ltd © 2009.

Report Ad

Welcome to Forum.Tip.It
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

mother deemed too stupid to keep child


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1
michel555555
[ Display Name History ]

michel555555

    Varrock Guard

  • Members
  • 1,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:alberta, canada
  • Joined:9 October 2007
  • RuneScape Status:P2P
  • RSN:michel555555
  • Clan:fealty stars
looking through the forums today and i was surprised that no one posted a story about this.



http://women.timeson...icle6396039.ece

http://www.telegraph...g-up-child.html

Second article is better but still not much information if anyone has a better one can you please post it.



So what does tip it think? should a government have the right to take away children from parents who they think are not inteligent enough to care for them. And what exactly determins if a mother is unfit to raise her own children.



I disagree with this and hope that is gets overturned because how can you base the ability of a person to raise a child based on IQ? And the fact that the questions that were used to determin if she was mentally fit enough had nothing to do with raising a child but were about who wrote mcbeth and other things that were not relevant, although most people would get that question should it be used to determin if someone is fit enough to raise a child?

michel555555.png

click you know you wanna

#2
deathdrow
[ Display Name History ]

deathdrow

    Black Knight Trainer

  • Members
  • 3,327 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:defnitely not washington dc that place is evil
  • Joined:27 July 2008
  • RuneScape Status:None
  • RSN:deathdrow666
IQ tests are biased, so they shouldn't determine wether or not she should be able to keep her child based on that, and unless she's a complete moron who can barely take care of herself, The government doesn't have the right to take her kid away.

I didn't read the article though, so. scrote.

#3
Star.
[ Display Name History ]

Star.

    Retired Moderator

  • Members
  • 4,338 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Border of Gensokyo
  • Joined:4 January 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None

Her daughter, K, was born prematurely and officials felt Rachel lacked the intelligence to cope with her complex medical needs Baby K was released from hospital into care and is currently with a foster family.


If that is the case then shouldn't that have a nurse help her with that stuff or something? I feel that they should have done that instead of taking the baby away, ease her into a daily routine.

Posted Image
☢ CAUTION ☢ CAUTION ☢ CAUTION ☢ CAUTION ☢


#4
obfuscator
[ Display Name History ]

obfuscator

    Tanned Caveman

  • Members
  • 20,231 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:6 March 2008
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
I don't think they should be allowed to do that; however if the child is legitimately in danger due to the mother's lack of "cleverness" then they may have no other choice.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti


#5
scn64
[ Display Name History ]

scn64

    Bear Fur

  • Members
  • 378 posts
  • Location:Illinois
  • Joined:14 April 2007
It seems like there's some important information missing from the story. What initially caused officials to decide she wasn't intelligent enough? Was she acting like a raving lunatic or something? I know she took an IQ test, but what prompted the test in the first place?
Posted Image

#6
mmmcannibalism
[ Display Name History ]

mmmcannibalism

    Demon Vanquisher

  • Members
  • 2,117 posts
  • Joined:22 July 2008
From that article, I dont see how they found her mentally incopetant. While the actual concept of protecting a child if there parents were too dumb(I mean just above mentally [developmentally delayed]ed); it sure seems that they overstepped there bounds here. Someone should be getting a letter telling them to resign or being fired after her appeal.
Posted Image
Orthodoxy is unconciousness
the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.

#7
noble_aloof
[ Display Name History ]

noble_aloof

    Varrock Guard

  • Members
  • 1,326 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Dunder mifflin
  • Joined:27 January 2008
  • RuneScape Status:P2P
  • RSN:Noble Aloof
  • Clan:Fenghahe's Elite Investing Guild
the most ironic thing is that she probably had to have a "professional" write her statements that were included in the article.
Staking: 4+ mil
Current Status: Training defense

#8
runescapeloser22
[ Display Name History ]

runescapeloser22

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,180 posts
She named her daughter, "K"?

#9
Robert_de_Sable
[ Display Name History ]

Robert_de_Sable

    Dark Wizard Robe

  • Members
  • 943 posts
  • Joined:12 September 2007

She named her daughter, "K"?


#-o



They have no right to do this. Unless she actually has no capability to raise the child, then it's hers to keep.



the most ironic thing is that she probably had to have a "professional" write her statements that were included in the article.


Maybe you should have a professional teach you about basic sentence capitalization?
[English translation needed]

#10
mmmcannibalism
[ Display Name History ]

mmmcannibalism

    Demon Vanquisher

  • Members
  • 2,117 posts
  • Joined:22 July 2008

She named her daughter, "K"?




I think they are using that to hide the child's name. After all, the article said they were only giving the mother's first name for privacy reasons; it wouldnt be a surprise if they abbreviated the babies.
Posted Image
Orthodoxy is unconciousness
the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.

#11
superson
[ Display Name History ]

superson

    Varrock Guard

  • Members
  • 1,273 posts
  • Location:DC
  • Joined:12 March 2006
  • RSN:Alansson
  • Clan:SODB
I feel like unless she actually has a mental hadnicap, they have no right to take her child.



They may suggest or provide alternate care for her though, if they want. As long as she can keep her child.
In Soviet Russia, glass eats OTers.

Alansson Alansson, woo woo woo!
Pink owns yes, just like you!
GOOOOOOOOOO ALAN! WOO!


#12
warri0r45
[ Display Name History ]

warri0r45

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,854 posts
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Joined:2 September 2005
The child should be taken away if the mother doesn't have the capacity to care for it.



I can't really judge whether that's the case from one news story.

#13
i_love_burritos
[ Display Name History ]

i_love_burritos

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:31-December 08
  • Joined:22 September 2007
  • RuneScape Status:None
A poster "to" stupid to spell "too".



I think the child has rights over the mother. What's more important ? The mother and her (in)ability to take care of her child or the child's life ? To me the saftery of the child takes precedence over the mothers whim.



It's simple, if you do not have the ability to raise and sustain a person in this world, you have NO RIGHT to take care of them. It is in both partie's interest to do so.



They have no right to do this. Unless she actually has no capability to raise the child, then it's hers to keep.




What ?



You are making no sense.



Options



1.) She has the ability to raise the child thus she has the right to raise the child

2.) She does not have the ability to raise the child thus she is not allowed to raise the child

3.) She does not have the ability to raise the child thus she is allowed to raise the child

4.) She has the ability to raise the child and is denied that right. [For no apparent reason]



To me, 1 and 2 seem the most logical whereas 3 is plain idiotic. 4 has no relevance.



then it's hers to keep



What do you mean by this, Robert ?



You seem confused. Or you're looking for a fight. Either way, explain please.

#14
Italian5kamikaze
[ Display Name History ]

Italian5kamikaze

    Moss Giant Whipper

  • Members
  • 2,685 posts

She named her daughter, "K"?


#-o




What is wrong with that? I have a friend named Kay, sounds the same and I never thought anything of it.



Anyways, that's a terrible thing to do unless the kid would suffer from it then I can understand why they would take action such as this.
Posted Image
Quit. PM me if you play The Conduit to exchange friend codes.

#15
Giordano
[ Display Name History ]

Giordano

    Troll General

  • Members
  • 11,438 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fontana, California
  • Joined:18 December 2005
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
  • RSN:Pasta Cheif
  • Clan:Chef Films
Um, aren't there far worse parents still in ownership of their children. Really, come on.



Plus I didn't see any reason why.
"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."
Posted Image

#16
sohkmj1
[ Display Name History ]

sohkmj1

    Ghost Cloak

  • Members
  • 1,918 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore
  • Joined:15 June 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None
  • RSN:Stack
  • RSN2:sohkmj1
What the heck? The government is really damn useless these days. Too stupid to instruct a lawyer? Too stupid to keep a child? There are really people with <100 I.Q out there with happy, lovely children and these pick a woman who is perfectly capable of taking care of a child? I mean, it's perfectly understandable if the mother is poor or something but intelligence should not be any form of issue.

What is the world coming to :roll:











She named her daughter, "K"?


Isn't that the name of one of the babies afflicted with anencephaly(sp?) and died like, 14 years ago?

#17
i_love_burritos
[ Display Name History ]

i_love_burritos

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:31-December 08
  • Joined:22 September 2007
  • RuneScape Status:None


She named her daughter, "K"?


#-o




What is wrong with that? I have a friend named Kay, sounds the same and I never thought anything of it.




Robert was commenting on the fact that the OP of the quote had no idea that "K" was a real name, but instead given by the paper to ensure anonymity.



Goddamnit.

#18
Powman3
[ Display Name History ]

Powman3

    Hobgoblin Killer

  • Members
  • 1,526 posts
  • Location:Palm Springs, California
  • Joined:16 August 2006
  • RSN:Powman3

A poster "to" stupid to spell "too".



I think the child has rights over the mother. What's more important ? The mother and her (in)ability to take care of her child or the child's life ? To me the saftery of the child takes precedence over the mothers whim.



It's simple, if you do not have the ability to raise and sustain a person in this world, you have NO RIGHT to take care of them. It is in both partie's interest to do so.



They have no right to do this. Unless she actually has no capability to raise the child, then it's hers to keep.




What ?



You are making no sense.



Options



1.) She has the ability to raise the child thus she has the right to raise the child

2.) She does not have the ability to raise the child thus she is not allowed to raise the child

3.) She does not have the ability to raise the child thus she is allowed to raise the child

4.) She has the ability to raise the child and is denied that right. [For no apparant reason]



To me, 1 and 2 seem the most logical whereas 3 is plain idiotic. 4 has no relevance.



then it's hers to keep



What do you mean by this, Robert ?



You seem confused. Or you're looking for a fight. Either way, explain please.




Don't insult people's spelling when you can't spell yourself. It's "apparent", not "apparant".



I fail to see how his statement was irrelevant. He was merely stating his opinion.



edit: This:



Um, aren't there far worse parents still in ownership of their children. Really, come on.



Plus I didn't see any reason why.



#19
i_love_burritos
[ Display Name History ]

i_love_burritos

    Ice Giant Melter

  • Members
  • 4,668 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:31-December 08
  • Joined:22 September 2007
  • RuneScape Status:None
Lets play "Spot the spelling mistake" -- exclusivley for the &#91




EDIT:



:<img src=:' />

#20
Ren0gade
[ Display Name History ]

Ren0gade

    Unicorn Horn

  • Members
  • 160 posts
  • Joined:28 November 2007
I Am Sam.... Hollywood did a good job of explaining this scenario :lol:
Masta Chef
Posted Image

Drops-- Dragon: Medium(2),Spear(1),Legs(2),Skirt(1)
Pharaoh's Scepter(1)
Barrows items(10 total)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users